Of Dialectic and Enquiry

[Haddad]

Originally posted by Johnny B:

...hedonists...

Definition; Hedonist:

 

n : someone motivated by desires for sensual pleasures

 

I don't see where or how hedonists fit in this topic. At least the relativity theory has some application.

[Johnny B]

Originally posted by Haddad:

I don't see where or how

hedonists

fit in this topic. At least

the relativity theory

has some application.

Haddad, if you look closer, you´ll find one.

but then does it matter? i hope i´m making sense

MyPoint was , Muta( probably a legend in his own mind) has a very good point when he pointed out how some muslims reason n do apply logic ONLY to other beleifs.

 

and how HE ( Muta )could have been an attractive victim if someone challenged him using his own method.

namely reason as to why ( his hands arms etc etc ) are RELATIVE .

 

That is why i used the Hedonist example

 

I hope i´m making sense this time .

[Haddad]

Originally posted by Johnny B:

I hope i´m making sense this time .

Your elaboration made sense.

[xiinfaniin]

This shall be my last reply to this topic.

Mutakallim, intaad dhowr dhagax igu tuurtay baad gogoshiina ka kacday!

Adeer, sidaa looma doodo!

[Mutakalim]

Xiinfaniinoow, dood aan mandaq ku saleysaneyn baa ii cuntamaheyn. Bal hadal misaan leh la imow, cayaayirka ha inoo danbeeyo.

 

P.S. Should you have a bona fide interest- not a mala fide one- in the continuation of the discussion, then I shall oblige; however, you must shew your capacity for detached discourse.

 

With Salaams

PK

[xiinfaniin]

Hadal nin weyn weeye kaasi! :cool:

 

I shall now pen and show that accepting the literal meaning of Allah’s attributes is the correct theology and that logic is not applicable to validate how these attributes are! This, I warn, will be a rough ride for those immature pseudo intellectuals whose curiosity tends to snoop around Allah’s divine qualities. But in the end, it shall prove that the proper and healthy marriage between logic and revealed truth is for the first to yield to the truth and authority of the latter!

 

P.S: Mutakallimow, cayaayir sow maaheyn kii Haaji Gooni-gii Hobyood ku tilmaamay inuu yahay nin weyn shuqulki?

Rag cayaayir iyo maanso waa camaladiisiiye

Ceynaanka anigaw hayya iyo celiyeheediye

Mar haddaan callaqo looma furo cagaha dheel-dheele .

[Johnny B]

Originally posted by xiinfaniin:

I shall now pen and show that accepting the literal meaning of Allah’s attributes is the correct theology and that logic is not applicable to validate how these attributes are! This, I warn, will be a rough ride for those immature pseudo intellectuals whose curiosity tends to snoop around Allah’s divine qualities.

My first conception was to hear you out and see how you swim in the high seas of theology, then i thought it may cost him lots of brain cells to actually pen down n invent something as new as "where logic is not applicable".

There went my lights off.

Dear Xiin are there other ways and means for human beeing to precieve , understand or apprehend a thing than using their ability to form or understand mental concepts and abstractions?

 

If the answer is YES then i´ve sort of rushed into whatever you may have in store n i´ll politely lean back n look forward to it.

 

if the answer is NO , then don´t PEN down a thing becouse it´ll ONLY strengthen Mr Muta´s point.

Unless i´m out hiking all alone mr Muta is exactly comming from that angle of thought.

[xiinfaniin]

Since logic is a mere tool to study the process of reason, let us first put reason on the scale.

 

Reason on trial: bal aan iyada ku heshiinno.

 

It goes without saying that I do not quarrel with the necessity of employing reason to acquire knowledge and reach truth for if I were I wouldn’t be wasting my time to pen this rebuttal. Reason occupies a very prominent place in the human system of attaining knowledge. Without reason, man would’ve never entered in the domain of knowledge and it’s it which differentiates man from the grazing animal! The words of Allah that instruct and enjoin man to think, ponder, and contemplate had indeed not been grounded in vain. Imam Abu Hanifa, the great salafi jurist, maintained that by sheer and unaided intelligence man is perfectly capable to recognize his Creator even if Allah did not send messengers for that purpose.

