Martyrs of Thought

[Viking]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

I strongly doubt this to be the case and believe that when the issue is one religion versus philosophy, care should be taken when accusing or suspecting someone of deviating in such a way. In fact, such a thought should not be publicised unless one has indisputable proof that this is indeed the case.

NGONGE,

Good point. many people forget that when dealing with the Philosophy of/in Islam, there is no need (or means) to choose between the two (religion and philosphy), if one is a Muslim that is. Philosophy simply explains things...whether the issue at hand is God, ethics, laws, values, life, death, life after death etc. In Islamic philosphy, the arguments are based on the Qur'an and Sunnah.

 

The emphasis of the usage of reason/intellect does not solely come from philosophers but we are urged as Muslims by Allah SWT (in the Qur'an and various hadith) to make use of our intellect and the faculty of reason.

[xiinfaniin]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

We seem to have reached the usual crossroad, which way will we choose? Does one use reason to find, strengthen and compliment their faith, or, do we follow the words of the famous old English poet and say

“ ours is not to reason why�

 

This writing of yours seems to assume that some people on this forum suspend reason to strengthen and reinforce their faith. The crowd you wouldn’t desire to reason with as they tend to idle their faculty of thinking!

 

Only if you know seldom that is the case!

 

The issue, prudent Ngonge, is the relationship between the revealed knowledge and the philosophical reasoning, particularly the one which our fellow nomad tirelessly advocates. How do you reconcile when the reason and faith eventually clash? Would you assert that the two will never clash? Or would you accept the limitations and inability of human mind to find, understand, and decipher the divine secretes of the Higher One? If you would, would you there fore not agree that questions alone would not do the trick?

 

Needless to say that I am for reasoning as long it does not supersede nor contradict the revealed truth. After all, ‘there’s no good in worship devoid of knowledge,’ as Ali Ibn Dhalib said. ‘Nor in knowledge devoid of understanding and un-attentive recitation’ he added as if he intentionally wanted to signify the fiqhi of pondering!

 

As for the subject of this topic and the misuse of the word, I am tempted to say that Mutakalim’s intellectual curiosity (testing if the dieing for the cause of philosophy is similar to that of our noble faith)is rapidly vanishing in the face of good Bashi’s scrutiny! It’s sort of curiosity not unlike tightrope walking at the circus! Let’s see how the old man employs the art of argumentation he so zealously prides as he attempts to utterly elevate the position of philosophy in this piece of the net.

 

PS. Pog was not a mistake.

[Dhagax-Tuur]

^^Afkaaga caano lagu qabay, maandhe.

[NGONGE]

This writing of yours seems to assume that some people on this forum suspend reason to strengthen and reinforce their faith. The crowd you wouldn’t desire to reason with as they tend to idle their faculty of thinking!

 

Only if you know seldom that is the case!

 

The issue, prudent Ngonge, is the relationship between the revealed knowledge and the philosophical reasoning, particularly the one which our fellow nomad tirelessly advocates. How do you reconcile when the reason and faith eventually clash? Would you assert that the two will never clash? Or would you accept the limitations and inability of human mind to find, understand, and decipher the divine secretes of the Higher One? If you would, would you there fore not agree that questions alone would not do the trick?

Xiinfaniin, how did you reach the conclusion that this topic was about “the relationship between the revealed knowledge and the philosophical reasoning�

 

Never mind my above question, for I have another, hold on to your seat, I have a hunch that you will not like this question though I hope you will attempt to answer it.

 

When you say “revealed knowledgeâ€, how do you know that this revealed knowledge is true? Do you believe it to be true because of your Islamic upbringing, your parent’s beliefs or is there something deep within you that tells you this revealed knowledge (specifically the Islamic one) is true. Is it some sort of little voices in your head, saaxib?

 

Somehow, I don’t believe this to be the case. Your zeal is strong and conviction immovable. This can’t simply be the result of following other people’s ways without having put a lot of thought and effort into it in the first place.

