No Black & White Answers, or Absolute Proof or Intellectual Satisfaction. Where Does the Ismaili Tariqah Stand? | Ignition Question #3

nothing much ⋅ June 6, 2018

In answering questions on matters of faith, we generally find two opposing camps: one absolutist (claiming to offer authoritative answers or "proofs") and the other relativistic (suggesting there are no absolutes and, therefore, no clear answers). This Ignition Question suggests perhaps our faith has a more nuanced, fulfilling position to answer faith questions that accepts absolutes while also allowing personal intellectual satisfaction without degenerating to relativism.

About Ignition Questions

Ignition Questions offer forward looking questions, related to our community, for the Jamat to reflect over, first individually and then with a few friends, over coffee, in an effort to find innovative answers which we hope they will share with the community.

Some Ignition Questions may highlight what we feel might be unrecognized challenges or issues and offer our opinions, ideas or alternative perspectives (in a sense, just thought experiments), however, we do not insist on either our opinions over the challenges or our alternative perspectives. Although we merely float them all for everyone's consideration, some may find our opinions helpful. Nevertheless, we hope the new and alternative perspectives will spark others to build upon them.

Ignition Questions are inspired by Mawlana Hazar Imam's 1986 guidance:

In dealing with the issues that lie ahead of us, we will look at them straight in the face, we will ask the hard questions. If we cannot find immediate answers, we will go on asking the same questions until In'sh'allah, we are inspired to find the answers, but we will not give up. We will not go back to an obscurantism, to a form of intellectual retreat into something which is neither beneficial for the present and certainly not constructive for the future.... And we must have the courage to ask the questions and to seek the answers.

If you wish to share this Ignition Question, by email, social-media, forum group, etc., please share the link to this page where it is published, here on Ismaili Digest, so your friends and colleagues can find additional Ignition Questions that may interest them.

To learn more about Ismaili Ignition Questions, please visit: http://isma.li/ignition-questions

Background Context

For some Ignition Questions, like this one, the background context we set out, to help properly frame the issue, are detailed and long while others are brief and short.

"Absolute Proof" vs. "No Black and White Answers"

When it comes to intellectual approaches to addressing questions or issues on matters of faith -- that is, approaches that provide explanations and answers, it is common to find two opposing and, sometimes, extreme camps: one camp claims to have "absolute," "definitive" answers (the absolutists) while the other camp claims there are no "definitive," "black and white answers," or even no answers at all (the relativists).

Leaving aside emotional, inspirational or experiential approaches to gain understanding and insights into the faith, when it comes to intellectual approaches to addressing questions or issues on matters of faith -- that is, approaches that provide explanations and answers, it is common to find two opposing and, sometimes, extreme camps: one camp claims to have "absolute," "definitive" answers (the absolutists) while the other camp claims there are no "definitive," "black and white answers," or even no answers at all (the relativists).

At one extreme are those who, often, and to some extent dogmatically, insist, from an absolutist perspective, that such and such is the "authoritative," "definitive," "proven," "correct," "true," or "final" answer to some faith issue or question. As Prince Rahim noted in his 2007, IIS Commencement Address:

Absolutist, exclusivist, and rejectionist claims to the truth, especially to religious truth, are increasingly heard from all quarters. Rather than seeing religion as a humble process of growth in faith, some people presume to claim that they have arrived at the end of that journey and can therefore speak with near-divine authority.

Of course, the exception, in our faith, is when Hazar Imam's guidance does directly answer the question.

To some extent, the drive to provide "absolute proof" or "absolute" answers is quite likely a reflex reaction to:

the fact that many young Ismailis express doubt and scepticism over the faith -- because the modern, secular context insists on "proof" of all things with "hard evidence," and
to try and demonstrate the faith is "logical," as Hazar Imam has explained it is.

However, the supposed "proofs" offered on faith matters are, typically, just philosophical arguments based on either assumptions, deductions, interpretations, theology or metaphysics -- as if these establish objective facts -- and, therefore, may be insufficient and unsatisfying to many.

