There are a number of areas of discussion that are at times especially controversial among Muslim communities in the West including, or perhaps especially, among those who are attempting to maintain strong connections to Orthodox Islamic belief and practice, while at the same time trying to consciously articulate an identity relevant to the particular place and point in history in which Allah (swt) has placed us. One can see many of these controversies playing out here in the articles and comment sections here on MuslimMatters, among the authors as well as other readers of the site. Some of these issues include issues of gender roles and interaction in our communities, politics and our relationship to secular governing authorities and legal systems, and relationships among Muslim communities which are minorities but which are internally diverse in terms of background, methodology and socioeconomic categories, among many others. Two issues that may not spur as much commentary in the Islamosphere in general but which I think are very important to be discussed as the community moves forward on an intellectual level came together in a fascinating way earlier this year at an academic conference hosted by the University of Illinois Department of Religion which was entitled an “International Symposium on Islam, Salvation, and the Fate of Others.”
The issue of salvific exclusivity (that understanding that Islam is the only true path to salvation) versus soteriological or salvific pluralism (the notion that there are many different paths which lead to salvation) is one which is a highly relevant theological issue for Muslims living in modern (or postmodern) pluralistic societies. As I attended the symposium and listened to the presentations, I felt that this particular theological question was interacting in a fascinating way with another area which I think Orthodox Muslims need to come to terms with as we envision a future in these societies: what role will believing and practicing Muslims play in the western academic study of Islam and what effects or influence will the academic realm of Islamic studies in western universities come to exert over Muslim communities’ understanding of their tradition?
The lineup of presenters at the Symposium was quite impressive, and as a regular reader of academic writing on Islam in english, it was quite amazing to suddenly find myself in a room with Amir Hussain, Kevin Reinhart, Muqtedar Khan, Dr. Sherman Jackson, Asma Afsaruddin, William Chittick, Marcia Hermansen, Bruce Lawrence, Farid Esack, Muhammad Legenhausen, and MM”s own Yasir Qadhi among many others. Tariq Ramadan joined to present a paper by telelink. Video of Shaykh Yasir Qadhi’s presentation is below and many of the other presentations are available at the University of Illinois Department of Religion website.
Keep supporting MuslimMatters for the sake of Allah
Alhamdulillah, we're at over 850 supporters. Help us get to 900 supporters this month. All it takes is a small gift from a reader like you to keep us going, for just $2 / month.
The Prophet (SAW) has taught us the best of deeds are those that done consistently, even if they are small.
Click here to support MuslimMatters with a monthly donation of $2 per month. Set it and collect blessings from Allah (swt) for the khayr you're supporting without thinking about it.
In order to appreciate the atmosphere in which Shaykh Yasir delivered his paper, I want to present some general observations regarding the other papers. I will have to be brief, but perhaps I can expand upon my thoughts in the comments section as I hope to show why I think that reflecting upon this conference provides an opportunity to not only engage the theological issue of salvific exclusivity but the broader issue of Muslim participation in the academic study of Islam.
Some of the other presenters at the conference attempted in various ways to show that Islam was open to the salvation of the “other.” Salvific Exclusivity, which was the dominant understanding not only of Muslims but of course of Christian thinkers as well in the medieval period, is an uncomfortable position for many today. In fact, for many in our time the very concept of salvific exclusivity is incompatible with living in a pluralist society and treating people outside of one’s faith in a dignified and fair manner. Two of the common themes that come up in an attempt to justify a pluralist understanding and were explored in many of the other papers include: the idea of ahl al kitab as a separate category from kuffar or mushrikun in the Qur’an especially with reference to verses such as 2:62 which speak about the salvation of Jews, Christians, and Sabians and the notion that verses in the Qur’an that refer to “Islam” being the only path accepted by God refer to “islam” in the general sense of submission to God’s will and not in the specific sense of the religion revealed to Muhammad (saw).