 

I appreciate that this is a perilous topic (one that does not relate to the original thread in anyway). I could even understand your wise choice to be cautious about it all. However, are we not being slightly more guarded than need be? Are we not making huge assumptions here?

 

What say you, good Xiinfaniin, to a child that might have questions regarding faith, the creator and the universe? Would it be along the lines of “ours is not to reason why� Or, would you reason with him/her and in so doing, explain the faith to him in a way that is logical, reasonable and acceptable?

 

Likewise, how would you convince a non-Muslim that’s interested in Islam that your belief is the correct one to follow? In such cases, thoughtful Xiinfaniin, faith would really be a poor substitute for reason. Life, my friend, is all about questions. Many answers can be found if one condescends to think and contemplate. I agree that some questions would invariably verge on the brink of being heretical, but the fact that the question is asked would also deem it necessary for one to have an answer. The reply need not be contradictory to one’s faith. However, it has to be a reasonable and sufficient reply.

 

There have been many clashes between Islamic philosophers and conservative scholars in the past. There are many such clashes even now. I wouldn’t want to comment on the validity of either argument. I’m merely attracting your attention to the fact that such intellectual clashes did and do take place. In fairness to both sides (and this relates to our discussion here) they all deeply pondered the questions being asked and tackled them with reason, logic and examples from many sources, mainly the Quran and Sunna. I mention the last two to tie them in with your assertion that reasoning should not contradict the “revealed truthâ€. For when a scholar tackles such reasoning, he, I would imagine, would use reason to explain (in depth, unlike your quick dismissal) why he believes reason should not contradict the revealed truth.

 

Aside from the circular picture I’ve painted for you here, the blunt point I’m making is that reason will still be applied whether the argument contradicts revealed truth or not. If the reason being used is weak, it can be easily refuted and if it were sound, he who’s being asked the question would return to his source (in your case, revealed knowledge) and seek the answers. Surely one’s faith should be strong enough to withstand any onslaught, and reply in kind. If not, (and here we return to those words of mine that you’ve quoted) one will have to go back, ponder, contemplate, consider and mull over the chinks that reason had made in his faithful armour. If one’s intentions are really aimed at finding the truth, one is likely to find it (brace yourself, for I’m about to shock you again) in the revealed knowledge. Still, without ruminating, one is unlikely to fortify his faith. Blind faith with no contemplation is an absolute shame, saaxib.

 

 

Ps

I hope that your use of the word “bog†was meant in its usual meaning of swamp or quagmire and not the popular and vulgar one meaning toilet (see the misuse of words?).

[Baashi]

Xiin,

Correction buddy: the point I was trying to make is that majority of the philosophers mentioned in Mutakalim’s piece didn't die for the cause of free thought. They died in natural death! Therefore the title, at minimum, is a misnomer unless we are expected to read this post into things that are not clearly stated by the author. I’m staying true to the philosophical tradition by holding statements made by Mutakalim to a higher standards of pure Muran backed by an endless circular reasoning! The task for Mutakalim is to find holes in my argument. I’m expecting him to weigh my rubbish by employing the art of logic and show all the nomads how my assertions don’t add up! If he fails my argument stands unscathed and I expect him to retract the straw man statement just like true gentleman would do .

 

Ngonge,

I read your last piece and I couldn't find any holes! dang! It pains me to say that I agree with you on the assertion that ultimately the faithful have some reason to belief in what they profess to belief including Islam. Even though this was not the topic Mutakalim initially posted nevertheless you wanted to defend him and you've now veered the topic into different direction in order to state the obvious!

 

Reasoning my friend is an innate human faculty and it's only natural that we make use of it! I have no problem with reasoning (not circular reasoning mind you) provided that we understand the human limitations and the fact that our reasoning can stop before "impregnable walls".