At the other extreme are those who insist, equally dogmatically, though from a relativistic perspective, there are no clear cut, black and white answers to faith questions, or even no answers at all. They insist, perhaps inadvertently, that because we are each on our "personal searches," all views are not just equally legitimate, but they are also equally correct, even when views oppose each other. This, however, is simply relativism masquerading as personal search. Relativism asserts all views are equally correct -- even if they oppose each other -- because it claims there are no absolutes, no absolute standards by which to judge if something is right or wrong, so nothing can ever be right or wrong.

A close cousin of this extreme (of no-black-and-white-answers), which also offers no answers, is the rare suggestion that educators should not offer their opinions or perspectives on faith questions -- beyond historical or social aspects of the faith -- out of fear of being "prescriptive" or "interfering with the murid-murshid relationship."

However, instinctively both these extremes seem intellectually unsettling.

On "Absolute Proof" or "Absolute Certainty"

The alleged "absolute proofs" of faith questions are typically presented as though they are the "definitive," "true," or "final" answers, as though there is nothing more to discover or learn. However, as humans we are limited and can never understand anything with absolute perfection or finality so cannot give absolute declarations or proofs.

The alleged "absolute proofs" of faith questions are typically presented as though they are the "definitive," "true," or "final" answers, as though there is nothing more to discover or learn, despite the fact that, as humans, we can never understand the Absolute with perfection or finality.

Nevertheless, being "absolute" or "authoritative," there is an implied expectation, even if gentle, that everyone should, eventually, find these answers satisfying. In that sense, they formalise or reduce the intellectual approach to understanding those matters of faith to a prescriptive, "one-size-fits-all" matter of simply understanding and accepting the purported "absolute proof."

However, from another perspective, consider Hazar Imam states that Islam specifically rejects formalism because it denies individuality:

I personally am very cautious about seeking a formalistic approach [to interpreting Islam], because I think that one of the great risks -- apart from the fact that it does tend to deny individuality which is, of course, something strongly upheld in the Islamic faith -- is the fact that it tends to anchor a faith in one time and that is one aspect of my faith which I would never accept. (1989, India)

In matters of faith, it would seem formalism does not arise just from specific religious practices (such as rites and rituals -- where, for example, you feel pressured to pray rather praying by choice), but can also arise from intellectual notions (such as an "absolute proof") because formalism is about the attitude with which such things are presented. Specifically, is that attitude demanding, insistent, unyielding, inflexible, rigid such that it prohibits individuality? In other words, your choice, your individuality, in the matter is taken away so the matter becomes prescribed and you are, in some sense, "wrong" in the way you practice your faith, if you do not accept the practice or notion.

When Hazar Imam refers to "individuality", we believe, he is speaking to, firstly, choice of practicing the faith and, secondly, interpretation of the faith that offers us, individually, intellectual satisfaction. However, if Hazar Imam makes a matter clear, such as we pray 3 times a day, then although that precludes individual interpretation, he still leaves us our individual choice as to whether we want follow his farman or not (because of the no-compulsion-in-religion ethic).

Consider the mere act of offering an "absolute proof." By definition, it must be offered with an unyielding, inflexible, rigid attitude -- simply because, otherwise, without that conviction, one could not claim the proof is "absolute" -- and so, from this perspective, the very claim of an "absolute proof" essentially renders the faith "formalistic" on that matter.

However, if a matter of faith was ever established by an "absolute proof," as though it was an objective fact, it would, by definition, deny any further individual deliberation, insight, or understanding (because we supposedly now have "the facts," and so there would be nothing further to think about) -- and, therefore, wraps the matter in unyielding, rigid formalism because, once established, facts are not personal.