Shaykh Yasir has written previously for MM on the topic of Salvific Exclusivity. Shaykh Yasir has presented the case for why the correct understanding of this issue should be a defining characteristic of orthodox Muslim thought. The importance of the issue cannot be denied. Not only is understanding salvation vital to every individual who believes in the Day of Judgment and the hereafter, but the question of salvation is a major recurring theme in the Qur’an. One will find that many scholars of the past have dealt with the issue of salvation, but as Shaykh Yasir argues in his paper, none of them, regardless of differences in methodology and widely varying opinions over many other issues, took the position of Soteriological pluralism for which a growing number of muslims, including many of the other presenters at the conference, seem to be arguing. As Dr. Mohammad Khalil from the University of Illinois, who convened the conference, outlines in his dissertation, scholars of the past did allow for the possibility of non-Muslims entering into jannah, but it was always done in the context of categories such as those who did not receive the message, or received a biased and distorted understanding of the message, or the position taken by some that Hellfire would eventually cease to exist.
Along these lines, I think it is vital that the actual question Shaykh Yasir is addressing here in this paper is clear. He is not addressing the question of people who have not heard the message, or who have heard a version of Islam so distorted that it cannot be said that the message has reached them. He is attempting to make clear that for those who have been taught the Message of Islam in an accurate way, that there is nothing worthy of worship except God and that Muhammad (saw) is the final Messenger of God and they have chosen to reject that understanding of reality that one cannot say that they are on a path that leads to salvation. This was the position and understanding of “every single systematic theology developed in the classical and medieval period in Islam,” that the religion of Islam was the only path to salvation. In fact, as Shaykh Yasir relates in the lecture, across all the fiqh schools of thought, it was agreed that even to suggest that another religion outside of Islam was a valid path to salvation was agreed to be an act of apostasy, or rejection of Islam itself. Shaykh Yasir responds to these arguments in his paper, but he also points out that it is interesting that these particular arguments were not seen before in Islamic history. The one argument that we have seen in the past for a more pluralist view of salvation was that of the well known Sufi Ibn ‘Arabi, and William Chittick presented a paper outlining this perspective, which relies on the concept of wahdat al wujud, and does not rely on the type of interpretations of the above ayat that we see some liberal or progressive Islamic thinkers embracing. Muqtedar Khan presented a paper which was very personal and in which he basically expressed a personal frustration in studying the commentaries of classical Islamic scholarship on these ayat and not finding them convincing. A great problem with much of the contemporary discussion of these particular verses is that too often they take place in complete isolation from all the hundreds of other Qur’anic verses, let alone from all the evidence of the Sunnah. So, people cannot see why these verses taken by themselves cannot be interpreted the way they wish they would be, in a manner which supported salvific pluralism, but they don’t seem to often step back and try to see if the pluralist readings can be understood consistently with all of the other types of verses in the Qur’an — in his presentation Shaykh Yasir carefully and enthusiastically delineates in his well known and well loved style just how great is the weight of the Qur’anic evidence which weigh against these pluralist readings. Based on that Shaykh Yasir argues that perhaps we should not question the motivations or character of all the traditional scholars of Islam, but rather question our own motivations and what clear prejudices we may be bringing to the text today which might hinder us from seeing what God is trying to present.
I just want to quickly mention three other aspects of the conference that stood out. Muhammad Legenhausen, a scholar of philosophy who comes out of the Shi’a tradition, attempted to lay out categories which go beyond the dichotomy of salvific exclusivity and soteriological pluralism and look at the reality that there are different types of pluralism. There is surely a type of pluralism reflected in the Qur’anic message with its many positive references to previous prophets, books, and communities, but it is not the reductive pluralism which would hold all traditions as valid paths to salvation. Farid Esack presented on some of the ways in which the Qur’an refers to Jews, but he was perhaps even more memorable at the conference simply for his charismatic presence. He was always asking provocative questions and engaging in discussions. Interestingly with regards to this question of Muslims in western academia, one of the most well known of the “progressive Muslims” expressed some ambivalence toward that term and for the fact that he is known so predominantly for his book Qur’an Liberation & Pluralism which was published more than thirteen years ago. While Esack is clearly still committed to seeing Islam as a force which is liberating and respectful of all human’s dignity, he also expressed discomfort with the fact that academia seems to privilege certain kinds of readings of the tradition which may not be faithful and which are not of the high intellectual quality and integrity that the tradition demands. Finally, it must be said that Dr. Mohammad Khalil deserves a great amount of credit for organizing this outstanding and thought provoking symposium. This young scholar not only attracted a great lineup of speakers, but I was very impressed by the way that invitations were so warmly extended to students and the general public and the hospitality with which all the guests were treated. I enjoyed many of the presentations greatly, was troubled by some, but as someone with an interest in the future of Muslims in western academia a highlight of the event for me was to see so many of the Muslim presenters who travelled to the nearby masjid for Jumu’ah prayer, where Shaykh Yasir delivered the Khutbah.