 

I have problem with Philosophy as the means in which we reach the ultimate truth. My problem with speculative philosophy and its tools is when people use it as "the" ultimate standard to weigh in belief systems. For speculative philosophy come with different shades and colors. Almost all ideologies in existence today owe their existence to speculative philosophy. Atheism, Rationalism, Relativism, Empiricism, Existentialism, Secularism, Materialism, Communism, and so many other -isms. The authors of these ideologies all make use of logic and reasoning but somehow reach different conclusions! That led me to believe that it's impossible that all these different shades of speculative philosophy with their mutually contradictory beliefs can simultaneously be true. Which means that logic, a human invention, is not a fool proof standard that we can always rely on.

 

Here is where faith comes in. Sane, rational, intelligent, and reasonable Joe can take a look at Hinduism and find the inner piece and spiritual fulfillment he so desires in its tenets. That doesn't mean Hinduism is not impeachable! All it means is this belief system has answers that's perfectly reasonable to this particular Joe just like another rational John would be contented in believing in Judaism as a true belief system. I happen to belief in Islam and someday (judgment day) we'll all find out which all these belief systems is the right one.

 

Fidhra, if not corrupted by the speculative philosophers and other false belief systems, can distinguish the distinction between genuine revealed truth and persuasive, human speculation. There is something about Islam that I can't quite put my finger on that leads me to belief that it is the only true religion. It doesn't deny the existence of other Monotheistic religions. It gives our life a purpose. It exhorts us to practice justice. It is universal. It demarcates limits for acceptable human behavior. Having said, I don't insist others to use something called logic to see its truthfulness. I would, however, expect them to ponder on its tenets and contemplate and reason on their own way and see if they can be persuaded. The little child you mentioned is of course subject to the competing indoctrination propagated by the state institutions and parents. Yes he would make use of his cognitive abilities to weigh in the dogmatic teaching he's subjected to but I doubt that he will find solace in logic and speculative philosophy.

[xiinfaniin]

Ngonge,

 

Says who that this topic is about the relationship between the two? Are you conveniently trying to obscure my words to, somehow, suggest that mine is extraneous of sort? I was simply addressing the obvious implication of your statement.

 

To be blunt, your lecture-like writing about reason and its value to strengthen our faith sounded, at least to me, as there is a class of nomad who are unable to reason and see, worse yet, its desirable value. That, I repeat, is a rare case! Then I attempted to point out where nomads could raise objections against philosophical reasoning (that, sorry to say, you miserably failed to acknowledge).

 

As to what I think about this thread, well, re-read my last post.

 

Back to your take on the issue of reasoning, based on my read on your last post, it seems to me that you’re trying to argue with the wrong person or create an argument that does not exist! Who’s against the reason, I ask? Have you not read my declared allegiance to reasoning as long it does not supersede nor contradict with the revealed truth?

 

Now, this is where I draw the line on the sand. When the sound verses of the Qur’an clash (I believe some times this is the case) with the reasoning of the inept human intellect, the revealed truth takes precedence over the guesswork. Reason if you will, but not on the expense of your faith. Don’t reason with Allah’s decrees! Male gets twice of what his female sister gets from the wealth of their deceased parents. Why? Why would a khuf be cleaned on top while its bottom directly contacts the dirty? And the list of unceasing questions goes on! Where would you stop?

 

Granted, that faith and reason are both sources of authority upon which beliefs can rest. And blind faith is not a desirable thing. But faith, Good Ngonge, involves a stance toward some claim that is not, at least presently, demonstrable by reason. Thusly the basis for one’s faith comes usually from the authority of revelation, and not from a reasoning inquiry!

 

-----Going back to my bunker-----------

 

PS. Potential for some misuse, I concede.

[J.Lee]

Viking, I know of no others, do you?

[Viking]

Originally posted by MsWord:

Viking, I know of no others, do you?

MsWord,

Then why did you say...