Now, although "absolute proofs" appear to leave room for personal search and individual intellectual satisfaction, because they don't demand you accept them, in reality this freedom is somewhat superficial and disingenuous since it only allows you the freedom to deny the alleged "proof," as if the "proof" establishes an objective fact -- like the world is round. However, if a matter of faith was ever established by an "absolute proof," as though it was an objective fact, it would, by definition, deny any further individual deliberation, insight, or understanding (because we supposedly now have "the facts," and so there would be nothing further to think about) -- and, therefore, wraps the matter in unyielding, rigid formalism because, once established, facts are not personal. In other words, the individuality, that Hazar Imam insists on, is limited to a binary choice: accept or deny the "absolute proof" because, we are told, on this topic that has supposedly been "proven", our faith has now been fully explained for all peoples, in all times, and there is nothing new to discover, no new perspectives or meanings to search for and gain insight and wisdom from. And so, from this perspective, we could call "absolute proofs" the "modern day formalism."

Perhaps of more concern, however, is that, in essence, "absolute proofs" redirect our search from understanding the Absolute (which is infinite, and thus offers us a deep and unending, continuous search for insight) to understanding the "proof" (which is finite, and once understood, the search for insight into that issue ends).

Furthermore, such "definitive" answers pass indirect judgment against opposing positions suggesting, by implication, they are incorrect, especially if, again, the "definitive" answers are presented with an unyielding, inflexible, rigid attitude. However, as Hazar Imam reminds us, and the Qur'an also explains, a fundamental tenet of our faith is that only Allah has the right to judge between Muslims -- and, therefore, between even Ismailis -- who is correct and who is not.

Even when our past dais offered what they characterised as "proof," in reality, what they actually offered we would characterise in today's vocabulary as philosophical, metaphysical or theological arguments. This is self-evident from their debates amongst themselves. For, if they had offered "objective," "absolute" proofs, there would be nothing to debate then or now.

Today when philosophers call their work a "proof," they generally mean a rigorously argued position or perspective ... However, to the lay public, the word "proof" suggests something that has been established as a hard fact, with objective evidence ... Therefore, one must be cautious to avoid literalism and conflate the word "proof" as used by philosophers, both in the past and now, with the layperson's understanding of the word.

Today when philosophers call their work a "proof," they generally mean a rigorously argued position or perspective; that is, they don't claim to establish or prove objective facts, with no room for other positions. However, to the lay public, the word "proof" suggests something that has been established as a hard fact, with objective evidence and which should be accepted by everyone. Therefore, one must be cautious to avoid literalism and conflate the word "proof" as used by philosophers, both in the past and now, with the layperson's understanding of the word.

Although it is now common for many to demand absolute or objective, real world evidence and proofs on matters of faith -- because, as mentioned, they are not satisfied with the typical philosophical arguments offered as "proof", we have begun to wonder if this demand, for "absolute proof," is, notwithstanding the above concerns, actually an unreasonable standard since it is a standard we never demand in life, generally.

Here's what we mean.

Consider, for example, in the real world, we regularly put ourselves in harm's way every day. We ride elevators that could plummet, planes that could crash, cook with explosive gasses and even drive with highly dangerous, flammable fuels in our cars. Yet we don't demand absolute proof or evidence we won't be hurt. Why? Because we have intellectual satisfaction and understand that the chances of an accident are very low and, therefore, accept the risk as part of the sober perspective and balance we need to have in order just to live. However, when it comes to matters of faith we demand a higher standard of proof and evidence, instead of keeping to the sufficient standard, for living with risks, of intellectual satisfaction.

