Basic Lessons from Islamic Apologetics
7 / 13
Introduction to Islamic Apologetics
What is the study of apologetics? What is Islamic apologetics and why is it an important discourse to invest in?
Islamic apologetics is about defending the doctrines of the faith in rational terms. When people hear the term “Islamic apologetics” they can understand that this is an academic discipline that requires research. Sh. Dr. Hatem al-Haj describes the reason behind using this term.
Related
Transcript
This transcript was auto-generated using AI and may contain misspellings. Bismillah, alhamdulillah, salat salamu ala rasulullah, al-aliyyah, wa sahbihi al-mawla, thumma amma ba'd, to proceed. So today inshallah we will talk about Islamic apologetics. And this is basically uncharted territory. We don't usually talk about Islamic apologetics. We don't even call it Islamic apologetics. Traditionally, the closest thing to this would have been refutation of misconceptions. Usually when we talk about this, the issue of misconceptions and how to put together a defense of the Islamic doctrines and practices, it would be under the title ar-radda al-ash-shubuhat, or refutation of misconceptions. So why are we calling it Islamic apologetics? That's the first problem that we have to deal with. Why is it a problem? It is a problem because we do not think of words as having denotational role only. They have a huge connotative power. Words have a huge connotative power, not merely a denotational role. Words, the use of different terminologies or different terms, affects the content, affects the message that is being delivered. So we should not be reckless about the choice of words because they go beyond their denotational role into affecting the message itself that is being delivered.
And if this is the case, is the choice of this word, apologetics, an appropriate choice? There are pros and cons. So when we think of the sort of unfavorable, undesirable outcomes from the use of the word apologetics, I want you first to understand that apologetics is not about apology. It is not about apologizing on behalf of God or on behalf of Islam. This is not what the word means. Apologetics basically means systematic, argumentative discourse in defense of a doctrine. It is the systematic, argumentative discourse in defense of a doctrine or a practice. It just comes from the word apologia in Greek. Probably I'm mispronouncing it, but it comes from the word apologia in Greek and was first introduced by, in this sense, systematic, argumentative discourse in defense of a doctrine by Plato in his writings about Socrates' apologia, where Socrates basically put together a defense of his doctrines, of his teaching, his positions to basically answer the charges or category of the prosecutors. So the word apologetics does not mean that we are apologizing.
God does not need our apology on his behalf. Islam does not need apologies on his behalf. It just means that we are putting together this sort of systematic defense of our doctrines and practices. Now, the closest word, like in our history, the closest sort of term to apologetics would be kalam, which basically means speech. Speech was defined as rational theology. It is basically to try to explain our theology in philosophical terms or to try to engage the philosophical discourse when explaining our theology. And certainly there is much controversy about the whole heritage, the whole legacy of kalam and how kalam affected our theology, how engaging the philosophical discourse affected our own beliefs in some ways. But we are not talking about this. I am of athari leanings, so scriptural theology is what I basically believe in and what I usually preach. But this is not the topic that we want to discuss now.
Iyayat, I just wanted to say that the concept itself is not completely new. The concept of engaging a different discourse or paradigm to explain ourselves within that different paradigm using the techniques or the discourse of that different paradigm, or at least the terms, is not new. Whenever our scholars provided rational explanation of a doctrine or practice, this rational explanation of a doctrine or practice belongs to the subject of apologetics, simply. Whether this is in fiqh, you're trying to provide the hikmah or the wisdom of the legislations. Whether this is in haqeedah, you're trying to defend the Islamic creed within a different paradigm or using a different discourse. All of these belong to the subject of apologetics. So the unfavorable outcomes from this, one, is many Muslims, when you say apologetics, when you say Muslim apologists, which is basically a borrowed term. Apologetics does not necessarily mean Christian apologetics, but usually it has been used within that context, Christian apologetics. But it does not necessarily mean Christian apologetics.
