Reddit reply in r/MuslimAcademics: A Rough Intro to Occidentalism | Is the HCM A Robust Methodology? — March 20, 2025 · mirm4m7 | Ali Shukri Amin

Pushing back is much appreciated as it opens the door for greater understanding and improvement.

> I find myself questioning the alternatives, since at the end of the day, every methodology is going to rely on some set of flawed axioms unless we somehow crack the code to fully grasping the noumenon.

I think that some assumptions are more contained and better than others. It's not possible to develop an epistemology that doesn't have some assumption. Even radical skepticism assumes the truth of doubting, so there is a core belief there as well. We have to accept that. The question is: how rigorously have we tested the core assumptions we build upon, how can we limit assumptions, and how much lower on the epistemology stack can we push them? An assumption at level 5 is way less dangerous than an assumption at level 1. But most assumptions are at level 1.

>If the problem with HCM is that it builds on a stack of assumptions that can’t all be justified, isn’t that just as true for any theological framework that presupposes divine revelation?

I think this is a mistake. I don't think Islamic epistemology has always presupposed Divine Revelation. In fact, Ghazali went through a phase of radical skepticism before constructing Avicennan Asharism. If we look at Islamic epistemological models, there is a surprising amount of discussion given to ontological and cosmological arguments - despite the very few numbers of atheists. Why?

There are volumes of people who believe in God vehemently arguing how to prove their level 1 assumptions. The reason isn't because they felt the need to prove God's existence to non-believers, although that's what these arguments are now popular for. It's because they realized their entire epistemology predicated on this assumption so it had to be as absolutely rigorous as possible.

Whether we're talking about ibn Taymiyyan Atharism or Asharism or Avicennan philosophy, all of them start with trying to prove the level 1 assumptions and then going upward. In fact, the earliest text of theology studied by Malikis is in ibn Ashir's Murshid, and the entire focus is justifying these beliefs rationally before discussing anything else.

There was a huge focus on the level 1, 2, and maybe 3 assumptions. I do agree those scholars did not do as much work at later levels, which is where HCM or the Western academy focuses and arguably does a better job. They assumed that if the core levels are resolved it's safe to assume later levels, which I think is a better model than the contrapositive, although it is still a flaw.