Islamic Existentialism

[Mutakalim]

Thank you for the rudimentary introduction to Islamic Theology, the so called Islamic Dialectics. Perhaps some of the less read Nomads can learn much from you.

 

Reason is the cardinal, certainly not the sole, soldier in the front trenches in the siege of truth. However, even the lesser soldiers are corrected, commanded, and consoled by "Reason"(sense impressions, experience).

 

I am rational empiricist, Descartes (rationalist) and Hume (empiricist) would have liked me more than Kant (transcendalist).

 

The purpose of this thread was to enquire about the rational legitimacy of Religious Irrationalism (not a contradiction mind you).

 

That there is not a demonstrative proof of the existence of God is not an opinion but a logical consequence. Given that there are no purely "demonstrative" (logically, rationally etc.) proofs or disproofs of the existence of a Diety , what ought a reasonable person to do? In a way, one has three options: one can believe anyway in the existence of God (meaning that one has a theistic faith); or one can believe in the non-existence of God (meaning one has an athiestic faith); or one can hold no beliefs at all on the question (in which case one is an agnostic). Rationally, is there some reason for preferring one of these courses of action over the others?

 

There is a classical argument advanced by Pascal that purports to show that the only reasonable course of action is to hold a thiestic faith. Pascal points out that if you do anything else, you run the risk of losing (if you are wrong) eternal life and suffering eternal damnation. However, if you have a theistic faith, even if you are wrong, there is little you will really have lost. In short, belief in God is the only reasonable course of action open.

 

"God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up... Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose... But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is... If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is

 

Ofcourse even this argument is not flawless...

 

With Salaams

PK

 

P.S. Am I a Sufi or Shia? I am a Muslim who believes that there is no God worthy of worship but Allah.

[Viking]

I am one of the "less read nomads" and Islamic Philosophy isn't my field so take it easy with the patronising mate.

 

The purpose of this thread was to enquire about the rational legitimacy of Religious Irrationalism...That there is not a demonstrative proof of the existence of God is not an opinion but a logical consequence. Given that there are no purely...proofs or disproofs of the existence of a Diety , what ought a reasonable person to do?

I am a simple person who at times tends to get confused with words. English is also a language I haven't such a high command of, so please bare with me.

 

Are you trying to find rationalism in something that is irrational? Islam is an irrational belief system in the sense that you believe in Allah (SWT) and you do not go about using reason or facts but instead you follow revelation, intuition, instincs and in your case Irfan and mysticism. This is the basis of Islam and these feelings are not rational, but are based on faith.

 

You sound like a reasonable person but you believe in Irfan, mysticism (it doesn't get more irrational than that)...how then do you rationally explain it?

 

Aquinas, who was a rationalist and I suspect you are fond of, said; "...a number of dogmas which were impenetrable to reason must be accepted on faith alone."

 

Me (and probably a few others) being a 'less read' nomad with various liguistic and philosophical impediments; please make your standpoint and aim much clearer in all this.

[Paragon]

Because reason is by itself ill-equiped to grasp what is outside it (for instance Faith), a reasonable individual may make the mistake of providing more credit than it deserves. Being reasonable means being able to comprehend all situations - within reason and without. One must have varying abilities, rather than one ability, to accept and explain various other situations.

 

I am a Muslim because I belief Islam will deliver me from Hell and evil. I bear witness that there is no god worthy of worship except Allaah, and Muhammad (PBUH) is His messenger.

[Baashi]

Originally posted by Mutakalim:

The purpose of this thread was to enquire about the rational legitimacy of Religious Irrationalism (not a contradiction mind you).

Mutakalim,

Do you believe in the supremacy of logic and deductive reasoning OVER the revealed truth: the Divine book (Qur’an)? How you reconcile them in the event they contradict? Can they contradict? Is there limitation to what we know or can know? What is the criterion of truth or put it differently what is it that you use as the basis to reach the truth?

 

I’m asking these probing questions in the context of religion “irrationalism” and this rationalizing/legitimizing business you wanted us to discuss in this thread.