In fact, some of the greatest scientific and philosophical minds explain that, even in authentic scientific practice, "absolute" proof of scientific matters is an "immature, if not infantile":

"The quest for absolute certainty is an immature, if not infantile, trait of thinking." (Herbert Feigl)

"The quest for absolute certainty is an immature, if not infantile, trait of thinking." (Herbert Feigl)
"So my antagonist said, "Is it impossible that there are flying saucers? Can you prove that it's impossible?" "No", I said, "I can't prove it's impossible. It's just very unlikely". At that he said, "You are very unscientific. If you can't prove it impossible then how can you say that it's unlikely?" But that is the way that is scientific. It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible." (Richard P. Feynman)
"Just because an idea is true doesn't mean it can be proved. And just because an idea can be proved doesn't mean it's true." (Jonah Lehrer)
"There's nothing quite as frightening as someone who knows they are right." (Michael Faraday)

On "No Black and White Answers"

Now, those in the relativistic camp, who claim that there are:

no black and white answers, or
no answers, or
in some rare cases, that no answers or opinions should ever be offered to faith questions, and
who also say everyone's personal answers or understandings are not just equally legitimate, but also equally correct,

cast a veneer on the faith that denies the absolutes of our faith. However, by definition, our faith is predicated on an absolute standard, the very standard Allah claims is His sole right to judge us by. That is a fundamental tenet of our faith. Furthermore, as explained in this article on relativism, Hazar Imam has specifically denounced relativism as "unprincipled."

Those in the [no-black-and-white-answers or] relativistic camp ... cast a veneer on the faith that denies the absolutes of our faith. However, by definition, our faith is predicated on an absolute standard, the very standard Allah claims is His sole right to judge us by. That is a fundamental tenet of our faith.

Furthermore, while Mawlana Sultan Muhammad Shah and Hazar Imam have both explained that "freedom of interpretation is a generosity which the Qur'an confers upon all believers," (permitting each of us to have our personal understandings and interpretations of faith issues -- that is, our personal searches), both Imams also immediately point out that our understandings and interpretations may be erroneous and mistaken. They both explain that Muslims believe "All-Merciful Allah will forgive them if they err in their sincere attempts to understand His word." By definition, one can only err if there is an absolute standard to assess your position as correct or incorrect against. In other words, our freedom to have personal interpretations only makes our different interpretations equally permissible, but not equally correct, if any are even correct at all. Again, the exception being when Hazar Imam's guidance directly answers an issue. Although the Imam has said Islam is logical, even common sense says opposing views cannot both be correct, simultaneously, as Hazrat Ali also said: "when two biddings differ, one of them is misleading."

The no-black-and-white answers position presents itself as the "ultimate choice giver," ... in reality the no-black-and-white-answers position is, in a certain sense, just as prescriptive as the "absolute proof" ...

The no-black-and-white answers position presents itself as the "ultimate choice giver," in that it appears to prescribe nothing and leaves all choice to you, the individual. However, although it may not be immediately obvious, but in reality, the no-black-and-white-answers position is, in a certain sense, just as prescriptive as the "absolute proof" position because, like "absolute proofs," it also leaves no room for personal search and individual intellectual satisfaction, because it also rigidly insists you accept its two unyielding positions. Specifically, that, firstly, there just are no black and white answers to faith questions and, secondly, that our faith has no absolute standards, so whatever answer you choose for yourself is as correct as any other choice. And so, given this "take it or leave it" attitude -- which, as suggested, could be viewed as the foundation of formalism and rejection of individuality -- the-no-black-and-white-answers may well be the ideal prescriptive, one-size-fits-all answer since it can be used to "answer" all faith questions, while simultaneously answering none.

More troubling however, is if individuals ... are told, officially, their faith has "no black and white answers", or perhaps any answers at all, they are denied the faith they believed in and followed. A faith the current and past Imams have told them, time and time again, expects and welcomes questions and to which the faithful are entitled to and should expect answers ...

