Religious Knowledge– round table discussion.

[Baashi]

From time to time the users of this site are exposed to topics they are not familiar with. When such topics are posted, some of us sometimes join the crowd and post our take on the subject at hand. Sometimes we may see the topic as being trivial one and treat the posts in it as mere words on the screen. Not all posts are that trivial however. Some posts convey feelings, others convey ideas, and some exhort us to change our views on certain things.

 

The non-trivial posts such as the ones that discuss religious issues need not to be taken lightly. We must be careful on the topics related to religion in general and Islam in particular. In light of the recent topics, I noticed a problem that has to do with religious knowledge in relation to philosophy. I could be totally off the mark but it seems as if the difficult questions posted are subjected to reason first and then (depending on how reasonable the answer is) our faith or lack there of is justified. Why can’t one be satisfied with what the revealed knowledge has to say about the particular question?

 

Okay let’s get to it! There are two ways of knowing the Truth. One way is through faith and the other through reason. Religion is based on faith whereas philosophy is based on reason. The difference between religious knowledge (theology) and philosophy is that each begins from a different starting point. The religious man’s quest for knowledge begins with a faith in Allah and rests the demonstration of his conclusion upon the authority of revealed knowledge. Difficult questions are weighed in and answered through the prism of the revealed knowledge. Any deviations from the revealed knowledge amount to a rejection of faith in Allah.

 

The philosophers, on the other hand, first try to find reasons to show that a belief in Allah can be defended “intellectuallyâ€. Instead of relying revelations, they construct “proofs†relying solely upon operation of human mind. Thus they draw their conclusions from their rational interpretations of things in nature.

 

Don’t get me wrong. Reason is awesome. But the problem is that reasonable people can and do indeed disagree. Philosophers disagree in many critical issues. They have many different theories on soul, on essence, on immortality, on knowledge, on causality; you name it and they have different take on it. They all use reason and make reasonable and compelling rational explanation for their case. Which one should one belief? Why? Because of the way one articulates and presents one's case persuaded us! Remember they all make use of logic!

 

What happens when a Muslim goes out his way and tries to construct “proofs†in a bid to provide a rational support for our beliefs? Why would one be compelled to proof the existence of Allah? Does this effort stem from doubt or this is a bid to advance our knowledge? What kind of knowledge - one independent of revealed knowledge? Is there a limitation to what we can know?

[J.Lee]

Believing in a religion simply means you trust without using reason and logic. You accept it because it was ordained without a doubt .

 

Where as, most philosophers believe Allah exists only in understanding or might be a possible being. They feel compelled to question everything even if it's deemed reasonable or logical.

 

As Gaunilo stated "If a man should try to prove to me by such reasoning that this [God] truly exists, and that its existence should no longer be doubted,...Supposing I should allow this proof; or him (anselm who argues God is a being which none is greater), if he should suppose that he had established with any certainty the existence of this [God]."

 

To the Muslim, that believes without a doubt that Allah exists without seeing Allah’s physical form. That knows it through his creations whether human being or animals, through Allah's books and simply in his hearts because of faith that he has, how would he refute Gaunilo’s argument or prove with certainty the existence of Allah to a philosopher?

 

Keeping in mind he can't use "revealed knowledge" (i.e., The kutab) how would he provide proof through reason/ration that our belief is supportable? Would he be unsuccessful because he would fail to build a logical and a reasonable proof? and if he is a success, What out there in this world that can be deemed "reasonable" would support our religion in terms of Philosophy?

 

Furthermore, I don't think there is a limit to what we can know per se but I believe that there is a limit to what we can prove using reason and logic.

[Positive]

Qoute: Baashi

 

From time to time the users of this site are exposed to topics they are not familiar with........... Some posts convey feelings, others convey ideas, and some exhort us to change our views on certain things

 

That is what communication is all about: exchange of ideas. Although your describtion is correct still things are not in black and white. The evil/bad is always contained in the good and the good is contained in the bad: the venom of the most dangerious snake has medical uses; the life giving water and sun light when they come in excess cause death/damage of life;energy in all its forms can be used for both good and bad purposes etc.

 

If Life would be in black and white we could then develop better ability to understand the problem at hand and we could come up with better solutions. Even in the history of our beloved prophets we can find incidents which although they had good intentions in mind still they/one made grieve mistake(s)!

 

What is damaging, harmful to one: medicine, information(topic), can be useful, helpful to another!

 

 

Qoute: Baashi

 

What happens when a Muslim goes out his way and tries to construct “proofs†in a bid to provide a rational support for our beliefs? Why would one be compelled to proof the existence of Allah? Does this effort stem from doubt or this is a bid to advance our knowledge? What kind of knowledge - one independent of revealed knowledge? Is there a limitation to what we can know?

 

It may be an effort which stem from doubt, but it may well be a bid to advance our knowledge. As you may know the sufi school of thought teaches the esoteric side of the reveled word of Allah and His prophet. They(Sufis) " claim " that in addtion to the literal meaning of the Quran there is the underlying meaning which is not readily available to the eye but can be sought . The path to gain that knowledge is not theoritical but rather pratical and it can be learned by everyone.

