Of Dialectic and Enquiry

[NGONGE]

لامية شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية

رحمه الله تعالى

 

 

 

 

يا سَائÙلي عَنْ مَذْهَبÙÙŠ وعَقيدَتÙÙŠ رÙزÙÙ‚ÙŽ الهÙدى مَنْ Ù„ÙلْهÙداية٠يَسْأَل

اسمَعْ كَلامَ Ù…ÙحَقّÙÙ‚Ù Ùـي قَولÙـه لا يَنْثَنـي عَنـه٠ولا يَتَبَـدَّل

Ø­Ùبّ٠الصَّحابَة٠كÙلّÙÙ‡Ùمْ لي مَذْهَبٌ وَمَوَدَّة٠القÙرْبى بÙهـا أَتَوَسّـل

ÙˆÙŽÙ„ÙÙƒÙلّÙÙ‡Ùمْ قَدْرٌ ÙˆÙŽÙَضْلٌ ساطÙعٌ لكÙنَّمـا الصّÙديـق٠مÙنْهÙـمْ Ø£ÙŽÙْضَـل

وأÙÙ‚Ùرّ٠بÙالقÙرآن٠ما جاءَتْ بÙـهً آياتÙـه٠ÙÙŽÙ‡Ùـوَ القَديـم٠المÙنْـزَلÙ

وجميع٠آيات٠الصّÙÙات٠أÙÙ…ÙرّÙها حَقاً كما نَقَـلَ الطّÙـراز٠الأَوَّلÙ

وأَرÙدّ٠عÙقْبَتَها إلى Ù†ÙقَّالÙها وأصونÙهـا عـن ÙƒÙـلّ٠مـا ÙŠÙتَخَيَّـلÙ

Ù‚Ùبْحاً Ù„Ùمَنْ نَبَذَ الكّÙتابَ وراءَه٠وإذا اسْتَدَلَّ يقول٠قالَ الأخطَـلÙ

والمؤمنون يَرَوْنَ حقاً ربَّهÙمْ وإلى السَّماء٠بÙغَيْر٠كَيْÙ٠يَنْـزÙÙ„Ù

وأÙÙ‚Ùر٠بالميزان٠والحَوض٠الذي أَرجو بأنّÙÙŠ Ù…Ùنْه٠رَيّـاً أَنْهَـلÙ

وكذا الصّÙراط٠يÙمَدّ٠Ùوقَ جَهَنَّم٠ÙÙŽÙ…ÙوَحّÙدٌ نَـاج٠وآخَـرَ Ù…ÙهْمÙـلÙ

والنَّار٠يَصْلاها الشَّقيّ٠بÙØ­Ùكْمَة٠وكذا التَّقÙيّ٠إلى الجÙنَان٠سَيَدْخÙÙ„Ù

ولÙÙƒÙلّ٠حَيّ٠عاقل٠ÙÙŠ قَبـرÙه٠عَمَـلٌ ÙŠÙقارÙÙ†Ùـه٠هنـاك ÙˆÙŽÙŠÙسْـأَلÙ

هذا اعتقاد٠الشاÙÙعيّ٠ومالك٠وأبي حنيÙـةَ ثـم أحمـدَ يَنْقÙـلÙ

ÙØ¥Ùن٠اتَّبَعْتَ سبيلَهÙمْ ÙÙŽÙ…ÙوَحّÙدٌ وإن٠ابْتَدَعْتَ Ùَمـا عَلَيْـكَ Ù…Ùعَـوَّلًًًً

Source

 

I’ve posted this poem on the site a while back but I think it’s more appropriate on this discussion. Kindly note that this poem was posted merely for my and your amusement and is not an affirmation of my position on this topic! What is more, there is a line in the poem that specifically mocks those that quote poets to support their arguments in similar topics!

[Haddad]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

this poem

Somehow, the Arabic letters appear to be disjoined*, even when enlarged:

 

يا سَائÙلي عَنْ مَذْهَبÙÙŠ وعَقيدَتÙÙŠ

 

However, when I use this keyboard, the result is clearer:

 

يا سائلي عن مذهبي و عقيدتي

 

*It appears to be disjoined under the platform I am running, not Windows.

 

[Mutakalim]

Ù‚Ùبْحاً Ù„Ùمَنْ نَبَذَ الكّÙتابَ وراءَهÙ** وإذا اسْتَدَلَّ يقول٠قالَ الأخطَـلÙ

 

War yaad warankan u dan leedahay

 

Perhaps relating the story of the Dufayli is germane at this juncture.