It's a borrowed term, but also English as a language has not been one of the main sort of Islamic languages. Not that Islam is basically different languages. Islam is in different languages, whichever language you speak, it's not a problem. But there have been some languages that had basically early, that has an established sort of Islamic heritage expressed in those languages. Certainly Arabic would be number one, Persian would be number two, after Arabic. English, our use as Muslims of English is pretty new. When was the Quran translated into English? We're talking about a new interface between Islam and English. There is a new modern interface between Islam and English. So our borrowing of the term is a result of this fact. Because that interface between Islam and English is not old, it is not 1400 years old like Islam and Arabic, or close to that, or you know, it's more than 1400 years between Islam and Arabic. Close to that, or around that, between Islam and Persian, we're talking about a new sort of interaction here between Islam and English.
So when you borrow terms, when you want to express a certain concept and you borrow a term that has not been classically used to express that concept, there would be some pros and cons. Some of the cons is that you would inherit the different connotations that the name acquired throughout the history of its usage. So the name acquired the different connotations. So since apologetics has been always thought of, you know, within the Christian paradigm, talk about Christian apologetics, Christian apologists, Origen, Justin Martyr, St. Augustine, Clement of Alexandria, then the term itself acquired certain connotations, and it is very hard to separate the term from its connotations. And some of those connotations may not be particularly Islamic, or Islam may not be particularly welcoming of those connotations. So that's a problem. A second problem is that on the popular level, many people, even Christians, think that apologetics is about apologizing. So there are even jokes about it, like apologetics, like, you know, I teach apologetics, then people will think that you are teaching people how to say sorry or something of that nature.
So even within that Christian context, people think because of the similarity between apologetics and apology, people think that it is about apologizing, and it is not about apologizing. It is not about apologizing. It is about defending. Apologetics means defense, but it means systematic defense. Systematic defense. So if it is a loaded term, it carries connotations of which some are not welcome by Islam, or are not compatible with what we want to basically establish as Islamic apologetics, why are you using the term? And this will be a balance between the benefits and the harms of using this term, the pros and the cons, and we can disagree, and if you don't like it, don't use it. I'm not trying to convince you to use it. I'm just telling you why I'm using it. But if you don't like it, please don't use it. It's very easy. We don't have to basically have a major disagreement over terminology. But I'm telling you that I am aware of the connotative power of words. I am using it because of different reasons. One, it is a simple term that you could use to express a concept instead of having to basically,
every time we want to talk about the concept, we have to say a long sentence or a paragraph to express the concept or to denote the concept that this is the discipline that we are talking about. Instead of saying this is a – because it is not limited to refutation of misconceptions. It is not limited to refutation of misconceptions because we want to establish a science. We want to establish a systematic discourse in defense of our doctrines and practices, a systematic discourse in defense of our doctrines and practices. So it is not merely about answering response to refutation of misconceptions or unanswered questions. No, it is not. It is more than this. So since it is more than this, then we want basically to use a term that would refer to that larger concept that we intend to speak of, putting together a systematic discourse. It also affects the psyche, the psyche of the recipient and the psyche of the speaker. When the speaker uses the word apologetics, the speaker will humble themselves because it is not – they have to recognize the difficulty of explaining doctrines and practices to different peoples at different times, within different contexts, different age groups, different philosophical backgrounds, different educational levels.
So they have to understand that the concept that we are talking about a science here and we are talking about a science that is not easy. We are not talking about an easy concept. We are talking about a difficult concept and we are talking about a science that is not easy, that requires a lot of thoughtfulness to do it right. But at the same time, there may be some negative effect on the perception of the audience because when you talk about apologetics, again, they can't separate this from apologizing, and then the audience may be negatively influenced in some way. So it is mixed, but because we want to establish a science that basically addresses this issue, the issue of explaining our doctrines and practices in rational terms, and rational does not mean, even when they translate kalam into rational theology, I as a scriptural sort of theologian or a person of that leaning or that inclination, I find that somewhat offensive because it would mean that my scriptural theology is irrational. I use rationalist, not rational. Rationalist theology has basically a translation of kalam. But rationalist theology per se is not rejected. It depends on how you do it. Rationalist theology per se is not rejected.