 

It is my understanding that we should not be swayed by "hints" of the esoteric teaching when it comes through our discussion. It should only be taken as esoteric and those who prefer the literal meaning of the reveled word should just disregard it- not demean it!

 

Such an esoteric knowledge has no limits but it is not indiscriminately spread. Therefore we need not worry about it

 

The awakener2

[NGONGE]

Religious knowledge! What a juicy title that is!

 

 

From time to time the users of this site are exposed to topics they are not familiar with. When such topics are posted, some of us sometimes join the crowd and post our take on the subject at hand. Sometimes we may see the topic as being trivial one and treat the posts in it as mere words on the screen. Not all posts are that trivial however. Some posts convey feelings, others convey ideas, and some exhort us to change our views on certain things.

 

The non-trivial posts such as the ones that discuss religious issues need not to be taken lightly. We must be careful on the topics related to religion in general and Islam in particular. In light of the recent topics, I noticed a problem that has to do with religious knowledge in relation to philosophy. I could be totally off the mark but it seems as if the difficult questions posted are subjected to reason first and then (depending on how reasonable the answer is) our faith or lack there of is justified. Why can’t one be satisfied with what the revealed knowledge has to say about the particular question?

** Lecture mode on **

 

 

Many atheists argue that faith alone is a poor substitute for “thoughtâ€! Many believers would also agree on that point (to a certain extent). I find myself agreeing with their arguments (with some qualifications of course). I can’t imagine many people believing in god with no prior introduction to religion, revelations or actual “trainingâ€! One might be born with the instinct to “believeâ€, however, one has to be familiar with a certain religion (Islam in our case) and its literature and rituals in order to hone that natural instinct. In order to “pick†the correct religion, one will have to apply some thought and reason to the whole thing. If not, one would have to answer the charge that one is only doing what his father and his grandfather before him did. Faith becomes a norm, tradition or culture rather than a real belief in the almighty! In the case of philosophers (though some would occasionally tie themselves in knots) contemplation is only used to supplement and strengthen faith (one would have thought).

 

Where “thinkers†(and many others) fail, on this site at least, is in their elucidation and detailing of religious ideas! Many proceed from the assumption that most of their readers would understand the language used, the arguments put forward and the challenging rhetoric. Others only aim their words at those they expect to understand and disregard or pay little attention to the vast majority that don’t. This, I believe, is the reason why threads such as this one regularly start off!

 

To initiate a religious discussion of any kind is a great idea that would (hopefully) allow others to contemplate a certain religious issue. However, if the author is unclear, ambiguous or is addressing an area that most are unfamiliar with, he/she runs the risk of leading people astray! Here, the accountability is on the author to ensure that his/her words are very clear and there are (as much as it’s possible) no opportunities to misinterpret, misapprehend or misread his words.

 

It’s always worth remembering that not all readers have the same standard of religious knowledge. All can read books, access Islamic websites and listen to various lectures on a given topic. This is great, but it also, at times, facilitates and encourages sporadic knowledge. Simplicity of prose, clarity of words and occasional references to the building blocks of faith, though might seem tedious to many, are (IMHO) of the utmost importance when venturing into the sphere of religious discussion. Pardon the Christian expression, but all should be “singing from the same hymn sheetâ€.

 

 

** Lecture mode off **

[Baashi]

Ms Word, we are on the same page sis on this. Reason is the integral part of the religion. My objection to it stems from the fact that some people give too much credence to philosophers speculative effort to make sense of the mystery of life.

 

Positive, I’m not sure if I understand your point. Let me say this; I’m all for the communicating and I’m also for utilizing human intellect. What I don't understand is the motives behind substituting the human rational interpretation for the revealed knowledge or when one uses human intellect to invalidate Qur’anic verse. That’s what this topic is all about.

 

*Comes to class, sits down without making any noise, and starts listening attentively! As I tune in, the light bulb in my cranium goes on...walaaaa!*

 

Even though there is no inherent antagonism between religious knowledge and reason, there is a clear distinction between the two. The first supercedes the later. Once one becomes Muslim and embraces Islam and its tenants, one has to attain that inner peace of “iimaanâ€. When faced difficult questions that relate to “Aqiidah†such as Allah’s whereabouts or the mystery of eternity and infinity, Muslims (emphasis added) have to look to the source of Islamic knowledge for answers first then utilize the light of reason and the testimony of the sense. Engaging circular reasoning and infinite digression, for instance, in order to defend the existence of Allah (macaatha Allah), or Angels, is sure way of getting stray from the right path in my opinion!

 

For the non-believers, it is only natural for them to enquire until they find their way into Islam. That should be expected from anyone in search of Truth. My understanding is once one attains the enlightenment (Islam), one’s questions are answered to one’s satisfaction. From this point on the philosophizing Islam and confusing Islam with Greek wisdom or even looking up to Greek philosophers to validate Islamic directives must stop.