More troubling however, is that when individuals, seeking answers to their faith questions, are told, officially, their faith has "no black and white answers", or perhaps no answers at all, they are, essentially, denied the faith they, until then, believed they were following. A faith which, the current and past Imams have told them, time and time again, expects and welcomes questions and to which the faithful are entitled to and should expect answers:

... I want you to be able to understand your religion. And if there are any questions do not hesitate to ask. It is much better to ask and receive an answer than to have a feeling of frustration inside you. (Hazar Imam to students, 1959, Kenya)
If one's faith is to be part of one's life then it has to come under questioning. The essential is that it should be understood, that's what would justify questioning. (Hazar Imam, 1965, United Kingdom)
You cannot give a child secular education and then expect him not to ask questions about his religion. (Hazar Imam, 1957, Kenya)
Verily this knowledge (of religion) is under a lock; the keys to which are questions. (Imam al-Sadiq, Usul al Kafi, Book 2, Chapter 9, Tradition 3)
One learns by asking questions. (Hazrat Ali, Maxims of Ali)
People indeed perish because they do not ask questions. (Imam al-Sadiq, Usul al Kafi, Book 2, Chapter 9, Tradition 2)

As mentioned earlier, a close cousin of the no-black-and-white-answers position is the, uncommon, notion among some educators that they should not offer their opinions or perspectives on faith questions to students or others, out of fear of being "prescriptive" or because they feel faith is a personal matter between the Imam and the murid. The irony, however, is that, as suggested above, the no-black-and-white-answers position is, from a certain point of view, itself prescriptive, leaving aside the Imams' above advice to ask questions and expect answers to relieve frustration (as opposed to the frustrating catchall answer: "there are no black and white answers" or even "there are no answers").

Perhaps [educators] do not realise the Jamat wants, needs and expects to have their perspectives and opinions because of, rather than in spite of, their variety. As paid professionals or long-term volunteers, educators are fortunate to be able to dedicate years, or decades, thinking and learning about the faith, something that is impossible for the Jamat to do ...

Nevertheless, perhaps the educators' fear is misplaced and they simply need to have more confidence in themselves and their perspectives. Perhaps they do not realise the Jamat wants, needs and expects to have their perspectives and opinions because of, rather than in spite of, their variety. As paid professionals or long-term volunteers, educators are fortunate to be able to dedicate years, or decades, thinking and learning about the faith, something that is impossible for the Jamat to do because they are occupied all day, every day, with their jobs and professions, family obligations, etc. and so only have very limited time to devote to such studies and research, by themselves, answers to their or their children's faith questions. Consequently, in general, they just are not well equipped to address their children's faith questions and provide them with adequate answers which would remove their frustration, as the Imam has said they are entitled to have and should have.

However, as mentioned, thankfully this fear is rare as educators, by and large, understand that learning, insight and intellectual progress requires exposure to, and reflection over, a variety of sound opinions, perspectives and views. For example, when studying Shakespeare, different English teachers, even within the same school, will expose their students to different opinions, perspectives and interpretations, opening their minds. Similarly, exposing the Jamat to a variety of perspectives, opinions and views to their faith questions will only help them better understand the faith and consider it from different perspectives, perspectives they might not have thought about on their own. Each individual will then decide for themselves which views and opinions resonate with them and which are not. Or, better still, the various perspectives may inspire them to synthesize a new faith perspective. If, however, we are left to teach ourselves, it is self-evident we will be intellectually starved and limited to just what we can contemplate and, obviously, there will be much we will miss that others have understood and we would welcome to learn about.

As for the other reason causing some educators to fear giving their perspectives and answers to faith questions (that is, faith is matter between the murid and the Imam and so they do not want to inject their views in the middle of that relationship), thankfully, this notion is also rare. Perhaps their fear, and their "all-or-nothing" stand, is again misplaced. While some aspects of the faith are of course a matter between the Imam and the murid -- such as the love and conviction one may have for and in the Imam, other aspects of the do not appear to be. For example, the tenets of the faith, or why we have certain rituals are matters, would seem to be outside of the murid-murshid relationship and legitimate topics for questions and answers expected so the murid may relieve their "frustration," as Hazar Imam has directed they should do.

Although Hazar Imam advised those with faith questions to ask them and receive answers that relieve their frustration, it would seem, rather than decreasing frustration, the catchall non-answer "there are no black and white answers" increases that frustration. Meanwhile, the related, though rare, stand of not offering any answers at all, for whatever the reason ... of course, cannot relieve frustration.

