innit. or am I completely off the mark?

I’m not sure if I’m the right person you’re looking for lol. But anyway, I’d love to help if I could, insha Allah, so I’ve sent an email your way.

:)

Anyway, I’ve clarified my stance. To reply further would be to dwell on an argument of technicalities. And I barely trust myself with keeping emotions at bay. But jazakallahu khair for your comments. Some of your points are noted regardless. The details do indeed matter.

My apologies if I’ve offended.

I’ll just qutoe your words:

“and instead reexamine the way of the classical scholars themselves,”

Although I admit some confusion may have arose over how you used the word “re-examine”.

“But to admit this, is also an admission of the failure of our systems.”

It’s not necessarily a failure of the system, it’s a historical reality. Past scholars had access to much more knowledge and much more knowledgeable people than we have today.

“But interestingly your sarcasm…”

The only thing is that I was being sarcastic.

“But eh, just for illustration purposes, that seems to be exactly the way you chose to read into my writing.”

The only difference being; your “reading” was deliberate, mine wasn’t.

You need substantiate this, otherwise I would have to “dismiss” at as something of which you have no proof.

“Why do you say this is an “ill-conceived example” when later on you say we needn’t reexamine scholarly works in fiqh (this part addressed in #3)? ”

Uloom al hadith and Fiqh are two very different sciences. Im sure you aren’t unaware of this fact.

“Sanad studies are important, but what does specialising in this field signify *a lot* (not all) of the time? Usually, this goes into “rechecking” evidences from the past, right?”

Actually, they only “check” the isnaad and what past muhaditheen have said in order ascertain a hadith or a narrator etc. That’s why you find them saying “al-hakim said this”, “bukhari said that,” and NOT “I say this”, “My friend says that”. They are not at the level of rechecking. Very few muhaditheen of today (let alone some mere student of hadith) have contested the conclusions of much of past scholars of hadith.

“But I’m merely pointing out that your argument is a contradiction against what you believe too.”

Care to elaborate?

“But even scholars of today themselves will tell you the system produces more memorisers than they do thinkers.”

Care to give names? There are plenty of thinkers around such as shaykh salman al-awdah, shaykh Nuh, Shaykh Didou and so on just to name a few. It is quite insulting to contend that bulk of islamic scholarship are bunch of idiots.

“looks into improving their curriculum, etc”

This doesn’t mean they are bringing something new, just finding better ways to teach what’s already there.

One of the main points in my post is that expertise across vast areas has been successfully achieved in the past, the question is how do we emulate this, what is being done to render this into our education. But interestingly your sarcasm against “know-it-all”s can be seen as a mocking description for these very scholars of old who mastered many fields. “Know-it-all”s. It’d be unfair to infer this from your comment as I’m sure you wouldn’t mean any disrespect to the ulama.

But eh, just for illustration purposes, that seems to be exactly the way you chose to read into my writing.

1. Why do you say this is an “ill-conceived example” when later on you say we needn’t reexamine scholarly works in fiqh (this part addressed in #3)? Sanad studies are important, but what does specialising in this field signify *a lot* (not all) of the time? Usually, this goes into “rechecking” evidences from the past, right? Although as I said, it’s important and can be used to ascertain contemporary issues. But I’m merely pointing out that your argument is a contradiction against what you believe too. Similarly why not leave ahadith as verified by the great muhaddithun of the past then?

I never undermined the calibre of our students of knowledge, may Allah raise their status. But even scholars of today themselves will tell you the system produces more memorisers than they do thinkers. And this was also relayed to a different extent in the shaykh’s original article.

If not for myself, a layperson, then certainly for the children, should it be of concern.

2. Please see the context of this. I said this in relation to looking into the education system of today. The actual system. And in my comment before yours, I’ve explained that I don’t mean to neglect what exists or what has been of the past. Rather work with it and explore areas for improvement. Nothing’s perfect except the ideal model provided by Islam. The implementations of which, are sometimes obviously flawed.

You’d find many brothers returning to their alma mater to sit on the board which constantly looks into improving their curriculum, etc. I ruled out acting as some renegade hero. Oft-times, such actions (to break away) translate into a waste of precious time and energy.

3. That has to be the biggest misinterpretation of all. Nowhere did I mention reexamine fiqh. Subhan Allah. In fact I was saying to leave exactly that which you’re contesting! To do better than such.

I was saying that instead, let’s look into the *way*, the PATH of these scholars. How did they manage to achieve such a status, what was their education like? As proud as we are of our Islamic institutions, are they even close to the traditional methods that produced such greats? How were they, some among these fine imams, as individuals, able to be the masters of fields not only across Islamic sciences but even scientific research?

And anyway this point was in relation to ourselves as parents. To learn how they studied so that we may impart advice to the young’uns.

To deny the possibility of there being any contemporary figure to reach such erudition is understandable. But to admit this, is also an admission of the failure of our systems. And this, is not just what I’m saying should be looked into,… But what I’m stressing, is *already* being examined.

I apologise if my articulation in my original post caused this gross misunderstanding. Perhaps it was my mistake in how I played with the words. Wallahu a’lam. But whoa, that was quite something else levelled against me.