[vimeo]http://vimeo.com/12807641[/vimeo]
#Culture1 month ago
Hassan
July 2, 2010 at 7:03 AM
It says private video…how can I watch it?
abu Abdullah
July 2, 2010 at 8:19 AM
I was able to download the video from the given link directly. http://www.religion.illinois.edu/salvation/
Salams.
PS Muslims will rule the world when people understanding these subjects generate 300+ comments on MM (pun intended :)
Dawud Israel
July 2, 2010 at 11:07 AM
Eh? Sorry, I don’t get the pun?
issay
July 4, 2010 at 6:27 PM
you can watch it online in this link
http://www.vimeo.com/12807641
darthvaider
July 2, 2010 at 8:42 AM
I was really impressed with Shaykh Yasir’s presentation at the conference. He clearly stood out in his firmness for salfivic exclusivity along with his commitment to scripture which was noticeable by his consistent references to the Quran and ayaat therein.
Sadly, I was a little disappointed by a number of presenters and their equivocation on the Quranic message. Arguing purely in social terms about how soteriological pluralism creates greater tolerance is one thing, but to simply harp on one ayah in isolation without reference to context or traditional exegesis came off a little self serving in advancing their own, predetermined, theological framework.
I remember once giving a speech to a religious studies class about Islam and the question of Islam and salvation came up. I responded by stating that Islam believes that salvation is attained through Islam alone, contingent on people understanding the message of Islam. Frankly, the crowd was shocked, and even a Muslim sister in the class raised her hand objecting to my response, telling everyone that the Quran preaches respect and tolerance for all faiths, especially the ahlul kitab, and that if we’re good people we’ll all go to paradise. As you can imagine, it was an extremely difficult position to convey, even if posited in the most PR-friendly terms.
In my mind, that’s what makes this discussion so difficult- how can we communicate this message when even Muslims find the idea of salfivic exclusivity an arrogant stance that produces Islamic exceptionalism?
I feel sometimes that this is an issue we should avoid talking about to the masses because it could adversely affect their emaan, but at the same time, if we don’t talk about it, all they’ll hear is the ‘other side’ if you will. Allahu A’alem.
abu Abdullah
July 2, 2010 at 11:08 AM
Dear Mobeen,
may Allah increase you in good. ameen.
It happened many times to me, while explaining a concept of Islaam a muslim stands up against your point of view and you are speechless.
@11:05-11:15 , verse 3:85 quoted instead of 3:19. Message remains essentially the same.
Allahumma Ahdina fi man hadayta wa zidna imaana. ameen.
darthvaider
July 3, 2010 at 12:20 AM
May Allah increase us both in good. Ameen. Jazak Allah khayr for the kind dua and comments.
Mohammad Sabah
July 2, 2010 at 12:58 PM
Assalam alaykum. Yasir Qadhi is excellent as usual mashaAllah tabarakAllah. The sister who objected to the truth in your case is something that is always going to be case – there will always be muslims who consider themselves ‘liberal’ or ‘progressive’ or any other label that they want to attach, but who are not grounded firmly in understanding of the Quran and Sunnah. We see this all the time on MM itself in the comments and articles. I think we should talk about this issue and present it as it is, and be careful that we don’t dilute the message when trying to make it too PR-friendly. If anything, the negative criticism only points to the ignorance that exists in the Muslim minds and the only way to fix it is by the light of authentic ilm of Islam.
darthvaider
July 3, 2010 at 12:35 AM
wa-‘alaykum salaam wa rahmat Allahi wa barakaatuhu Br. Mohammad,
Jazak Allah khayr for the comment.
I dont subscribe to the view that dissenting opinions should assume the dissenter as being from a specific faction or wholly ignorant. True, it may be that a particular individual is agenda-driven and others might be unaware of the issue at hand, but more often than not – especially when speaking about salvation- the objections raised by Muslims come from Muslims of all shades. The reasons for this are many and Abu Noor highlighted three crucial reasons in his post below.