Although Hazar Imam advised those with faith questions to ask them and receive answers that relieve their frustration, it would seem, rather than decreasing frustration, the catchall non-answer "there are no black and white answers" increases that frustration. Meanwhile, the related, though rare, stand of not offering any answers at all, for whatever the reason -- fear of being prescriptive, interfering in the murid-murshid relationship, expecting students to "just use your intellect" or "think it out on their own," of course, cannot relieve frustration.

Intellectual Satisfaction: A Possible Alternative?

Does our faith have a more nuanced position that does not reduce the faith to relativism, but instead honours, respects and upholds all our tenets, simultaneously, and yet still provides us with answers faith issues and questions in a manner that provides our minds with the intellectual satisfaction they crave, the happiness our hearts yearn for and the peace our souls are entitled to, all of which we expect our faith to offer us?

We would like to propose for reflection and discussion such a nuanced position that we feel better reconciles these two unsatisfactory and untenable extremes and better honours our tenets: the notion of intellectual satisfaction.

We would like to propose, for reflection and discussion, such a nuanced position which we feel better reconciles these two unsatisfactory and untenable extremes, when it comes to matters of faith -- not just our faith -- that we also feel better honours our tenets (and is consistent with authentic scientific practice and humility, as quoted earlier): the notion of intellectual satisfaction.

As mentioned above, in 1959, to the students in Mombasa, Hazar Imam said:

... I want you to be able to understand your religion. And if there are any questions do not hesitate to ask. It is much better to ask and receive an answer than to have a feeling of frustration inside you.

Besides the obvious advice to ask questions and expect answers to faith issues, what is striking about this advice, was the purpose of the answers. Hazar Imam did not say to get, or expect, a definitive, final or absolute answers (which is impossible, given our human limits), but, rather, his emphasis was to get answers that relieve your frustration. This is a subjective standard, a personal standard, quite different from "absolute proof." What might satisfy your frustration may be quite different what might satisfy someone else's. And so, it seems to us, Hazar Imam was advising us to approach matters of faith from the perspective of intellectual satisfaction -- where we seek understanding that satisfies us, even if it may not satisfy someone else -- rather than demanding "absolute proof."

Similarly, the Prophetic tradition, "We (the Prophets) speak to people in the measure of their intelligences" also suggests people must be explained, and understand, the faith in a manner commensurate with their own intellects. That is, when it comes to matters of faith, each person is entitled to, and must have explanations and understandings that provide them with their own, individual, intellectual satisfaction.

Now although this subjective standard might appear relativistic, let us be clear, intellectual satisfaction is not relativistic at all. Relativism asserts there are no absolutes. Intellectual satisfaction does not hold that view and, instead, accepts there are absolutes but no absolute certainty. Intellectual satisfaction simply says, "as of right now, this is my best understanding of that absolute standard that gives me intellectual peace and satisfaction," assuming, of course, being true to yourself.

Now although this subjective, personal standard might appear relativistic, let us be clear, intellectual satisfaction is not relativistic at all. Relativism asserts there are no absolutes. Intellectual satisfaction does not hold that view and, instead, accepts there are absolutes but no absolute certainty. Intellectual satisfaction simply says, "as of right now, this is my best understanding of that absolute standard that gives me intellectual peace and satisfaction," assuming, of course, being true to yourself. And so intellectual satisfaction does not claim all views are equally correct, but only that they are equally legitimate, in the sense that we are entitled to hold our own personal interpretations, which may or may not be correct.

And so while intellectual satisfaction:

is not a personal, relativistic standard,
nor an objective, absolute standard,
it is, however, a personal, non-relativistic standard.

