historical developement of Jesus and afterlife
Zeeshan Hasan
Just a note to say that my new article, 'Jesus and the development of
afterlife' is now at http://www.liberalislam.net/jesus.html
The article examines the work of modern Biblical scholars who see
ideas of judgement and resurrection evolving in the context of a
movement called 'apocalypticism'. Most likely the original message of
Jesus was an apocalyptic message.
The significance of these results of religious scholarship for Muslims
is discussed.
Zeeshan
--
A Liberal Islamic Web Site
http://www.liberalislam.net
CooolBreeeze
> Salaam,
>
> Just a note to say that my new article, 'Jesus and the development of
> afterlife' is now at http://www.liberalislam.net/jesus.html
COMMENT:
You contemplate only the correctness of your biblical sources and
discount the Holy Quran, the Words of Allah. That is a typical
approach for a christian. If you are christian, I need not bother
with further discussion: you are right from your side and I am right
from mine. Your attitude and conclusions are what I'd expect a
christian to say.
Have you ever considered for, say a minute or so, that they writers or
witnesses of those bible stories did not understand their own
positions or are prejudiced or tainted? That the followers of Jesus
were rebuked for being faithless and not understanding though Jesus
was right there in front of them. They all, if indeed they actually
wrote it, 30 to 100 years after Jesus. The chances for mutation are
great. Paul, wrote 14 of 27 books of the New Testament, who never
spent a single day with Jesus, all on his own testimony and witness.
Yet you quote him favoring his words over that of the Holy Quran.
Why?
Maybe they are much like the elementary classroom situations where a
single sentence mutates in the end very differently from what it
starts. I have actually done those experiments, several times. They
mutate 100% of the time. Are your words better than Allah's or his
prophet s.a.w.?
Muhammad s.a.w., I'll take my own assumption for the muslim side, was
illiterate and extremely unworldly, as evidenced in his own speech and
habits, and was told what to say and do. That is his forte for
comparison's sake. All stances of the Quran are God's work not His
human vessel, that is clearly the intent and Glory of the Holy Quran.
You compare biblical stories over the Holy Quran? Why? I would not
blame a christian for doing that for in ignorance it is expected.
Zeeshan Hasan
> COMMENT:
>
> You contemplate only the correctness of your biblical sources and
> discount the Holy Quran, the Words of Allah.
Thanks for your feedback. I hope the additional concluding remarks I
have just added will make my position clearer.
Zeeshan
--
The above discussion has important consequences for Muslim views of
both culture and orthodoxy. Islam holds the Qur'an to be divine
revelation; so we cannot accept the assertions of Western scholars
that the Qur'anic positions on Jesus and the identity of all previous
revelations are due to ignorance of history on Muhammad's part. In
fact, we can find alternative explanations.
As we have seen, the Qur'anic picture of Jesus does not correspond to
the historical reconstruction of Jesus as apocalyptic preacher, as the
Qur'an retains traditional elements of the story such as the virgin
birth and Jesus as logos/'Word' which are later Christian theological
developments. However, here we need to ask the question of why the
Qur'an talks about Jesus at all. In fact, the reason the Qur'an talks
about Jesus is to link Muhammad's message with the religion and
culture of Christianity, which was already known and respected in
Arabia. In establishing this link, the Jesus of the historians is
irrelevant; what is necessary is the Jesus of Christian mythology. It
is through mythology and not history that religion and culture is
expressed. It is the narrow-mindedness of our modern perspective which
leads us to expect history, precisely because we have forgotten how to
respect cultures and their mythologies. Fundamentalists typically
deride culture for its implicit inclusion of many different traditions
and consequent 'impurity' in Islamic terms; but the Qur'an itself is
showing its respect for earlier Christian culture and mythology by
largely accepting it and rejecting only one of its many claims; the
divinity of Jesus.
The historical lack of belief in afterlife on the part of previous
prophets is likewise a problem of our current mindset. The unfortunate
fact is that we are conditioned to think of religion in terms of
orthodoxy, and thus we perceive a problem whenever we cannot find that
orthodoxy. But the fact that the Qur'an asserts the identity of the
messages of all prophets means that the Qur'an is not interested in
asserting any kind of historical orthodoxy. Rather, the Qur'an is
interested in asserting a continuity of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim
traditions. As in the case of the Qur'anic story of Jesus, the
Qur'anic stories of the Jewish prophets serve to illustrate this
continuity of tradition and mythology.
So the Qur'an does not share our current fascination with either
orthodoxy or history, and focuses on inclusiveness and the
mythological connections between cultures. This has important
consequences for the open-mindedness of Muslim societies. Recently in
Bangladesh, Ahmedi Muslims have been attacked as non-believers due to
their supposed belief in the prophethood of their spiritual leader,
Mirza Ghulam Ahmed of Qadian. And yet, even if this charge were true,
would it be nearly the deviation from orthodoxy as Abraham's apparent
lack of belief in an afterlife? Likewise, in Bangladesh there are
radical fundamentalist groups who are so opposed to non-Islamic
manifestations of local Bengali culture that they are willing to plant
bombs at traditional Bengali New Year celebrations and Sufi shrines.
And yet, the intrusions of local culture that they so violently oppose
are little different from the intrusion of Christian mythology (as
represented by the virgin birth) which the Qur'an easily accepts.
Imran Aijaz
I found your essay on Jesus and the development of the concept of an
afterlife very interesting and engaging. I would like to offer some
comments, if I may. You write:
> The above discussion has important consequences for Muslim views of
> both culture and orthodoxy. Islam holds the Qur'an to be divine
> revelation; so we cannot accept the assertions of Western scholars
> that the Qur'anic positions on Jesus and the identity of all previous
> revelations are due to ignorance of history on Muhammad's part. In
> fact, we can find alternative explanations.
Here is what I take to be the problem. It is certainly true that Islam
holds the Qur'an to be divine revelation. If this is the case, then it
has certain implications - or so the argument runs - for what one
should expect in the revealed text. The conservative argument is quite
straightforward: God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
Accordingly, if He is omnipotent, He has the power to make sure His
revelation is completely free of error. If He is omniscient, then He
cannot be ignorant of the facts. Finally, if God is omnibenevolent,
then He does not want to mislead His followers with factual errors in
scripture. Consequently, the Qur'an must correspond completely to
reality and therefore history if, indeed, it is God's Word. This is
the orthodox position.
In my opinion, this argument is unsound, as are its close variants. It
proceeds rather too swiftly to its conclusion, and several underlying
assumptions and premises can be questioned. Consider the following
reply. According to Frithjof Schuon, the 'miracle' of the Qur'an does
not lie in the text but rather in the spiritual efficacy it had (and
has) on people. A God who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent
would, arguably, want to reveal a text that has 'maximal spiritual
efficacy' for His subjects. This would be the fundamental purpose of
revelation. Arguably, if God had revealed the Qur'an corresponding
completely to historical facts, then it would not have been received
well in 7th century Arabia. If God had revealed, for example, that
epilepsy has a perfectly good naturalistic explanation (providing the
medical details) and is not the result of some mischievious jinn -
since jinns don't exist - then that would have simply seen sensational
to a desert Arab. Belief in jinns was part of that culture. But the
purpose of scripture is not to teach science, but rather, to infuse a
religio-ethical character in people. Indeed, no less a figure than Ibn
Rushd held that the primary intent of Divine Revelation is to draw
people to God consciousness and to cultivate proper moral values. It
may very well be the case that the religio-ethical message of the
Qur'an needs to be incorporated into the prevailing myths of the time
to initiate the spread of God's Word. Indeed, one can, as Mircea
Eliade has noted, speak of 'true myth'. Therefore, one may say, it is
not implausible to think that God has given mankind a Revelation
containing myth.
I do not want to dismiss this sort of reply immediately, but I would
like to draw your attention to a serious problem that this sort of
proposal has to deal with, and it is this: How can we, without begging
the question, distinguish the kernel of truth (presumed to be true)
from the cultural incarnation (presumed to be false) in Scripture? The
orthodox theist may, I think, charge the liberal with a legitimate
slippery slope problem - if the narratives in the Qur'an are myth,
then why stop, arbitrarily at some of the narratives? Why not include
God, the soul, Resurrection, and so on, as part and parcel of the
mythical baggage of scripture? Indeed, why not simply dismiss the
entire corpus as an impressive falsehood, albeit one that provides
some moral inspiration? Perhaps the Qur'an should be shelved along
with Aesop's Fables?
The only recourse I can see for the liberal believer would be to
resort to a kind of 'isolationist fideism' - a fideism that affirms
religious dogma, but insulates it from any kind of rational
assessment. Thus, in the realm of faith Scripture is true, but in the
realm of secular disciplines, such as history and science, it is
false. I think this leads to a very untenable position, requiring a
kind of double-think. It must be said, however, that traditional
orthodoxy too has resorted to isolationist fideism when faced with
conundrums in scripture. How could it be, for example, that an
immaterial God is seated on a Throne? And so, we have Malik's famous
reply: 'The sitting is known. Its modality is unknown. Belief in it is
an obligation and raising questions about it is a heresy.' A dogma
like this simply had to be taken 'bila-kayfa' (without asking how).
Al-Ash'ari made heavy use of this doctrine (very similar to the
recourse to 'Divine mystery' in Catholicism), which, I should say, is
a significant point, seeing that he was the fountainhead for the
later, traditional scholars of the Ash'arite school like Juwayni and
al-Ghazali. It is also a fact that should make Muslims pause before
trying to trash some poor Christian because the concept of divine
mystery exists in his religion (as if traditional Islam has no concept
of divine mystery!).
Anyway, I would be interested in hearing what you think. Do you think
the acceptance of your position is only cogent if taken together with
a kind of 'isolationist fideism'?
Regards,
Imran.
Brandon Yusuf
> prophets is likewise a problem of our current mindset. The unfortunate
> fact is that we are conditioned to think of religion in terms of
> orthodoxy, and thus we perceive a problem whenever we cannot find that
> orthodoxy.
Peace --
With respect, I think we should leave loaded terms like "orthodoxy"
out of the discussion. We're talking about identifiable historical
trends going forward, yes? Not looking backward from the vantage point
of Arabia in the seventh century CE.
If what you mean is that Jesus, pbuh, did not believe in an afterlife,
I must disagree. I base this view on the recent identification of a
strata of parallel passages in Mark and Luke that seem to rely on a
"sayings gospel" as a source. This source is known by scholars as Q;
it probably dated from 50 CE. Many of these passages clearly
anticipate an afterlife and a Day of Judgement.
It was not merely an "apocalyptic" message that he preached, but one
in which one fears the One who can cast one's soul into damnation
after death; to follow the Jesus, pbuh, of Q, one strives earnestly
and humbly to avoid hellfire and attain entry to the Kingdom of
Heaven.
Replace "Kingdom of Heaven" with "Paradise," and the message begins to
look awfully familiar. (Not "orthodox," mind you, but familiar.)
Yusuf
Zeeshan Hasan
> Hi Zeeshan,
>
> I found your essay on Jesus and the development of the concept of an
> afterlife very interesting and engaging. I would like to offer some
> comments, if I may. You write:
Hi Imran,
Thanks for reading so attentively! I try to address many of the same
issues you mentioned regarding the limits of reason in another essay
on my website, "Islam and the limits of rational religion", at
http://www.liberalislam.net/reason.html
Zeeshan
Abu Ali
"Imran Aijaz" <imran...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:27aae83.04011...@posting.google.com...
> epilepsy has a perfectly good naturalistic explanation (providing the
> medical details) and is not the result of some mischievious jinn -
> since jinns don't exist
So God had to say several times how He created jinn from fire and He had to
reveal a whole surah on jinn. How jinns once listened to the strange speech
(i.e Qur'an ) How they can see humans but we cant see them etc when the fact
which He was aware of all along is that jinns dont even exist?. So He was
lying all the time and He wants us to tell the truth all the time. How can
we trust such a God. Maybe hell/heaven are all myths.Are there really
"liberal believers" with such absurd ideas?
It would be more rational to reject the Qur'an as a revealed text then
believe such nonsense.
And why do liberal believers have a problem in believing jinn? because they
cant be proved? nice, so dont believe in angels, revelation, hereafter and
God Himself.
Zeeshan Hasan
> If what you mean is that Jesus, pbuh, did not believe in an afterlife,
> I must disagree. I base this view on the recent identification of a
> strata of parallel passages in Mark and Luke that seem to rely on a
> "sayings gospel" as a source. This source is known by scholars as Q;
> it probably dated from 50 CE. Many of these passages clearly
> anticipate an afterlife and a Day of Judgement.
Actually, I do think that Jesus was preaching about an afterlife. In
many ways, he was the missing link between the old Israelite prophets
who did not believe in a real afterlife, and current Christians /
Muslims who do. That was one of the points I tried to make in my
original article, not all of which I posted to this newsgroup. It's
quite long =) But if you're interested, it's at
http://www.liberalislam.net/jesus.html
> It was not merely an "apocalyptic" message that he preached, but one
> in which one fears the One who can cast one's soul into damnation
> after death; to follow the Jesus, pbuh, of Q, one strives earnestly
> and humbly to avoid hellfire and attain entry to the Kingdom of
> Heaven.
> Replace "Kingdom of Heaven" with "Paradise," and the message begins to
> look awfully familiar. (Not "orthodox," mind you, but familiar.)
Exactly! However, it's important to recognize that there were indeed
other apocalyptic Jews who were also thinking of a political and
national Kingdom of God; the land of Canaan under a rule of a Jewish
messiah. Many of Jesus' own followers probably thought this way, and
probably the Roman authorities did too, or they wouldn't have
crucified him for claiming that he was 'King of the Jews'. The
nationalist interpretation of apocalypticism can't be discounted
completely.
Zeeshan
Imran Aijaz
> reveal a whole surah on jinn. How jinns once listened to the strange speech
> (i.e Qur'an ) How they can see humans but we cant see them etc when the fact
> which He was aware of all along is that jinns dont even exist?. So He was
> lying all the time and He wants us to tell the truth all the time. How can
> we trust such a God. Maybe hell/heaven are all myths.Are there really
> "liberal believers" with such absurd ideas?
The point of the jinn example was just that - an example. Mind you,
some Islamic thinkers like Muhammad 'Abduh rejected a literal
interpretation of the description of jinns ('Abduh regarded them as
microbes, if I remember correctly).
Anyway, the important thing to note is that non-literalist
interpretations of the Qur'an have been there, historically. If one
takes the description of God, His "Hands", His "Eyes", His "Throne",
etc, *literally*, one ends up with a set of incoherent postulates.
Even the staunchest of traditionalists realized this, and resorted to
the doctrine of bila-kayfa.
I also want to comment on the charge of God lying if non-literalist
narratives are contained in scripture. The assumption seems to be that
if God reveals a text with deeper meanings - those that arise from
allegorical or metaphorical readings of the text, say - then God is a
liar. This is not a new charge. In fact, it was raised by Al-Ghazali
against the neo-Platonic philosophers like Ibn Sina. If we follow Ibn
Sina, and take the descriptions of the Garden and Fire allegorically,
do we have to conclude that God is a liar, as al-Ghazali suggested?
Not at all. The other alternative, of course, is that some individuals
are lacking the necessary skills for interpreting scripture! Note:
Al-Ghazali himself resorts to metaphorical/allegorical interpretations
sometimes in his Qur'anic exegesis.
If a person, or a group of people, read scripture and learn that God
asked Iblis - "What prevents thee from prostrating thyself to one whom
I have created with my hands?" (Q. 38:75) - and imagine a picture of a
very large deity with large hands who created man sort of like an
omnipotent potter, whose fault is that?
> It would be more rational to reject the Qur'an as a revealed text then
> believe such nonsense.
Actually, another option available would be to reject *nonsensical
interpretations* of the Qur'an. These can also come from the
traditionalist and not necessarily liberal camp. Those, for example,
that grasp onto a naive, literalist meaning of the text.
Regards,
Imran.
thebit
> Indeed, one can, as Mircea
> Eliade has noted, speak of 'true myth'.
There are 'true myths' even today. There are many 'rational myths'
which people have no problem accepting.
> Therefore, one may say, it is
> not implausible to think that God has given mankind a Revelation
> containing myth.
One way of looking at the stories in the Qur'an is to assert their
*moral meaning*, over and above the actual 'historical facts'
mentioned in the Scripture. But this needn't lead us to rejecting
their 'validity' in the 'secular disciplines' as your 'islationist
fideism' solution demands, when you write
"[..]in the realm of secular disciplines, such as history and science,
it [the Scripture] is false."
We can, of course, remain mute, rather than reject the 'historical
facts' in the Qur'an because they are "false". All 'secular
disciplines' must, afterall, admit to their limitations, whereas
'faith' would demand that all knowledge is with God alone.
> A dogma
> like this simply had to be taken 'bila-kayfa' (without asking how).
But there are many 'dogmas' which persist today under various guises.
Do human socieities function without 'dogmas'? Perhaps there is
something in the human psyche which requires these "neccessary
illusions"? Maybe it is a case of grading 'dogmas' from those which
are more rational to those which are less rational.
> Regards,
>
> Imran.
Salaam
Abdus Salaam
asimm...@yahoo.com
> interpretations of the Qur'an have been there, historically. If one
> takes the description of God, His "Hands", His "Eyes", His "Throne",
> etc, *literally*, one ends up with a set of incoherent postulates.
> Even the staunchest of traditionalists realized this, and resorted to
> the doctrine of bila-kayfa.
>
The 'non-literalist' interpretation can actually be literalist is
there is a basis in the Arabic language to interpret certain phrases
IDIOMATICALLY. Even in the English language, it is said "His hand
controls everything." Idioms are part and parcel of language.
How can one argue that taking these things 'literally' are 'incoherent
postulates'? Further, when there is no alternative explanation from
the language, it does not mean that such an idea is incoherent. It
means human beings knowledge is based upon their own experiences, thus
we cannot conceive how the angels descend carrying the throne of their
Lord. This does not mean we deny it, but it exists as a reality
beyond anything we can conceive of.
This is exactly the implications of the beginning verses in Surah
Imran. It is no coincidence this surah revolves around such things as
the miraculous birth of Jesus, and John the Baptist.
>
> If a person, or a group of people, read scripture and learn that God
> asked Iblis - "What prevents thee from prostrating thyself to one whom
> I have created with my hands?" (Q. 38:75) - and imagine a picture of a
> very large deity with large hands who created man sort of like an
> omnipotent potter, whose fault is that?
>
ibn Taymiyya (R) pointed out that even the anthromorphist is better
than the one who interprets it away 'metaphorically', because the
former at least is accepting the revealed text, while the latter
assumes it nothing but incoherent. ALTHOUGH, One CAN INTERPRET
IDIOMATICALLY when their is basis in the LANGUAGE, i.e. there is a
usage for it.
> Actually, another option available would be to reject *nonsensical
> interpretations* of the Qur'an. These can also come from the
> traditionalist and not necessarily liberal camp. Those, for example,
> that grasp onto a naive, literalist meaning of the text.
>
Its strange how anyone can argue something is literalist when even
idiom is accepted in language. The real issue is when people start
saying,
"Oh this is not what was meant by God. What we have here is jinns as
microbes, though the Quran says they were created out of smokeless
fire." Why would the microbes ve used to testify to the truthfulness
of the Prophet (S)?
Or when "God relates these stories in truth" as "well, what is meant
by truth is the moral lessons learned, not the actual story."
Imran Aijaz
> postulates'? Further, when there is no alternative explanation from
> the language, it does not mean that such an idea is incoherent. It
> means human beings knowledge is based upon their own experiences, thus
> we cannot conceive how the angels descend carrying the throne of their
> Lord. This does not mean we deny it, but it exists as a reality
> beyond anything we can conceive of.
The incoherence arises if, for example, we take God's "sitting on the
Throne" literally. If God is Spirit, and therefore immaterial, what
sense can it make to say that God is sitting on a Throne? How is God
to be distinguished between His sitting down and standing up? Another
example is the idea of God "descending" between the various orders of
Heaven. It can only make sense for a corporal being to "come down"
from "somewhere up there", i.e. moving from one spatio-temporal
location to another. What sense could it make to literally consider
the descending of a Spirit? And so on.
[...]
> ibn Taymiyya (R) pointed out that even the anthromorphist is better
> than the one who interprets it away 'metaphorically', because the
> former at least is accepting the revealed text, while the latter
> assumes it nothing but incoherent. ALTHOUGH, One CAN INTERPRET
> IDIOMATICALLY when their is basis in the LANGUAGE, i.e. there is a
> usage for it.
But why should we listen to Ibn Taymiyyah? And just what kind of
authority is he? Interestingly, in the Orthodox Sunni manual "Reliance
of the Traveller", edited by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, we find the following
opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah:
"He was imprisoned during much of his life in Cairo, Alexandria, and
Damascus for his writings, scholars of his time accusing him of
believing Allah to be a corporeal entity because of what he mentioned
in his 'al-Aqida al-Hamawiyya' and 'al-Wasitiyya' and other works,
such as that Allah's 'hand', 'foot', 'shin', and 'face', are literal
(haqiqi) attributes, and that He is upon the Throne in person. The
error is ... that suggesting such attributes are literal is an
innovation and unjustifiable inference from the Koranic and hadith
texts that mention them ....