I think perhaps my usage of the word PR wasnt the best, but the point I was trying to make was that even in trying to be cognizant of peoples sensitivities and approaching the subject tactfully (or at least I felt I did so), the position created angst in the audience I addressed. Popularity shouldnt be a driver in determining our beliefs, but preconceptions and sensitivities should be taken into account when addressing any issue so that we know how to best speak about those issues to the people. Allahu A’alem.
Jazak Allah khayr once again.
Zulander
July 5, 2010 at 12:06 AM
Sensitive topics will always be just that – sensitive. When it comes to such topics I have always found it easier to state the opinion as opposed to vie for it.
SonicSoriyah
July 2, 2010 at 9:19 AM
This is a very thorny issue, that many people may have a hard time swallowing and may ultimately have no clear answer because of the nature of Allah and our dean.
I’ve heard the argument that there is “Islam” (with an uppercase i), which is what we know of as the religion of Islam with its beliefs and practices, and then there is “islam” (with a lowercase i), which goes beyond what we know of as “Islam” and is submission and oneness with Allah that is not necessarily through the fundamental beliefs and practices of Islam (the religion). Both are still focused on worship and following of Allah, but islam (with a lowercase i) attains that worship and following of Allah through ways that may be outside of what we understand as Islamic worship and following to be. So, salvation may come only through “islam,” but it could also be the islam that goes beyond what we know of as Islamic beliefs and practices.
It is only Allah who truly knows what is in our hearts.
ummahmed
July 2, 2010 at 10:20 AM
Assalamualykum ,
Subahanallah.What an excelllent lecture!!! With out the seed of imaan how can we expect to eat the fruits of good deeds.One of my favorite verses from surah baqara
177. It is not Birr that you turn your faces towards east and (or) west; but Birr is the one who believes in Allah, the Last Day, the Angels, the Book, the Prophets and gives his wealth, in spite of love for it, to the kinsfolk, to the orphans, and to Al-Masakin (the poor), and to the wayfarer, and to those who ask, and to set servants free, performs As-Salah (Iqamat-As-Salah), and gives the Zakah, and who fulfill their covenant when they make it, and who are patient in extreme poverty and ailment (disease) and at the time of fighting (during the battles). Such are the people of the truth and they are Al-Muttaqun (the pious)
Jazakallahu khairaan .
elham
July 2, 2010 at 10:45 AM
I think apart from those who’ve never heard of the True Message of Islam or or any other excuse they are granted by Allah on the D Day ,there’s not one human being who will not in their lifetime experience any form of longing for their Creator because of that inner fitrah that He(swt) has gifted us with. But there will always be people who would not even want to ”feel” or heed the call of Islam and would prefer to go about their lives just as it is.So, I think everybody has a chance to succeed and every one has been given an opportunity,whether sooner or later, to enter Jannah because simply put,Allah is the Most Just. WalLahu ‘Alam
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee
July 2, 2010 at 11:12 AM
Although Shaykh Yasir refers specifically to these questions in both his presentation and other writings on Salvific Exclusivity, I think that the following are the issues that need to be addressed in more detail, once one accepts the basic idea that Islam presents itself (in the Qur’an and Sunnah) as the correct path to salvation.
First, the question of what effect this has on relations between people in this world. Is there a tension in living with, being a good neighbor to, working together for good with, being friends with, being equal citizens with, people who one believes are not on a path which will lead to salvation?
Second, there is the even more emotional and difficult issue of family members. Dr. Hermansen addressed in her presentation the issue of praying for deceased family members who were not Muslim. Especially for believing Muslims, it would be hard to estimate the intensity of feeling surrounding this issue. One can see this, of course, even in the life of the Prophet (saw). Even if one refrains from making specific du’a, is it wrong to maintain hope in the heart that one’s family members may indeed be successful relying on confidence in the Mercy and Justice of Allah? And of course there is the issue of non-Muslims that Muslim men are permitted to marry.
Third, we should be clear amongst ourselves on the methodology by which we can determine which issues are up for fresh interpretation and which are not. Are understandings of theology valid for all times and places? If so, whose understanding is binding upon us, issues where the sahaba all agreed or do we look beyond that? What exactly is the authoritative nature of understandings of the scholars of the past for us?
