Of Dialectic and Enquiry

[Mutakalim]

Nomads,

 

There are some general guidelines one must take heed of upon emabarking on theological, philosophical, or juridical discussions.

 

One cannot, for instance, refute the doctrines of Christianity on rational grounds whilst adopting preposterously contradictory beliefs. That is to say, one cannot confute the beliefs of Christians in a simultaneously finite and infinite , created and uncreated God, if one believes in a composite God. Is it not intellectual duplicity to accuse others of having illogical beliefs while you espouse equally contradictory notions of God.

 

Many so-called muslim apologists attack the creeds of other religons all the while unaware of the incongrous tenets of their adulterated version of Islam. They argue that other beliefs are illogical and irrational, and once they are asked to explain the concept of a God with parts (eye, hand, leg, face) they respond with the infamous expression of paradox, to wit, "the 'how' is unknown" (Al-Kayfu Majhuul). This is where the bounds of reason are ostensibly cut short.

 

I wonder what these ill righteous men would say to a Buddhist or a Christian who utilizes this same "puzzling expression", viz., the how is unknown. Can you possibly refute any belief if your opponent argues that logic does not apply, because the "how is unknown". According to this expression, Trinity is irrefutable. God is one and three; the meaning of one and three are clear but "the how" is obscure.

 

This is another clear reason why it is utterly naive to say that logic has bounds.

 

P.S. It is disappointing to see that dogmatists will even use puppet personalites to refute the non-islamic conceptions of God. Oh well, I suppose it is necessary to create straw Nomads to instill untenable dogma.

 

With Salaams

PK

[Haddad]

Originally posted by Mutakallim:

Many so-called muslim apologists attack the creeds of other religons all the while unaware of the incongrous tenets of their adulterated version of Islam. They argue that other beliefs are illogical and irrational, and once they are asked to explain the concept of a God with parts (eye, hand, leg, face) they respond with the infamous expression of paradox, to wit, "the 'how' is unknown" (Al-Kayfu Majhuul).

Your above statement is murky. Muslims are least likely to attack the creeds of other religons. When they talk about the creeds of other religons, they talk about what Islam has taught them. I have done some googling about articles or works done by the so-called muslim apologists; I have found none. Perhaps you could furnish the works of some of the Many you have talked about.

[xiinfaniin]

@This is another clear reason why it is utterly naive to say that logic has bounds.

 

Logic has limits, indeed! The notion that logic is the ultimate tool to decode the essence of God is fallacious in nature. It erroneously makes the logicians the final arbiters in delivering the verdict of every disputed matter, even in issues beyond their knowledge!

 

Alas, it’s the quirk of fate (I suppose) for our fellow philosopher to accuse others with ill righteousness while raising a voice cracked with emotions!

[STOIC]

^^^^^

[Mutakalim]

Xiinfaniin: Perhaps I need to clarify the context of this reply, as my reply in the Islamic section was met with dogmatic vengenence.

 

This is a reply that was written by a Nomad addressing our puppet Christian nomad.

 

According to celestial mathematics, one times three is one, and three times one is three...[this is the most] idiotic and illogical concept a person can have.

 

Now you see, one cannot challenge christians on logical grounds (by arguing that three and one are not the same) while one himself is a vessel of illogicality. Granted, a christian cannot answer the query as to how a God can have a finite form (God the Son, Jesus, was limted spatio-temporally), and at the same time possess the attribute of infinitude. The axiom of non contradiction (مبدا عدم التناقض) is enough to confute the most fundemental of christian beliefs.

 

However, can a "muslim" believe in a god that has parts (hand, face, shin, eye) and then accuse a christians of illogicality. If the muslim replies with the much riduculed notion of "the-how-is-unknown", then what makes you think that the chrisitan cannot use this same "expression of paradox" when challenged on logical grounds. A christian could easily answer that God is one and three, and three and one but the "Kayf is Majhuul".

 

If you draw bounds for logic, then proponents for every religion can draw bounds; this will bring to a halt any intellectual discussions on religion as every proponent will claim ridiculous beliefs such as a "created and uncreated", "composed", or even "an existing but non-existing " God. Of course, the answer of such proponents when challenged intellectually will be, "the how is unknown".

 

With Salaams

PK

[Haddad]

Originally posted by Mutakallim:

Perhaps I need to clarify

Perhaps, your this topic and clarification makes little or no logic.

[Mutakalim]

وكم من عائب قولا صحيحا

واÙته من الÙهم السقيم

 

Why do some dogmatists accuse Christians of idiocy and illogicality when the beliefs of the dogmatists are equally illogical? Is not this the epitome of intellectual chicanery?

 

The belief in a God that is simultaneously the Creator and the Created and a God with parts (hand, face, eye) are equally illogical. Why does one think he/she is justified in espousing the latter but not the former.