 

It's sad and quite ironic that "the truth" these philosophers blindly searched for all of their natural life, except for Socretes though I'm sure there was some type of a Kutab at his time, they could of found it in the Quran which they discredited and dismissed because the truth (God,Ethics and etc) they've concluded, in order for it to be The Truth ought to be derived by using reason and logic rather than fideism nor revealed knowledge such as The Quran.

 

 

Some if not most of the people mentionned lived before Muhammad and Issa PBUT...so what Kutab do you know of which they could have derived "The Truth"?

[NGONGE]

I read your last piece and I couldn't find any holes! dang! It pains me to say that I agree with you on the assertion that ultimately the faithful have some reason to belief in what they profess to belief including Islam. Even though this was not the topic Mutakalim initially posted nevertheless you wanted to defend him and you've now veered the topic into different direction in order to state the obvious!

Not at all, saaxib. This was the natural progression of the topic. There is so much to recap here and I really can’t go over all the old ground in detail. Nonetheless, I’ll remind you of the exchanges that occurred between Ms Word and Mutakalim in the earlier part of this discussion. She drew the battle lines and stated, quite strongly, that she relies on her faith while he blindly follows logic and reason. I simply followed that strand of the argument.

 

It’s quite surprising that you considered my last post to be stating the obvious! The way I understood Mutakalim’s argument (I could be wrong of course but I doubt it), he was saying the same thing all along. You see, he (needlessly I thought) already stated that he’s a Muslim. He also asserted his belief that the Quran is true. Still, in spite of that, people carried on arguing against his stance on logic and reason! Some were explicit, while others like Xiinfaniin showed implicit disagreement. Now, if all parties in this discussion are Muslim, yet, one group still dismisses reason and logic without being very clear where their objections lie, how could one find out if their objections come with any stipulations? Stating the obvious here was a necessity, saaxib.

 

 

Here is where faith comes in. Sane, rational, intelligent, and reasonable Joe can take a look at Hinduism and find the inner piece and spiritual fulfillment he so desires in its tenets. That doesn't mean Hinduism is not impeachable! All it means is this belief system has answers that's perfectly reasonable to this particular Joe just like another rational John would be contented in believing in Judaism as a true belief system. I happen to belief in Islam and someday (judgment day) we'll all find out which all these belief systems is the right one.

This is dangerous territory, saaxib. You mean to say that on the Day of Judgment (if it ever should arrive) you will find out if Islam is/was the right religion? This gamble of yours begs the obvious question, what if it was not?

 

In our holy book and many of the sayings of the prophet, we’re invited, encouraged and urged to observe the earth, sky and all that’s in between, to find the truth. We’re repeatedly instructed to contemplate, think and reason. The answers we search for are all there, we’re told. By submitting to Allah’s will, we do so with the conviction that Allah is true, his book is true and the judgment day is true. I believe, not with faith alone, but with reason too, that I have chosen the right faith. I’m convinced, through my own contemplations and the logical evidence in the Quran that this is the correct faith to follow. Every religious dilemma and quandary I face, I treat as an opportunity to further discover and strengthen my faith. I can’t go by blind faith alone and hope that, on The Day Of Judgment I’ll find that I followed the correct faith and was not seduced by Christianity or Judaism (who, if I followed your “reasoning†would have a 1 in 3 chance of being the correct religion for me).

 

 

To be blunt, your lecture-like writing about reason and its value to strengthen our faith sounded, at least to me, as there is a class of nomad who are unable to reason and see, worse yet, its desirable value. That, I repeat, is a rare case! Then I attempted to point out where nomads could raise objections against philosophical reasoning (that, sorry to say, you miserably failed to acknowledge).

Heh. This was exactly my point, saaxib.

 

Back to your take on the issue of reasoning, based on my read on your last post, it seems to me that you’re trying to argue with the wrong person or create an argument that does not exist! Who’s against the reason, I ask? Have you not read my declared allegiance to reasoning as long it does not supersede nor contradict with the revealed truth?