[Mutakalim]

Viking:- Have you inherited your religous beliefs or have you acquired them through rigorous ratiocination? Are you a Muslim by choice or chance? If you were born a non-muslim, how would you go about searching for the "True" religon? Why do you think Islam is the right religon? Is Islam more rational than any other creed? You need not answer these queries, only reflect upon them meticulously.

 

Taqlid and blind faith are necessary for the simple believers whose minds are free of the kind of intellectual curiosity one finds in philosophers and scientists, and who are therefore content to accept things based on the authority of the experts.

 

Enough of the digression! Islam is generally a rational religon albiet one that has some doctrines that are impregnable and impenetrable by Reason. Hence, the gist of my thesis: Should there be any some such Doctrine that is incomprehensible to our rational faculty, we need not attempt the explication of it employing Reason(after you apprehend this you may dance over the details of my thesis ). God's Existence is a prime example of this suppostion. Since His existence is not demonstrable we need only to "believe" and not demand a rational argument a priori or a posteriori

 

As to your Mysticism-related query I will say that it is my tentative belief that there is a supra-rational and supra-logical faculty that is latent within our Being. In the same way that our sense impressions, sense-datum, or sense-preceptions are subordinate to reason, so too reason is subordinate to the supra-rational faculty. The "higher" states of Being are the mystical states of conciousness. This is the state where one experiences the powers of "kashf" (direct vision) and "dhawq" (fruitional experience)

 

Jamaal:- You wrote

I am a Muslim because I belief Islam will deliver me from Hell and evil. I bear witness that there is no god worthy of worship except Allaah, and Muhammad (PBUH) is His messenger.

 

I suspected as much.

 

Baashi:- The rational and the revealed must needs (i.e. necessarily) be in accord. In the event that there is a manifest contradiction, one can either a) supercede the revealed (naqli) with the rational ('aqli), b) accept that one is inept to conceptualize and apprehend the meaning thereof.

Finally, as I said to Viking, Reason is, to use a phrase from the rabble, "the next best thing". Only the supra-rational states can show you things "as they really are" (haqiiq al-umuur).

 

With Salaams

PK

[postman]

Mutakalim

 

I think you are missing the point. The premises of your argument supports one particular conclusion, a conclusion derived by Western philosophers, based on their understanding of Christianity. Then you take this conclusion, which is vaguely related to the beliefs of Islam (or the undistorted beliefs the other two Abrahamic faiths), and then you build upon a special form of irreverence to arrive at your intended conclusion.

 

You have to understand these people, these Western thinkers and refuters of the Objective God, have reasons in deitising logic and condemning religion. They are people made to believe, or were required to believe, the absurdities of the (distorted) Bible, such as the creation of light before the sun, the creation of the world six thousand years ago, and also that absurd sacrament, of which Voltaire even used to say, that though many different religions had existed and still exist, never before had there been one the principle religious act to which consisted of eating one’s God, or that God is one and Three in the same moment.

 

Thusly, if men of strong spirit, like these you have mentioned and whose arguments you use, free themselves from the hypnotic influence in which they were educated in childhood and confirmed in maturity, will become the new priests of science and reason, and thus, this unprincipled man, instead of freeing revelation from the vile distortions, the same revelations that first of all ignited man’s reason, will be guided in life by the same principles which have distorted revelation itself. He will consider himself to be on the highest plane of mental development accessible to humanity. Alas they forget, all is irrelevant and is nothing more than ignorance built upon ignorance, uttered in the certainty of hope— faith in their own ignorance.

 

To these man, and the same applies to you since your entire reasoning depends upon this established ignorance, faith is the realisation of things hoped for, and the certainty of things unseen. This is based on the impossibility of assuming faith to be just a hope, a hope of the un-unified internal state of mind with that of external events. Faith in Islam, however, is the unification of everything with the Infinite (not the separation of the internal from the external), That which has been before and will be after time, the unification of one’s will with that of God’s, the acknowledgement of tawheed. Faith is not hope, as Pascal says: we have nothing to loose from believing God, if He does exist then we will be saved, but if he does not, well then there is nothing, and since you are nothing, nothing which is now dead, I doubt it you will be whining about not finding the God you have ‘hoped’ for. Additionally, to further correct your misunderstanding, faith is also not confidence. Faith is man’s consciousness of his position and duty in the Infinite Will, his position in the Will of God, which imposes on him the obligation to fulfil certain actions, certain reasonable actions. And reason, which is that naturally understood by every thinking man to be good and that which is confirmed by revelation, makes us aware of our position and duty.