 

Can a muslim employ the "argument from paradox"--AlKayfu Majuul. If yes, then what will stop people of every faith from employing the same expression of paradox. When you ask a christian about Incarnation, he/she will reply "AlKayfu Majuul". The dogmatist perhaps thinks that only muslims are allowed to espouse paradoxical beliefs (e.g. a God that has parts). Nonsense.

 

At the risk of sounding redundant, I shall say that it is counter-intuitive to selectively apply logic to other religons.

 

1. Chrisitan Belief: God is finite and infinite, created and uncreated. (necessary consequences of Incarnation)

 

2.Muslim Belief: A God with parts (hand, face, eye).

 

The beliefs of the christian are, needless to say, in dire want of logic, but what about the belief of this particular muslim?

 

If God has parts (eye, hand, face), then the parts are either infinite or finite. If the parts are infinite, then we run into the problem of "multiple infinites". For instance, if there are two distinct parts (i.e. a face and a hand), then we have two infinite parts, and as such two Gods. If the parts are not distinct, then God cannot have a face and a hand. Does he have a combination of both, a face-hand? Is God a face-hand, or does God have a face-hand?(هل لله يد ام هو يد؟) If God is not a face-hand, then God has a face hand; that is, there is an infinite God, and an infinite face hand. Which one is God? Both? On the other hand, if God has finite parts, then God is finite because he is composed of finite parts. When you add a finite numbers of chocolate you get a finite number of chocolates, not an infinite number of chocolates. In like manner, the aggregate of finite parts, is a finite whole.

 

The dastardly dogmatist will perhaps retort: you are comparing God to other things. We do not know how the parts are related to Allah, or if, indeed, the parts are Him. The Kayf is Majhuul. To which the christian can just as well reply, God the Son existed before he existed, or God the Son existed before he was created; the Kayf, as it were, is unintelligible.

 

With Salaams

PK

[Haddad]

Originally posted by Mutakallim:

Why

Those whys make no sense. For one, the poster of this topic has failed to define the term Many, or provide some works/links of the Many so-called muslim apologists. The poster has given the misguided impression of the existence of Many so-called muslim apologists who habitually attack the creeds of other religons. I have searched Google, but failed to find some works/links of the Many so-called muslim apologists. From the poster's failure to provide some works/links of the Many so-called muslim apologists, we can deduce this illogical topic might be something akin to a waste of space and time.

[xiinfaniin]

Mutakallim;

The two last posts of yours are praiseworthy; the first injects a useful clarification as to why you penned to what amounted to flushing rats out of the woodwork of sort and the latter provides a rational defense to that preferred (I assume) theological position (an established School, I may add) of yours and fortifies it with bunkers of logic and reason.

 

Let me say on the outset, that if one bases his theological argument on sheer reasoning and logic then one would be bounded to adhere to the rules of logic and therefore accept its verdict.

 

On the other hand, it’s not an idiocy to concede to the very inept human intellect as it relates to the essence of God; His attributes, whereabouts, and why He does things the way He does. That’s a knowledge we don’t have. To claim it is unbelieving, to deny it is doubting, and to accept as it’s is the correct way to go about it. لا تأويل ولا تعطيل

 

P.S: I hope you're not solemn about your Christian-Muslim analogy.

[Sophist]

The most contumelious post ever to be posted on this site; it shows the author's knowledge of Islamic theology is nothing short of callow.

[Mutakalim]

Haddaad :- I would suggest that your research be more than mere "googling". If you want to conduct your research online, then you must, minimally, search the catalogues of the online libraries of islamic universities. It is most unread, good Hadaad, to use online search engines (google, yahoo, alta vista etc.) as the sole means of "research". Intaa waa afeef mawduucana haka leexan adeer

 

In any given month, islamic universities publish thousands of treatises or Rasaa'il on Aqaa'id (Islamic doctrines), Fiqh (Jurisprudence), Akhlaq (Moral constitution) and the like. Among the published treatises are "dialectics" on the tenets of Islamic and Christian theology. What irks me is the duplicity of authors who claim that christian or Buddhist beliefs are to be rejected because such beliefs are "false" or "illogical" while they adopt equally contradictory beliefs. Why should not a christian believe in a created God if you believe in a composed God?

 

1. قواعد الرد على النصارى -جمعا ودراسة

محمد نور عبدالله

Madeenah Al-Munawwarah Library Catalogue. You must read this treatise to see how laughable are the arguments of the author.

 

2. المسيحية والعقل

ابراهيم بشار

ÙŽQatar University Libaray Catalogue. I am familair with Ibrahim Bashar because I have read another treastise he has written on "comparative religion". The treatise as you shall find out is bloated with fallacious arguments.