... Ibn Taymiyyah cannot be considered an authority on tenets of
faith, a field in which he made mistakes profoundly incompatible with
the beliefs of Islam." -- See Nuh Ha Mim Kellar, "Reliance of the
Traveller", (Amana Publications, 1997), pp. 1059-1060.
Thus, not only did Ibn Taymiyyah make the very mistakes I've been
claiming are made by literalists, but, as a result of his mistakes, he
apparently is rejected as a reliable authority on tenets of faith by
traditionalist scholars.
> Its strange how anyone can argue something is literalist when even
> idiom is accepted in language. The real issue is when people start
> saying,
Well, apparently Ibn Taymiyyah didn't know his idioms too well. It's
not just the language but the issue of *hermeneutics* that is involved
here. Sometimes, one needs more than just linguistics to recognize
that a certain narrative in the text is allegorical or metaphorical.
> "Oh this is not what was meant by God. What we have here is jinns as
> microbes, though the Quran says they were created out of smokeless
> fire." Why would the microbes ve used to testify to the truthfulness
> of the Prophet (S)?
I don't know what to make of 'Abduh's interpretation here, but I don't
see what the problem is here with contemporary, non-literalist
interpretations.
> Or when "God relates these stories in truth" as "well, what is meant
> by truth is the moral lessons learned, not the actual story."
Why not? Arguably, the prophetic narratives in Scripture can only be
prudentially useful for the faithful for their moral lessons. What use
is the *mere* historical information of what Abraham or Moses did for
us *now*?
Regards,
Imran.
Muslim Question
his own deception.His line of reasoning: The Quran address the
"mythical "Jesus and the mythical Abraham because the Quran says that
they brought down the same message wheras the author has verified that
this is in fact (i.e as a matter of factual historical occurance) not
so. How has the author verified this? Why! the OT prophets do not
mention an after-life and seem indeed to deny this. The prophets of
the Old Testament are now the "historical" ones. Whether the earlier
prophets actually belived in an after-life or not is to be understood
from the Jewish Scriptures.
What beats him completely is that the OT has itself gone through
rescencions, that in many ways this is today a testament of what the
Jewish community believed about the prophets, rather than what the
prophets themselves may have preached and believed. Thus taking the OT
as evidence on the lives of these prophets can be rather misleading.
The author testifies that the Quran is the word of Allah as revealed
to His messenger. He holds however that Allah was narrating myths when
the historical facts are to be ascertained form, the OT. What is the
ruling of Islamic jurisprudence on such beliefs?
Regards
MQ.
Brandon Yusuf
"Deep waters" department ....
It has always seemed to me that the Qur'anic assertions that Allah
(swt) employs any parable He sees fit, and that Allah (swt)
encompasses all possible perspectives, have much deeper resonances and
purposes than the lay reader may initially be inclined to notice or
acknowledge.
Human language is, by its very nature, limited and figurative, and it
is, necessarily, rooted in the perspective and preconceptions of a
single speaker or writer. A single word I may choose to employ in this
paragraph does not have *inherent* meaning when removed from its
grammatical and social context -- and it may, if you examine the
matter closely enough, actually be closer to a parable or metaphor --
a comparative tool, standing in the place of a certain idea, and
employed purposefully within a sentence.
These are facts that carry deep philosophical implications, as well as
practical religious challenges that the Taoists and the Zen Buddhists
spent several centuries attempting to wrestle to the ground, with (in
my view) limited success. I am summarizing the difficulties
imperfectly, but I hope you can see what I'm getting at. These words
are heavy (to quote the songwriter), and they often don't move fast
enough. They are tools, not things in and of themselves, and limited
tools at that. They stand for things, and they often stand for things
that stand for things (etc.).
The Godhead, however, is neither figurative nor limited.
I'm certainly not saying that "nothing need be taken literally" or
that "the Qur'an is all metaphor, and only the moral lessons of its
stories need to be attended to." I don't believe these statements to
reflect reality. I am saying, though, that with regard to fundamental
questions concerning what is and is not "literally true," the Qur'an
appears, as ever, to be several steps ahead of its human interpreters,
and to have anticipated some important, and quite complex, questions
relating to semantics and meaning.
Allah hafiz,
Yusuf
asimm...@yahoo.com
> The incoherence arises if, for example, we take God's "sitting on the
> Throne" literally.
Like I said before, how do you definie literal? There is basis in
interpreting 'istiwa-alal-arsh' IDIOMATICALLY in the Arabic language.
For other such verses, like 39:75, there is no basis in the USAGE OF
LANGUAGE TO INTERPET THEM IDIOMATICALLY. The only way one can do that
is if he/she finds a precedent in the usage of the language. These
ayahs fall under the category of mutashabbihat. Men's knowledge is
based upon their own experience, and the Quran, in speaking about the
realities of the unseen, use those phenomenon which man has seen in
this world. Thus, in verse 39:75, the most a human being can derive
is that the majesty of the Lord will become manifest to the human
beings on the Day of Judgement, but the actual reality of this
'throne', we cannot know.
The problem with the philosophers in general, and where ibn Taymiyya
(R) took issue with was man subjecting these verses to their own
reason and denying the words of the Quran. They were explaiining them
away according to their own reason, WITHOUT BASIS IN THE LANGUAGE.
Many of the words that originated out of the theology of Muslim
philsophers had no basis in revealed texts, and he objected to them.
Thus, arguments such as the "Lord descending", according to the
scholar, should be accepted as is, without asking how. At the same
time, one does not ascribe to the Almighty characteristics of his
creatures.
>
> "He was imprisoned during much of his life in Cairo, Alexandria, and
> Damascus for his writings, scholars of his time accusing him of
> believing Allah to be a corporeal entity because of what he mentioned
> in his 'al-Aqida al-Hamawiyya' and 'al-Wasitiyya' and other works,
> such as that Allah's 'hand', 'foot', 'shin', and 'face', are literal
> (haqiqi) attributes, and that He is upon the Throne in person. The
> error is ... that suggesting such attributes are literal is an
> innovation and unjustifiable inference from the Koranic and hadith
> texts that mention them ....
>
This is basless, and Nuh Ha Mim Keller, lets his opinions of ther
Salafis cloud correct thinking.
1. The Shaykh was imprisoned for MANY charges, among them the alleged
claim of anthromorphism. Other charges included his position on three
talaqs, and visiting the grave of the Prophet (S). He was let go for
many of them, including the case of anthromorphism. In fact, the
scholars who were not ill-intentioned, among them Ashaari-Shafii
scholars declared him free of blame.
2. ibn Taymiyya (R) himself speaks against the anthromorphists, but
he argues they are better than the likes of the heretical sufis, and
many of the latter-day Ashaaris for the very reason they ACCPET THE
REVEALED WORD, while the latter throws it away. Nu Ha Mim Keller
cannot grasp the very essence of the argument, and that is the place
of reason in light of revelation.
For a basic biogrpahy and refutation of the claims of Keller, refer
to:
http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/it/itya.htm
> ... Ibn Taymiyyah cannot be considered an authority on tenets of
> faith, a field in which he made mistakes profoundly incompatible with
> the beliefs of Islam." -- See Nuh Ha Mim Kellar, "Reliance of the
> Traveller", (Amana Publications, 1997), pp. 1059-1060.
>
Coming from the traditionalist Nuh ha Mim Keller, it is quite
laughable.
> Thus, not only did Ibn Taymiyyah make the very mistakes I've been
> claiming are made by literalists
Yes, I mean you make your assumptions based upon what Nuh Ha Mim
Keller said, and not what ibn Taymiyya (R) actually wrote.
It's
> not just the language but the issue of *hermeneutics* that is involved
> here. Sometimes, one needs more than just linguistics to recognize
> that a certain narrative in the text is allegorical or metaphorical.
>
Are you saying stories of the past are something human beings cannot
relate to? I mean on what basis are you making such assumptions. You
haven't given a single instance where the Prophet and His Companions
(R) understood the stories as such... The evidence is surely on you
to claim these stories as allegorical.
Hermeneutics? Please... Imagine coming before the Lord on the Day of
Judgement, and going by such claims.
> I don't know what to make of 'Abduh's interpretation here, but I don't
> see what the problem is here with contemporary, non-literalist
> interpretations.
>
The Quran is revealed in CLASSICAL ARABIC. It is to be understood in
the language of the Arabs. It is further to be understood within the
overall message of the Book.
I get the feeling that contemporary, non-literalist interpretations is
nothing but materialism, and being overly influenced by science. In
fact, its smacks of agnosticism.
> > Or when "God relates these stories in truth" as "well, what is meant
> > by truth is the moral lessons learned, not the actual story."
>
> Why not? Arguably, the prophetic narratives in Scripture can only be
> prudentially useful for the faithful for their moral lessons. What use
> is the *mere* historical information of what Abraham or Moses did for
> us *now*?
>
Because the Quran teaches us to pray for guidance on the path of those
that have gone before... It teaches us that this path has practical
proof in history and is not some theoretical lesson to be learnt. The
whole deen is about rreading on the way of the righteuous people
before us, the one's whom have proven themselves through their own
sacrifices. It is not MERE HISTORICAL INFORMATION BUT LIVING EXAMPLES
BEFORE US.
When God tells us Moses (AS) was criticized without justification of
his own people, and this should not make Muhammad (S) so mesmerized by
the rejection of his message by the Bani Israel of his time, do you
think God is using a story that has no truth to it?
Surely, God speaks nothing EXCPET THE TRUTH and it is furhte confrimed
by the Almighty, when he says "We have created the heavens and earth
IN TRUTH."
asimm...@yahoo.com
idols of this age. Liberal 'Islam' or materialism and agnosticism.
Even the disbelievers of old would say "Tales of the ancients." Even
the disbelievers during the times of all the Prophets related tales to
teach moral lessons.
M.S.M. Saifullah
Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
> The incoherence arises if, for example, we take God's "sitting on the
> Throne" literally. If God is Spirit, and therefore immaterial, what
> sense can it make to say that God is sitting on a Throne? How is God
> to be distinguished between His sitting down and standing up? Another
> example is the idea of God "descending" between the various orders of
> Heaven. It can only make sense for a corporal being to "come down"
> from "somewhere up there", i.e. moving from one spatio-temporal
> location to another. What sense could it make to literally consider
> the descending of a Spirit? And so on.
Please can you show us where exactly does Allah say in the Qur'an that He
is a spirit? The answer is that He says nowhere. Now you set up a strawman
argument of "ifs" and then went on to argue about the meaning of His
ascending or descending the throne. What the Qur'an clearly states is that
Allah is an entity that is living and is beyond any comparison. Since He
is beyond any comparison, it is obvious that He does ascend or descend
from the throne that befit Him, and we leave it at that without arguing
about something we have no knowledge about such as the manner of His
ascending or descending.
> But why should we listen to Ibn Taymiyyah? And just what kind of
> authority is he? Interestingly, in the Orthodox Sunni manual "Reliance
> of the Traveller", edited by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, we find the following
> opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah:
Why should we listen to YOU who has no basic knowledge of who Allah is?
The authority of Ibn Taymiyyah is well-known among the Hanbali scholars,
among whom he is held in great respect, perhaps the next one to be after
Ahmad Ibn Hanbal. Interestingly enough, if we returned to the Orthodox
Sunni manual "Reliance of the Traveller", edited by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, we
find the following about Ibn Taymiyyah:
"A famous Hanbali scholar in Koranic exegesis, hadith and jurisprudence,
Ibn Taymiyya was a voracious reader and author of great personal courage
who was endowed with a compelling writing style and a keen memory. Dhahabi
wrote of him, "I never saw anyone faster at recalling the Koranic verses
dealing with subjects he was discussing, or anyone who could remember
hadith texts more vividly." Dhahabi estimates that his legal opinions on
various subjects amount to three-hundred or more volumes." [p. x175]
Comparing you and Ibn Taymiyyah, we are pretty clear who would be an
authority when it comes to the matters of religion. Speaking ill of
somebody who is more learned and older than you in age is something we see
from those who have no knowledge of religion. Scholars err like everyone
of us make mistakes. We overlook their mistakes and accept what is
correct.
> Well, apparently Ibn Taymiyyah didn't know his idioms too well. It's
Ibn Taymiyyah's grasp of Arabic is well-known among the scholars of Qur'an
and Hadith. It is you who has no clue about the idioms in Arabic.
> not just the language but the issue of *hermeneutics* that is involved
> here. Sometimes, one needs more than just linguistics to recognize
> that a certain narrative in the text is allegorical or metaphorical.
The pre-requisite for such an exercise the the grasp of Arabic language.
The reason why Muslims again go back to the classical tafsirs is because
they have dealt with the issue from various angles whether literal or
metaphorical or allegorical. Ibn Jareer's and al-Qurtubi's tafaseer are
the best when it comes to these issues.
> I don't know what to make of 'Abduh's interpretation here, but I don't
> see what the problem is here with contemporary, non-literalist
> interpretations.
Are we surprised?
> Why not? Arguably, the prophetic narratives in Scripture can only be
> prudentially useful for the faithful for their moral lessons. What use
> is the *mere* historical information of what Abraham or Moses did for
> us *now*?
If the narratives of the past are not the lessons for us then why not
start worshipping idols and start sodomizing the next door neighbour? But
you won't agree to it. Let me enlighten you a little bit. Allah, the High,
has set His sunnah, that He rewards the good and punishes the evil, that
He has set for us what is halaal and what is haram. His sunnah comes with
examples from the people of the past; how they were rewarded when they did
good and how they were punished when did evil. This was true then and this
is true now and this will be true in the future.
One of the characteristic features of the Qur'an is "comment" in the
Qur'an. A story is narrated and Allah interjects by saying "thus we reward
the righteous" or "thus we punish the evildoers". The "comment" or
interjection by Allah in a narrative makes it interactive and provides the
lesson that Allah would do the same even in the future. The story of Yusuf
is perhaps the best example.
Wassalam
Saifullah
Imran Aijaz
> Please can you show us where exactly does Allah say in the Qur'an that He
> is a spirit? The answer is that He says nowhere. Now you set up a strawman
I never claimed that the Qur'an is explicit about God's nature. There
is an ambiguous reference to God "breathing His Spirit" into human
beings, but nothing to get a clear picture from. Anyway, when did I
bring the Qur'an into this? Saifullah is jumping the gun here. He's
the one attacking a strawman. I am perfectly happy, however, to claim
that God is spirit on simple, logical grounds. My argument is as
follows:
1. God is either material or immaterial.
2. God is not material.
-----------------------
3. Therefore, God is immaterial.
This is a valid argument. Premise (1) is simply true by definition. As
for supporting premise (2), I will only get into that if Saifullah
disagrees with it. Suffice is to say that the significant majority of
Muslims, apart from some anthropomorphists, agree that God is not
material. Thus, the conclusion follows inescapably. We have a sound
argument.
When I say that God is a "Spirit", I simply mean that he is a
disembodied being or agent. God has no body. One of the dictionary
definitions of "spirit" is "incorporeal consciousness". See
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=spirit
This is what I mean when I refer to God as Spirit. Though disembodied,
God lives, thinks, loves, etc. And therefore all "corporeal"
references to God cannot be taken *literally* in Scripture.
Saifullah continues:
> argument of "ifs" and then went on to argue about the meaning of His
Clearly, Saifullah does not understand the nature of the strawman
fallacy. One only commits the strawman fallacy is one misrepresents
the position of one's opponent, attacks that position, and then claims
that one's attack has defeated some other position that was in
question. I do not see anything like this happening here.
> ascending or descending the throne. What the Qur'an clearly states is that
> Allah is an entity that is living and is beyond any comparison. Since He
> is beyond any comparison, it is obvious that He does ascend or descend
> from the throne that befit Him, and we leave it at that without arguing
> about something we have no knowledge about such as the manner of His
> ascending or descending.
So, Saifullah is appealing to mystery here. That would be fine *if*
there was a *possible* third option (which we didn't know about). But
there isn't. Either God is material or He is immaterial. If He is not
material, then it logically follows that He is immaterial. There is no
question about mystery here. That can be ruled out a priori. If
Saifullah agrees that God is immaterial, then He has to explain the
coherence of God's immateriality and the *literal* interpretation of
God's ascent and descent. Over 1,000 years ago, Al-Qasim Al-Rassi
argued against just the sort of position espoused by Saifullah in his
"Al-Radd 'ala Al-Mushabbihah" (Refutation of The Anthropomorphists).
In reference to Qur'an 89:23 -- "... and thy Lord comes, and the
angels rank on rank", he writes:
"The meaning of [this verse] ... is that God (exalted be his praise)
comes with his mighty signs to manifest the resurrection; He comes
with earthquakes and terrors; He comes with the noble angels.
Wrongdoing is brough to light and doubters have uncertainty removed.
Things are revealed to them from God which they did not anticipate.
The expression, "thy Lord comes" does not mean that He set forth from
a space, nor that He goes away, nor that He changes. He does not
change from one position to another, nor does He come from one place
to another. God is exalted and blessed far above such as that." -- As
quoted in Kenneth Cragg and Marston Speight, "Islam From Within",
(Wadsworth, 1980), p. 128.
> Why should we listen to YOU who has no basic knowledge of who Allah is?
Rather than simply barge into a conversation without understanding
carefully what is going on, I would suggest Saifullah to pause and
make sure things are in gear before going into action - I simply asked
a question as to why we should accept what Ibn Taymiyyah had to say;
that is, what *arguments* does he have to offer? It is a poor case
indeed to say that one should accept such and such simply because one
says so. Saifullah doesn't have to listen to me, no one asked him to.
If he wants to disagree with my conclusion(s), then he'll have to show
that my proffered arguments are unsound, which, as far as I can tell,
he has not done.
And Saifullah is, I think, right - I do appear to have no basic
knowledge of Saifullah's god.
> The authority of Ibn Taymiyyah is well-known among the Hanbali scholars,
> among whom he is held in great respect, perhaps the next one to be after
> Ahmad Ibn Hanbal. Interestingly enough, if we returned to the Orthodox
So what? If Saifullah wants to belong to the Hanbali band, that's
fine. He can praise the Hanbali fideists all he wants. Historically,
it is clear that there were plenty of thinkers who disagreed with Ibn
Hanbal. He, too, was thrown in jail for a period of time because he
disagreed with the Mu'tazilite doctrines, for example. Ibn Taymiyyah
can be *an* authority on the subject, but what does that do to prove
the sort of conclusions Saifullah is gesturing at? As is well known,
Ibn Hanbal had fierce opposition from the Mu'tazilites - who also
called themselves Muslims and who were also respectable authorities.
Speaking for myself, I favour the Mu'tazilite approach to interaction
between philosophy and dogma because Ibn Hanbal simply dismissed
rational discourse on theological doctrines altogether. Majid Fakhry
writes,
"For Ibn Hanbal, the Qur'an was the uncreated and eternal Word of God
and any questioning of this article of faith was tantamount to
blasphemy. All attempts at reconciliation [between religion and
philosophical discourse] were dashed against the rock of Ibn Hanbal's
inflexible hand." -- Majid Fakhry, "A Short Introduction to Islamic
Philosophy, Theology and Mysticism", (Oneworld, 1998),
p. 64.
> Sunni manual "Reliance of the Traveller", edited by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, we
> find the following about Ibn Taymiyyah:
>
> "A famous Hanbali scholar in Koranic exegesis, hadith and jurisprudence,
> Ibn Taymiyya was a voracious reader and author of great personal courage
> who was endowed with a compelling writing style and a keen memory. Dhahabi
> wrote of him, "I never saw anyone faster at recalling the Koranic verses
> dealing with subjects he was discussing, or anyone who could remember
> hadith texts more vividly." Dhahabi estimates that his legal opinions on
> various subjects amount to three-hundred or more volumes." [p. x175]
Great, and where's your argument?
> Comparing you and Ibn Taymiyyah, we are pretty clear who would be an
> authority when it comes to the matters of religion. Speaking ill of
Again, Saifullah's ad hominem does nothing to establish his point.
Thomas Aquinas is, arguably, the leading medieval Christian
philosopher of his time.
Has Saifullah ever seen the size of Thomas Aquinas's "Summa
Theologica"? It would be ludicrous to even think of comparing
Aquinas's contribution to religion with Saifullah's. Given that, does
Saifullah - by his own logic - accept Aquinas's conclusions? Does he
think that others should accept Aquinas's conclusions because of his
stature? Of course he doesn't. Authorities may be great, they may even
be worthy of applause - but that is no *argument* for accepting their
proffered conclusions.
> somebody who is more learned and older than you in age is something we see
> from those who have no knowledge of religion. Scholars err like everyone
By "speaking ill" of someone, I take it to mean disagreeing with an
author's scholarly opinion. Saifullah's claim that only those who have
no knowledge of religion disagree with older authorities is simply
unfounded. Unless he cares to back it up, of course. If we apply
Saifullah's logic here, that would mean Muslim youth should never
criticize the scholarly opinion of older Christian missionaries.
> Ibn Taymiyyah's grasp of Arabic is well-known among the scholars of Qur'an
> and Hadith. It is you who has no clue about the idioms in Arabic.
But that did not appear to come into consideration when Ibn Taymiyyah
gave apparently anthropomorphic statements about God, did it?