 

Now, this is where I draw the line on the sand. When the sound verses of the Qur’an clash (I believe some times this is the case) with the reasoning of the inept human intellect, the revealed truth takes precedence over the guesswork. Reason if you will, but not on the expense of your faith. Don’t reason with Allah’s decrees! Male gets twice of what his female sister gets from the wealth of their deceased parents. Why? Why would a khuf be cleaned on top while its bottom directly contacts the dirty? And the list of unceasing questions goes on! Where would you stop?

You refuse reason if it contradicts revealed knowledge? Saaxib, the holy book is full of amazing stories and descriptions. Many of these cannot be comprehended by simple reading. Let us use your example, the case of inheritance! Are you saying we should just take it as read without attempting to find out the reasoning behind it? God works in mysterious ways indeed! Again, I’ll ask you how would you explain these “unexplainable†issues to a child or an interested non-Muslim? Saaxib, how many verses are there in the Quran that start with the words “ They ask you�

 

 

How are Allah's decrees explained in the tafseer, saaxib?

 

 

Granted that some elements of Islam are items of faith that any person using logic and reason alone should not attempt to speculate on. The fact that some people deviate from the true path in the course of asking questions and following their own enquiries should not and must not negate the need for reason when contemplating one’s faith. Given a choice between an insular, narrow and dogmatic Islam that does not encourage one to learn and contemplate, or a free, open and contemplative one, I’ll always choose the latter; despite the risk that, as a consequence, some might go astray.

[Baashi]

This is dangerous territory, saaxib. You mean to say that on the Day of Judgment (if it ever should arrive) you will find out if Islam is/was the right religion? This gamble of yours begs the obvious question, what if it was not?

 

In our holy book and many of the sayings of the prophet, we’re invited, encouraged and urged to observe the earth, sky and all that’s in between, to find the truth. We’re repeatedly instructed to contemplate, think and reason. The answers we search for are all there, we’re told. By submitting to Allah’s will, we do so with the conviction that Allah is true, his book is true and the judgment day is true. I believe, not with faith alone, but with reason too, that I have chosen the right faith. I’m convinced, through my own contemplations and the logical evidence in the Quran that this is the correct faith to follow. Every religious dilemma and quandary I face, I treat as an opportunity to further discover and strengthen my faith. I can’t go by blind faith alone and hope that, on The Day Of Judgment I’ll find that I followed the correct faith and was not seduced by Christianity or Judaism (who, if I followed your “reasoning†would have a 1 in 3 chance of being the correct religion for me).

Perhaps it’s a dangerous territory sxb but my “reasoning†led me there Should I stop reasoning now . And yes the Day of Judgment when it arrives is the day of reckoning. We know as Muslims that we are on the right path. We know that because we have faith in Allah’s revelation. Today here on planet earth, I belief (emphasis added), with conviction, honest, and sincerity that Islam is the only true religion. If I’m wrong (Allah forbid) then I will pay, as a sane, intelligent, and responsible man, the price of believing in Islam sxb. Why do I believe in Islam? Well yes blind faith in part, parental and societal influence has its role also, but ultimately I believed in Islam because I reasoned, contemplated, and finally concluded this is the way to salvation in that Day that I have faith will come.

 

Notice here I too reasoned in replying to you and explaining why I believe what I believe. This is the gizzillion time that I’m using this word to emphasize that I too use my innate cognitive capacity known reasoning to decide what the ultimate truth is. The difference between us is not whether reasoning, rational thinking, reflection, contemplation, or what have you, has a role in reaching conclusions in matters that pertain to belief systems. It has an important role!!! Our difference rather lies in the standard in which our reasoning should conform to.

 

My position is that people who are fit and sane to reason do reason differently! They look at the same abstract questions, weigh in, reflect, contemplate, rationalize, and yet they reach different conclusions. I also happen to think that reason have its limitations. It cannot answer everything under the sun.