It depends on how you do it. Like I said, we do need to invest in Islamic apologetics in basically crafting proper answers to all the questions that are out there. Any question that may cross someone's mind, we need to basically craft proper answers. Those answers are not basically generic answers that will be catered to all audiences. It doesn't work this way because, you know, teenagers, professors of philosophy, people of different backgrounds, they will not basically all relate to one answer. And we will come back and talk about the power of the Qur'an and how the Qur'an was able to address all of those sort of intellectual backgrounds and cultural backgrounds with one message that everybody was able to relate to. But within our capacity as human beings, we will need basically to modify the answer to suit the audience. Modify the answer to suit the audience. So apologetics is important. It is important as a science. It is important as a discipline because losing faith is not uncommon because it adds to people's certainty in their faith when they have a rational explanation or a rationalist explanation.
They have, you know, whichever one you want to use. When they have a rational explanation of the doctrines and practices of the Islamic beliefs, Islamic creed, and Islamic practices, it adds to their certainty. It gives them comfort, you know. So it's not only that losing faith is not uncommon, but also it gives more certainty and more comfort to Muslims who are not basically on the edge. They are Muslims, you know, but it adds to their certainty. It adds to their comfort when you talk to them about the benefits of the Sunnah lifestyle, for instance, the medical benefits of the Sunnah lifestyle, or anything else. You provide the rational explanation. You talk to the people about the wisdom of legislation or the wisdom of our beliefs, our belief system. So time and place variables, the need to basically modify, the need for adaptive arguments, the need to modify the arguments. Is this an established concept in Islam? Yes, it is an established concept in Islam. Al-Bukhari reported from Ali, radiAllahu anhu, that he said, حَدِّثُ النَّاسَ بِمَا يَعْرِفُونَ وَدَعُوا مَا يُنكِرُونَ أَتُحِبُّونَ أَن يُكَذَّبَ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ Speak to people in a manner they understand, and do not speak to them in a manner they reject, they find objectionable. Would you like them to disbelieve Allah and His Messenger?
Would you like, if you speak to them in a manner they cannot comprehend, in a manner that is not appropriate, that does not take in consideration their categories of understanding, their different categories of understanding, you may push them into disbelieving Allah and His Messenger. So, once again, حَدِّثُ النَّاسَ بِمَا يَعْرِفُونَ وَدَعُوا مَا يُنكِرُونَ أَتُحِبُّونَ أَن يُكَذَّبَ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ Speak to people in a manner they comprehend, don't speak to them in a manner that is objectionable. Would you like them to disbelieve Allah and His Messenger? And Abdullah ibn Mas'ud said, مَا أَنتَ مُحَدِّثُ قَوْمًا بِحَدِيثٍ لَا تَبْلُغُهُ عُقُولُهُمْ إِلَّا كَانَ لِبَعْضِهِمْ فِتْنًا You will not address the people, a people, with a speech they cannot comprehend, except that it will be a trial, a cause for misguidance for some of them. Ibn Hajar, رحمه الله, reports from Ash-Shatibi, رحمه الله, that he said, it is one of two possibilities, they either may completely ignore the message, he said that would be the better of the two possibilities, that they would completely just not get anything from it, they would ignore it and move away, move on.
