Teaching Critical Thinking in Religious Contexts

I'll give an example involving Salafi sheikhs.

How do Salafi sheikhs raise their followers?

They raise them to abandon reason.

How so?

The sheikhs give lessons.

The student

either

does not question things, or does.

Whoever does not question things takes in and passes on

without having any doubts. He takes from the sheikhs.

Then, when he reaches the stage of teaching, he passes it on to them.

A teacher should

urge his students to question things. Try to understand.

Sometimes what is said is not clear. Sometimes, on the face of it, this statement

is contradictory. This is how you develop your minds. This is not the case with Salafis.

He remains that way, without reason.

The one who questions things

wants to understand. He has a mind.

How do they deal with him?

They often give an unconvincing answer

with a kind of sedation.

Meaning, they tell him, for example, "Rest assured, we are right."

The student is not entirely convinced,

but he thinks well of the sheikhs. In this way,

he abandons his reason.

The second one is not convinced.

He repeats the question.

What will happen to someone like that?

Either he leaves,

or they make him leave.

They themselves will push him away. They will see these as signs of rebellion,

and that he will influence others.

This means that followers are mindless.

Either they were mindless from the start, or they had minds. Their minds were nullified.

I do not mean they are insane, but they do not think.

When a student of knowledge comes to debate followers,

he will find that they do not argue with evidence.

They are very fanatical in their debates,

out of a desire to defend what they were raised on.

And among the signs

of minds being nullified

is when a sheikh disagrees with their sheikh

on a scholarly issue,

you find the followers strongly defending their sheikh

as if he were infallible,

and attacking that sheikh, calling him things that do not

coexist in one person.

They say he follows his whims. They say he is an agent. They will come up with many descriptions.

They imagine that this description is based on evidence.

Then,

if this sheikh meets with that sheikh

and it becomes clear that there was only a misunderstanding,

what will the followers do?

Will they persist in their hostile stance?

No. Why?

If their stance were based on evidence, they would persist.

But their stance is not based on evidence.

This is the result of minds being nullified.

We should

think well of one another, and

appreciate one another when we disagree. The sheikhs should

Whenever there are any signs

of disagreement and division, they should intervene to resolve

the dispute.

But to let the dispute grow like this, then followers from every

sect come and fight among themselves, that is not

wise at all.