 

You, on the other hand, seem to think that belief should be restricted to what is directly supportable by “logic†and evidence if I read your take on the subject correctly! In matters pertaining to metaphysics unlike math and other physical sciences, I insist “logic†as the standard is not much of help. Admirers of philosophy should not rely on what other people speculated but rather dig deep in their heart and sincerely look at creations and reason, contemplate, and reflect, and I’m sure they will arrive. The creations alone will give contemplators a sense of owe and reverence!

 

As to blind faith sxb perhaps you are in denial in this area but if you probe a bit father you will see, I’m confident, that ultimately any belief system has blind faith in its make up. I argue faith is integral part of Islam. How else can one explain the mystery of eternity, the existence of the Day of judgment, the origin of the Creator! What evidence or “logic†is there that can one use to answer these questions if faith alone is not the basis of the belief in itself. Let’s not kid ourselves here sxb the fact of the matter is faith in its definition entails trust and trust in turn places all its eggs to someone else and that happen to be the Creator of this universe that Muslims know as Allah. Pray with me sxb...May Allah forgive us if we erred.

[STOIC]

With reason we can know by experience and logic that god exist.Faith does build on reasoning because the truth about the existance of god can not be reached without some revelation brought to us by god and letting us choose the right path.How will i beleive in faith if i don't reason when i ask my self, if god is so good why aren't we happy? This is where reason does play a role when i mute back to myself that if we couldn't experience pain we couldn't appreciate happiness.If we don't reason and think more deeply how will we answer when non-muslims or even muslims ask us why did god allow Tsunami to happen.I think most of you are on the same line of reasoning on the issue, i wonder how much longer do you need to be clear on your opinion.

[xiinfaniin]

You refuse reason if it contradicts revealed knowledge?

In a simple answer, I say yes. I refuse reason when it contradicts (when that happens) the revealed truth.

 

Now, I think we are not that far apart. To spare you another delineation of why reason is important, let me follow the footsteps of that revered scholar of ours, Ibn Taymiyya, who states when that contradiction occurs, reason looses its reasonability and rational. Our faith is not irrational. It’s the reason that has a tendency to dwell (some tines) in illusion and aberration and is in dire need of the validation of the infallible Source. Normally though the two are more united in harmony than they are in discord.

And the words of the Shiekh still ring true:

العقل الصريح لا يخال٠النص الصحيح

 

My examples were poorly presented and perhaps worded. Re-reading it gives me the impression of faith as inexplicable of sort! Where I headed with it, though, is without the illumination of the light of faith, reasoning does not enjoy certainty and it looses vigor and verve. What is conveyed in the Qur’an can’t be different from the reality and the truth. A reality we may or may not be able to see! And the truth we may as well fail to accept. Reason need not be blamed; it’s the ability of the reasoner that need be reproached. That’s the essence of the Ibn Dhalib’s famous words:

لو أخذالإسلام بالعقل لمح علي بواطن الخ٠بدلا من ظواهره

How are Allah's decrees explained in the tafseer, saaxib?

The words of Allah are not, and shouldn’t be, explained by freelance reasoning. Rather these heavy verses are interpreted and expounded by the second source of our faith: Xaddiith. I am sure you (I could be wrong) know how the process of the tafsiir works.

 

PS. (if it ever should arrive) implies doubt!

[Dalni]

As reason is supperior to irrationality, so can non-rationality to reason. All matters are either Rational, Irrational or Non-Rational. Non-rationality is anything above and beyond the expanse (as in revealation)of logic and reason. Thus reason is my nature restricting and the sole dependence of it has similar effects as irrationality.

[J.Lee]

Viking, Do you know, with certainty, the "exact date" The Zaboor, The Torah, The Injeel and The Furqaan were revealed to us?

[Viking]

MsWord,

The Zaboor, Taurat and Injeel were revealed for a certain people and not the whole of humanity. The Qur'an confirms, completes and perfects the messages that was brought by the previous Messengers.

 

The Prophet SAWS became a Prophet at the age of 40 and he was born on 570 AD; that would mean the Qur'an was revealed 610 AD on the month of Ramadhan.