> > Why not? Arguably, the prophetic narratives in Scripture can only be
> > prudentially useful for the faithful for their moral lessons. What use
> > is the *mere* historical information of what Abraham or Moses did for
> > us *now*?
>
> If the narratives of the past are not the lessons for us then why not
> start worshipping idols and start sodomizing the next door neighbour? But
> you won't agree to it. Let me enlighten you a little bit. Allah, the High,
> has set His sunnah, that He rewards the good and punishes the evil, that
> He has set for us what is halaal and what is haram. His sunnah comes with
> examples from the people of the past; how they were rewarded when they did
> good and how they were punished when did evil. This was true then and this
> is true now and this will be true in the future.
I am including my original question along with Saifullah's reply to
show why he simply has no clue as to what he's talking about. My point
was, if the Qur'an gave us *mere* historical information about certain
individuals, that would be of no use. Rather, it is the fact that we
can derive ethical principles from such narratives that is important.
So much so that the ethical *takes priority* over the historical. Even
the Qur'an indicates that the primary (if not only) reason it narrates
stories is that the people of today may learn a lesson or two. So I
agree with Saifullah that ethics are to be found in the narratives.
What I deny, however, is that the narratives should be taken *purely*
as historical incidents *and nothing more*.
Because he failed to take this simple point into consideration,
Saifullah starts attacking a strawman - never did I deny the ethical
significance of the Qur'anic narratives.
Salaam,
Imran.
Imran Aijaz
> One way of looking at the stories in the Qur'an is to assert their
> *moral meaning*, over and above the actual 'historical facts'
> mentioned in the Scripture. But this needn't lead us to rejecting
> their 'validity' in the 'secular disciplines' as your 'islationist
> fideism' solution demands, when you write
I agree, and this is what I have been trying to get across to others
who are now involved in this discussion. The ethical derivatives of
the Qur'anic narratives are more important than their actual
historicity. This does not mean, as you correctly note, that therefore
their historicity can be disregarded. However, if it should turn out
that the narratives do not correspond to history, then that should not
be a problem (unless one espouses a radical conception of Scripture as
corresponding completely to history).
> We can, of course, remain mute, rather than reject the 'historical
> facts' in the Qur'an because they are "false". All 'secular
> disciplines' must, afterall, admit to their limitations, whereas
> 'faith' would demand that all knowledge is with God alone.
Once again, I agree. One of the problems with this though is that,
sometimes, the Qur'anic narratives do seem to go against established,
historical facts. For example, it is very difficult to come across a
historian who actually agrees with the Qur'anic account of Jesus'
crucifixion. The reality of the crucifixion is accepted by nearly all
New Testament scholars (both religious and secular). Hardly any
scholars accept the substitution theory proffered by the Qur'an. Of
course, the believer is free to accept by faith that Jesus was not
crucified, but very little *historical* support can be gained for that
belief.
> But there are many 'dogmas' which persist today under various guises.
> Do human socieities function without 'dogmas'? Perhaps there is
> something in the human psyche which requires these "neccessary
> illusions"? Maybe it is a case of grading 'dogmas' from those which
> are more rational to those which are less rational.
True; I believe that the concept of 'faith' exists in secular society
as well. There seems to be something about *religious* dogmas,
however, that appears to make them susceptible to more skepticism over
and above our 'ordinary' dogmas (e.g. about belief in a moral order of
the universe). For example, the radically different religious dogmas
that prevail in society - all held by mature and intelligent adults.
Imran.
M.S.M. Saifullah
Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
> It is strange the ways of these people... they are so over-awed by the
Interesting point! The problem is even deeper than that. The hallmark of
current western civilization is the dissension. The dissension is just not
confined to the ideas, countries, etc. It goes as deep as between the
family members as well as self. One can even call it as fashion of our
times. This has given rise to philosophies and ideas such as extreme form
of individualism and rejecting well-grounded traditional appraoches to the
problems (who wants to be labelled as old fashioned!). As for the later,
the result of the rejection is the emergence of "alternate accounts",
revisionism, "liberal" ideas and conspiracy theories.
As for Islam, it goes with the idea of ummah agreeing on the issues and
prevents dissension. In the case of dissension, there is always
something to fall back on: the Qur'an and the Sunnah. This has been the
strength of this ummah and this will be the strength of this ummah until
the establishment of the Hour, insha'allah.
Wassalam
Saifullah
G. Waleed Kavalec
> Asalaamu'alaikum.
>
....
> 1. God is either material or immaterial.
> 2. God is not material.
> -----------------------
> 3. Therefore, God is immaterial.
Walaikum asalaam
Are you not assuming Allah must obey man's "law of the excluded middle"?
Such assumptions do not apply to Him, in my humble opinion.
--
Peace and Blessings
G. Waleed Kavalec
------------------------
http://www.kavalec.com/path_to_islam.htm
Zuiko Azumazi
news:EpidnX0Tmqk...@intertex.net...<snip>
> Are you not assuming Allah must obey man's "law of the excluded middle"?
> Such assumptions do not apply to Him, in my humble opinion.
Questions:-
To follow through on this syllogistic argument, could I paraphrase:
1. God is not material.
2. God is not immaterial.
-----------------------
3. Therefore, God is neither material or immaterial.
I'm not entirely sure where that leaves mankind (Muslim or otherwise)
intellectually, other than being, somewhat, perplexed and confused by this
further explanation [syntax], have I missed something?
BTW, emotively, I agree with your sentiment that; "Such assumptions do not
apply to Him", but, am I sitting on the 'theological' fence or just caught
on the proverbial 'horns of a dilemma'?
--
Peace
--
You cannot teach a person who is not anxious to learn and you cannot
explain to one who is not trying to make things clear to themselves.
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
M.S.M. Saifullah
Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
> I never claimed that the Qur'an is explicit about God's nature. There
> is an ambiguous reference to God "breathing His Spirit" into human
> beings, but nothing to get a clear picture from. Anyway, when did I
> bring the Qur'an into this? Saifullah is jumping the gun here. He's
Well, you never brought the Qur'an in at the first place. So, where did
you get the argument about what God is what He is not? What exactly
is your basis? Every argument has to be have some basis before it
can be put forth. Perhaps you liberal Muslims have an intellect which is
much more superior to everybody else that no one else can understand you
except your own clan.
> the one attacking a strawman. I am perfectly happy, however, to claim
> that God is spirit on simple, logical grounds. My argument is as
> follows:
If one has to base who God is and who God is not on "logical grounds"
every logician would come up with his own "logical" conclusions. But we
are talking about theology here and not logic. So, the argument about who
God is who He is not has to be based on theological grounds. Logic can
prove the existence of God but it can't prove what He is and what He is
not. This issue is beyond the realm of logic and this is where the
revelation comes into picture.
According to the Qur'an, the Book that He has revealed, says about Him:
"There is nothing like unto Him" [42:11]
"And their knowledge will never encompass Him" [20:110]
"And they will never encompass anything of His knowledge" [2:255]
For these above reasons, we probihit the questions concerning the manner
of Allah and His Attributes because it is impossible to know the reality
of the Essence and the Attributes. Therefore, the questions like "How is
Allah?", "How does He look like?", "What is the manner of His Hearing and
Seeing?" or "How did He establish Himself on the Throne?" are something
that can't be answered given the reality that our knowledge will never
encompass Him.
Given these facts, let us now look at your false dichotomy.
> 1. God is either material or immaterial.
> 2. God is not material.
> -----------------------
> 3. Therefore, God is immaterial.
Now what we want to know is the basis for your basis for the construct
that "God is either material or immaterial" and the evidence that Allah is
"not material". So far we have not seen any. So, there you go! As for no.
3 the conclusion is as good as the premises that nos. 1 and 2 are based
on.
> This is a valid argument. Premise (1) is simply true by definition. As
May we also remind you that from where exactly you got the definition of
Allah to even say that premise (1) is true?
> for supporting premise (2), I will only get into that if Saifullah
> disagrees with it. Suffice is to say that the significant majority of
> Muslims, apart from some anthropomorphists, agree that God is not
> material. Thus, the conclusion follows inescapably. We have a sound
> argument.
Sufficient to say that you do not have any evidence from the Qur'an and
Sunnah to show that Allah is "immaterial". So, in order to cover up the
shortcomings of your arguments, you now use the unnamed and unknown
"significant majority" of Muslims to "show" that your argument is valid.
Is that not interesting? Nice way to argument, I must admit.
> When I say that God is a "Spirit", I simply mean that he is a
> disembodied being or agent. God has no body. One of the dictionary
> definitions of "spirit" is "incorporeal consciousness". See
To save yourself from embarassment and waffle, please supply us a word in
Arabic that is used in the Qur'an or Sunnah that suggests that God is a
"Spirit".
> This is what I mean when I refer to God as Spirit. Though disembodied,
> God lives, thinks, loves, etc. And therefore all "corporeal"
> references to God cannot be taken *literally* in Scripture.
But the same Scripture that your are referring to explcitly states that
human knowledge can't comprehend the nature of Essence and Attributes of
God. The traditional scholars have understood these verses to be in the
category of "mutashabihat". The Qur'anic verses that speak about the
mysteries of creation and the Creator in such a way that their reality
remains obscure. The same is true for the descriptions of Heaven and Hell.
They all fall under the category of "mutashabihat".
> So, Saifullah is appealing to mystery here. That would be fine *if*
> there was a *possible* third option (which we didn't know about). But
> there isn't. Either God is material or He is immaterial. If He is not
> material, then it logically follows that He is immaterial. There is no
> question about mystery here. That can be ruled out a priori. If
We are not appealing to "mystery"; what we are appealing to is what Allah
has described about Himself. Now what we want to know is how did you come
to the dichotomy that either God is material or He is immaterial. What is
your proof? Remember that we are discussing theology and we expect
you to come with a proof from the Qur'an and Sunnah to justify your
position rather than falling back to your pet logic. Logic is useless
because it can't show whether God is material or immaterial.
> Saifullah agrees that God is immaterial, then He has to explain the
> coherence of God's immateriality and the *literal* interpretation of
> God's ascent and descent. Over 1,000 years ago, Al-Qasim Al-Rassi
We never said God is immaterial or material. What has been said is that
the data is insufficient to conclude anything. This is because Allah
Himself has said that He is behind our comprehension and that nothing is
like Him. This is an internally consistent argument.
<snipped for brevity>
Wassalam
Saifullah
M.S.M. Saifullah
Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
> > 1. God is either material or immaterial.
> > 2. God is not material.
> > -----------------------
> > 3. Therefore, God is immaterial.
>
> Are you not assuming Allah must obey man's "law of the excluded middle"?
>
> Such assumptions do not apply to Him, in my humble opinion.
Greg, I think the issue is much deeper than this. Can Allah be subjected
to the the laws of bivalent logic? I do not think so. The crux of the
issues lies in understanding what is meant by affirming what God has
affirmed of Himself and denying what God has denied of Himself and the
implications associated with it.
Allah says that He has power over all things, (inna-allaha `ala kulli
shayin qadeer). The implication of this affirmation is that there is
nothing that can exceed the power of Allah. So, there is no stone that God
has created would be too heavy for Him to lift. There is a subtle but
important difference between the statements God has power over all things
and God can do everything. The Qur'an recognizes the fallacies of the
latter statement.
Allah is also al-Hayy, the Living, al-Awwal, the First and al-Akhir, the
Last. These three attributes that define what God is clearly implies that
God can't kill Himself at any point in time. This is because He is ever
living, the First and the Last.
As for God being one on one day three on Monday and 1000 on Sunday, it is
a clear impossibility. This is because Allah is al-Ghani, al-Waahid and
al-Ahad; He is the One and does not require anything or anybody to get His
work accomplished. He does not need a son, a daughter or consort. When
something is affirmed all, other possibilities are denied.
Furthermore, Allah is al-Hakeem, the Wise. We do not expect Him to do
foolish things. Now as for the issue of bivalent logic where the
proposition are either true or false, it is clearly not applicable to
Allah. So, we do not have to worry about the issue of whether Allah can
make a stone which He can't lift (or can lift), or whether or not Allah
can give rises to another Allah or kill Himself, or whether or not Allah
need a daughter or son or consort. This is because what Allah has affirmed
or denied of Himself affirms or denies other possibilities. For example,
Allah is al-Hakeem, the Wise denies the possibility that Allah is foolish.
Hence we only have a system that is univalent and, therefore, the bivalent
logic is not applicable.
Even more fundamental issue is whether Allah can be subjected to the laws
of logic. As for the issue of logic, we can't logically state the logic
exists because this is circular reasoning. Conversely, we can't logically
state the logic does not exist because this would again lead to circular
reasoning. Therefore, one can't prove logic to be valid, and
therefore anything proven using logic to be valid without violating the
Law of Non-Contradiction. The only way out of this riddle is to dump the
Law of Non-Contradiction. But this would mean that all logic is destroyed.
The way out is to go beyond logic and look for a solution. What
makes logic binding is because of what is over it. Stating slightly
differently, logic is binding on that which is under logic. Validity
of logic exists because of something that is over it. This also means
that something that is over logic should, by nature, is the originator and
fashioner of logic. Logic by itself could not have propped by and enmeshed
the whole world. It has no such capability. In other words, God is the one
Who defines, fashions and governs logic. Looking at it slightly
differently, one can also re-state that logic pre-supposes existence of
God. Or else how else logic can be validated? Not by itself as it would
be a circular argument. God defines logic and not logic defines God.
Using logic, we know know things about God. Since we know the Law of
Non-Contradiction in logic, we can now infer that God, who is the One over
logic does not contradict Himself. This is also stated in the Qur'an in a
slightly different way in the form of the expression, quite comprehensive
called Sunnah of Allah. This is a principle or law of God that He has laid
down for His Messengers, believers, disbelievers and in His creation. That
God punishes those who disbelieve in Him or His commandments is His Sunnah
and He does not contradict it. The opposite is also true for those who
believe. And that God is One with no son, consort is something that is
affirmed and God does not contradict it; rather He re-asserts by saying
that He is al-Ghani, the one who is self-sufficient and does not need
anybody or anything. So, God can't arbitrarily be one on Monday and ten
on Sunday.
As for the creation the Sunnah of Allah is everywhere. Things have been
created in such a way that they are what they are. For example, an apple
would be an apple even after a hour and would not turn into an orange.
This is the manifestation of Law of Non-Contradiction or the Sunnah of
Allah.
Wassalam
Saifullah
Altway
Subject: Re: historical developement of Jesus and afterlife
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 11:30:04 -0000
Lines: 72
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Message-ID: <40125718$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.64.142.88
Path: mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com
X-Trace: 24 Jan 2004 11:31:28 GMT, mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com
"Zuiko Azumazi" <azu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4011ecfb$0$26116$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > Are you not assuming Allah must obey man's "law of the excluded middle"?
Such assumptions do not apply to Him, in my humble opinion.
> To follow through on this syllogistic argument, could I paraphrase:
1. God is not material.
2. God is not immaterial.
-----------------------
3. Therefore, God is neither material or immaterial.
> I'm not entirely sure where that leaves mankind (Muslim or otherwise)
intellectually, other than being, somewhat, perplexed and confused by this
further explanation [syntax], have I missed something?
> BTW, emotively, I agree with your sentiment that; "Such assumptions do not
apply to Him", but, am I sitting on the 'theological' fence or just caught
on the proverbial 'horns of a dilemma'?
Comment:-
You are caught by a misunderstanding because you have not
yet understood some basic notions of Islam.
Firstly God is the creator of all the laws and rules.
They apply to the created world.
He transcends that which He creates.
Secondly, this Logic is man-made.
It depends on definitions.
There is NO " law of excluded middle."
It is an instruction of how we should use words.
If I refuse to use words that way I could say that
there is a range of things having different degrees of materiality.
I am well aware of many things that are neither white nor black
but are both to various degrees.
So I reject the idea that this system of Logic is a Natural
Phenomena made by Allah.
I am interested in Truth, in what is real and made by Allah.
And though I have to use words to communicate, I do not
mistake words for real things or even for the experience of real things
but I use them to point to experiences of real things.
That is the difference between Islam (submission to the Real)
and superficial systems that mistake verbal formula for reality.
Unfortunately many Muslims even on this site have little idea of
the significance of the first chapter of the Quran and the first ten
verses of the Quran.
There is a difference between the "words of Allah" and human words.
""He said: Already have fallen upon you from your Lord terror and wrath; do
ye wrangle with me about names, which ye and your fathers have named
yourselves, for which Allah sent down no warrant. Then wait expectant, lo!
I, too, am of those waiting with you." 7:71
Though the context of this verse is different, it does have a general
meaning and something can be
learnt by looking up all the verses in the Quran where "word" occurs.
Hamid S. Aziz
www.altway.freeuk.com
Kleinecke
>> Are you not assuming Allah must obey man's "law of the excluded
middle"?
>> Such assumptions do not apply to Him, in my humble opinion.
> Questions:-
> To follow through on this syllogistic argument, could I paraphrase:
>
> 1. God is not material.
> 2. God is not immaterial.
> -----------------------
> 3. Therefore, God is neither material or immaterial.
>
> I'm not entirely sure where that leaves mankind (Muslim or otherwise)
> intellectually, other than being, somewhat, perplexed and confused by this
> further explanation [syntax], have I missed something?
Reasoning about God, using any human technique, is very likely to go
wrong in the sense that the conclusions have no significant TRUTH
value. Certainly we have no justification for saying that God must
obey man's "law of the excluded middle". But, unless we use an
esoteric form of logic, our reasoning must obey man's "law of the
excluded middle". There are logics that do not make the law of the
excluded middle a universal truth but a discussion on SRI is
conducted, I hope, in terms of conventional common sense.
The problem with the syllogism, IMHO, is that "material" and
"immaterial" are not logical opposites. Each word come freighted with
its own semantic implications. Hence there is no real excluded middle.
At the risk of sounding like a positivist I feel that the discussion
is flawed because there has been no useable definition of either
"spirit" or "material". What is the status of an abstraction like
"freedom"? I believe common sense says that freedom is not material
but that it is not spirit either.
I hope this helps.
saifu
imran...@xtra.co.nz (Imran Aijaz) wrote in message news:<27aae83.04011...@posting.google.com>...
<snip>
>
> Anyway, the important thing to note is that non-literalist
> interpretations of the Qur'an have been there, historically. If one
> takes the description of God, His "Hands", His "Eyes", His "Throne",
> etc, *literally*, one ends up with a set of incoherent postulates.
> Even the staunchest of traditionalists realized this, and resorted to
> the doctrine of bila-kayfa.
>
When the traditionalists (the followers of the Mesenger of Allah
(sallalahu 'alaihi wasallam)) resort to "Bilaa Kayf" (without a how or
modality), it is based on a sound textual evidence in the Qur'an.
Allah (subhanehu wat'alaa) says:
"...There is nothing like unto Him, He is the All-Hearer, the
All-Seer".
In the above Ayah we are informed about Allah (subhanehu wat'laa)
being All-Hearing and All-Seeing; and any similitude with the creation
is negated with, "There is nothing like unto Him".
<snip>
>
> If a person, or a group of people, read scripture and learn that God
> asked Iblis - "What prevents thee from prostrating thyself to one whom
> I have created with my hands?" (Q. 38:75) - and imagine a picture of a
> very large deity with large hands who created man sort of like an
> omnipotent potter,
"They made not a just estimate of Allah such as is due to Him." -
Surah Az-Zumar: 67 ; Surah Al-An'am: 91
A man asked Imam Malik, "O Abu Abdullah! 'The All merciful Istiwaa'
over the Throne.' (20:5) How is His Al Istiwaa'?" Imam Malik lowered
his head and remained so until he was completely soaked in sweat. Then
he replied, "Al Istiwaa' is not unknown [in meaning], how is
incomprehensible, to believe in it is obligatory, and to ask about it
is a heresy; and I believe that you are a man of innovation" He then
ordered that the man be expelled.
> whose fault is that?
>
It would be the fault of the ignorant who transgress the limit set by
Allah (subhanehu wat'alaa):
'A'isha reported that Allah's Messenger (sallalahu 'alaihi wasallam)
recited (these verses of the Qur'an):" He it is Who revealed to thee
(Muhammad) the Book (the Qur'an) wherein there are clear
revelations-these are the substance of the Book and others are
allegorical (verses). And as for those who have a yearning for error
they go after the allegorical verses seeking (to cause) dissension, by
seeking to explain them. And none knows their implications but Allah,
and those who are sound in knowledge say: We affirm our faith in
everything which is from our Lord. It is only the persons of
understanding who really heed" (Surah Al-Imraan 7). 'A'isha (further)
reported that Allah's Messenger (sallalahu 'alaihi wasallam) said (in
connection with these verses): When you see such verses, avoid them,
for it is they whom Allah has pointed out (in the mentioned verses)."
- Sahih Muslim
<snip>
>
> Regards,
>
> Imran.
Saifu,
Altway
(Sorry. An incomplete version of this article got through
I left the internet line open by mistake while writing.
Getting old and forgetful!)
"Zuiko Azumazi" <azu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4011ecfb$0$26116$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > Are you not assuming Allah must obey man's "law of the excluded middle"?
Such assumptions do not apply to Him, in my humble opinion.