For those interested in this topic, Dr. Khalil’s dissertation is also quite interesting. In that discussion, he focuses on the issues Shaykh Yasir addresses above, such as those who did not get the message or did not get it correctly, and what is the role of fitrah and reason in the view of some of the major scholars of the past? But one issue which he spends a good deal of time on, which I don’t recall seeing Shaykh Yasir address, is the question of the nature of the hellfire, is it eternal or not? He especially spends a lot of time on the opinions and arguments of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim and the extent to which although they accepted that those who rejected the Message would be in hellfire as long as it lasted, that hellfire itslef would at some point come to an end, opening up the possibility for those people to eventually enter the eternal jannah.
Dawud Israel
July 2, 2010 at 12:37 PM
Salaam aleikum,
“For those who believe in All-Merciful and All-Wise God, we leave it to Him to judge people and we trust His judgment.” -Sh. YQ (I think that summarizes it beautifully–connected it with husnuddhun of Allah)
Jazaka Allahu khayran. I personally am and I know many other Muslims are wary of scholars that associate with academia, because there is always the possibility of them ‘militarizing’ the knowledge and using it to hurt Muslims, but this is a nice open discussion. I think its difficult to disagree with the argument Shaykh Yasir is making since its so clear, and so inline with the Risalah. I’m glad ya stuck up for the Sunni position! :D
Its good to see a discussion on the spectrum of ‘disbelievers’- sects, or people who did not hear the message, or heard it in a distorted form, or were disabled to the point didn’t hear it, or to those who openly rejected Islam. That shows its being taken seriously. al-Ghazali mentioned that Christians and Jews, are guilty of shirk only insofar as their rejection of Muhammad (salallahu alayhi wasalam). I think most people consider people who haven’t heard of Islam, are totally clueless, are kuffaar, but I don’t think many of us have dealt with REAL KUFFAR–people who outright reject Islam consciously after understanding it and being invited. I think when more of us have that experience, we’ll really see how easy belief in Islam is. And lets not forget, the hypocrite (munafiq) is worse than the disbeliever, and hence, in a sense, we believers are in greater danger than the disbelievers, if we fall into nifaq.
Annemarie Schimmel wrote an essay that shows Maulana Jalaluddin Rumi did not embrace Christian and Jews as believers or accepted their beliefs nor did he accept the pagans as saved. Much of his poetry has been mistranslated, or construed to be literal and not metaphorical- and hence so many make him out to be some hippy New Age figure, which is really not the case. She argues that he stood as squarely in orthodox Islam as all ulema have, especially since he was a scholar himself, and at no time downplayed jihad against the disbelievers, or believed they’d be saved and I think even in some poetry of his he ridiculed the disbelievers. I think this is a huge myth of our time, that has prevented Muslims from benefiting from his wisdom.
I think it’d be interesting to compare “kafir” to the Jewish “kofer” which has very similar meanings. When the Quran calls them kafir, then that means something, first and foremost to them because they recognize that terminology in their own tradition and how its played itself out among the Bani Israel.
Here are some ideas Shaykh Abdul Hakim Murad mentioned that open up the POSSIBILITY (i.e. not guaranteed) of salvation for disbelievers, via the Intercession of the Prophet (salallahu alayhi wasalam) i.e. NOT through their own religions but through the noble rank of Muhammad (salallahu alayhi wasalam) on Yawmul Qiyamah:
Here is another paper that is realllly important read on this subject. And here are some interesting hadith quotes…
Shafa’ati bi ahlil kabair minal ummati (My intercession is for the sinners of my community hadith)
Shafa’ati bi akhthari man fil ardh min khajarin wa mudhar (My intercession will be for the majority of the people of Earth hadith-that can mean non-Muslims as well, so will they be saved? Maybe. Allahu Alam. )
Justin
July 2, 2010 at 6:25 PM
Good links. Thanks.
Atif
July 2, 2010 at 4:51 PM
Assalamu’alaykum, I have a few questions that I’ve been pondering on for a while and asking about with people of knowledge that I still haven’t got a full grasp on.
The 3 groups that Imam al-Ghazali mentioned (which was quoted in the video):
1. Those who haven’t heard about Islam
2. Those who got a distorted version of Islam
3. Those who knowingly reject it.
I understand that group #3 are Kuffaar and destined to eternal Hellfire.