 

Of course, you can always read the hollow writings of Ibn Taymiyyah and his desciple, Ibn Al-Qayyim on Christianty. Almost all the writings of these men are available on the Niche Library "Maktabah Mishkaah Al-Islamiyyah".

 

4.الرد على اليهود والنصارى

لابن تيمية

الجواب الصحيح لمن بدل دين المسيح

لابن تيمية

 

Both these works are available on the Niche Library. Ibn Taymiyyah uses the language of logic by calling christian beliefs "illogical", "contradictory" and "impossible". Logic, according to the Sheikh of Islam, only applies to other religon. Islam need not be logical at all.

 

5.هداية الحيارى ÙÙŠ أجوبة اليهود والنصارى

ابن الاقيم

 

You need not read Ibn Qayyim's book in its entirety. I shall only direct your attention to two chapters: i) Christians believe in a Christ who does not exist and ii) Christians are dogmatists.

 

Xiinfaniin :- The belief in a God who is three in one is acceptable if the belief in a God with parts is acceptable (hand, eye, shin). You cannot challenge a christian, or for that matter any person of a non islamic denomination, on grounds of logic, if you are going to pronounce that your "God is above reason". The christian conception of God is above reason; hence He is created and uncreated. Is this a contradiction? Well, this is the bound of reason. Do not apply logic to the christian God if you will not apply logic to your God.

 

How do I know which belief to espouse? Shall I base it upon my sentiments, or shall I perchance adhere to the precepts of my upbrininging. انا وجدنا ءابانا على امة وانا على ءاثارهم مهتدون

 

Tell me, good Xiinfaniin, with what tool do we distinguish the various concepts of deities if not with logic. If every concept of God is "above logic", then it is impossible to tell which one is correct. Why choose one over the other?

 

The analogy between islamic and christian beliefs is not, in all honesty, the product my own meditation. In his polemical Risaalah, Al-Iqtisaadu Fil Ictiqaad , Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali, the Ashari theologian, , writes that the claims of different religons are equally acceptable if there is no Reason . A belief in a created God is not anymore far fetched than a belief in a God with a hand and leg. We shall tell the christians and others, he says, that our notion of God is correct, because it is logical. If logic is not applied, a person can concieve of a God who is three in one or a God with multiple parts- ad infinitum. With no use of logic, a person would be left to guess which is the correct conception.

 

Sophist:- Walaal, miyaad garaneeysaa wuxuu Shariif Rida ku yidhi gocorkii caayay

 

وللحلم اوقات وللجهل مثلها

ولكن ايامي الى الحلم اقرب

يصول علي الجاهلون واعتلي

ويعجم ÙÙ‰ القائلون واعرب

لساني حصاة يقرع الجهل بالحجا

اذا نال مني العاضة المتوثب

ولست براض ان تمس عزائمي

Ùضالات ما يعطي الزمان ويسلب

غرائب اداب حباني بحÙظها

زماني وصر٠الدهر نعم المؤدب

[Sophist]

Xaasha Afkeyka cey kama timaado!;

 

Laakiin Adigu magaraneysaa Jawaabtii Cali Dhuux markii ugu jawaabey Aadan Carab:

 

Cad haduu Carada kaaga dhaco amase ciidoobo

Caqli nimuu kuweynyahay macuno Calafka qaarkiise

Aniga Aadan Carab waa iga ceynkaas e.

[Mutakalim]

^^^Qubxan liwajihka Yaa Zamaanu!

 

Qalbigaa dabool laga geshaa duul hadduu lumo e

Ruuxii damiin ahi qalbiga waa ka daar xidhane

 

Adan Arab himself did not expend energy in addressing those sham personalities. His response to the pretender (Omar Egal) to his poetic throne was thus "Qumbulad maskiin lagu ridaa maaha qeeynuune". I shall do the same. Intaa igu filan yooyootan.

 

Nomads, this thread is suppose to be an illuminating thread; if you think about the arguments presented herein, then you shall find the truth in its midst. Yaa Layta Qawmii Yaclamuun!

[Viking]

I think Mutakalim is criticizing the Literalists who claim that Allah SWT is literally sitting on a throne, has hands, a face etc. I also (like Mutakalim) find it ironic that they can criticize the illogical reasonning found in other faiths when their intepretations are in themselves very absurd! They fail to see the Mutashabihat verses for what they really are, allegorical.

[Haddad]

Originally posted by Mutakallim:

Of course, you can always read the hollow writings of Ibn Taymiyyah...

Of course, what you see isn't necessarily what others see. It's quite illogical to allege your personal finding as the finding of the many. At the very least, you should state its your own finding, or hold it so not to show a biased one.

always

The inclusion of the above term (not hollow) in your statement shows some emotion. As any logical individual is aware of, emotion makes a weak logic.

 

The prison where Ibn Taymiyyah died.