The worst possibility is that they misunderstand it, or it leads them into some fitna, trial in their deen, or misguidance. There are other reports as well, from Ibn Abbas and others, but these are more authentic reports in this regard. Someone may say, but if we speak to people, if we are just speaking to people about things that are agreeable, what dawah are we giving to people? Isn't the dawah about changing people's perceptions, conceptions, and beliefs and practices? It's dawah about change, dawah is about the betterment of the human condition, how to better the human condition. So, if this is the case, then how come we will only speak to the people in a manner they understand? We want to teach them new things. No, it is not necessarily that we will not say anything new to the people, or anything that they may find objectionable even. It is about how you present it in a way that is least objectionable, in a way that they can basically comprehend, and they find the explanation, the presentation, it's about the presentation, it's about the choice of words. It is also about the appropriate discourse, because if you're talking to philosophers or philosophy professors,
you will have to talk to them in a sort of discourse that is appropriate for them. You will have to adapt the discourse to their level of understanding or educational background, and that adaptation is what we're talking about. It is about the presentation, it is not about changing the deen itself to make it more acceptable or palatable by the people. No, it's about your presentation and your explanation that we're talking about here. So, I'll give you an example, I'll give you an example. And it is a famous one, it's a popular one, because many preachers repeat this example all the time. When the Prophet ﷺ was approached, this report about the young man who approached the Prophet ﷺ, and the report says that the man asked the Prophet ﷺ for permission to commit zina, fornication. And the Prophet ﷺ said to him, would you accept this for your mother, your sister, and so on. And then the man said, of course not. Then the Prophet ﷺ said to him, others would not accept it for their household as well. The Prophet ﷺ here, this argument that the Prophet ﷺ used with this man to convince him of the importance of sexual morality, is culturally dependent, right? We call it culturally dependent. But when you say culturally dependent, the one thing that you need to be aware of is that Islam is not indifferent to this culture.
Islam wants to build this culture. You either have it and you build on it, or you don't have it and you build it. So this idea of protectiveness of one's household, is Islam indifferent to this idea? Culturally dependent may mean to some people that in a different culture, people would be okay with this. So if you say to someone from a different culture that doesn't have this protectiveness, would you accept it for your mother? Would you accept it for your sister? They may say, yes, no problem, if they so wish. What's the problem? I don't have a problem with this. That makes it culturally dependent. But at the same time, it's not like Islam is indifferent to this culture. Islam wants to basically produce this culture, to build this culture. If it is there, Islam will build on it. People have it, Islam will build on it. And then the Prophet ﷺ built on the established culture of protectiveness. Would you accept it for your mother? Of course not. People also wouldn't accept it for their mothers. So what is the Prophet ﷺ pointing out here? The golden rule. Do unto people what you like to be done unto you. So the Prophet ﷺ is using the golden rule, and using the established culture. If this culture is not present, and you use this argument, and you try to basically use the golden rule, well, it will not work. Because the person will say, yes, what's the problem? There is no problem.
So the fact that it is culturally dependent, when we say culturally dependent, does not mean that Islam is indifferent to this culture. But it goes back to something different, which is that cultures may deviate from the original disposition. The fitrah. What Islam wants to rehabilitate is what? The fitrah. The original disposition. And Islam has a very optimistic view of the human being. Right? Yes. Because human beings were created on the fitrah. With this fitrah, built in. Built in fitrah, which is good. Which is upright. That original disposition. That fitrah. That fitrah is corruptible. Human beings can change and alter or distort their fitrah. And Islam seeks to rehabilitate this fitrah. So what you are doing here is you are trying to determine how far removed people are from the original disposition. And as a healer, you are trying to bring them back, but you will have to bring them back gradually. And you will have to build on what is there. How much of the fitrah is still there? And you build on it. But if one part is missing, like one corner stone is missing, you need to work on building that part before you build on it. And the Prophet ﷺ did not need to build on it. He did not need to build that part. He built on it.