> To follow through on this syllogistic argument, could I paraphrase:
1. God is not material.
2. God is not immaterial.
-----------------------
3. Therefore, God is neither material or immaterial.
> I'm not entirely sure where that leaves mankind (Muslim or otherwise)
intellectually, other than being, somewhat, perplexed and confused by this
further explanation [syntax], have I missed something?
> BTW, emotively, I agree with your sentiment that; "Such assumptions do not
apply to Him", but, am I sitting on the 'theological' fence or just caught
on the proverbial 'horns of a dilemma'?
Comment:-
You are caught by a misunderstanding because you have not yet understood
some basic notions of Islam.
(1) Firstly God is the creator of all the laws and rules. They apply to the
created world. He transcends that which He creates. You are assuming that
Logic is supreme and that God must conform to it. This is idolatry. How do
you establish that logic is valid. To do so using logic is a circular
argument that logic does not allow.
(2) Secondly, we could easily change the argument so that it contradicts
your
conclusion:-
1. God is not material, therefore He is immaterial
2. God is not immaterial, therefore He is material.
----------
3. Therefore, God is both immaterial and material.
The point is to understand what materiality means. Does it means something
that offers resistance to change by external forces or to our powers of
imagination or something that can produce change in other things? Or does it
mean something you can see?
It is not the syllogism that establishes the truth of the statement, but the
reality to which the premises point. Otherwse one could create and select
any
absurd premises containing any selected terms defined in any way
personal prejudices and fantasy dictated and reach loogically valid
conclusions.
This is why Science has replaced Philosophy and Islam cannot be said
to be in favour of Philosophy except in the Socratic sense - he tries to
explore the meaning of words rather than make silly syllogisms.
The introduction of Greek speculative Philosophy has had a corrupting
affect on Islam and misled many communities over the centuries
including Christianity.
(3) Thirdly, this Logic is man-made. It depends on definitions. There is NO
"law
of excluded middle." It is an instruction of how we should use words.
This applies to the other axioms as well i.e A is A, not both A and not-A
etc
If I refuse to use words that way I could say that there is a range of
things having different degrees of materiality, from the most subtle to the
most dense. I am well aware of many things that are neither white nor black
but are both to various degrees.
So I reject the idea that this system of Logic is a Natural Phenomena made
by Allah.
I am interested in Truth, (in what is real and made by Allah). And though I
have to use words to communicate, I do not mistake words for real things or
even for the experience of real things but I use them to point to
experiences of real things.
That is the difference between Islam (submission to the Real) and
superficial systems that mistake verbal formula for reality. There is a
difference between the "words of Allah" and human words.
"He said: Already have fallen upon you from your Lord terror and wrath; do
ye wrangle with me about names, which you and your fathers have named
Michael S. Pearl
> ....
> 1. God is either material or immaterial.
> 2. God is not material.
> -----------------------
> 3. Therefore, God is immaterial.
Zuiko Azumazi provided this reformulation:
> 1. God is not material.
> 2. God is not immaterial.
> -----------------------
> 3. Therefore, God is neither material or immaterial.
Kleinecke remarked:
>The problem with the syllogism, IMHO, is that "material" and
>"immaterial" are not logical opposites.
>
Michael's comment:
Within the context of this discussion, these two terms were clearly
intended as logical opposites, and the argument does not, in fact,
depend on the immediate precision of the terms. The argument would be
just as valid if the issue were phrased in terms of God as a physical
being or a non-physical being.
Kleinecke also said:
>Each word come freighted with
>its own semantic implications. Hence there is no real excluded
middle.
>At the risk of sounding like a positivist I feel that the discussion
>is flawed because there has been no useable definition of either
>"spirit" or "material".
>
Michael's comment:
Well, Imran did provide a definition of "spirit" as a "disembodied
being or agent", and, as already noted, "material" could well be - and
usually is - considered in terms of "physical" (rather than "relevant"
- which is another common use of the term).
Kleinecke said:
>What is the status of an abstraction like
>"freedom"? I believe common sense says that freedom is not material
>but that it is not spirit either.
>
Michael's comment:
"Freedom" is also not a being while according to the definition
provided, a "spirit" is.
We could, of course, go further in explicating what is entailed by
"being", but, regardless, it seems clear that the material/immaterial
portion of the discussion is supposed to pertain to whether God has an
actual body, whether it is or can be physical, or whether it is just a
non-physical body (unless the word "body" as applied to God is not
intended as literally accurate - and that is an aspect of this
discussion as it has evolved).
Some may feel that such considerations about God are not appropriate,
but no one explicates a theological position without relying on some
degree of logic (such is the human mind that successful communication
to and by humans necessitates logic), and once one engages in logical
exposition, then to arbitrarily insulate oneself from logical
examination is to submit oneself not to God but, instead, to fideism.
Is fideism essential to Islam? It certainly is to some versions of
Islam as practiced (or so it seems based on some of the postings in
this thread).
Fideism is not a merely formal philosophical problem; to assert a
fideistic position under the guise of theology is to assert claims
about the very nature, the very being of God, assertions that go far
beyond merely acknowledging that we do not now - and may well never -
know all that there is to know about God. Fideism encourages a
closed-mindedness that is antithetical to learning and to
self-correction, and such characteristics cannot be compatible with
Godliness and, therefore, with Islam.
Who seems more susceptible to a charge of fideism here? Is it the
so-called "liberals" or the so-called "traditionalists"?
Michael
Imran Razi
Allow me to step in here.
Can Allah be subjected
> to the the laws of bivalent logic? I do not think so.
Yes, He can, because the issue is about the nature of logic and
definitions, not the nature of Allah.
The crux of the
> issues lies in understanding what is meant by affirming what God has
> affirmed of Himself and denying what God has denied of Himself and the
> implications associated with it.
This really is not part of the core issue at all. Your mistake is in
thinking we are talking about entities and properties; instead we are
talking about statements, propositions and inferences. Whether
anything actually exists or how it exists simply has no place in a
discussion about logical systems, since existential claims need not
have any role in the validity of (conventional) logical systems.
Now as for the issue of bivalent logic where the
> proposition are either true or false, it is clearly not applicable to
> Allah.
Yes, it is, because the topic is propositions, not Allah. We need to
appreciate the difference between Allah and talking about (or
statements about) Allah. As long as propositions about Allah are
sensical (i.e., not category mistakes), conventional logical principles
operating on those propositions presumptively hold.
Of course, we can discuss alternative systems of logic in which the law
of excluded middle does not hold. But some argument is needed why
STATEMENTS about Allah should be treated differently than statements
about other entities.
So, we do not have to worry about the issue of whether Allah can
> make a stone which He can't lift (or can lift), or whether or not Allah
> can give rises to another Allah or kill Himself, or whether or not Allah
> need a daughter or son or consort. This is because what Allah has affirmed
> or denied of Himself affirms or denies other possibilities. For example,
> Allah is al-Hakeem, the Wise denies the possibility that Allah is foolish.
> Hence we only have a system that is univalent and, therefore, the bivalent
> logic is not applicable.
Your mistake here is in moving from claims about the nature of Allah to
claims about logic.
>
> Even more fundamental issue is whether Allah can be subjected to the laws
> of logic. As for the issue of logic, we can't logically state the logic
> exists because this is circular reasoning.
Logic doesn't "exist" any more than arithmetical principles exist.
Logic is simply principles of inference, nothing more, nothing less.
Axioms of logic (and mathematics) are basic or fundamental principles
that we are free to accept or reject. But they solely govern the
movement from statement A to statement B, not whether statement A is
"true," and certainly not whether A exists or how it exists.
The above is fairly elementary to students of logic that pursue the
topic with some degree of seriousness and depth. I'm not saying
anything novel. But confusion on these points causes rather large
errors, so I'll stop here.
wa salaam,
Imran Razi
Imran Razi
>
> The problem with the syllogism, IMHO, is that "material" and
> "immaterial" are not logical opposites.
Very true, if we assume "immaterial" means something other than "not
material," which it might. But I'm virtually certain Imran A. meant it
in that sense.
Each word come freighted with
> its own semantic implications.
I'm not sure, but I'm willing to agree with you for the sake of your
point.
Hence there is no real excluded middle.
Exactly so.
> At the risk of sounding like a positivist
What's wrong with positivism?
Nice points.
wa salaam,
Imran Razi
Imran Razi
wa salaam,
>
> > whose fault is that?
> >
>
> It would be the fault of the ignorant who transgress the limit set by
> Allah (subhanehu wat'alaa):
>
But Imran's point is that the non-literal interpretation is in fact the
most obvious and commonsense one. It is false that the clear
interpretation is always the literal one. That is why a solid
understanding of the language of Arabic is critical - to understand
what is clear and what is not. In some cases it is clear that the term
"forty" is not meant to refer to the actual number 40, as an example.
But a novice in Arabic and philosophy would make this mistake.
Imran Razi
Imran Aijaz
> Well, you never brought the Qur'an in at the first place. So, where did
> you get the argument about what God is what He is not? What exactly
Exactly. I never brought the Qur'an into the picture, so Saifullah
started attacking a strawman when he replied by stating that the
Qur'an never says such-and-such. Nevertheless, the idea of God lacking
spatio-temporal qualities, i.e. materialistic aspects, is something
that had been articulated by several thinkers in history - Jewish,
Christian as well as Islamic. For starters, Saifullah can read
Ghazali's "Ihya" ("Foundations of Belief"). Regarding transcendence,
Ghazali begins: "We attest that He is not a body possessing form, nor
a substance restricted and limited ..."
> is your basis? Every argument has to be have some basis before it
> can be put forth. Perhaps you liberal Muslims have an intellect which is
> much more superior to everybody else that no one else can understand you
> except your own clan.
Au contraire, the traditionalist camp (and when I say 'traditionalist'
I do not refer to the *Islamic tradition* as such but rather *a
theological position* articulated by neo-Hanbali/Ash'arite fideists
like Saifullah) has a good reputation for superciliousness. I would
recommend this paper by Ibrahim Y. Najjar on Averroes criticisms of
the Ash'arite position:
http://www.al-bab.com/arab/articles/ibnrushd1.htm
It is just the kind of neo-Hanbali attitude Saifullah exhibits that is
taken to task by Averroes. Sorry Saifullah, WE are not intimidated!
> If one has to base who God is and who God is not on "logical grounds"
> every logician would come up with his own "logical" conclusions. But we
Now Saifullah does not understand. I am not claiming that the concept
of God is to be articulated solely on logical grounds. Rather, *given*
the idea of God as related in Scripture, we need to be able to
*articulate* it on logical grounds.
> are talking about theology here and not logic. So, the argument about who
But why does Saifullah assume the mutual exclusivity of theology and
logic? This is beginning to sound like Hanbali fideism.
> God is who He is not has to be based on theological grounds. Logic can
I think Saifullah has erected a false dichotomy between theology and
logic. He needs to prove that theological assertions cannot be
subsumed under logical scrutiny before he proceeds to make his case.
Otherwise, he's simply begging the question. I am sure there is plenty
of overlap between theology and logic.
> prove the existence of God but it can't prove what He is and what He is
> not. This issue is beyond the realm of logic and this is where the
> revelation comes into picture.
This is all rather too swift. To say that God is immaterial is not the
same as saying one understands the quality of immaterial entities.
Consider this example. I understand the *concept* of immaterial
consciousness. I do not, however, know what the nature of
consciousness is like. However, I can make *positive assertions* about
consciousness (assuming mind-body dualism is true), such as "My
thoughts are not physical processes" or "Propositional attitudes are
not brain inscriptions", etc. Saifullah has conflated the conceptual
analysis of an entity with its quality.
> According to the Qur'an, the Book that He has revealed, says about Him:
>
> "There is nothing like unto Him" [42:11]
>
> "And their knowledge will never encompass Him" [20:110]
>
> "And they will never encompass anything of His knowledge" [2:255]
OK, one cannot *comprehend* God, but that does not mean we cannot
*apprehend* him.
> For these above reasons, we probihit the questions concerning the manner
Who is this "we", Saifullah? You? SRI? All the life forms in the
cosmos?
> of Allah and His Attributes because it is impossible to know the reality
> of the Essence and the Attributes. Therefore, the questions like "How is
> Allah?", "How does He look like?", "What is the manner of His Hearing and
> Seeing?" or "How did He establish Himself on the Throne?" are something
> that can't be answered given the reality that our knowledge will never
> encompass Him.
Again, this problem only arises if one - fallaciously - conflates the
conceptual analysis of an entity with its positive qualities. I said
God is immaterial and a spirit. I did not say that I know the quality
of being a spirit. This conclusion is arrived at by "via negativa". If
God is not material, if He is not a body, not confined to space, not
confined to time, He must therefore be immaterial. Where's the
problem?
> Given these facts, let us now look at your false dichotomy.
Right, just so readers can follow this, Saifullah has charged me with
a false dichotomy or dilemma. If this is cogent, Saifullah has to
produce the other possible option or options that I have ignored.
Let's see if he can do this. I said:
> > 1. God is either material or immaterial.
> > 2. God is not material.
> > -----------------------
> > 3. Therefore, God is immaterial.
Saifullah replied:
> Now what we want to know is the basis for your basis for the construct
> that "God is either material or immaterial" and the evidence that Allah is
> "not material". So far we have not seen any. So, there you go! As for no.
Saifullah does not understand the elementary nature of premise one.
Some review of basic logic is therefore in order. Premise (1) is an
*exhaustive disjunction*. All exhaustive disjunctions are necessarily
true, unlike *non-exhaustive disjunctions*. Let me explain. Consider
the following disjunction:
1. I will go to the university today or I will go to the mosque.
This disjunction is non-exhaustive, and could therefore be false (a
disjunction is only false if both *disjuncts* are false). I could, for
example, go to the mall, or simply stay at home. However, if we have
disjunction like this:
1. I am 24 years old or I am not 24 years old.
This disjunction is simply true by definition because *one of these*
disjuncts will be true. This is an exhaustive disjunction because it
contains no other possibilities. Similarly, the disjunction:
1. God is either material or immaterial.
is an exhaustive disjunction. It is therefore necessarily true. If it
is false, then Saifullah must point out what other possibility there
can be apart from God being material or immaterial.
> 3 the conclusion is as good as the premises that nos. 1 and 2 are based
> on.
True, but Saifullah has done nothing to show the falsity of the
premises I have given.
> May we also remind you that from where exactly you got the definition of
> Allah to even say that premise (1) is true?
Premise (1), as I say, is an exhaustive disjunction. It is therefore
necessarily true.
> Sufficient to say that you do not have any evidence from the Qur'an and
> Sunnah to show that Allah is "immaterial". So, in order to cover up the
> shortcomings of your arguments, you now use the unnamed and unknown
> "significant majority" of Muslims to "show" that your argument is valid.
> Is that not interesting? Nice way to argument, I must admit.
As I said, I will get into this if Saifullah objects, which he now
does. So let me ask Saifullah this question - does Saifullah think God
is material or immaterial? One or the other *has* to be true. If
Saifullah has trouble with this, then I would advise a quick review of
the basics of propositional logic.
> To save yourself from embarassment and waffle, please supply us a word in
> Arabic that is used in the Qur'an or Sunnah that suggests that God is a
> "Spirit".
Just who is waffling? It is Saifullah who is now clutching at straws
by engaging in etymological nitpicking. This is really a red herring.
My claim is that God is immaterial. He is a disembodied being, or a
spirit. The closest explicit reference to this is the Qur'anic verse
of God "breathing His Spirit" into human beings. This is not to say,
however, that the idea of God's being incorporeal cannot be deduced
from theological premises.
> But the same Scripture that your are referring to explcitly states that
> human knowledge can't comprehend the nature of Essence and Attributes of
> God. The traditional scholars have understood these verses to be in the
The fact that we cannot comprehend an entity in its entirety does not
mean that we cannot know *something* about it. For example, I know
that Saifullah is a human. But I do not need to know *everything*
about Saifullah to conclude that he is human. I can make an inference
from the limited bits and pieces of data that are available to me.
> category of "mutashabihat". The Qur'anic verses that speak about the
> mysteries of creation and the Creator in such a way that their reality
> remains obscure. The same is true for the descriptions of Heaven and Hell.
> They all fall under the category of "mutashabihat".
Fine. There is nothing inconsistent in claiming that God is immaterial
and also stating that one does not comprehend the nature of His
immateriality.
> We are not appealing to "mystery"; what we are appealing to is what Allah
> has described about Himself. Now what we want to know is how did you come
This is correct, but the question is *how are we to understand this
description*?
> to the dichotomy that either God is material or He is immaterial. What is
See my above explanation about exhaustive disjunctions.
> your proof? Remember that we are discussing theology and we expect
> you to come with a proof from the Qur'an and Sunnah to justify your
> position rather than falling back to your pet logic. Logic is useless
> because it can't show whether God is material or immaterial.
Saifullah assumes that the only legitimate theological conclusions are
ones that are derived from the Sacred corpus. But why should one hold
this assumption? It is important to note that the very act of
*deriving* conclusions from scripture requires logical analysis. Now
the idea of God that the Qur'an ascribes to is that of a being who
lacks contingencies. God does not depend on anything like air, food,
water, etc for his existence. Only material entities have
contingencies, which arise out of their being confined to the
spatio-temporal realm. Therefore, if God lacks contingencies, He must
be non-material or immaterial.
> We never said God is immaterial or material. What has been said is that
This is logically impossible. Saifullah has to admit one of these
possibilities. Which is it, Saifullah? Is God material or immaterial?
What if I said "I disagree that either I am in the UK or I am not in
the UK" - this is absurd. It's nonsense. One or the other has to be
true.
> the data is insufficient to conclude anything. This is because Allah
The only way Saifullah can reject the argument is to say that He does
not know whether God is material or immaterial. Does he want to say
this?
Imran.
M.S.M. Saifullah
> Assalaamu alaykum,
Walaikumus-salaam wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
> Can Allah be subjected
> > to the the laws of bivalent logic? I do not think so.
>
> Yes, He can, because the issue is about the nature of logic and
> definitions, not the nature of Allah.
The discussion which was made on the issue of nature of Allah and its
subjection to the laws of logic such as bivalent logic. We are not talking
about what nature logic has and how entities are to be defined in order to
make it work. Let us be clear of this issue first before misunderstanding
gets into the discussion.
I do not think we both are off in our assessment except for some minor
misunderstanding.
> > Even more fundamental issue is whether Allah can be subjected to the laws
> > of logic. As for the issue of logic, we can't logically state the logic
> > exists because this is circular reasoning.
>
> Logic doesn't "exist" any more than arithmetical principles exist.
But Imran, existence of a system called logic helps us to differentiate
between right and wrong, an apple and an orange, an edible and a poison.
The proposition that logic does not exist is very easy to prove by just
observing the physical world and drawing conclusions from it.
Wassalam
Saifullah
Zuiko Azumazi
news:4013a...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> Comment:-
> You are caught by a misunderstanding because you have not yet understood
> some basic notions of ....
<snip>
Question:-
Exactly? Did you read my post in conjunction with the previous two in the
same thread? What I was stating, by example, was that the use of simple
syllogisms can be dangerous if not confusing to both Muslims and others
alike, that was what I was trying to demonstrate. Obviously, it failed in
your case.
I was not concentrating on the meaning of the terms "material" or
"immaterial", as they applied to God, Islamic or otherwise, only the method
of analysis being adopted (in the first post) and how cleverly syntax can be
used.
I guess, I've proved my point, by confusing everyone!
Altway
Subject: Re: historical developement of Jesus and afterlife
Lines: 28
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.64.236.71
Path: mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com
X-Trace: 26 Jan 2004 10:05:11 GMT, mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com
"Imran Razi" <ir...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:250120041916235615%ir...@adelphia.net...
> Allow me to step in here.
Can Allah be subjected
to the the laws of bivalent logic? I do not think so.
> Yes, He can, because the issue is about the nature of logic and
definitions, not the nature of Allah.
> This really is not part of the core issue at all. Your mistake is in
thinking we are talking about entities and properties; instead we are
talking about statements, propositions and inferences. Whether
anything actually exists or how it exists simply has no place in a
discussion about logical systems, since existential claims need not
have any role in the validity of (conventional) logical systems.
Comment:-
I thought thediscussion was about what is true.
If it is about fantasies then this should have been made clear
so that we can avoid wasting time.
But here we see the difference between the Islamic and
the formal attitude.
Hamid S. Aziz
asimm...@yahoo.com
> New Testament scholars (both religious and secular). Hardly any
> scholars accept the substitution theory proffered by the Qur'an.
1. Where in the Quran is it claimed that there was a substitution?
2. Provide proof that the crucifixion is accepted by 'nearly all NT
scholars, especially in light of the 'authenticity' of the Biblical
accounts.
Are you saying Jesus (AS) was crucified when the Quran explicitly says
he was not? Sorry, but I just don't see a 'moral lesson' to be
learned if the Quran teaches that "he was not crucified nor killed" as
opposed to 'accepted' history'... Maybe you would care to clarify this
lesson so as I may take heed of it...
Altway
Re:Logic. I think you are right that the axioms of Logic are instructions.
But you wrote:-
"So I reject the idea that this system of Logic is a Natural Phenomena made
by Allah."
What then is your view of Logic and where does Reason fit into the scheme.