This means no explanation or "proof" can ever be satisfying, in some kind of general or absolute sense, for everyone. In other words, since intellectual satisfaction is a personal standard, it would be a contradiction in terms to even talk of an "intellectual satisfying," objective, absolute proof because such proofs establish objective facts about reality which are, of course, not something personal. Therefore, it would seem, those who do find "proofs" satisfying, should be careful not construe understanding a "proof" as an end but, rather, as just one step in their personal search, because, for everyone, intellectual satisfaction is a personal, never-ending, "work-in-progress" for greater and greater understanding of the Absolute Infinite.

However, and perhaps most importantly, intellectual satisfaction allows faith educators, scared to give their opinions, perspectives, or views on faith questions (again, beyond historical or social aspects of the faith) to now feel free, and even energized, to offer them -- making clear, of course, these are their personal opinions and perspectives -- without any fear of being prescriptive or fear of being "official." This is because intellectual satisfaction trusts each person, and their intellect, to decide for themselves which of the opinions and perspectives resonate with them and they find intellectually satisfying and what they do not. In other words, intellectual satisfaction lets the Jamat receive more and more answers, answers Hazar Imam advised them to get, until they find the one that relieves them of their "frustration," that Hazar Imam advised them to relieve through answers.

However, and perhaps most importantly, intellectual satisfaction allows faith educators scared to give their opinions, perspectives, or views on faith questions (again, beyond historical or social aspects of the faith) to now feel free, and even energized, to offer them -- making clear, of course, these are their personal opinions and perspectives -- without any fear of being prescriptive or fear of being "official."

And so, perhaps, this personal "work-in-progress" aspect of intellectual satisfaction reflects and mirrors our notion of continuous personal search and as well as the notion that ours is an intellectual faith. Of course, intellectual satisfaction doesn't apply on matters where Hazar Imam's guidance is clear and unambiguous.

With respect to honouring and upholding our tents, it would seem intellectual satisfaction generally:

honours the tenet that faith is, by definition, predicated on Allah's absolute standards, and not relativistic, personal standards,
honours the tenet allowing us to hold our individual interpretation about faith issues without reducing the faith to relativism,
honours the tenet that our faith expects and welcomes faith questions and that we should expect answers to our faith questions,
honours the tenet that Islam is logical yet consistent with authentic scientific practice and humility,
honours the tenet prohibiting anyone from passing judgment on anyone else's interpretation and, essentially, suggest "we are right and you are wrong" with respect to those absolute standards,
honours the tenet "To yourself, your faith; to myself, my faith",
honours the tenet for continuous individual search, because what may satisfy you today, may not tomorrow when, for example, you reflect on new knowledge or perspectives you become aware of, and
honours the tenet that only Allah is perfect, and our so interpretations can never be perfect, final or definitive and, thereby, keeps us intellectually humble.

In other words, intellectual satisfaction is third way, different from both relativism and absolutism, for approaching matters of faith that accepts our human limits.

In other words, we feel intellectual satisfaction is third way, different from both relativism and absolutism, for approaching matters of faith that accepts our human limits.