 

نظر Ø·Ùيلي الى قوم ذاهبين Ùلم يشك انهم ÙÙŠ دعوة ذاهبون

الى وليمة, Ùقام وتبعهم. Ùاذا شعراء قد قصدوا السلطان بمدائح لهم. Ùلما انشد كل واحد شعره, واخذ جائزته, لم ييق الا الطÙيلي وهو جالس ساكت, Ùقال له: انشد شعرك. Ùقال: لست بشاعر. قيل: Ùمن انت؟ قال:من الذين قال الله تعالى ÙÙŠ حقهم: والشعراء يتبعهم

الغاوون.Ùضحك السلطان وامر له بجائزة الشعراء

 

Now you see, in my salad days, like the Dufayli, I perversely followed the literary creations of arabic, somali, and english poets. Though I learned later on, that the poet is a source of awe and perchance inspiration, and not a source of truth. Know the men by the truth, and not the truth by the men, I was told.

 

I do not believe any of the contributors to this thread have quoted poets to support an argument, but some have expressed ill conceieved remarks which necissatated the use of the prowess of poetry to better instruct them.

 

As regards the Lamiyyah of Ibn Taymiyyah, I will say that Subuki, the Shafi' Jurist and theologian, in his طبقات الشاÙعية , has related a poetic rebuttal to both Ibn Taymiyyah's "L poem" and Ibn Al-Qayyim's "N Poem",(نونية ابن الاقيم). Subki initiates the poem by saying:

 

كذب ابن Ùاعلة يقول لجهله

الله جسم ليس كالجسمان

لو كان جسما كان كالاجسام يا

مجنون Ùاصدع وعد عن البهتان

 

I shall post both Ibn Al-Qayyim's "N poem" and Subki's poetic rebuttal in thier entirety, if He so wills.

 

With Salaams

PK

[NGONGE]

^^^^ Heh. I fear you misunderstood my words, saaxib. The line in the poem that I alluded to (and you quoted) was not aimed at any of the poetic stanzas you’ve posted. I purely mentioned it so as Nomads don’t mistake my input as an agreement with Sheikh-el-Islam’s position. For to quote him as a defence for my argument will only go against his own assertion in the poem (قال الاخطل)!

 

The topic, though stimulating and thought provoking, is also perilously thorny. The questions you’ve posed, whilst being valid and in desperate need of logical and rational answers, are not likely to receive proportionate treatment either way (agreement or rebuttal).

 

My deficient and lax knowledge on the subject fills me with shame; therefore I shall not (for the time being) wade in with any half cooked arguments or instinctive viewpoints.

 

It’s very possible that your opinion here is wrong. It’s also probable that the logic you speak of does have limitations. Still, you’ve stated your standpoint in an eloquent and coherent manner, yet, received the usual disparaging replies! Now, in order for this to become a real debate, those disagreeing with you will have to bring forth something more substantial than simple brush-offs. Alas, I suspect that none will be forthcoming and that your questions are not likely to ever be fully engaged on this site. Caution will always overrule curiosity, saaxib.

 

As a result, while you wait for this debate to blossom, how about giving us (the ‘us’ is a royal one) a more detailed take on the subject at hand. That way, if no debate ever materialises, we’ll at least have your unchallenged lecture on the dialectics of enquiry in relation to this topic.

[Haddad]

This name:

Originally posted by Mutakallim:

Subuki

and this one:

Subki

are of two distinct names? If so or not, this topic suffers/will suffer from typos that could lead some readers to confusion.

[checkmate]

^

 

 

asxantu

[Sophist]

I shall respond to this topic and show the apocryphal nature of my brother Mutakalim’s assertions. Insha Allah, I will do so tomorrow evening or early Wednesday (I have a viva tomorrow and I should study for that) morning.

 

 

Till then, let pseudo-logic rein in this thread.

[Baashi]

Looking forward to read ur piece Sophist. Sxb here is a quick recap (first post) from my part. Mutakalim made three points:

 

1. Those who embrace contradictory notions of God are not in a position to point finger at other religion’s conception of God. Of all the debate tools available to them, they cannot make use of logic. To do that is intellectual debauchery. [Agreed. But watch where he goes with it]

 

2. Muslims (or some Muslims) believe in a Composite God. Believe in a “Composite God†is a contradictory notion in itself. Hence, "some" Muslims cannot refute the Trinity on a rational basis. In the final analysis, they are two sides of the same coin. [Agreed. But I question the use of the designation given to “Muslim†in the paragraph - Do Muslims believe in “Composite God� I would not engage any further discussion unless this point is clarified. Are we talking about some obscure miniroty firqa within Islam or Islam as we know it?]

 

3. Logic has no limitations. Anyone who entertains the understanding that logic has limitation is a naïve. [Disagreed! logic is a tool to analyze data and arguments and it has its limitations]

[xiinfaniin]

I was about to post a lengthy piece about the theological positions of Ahlu-sunnah-wal-Jamah on this very issue based on Immamu Tahawi’s famous work---it’s believed to be one of the best theological work written in the blessed period of the Salaf-a-Saalih. BUT I have to wait Sophist’s take on this!

 

I have to say though, Mutakalim is not presenting new argument here, he’s basically recycling an old and worn out theological argument that had been eloquently addressed by the Mulsim theologians.