 

I was going to go into discussion about revelation and the infallible evidence of God’s existence, but I will not. No point. Contrary to your mischievous attempts at originality by quoting the random jottings of immoral thoughts founded on nothing, professed by the half-mad Western thinkers who do not even represent anything whole and connected, all has been said before. Go back to your books, read some more, reflect some more and than read some more. Find Truth, do not just regurgitate others failed endeavours. My advice to you is don’t be like those men of the strong spirit who after having freed themselves from the clutches of ignorance, became the new head priests of the Church of blind reason. Don’t be that man who after having attempted to proof his knowledge only proofed that he knew nothing.

 

Peace

[Salafi_Online]

Innalhamdulillah...

 

Postman well said akhee...Baarakallahu feek

[Salafi_Online]

Innalhamdulillah...

 

Mutalikum bro...

 

Philosophers were despised by the Companions(rA))....and the scholars of Islam admonished the people of ‘ilmul Kaalam (innovated speech), which you have displayed so elegantly here. Philosophers are more astray then they like to believe.

 

They embellish their falsehood with beautiful language and lead others astray….May Allah give them what they deserve.

[Viking]

Viking:- Have you inherited your religous beliefs or have you acquired them through rigorous ratiocination

Alhamdullilah I was born a Muslim but naturally I had to learn about Islam mainly through the Qur'an and Hadith. I believe that there are two types of knowledge, the revealed and the rational and I did NOT need reason in believing in Allah (SWT) and what he has revelad to us. So, in believing in Allah (SWT), NO ratiocination was required. The universe and all that is in it (knowledge and everything physical) sings praises, showing how Great Allah (SWT) is.

 

 

 

 

Are you a Muslim by choice or chance?

I don't believe that anything happens by 'chance', I beleive that everything happens for a reason.

 

 

 

 

 

If you were born a non-muslim, how would you go about searching for the "True" religon?

Only Allah (SWT) knows, all I can do is speculate for I have no clue how I would have been and whether I would have sought the true religion if I was born non-Muslim.

 

But don't forget that Allah (SWT) judges everyone according to their position. The responsibilities of the learned and the analphabets isn't the same, the rich and the poor, the people born in Islam and those born in other religions. Allah (SWT) says in the Holy Qur'an...

 

 

"O ye wives of the Prophet! Whosoever of you committeth manifest lewdness, the punishment for her will be doubled, and that is easy for Allah. And whosoever of you is submissive unto Allah and His messenger and doeth right, We shall give her her reward twice over, and We have prepared for her a rich provision. (The Qur'an 33:30-31)

 

 

...for they cannot be judged just like any other woman.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Taqlid and blind faith are necessary for the simple believers whose minds are free of the kind of intellectual curiosity one finds in philosophers and scientists, and who are therefore content to accept things based on the authority of the experts.

Doubting taqleed is something that even Al-Ghazzali talks about vastly; In his quest for 'ilmul yaqin', he had doubts (he wasn't a religious sceptic though) and often questionned taqleed. Many people (like you do) question the 'inherited' religious beliefs but forget the fact that not everyone in a society can be philosphers and scientists. The rest have to follow what the 'thinkers' among them have to say about different matters.

 

 

Curiosity is a good thing, it is even said that Our Noble Prophet (PBUH) said that once we cease to be curious then we cease to be humans. The first words of the Qura'n was IQRA, so I am by no way undermining the importance of knowledge. But there are many Muslim scientists and philospohers who are weak in faith, their field doesn't necessarilly guarantee them elevated imaan.

 

Just out of curiousity...what is your stand and thoughts on Ijtihad?

 

 

 

 

 

... there is a supra-rational and supra-logical faculty that is latent within our Being. In the same way that our sense impressions, sense-datum, or sense-preceptions are subordinate to reason, so too reason is subordinate to the supra-rational faculty. The "higher" states of Being are the mystical states of conciousness. This is the state where one experiences the powers of "kashf" (direct vision) and "dhawq" (fruitional experience)

Allahumma, Ara'ani kullu shay'in kama hiya.

