有时候，穆斯林改革派，或持有某些改革派立场的穆斯林，会引用一种罕见、不寻常的古典学术观点来支持自己的主张。这当然是“摘樱桃”（选择性取材），在学术上是不诚实的。我们对ISIS等恐怖组织及其解读伊斯兰经典的方式所作的批评，同样适用于此。ISIS和这些改革派所做的，都是事后辩护（post hoc justification）。他们心中已经有了想要达成的目标，无论是推进政治恐怖主义，还是推进某种自由主义意识形态，不一而足。然后，他们在浩如烟海的伊斯兰学术遗产中搜寻，寻找任何可能为其特定议程提供支持的言论。

Sometimes Muslim reformists or Muslims taking on certain reformist positions will cite a rare, unusual classical opinion to support their view. This is, of course, “cherry picking” and it is intellectually dishonest. This is the same critique we would make against terror groups like ISIS and their approach to Islamic texts. What both ISIS and these reformists are doing is post hoc justification. They already have something they want to accomplish, whether it is advancing political terror or advancing some liberal ideology, whatever the case may be. And then they scan the vast sea of Islamic scholarship for anything that might lend support to their particular agenda.

顺便说一下,大多数时候,他们对经典文本的解读也是错误的,或者是从必要的语境中断章取义,但我们暂且不谈这些。我们知道行为取决于意图,因此面对这些改革主张时,应当追问的正是意图。他们会说:"某某观点是传统中已知的观点。"这或许属实。但我们应当问:我们为什么要引用这些不寻常的观点?其意图何在?是为了推进某种自由主义意识形态的论点吗?而这种意识形态本身在理智和道德上就值得怀疑。与其歪曲伊斯兰学术,何不运用一点批判性思维,去质疑这种自由主义立场?换言之,真诚要求首先关注多数人的立场(即使人们并不总是接受或遵循它),因为从概率上讲,多数人的立场更有可能代表真理。但如果一个人的主要关切是为自己的观点辩护,那么无论多么罕见或少有人采纳的观点,都足以被接受。

Most of the time, by the way, even their reading of the classical texts is wrong or ripped out of necessary context, but let’s put that aside. We know that actions are by intentions, so that should be the question when we are confronted by these reform efforts. They will claim, “Such-and-such is a known opinion within the tradition.” And that may be true. But our question should be: Why are we citing these unusual opinions? What is the intention here? To advance a certain point of liberal ideology, which itself is intellectually and morally questionable? Rather than bastardizing Islamic scholarship, why not exercise a little bit of critical thinking and question that liberal position? In other words, sincerity entails being concerned with the majority position first and foremost (even if one does not always accept or follow it), because probabilistically speaking, the majority position is more likely to represent the truth. But if one’s main concern is justifying one’s own views, any opinion no matter how rare or underrepresented is good enough.