Q1. Are groups 1 and 2 still considered under the category of Kuffaar, since at the end of the day they don’t believe in the message of Islam? (The reason I ask is because I have heard scholars say something to the effect of “All non-muslims are kuffaar”)
Q2. If the answer is yes, and we say that in general, all non-muslims are kuffaar, do we still refrain from saying that all non-muslims are damned to eternal Hellfire?
Q3. I know that we don’t pass verdicts on specific people (if they are people of the Hellfire or not). For someone who is clearly not muslim, could we say that “this specific person is a kaafir but we don’t know of his fate in the Hereafter”?
If anyone with knowledge can respond, jazaahu Allahu Khayr!
Atif
Justin
July 2, 2010 at 6:34 PM
Hamza Yusuf said people who do not know Islam or have a distorted view are not properly kuffar. How can you takfur (deny, reject) something you do not know is true yet? Because a kafir is someone who knowingly, consciously rejects the truth. Rather, those people are in a state of Ghaflah (heedlessness). I do not think it is good to call them kuffar in general because Allah may judge differently, and it leads to a certain self-righteous pride to call all other communities and people kuffar.
Further, the Quran does not address Jews and Christians as “O Kuffar!” but rather “O people of the Book!” emphasizing their common beliefs with the Muslims. Tariq Ramadan believes we should make a distinction between someone who non-Muslim (ghayru Muslim) and someone who is an outright disbeliever. Most people are simply non-Muslims rather than insidious enemies of Allah.
Our belief that Islam is the true path should in no way diminish our support for ecumenical and pluralist initiatives amongst Muslims and non-Muslims:
http://www.ammanmessage.com
http://www.acommonword.com
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee
July 2, 2010 at 9:08 PM
Just so it is clear to others reading, (you may already know this Justin), Shaykh Yasir is a supporter of cooperative efforts for good and is himself signatory to the A Common Word document.
Justin
July 3, 2010 at 9:50 AM
I did not know Shaykh Yasir signed the Common Word. That is great news to me.
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee
July 2, 2010 at 7:21 PM
Atif,
I am not a person of knowledge, so perhaps I shouldn’t respond, but just for the sake of discussion, not for the sake of answering — I think the key to at least much of your questions lies in the fact that there is a legalistic ruling in this world, this is necessary for certain purposes in this world but we do not presume that this defines the fate of the person in the Hereafter. For example, munafiqoon are considered and treated as believers in this world because that is how they outwardly present themselves (may Allah save us from nifaq). Similarly if people have not accepted Islam and do not practice it, they have the ruling of a kafir in this world but this is not meant to necessarily determine their state in the Hereafter, which is of course with Allah (swt).
Allah knows best.
Justin
July 2, 2010 at 6:21 PM
Yasir Qadhi,
Please understand that absolute, unqualified salvific exclusivity leads people to arrogant self-righteousness and bigotry. We have seen more than enough Muslims who act like they are certain they are going to heaven and others are not. Just the other day we heard a Muslim saying whole other masajids are in Hell because of this or that. A convert was driven away because of this arrogant display.
We can be sure that Islam is the true path to salvation, but we cannot pretend to know how Allah will judge individual Muslims or non-Muslims. Do we want to believe Allah’s mercy is so restricted? You know that Allah can forgive theological mistakes. Think of the hadith of the man who wanted to cremate himself so Allah would not resurrect him, Allah forgave him his lack of understanding of Tawheed Ruboobiyah. You used this hadith to make that point.
I believe we can maintain our traditional belief that Islam is the sure path to salvation, but also be humble enough to understand that Allah is the Judge, not us, so we should not pass sweeping judgments on people just because they are Sufi, non-muslim, whatever. This is very important because an unnuanced and absolute understanding of salvific exclusivity leads to arrogance. You really need to balance this theological question because I am sick sick sick of arrogant Muslims judging with judgment that belongs only to the Most Just of Judges.