 

But the ultimate and the vital questions of reason are its function and degree as it relates to faith. Is reason more fundamental than revelation? Is it the basis of truth and reality?Or is revelation the source of truth and the function of reason is mere conformation of what’s given by it? It’s in these questions where men with great authority in the science of Fiqh and Qur’an disagreed with rationalist theologians. And I therefore deem it critical for SOL nomads to know how these men refuted and repelled the intellectual lawlessness and the daring application of philosophy and its speculative guesswork to the very tenets of our faith. Islam, the salafi theologians held, is based on certain fundamental principles of faith that are incapable of rational proof. These principles must be believed in on the basis of revelation, they maintained, and NOT on mere reason. The divine Word and the truth it brings can’t submit itself to the judgment of reason; a fallible human reason that is. Reason, it follows, must be subordinated to the divine Truth. It can’t be the criterion and the standard by which ultimate judgment of faith is reached. Neither can its function be to validate the principles of faith. That’s not to strip reason from rationalizing the doctrines of Islam and its faith. But its degree must be within the bounds of Qur’an and Sunnah. It was the great Hanafi scholar and theologian al-Maturiti who disarmed the orthodox rationalists on the question of reason and revelation quite eloquently. The true nature of the human intellect, al-Maturiti pointed, is a subject for internal and external influences and it can therefore be easily obscured. As a result, he continues, reason even fails to give us true knowledge of things that are within its own sphere. Hence, reason often requires, he argues, the service of a guide and helper who will protect it from straying, lead it to the right path, help it understand delicate and mysterious affairs, and know the truth. This guide, he says, is the divine revelation received by a prophet. If anyone denies the necessity of this divine guidance through revelation and claims that reason alone is capable of giving us all the knowledge we need, he concludes, then he will certainly overburden his reason and oppress it quite unreasonably.

 

Here is where the gap between traditionalists and orthodox rationalists widens even deeper. The yawning between the two is so profound that any effort to bridge it is wasted in a sure vain. Take for instance, the conception of God and the nature of His attributes; the point of contention in this discussion. Rationalists had made capital out of their ignorance when they deemed Allah’s attributes unworthy of Him. Allah, they asserted, exists without His attributes. So Allah can’t speak and nor can He love; He did not speak to Moses nor did He take Ibrahim as His friend, they asserted! These are mortal actions, they maintained, and not suitable for Him. No hands, no face and no feet, they said. If Allah had possessed limps and sat on the Throne, they reasoned, He must be possessed of spatial character and subjected to division! A composite God, they declared, that’s in clear contradiction with the concept of tanziih. But it is plain obvious that the zeal of rationalists had indeed destroyed the personality of God and reduced Him to a bare indefinable and impersonal God; an abstract unity whose attributes is divested of Him. The ship of their thought, so to say, had drifted on un-chartered seas of reason. And this (the indefinable God) is the result, as Nadawi would put it, of random thoughts and haphazard conclusions based on few sketchy notes and incomplete hints!

 

Ibnu Taymiyya, the great theologian and salafi jurist pointed out that the choice is not between composite God and abstract One, rather, he suggested, it is between following the tradition of the Prophet and his companion and deviating from it! The tradition of the Prophet and early Muslims, Ibnu Taymiyya says, is to ascribe to Allah His attributes without asking how, and without drawing analogy, or making alterations, or divesting Him of His attributes. In the final analysis, the Sheikh-al-Islam concludes, one can only say about Allah what He said of Him self and that which His messenger said about Him. The final questions of faith had been settled by the divine Word of God and it’s unwise to labor the obvious and dispute that which is right and truth. God has names and attributes that best fit His Majesty. "There is nothing like Him" and His difference is in kind, and not in degree. I have to note that the Sheikh-al-Islam reserved his harshest words for Aristotelian philosophers who committed blunders in the name of knowledge and reason. His Kitab al-Radd ala al-Mantiqiyyiin attests to his authority on the subject of philosophy and demonstrates his talents to meet philosophers on their ground.

 

Tahawi, the Hanafi jurist and the great theologian, maintained the tradition of our prophet must be upheld. Allah, he writes, ‘has always existed together with His attributes since before creation.’ And ‘so He will remain,’ Tahawi continues, ‘throughout endless times.’

Needless to say that Allah’s attributes is totally unlike that of human beings. A man’s Islam, Imam Tahawi writes, is not secured unless it is based on submission and surrender. Any one who desires to know things which is beyond his capacity, Tahawi adds, and whose intellect is not content with surrender, will find that his desire veils him from a pure understanding of Allah’s True Unity. This is a sheer intellectual lawlessness whose result is veer between confirmation and denial and accepting and rejection; a position full of confusion and doubt.

 

And so I can safely argue that faith is based on revelation. Revelation is the source of truth. A Muslim who believes in the literal meaning of Allah’s attributes without delving how is not irrational at all. To equate this article of faith with that of trinity is ridiculously wrong.