Comment:-
The various systems of Logic are techniques, methods invented by man for
certain purposes and have certain limited uses. Human beings have invented a
great number of such methods for all kinds of purposes. The invention of the
Methods "M" depend on human reason "R" and purposes "P". The methods "M" are
not "R" or "P".
The validity of these methods "M" lies in whether and to what extent the
purpose of the method is achieved.
All human purposes derive from, i.e. have causes "C" in their nature, and
have a function "F" with respect to their Nature. "C" and "F" are
inter-related. "P" is ultimately the same as "F" and vice versa. But "P" can
be misinterpreted or corrupted and then falls short of "F". "F" can be
regarded as the "growth or psychological developmental factor".
Reason "R" is the natural faculty of data processing - the data being
provided by the various faculties of perception or awareness "A", included
the inner and outer senses, feelings and actions which also bring data by
inner and outer reactions. The results of this data processing must fit in a
self-consistent manner into the store of truth or order that describes our
nature "N". This allows human development (psychological growth.) "N" is in
interaction and inter-dependence with the rest of the world "W".
If data processing is governed by Distorting factors "D" - by fantasies,
fixations, attachments, habits, obsessions, etc. that corrupt it and the
results do not fit in a self-consistent manner with the being of a person
then it causes inner contradictions, conflicts and disintegration,
psychological degeneration and suffering.
It follows that "A" is opposed to "D".
God or Allah is understood as the transcendental source of "W" of which "N"
is a part. And also the source of A, F, R which are aspects of "N". These
refer to the natural faculties for perception, motivation and action. They
are inter-dependent and collectively inter-dependent with the rest of the
created world.
Some people have made Logic into the ultimate Truth, a god. Worse still some
are worshippers of Aristotle. These are forms of Idolatry, which Muslims
reject.
Hamid S. Aziz
www.altway.freeuk.com
G. Waleed Kavalec
news:4011ecfb$0$26116$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> BTW, emotively, I agree with your sentiment that; "Such assumptions do not
> apply to Him", but, am I sitting on the 'theological' fence or just caught
> on the proverbial 'horns of a dilemma'?
This beast has been discovered this century to be (at least) a trilemma.
I refer to Kurt Godel's incompleteness theorem.
We used to assume A or not-A. Kurt comes along and shows that in any
(non-trivial) man-made system we can find a case that is provably
undecidable.
Church-Turing essentially repeats this chorus in terms of computation.
So, now we have A, not-A, and A-ghayb !
If I remember correctly on the computation side we can't always even prove
that some cases ARE undecidable, we just have to wait for a literal eternity
of calculations...
If it NEVER finishes, it was undecidable. ;-)
G. Waleed Kavalec
news:Pine.HPX.4.58L.0...@club.eng.cam.ac.uk...[...[>
[...]
> Greg, I think the issue is much deeper than this. Can Allah be subjected
> to the the laws of bivalent logic? I do not think so.
You are 100% correct. But He does expect us to use reason, and that
could be interpreted to include logic.
So I focused on the issue at hand.
[...]
> Logic by itself could not have propped by and enmeshed
> the whole world. It has no such capability. In other words, God is the one
> Who defines, fashions and governs logic. Looking at it slightly
> differently, one can also re-state that logic pre-supposes existence of
> God. Or else how else logic can be validated? Not by itself as it would
> be a circular argument. God defines logic and not logic defines God.
Brother Saifullah that is elegant. No atheist would ever accept it, of
course, but you have painted such a clear diagram of the hierarchy
of truth I am speechless.
Altway
"Zuiko Azumazi" <azu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4014e4ad$0$28867$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > You are caught by a misunderstanding because you have not yet understood
some basic notions of ....
> Exactly? Did you read my post in conjunction with the previous two in the
same thread? What I was stating, by example, was that the use of simple
syllogisms can be dangerous if not confusing to both Muslims and others
alike, that was what I was trying to demonstrate. Obviously, it failed in
your case.
Comment:-
Sorry. You are correct.
I did not read the previous post but was merely commenting on
the particular statement you made and I quoted.
But I did realise that you were demonstrating that the method
of syllogistic argument led to ambiguity, and
I was reinforcing this rather than contradicting you.
If you thought I was trying to "bash" you, I am sorry.
I had no such intention.
I was also elaborating the argument and addressing other readers.
Hamid S. Aziz
..
Zuiko Azumazi
> "Zuiko Azumazi" <azu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4011ecfb$0$26116$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> This beast has been discovered this century to be (at least) a trilemma.
<snip>
> If it NEVER finishes, it was undecidable. ;-)
<snip>
Comment:-
Another way of looking at the 'logical form' challenge, from different
Islamic perspective, is the Hegel/Heidegger perspective. Consider this
example from the work of Heidegger (Hermeneutic - School of Philosophy):
"Why are we concerned about nothing? The nothing is rejected by science and
sacrificed as the unreal. Science wants to have nothing to do with nothing.
What is nothing? Does the nothing exist only because the not, i.e. negation
exists? Or do negation and the not exist only because the nothing exists? We
maintain: The nothing is more primitive than the not and negation. We know
the nothing. The nothing is the simple negation of the totality of being.
Anxiety reveals the nothing: the nothing itself nots."
Of course, I don't think that there are too many traditional Muslims would
grasp the esoteric value of this kind of sophisticated 'logic' even though
they sometimes argue it implicitly. Check out the 'nots' aspect in the
syllogism I quoted in an earlier thread.
As a Muslim wit once noted, "why do I need Ockham's Razor when I don't need
to shave". Is this parsimonious humour or did I intentionally leave out a
't' somewhere? ;-)
--
Peace
--
We should not be ashamed to acknowledge truth from whatever source
it comes to us, even if it is brought to us by former generations and
foreign peoples. For him who seeks the truth there is nothing of higher
value than truth itself [al-Kindi 801-66]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Imran Aijaz
I thought I would comment on this posting to point out something
rather strange in Saifullah's dogmatics (and indeed the dogmatics one
finds in the writings and ideas of Hanbali/Ash'arite fideists);
something that indicates an inconsistency in one's overall,
theological position.
In his reply to Greg Waleed Kavalec, Saifullah wrote:
> Greg, I think the issue is much deeper than this. Can Allah be subjected
> to the the laws of bivalent logic? I do not think so. The crux of the
> issues lies in understanding what is meant by affirming what God has
> affirmed of Himself and denying what God has denied of Himself and the
> implications associated with it.
Thus, Saifullah appears to hold the position that God transcends even
the laws of logic. In a posting dated 2001-12-27, however, Saifullah
comments thus on the Christian doctrine of the Trinity:
[BEGIN QUOTE]
As for Christianity and their concept of trinitarian god, I think we
had pretty good discussions about them with Christians apologists and
missionaries who themselves have no clue of what the trinitarian creed
actually says. Usually the argument ends up by calling trinity as a
"mystery" as if calling mystery a mystery solves the mystery. And this
is the reason why Christian trinitarian doctrines can never be
explained or even defended using various arguments.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a0gnf6%24o92%241%40samba.rahul.net
[END QUOTE]
Now I want to charge Saifullah here (and those fideists who employ the
same apologetic tactics like him) with the fallacy of special
pleading. The problem is that, when it comes to Allah, Saifullah wants
to prohibit logical inquiry into the concept of God. He wants to claim
that God transcends the laws of logic. When it comes to a Trinitarian
concept of God (which Saifullah does not, of course, believe in),
though, Saifullah seems to be quick in charging it with irrationality
- the concept of the Trinity is apparently illogical - and thinks that
the appeal to mystery is a cop-out. And yet, Saifullah does exactly
the same thing when it comes to logical scrutiny of the God he
believes in! He position appears to endorse the cherished
Hanbali/Ash'arite device of "bila kayfa"; theological utterances about
God are simply to be accepted "without asking how". Isn't this the
same as the Christian doctrine of Mystery? If Hanbali/Ash'arite
fideists can fall back on "bila kayfa", then why can't Christians do
the same thing when it comes to the Trinitarian concept of God?
Imran.
vmi...@yahoo.com
> 1. God is either material or immaterial.
>
> is an exhaustive disjunction. It is therefore necessarily true.
Your premise cannot be proved to be true in the Divine Realm. You
cannot know the dimensionality, operative laws, and all the possibilities
(in the context of that Realm). Hence there is *no way* to prove that the
disjunction is exhaustive; the conclusion is consequently unprovable.
Disregard of the unknowable context is the fallacy in your argument.
Let me give you a very simple example. If you draw the graph of
the curve (parabola) in the equation y = 3x^2 + 2x + 1, you will find
that it does not intersect the x-axis anywhere. Consequently, the
quadratic equation 3x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0 has no roots in the real plane.
Increase, however, the dimensionality of the numbers to move to the
realm of complex numbers (with real as well as imaginary components)
and it can be shown that the equation does have roots in the complex
plane.
We learn that validity of any conclusion must be predicated on the
domain for which it is stated.
There is no way for you, or any one, to prove that:
a) the rule of exhaustive disjunction is applicable in the particular
Space which is Host to the Innermost Reality of God(SWT).
b) that the disjunction which you state is, in fact, also exhaustive
in that Relam, namely that material and immaterial (Spirit in particular)
are the only logical possibilities in that Realm.
What you posit is, therfore, unprovable.
> The only way Saifullah can reject the argument is to say that He does
> not know whether God is material or immaterial. Does he want to say
> this?
>
There is nothing logically wrong with accepting that we do not know the
Reality of God(SWT), material, immaterial, or otherwise.
Viqar Ahmed
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service New Rate! $9.95/Month 50GB
M.S.M. Saifullah
Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
> > be a circular argument. God defines logic and not logic defines God.
>
> Brother Saifullah that is elegant. No atheist would ever accept it, of
> course, but you have painted such a clear diagram of the hierarchy
> of truth I am speechless.
Often, I have seen that atheists and agnostics taunt Muslims to prove the
existence of God logically. If one thinks a little bit more carefully, it
is inescapable that logic has to have something to over it to validate
it. For an atheist or agnostic, there is no way out of it except
to deny the very existence of logic. In that case we can't make sense of
what he is talking about.
Wassalam
Saifullah
Altway
"G. Waleed Kavalec" <G.Wa...@kavalec.com> wrote in message
news:zf6dnXktG75...@intertex.net...
> > Greg, I think the issue is much deeper than this. Can Allah be subjected
to the the laws of bivalent logic? I do not think so.
> You are 100% correct. But He does expect us to use reason, and that
could be interpreted to include logic.
Comment:-
Logic is a method created by reason and like any other instrument
has a limited use, can be used for good or evil, appropriately or
inappropriately.
To say that we can judge Allah by means of Logic
is to say that Logic is greater than Allah.
This is idolatry.
Hamid S. Aziz
..
Altway
> > What then is your view of Logic and where does Reason fit into the
scheme.
> The various systems of Logic are techniques, methods invented by man for
> certain purposes and have certain limited uses.
Question:-
Your definitions of faith, reason, revelations, knowledge etc. certainly
differ from those current in the West and used by non-Muslims and Muslims on
this
website. How exactly does this difference come about and what difference
does it
make.
Answer:-
As I have indicated before, I get my ideas from a study of the Quran.
These differ from others when they obtain their ideas from Western or
Christian sources.
Fundamentally, we can make a distinction between
(a) the reality of a thing "R" (b) the experience of the thing "E" and
(c) the verbal description of a thing "D".
It is not difficult to see that these are different and constiture
different "worlds" or "spheres" (of Nature, of Man's mind and of Language,
society and culture)
and that "E" refers to a small part of "R" and "D" refers to a small part of
"E".
What we are given by nature is "E". and we derive "R" and "D".
In general, The Quran is concerned primarily with the "R" world and
with the expansion of the "E" world so that conforms to "R".
It is concerned with "D" only in so far as it facilitates this aim, as a
means.
The Western attitude, though not always so, has the opposite aim.
It is primarily concerned with "D". Their educational system appears to be
designed mainly to elaborate the "D" world and cause the "E" world to
conform to that.
Though, I have no objection when Muslims try to explain Islam
to the West in terms that they can understand, it is also necessary to
clarify the underlying epistomological differences otherwise such
attempts will mislead.
Many of those who post to this website, even when they claim to be
Muslim are strictly speaking not Muslim ( unless they are ignorant Muslims)
i.e. they have not really Surrendered and do not think of Allah as supreme
and judge things by the Quran.
Instead, they try to judge Allah or the Quran by some other non-islamic
man-made standards. They have made these into gods. They are certainly
idolators
even if they are unaware of this.
Hamid S. Aziz
..
vmi...@yahoo.com
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, G. Waleed Kavalec wrote:
>
> Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
>
> > > 1. God is either material or immaterial.
> > > 2. God is not material.
> > > -----------------------
> > > 3. Therefore, God is immaterial.
> >
> > Are you not assuming Allah must obey man's "law of the excluded
> > middle"?
> >
> > Such assumptions do not apply to Him, in my humble opinion.
>
> Greg, I think the issue is much deeper than this. Can Allah be subjected
> to the the laws of bivalent logic? I do not think so. The crux of the
> issues lies in understanding what is meant by affirming what God has
> affirmed of Himself and denying what God has denied of Himself and the
> implications associated with it.
The conclusions obtained by employing any system of knowledge are valid
only within the "scope" in which the axioms and "laws" of that knowledge
system(as understood by human beings, and not necessarily "the" laws) are
applicable and demonstrable.
Our minds and intellects, as our very own being, are entities which wholly
exists in a three dimensional space. There is no scientific basis, AFAIK,
of extrapolating the conclusions, which are products of our minds and
intellect, to *any* higher dimensional space with *any* degree of
certainty. It is not possible, for instance, to extend the validity of a
result in three dimensional space to a four dimensional space-time
continuum. Heck, we do not even grasp the reality of "time"; and I know of
no one who can stake such a claim. Relaizing that there is a space-time
continuum is a different thing from knowing the reality of the space-time
continuum.
A vague, abstract, perception of higher realms is, in all probability, all
that our mind can aspire to on its own. No truth pertaining to higher
dimensions can become more apparent, or comprehensible, unless Revealed
and Explained by the Supreme Being, and eventually recognized and accepted
by our own intuitive (perceptive) abilities.
What is evident, without doubt, is the we have *no* knowledge either of the
dimensionality, or of the operative laws, of the realm which hosts the
Innermost Reality of God(SWT). To advance the premise that the laws and
conclusions of logic apply in that, or any other higher realm, in the same
way that they do in our three dimensional space, is illogic itself. It is
argument without regard to context.
vmi...@yahoo.com
> What is the status of an abstraction like
> "freedom"? I believe common sense says that freedom is not material
> but that it is not spirit either.
Freedom, like happines or other feelings, is a state of mind; something
we experience, but which is, nevertheless, intangible.
I think the notions of materiality and spirits are ascribable to tangible
entities only.
thebit
> I agree, and this is what I have been trying to get across to others
> who are now involved in this discussion.
I suspect the objections you received from Muslims were due to your
proposal to 'reject' the narratives in the Qur'an, because they do not
meet "well-established history".
> The ethical derivatives of
> the Qur'anic narratives are more important than their actual
> historicity.
Yes, I can see good reason for that. The story of the companions of
the cave (usually taken to be the 'Seven Sleepers of Ephesus') comes
to mind. What was their number? Or was the meaning of the narrative
more important?
Nonetheless, imho, the historicity of an event in the Qur'an is part
of the very admonition itself. The actual event as an 'historical
fact' is probably tied in with the psychological attitude the Qur'an
wishes to induce in the believer. This particular event was *real*,
and your fate will be similar unless you pay attention, is what the
Qur'an seems to be saying.
> The reality of the crucifixion is accepted by nearly all
> New Testament scholars (both religious and secular). Hardly any
> scholars accept the substitution theory proffered by the Qur'an.
Here we might have to address the broader issues of 'history' itself.
A concensus, even implicit, has probably been achieved with respect to
the story of the crucifixion in the more 'dominant' view; so all
historical narratives are examined around this assumption. I am not
suggesting that this or that particular narrative is wrong (I don't
think I am in a position to say so) - only that the way we think about
an event in the past is partly based on certain assumptions (and yes,
Muslims also have certain assumptions which should be examined).
Further, I am not sure the Qur'an neccassrily talks of a 'subsitution
theory'. That might be one way of interpeting the Qur'anic narrative,
imho.
> There seems to be something about *religious* dogmas,
> however, that appears to make them susceptible to more skepticism over
> and above our 'ordinary' dogmas (e.g. about belief in a moral order of
> the universe).
Perhaps. Religious dogmas are probably more assertive. Or we might
just be at a stage in history, where new dogmas are being used as
substitues for older ones.
Salaam
Abdus Salaam
Michael S. Pearl
> 1. God is either material or immaterial.
>
> is an exhaustive disjunction. It is therefore necessarily true.
Viqar Ahmed responded:
>Your premise cannot be proved to be true in the Divine Realm. You
>cannot know the dimensionality, operative laws, and all the
possibilities
>(in the context of that Realm). Hence there is *no way* to prove that
the
>disjunction is exhaustive; the conclusion is consequently unprovable.
>
>Disregard of the unknowable context is the fallacy in your argument.
>
>... We learn that validity of any conclusion must be predicated on
the
>domain for which it is stated.
>
Michael's comment:
Is the "Divine Realm" divorced/wholly remote from the physical realm
in which we find ourselves? Does God "reside" only in the
asserted/hypothesized "Divine Realm"? Is God only transcendent and
remote, or is God (also) somehow immanent?
Islam as a practiced religion is certainly not monolithic, and there
may be some Muslims who could be properly described as somewhat
deistic, but there are certainly other Muslims who seem to claim what
amounts to a divine immanence - some kind of presence of God in this
world.
Is the God of the aforementioned "Divine Realm" wholly remote from
this physical world or not?
If not, then is God's presence in this world a physical or a
non-physical presence?
If God is not remote, then the "exhaustive disjunction" seems quite
valid. Imran's conclusion can be appreciated as "predicated on the
domain for which it is stated" - that "domain" being the one which
pertains to our own physical world. There is no immediately apparent
"fallacy" in Imran's statements.
On the other hand, if God is remote - well, that leads to all sorts of
other interesting issues and consequences.
Michael
Zuiko Azumazi
"Imran Aijaz" <imran...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:27aae83.04012...@posting.google.com...
> Salaams/Greetings.
> I thought I would comment on this posting to point out something
> rather strange in Saifullah's dogmatics (and indeed the dogmatics one
> finds in the writings and ideas of Hanbali/Ash'arite fideists);
> something that indicates an inconsistency in one's overall,
> theological position.
<snip>
Comment:-
If one analyses the use 'logic' as a device, purely, in the light of "Surah
003:104 Imran", then it generally explains the orthodox Islamic exegesis,
doesn't it? You are quite right in your assertion, it's the both sides of
the same coin argument, if it's used for the benefit of Islam it's 'good'
and if it's not then it's 'bad' [evil], just look what subscribers have
written in their various threads? Just think about the oceans of scholarly
ink that have been written, past, present and, presumably future, on
interpreting this one 'ayat'! Isn't this 'ayat' one of the primary
cornerstones of Sharia? Another, Shariah slant, is that any non-Muslim
comment, regardless of it's intrinsic coherence, cogency or 'eruditness', is
automatically considered 'bad' [evil] or irrelevant, isn't it?
Whatever your view, Islamic or otherwise, the cornerstone of dialectics, is
that all arguments and propositions (facts and truths) must be 'logically
consistent', otherwise the whole subject of meaningful human communication
is irrelevant, isn't it? Does this avoidance lead to psychological or
'delusional' diseases? If not, then, aren't we wasting our time in this
world?
Altway
"Imran Aijaz" <imran...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:27aae83.04012...@posting.google.com...
> Thus, Saifullah appears to hold the position that God transcends even
the laws of logic. In a posting dated 2001-12-27, however, Saifullah
comments thus on the Christian doctrine of the Trinity:
> The problem is that, when it comes to Allah, Saifullah wants
to prohibit logical inquiry into the concept of God. He wants to claim
that God transcends the laws of logic. When it comes to a Trinitarian
concept of God (which Saifullah does not, of course, believe in),
though, Saifullah seems to be quick in charging it with irrationality
- the concept of the Trinity is apparently illogical - and thinks that
the appeal to mystery is a cop-out. And yet, Saifullah does exactly
the same thing when it comes to logical scrutiny of the God he
believes in!
Comment:-
(1) Systems of Logic have been constructed by human reason.
There are no "laws of Logic" but only human instructions as to how to use
words.
(2) God the creator certainly transcends the rules by which He creates the
Universe. This means that God is known by revealation.
(3) The doctrine of Trinity is a man made one, not a revelation.
It can be scrutinised both by Logic in particular and by
Reason in general.
(4) The numbers and relationships that Trinity imply refer to
the created world of relativity. It cannot apply to the Absolute.
Hamid S. Aziz
..
vmi...@yahoo.com
> Is the "Divine Realm" divorced/wholly remote from the physical realm
> in which we find ourselves? Does God "reside" only in the
> asserted/hypothesized "Divine Realm"? Is God only transcendent and
> remote, or is God (also) somehow immanent?