“Indeed, those who have believed and those who were Jews and the Sabeans and the Christians and the Magians and those who associated with Allah – Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection. Indeed Allah is, over all things, Witness.” (Surat al-Hajj 22:17)
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee
July 2, 2010 at 8:58 PM
Justin, did you watch the lecture? I think many people, even some at the conference, react strongly to this issue without listening carefully to what Shaykh Yasir is saying which leads to a distorted discussion. Other issues regarding the implications of a theological principle need to be discussed but there also has to be a place for having the separate theological discussion. I don’t know what you mean by absolute, unqualified salvific exclusivity but I don’t think Shaykh Yasir engaged in that — he specifically said he was only referring to the question of the fate of those who consciously rejected the message of Islam after it having reached them in an accurate manner. Shaykh Yasir is simply stating the position of the classical scholars of all the schools of theology. Do you claim that all of the major scholars in Islamic history are guilty of all the things you charge?
As long as you are a little more clear in your understanding of what Shaykh Yasir is saying, I think there would be plenty of room to discuss the other concerns you bring up. If people become prideful or self-satisfied in their belief that they are righteous or if people arrogantly consider themselves better than others than these are character faults that people can fall into that need to be addressed.
Jazzak Allahu Khayr for your comments and for sharing your obviously heartfelt thoughts Justin.
Justin
July 3, 2010 at 9:58 AM
I watched the lecture briefly and I have nothing against Shaykh Yasir. I really admire how he faithfully conveys the orthodox position.
My concern is that Muslims do not put this belief into correct practice. Some Muslims use this belief to be arrogant and to put down others. In contrast, this belief should actually make us humble, should make us thankful Allah has guided us and hope that He guides others.
In other words, our belief in the salvation of Islam should not let us neglect the inward tazkiyya and good character of Islam.
I will review the lecture again. Thanks.
Wa Salaam.
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee
July 4, 2010 at 2:06 AM
I think we can all agree to that!
Shuaib Mansoori
July 2, 2010 at 11:57 PM
Assalamu Alaikum Abu Noor,
BarakAllahu Feek for this post. Indeed a profound area of discussion. I have been looking forward to this since earlier this year…btw what was the topic of Shaykh Yasir’s Khutbah? I guess “The Benefits of Dhikr” (because that’s one of his favorites :P )
May Allah reward him and his family and grant us all steadfastness upon the Deen.
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee
July 4, 2010 at 2:07 AM
Shuaib, That’s a very good guess akhee.
Ameen to the du’as.
Pingback: Yasir Qadhi - Salvific Exclusivity: Path of Allah or Paths of Allah?
AbdulBasit Khan
July 3, 2010 at 5:54 PM
When Yasir Qadhi finished speaking at 40:05 — it was so beautiful; simply brilliant and outstandingly excellent! He really hit it right on the mark.
Hamza 21
July 3, 2010 at 7:02 PM
Why no mentioned of Dr. Abdul Hakim Jackson’s presentation? I always noticed Dr. Jackson to be right on point when explaining Islam’s stances on issues. Quite odd not to include his position on this issue considering he’s a professor of Islamic studies and someone who has a vast amount knowledge of fiqh and classical Islamic thought.
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee
July 4, 2010 at 2:09 AM
Hamza21,
Dr. Jackson did not present a paper of his own at the symposium. He was present and gave some very beneficial closing remarks and observations….but it is not so much about him taking a position or trying to explain “Islam’s stance.”
Zuhayr
July 3, 2010 at 10:29 PM
“Verily the only acceptable religion to Allah is Islam.” [Quran 3:19]
abu Rumay-s.a.
July 4, 2010 at 5:40 AM
abo Noor, jazak Allahu khairun for your efforts in presenting this topic. Masha`Allah, as usual, Shaikh Yasir did a superb job in his presentation to the point where I believe he actually convinced if not clarified the issue to some of the other professors who posed the questions.
I believe the crux of the matter is what was mentioned in the 1st article on this thread which reads,
I believe the discussion needs to focus on these important questions because in reality most of the other issues are moot because those matters are fairly clear and etched in stone.
I think the approach of such topic needs to be pragmatic and it should be integrally pinned with the other religions and ideas, by that i mean the following;
– salvific exclusivity in Islam compared to salvific exclusivity in Christianity or Judaism.