If you need to build it, go ahead and start building it. But it is about the rehabilitation of fitrah. This is not to mean that the pre-Islamic culture, the culture of what we call al-jahiliyyah, pre-Islamic ignorance, was a superior culture in all respects. No, absolutely not. It may have not departed so far away from the fitrah in this particular respect. But in other respects, it may have departed too far away from the fitrah. Like female infanticide, for instance, that the Qur'an condemns over and over again. That was a departure. And it does not mean that all of the pre-Islamic Arabs practiced this. Certainly no nation would survive if they all practiced it. But it just means that it was tolerated within the community. And the fact that it was, to some extent, tolerated within the community, is quite telling of the departure from the fitrah. The corruptibility, the corruption of the fitrah that took place in that respect. So that is the work that we are, that's the work of Islamic apologetics. The work of Islamic apologetics is basically to take the Islamic doctrines and the Islamic practices that are established, and to put a systematic defense for each one of them. Systematic argumentative discourse in defense of each one of them. The systematic argumentative discourse needs to be modified to suit the different audiences.
And as reported from Omar al-Ali, and often quoted by Ibn al-Qayyim in A'lam al-Muwaqqa'in, reported from Omar al-Ali, and quoted by Ibn al-Qayyim, in A'lam al-Muwaqqa'in, الناس بزمانهم أشبه منهم بآبائهم. People are more like their times than they are like their parents. So, people are more like their times than they are like their parents. And that is true, and people can certainly recognize how true that is. So, that is why apologetics is important. Apologetics is important because for every audience, you need to modify the defense. Apologia. You need to modify the defense for different audiences. So it is customized. What is customized? The defense, the presentation, not the message that is being defended. Not the message. When you have some flexibility, some latitude with regard to the message itself, well, certainly the message is not all agreed upon. And we will come back and talk about this. We'll talk about the flexibility within the legal framework of Islam. We will talk about different positions. We'll talk about a spectrum of positions. The message is not one thing. Because there is a wide spectrum of positions, and often people don't agree, particularly in the area of the law,
in the area of Muslim practices. There are certain things that are agreed on, and there are many things that are controversial among the scholars, and even the established schools. So, we do have some latitude, some flexibility when it comes to the message in that sense. Not that we will alter the message in our apologetics, but apologetics is about modifying the presentation, the defense, the argument that you put together on behalf of the message or to defend the message. Now, it is uncharted territory. There is a great need to have people address that discipline, and specialize in that discipline. And even among our contemporary scholars, we have some people that are more known, more capable in this regard. I'm from Egypt, so within my own world, growing up in Egypt, we had someone like Dr. Mohamed Emara, for instance, who was particularly known for his capacity to present the Islamic discourse, or to defend the Islamic doctrines and Islamic practices, and discourse that is sort of appropriate or suitable for wide consumption by people who are not necessarily Muslim, or people who are not necessarily practicing,
or people who are of some philosophical or rationalist background. So, it is important, but again, at the same time, we have to understand the pitfalls of that discipline, and we have to be able to mitigate. Sometimes the harm and the benefit are inseparable from each other, and you may tolerate some harm for a greater benefit. It's not always that you... It is not always that you forsake the benefit if there is harm involved. No. So, it depends on how great the benefit is, it depends on the magnitude of the benefit and the harm, and you may tolerate minor harm for a major benefit. You may tolerate minor harm for a major benefit, as Ibn Abdus Salam and others indicated, that you may tolerate a minor harm for a major benefit. So, what are the concerns? Are there concerns in doing apologetics? The first concern is reinforcing the centrality of the human perspective. Reinforcing the centrality of the human perspective, reinforcing the referentiality of the human intellect is a huge concern, because apologetics, what have we said? We have been saying apologetics is about modifying the presentation to suit the audience. So, you are concerned about the audience, and you are concerned not only about the audience,
but about their educational background, their philosophical orientation, sometimes their philosophical school. You are concerned about them, because you are trying to engage them, or you are trying to engage their discourse, their categories of understanding. And in doing so, you are reinforcing the centrality of their discourse, because you are trying to conform it to their discourse. That is why you find someone like Imam Ahmad, for instance, who was particularly uncomfortable with engaging a different discourse. Engaging a different discourse. So, Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, had concerns about Al-Harith Al-Muhasebi, may Allah have mercy on him, and he was very oppositional to Al-Harith Al-Muhasebi's engaging of the philosophical discourse, or the Kalam discourse. He was very critical of Al-Harith. Al-Harith is a great scholar, and we love and respect our scholars who are committed to the Qur'an and the Sunnah, committed to Islam, committed to defending Islam. I am Hanbali, I don't hide it. Imam Ahmad is my imam. But again, at the same time, I do recognize how great of a scholar Al-Harith Al-Muhasebi was. But I'm not even trying to take sides here. I'm just telling you that Imam Ahmad was sort of critical of Al-Harith Al-Muhasebi, of Imam Al-Harith Al-Muhasebi, because of his engaging the philosophical discourse. And he felt that this will have untoward outcome.