 

Muttakalim, as you attempt to demolish my argument, would I see you choose sagacity over artfulness and righteousness over intellectual arrogance. A word of caution, which if heeded could steer this discussion to its correct path.

 

Compiled by Miskiin Xiinfaniin.

[Johnny B]

Dear Xiin , before i dive into the subject and find "reason" NOT GUILTY , i´d like to clarify a concept that i found fundmental to keep the debate on this level and maybe heighten ( or degrade, depending on how you see it ) it a little bit,

ofcourse without loosing the thread .

 

I find few un-chewed concepts in your accusations against "reason".

Fisrt, you make it clear that "Reason" is on trail becouse of it´s FUNCTION and DEGREE as it relates to FAITH Hence , you defined the rule of engagement , regardless how relevant THAT is.

It is so tempteing to STOP right there and ask you

" What reasons have you, to put (REASON) on trail ?"

 

Anyhow, let us roll down on that path and folllow it all the way.

 

Now diving into it .( oooooooooh mama , somebody STOP me )

As you concluded, after the philosophical stand points of some schools of thoughts,

your arguments backbone seems to be

(Reason is not the tool to validate or verify a truth (FAITH)obtained through revelation )

If my assumption is wrong , everything i type from here down is nothing but misplaced REASON .

 

and hopefully by this you meant Logic is not applicable here becouse that is supposed to be the trigger .

 

Now dear mine , Human beeings are at the top of the chain of food for a good reason ,

 

1: 1 X( times) 3 = 3 is TRUE becouse 1+1+1 = 3 -----> rationalist theologians

2: 1 X(times) 3 = 3 is TRUE becouse it is revealed ------> science of Fiqh and Qur’an

 

Both of the abouve statements actually STRENGTHEN the importance of reasoning,NOT degrade it to a mere tool of conformation to the 2nd revealing statement.

But then which of the statement st TRUE,right ,correct,acuurate or divine TRUTH is simply irrelevant as far as "REASON" is concerned

therefore "REASON" is not guilty .

 

al-Maturiti ´s point , that "REASON is subject for internal and external influences so it can therefore be easily obscured. and as a result , REASON fails to give us true knowledge of things" actually underlines the fact that "reason" is the SOLE engine we drive to reach knowledge and it´s number of horses and cylinders are simply irrelivant.

What is TRUE for you is not necceserily TRUE for others becouse of influences ,--> becouse of OTHER "reasons ",.

To wrap it, there may be diffrent reasons, good ones , bad ones and last but not least UNKNOWN ones , but there are ALWAYS reasons,i,e --------> LOGIC is applicable.--> i argue

Call it intellectual lawlessness or structured intellegence, naming is of trivality here

 

Now back to the Red thread.

Faith is not against reason as it may seem to some , Faith is the ULTIMATE truth gained trough relevant or irrelevant reasoning, disclosure or revelation.

You have FAITH in Allah becouse you are convinced (through reasoning ) that he is cabable of doing anything., including talking , sitting etc tec .

 

Now reasoning against the christians and trinity and proving them wrong rationally requires nothing less than having FAITH .and a solid ground to stand on, applying the same rationality on your religion requires a deep knowledge of your religion based on logic .

 

And so I can safely argue that faith is based on revelation. Revelation is the source of truth. A Muslim who believes in the literal meaning of Allah’s attributes without delving how is not irrational at all. To equate this article of faith with that of trinity is ridiculously wrong.

Very TRUE , But that Muslim is neither less rational nor is he more rational than the Christian who has faith in trinity.

It is not a matter of comparision , As i see it , it is a matter of reasoning .

If your Muslim can use the "how' is unknown" as a Rational base for Allah having hands etc etc , denying the christian the same right to bleed "how is unknown" when challenged in trinity is theologically unholding .

[xiinfaniin]

JB,

 

Re-read my post saaxiib and answer the vital question I posted:which is more fundamental (reason or revelation)as a source of knowledge?

1-if you answer reason, then I should tend to your incoherent writing.

 

2-if you answer revelation, then we have both profited from the pouring rain of that heavenly cloud and you shoud modify your writing to reflect that conviction.

 

Inaad garta muslimka iyo masiixiga gasho waxaa ka horreeya in miqyaaska wax lagu cabirayo laysku raaco. For now, that's all for you old boy!

[Johnny B]

Xiin

Jikartanku ha no dambeyo sxb

Have i elevated it too high ? lemme break it down as you seem to prefer it shallow?

 

Mr Muta´s point as i understood it was reason was used and logic was applied ,disproving Christians n trinity by some Muslims "scholars",but abandoned when it comes to Islam n Allah´s attributes, i.e " 'how' is UNKNOWN" comes into scene.