 

I would have to agree with the point that prudence must be exercised and one must know his audience.

[xiinfaniin]

The beauty of faith is in the art of believing divine secrets غيب. Not many people, you may notice, are blessed with that ability and its therefore understandable for some to ridicule the notion of having faith in some unknown things. The position of Islam in these matters is very clear. For one this religion teaches that the human intellect and its capacity to decipher things is limited. You’re indeed given very little and limited knowledge, Allah declares in his Qur’an. * وما أوتيتم من العلم إلا قليلا *

It’s also considered satanic simulation to discuss matters pertaining Allah’s essence ذات and whereabouts beyond that which Qur’an reveals. If one gets seduced to indulge in to these slippery slops one is urged to seek refuge from the Satan to Allah.

 

So there is no that much room left for philosophers to maneuver as far as Religion goes.

[STOIC]

Philosophy seeks to illuminate fundamental aspects of the world, of our relation to the knowledge of the world and of our own nature as a humanbeings.Anyone who has studied philosophy seriously must acknowledge that the term has been applied to a great many variance thoughts and that there is little agreement between the philosophers themselves as to what the term is or should be.The sort of questions you raised occur to us humanbeings every day in our life.The logical critique of the methodology of science is not haram but what will constitute unlawful is when we attempt to solve ultimate questions with our reasoning.

[Viking]

There are two ways of knowing the Truth. One way is through faith and the other through reason. Religion is based on faith whereas philosophy is based on reason.

Baashi,

Faith and reason can (and do) go hand in hand as it was demonstrated by Prophet Ibrahim (AS). He destroyed all the idols while the polytheists were away and lay the axe he had used on the shoulder of the biggest idol. When the polytheists came back, to their dismay, they found that all but one if their gods were destroyed. They approached Ibrahim (AS) because they knew he was against idolatry. He told them to ask the big idol, for he must have done it out of rage. They said that it was just an idol and was unable to do anything. Ibrahim (AS) used the faculty of reason to demonstrate that they were wrong in having idols as gods.

 

 

What do you think about Chinese philosphy? It was mainly practical, lacked metaphysics and obsessed with ethics. They also have a very regressive theory of history, believing that the best time is in ths past (7th century for us?) and humanity has decayed ever since. If you look closely, you'll realise that our Islamic literalists seem to have a lot in common with them. Practical philosphers have always thought that speculative philosphers are "in over their heads" (usually out of ignorance) while the latter doesn't discredit the importance of the former. I beleive that a civilisation needs a balance of the two, living in symbiosis and not at loggerheads.

 

 

xiinfaniin,

Human knowledge is indeed inept, but how would you explain the kind of knowledge held by a man like Khidr? He is/was a saint/Prophet (Allah SWT knows best) who demonstrated that losses might be gain, cruelty may be mercy etc etc.

[xiinfaniin]

Viking wrote:

how would you explain the kind of knowledge held by a man like Khidr? He is/was a saint/Prophet (Allah SWT knows best) who demonstrated that losses might be gain, cruelty may be mercy etc etc.

Well, Khidr was a special servant of Allah who was granted unique and exclusive knowledge of deciphering Allah’s wisdom. With all the things that said about him, the fact that he was acting with accord in Allah’s orders is something that is agreed upon. Further more, the story of Khidr is a Qur’anic narration and in that it should only be seen through the lenses of the Sunnah. Therefore it can’t ---and frankly it shouldn’t—be bases for philosopher’s unwanted spinning and twisting in the divine-scripture.

 

I for one have no problem using the ‘faculty of reason’ as long it does not supersede or contradict the revealed truth. In fact believers and non-believers are encouraged to use their intellect in understanding the art of Allah’s Creativity. And Qur’an has no praise for those who failed to employ their mental power.

 

What I object to, however, is when pure reason is utilized to decode the secrets of Allah. Or when one claims he/she is able to reach the depth of ‘inward knowledge’ علم الباطن through mystical experience. That is when philosophers start swimming in unsafe and muddy waters of fitnah.

[Sophist]

Can "Reason" be the guidance light to Truth Bashe?

[Baashi]

Viking bro, I’m not familiar with the Chinese philosophy so I won’t say much about it except that the concept of reincarnation and their understanding of the nature of deity doesn’t sit well with the revealed Truth.

 

Sophist bro,

Sure! Sometimes reason can get you there but not always. Reason led many philosophers to different directions. Hek! it led Aristotle to defend Slavery and caste system. Or was it Socrates; one of the two (I can be bothered to double check it). Marx used reason to lay the foundation for Communism. Hobbes, Lock, Marx, Rawls, Plato, Kant, Hegel, and many others sought the Truth by employing reason but it led them to different conclusions.

[Sophist]

Is reason unifed?

[Muhammad]

Is it also subjected to time and place?

[Baashi]

I don't know! Could u elaborate lil bit on that question.

[Dhagax-Tuur]

Maansha-Allah.

 

Stimulating....

 

I'm enjoying reading it, keep going.