And certainly, over the centuries, we have seen many side effects of engaging the philosophical discourse, or trying to basically explain our Aqidah, or defend our Aqidah. وأنه سيكون هناك نتائج غير مفيدة من تجاوزك في الوصف الفلسفلي أو الوصف الراحل أو المنطقة الثقافية أو من منافقات مختلفة أو من منافقات مختلفة يجب أن نبني نظاما مستقلين ونبني أولا تأسيس حقوقنا وحقوقنا بشكل مستقل عن نظاما مستقلين وفي العقيدة نحتاج إلى بعض الأسلحة المحفوظة لنحفظنا من المفاوضات
لكن أغلب العقيدة التي ستساعد الإيمان وستدعم التواصل بيننا والله ليست حتى موفقة في العقيدة المستقلة من المدارس المختلفة إنها تساوض التواصل بيننا والله ونحفظنا من المفاوضات لكن النظام المستقل هو الذي يجعلنا نبني أفكارنا ومعالينا، ونبني حقوقنا وحقوقنا بشكل مستقل عن نظاما مستقلين أو من منافقات مختلفة باستخدام نظاما مستقلين وحقوقنا لا أحد يحاول تغيير روح الإيمان، ولكن هذا الروح ليست مفتوحة من نظاما مستقلين أو من نظاما مستقلين إنها تساوض التواصل بيننا والله ونحفظنا من المفاوضات
تحاولون بما فيه حق في تحقيق روح الإيمان لتقبل رسالة وإعطاءها بطريقة مناسبة للمشاهدين وفي نفس الوقت تحاولون تغيير تحقيقاتك من الوصول إلى المنزل ومن تأثير رسالة نفسها هذا الروح المستقلة يجب أن تكون مستقلة ويسمح بإعطاء رسالة من هنا إلى هنا ويقدمونها بطرق مختلفة، ولكن تقومون بتقديم رسالة مختلفة وإذا كنتم تقديمون رسالة لشهداء من مجالات فلسفة ومشكلة وكذلك في يومين ويومين بعد هل يمكن أن يؤثر هذا على تحقيق رسالة نفسها؟ No matter how educated you are and how committed you are to the revelation and to the message
it is very possible that your very perception of the message and what it means will be affected by your involvement in that foreign discourse all the time and that happened to many of our great scholars and that is a concern that we have to be cognizant of and we have to be very careful about does that mean that we will stop engaging different discourses and different audiences? No it does not, it just means that you have to be very careful even if you are very careful, will you be able to cross that ocean without getting wet? No you will not, likely you will not can this harm be tolerated for the greater benefit of presenting Islam to different audiences? I would say yes, minor harm can be tolerated for a greater benefit and if we should limit each session to 45 minutes or 45 to 50 minutes then I guess we should stop here and when we come back we will continue with the rest of concerns and pitfalls of apologetics Qulu Qawliha adha wa astaghfirullahi ya raqqa
Welcome back!
Bookmark content
Download resources easily
Manage your donations
Track your spiritual growth
1 items
1 items
1 items
25 items
50 items
9 items