In my view there is no way for us to make any definite assertion about
this. In the Qur'an, God(SWT) Refers to the creation of seven planes
of creation (heavens). The locale of these realms have not been described,
and we have no means to acquire supporting data with which to form any
conclusions with regard to their proximity or remoteness vis-a-vis the
"physical realm in which we find ourselves". Hypothetically, if an entity
(which is part of another realm) was present right next to my nose, but I
had no means to perceive of its presence in any way whatsoever, is that
entity within the domain of the "physical realm in which I exist", or
remote and removed, from it?
What if the seven heavens overlap in some (hypothetical) temporal-spatial
sense, but are governed by laws such that access between them is totally
asymmetric? By this, I mean that entities in one have full access and
control over events in the other, but the first is (accesswise) fully
blocked to the second (not referring here to a necessarily tangible "sense
based" access but, rather, any means with which to have a perception of the
first realm).
Our notions of space and time, central to any discussion of a "locale"
are strictly limited by our "mind" and our our "intellectual" ability, both
very much a part of the "physical realm in which we find ourselves"? As
I stated above, even if "all" the other realms were right next to my nose,
and I had no means whatsoever to percieve of them, how would I go about
making any logical assertions about their existence (or lack of it), their
nature, their operative laws, and the nature of functioning agents therein.
It is inconceivable to me that the notion of exhaustive disjunction, or any
other logical notion for that matter, would be of any use.
Is there any way that you, or Imran, or anyone else, could "prove",
strictly with the help of laws "of the physical realm" (to which such
realms may not be subject) that such a realm does not exist?
And if you cannot even prove, or disprove, its existence, can you explain
to me how you would be able to make logical assertions about its
intricacies or about the nature of the functionaries therein?
I'll deal with your other points in another post.
M.S.M. Saifullah
Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
> Now I want to charge Saifullah here (and those fideists who employ the
> same apologetic tactics like him) with the fallacy of special
> pleading. The problem is that, when it comes to Allah, Saifullah wants
> to prohibit logical inquiry into the concept of God. He wants to claim
> that God transcends the laws of logic. When it comes to a Trinitarian
> concept of God (which Saifullah does not, of course, believe in),
> though, Saifullah seems to be quick in charging it with irrationality
> - the concept of the Trinity is apparently illogical - and thinks that
> the appeal to mystery is a cop-out. And yet, Saifullah does exactly
> the same thing when it comes to logical scrutiny of the God he
> believes in! He position appears to endorse the cherished
> Hanbali/Ash'arite device of "bila kayfa"; theological utterances about
> God are simply to be accepted "without asking how". Isn't this the
> same as the Christian doctrine of Mystery? If Hanbali/Ash'arite
> fideists can fall back on "bila kayfa", then why can't Christians do
> the same thing when it comes to the Trinitarian concept of God?
Well, it is an interesting charge to say that I am using the case of
Special Pleading for the description of Allah by saying that Allah is
above logic, where as when it comes to the issue of Trinity, we can use
logic. Hamid Aziz (Altway), in one stroke finished the whole argument of
using Special Pleading, in another post. I will only elaborate on what I
had stated earlier.
As far as the issue of logic is concerned, the important thing is what
validates it. Logic can't validate itself. We can't logically state the
logic exists because this is circular reasoning. Conversely, we can't
logically state the logic does not exist because this would again lead to
circular reasoning. Therefore, one can't prove logic to be valid, and
therefore anything proven using logic to be valid without violating the
Law of Non-Contradiction.
The way out is to go beyond logic and look for a solution. What
makes logic binding is because of what is over it. Stating slightly
differently, logic is binding on that which is under logic. Validity
of logic exists because of something that is over it. This also means
that something that is over logic should, by nature, is the originator and
fashioner of logic. Logic by itself could not have propped by and enmeshed
the whole world. It has no such capability. In other words, God is the one
Who defines, fashions and governs logic. Restating slightly differently,
logic does not define Allah, rather it is Allah that defines logic.
Using logic, we know know things *about* Allah. We can't comprehend His
Essence and His Attributes in its totality except what is obvious and
what is stated in the revelation. This is because Allah's Essence and His
Attributes are beyond the realm of logic. Allah has clearly said that
there is nothing in His creation that resembles Him and that our knowledge
will never encompass Him.
"There is nothing like unto Him" [42:11]
"And their knowledge will never encompass Him" [20:110]
"And they will never encompass anything of His knowledge" [2:255]
This is consistent with an entity Who is beyond logic.
> believes in! He position appears to endorse the cherished
> Hanbali/Ash'arite device of "bila kayfa"; theological utterances about
> God are simply to be accepted "without asking how". Isn't this the
> same as the Christian doctrine of Mystery? If Hanbali/Ash'arite
> fideists can fall back on "bila kayfa", then why can't Christians do
> the same thing when it comes to the Trinitarian concept of God?
Now that we have seen that Allah's Essence and His Attributes are outside
of the realm of logic, let us now turn our attention to the issue of
*explaining* the Attributes of Allah.
The great Imams of Islam such as Malik, Shaafi'i and Ahmad b. Hanbal held
the position that the Attributes of Allah are as Allah described it.
But since "nothing is like Him", His attributes, though real, are not like
the attributes of human beings or any other created things. Hence they
can't be subjected to, for example, any human explanation or
interpretation. Hence Allah's Attributes are taken "la bil kayfa wa la
ma'ana", i.e., without explaining how and devise a meaning to it. This is
logical and makes sense given the facts about Allah's Essence and
Attributes.
Why not Christians do the same about Trinitarian concept of God?
Succintly, the Trinitarian concept of God comes from Athanasian Creed, a
man-made concept. A man-made concept is subjected to the laws of logic.
The next issue is why should not we suspend a logical enquiry in the
matter related with Trinitarian concept of God, when we are doing the same
thing for Allah. Well, let us first see what "Trinity" actually is. The
New Catholic Encyclopedia under "Trinity, Holy" says:
"It is difficult in the second half of the 20th century to offer a clear,
objective and straightforward account of the revelation, doctrinal
evolution, and theological elaboration of the Mystery of the trinity.
Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as other, present a
somewhat unsteady silhouette.
Two things have happened. There is the recognition on the part of exegetes
and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman
Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New
Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely
parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic
theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism,
one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last
quadrant of the 4th century. It was only then that what might be called
the definitive Trinitarian dogma 'One God in three Persons' became
thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and thought ... it was the
product of 3 centuries of doctrinal development." ["The New Catholic
Encyclopedia", 1967, Volume XIV, p. 295]
Let us now draw some conclusions:
1. The concept of Trinity, 'One God in three Persons' is a product of
three centuries of doctrinal development culminating is what is called the
"Athanasian Creed". This concept is a man-made one and is subjected to the
laws of logic.
2. The Trinity is described as "mystery" by the Christians themselves.
Let us turn our attention to the man-made concept of "Athanasian Creed".
To say the least, it voilates the language and the logic. The Athanasian
Creed defines Trinity as:
"That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither
confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one
person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit."
Further:
"The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The
Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost
Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost
Etneral and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there
are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated,
and One Uncomprehensible."
It also adds:
"... So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And
yet they are not Three Gods, but One God."
In Trinitarian creed, the distinction between the three components is
important. That is the Father is distinct from the Son is distinct from
the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father. If the components of
Trinity are not made distinct then we have ancient heresy has been
branded by the Church as Patripassianism, Monarchianism, or
Sabellianism. If three components of the Trinity have to be distinct then
they can't be the same, i.e, God. Consequently, they can't form one
God. This is because according to language, the words "distinct" and
"same" are antipodes. For example, 1 and 2 are distinct numbers, i.e., we
know what number 1 means and we know what number 2 means and the relation
between the two. The necessity of distinction between the components of
Trinity and yet they be the same introduces contradiction in the
language. If there is contradiction in the language, then the logic goes
for a hit. If the logic goes for a hit then violation of mathematics is
not far off. This means that there is absolutely *no* analogy that can
explain Trinity.
The problem just does not end here. The creed also claims that Jesus is
"God" who is "uncreated", "incomprehensible" and "eternal" We should now
ask, why was Jesus "born" (or "begotton", if you please) then when he was
"eternal" and "uncreated"? When he died on the cross then was he
"eternal"? Again we have the violation of language and logic. Also the
word "Son" implies that there exists an older father who has begotten such
a son via a sexual union with a woman. The Qur'an elegantly describes
Jesus as Ibn Maryam, i.e., son of Mary, correcting the Christian theology.
Wassalam
Saifullah
M.S.M. Saifullah
Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
> (2) God the creator certainly transcends the rules by which He creates the
> Universe. This means that God is known by revealation.
>
> (3) The doctrine of Trinity is a man made one, not a revelation.
> It can be scrutinised both by Logic in particular and by
> Reason in general.
I must say that the terseness of the refutation of this so-called case of
"special pleading" is brilliant. Just two points, with full import,
devastates the argument.
Wassalam
Saifullah
M.S.M. Saifullah
> Is the God of the aforementioned "Divine Realm" wholly remote from
> this physical world or not?
The belief of the Muslims is that He is above His throne in
heaven and He is not present in this world. But His power and knowledge
are everywhere in His creation. Perhaps the best Qur'anic verse describing
Allah's power and knowledge over the creation, man in this case is 50:16.
It says:
"It was We Who created man, and We know what dark suggestions his soul
makes to him: for We are nearer to him than (his) jugular vein." [50:16]
> If God is not remote, then the "exhaustive disjunction" seems quite
> valid. Imran's conclusion can be appreciated as "predicated on the
> domain for which it is stated" - that "domain" being the one which
> pertains to our own physical world. There is no immediately apparent
> "fallacy" in Imran's statements.
As for the "exhaustive disjunction" it is invalid, if the reason for
its validity was the domain that pertains to our own physical world.
Since God does not reside in our physical world, any logical constructs
involving the cases that are valid in our physical world, are in effect
null and void.
Wassalam
Saifullah
Altway
"Michael S. Pearl" <mpe...@clarkrd.com> wrote in message
news:1f8dca8f.04012...@posting.google.com...
> Is the "Divine Realm" divorced/wholly remote from the physical realm
in which we find ourselves? Does God "reside" only in the
asserted/hypothesized "Divine Realm"? Is God only transcendent and
remote, or is God (also) somehow immanent?
Comment:-
Muslims do or ought to take their idea of God from the Quran.
According to the Quran Allah is Absolute, One
He, is transcendental, immanent as well as Personal.
He surrounds all things and is the Outer and inner and
His spirit is within us.
His immanence is demonstrated by His attributes which are
demonstrated in Nature and within us.
There is no distinction between the material, the living and the spiritual
There are only phenomena having these aspects.
Most of us do not believe that God can be described by silly syllogisms
but that He reveals himself and that, as the Quran points out, proof of His
existence and nature are demonstrated in the Nature, in that He sends
Messengers
who receive revelation and in our faculties for awareness.
See View-1. The concept of God on a full discussion of the Islamic concept
on the site below.
Hamid S. Aziz
www.altway.freeuk.com
M.S.M. Saifullah
Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
>> To save yourself from embarassment and waffle, please supply us a word in
>> Arabic that is used in the Qur'an or Sunnah that suggests that God is a
>> "Spirit".
>
> Just who is waffling? It is Saifullah who is now clutching at straws
> by engaging in etymological nitpicking. This is really a red herring.
> My claim is that God is immaterial. He is a disembodied being, or a
> spirit. The closest explicit reference to this is the Qur'anic verse
> of God "breathing His Spirit" into human beings. This is not to say,
> however, that the idea of God's being incorporeal cannot be deduced
> from theological premises.
We asked you a simple question concerning where exactly does in the Qur'an
and Sunnah mentions or suggests that God is a "spirit" and its Arabic
equivalent. Instead of being straight-forward, you started to attack me by
saying that I am engaging myself in "etymological nitpicking". Firstly, we
are not dealing with "etymology" leave alone "nitpicking". Secondly, this
guy claims that the closest explicit reference to God being a spirit comes
from the Qur'anic verse of God "breathing His spirit" into human beings.
Since when has God "breathing His Spirit" being equal to God being a
"spirit"? Has God bestowing His Word on Mary being equal God being a Word?
Some logic we must say!
Let us do some analysis here. The Arabic equivalent of "spirit" is "Ruh".
"Ruh" is used in the Qur'an primarily in two ways, one to mean "spirit
(or soul)" and the other to mean Angel Gabriel. Angel Gabriel is referred
to as Ruh al-Qudus or Ruh al-Amin or simply Ruh. In English, Ruh al-Qudus
is translated as "Holy Spirit". Let us deal with the relevant verses and
see what the traditional scholars have said about them.
------------------
16:102
"Say, the Holy Spirit has brought the revelation from thy Lord in Truth,
in order to strengthen those who believe, and as a Guide and Glad Tidings
to Muslims."
Arabic words used: Qul nazzalahu ruuhul Qudus
Tafseer Ibn Katheer: God answered the unbelievers "Say, the Holy Spirit
has brought the revelation" ie Jibril "from thy Lord in Truth" etc.
Tafseer Al-Jalaalayn: "Say" to them "the Holy Spirit has brought the
revelation" Jibril etc.
Tafseer Al-Qurtobi: "Say, the Holy Spirit has brought the revelation"
refers to Jibril He brought the revelation comprising the abrogated and
the abrogator. etc
Tafseer At-Tabary: [...] Say Jibril has brought it from my Lord in Truth
etc.
-----------------
2:87
"We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of
Messengers; We gave Jesus, the son of Mary, Clear (Signs) and strengthened
him with the Holy Spirit. Is it that whenever there comes to you a
Messenger with what ye yourselves desire not, ye are puffed up with pride?
Some ye called impostors, and others ye slay!"
Arabic words used: wa ayyadnaahu bi ruhil Qudus..
Tafseer Ibn Katheer: it is Jibril (repotrs from Ibn 'Abbaas and Ibn
Mas'ud are quoted
Tafseer Al-Jalaalayn: Jibril
Tafseer Al-Qurtobi: the same as Tabary (see below).
Tafseer At-Tabary: ruuhil Qudus : Jibril (+ many reports confirming that.)
other weird reports not supported by At-Tabary (he gives his reasons for
not supporting them) say that it might be the Injil.
-------------
Similarly for 2:253 and 5:110.
---------------
4:171
"O People of the Book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of
Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than)
A Messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a
Spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His Messengers. Say
not "Trinity": desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is One God:
glory be to Him: (far Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all
things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of
affairs.
Arabi words used: wa ruuhum minhu
A good discussion by Ibn Katheer on the issue of "His Word and a spirit
from Him" is translated at:
http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=4&tid=12973
-----------------
Comparing verse 2:97 and 16:102 is very much enlightening and means
clearly that al-Ruh and Jibril are the same entity that brings the
revelation. And the other comparison also shows that the Holy Spirit,
i.e., Gabriel was the one who was with Jesus(P).
Let us now move over to the verses that deal with spirit or sometimes
called soul. The spirit or soul is a created by Allah and very little of
its knowledge is given His creation.
---------------
15:29
"When I have fashioned him (in due proportion) and breathed into him of
My spirit, fall ye down in obeisance unto him."
The verse here refers to Adam, AS, and breathing of soul into into him
that Allah had created. More discussion at:
http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=15&tid=26925
Allah's breathing His spirit in Adam means the spirit which Allah has
created for Adam.
--------------
17:85
"They are asking thee concerning the Spirit. Say: The Spirit is by command
of my Lord, and of knowledge ye have been vouchsafed but little."
Interesting the above verse was revealed concerning the questions from the
Jews. Ibn Katheer states: Ibn `Abbas said, "This was when the Jews said to
the Prophet , 'Tell us about the Ruh and how the Ruh will be punished that
is in the body - for the Ruh is something about which only Allah knows,
and there was no revelation concerning it.' He did not answer them at all,
then Jibril came to him and ... Hence the verse 17:85.
Again much of it is already discussed at:
http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=17&tid=29571
----------
And we do not have to go farther. The "spirit" is by command of Allah and
its knowledge is very little communicated to the humans. Obviously, the
"spirit" and Allah are two different different entities. Spirit is created
by Allah and hence it is not Allah itself.
> > is your basis? Every argument has to be have some basis before it
> > can be put forth. Perhaps you liberal Muslims have an intellect which is
> > much more superior to everybody else that no one else can understand you
> > except your own clan.
>
> Au contraire, the traditionalist camp (and when I say 'traditionalist'
> I do not refer to the *Islamic tradition* as such but rather *a
> theological position* articulated by neo-Hanbali/Ash'arite fideists
> like Saifullah) has a good reputation for superciliousness. I would
> recommend this paper by Ibrahim Y. Najjar on Averroes criticisms of
> the Ash'arite position:
Now here comes the name-calling "neo-Hanbali/Ash'arite fideists like
Saifullah" from a person who does not even know the difference between a
"spirit" and "Allah"? And then call others supercilious as if he himself
is the one on certainty?
> > If one has to base who God is and who God is not on "logical grounds"
> > every logician would come up with his own "logical" conclusions. But we
>
> Now Saifullah does not understand. I am not claiming that the concept
> of God is to be articulated solely on logical grounds. Rather, *given*
> the idea of God as related in Scripture, we need to be able to
> *articulate* it on logical grounds.
You did not say that before. I agree that the concept of God as given
in scriptures can be articulated on logical grounds. But what I do not
agree is an attempt to add meaning to the concept of God and then
wringling an argument out of it. This is because God is beyond any human
comprehension.
> I think Saifullah has erected a false dichotomy between theology and
> logic. He needs to prove that theological assertions cannot be
> subsumed under logical scrutiny before he proceeds to make his case.
> Otherwise, he's simply begging the question. I am sure there is plenty
> of overlap between theology and logic.
I was talking about the *specific* issue of God and who or what He is and
who or what He is not can't be derived from logic in toto. This is the
domain of theology. Now you come up and misinterpret my statements by
transforming it to a complete domain of both theology and logic. I never
made such a claim. That theology and logic have interesecting domains is
well-recognized among the early Muslims.
> OK, one cannot *comprehend* God, but that does not mean we cannot
> *apprehend* him.
Comprehend and apprehend are synonyms. Perhaps you should use a different
word so that we can apprehend what you mean.
> > of Allah and His Attributes because it is impossible to know the reality
> > of the Essence and the Attributes. Therefore, the questions like "How is
> > Allah?", "How does He look like?", "What is the manner of His Hearing and
> > Seeing?" or "How did He establish Himself on the Throne?" are something
> > that can't be answered given the reality that our knowledge will never
> > encompass Him.
>
> Again, this problem only arises if one - fallaciously - conflates the
> conceptual analysis of an entity with its positive qualities. I said
> God is immaterial and a spirit. I did not say that I know the quality
> of being a spirit. This conclusion is arrived at by "via negativa". If
> God is not material, if He is not a body, not confined to space, not
> confined to time, He must therefore be immaterial. Where's the
> problem?
As far as God being a spirit, I think you should drop it as it has been
refuted soundly. There is not much of material in that argument. As far as
the issue of God being "immaterial" is concerned, it is your admission
that such a conclusion has been arrived "via negativa". That is if He is
not a body, not confined to space, not confined to time, He must therefore
be immaterial. My question to you now is given your statement that God is
"immaterial", does He exist? If He does, what is He then? Where is He?
Your position was arrived "via negativa" and you cannot say anything
positive about Him; you can only say what He is not. Such a position has
at least one potential pit-falls.
The implication of your argument is that since material things exist
objectively, and God is not material, then His existence must be only
subjective and, therefore, immaterial. As this is the case, you have
deprived Allah of any necessary attributes that show His existence; this
has rendered Him a mere word that designates nothing!
If God is "immaterial", then you can't explain what is meant by His Hand,
Face, Seeing, Hearing, being above His Throne, His creation of man by His
own Hands, Power, Knowledge, etc. except by a contradiction. We should
also remind ourselves that these are positive Attributes of God and are
not arrived "via negativa".
Any primer on logical fallacies could have told you that the negation of a
quality does not entail the affirmation of its contrary. I am sure you
might have heard about "Black and White Fallacy". For example, "If it is
not white, it is therefore black," "If you are not with us, then you are
against us", or "If God is not material then He must be immaterial". Such
a fallacy rules out any other possibilities other than entities being
material and immaterial, black and white, an enemy and a friend. In the
light of the Qur'anic verses
"There is nothing like unto Him, He is the all-Hearing and all-Seeing"
[42:11]
"And their knowledge will never encompass Him" [20:110]
"And they will never encompass anything of His knowledge" [2:255]
why is it that it is not possible to say who or what God is, is unknown
EXCEPT what He is told us about? So, instead of a dichotomy of
"immaterial" and "material" we also have a category called "unknown" that
can sway the argument in a different directory from the dichotomy itself.
> > May we also remind you that from where exactly you got the definition of
> > Allah to even say that premise (1) is true?
>
> Premise (1), as I say, is an exhaustive disjunction. It is therefore
> necessarily true.
We have already shown, in the light of what has been mentioned in the
Qur'an, there exists a third possibility that there are certain unknowns
about God that may not fall into the class of "immaterial" or "material"
as arrived "via negativa". Premise (1), therefore, does not take
possibilities other than "material" or "immaterial" and hence not an
exhaustive disjunction. Therfore, such a position is inherently false. One
can even argue the category of "immaterial" as derived. I will leave that
for a later day.
