Ibn Taimiyah: When the past goes ahead of the future! (Part-1)
What you will read today is not my opinion, and I have nothing to do with it. If there is any credit given to me the credit should go to the translation.
It came from a genuine thinker who called on me to mention his name only as “The invisible writer.” Many readers and I closely know him because of his distinct style. But for some reason he stopped writing and favored me by allowing me to publish some of his thoughts that interest many people, especially thinkers; I hope I deserve receiving this favor. I can only mention that he has grown a beard since his early years and is highly knowledgeable about global cultures, with deep-rooted knowledge of Arabic heritage and culture. I do not want to go any further lest I should break my promise, but I would rather leave you with what he wrote:
Peace be upon you.
A group of youth and I were talking about one of the TV programs that caused a big controversy. One of the objections against the program was that it opened the floor for discussion on some well-established religious axioms. This is an acceptable argument, but the circle of these axioms was widened to contain many negotiable issues. Then I asked them to mention some of those axioms only to be surprised as they could mention none of them, and they were surprised as well.
Among the big problems that face the religious thought is the tendency to widen the circle of axioms. Axioms are sacred and refuting or belittling them drives whoever does it outside the religious domain, and, therefore, it is natural to respect its sanctity.
What is not natural is to include in this circle all other issues, which we deem to be religious, ignoring the fact known in all religions, that is, what you consider as a religion, others do not and what you see as a must others see it as permissible or even prohibited. So, in case everyone considers what he believes in to be the absolute truth — and it gradually takes the shape of an axiom — then, he who disbelieves in it, even if he bases his belief on religious grounds, is an opponent who does not believe in this axiom, and, thus abandoned the entire faith.