The Fallacies of Religious Clerics by N. Fakhr - HTML preview

Showing Scientific and Logical Rigor When Criticizing Other Beliefs

Sometimes religious clerics quote the statements of clerics from other religions, denominations, or schools of thought and examine them with great care. They analyze them from every angle, identify their errors, and explain those errors to their audience.

In this way, they demonstrate their own intelligence, knowledge, and careful reasoning.

It is almost as though they are telling their audience:

“We are careful not to make mistakes like these. Such errors are made only by the clerics of rival religions and denominations.”

And they may sincerely believe this themselves.

Yet they may repeat the same kinds of errors in their own beliefs.

Consider an example from Islam.

Muslim scholars, including Shia scholars, point out that the polytheists criticized in the Quran did not necessarily claim that the beings they worshipped were the supreme God. Rather, they regarded them as intermediaries through whom they could draw closer to God.

Muslim scholars argue that the Quran rejects this practice. They also point out that the Quran describes God as being close to His servants and says that no one can intercede with Him except by His permission. Therefore, they argue, people cannot simply choose intermediaries or intercessors for themselves without God's permission.

They cite verses from the Quran to support this view.

For example, Quran 39:3 says:

“Surely, sincere devotion is due to God alone. As for those who take protectors besides Him, saying, ‘We worship them only so that they may bring us closer to God’...”

Quran 2:255 asks:

“Who is there that can intercede with Him except by His permission?”

And Quran 39:44 says:

“Say, ‘All intercession belongs to God. To Him belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth.’”

In Shia Islam, however, visiting the graves of the Imams and Imamzadehs1 and seeking their intercession are generally considered permissible.

I do not know what arguments Shia scholars consider sufficient to justify these practices, because in what I have studied, I have not found an argument that I consider convincing.

Hanbali and especially Salafi-Wahhabi scholars, on the other hand, have cited Quranic verses such as those mentioned above together with hadiths warning against turning graves into places of worship. One well-known hadith says:

“May God curse the Jews and Christians, for they took the graves of their prophets as places of worship.”

On this basis, they have strongly condemned certain practices associated with graves and shrines. Some prominent Salafi scholars classify calling upon the Prophet, Imams, or other deceased religious figures for help or for the fulfillment of one's needs as major shirk2, which they regard as incompatible with Islam.

They also condemn practices such as touching or kissing graves and shrines or seeking blessings from them.

Shia scholars, in turn, have raised many objections against Sunni scholars.

They argue that if Sunnis had held firmly to the Quran and the Prophet's household, and had interpreted the Quran according to the teachings of the Prophet's household, they would not have become divided into numerous schools of Islamic law and theology.

Sunni Islam itself developed several schools of law and theology. Its four major surviving schools of law are the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi‘i, and Hanbali schools. In theology, Ash‘arism and Maturidism became the two major Sunni traditions, while other influential theological movements, such as the Mu‘tazila, also appeared in Islamic history.

Sunni scholars may respond that Shia Islam itself became divided into different branches, including Twelver Shia Islam, Ismaili Shia Islam, Zaydi Shia Islam, and other Shia groups.

As we can see, clerics of different religions and denominations present arguments to their own followers showing why other religions and denominations are mistaken.

Yet their own religion or tradition may sometimes be open to criticism based on arguments of the very same kind.

If someone points this out and asks,

“Then why do you have a similar problem in your own religion?”

the usual answer is that their own case is different.

They may say that there is a perfectly logical explanation for why their own belief is not an example of the same error, and that their scholars have already answered the objections raised against it.

An argument does not become weaker merely because it is directed at my belief instead of someone else's.