> As I said, I will get into this if Saifullah objects, which he now
> does. So let me ask Saifullah this question - does Saifullah think God
> is material or immaterial? One or the other *has* to be true. If
> Saifullah has trouble with this, then I would advise a quick review of
> the basics of propositional logic.
One or the other *has* to be true is a position arrived "via negativia".
This position leads is fallacious in at least one way because it places
itself into a false dichotomy without considering any other possibilities.
And I am sure you will try your propositional logic on whether Allah has a
Hand or not, or He has a Face or not or whether He exists or not! Why not
show us a demonstration of your much boasted abilities of logic?
> The fact that we cannot comprehend an entity in its entirety does not
> mean that we cannot know *something* about it. For example, I know
> that Saifullah is a human. But I do not need to know *everything*
> about Saifullah to conclude that he is human. I can make an inference
> from the limited bits and pieces of data that are available to me.
At least do not shoot your foot. If we cannot comprehend an entity in its
entirety it certainly does not mean that we cannot know *something* about
it. But this would lead to the conclusion that your position of God being
"immaterial" or "material" is not from an "exhaustive disjunction". You
still have a great deal of gaps in your much touted "material" or
"immaterial" Black and White Fallacy.
Wassalam
Saifullah
Altway
Subject: Re: God, Logic & Special Pleading.
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:57:04 -0000
Lines: 90
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.64.229.111
Path: mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com
X-Trace: 29 Jan 2004 13:57:58 GMT, mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com
"Zuiko Azumazi" <azu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40180b4d$0$28872$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Another, Shariah slant, is that any non-Muslim
comment, regardless of it's intrinsic coherence, cogency or 'eruditness',
is automatically considered 'bad' [evil] or irrelevant, isn't it?
Comment:-
In order that things should be true they must be consistent, coherent etc
within a greater rather than a smaller system - they must be consistent with
the whole of Reality, ultimately with Allah.
To illustrate:- Suppose you have a verbally self-consistent system S
consisting of 1000 facts.
And several sub-systems s1, s2, s3 etc each consisting of a different set of
say 100 facts.
Supposing each of these subsystems is verbally self-consistent in itself,
but not with each other.
Would you say that these sub-systems are true?
The Islamic position, as I understand it, is that they are not true.
> Whatever your view, Islamic or otherwise, the cornerstone of dialectics,
> is that all arguments and propositions (facts and truths) must be
'logically
consistent', otherwise the whole subject of meaningful human communication
is irrelevant, isn't it? Does this avoidance lead to psychological or
'delusional' diseases? If not, then, aren't we wasting our time in this
world?
Comment:-
Dialectics is about words. You can define your words to create consistent
systems and all those who agree to using the words that way will certainly
be
able to communicate with each other. But this can produce a delusional
society.
Many such have existed and do exist.
Such lingual agreements do not constitute Truth.
A verbal statement is true if it corresponds to an experience
and the experience is true if it corresponds to objective reality.
This is approached by the total self-consistency of all experiences
and ultimately determined by the fate of the person, whether it
facilitates welfare and development or leads to suffering and destruction.
You say:-
> We should not be ashamed to acknowledge truth from whatever source
it comes to us, even if it is brought to us by former generations and
foreign peoples. For him who seeks the truth there is nothing of higher
value than truth itself [al-Kindi 801-66]
Comment:-
Certainly we should acknowledge Truth (That is what Islam, Surrender to
Allah means. Allah is Truth.)
The important point, however, is to understand what "truth" is.
The opinions expressed by you above appear to imply that
Truth is "verbal consistency or agreement".
That is not the Islamic position.
You are, of course, free to consider the subject from any point of view you
like. But I thought we were here to discuss Islam which is not, it seems to
me, what you or Imran Aijaz are doing.
It is this that makes it irelevant to Islam, not the subject.
Surely this is not too subtle to understand?
To get back to the subject you comment on that Imran finds it logically
inconsistent that Muslims should suppose that God cannot be subject to the
laws bivalent Logic and yet criticise the Trinity doctrine as being
illogical. This clearly depends on what you understand by Logic, God and
Trinity.
A reading of the Quran shows that it points to the rhythms of Nature, the
appearance of Prophets and their inspiration and human faculties of
perception for evidence. It does not appeal to verbal consistency, but to
perception and its consistency.
It tells us:-
"We will soon show them Our signs on the horizons and within themselves (or
their own souls), until it become manifest unto them that it is the truth.
Is not your Lord sufficient, since He is Witness over all things?" 41:53
Hamid S. Aziz
www.altway.freeuk.com
Imran Aijaz
> There are no "laws of Logic" but only human instructions as to how to use
> words.
Actually, I would say that systems of logic have, to a significant
degree, been *discovered* by humans. Logic is the framework of the
human mind; it classifies categories of thought in various ways.
> (2) God the creator certainly transcends the rules by which He creates the
> Universe. This means that God is known by revealation.
The assertion that God transcends the laws of logic is not given a
priori. What is your proof for this claim?
> (3) The doctrine of Trinity is a man made one, not a revelation.
Ah, but it depends on which revelation we're talking about. You see,
the Bible has been taken my millions of Christians in history to be
talking about a concept of God that is Trinitarian. The trouble is,
you cannot see its truth because it transcends the laws of logic.
> It can be scrutinised both by Logic in particular and by
> Reason in general.
But God is above logic, therefore, all arguments against the Trinity
collapse because Muslims are attempting to apply logic to the Divine
World, which surpasses the finite, sinful realm by infinite degrees of
perfection. Too bad, huh?
> (4) The numbers and relationships that Trinity imply refer to
> the created world of relativity. It cannot apply to the Absolute.
Exactly. Therefore, all the Muslim arguments against the Trinity fail.
Right?
Imran.
Altway
"Imran Aijaz" <imran...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:27aae83.04012...@posting.google.com...
> > (1) Systems of Logic have been constructed by human reason.
There are no "laws of Logic" but only human instructions as to how to use
words.
> Actually, I would say that systems of logic have, to a significant
degree, been *discovered* by humans. Logic is the framework of the
human mind; it classifies categories of thought in various ways.
Comment:-
That is what you say. It is not what I say.
And I can see that there are a range of things between white and black.
So I reject the axioms "Ether A or not-A", "Not both A and not-A".
And I reject the axiom that A is always A. Things do change though the
label applied to them remain the same.
These are inventions.
Even if they were discoveries, they would be biased selections.
You also mistake words for reality.
The premises can only be valid is the terms used refer to something
observed, experienced which is itself not an illusion or hallucination.
> > (2) God the creator certainly transcends the rules by which He creates
the
Universe. This means that God is known by revealation.
> The assertion that God transcends the laws of logic is not given a
priori. What is your proof for this claim?
Comment:-
You are applying your logic which I have rejected.
Reason and observation tells me that nothing can be done by anything
that is not part of its capabilities.
That the parameters by which something is described cannot
themselves be validated by the same parameters.
That human beings make rules only because they transend those rules.
> > (3) The doctrine of Trinity is a man made one, not a revelation.
> Ah, but it depends on which revelation we're talking about. You see,
the Bible has been taken my millions of Christians in history to be
talking about a concept of God that is Trinitarian. The trouble is,
you cannot see its truth because it transcends the laws of logic.
Comment:-
Nonsense.
Neither Moses (saw), nor Jesus (saw) nor Muhammad(saw)
had any such revelation.
But there are people that think that the supreme power in the Universe is
an Elephant or a Tortoise. And we can all assert anything we like and claim
it to be
a revelation.
Intelligence, however, tells us that
> But God is above logic, therefore, all arguments against the Trinity
collapse because Muslims are attempting to apply logic to the Divine
World, which surpasses the finite, sinful realm by infinite degrees of
perfection. Too bad, huh?
Comment:-
You are tying yourself into a knot of your own making.
See above and below.
I have denied that Trinity refers to the Divine World.
It refers to the created world.
> > (4) The numbers and relationships that Trinity imply refer to
the created world of relativity. It cannot apply to the Absolute.
> Exactly. Therefore, all the Muslim arguments against the Trinity fail.
Comment:-
Strange fellow!
Are you quite unable to see the absurdity of what you have
just said?
I said "Trinity refers to the created world of trinity."
And you say that this means "Arguments against the Trinity fail."
Is this how how your logic works?
Try to make your silly syllogisms out of this and see if you can find the
error. Clue: Logic applies to the Realive World, not the Absolute.
What your argument proves is that the proof of something
lies in the perception and intelligence of those for whom it is
proof and not in the logical argument.
This is particularly so when the terms used can be understood
differently by different people.
I am sure even you can see that the Trinity doctrine as
presented by some Christians is a contradiction of the concept of God
in the Quran which Muslims accept..
But you may continue to believe what you like.
Hamid S. Aziz
..
Altway
Subject: Re: historical developement of Jesus and afterlife
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:08:41 -0000
Lines: 50
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.64.209.230
Path: mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com
X-Trace: 30 Jan 2004 15:08:19 GMT, mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com
"M.S.M. Saifullah" <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.HPX.4.58L.0...@club.eng.cam.ac.uk...
> The belief of the Muslims is that He is above His throne in
heaven and He is not present in this world. But His power and knowledge
are everywhere in His creation. Perhaps the best Qur'anic verse describing
Allah's power and knowledge over the creation, man in this case is 50:16.
It says:
> "It was We Who created man, and We know what dark suggestions his soul
makes to him: for We are nearer to him than (his) jugular vein." [50:16]
Comment:-
I do not think there is a division in Allah from His power and Knowledge.
He is One. He is Truth and His Word and Command is Truth.
But I suppose one could distinguish these in thought. On the other hand
we are required to think of Allah as One, Absolute.
I think this verse shows that Allah is imminent in His creation.
As does:-
"So when I have fashioned it, and breathed into it of My Spirit, then fall
ye down before him, prostrating yourselves before him (in obeisance)." 15:29
and
"He is the First and the Last and the Evident (or Outer) and the Imminent
(or Hidden or Inner), and He is Aware of all things." 57:3
"He it is who created the heavens and the earth in six periods, then He
firmly established Himself on the Throne (of authority); He knows that which
goes deep down into the earth and that which comes forth out of it, and that
which comes down from the heaven and that which goes up into it, and He is
with you wherever you are; and Allah is Seer of what you do. " 57:4
"To Allah belongs the East and the West, and wherever ye turn there is
Allah's face (presence); for verily, Allah is All-pervading and
All-Knowing." 2:115
Allah is imminent in the world also by His attributes. These I think refer
to the
categories or qualities that determine the characeristics of creation.
Hamid S. Aziz
Altway
I do not know why this appeared without subject.
It needs to be put into this thread.
Comment:-
Comment:-
Comment:-
Hamid S. Aziz
www.altway.freeuk.com
..
Altway
"M.S.M. Saifullah" <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.HPX.4.58L.04...@tw600.eng.cam.ac.uk...
> Let us do some analysis here. The Arabic equivalent of "spirit" is "Ruh".
"Ruh" is used in the Qur'an primarily in two ways, one to mean "spirit
(or soul)" and the other to mean Angel Gabriel. Angel Gabriel is referred
to as Ruh al-Qudus or Ruh al-Amin or simply Ruh. In English, Ruh al-Qudus
is translated as "Holy Spirit". Let us deal with the relevant verses and
see what the traditional scholars have said about them.
Comment:-
As I understand it "Ruh" is Spirit, and "Nafs" is soul.
The Spirit that was breathed into man is Allah's Spirit and
not to be confused with Gabriel who is a creature made of Spirit.
"So when I have fashioned it, and breathed into it of My Spirit, then fall
ye down before him, prostrating yourselves before him (in obeisance)." 15:29
There is a distinction between angels and spirit in the following verse:-
"He sends down the angels with the Spirit at His command upon whom
He will of His servants, saying: Give warning that there is no God but Me;
therefore, fear (do your duty to) Me." 16:2
This does not seem to refer to Gabriel.
> And we do not have to go farther. The "spirit" is by command of Allah and
> its knowledge is very little communicated to the humans. Obviously, the
"spirit" and Allah are two different entities. Spirit is created
by Allah and hence it is not Allah itself.
There is a link between Allah, His Word (or Command) and the Spirit
in the following:-
"They are asking thee concerning the Spirit. Say: The Spirit IS BY command
of my Lord, and of knowledge ye have been vouchsafed but little."
This does not say that the Spirit was created by the Word.
The phrase "His Spirit" would not refer to something created.
Nor is the Word or Command of Allah created.
"He said: Thus Allah creates what He pleaseth. When He decrees a matter
He only says: BE! And it is;" 3:47
I would interpret all this as meaning that the Word proceeds from God
and the Spirit proceeds from the Word.
Allah is in the world by His Word and Spirit and also by His attributes.
But as Allah is one, the Word and Spirit are not separately God, nor are the
Attributes.
Hamid S. Aziz
..
Michael S. Pearl
>(1) Systems of Logic have been constructed by human reason.
>There are no "laws of Logic" but only human instructions as to how to
use
>words.
>
Michael's comment:
The "instructions as to how to use words" is more a matter of
semantics and grammar - but there is a logic to languages.
There are *formal* "Systems of Logic" that "have been constructed by
human reason" and which can be attributed to human originators, and
there are *formal* manners in which logical arguments are often
presented (such as syllogisms).
However, this does not mean that "logic" is necessarily best
understood as a human construct. Generally speaking, "logic" is likely
better appreciated as informative about the manner in which humans
solve problems, learn, and discover, and *formal* logic can be
appreciated as attempts at distilling what we may think of as this
more naturally-occuring logic.
Hamid S. Aziz wrote:
>(2) God the creator certainly transcends the rules by which He
creates the
>Universe. This means that God is known by revealation.
>
Michael's comment:
Even if God "transcends", it does not follow, it is not necessarily
the case, that humans become aware of God *only* by revelation.
Hamid S. Aziz wrote:
>(3) The doctrine of Trinity is a man made one, not a revelation.
>It can be scrutinised both by Logic in particular and by
>Reason in general.
>
>(4) The numbers and relationships that Trinity imply refer to
>the created world of relativity. It cannot apply to the Absolute.
>
Michael's comment:
Is the conjunction of comments number three and four supposed to
indicate that, while the Trinity is subjectable to logical scrutiny,
propositions about an alleged "the Absolute" and Muslims'
non-trinitarian beliefs/expressions are not?
At the crux of this thread is the matter of fideism, and one of the
most blatant exhibitions of fideism is the unwillingness to submit
one's own beliefs (including one's most basic assumptions) to rigorous
scrutiny while using such criticism when it seems to serve the purpose
of refuting, denouncing, degrading, or deflating others' beliefs.
Imran has clearly and correctly shown an instance of fideism - the
scoffing at Christian "mystery" concurrent with a reliance on Muslim
"mystery" (or logic-transcendence or what have you; the description
matters not; the essence is identical).
Does anyone here really think that such assymetry represents the way
of God?
Michael
Michael S. Pearl
>I agree that the concept of God as given
>in scriptures can be articulated on logical grounds. But what I do
not
>agree is an attempt to add meaning to the concept of God and then
>wringling an argument out of it. This is because God is beyond any
human
>comprehension.
>
Michael's response:
Is it really possible to have a concept of something that "is beyond
any human comprehension" whatsoever?
A concept is a general idea, but how can one have any idea at all
about something that cannot be understood at all (save having the
general idea that there is a thing that is real and cannot be
understood in the least - but then the impression which we have that
this incomprehensible thing exists remains forever utterly
indistinguishable from a construct of our own mind)?
A concept signifies a likely incomplete comprehension; therefore,
anything which "is beyond any human comprehension" whatsoever is not
even subject to conceptualization.
M. S. M. Saifullah wrote:
>... God and who or what He is and
>who or what He is not can't be derived from logic in toto.
>
Michael's response:
I am not sure what you mean here by "in toto", but I get the
impression that your claim here is based upon some reasoning - some
logic. Could you please explicate?
M. S. M. Saifullah wrote:
>Comprehend and apprehend are synonyms.
>
Michael's response:
These words are very close in meaning, but apprehension can be
understood as something less complete than comprehension. Accordingly,
the issue pertains to on what basis you can claim that God is beyond
any understanding whatsoever.
M. S. M. Saifullah wrote:
>As far as God being a spirit, I think you should drop it as it has
been
>refuted soundly.
>
Michael's response:
Not quite right. If the "spirit" claim has been refuted at all, it is
if and only if the domain of valid information is restricted to
statements in the Qur'an and those commentaries and interpretations
which concur with your own opinion.
M. S. M. Saifullah wrote:
>The implication of your argument is that since material things exist
>objectively, and God is not material, then His existence must be only
>subjective and, therefore, immaterial.
>
Michael's response:
This is faulty reasoning. The claim that "material things exist
objectively" in no way includes the claim that non-material (or
immaterial) things necessarily cannot "exist objectively".
M. S. M. Saifullah wrote:
>"If God is not material then He must be immaterial". Such
>a fallacy rules out any other possibilities other than entities being
>material and immaterial
>
Michael's response:
But what are these other possibilities? Please see my today's response
to Viqar Ahmed for a more full consideration of the context in which
the question here is asked.
M. S. M. Saifullah wrote:
>"And their knowledge will never encompass Him" [20:110]
>
>"And they will never encompass anything of His knowledge" [2:255]
>
Michael's response:
Let us examine these two verses as presented.
For the sake of an assumed universal intent, "their" will be taken as
referring to each and every human considered individually as well as
collectively.
To say that human knowledge will never encompass God is hardly
problematic; in itself, this statement does not preclude humans having
any knowledge whatsoever about God.
On the other hand, the second verse could be taken here as indicating
that humans will never share any of God's knowledge - even knowledge
about the humans themselves.
It should be clear that these verses are reasonably understood as one
refuting the other. Maybe there is some way of interpreting these
verses such that the contradiction dissolves, but once we introduce
interpretation, are we not introducing human reasoning? Of course we
are, and yet again we run right into the issue of fideism. Where do we
abandon human reasoning, logic?
M. S. M. Saifullah wrote:
>why is it that it is not possible to say who or what God is, is
unknown
>EXCEPT what He is told us about? So, instead of a dichotomy of
>"immaterial" and "material" we also have a category called "unknown"
that
>can sway the argument in a different directory from the dichotomy
itself.
>
Michael's response:
Let us put the material/immaterial matter aside for the moment and
deal with the broader "category called 'unknown'".
How do we come upon the "unknown"?
Only by first proceeding with logic not only to test the information
we think we currently have but also to highlight logical, seemingly
incompatible, possibilities by which we can garner some appreciation
for what type of information we may be missing so that we may even
come up with some notions about how to progress.
What we have not yet come upon is a reason for thinking that we are
utterly precluded from learning more about God than is already known.
This is in addition to the fact that it remains to be shown that we
are utterly incapable of knowing anything about God via logic.
Furthermore, with regards to what God has allegedly revealed to us,
the fact is that we humans always interpret; we always reason in
response to statements. If what God has already revealed was
sufficient, then there would be no need for commentaries and other
sorts of interpretations.
M. S. M. Saifullah wrote:
>Why not
>show us a demonstration of your much boasted abilities of logic?
>
Michael's response:
Has Imran so boasted? I have never seen him do so, but, even if he
has, such a comment as this from you is inappropriate, out of place,
and worse.
If you think logic is incompatible with faith in God - say so. If you
think that there is nothing that can be known about God because of
logic - then say this. But if either of these ways of thinking
accurately reflects your position, then, for reasons adequately
outlined above, then not only have you no use for commentaries, you
have no basis for saying anything whatsoever about God - because the
very language you use depends on logic - meaning that if you speak
about God you are so speaking not only because of logic but also with
logic.
On the other hand, if you are not so averse to the use of logic, if
you think that logic is a useful tool, and if you think it is good for
people to be curious about and inquire about God according to their
God-given talents, then recognize Imran's interest and skill as
genuine and good, and it is best not to respond with vitriol to that
which is good.
"Repel the evil deed with one which is better." (see 41: 34).
Michael
Michael S. Pearl
> Is the "Divine Realm" divorced/wholly remote from the physical realm
> in which we find ourselves? Does God "reside" only in the
> asserted/hypothesized "Divine Realm"? Is God only transcendent and
> remote, or is God (also) somehow immanent?
Viqar Ahmed responded:
>In my view there is no way for us to make any definite assertion
about
>this.
>
Michael's current comment:
Well, Hamid S. Aziz was certainly willing to make an assertion in his
response to this query of mine; he says:
>... Allah is Absolute, One
>He, is transcendental, immanent as well as Personal.
>
All this means, of course, is that Muslims - just as is the case with
humans in general - can and do disagree with each other or that they
use different ways to express themselves. This is to be expected, but
this is also what designates problems.
Viqar Ahmed wrote:
>... Hypothetically, if an entity
>(which is part of another realm) was present right next to my nose,
but I
>had no means to perceive of its presence in any way whatsoever, is
that
>entity within the domain of the "physical realm in which I exist", or
>remote and removed, from it?
>
>What if ... access between [realms] is totally
>asymmetric?... [if] entities in one [realm] have full access and
>control over events in the other, but the first is (accesswise) fully
>blocked to the second (not referring here to a necessarily tangible
"sense
>based" access but, rather, any means with which to have a perception
of the
>first realm).