[JustCause]

credo quia absurdum—I believe because it is irrational!

 

PK and others sorry for my late reply to this post and this delay was a deliberate one. This is because, I wanted to hear and learn from what people had to say. The apology now out of the way, let me get on with the task.

 

I am sorry to say, you have not answered the question/s you put forward and that disappointed me. Not that I thought you would had an answer that would have satisfied me but at least I thought you would have some form of an answer nonetheless that would go someway!

 

“That there is not a demonstrative proof of the existence of God is not an opinion but a logical consequence.” That is bullocks mate. What is logic—the thing that you seem to hold so dear? I am asking this question, because I am tired of hearing logic this and logic that all the time. You talk of logic as ‘absolute knowledge’, when we both know there is no such thing as absolute and logic is a mere tool.

 

Let us see where we are so far in the discussion for finding a rational reason for our beliefs. I hope I understood your points thus far and not doing you any injustices when I say, you concluded we have three choice when there are “…no purely "demonstrative" (logically, rationally etc.) proofs or disproofs of the existence of a Deity” and they are,

 

1)Believe in some of form of belief (i.e. theist),

2)Believe in the non-existence of God (i.e. atheist) and finally,

3)Believe in no belief at all on the question (i.e. agnostic).

 

From this, you say one has a rational reason to choose the first one based on a reason given by Pascal (known as Pascal’s wager). I am sorry to say Pascal’s reasoning is flawed and you yourself hinted at this!

 

Here are some of the problems I (and others) have with this wager.

 

1. There are many Gods/religions out there and this wager assumes in your case the Muslim God and for someone else their own God. Therefore, if all these different Gods have equal probability in being the right one, then the probability of your God being the right one becomes negligible! Thus, the chances of you worshiping the right God from rational reason is slim!

2. On other hand, if we assume all Gods are not equal say only one of them is true then, how does one choose the right one, again from rational reason?

3. Does not this wager defeat the whole of purpose of believing in God out of love, if you are only doing it to avoid hell fires of tomorrow? Does not this in turn lower the standards of beliefs?

 

I do not have any problem in leading a life restricted by religion provided I know what I believe (as far as I am concerned) to be true, whether this seems to be rational or irrational to anyone else. At the same time, I do not want to worship a God on selfish grounds, i.e. the fear of hell fires! My point here is, ‘truth is subjective’— as Kierkegaard said! This means, the important truth are those personal to oneself. Hence, this ‘important truth’ can only be reached through faith and any other means won’t stand the scrutiny of reason or logic.

 

On the question of truth reached through logic/rational and which we know for certain to be the truth, are trivial to my/our existence! An example of this, 2 + 2 = 4. Do we worry about this truth in our daily lives? Do we even include it in our daily prayers?

 

On the other hand, we all worry about whether someone forgave us after we wronged them, since this is important to us. Just as you cannot tell 100% certain whether someone loves you and thus you just have to take it as a matter of faith (half of the time!) and hope they do: that is the beauty of faith!

 

So what I am trying to say is, if you convince yourself with some proof or logical argument, you would lack faith and this in turn would lead to loss of religion passion!.

 

You asked Viking, whether he was a Muslim by choice or chance.

Almost most of us (you can exclude yourself from this ‘us’ if you want) are believers to the first approximation by chance. What I mean by this is, the environment in which we live in however much we deny (this simple fact) influences our beliefs and thus we are believers by chance, i.e. believe in what we are brought up to believe (give or take here and there). I personal don’t have a problem with this. Look at it this way, what is the percentage of people currently who hold a belief, which is not close to what they are born into? I would say very small number and hope that answers your question.

 

However, I do have a problem in believing something in order to avoid the hell fires of tomorrow. I might not be doing justices to you when I say the following, but I will say it though; I have a feeling you belong into this category and thus why you are looking for a rational reason in your belief! I am more than happy for you to contradict me on this matter.

 

“Taqlid and blind faith are necessary for the simple believers whose minds are free of the kind of intellectual curiosity one finds in philosophers and scientists, and who are therefore content to accept things based on the authority of the experts.” Is not this intellectual arrogance?