– Salfvic exclusivity in Islam is bound by other limiting rules and guidelines (i.e. it is general, there are rights towards those outside of this exclusivity, etc,) as opposed to other religions which do not necessarily have these limits or guidelines and perceive themselves “holier than thou” which is one of the reasons of conflict
– Salvific exclusivity in other world ideologies such as communism, fascism, secularism, etc. and its effects on society
– the benefits of salvific exclusivity in Islam
– historical record of salvific exclusivity in Islam vs other religions and beliefs
– the misuse of salvific exclusivity by extremist groups and its refutation
(This would definitely make for a good thesis or book)
these are some ideas which can be used to focus the whole discussion in a more productive direction as opposed to discussing things which are already established in “stone” and trying to redefine them.
And God, The Exalted, knows best
abu Rumay-s.a.
AZ
July 4, 2010 at 6:59 PM
Assalamu ‘Alaikum.
I was really impressed with this lecture. Another link can be found here:
http://www.halaltube.com/yasir-qadhi-he-path-of-allah-or-the-paths-of-allah-a-survey-of-classical-and-medieval-interpretations-of-salvific-exclusivity
I tend to feel at war on the inside when I come across this topic. On one hand, I totally agree with Shaikh Yasir Qadhi and how he presented this issue, but on the other hand, I come across lectures like the one posted below by Shaikh Abdal-Hakim Murad and I get confused. Can these two ideologies be reconciled?
http://vimeo.com/6781008
hannah
July 6, 2010 at 5:57 PM
MashaAllah mashaAllah. May Allah preserve Shk Yasir and his students.
MAK
July 7, 2010 at 6:03 AM
As-salamu Alaykum.
Where can i find the whole of this video? With Prof. Tariq ramadan talking also?
Abdul-Malik Ryan
July 7, 2010 at 3:32 PM
All of the lectures which are available from the symposium are here at the U of I Relgion Department website.
If you just want to see Tariq Ramadan’s talk, you can also see it here.
Junayd
July 7, 2010 at 11:59 AM
Jazak’Allah Khair Sheikh Yasir. This was a topic long overdue by our eminent teachers. Allah reward you and preserve you for taking the first step towards rebuking an idea that has somehow seeped into the minds of the Muslims. Insh’Allah you will be able to deliver similar initiatives in the future…
I am glad to see you covering those “bigger†issues at hand. Postmodernism, dialectical materialism, quantum physics, evolution, democracy, capitalism, secularism are all ideas that, I believe, have been given little attention, but pose great hazards. Although it is worthwhile mentioning that Sheikh Jafar Idris, on his website, has written some reputable articles refuting contemporary ideologies at odds with Islam.
There is one area I wish Muslims intellectuals would cover more often, which is the illegitimacy and hypocrisy of modern warfare. It may be because we lack in terms of knowledge and interest in the area of current events, political science, international relations, etc. Will you also be looking into these issues in the future which allege that Muslims are terrorists and are always putting Muslims on the defensive? I personally believe that the U.S. and their ideological and psychological tactics have been so successful that the U.S. can literally kill 27 Afghans like on Feb 22 of this year, and nobody will ever question anything or the implications of modern warfare. Furthermore, non-Muslims and even Muslims seem to be desensitized to these kills, because there’s no effort to humanize the victims of war, but rather to portray them as mere villagers with no significance in the world. In a sophisticated manner, do you plan to discuss why Afghan and Iraqi civilian casualties do not get as much airtime as Western casualties? Additionally, I would support the our Imams addressing U.S. foreign policy and image of Western superiority, especially focusing on the ideological and psychological propaganda being fed to us in school and in the media? IslamOnline has done an excellent analysis of Cheryld Bernard’s “Civil Democratic Islam†paper, also known as the RAND report. Lastly, the AlMaghrib forums in “Book Nook†section, there’s a list of resources under the post “Current Affairs and Documentaries†which you may find interesting…
Yours in brotherhood,
Tesia
August 2, 2010 at 9:30 PM
Hello,
I would just like to say that I appreciate this video and conversation. I’m not a muslim, but rather a Seminary student and a Christian. This has been very thought-provoking and educational.
Thanks!
Sidiq
August 5, 2010 at 6:00 PM
Yasir Qadhi mentioned a verse that I simply cannot find, somebody care to help? Khadhaba rusulee fakayfa kaana wa’eed.
ahmed
August 5, 2010 at 10:39 PM
i did not watch the video, but i think you are referring to Qaf:14
Sidiq
August 6, 2010 at 9:22 AM
Jazakallah khair for that but it isn’t the wording that Shaykh Yasir said. It is interesting the similarities between the verses though.