 

All he’s doing is to brandish the theology of Ta’wiil and Ta’diil and I suspect he doesn’t mind Tafwiil as well. I liked the topic though, as it has the potential to be an educating one provided we all show some civility in this discussion and restrain from the mere name calling.

[-Serenity-]

^ Thats asking too much. Lets just hope no1 borders on blasphemy.. or just ask bad - passing such judgement 'cause you dont agree with the person.

 

Interesting topic.

[Mutakalim]

ليهلك من هلك عن بينة ويحيى من حي عن بينة

 

Nomads,

 

The purpose of this thread is not to compare and contrast the various theological positions of the Ahlu Sunnah, because perusing the books of Shaharstani (الملل والنحل) and Al-Baghdadi (الÙرق بين الÙرق) would be sufficient in this regard; the query of this thread, however, is fundementally foundational. In the next fortnight, I shall start a thread explicating, on a grand scale, the meaning and legitimacy of religous doctrines. It is a general theory of religion that the perspicacious amongst you shall find immediately agreeable.

 

With Salaams

PK

[xiinfaniin]

What did you have in mind, sxb? When you belittled the logic behind accepting Allah’s attributes as they are and with their literal meaning and, worse yet, equated it with that fabricated myth of trinity, haven’t you challenged us all to defend that theological approach?

 

This thread is about the clash between those who chose subverted logic to defend Allah and those who chose the bounds of revealed knowledge and maintained that imaginations cannot reach Him (to paraphraseTahawi), nor can the intellects understand Him. The attributes of Allah are what they are and we are indeed in a great intellectual deficit to describe it. But that does not mean to deny it nor does it compel us to interpret it to some thing that’s closer to our imagination. In his invaluable theological work, Fiqhul Akbar, Abu Haneefah writes:

 

He has knowledge, but His knowledge is not like our knowledge.., And He sees but it’s not similar to our sight.

 

 

So tell us saaxiib, how is it that you became so convinced that literal meaning of Allah’s attributes is the epitome of intellectual chicanery?

[Mutakalim]

كل يدعي وصلا بليلى***وليلى لا تقر لهم بذاك

 

Nomads,

 

In response to a rhetorical question of the "identity" of God, which I had posed to an old freind of mine today, whilst on our weekly walk, as is our esteemed peripatetic tradtion, he said, "were it not for the rational glorification (Tanzih 'Aqli) of God, then it would be possible to espouse any conception of God". God could be Jesus, the Sun, or the Moon, or any of the other various notions of diety.

 

Be that as it may, Ibn Taymiyyah, who has written extensively about theology, shall tell you that God has a hand, and a face; intellectual conundrums ought not arise because His Majesty is above logic. Fayaa lillaahi al-cajab! That God has not a body (جسم), substance(جوهر), accident (عرض)and like descriptions are necessary postulates for a transcendent God.

 

Yeeynaan runta ka sineysan . It is an exercise in duplicity to allude to sayings of scholars without adequate substantiation and explication.

 

The arguments that I have penned have not been addressed much less confuted. At the risk of sounding dogmatically certain, I do not expect to read any counter-arguments. Now, why do I waste my time penning polemical posts with the knowledge that the audience is ill equipped to apprehend it? Well, good Nomads, the rationale behind these posts is to force the ignorant but intelligent persons of these fora to ruminate, read, and ratiocinate about the validity and legitimacy of their most cherished axioms and beliefs.

 

With Salaams

PK

[Haddad]

Originally posted by Mutakallim:

...shall tell you...

According to your personal understanding? What if the understanding of the many about Ibn Taymiyyah and his works is different from yours? For those who aren't familiar with Ibn Taymiyyah and his works, you have already decided for them that his is hollow; what's the logic of going into details about shall tell you? Logic dictates hollow should be sufficient.

[NGONGE]

^^^

 

 

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.

The quote above is what you’re referring to. To my mind, it’s a perfectly clear statement. After all, the author started this thread to berate Muslims that apply logic when refuting other beliefs while they themselves reject that same logic when it questions their own contradictory beliefs! He drew our attention to an issue of great dispute in Islamic theology, a topic that has been addressed by many scholars and philosophers (it really is not Mutakalim’s invention, saaxib).

 

I’ll admit my failing here and hold my tongue from taking part in the actual debate. Still, it will be highly entertaining, amusing and educational to watch others attempting to crush the author’s contention and presenting us with another (fairly logical) point of view. This, I would hope, is what the Camel Milk Debate section is all about.

 

 

According to your personal understanding? What if the understanding of the many about Ibn Taymiyyah and his works is different from yours? For those who aren't familiar with Ibn Taymiyyah and his works, you have already decided for them that his is hollow; what's the logic of going into details about shall tell you? Logic dictates hollow should be sufficient.

You do have an endearing habit of stating the obvious, saaxib. Right now, and on the strength of his previous posts on this topic, his ‘personal view’ is the only logical thing on this thread. Care to challenge it?