What do you mean by the following, “Only the supra-rational states can show you things "as they really are"”? Is not that just saying, I do not know and I might never know, in a fancy way.

 

So the question you might be wondering by now is; what am I? Where do I stand on the three choices open to me above and why do I choose the one I chose? Well let me say, I am theist. Why I chose this path? Because like Kant, I assume when something cannot be proved and this has to be done for the sake of man’s morality. Is not convincing but it is to me! In the words of Kant, “It is a moral necessity to assume the existence of God”

Having arrived at the first stage how do I make the transition to Islam? I am lucky in the some ways as my parents were Muslims and this made this irrational decision easier for me (even though for sometime I resisted this).

 

However, one day I was struck by the following sura (111) Thorns (Al-Masad) and it convinced me of the validity of the Koran, but this might not work for someone else. The first verse of the sura is,

[111:1] Condemned are the works of Abee Lahab, and he is condemned.

 

The above verse sealed the fate of Abee Lahab during his lifetime forever. If the Koran was false Abee Lahab would have easily come to the prophet and said, Mohamed I believe you are the prophet of God and there is no God but Allah. He could have done this without being genuine and this would have falsified the Koran. However, the fact that he did not do this in his life time either in pretence or in sincere, for me proves the Koran is not written by Mohamed and thus Islam is the right religion for me! Warning, this simple sura might not work for anyone else just because it worked for me.

 

All of the above is bullocks to those who are looking for reason in faith and I apologise for wasting your time since I have none to offer.

[Viking]

Q,

 

What do you mean by the following, “Only the supra-rational states can show you things "as they really are"”? Is not that just saying, I do not know and I might never know, in a fancy way.

Our Noble Prophet (PBUH) is said to have prayed to Allah (SWT) saying; O Allah! show me things as they really are. The gnostics use this prayer constantly, asking to see the dimensions and reality that are normally hidden from the view of mankind. This is viewed as 'reality' (seeing things as they really are) and is seen as a way of getting in touch with the divine. This is mainly a Sufi approach but also shared by the Shi'a.

[Baashi]

1. The guidance of Allah

2. The light of reason

3. The testimony of sense

 

These three will set you free!

[Sophist]

Water ridden with waves is indeed more awe-inspiring than the run down the mill water that many of us are use to. Philosophy or the inquiry of the nature of things invites those who are not contending with status quo. Therein lays the explication of this thread or perhaps not.

 

As the antiquated Somali saying goes, a man who says I, mark himself out of the crowd. What a splendid axiom. Indeed this aphorism has a far-reaching consequence than most would notice. The “rationalistic” consequence would be, such a man should he chose to mark himself out, must indeed bring-forth something that his fellow men would discern to be spectacular—there is the risk of course those who he is sipping the sweet Somali tea might not be equipped for such a distinction; hardly I think this applies to this crowd. Many of the contributors show adequate comprehension of the subject matter thus it is on the initiator to make his case plausible.

 

The question then is, has the initiator succeeded not only marking himself out, but putting forward with clarity persuasive argument that would tip his opponents over? The answer of course not only lies in his response but also in the writings of his opponents.

 

I shall invite Mutakalim back into the discussion to re- write his proposition; with clarity this time.

 

He Writes “In fact we must believe "in virtue of the abusrd"”

 

Okay, what is absurd? Isn’t this to assume that man has a perfect mind? Whatever falls outside his capacity to comprehend is absurd?

 

 

Others

 

To assume logic to be an "absolute truth" is to say Men are perfect; What a complete fallacy.

 

Vicking, What is the cardinal principles of rationalism? what is rational?

[JustCause]

Sophist, I never said logic was an absolute truth. Here are two simple questions for a man of your calibre, what is logic and what is 'absolute truth’? I would be grateful if you could illustrate your answers with examples.

 

I eagerly wait for your answers.

 

PK take your time mate but remember I am waiting for your reply too.

[Viking]

Sophiest,

A source of knowledge using reason as the fundamental criteria for solving problems. It is an epistemological criterion used to evaluate claims by the use of reason to interpret experience. Skeptisism, a priori. Cardinal principals? I don't know... ehmm of mathematical nature? You've got to help me here.