Summary

"Objective," "Absolute Proofs" or "Absolute Certainity" (redirected, prescriptive, finite personal search)
Although what may intellectually satisfy one person, and is sufficient "proof" for them, may be insufficient for another because, as mentioned earlier, rather than being based on objective facts, such "proofs" are in reality are just arguments which rely on theology, philosophy, etc. and, therefore, may be insufficient and unsatisfying to many. By definition, arguments can only offer intellectual satisfaction, at best and in this vein, Mawlana Sultan Muhammad Shah said:
Nassar Khusraw's philosophy is better than [the] Masnavi [of Rumi]. (Mission Conference, 1945, Tanzania)
The Imam's remarks indicate to us that, firstly, that while some may find Rumi's philosophy intellectually satisfying, it is not "as good" as that of Khusraw, and so others who may not find Rumi intellectually satisfying, might want to review Khusraw's philosophy. Secondly, the Imam's remarks indicate to us, that philosophy lies on a continuum of quality with some "better" than others, and none is "final," "definitive," "absolute," etc..
Similarly, calling a "proof" the "best" or "strongest" firstly, admits the "proof" is really just an argument, because the notions of "better" or "worse" are subjective and do not apply to objective facts. Being subjective metrics, the idea that something "best" or "strongest" will resonate more with some than with others. Furthermore, since we do not know what may be uncovered tomorrow, what is purportedly "best" or "strongest" today may not be tomorrow. Even then, to claim something is the "best" or "strongest" today, would require knowledge of all, and comparison to, all other currently available alternatives.
For these reasons, we must be careful not to misconstrue what merely provides intellectual satisfaction as, instead, providing "objective" or "absolute proofs," especially when it comes to philosophical or faith issues -- the exception being, in our faith, when Hazar Imam's guidance directly answers the question.
Nevertheless, as mentioned, objective, absolute, "proofs":
- Affirm there are absolutes, but claim to understand them perfectly -- suggesting absolute certainty is possible -- and, therefore, purport to offer the "authoritative," "definitive," "true," etc., and, therefore, have an implied expectation, even if gentle, that everyone should, eventually, find these answers satisfying.
- Appear to leave room for personal intellectual satisfaction but, this personal freedom really only allows you the freedom to deny the alleged "proof," as if the "proof" is fact, like the world is round, essentially, thereby, reducing understanding matters of faith to a prescriptive, "one-size-fits-all" matter, in what could be characterised as the "modern day formalism."
- Redirect the search from understanding the Absolute (which is infinite and an unending search) to understanding the "proof" (which is finite and so once understood, knowledge ends and, therefore, ends the search on that matter too).
No Black and White Answers (relativistic personal search)
This position asserts absolute truths do not exist so, from a certain point of view, assert there is nothing, as such, to even understand in the first place. Without absolutes, it renders certainty itself an invalid and irrelevant concept. Essentially, it would seem relativism masquerades as personal search because it allows us to simply decide what we like and so we have nothing further to understand or study since we created our own, personal reality.
Intellectual Satisfaction (non-relativistic, continuous, unending personal search)
This approach accepts absolute truths do exist, and so there is something to understand, but (consistent with authentic science) it also accepts there is no absolute certainty and, therefore, allows us to understand them in a way that is comprehensible to us, satisfying to us at a given moment in time. Intellectual satisfaction urges us to ask questions about what we believe and why we believe it, allows opinions and perspectives to be offered without fear of being "prescriptive" or interfering in the murid-murshid relationship. At the same time, it demands that we be true to our ourselves and our consciences with answers we get and to continue searching should we feel unsatisfied at any time. Of course, intellectual satisfaction accepts that it doesn't apply on matters where Hazar Imam's guidance is clear and unambiguous.

In a nutshell, ...

The "Absolute Proof" position (or extreme): Accepts there are absolutes and we can attain absolute certainty (i.e final answers).
The relativistic, "No Black and White Answers" position (or extreme): Does not accept there are absolutes or any answers (absolute, final or otherwise), and certainty, itself, is not even a valid concept.
Intellectual Satisfaction: Accepts there are absolutes but no absolute certainties, i.e. no final answers, due to our human limitations (except where the Imam's guidance is clear and unambiguous). Instead, there are only answers that resonate with you and intellectually satisfy you, assuming you are true to your conscience.

Ignition Question(s)

Relativistic, no-black-and-white-answers, or "absolute proofs," or intellectual satisfaction: where do you think the Ismaili Tariqah stands? Which of these approaches to faith resonates with you and gives you peace of mind?
Besides the three approaches discussed in this Ignition Question, are there other valid intellectual pathways that provide perspectives, insights and answers to questions on matters of faith -- answers which, as Hazar Imam says, should relieve "feeling[s] of frustration inside you" -- without being formalistic or prescriptive but, instead, retain individuality and uphold all our tenets and beliefs?

To clarify, we are focusing on intellectual approaches, not emotional, inspirational or experiential approaches, for gaining understanding and insights into the faith.