That precieved ,Your angle of view was accepting Allah´s attributes literally is the correct theology.

in another words " 'how' is UNKNOWN " is justified according to you ,i.e Muslims are entitled to take the attributes "as is "and not question by reasoning or applying logic becouse true knowledge can ONLY be acheived through "revelation, and logic is not applicable there"

 

By penning down the peeks of some schools of thoughs ,you shallowed it even more , you canceled logic as a mere tool ,n put reason on trail , even though that per se was a questionable approach ,as it won´t entitle the " 'how' is unknown " to Muslims only

I found "reason" NOT guilty of all charges , by providing 2 "incoherent" simple examples , n i´ve proved that reason (known or unknown) is merely the tool to justify an action or an event .and it´s irrelevant or relative if that given reasom is correct,true,etc etc

 

1 X 3 = 3 ----(reason)-----> becouse 1+1+1 = 3 .

1 X 3 = 3-----( reason) ----> becouse NGONGE revealed it to me ( very far from a divine revelation )

 

Now you are leading us into a narrow bath by asking :

Which is more fundmental "Reason or Revelation" as a source of knowledge(knowledge a totally diffrent term)

If you think any of the 2 offered options i choose ( i´ll answer) will address Mutakalim´s point , then you´re falling far behind the expectations.

Now let me answer your question.

First , the Key word in the question is fundmental , which presumes that both terms are somehow applicable but one is a MUST,more important , more correct or more suitable than the other.

Second, The term Knowledge is not synonymous to TRUTH, revealed or not.

Nonetheless, let me answer the question as stated ,

i say BOTH

becouse ( and this time i demand a lil more effort to understand my "incoherent" example abouve.

The first statement teachs me that the result is 3 becouse of the reason given( 1+1+1= 3)

The 2nd statement teachs me that the result is 3 becouse Ngonge says so

 

remember, it is irrelevant and relative for that matter if NGONGE revealed the wrong or right result ,as long as i gained the knowledge( true or not ), neither will it´ll be less correct JUST becouse Ngonge revealed it ( divine revelation is of diffrent and higher level but still a revelation ).

Hence , i carry my umbrella as it rains heavenly in Georgia and enjoy my intellectual lawlessness on sunny days as rational bikini babes get loose.

 

Now, can we woe Mutakalim back to the scene and ask if any of us have presuaded him to use his umbrella?

P/S , what does "miqyaaska" mean? horse boi , coulden´t find in the dictionary

[NGONGE]

^^^Though I see and almost agree with your argument, Johnny (pending Xiin’s reply), I find your style vulgar and infuriating, saaxib. It’s as if you revel in your coarseness.

[Johnny B]

[QOUTE]

It’s as if you revel in your coarseness.

Very true my dear NGONGE, I wanted to deny any involvement in her loosing virginity, but i feel caught red handed

You know what my idol said when accused of lacking in delicacy .

"Lsiten mister, maybe you can be nice and sweet all the time , but THAT ain´t my style "

 

On a serious note NGONGE, I´ve deliberately avoided any sort of finement or delicacy in my texture for the simple reason that , earlier Xiin warned for a rough ride for those immature pseudo intellectuals.

Pretty daring , kina superheroing ,slightly flaunting ,woulden´t you say ?

i.e The vulagar style is called for

 

I don´t think Xiin peeled the Banana as presented by Mutakalim ,

he rather questioned the concept on diffrent grounds ,no thunder no lightnings .

 

And as long as you almost agree with me , i don´t mind revelting in my OWN coarseness.

[xiinfaniin]

Mutakalim, excuse the playful exchanges between us (I and JB).

 

JB, How could you answer both? You seem to have missed the point of my argument (I am not arguing against reason per se) and created a dummy arguer instead. Do you not realize that clash between the two is inevitable and frankly obvious? When that happens (I am lowering the level of this discussion as I am stating the obvious here) wouldn’t you be forced to give precedence and primacy one of the two? Which one would you consider to be fitting to have that dominance was my question, good JB.

 

The reason I reverted to argue from this angel is because good Mutakalim tried to tell us that Micraaj was graspable and possible! It was astonishing event that defied the unaided human intelligence, I thought!

 

Think again saaxiib (I know you can do it) and give me some thing plausible rather than conveniently saying both, old boy.

 

Miqyaas ---> yardstick or scale

 

P.S. NGONGE, I found very hard to believe that you agree with JB's!

[Jamster]

How incredible this is?

 

Is revelation the ultimate source of metaphysical knowledge or reason is?

 

Answer that question first and then challenge Xiin finiin mr JB.