>
>... even if "all" the other realms were right next to my nose,
>and I had no means whatsoever to percieve of them, how would I go
about
>making any logical assertions about their existence (or lack of it),
their
>nature, their operative laws, and the nature of functioning agents
therein.
>It is inconceivable to me that the notion of exhaustive disjunction,
or any
>other logical notion for that matter, would be of any use.
>
Michael's current response:
Well, "the notion of exhaustive disjunction" has at least brought us
to this - the realization that what might really be the subject here
is whether there might be some way of "perceiving" God. It is not so
simple as God as material or immaterial; it is not so simple as God as
only transcendent, or God as transcendent and immanent, but such
attempts at disjunctives take us further to the matter of whether God
is in any way "perceivable" - whether we can be aware of God simply in
the course of being human.
This is why the issue is legitimately approached from the human, or
physical, domain. We have no other starting point.
Viqar Ahmed wrote:
>Is there any way that you, or Imran, or anyone else, could "prove",
>strictly with the help of laws "of the physical realm" (to which such
>realms may not be subject) that such a realm does not exist?
>
Michael's current response:
Neither Imran nor I claim to have proved "that such a realm does not
exist"; neither of us has attempted to "prove ... that such a realm
does not exist."
However, you most certainly have tried to use logic to show that such
a realm is logically possible, and I, for one, am perfectly willing to
acknowledge such a possibility, but if such a realm is utterly blocked
to human awareness, if it is utterly inaccessible via human mental
processes, then what is there - from the human perspective - that
distinguishes such realms from human fiction.
Furthermore, if God is in a realm that is utterly inaccessible to
humans, then how can you even know that God reveals Himself?
Why should your assertion not just be considered rather ad hoc - a
mere attempt to fill in some gaps in your human knowledge?
You are relying on logic in order to make your other realms appear
somehow reasonable, but are you sure that you have exhausted all other
logical possibilities? Of course not.
Accordingly, this recommends that you consider the other possibilities
just as you would have us consider the one you present and prefer.
And this brings us back to the matter of fideism. If one is going to
assert an utterly inaccessible realm as explanation (and reliance on
revelation as the *only* means of access to such a realm will not
dispense with this problem), then one has opted to insulate himself
from critical discourse without being able to be certain that he
clings to truth.
Maybe proof is not what is to be sought - at least not at this point.
After all, just as Muhammad was instructed to say, "My Lord! Increase
me in knowledge" (20: 114), maybe we should say likewise, and maybe it
is one of our most paramount duties to undertake to forever increase
our awareness/knowledge about God.
Michael
Michael S. Pearl
>The belief of the Muslims is that He is above His throne in
>heaven and He is not present in this world.
>
Michael's response:
As I noted in my response to Viqar Ahmed, this position differs from
that of Hamid S. Aziz who appears to believe that God is both
transcendent and immanent.
M. S. M. Saifullah wrote:
>But His power and knowledge
>are everywhere in His creation.
>
Michael's response:
I will take this comment as intended to be non-literal; otherwise,
God's power and knowledge will come across as separate entities.
M. S. M. Saifullah wrote:
>Perhaps the best Qur'anic verse describing
>Allah's power and knowledge over the creation, man in this case is
50:16.
>It says:
>
>"It was We Who created man, and We know what dark suggestions his
soul
>makes to him: for We are nearer to him than (his) jugular vein."
[50:16]
>
Michael's response:
I assume you can see how those who believe in God's immanence could
also use this verse.
M. S. M. Saifullah wrote:
>As for the "exhaustive disjunction" it is invalid, if the reason for
>its validity was the domain that pertains to our own physical world.
>Since God does not reside in our physical world, any logical
constructs
>involving the cases that are valid in our physical world, are in
effect
>null and void.
>
Michael's response:
The "exhaustive disjunction" to which you refer "is invalid" *only*
given the assumption that God is in no way immanent; until such an
assumption is either demonstrated as either itself true - or at least
consistent and coherent with regards to other beliefs in a necessarily
very involved and possibly ceaseless process (often referred to as
"learning"), then the referenced "exhaustive disjunction" is not
properly - and with such apparent complete certainty - described as
"invalid".
In fact, this "exhaustive disjunction" remains at least quite possibly
valid.
Please refer to my reply to Viqar Ahmed for some discussion about how
all this relates to fideism.
Michael
Michael S. Pearl
>According to the Quran Allah is Absolute, One
>He, is transcendental, immanent as well as Personal.
>He surrounds all things and is the Outer and inner and
>His spirit is within us.
>His immanence is demonstrated by His attributes which are
>demonstrated in Nature and within us.
>
Michael's response:
I, too, believe that God is immanent, and it is because of this belief
- in conjunction with other beliefs, of course - that I think our
awareness (or knowledge, if you prefer) can increase with the employ
of logic.
Hamid S. Aziz wrote:
>There is no distinction between the material, the living and the
spiritual
>There are only phenomena having these aspects.
>
Michael's response:
For the moment, let me say that regardless of what you might precisely
intend as the meaning of these statements, I could logically agree
with the thoughts as I take them.
Hamid S. Aziz wrote:
>Most of us do not believe that God can be described by silly
syllogisms
>but that He reveals himself and that, as the Quran points out, proof
of His
>existence and nature are demonstrated in the Nature, in that He sends
>Messengers
>who receive revelation and in our faculties for awareness.
>
Michael's response:
If the "silly syllogisms" comment is supposed to be applicable to
Imran's approach, then I think you are mistaking just what is his
approach.
For example, if the juxtaposition of "God ... described" and "proof of
[God]" is intended to suggest that Imran provides syllogisms to prove
God, then you are certainly misunderstanding in what he is engaged. It
seems to me that Imran is simply examining what it is that people
claim about God - how they describe God - and such descriptions can
often be properly subjectable to analysis via syllogism.
After all, do Muslims find the claim that "Jesus is (the Son of) God"
to be ridiculous only because of explicit statements from the Qur'an,
or does such a description of God seem inherently illogical? Are there
Muslims who believe that God can be accurately described with
genuinely contradictory statements (as an aside: paradoxes do not
necessarily serve so much as contradictory statements as they serve as
indicators of a lack of information or knowledge)?
Hamid S. Aziz wrote:
>See View-1. The concept of God on a full discussion of the Islamic
concept
>on the site below.
>
Michael's response:
I will take a look as soon as I can.
Michael
Zuiko Azumazi
news:200401291357...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
<snip>
> In order that things should be true they must be consistent, coherent etc
> within a greater rather than a smaller system - they must be consistent
with
> the whole of Reality, ultimately with Allah.
> The Islamic position, as I understand it, is that they are not true.
Question:-
So in effect, what you are saying is that all Islamic scholarship,
interpretations, commentaries, etc. are redundant because of mankind's
limited mind. These traditional Islamic "sub-systems", as declared by you,
are automatically "untrue" because they are conceived by, and, within the
limitations and constraints imposed by man's cerebral capacity. Isn't this
sophistry at work?
No man, Muslim or otherwise, can comprehend the whole of "reality" or the
mind of God, "consistency" is therefore an impossibility, isn't it? Are your
words, "consistent with the whole of Reality, ultimately with Allah."?
<snip>
> Dialectics is about words. You can define your words to create consistent
> systems and all those who agree to using the words that way will
certainly
> be able to communicate with each other. But this can produce a delusional
> society. Many such have existed and do exist.
Question:-
Aren't all your statements communicated in "words", or am I missing
something? If you remove all the "words" from the Qur'an what are you left
with? Or are you implying that man's use of language, and its linguistic
rules, isn't a technological development that clearly distinguishes man's
'civilisationtional' ascent from 'barbarism'?
Perhaps, we should all adopt obfuscation as a primary tenet in this
newsgroup, then we can at least attain a "delusional" unity, on the basis
that no one will understand anyone else.
But "truth" is only a "linguistically" redundant term and has no
communicative meaning, in that case, perhaps, we should adopt a 'mystical'
telepathy, which would make the internet redundant, now that's a thought.
Don't take offence or bother to respond it's only "words" [as the song
goes], after all ]! ;-)
--
Peace
--
You cannot teach a person who is not anxious to learn and you cannot
explain to one who is not trying to make things clear to themselves.
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Michael S. Pearl
>Hamid Aziz (Altway), in one stroke finished the whole argument of
>using Special Pleading, in another post.
>
Michael's response:
That refutation eludes me. Please demonstrate this refutation more
explicitly. The matter of special pleading in this thread pertains to
using logic to supposedly refute Trinitarian belief while refusing to
consider your own beliefs with the logic tool you use against others.
M. S. M. Saifullah wrote:
>As far as the issue of logic is concerned, the important thing is
what
>validates it. Logic can't validate itself. We can't logically state
the
>logic exists because this is circular reasoning. Conversely, we can't
>logically state the logic does not exist because this would again
lead to
>circular reasoning. Therefore, one can't prove logic to be valid, and
>therefore anything proven using logic to be valid without violating
the
>Law of Non-Contradiction.
>
Michael's response:
Let me suggest that you may well be in error when you so closely
associate logic and proof.
M. S. M. Saifullah wrote:
>What
>makes logic binding is because of what is over it. Stating slightly
>differently, logic is binding on that which is under logic. Validity
>of logic exists because of something that is over it. This also means
>that something that is over logic should, by nature, is the
originator and
>fashioner of logic. Logic by itself could not have propped by and
enmeshed
>the whole world. It has no such capability. In other words, God is
the one
>Who defines, fashions and governs logic. Restating slightly
differently,
>logic does not define Allah, rather it is Allah that defines logic.
>
Michael's response:
I believe that you have mischaracterized logic. Even so, it does not
necessarily follow from what you have written that the "originator" of
logic would not be perfectly consistent with the logic he created -
that logic may actually be revelatory of his very being.
M. S. M. Saifullah wrote:
>This is consistent with an entity Who is beyond logic.
>
Michael's response:
A demonstrated consistency in and of itself is insufficient for
establishing truth.
M. S. M. Saifullah wrote:
>The great Imams of Islam such as Malik, Shaafi'i and Ahmad b. Hanbal
held
>the position that the Attributes of Allah ...
>can't be subjected to, for example, any human explanation or
>interpretation.
>
>Why not Christians do the same about Trinitarian concept of God?
>Succintly, the Trinitarian concept of God comes from Athanasian
Creed, a
>man-made concept. A man-made concept is subjected to the laws of
logic.
>
Michael's response:
Your understanding of the Trinity is lacking, but let me suggest some
points you should consider.
First, a creed is not presented as a philosophical/logical statement.
Second, you have failed to demonstrate why something is subject "to
the laws of logic" simply because it is "man-made".
Third, you have not demonstrated "that the Attributes of Allah are as
Allah described it." You and the imams you cited assume that this is
the case - and this can be a legitimate assumption - but these
descriptions most certainly can be considered as subject to logic for
at least two reasons: 1) to see whether the assumption is either
refutable or at least reasonably doubtable, and 2) to see whether
these descriptions qualify at least as human knowledge to the extent
that they exhibit demonstrable consistency and coherence.
Fourth, those Christians who do subject Trinitarian expression to
logical examination may well do so because they would understand the
Qur'anic statement
>"It was We Who created man, and We know what dark suggestions his
soul
>makes to him: for We are nearer to him than (his) jugular vein."
[50:16]
>
as suggestive of a supreme and personal divine availability - if we
but seek it, at least in part by using our God-given logical
abilities.
Of course, such a position, such a belief about God, would make it
incumbent upon the believer to avoid fideism at all costs.
Fideism - just like ignorance - justifies nothing, and I see no reason
why anyone would or should insist that Islam requires fideism.
Michael
Denis Giron
> Well, it is an interesting charge to say that I am using the case of
> Special Pleading for the description of Allah by saying that Allah is
> above logic, where as when it comes to the issue of Trinity, we can use
> logic. Hamid Aziz (Altway), in one stroke finished the whole argument of
> using Special Pleading, in another post.
Did Altway really finish the argument off with "one stroke"? Imran has
made his own response, but I would myself like to comment on Altway's
argument. Altway's first contention, that 'There are no "laws of
Logic",' is one I do not agree with. For example, suppose I have one
coin and place it in one of my two hands. If we agree before hand that
it is in either one hand or the other, and then I open my left hand
showing that it is not in my left hand, the only conclusion is that it
is in my right hand. Once you understand this, you understand the
disjunctive syllogism (which can take you into conjunction and
conditionals, and logic builds from there). I don't think this is some
rule we created; rather this is a rule of logic that we discovered. It
is the way the universe works (even if no language is involved).
Altway's second contention was that Allaah "certainly transcends the
rules by which He creates the Universe." This seems to be leaning
heavily in favor of something that Dr. Saifullaah has positively
asserted a number of times in this forum: that Allaah is not subject
to the rules of bivalent logic (id est, Allaah can transcend bivalent
logic). This is a point of contention I find to be very interesting,
and will discuss further below.
Altway's third contention was that the doctrine of the Trinity "is a
man made one, not a revelation." As a non-believer (id est, in
Christianity), I agree, but of course, the fact that I agree does not
make the claim true (I'm sure we all agree with that). The fact
remains that Altway never justified this claim; he never presented any
evidence, or even attempted to do so. I think most Trinitarians (which
presently number well over a billion people) feel that the doctrine of
the Trinity (though not the precise word "Trinity") has been revealed
to them through the Bible, therefore the doctrine is derived from
revelation.
Imagine using Altway's argument in reverse, where a Christian first
contends that the Trinitarian ontology of the Divine Godhead is
possible on the grounds that God is not restricted by the rules of
bivalent logic. Then the Christian's second contention is that "the
doctrine of the monadic ontology for God, as expressed in Orthodox
Judaism as well as the Orthodox Islamic concept of 'tawHid,' is a man
made one, not a revelation." Suppose further that the Christian makes
no attempt to defend his second contention; rather he just asserts it.
Is that much of an argument? I don't think so. But it is nearly
identical in structure to what Altway has argued.
> Why not Christians do the same about Trinitarian concept of God?
> Succintly, the Trinitarian concept of God comes from Athanasian Creed, a
> man-made concept.
The Trinitarian doctrine was encapsulated in the Athanasian Creed, but
the doctrine did exist (in various forms) before this Creed was
formulated. Like Altway, Dr. Saifullaah is poisoning the well. Imagine
a Christian giving a bunch of Biblical verses that he interprets as
supporting the Trinity, and then further saying that the Islamic
conception of God is from the Qur'an, which is "a man-made text, and
thus is not revelation."
The rest of Dr. Saifullaah's post argues that the Trinity is logically
incoherent (I disagree) and again repeats the claim that it is a
man-made concept (appealing to what learned Catholic scholars have
said on the issue). None of this answers the question that is at the
heart of this thread: how can Dr. Saifullaah claim the doctrine is
inconsistent or logically problematic if God is not subject to the
rules of bivalent logic? Dr. Saifullaah seems to want to harp on about
the doctrine being a man-made concept. Would he change his mind if I
(or someone else) claim to have received a revelation directly from
God that affirms the Triune ontology of the Divine Presence?
Furthermore, a man-made doctrine is not necessarily one that is
contrary to the truth about God, regardless of whether this truth was
revealed or not. Still further, even a man's false claim about God's
nature is not necessarily impossible or logically inconsistent
(exempli gratia: suppose I claim God takes the form of an elephant,
and suppose further that this claim is false - it is still possible).
The question is if a Triune ontology for God is possible, and if we
start from the premise (positively asserted by Dr. Saifullaah) that
God is not subject to bivalent logic, our conclusion has to be a
resounding yes!
Dr. Saifullaah may claim that we can only know about Allaah that which
He has revealed to us, but the fact still remains that if the Divine
Presence is not limited by the rules of logic (as Dr. Saifullaah
claims), then it is absurd to claim that the Divine Presence cannot
have a certain ontology on the grounds that it violates some rule of
logic! Besides, I'm sure many non-Muslims (particularly Evangelical
Christians) would consider the Qur'an's claims on this issue to be
worth about as much as the claims of the above-mentioned alleged
revelation that I may or may not have received - so there isn't
exactly a lot of agreement with regard to what God has said about
Himself.
Finally, somewhat unrelated to this discussion, I would note that for
the last five months I have been taking part in a discussion with Mohd
(Ahmad) Anisul Karim in MENJ's Bismika Allaahuma forum on the topic of
William Lane Craig's version/explanation of the doctrine of the
Trinity:
http://forum.bismikaallahuma.org/viewtopic.php?t=1668
The discussion is still evolving, but I state my reasons there for why
I (a non-Christian) believe the doctrine of the Trinity (under Craig's
interpretation) is neither logically inconsistent nor Biblically
inconsistent.
-Denis Giron
http://freethoughtmecca.org
M.S.M. Saifullah
Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
> > (3) The doctrine of Trinity is a man made one, not a revelation.
>
> Ah, but it depends on which revelation we're talking about. You see,
> the Bible has been taken my millions of Christians in history to be
> talking about a concept of God that is Trinitarian. The trouble is,
> you cannot see its truth because it transcends the laws of logic.
The trouble is you do not have a grasp of history of development of
Christian doctrine of Trinity. The definition of what Trinity is
comes from the well known Athanasian Creed from 4th century CE. Trinity
was *NOT* the doctrine of Jesus, AS, and his companions. This is
well-known among the scholars of Christianity. In the end what we see is
your interesting appeal to popularity or appeal to belief. Millions of
Christians in history have believed in this concept therefore it must be
true. Thus goes your argument and we must admit that it is an argument
that transcends the laws of logic.
Like any other Prophets of Jesus called to worship one God when he began
his ministry as mentioned in the New Testament as well as the Qur'an.
"They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when
there is no god save the One God. If they desist not from so saying a
painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve." [5:73]
Wassalam
Saifullah
Altway
"M.S.M. Saifullah" <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.HPX.4.58L.04...@tw600.eng.cam.ac.uk...
> Let us do some analysis here. The Arabic equivalent of "spirit" is "Ruh".
"Ruh" is used in the Qur'an primarily in two ways, one to mean "spirit
(or soul)" and the other to mean Angel Gabriel. Angel Gabriel is referred
to as Ruh al-Qudus or Ruh al-Amin or simply Ruh. In English, Ruh al-Qudus
is translated as "Holy Spirit". Let us deal with the relevant verses and
see what the traditional scholars have said about them.
Comment:-
As I understand it "Ruh" is Spirit, and "Nafs" is soul. Whereas Nafs is
specific to each person and can grow or atrophy ( Quran 91:7-19), Ruh is a
more general term. Nafs, soul can, therefore, be understood as organised
spirit.
The Spirit that was breathed into man is Allah's Spirit and
not to be confused with Gabriel who is a creature made of Spirit.
"So when I have fashioned it, and breathed into it of My Spirit, then fall
ye down before him, prostrating yourselves before him (in obeisance)." 15:29
There is a distinction between angels and spirit in the following verse:-
"He sends down the angels with the Spirit at His command upon whom
He will of His servants, saying: Give warning that there is no God but Me;
therefore, fear (do your duty to) Me." 16:2
This does not seem to refer to Gabriel.
In the following verse also Spirit does not mean either soul or Gabriel.
"You shall not find a people who believe in Allah and the Last Day loving
those who oppose (or resist) Allah and His Messenger, even though they were
their own fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their kinsfolk;
these are they into whose hearts He has impressed faith, and whom He has
strengthened with a Spirit from Him: and He will cause them to enter Gardens
beneath which rivers flow, abiding therein; Allah is well-pleased with them
and they are well-pleased with Him. They are Allah's Party. Truly, it is the
Party of Allah who are the successful." 58:22
Altway
"Denis Giron" <denis...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bac0a2be.04013...@posting.google.com...
>Altway's first contention, that 'There are no "laws of
> Logic",' is one I do not agree with. For example, suppose I have one
coin and place it in one of my two hands. If we agree before hand that
it is in either one hand or the other, and then I open my left hand
showing that it is not in my left hand, the only conclusion is that it
is in my right hand. Once you understand this, you understand the
disjunctive syllogism (which can take you into conjunction and
conditionals, and logic builds from there). I don't think this is some
rule we created; rather this is a rule of logic that we discovered. It
is the way the universe works (even if no language is involved).
Comment:-
I have already replied pointing out that things can be combinations
of opposites and range though many degrees between -A to +A.
Denis has selected a special case - As I said the rules are selected by
people.
When we come to sub-atomic physics we see this kind of Logic
breaks down. The logic people construct apply to specific realms only.
They are methods.
According to the Quran Allah is not like anything. He transcends creation.
All descriptions and explanations are relationships with something known.
It follows that Allah cannot be dealt with anything that requires
relationships.
This includes Logic.
Allah is One. All knowledge consists of relationships or comparisons.
This requires more than one factor.
Allah cannot be dealt with by means of systems that require several factors.
In Islam Allah is defined as supreme. To say that Allah is subject to Logic
is to say that Logic is greater than Allah. This is Idolatry.
Unless Logic is God, in which case Logic cannot be described by
more than a single rule that explains all other things.
If people cannot understand any of this, then too bad.
There is nothing more one can say.
And it becomes clear that Logical arguments cannot
prove anything.
We are discussing the Islamic concept of God. If you want to discuss
some other concept, then you must excuse me - I do not recognise
that as Allah.
Hamid S. Aziz
..
Altway
> The belief of the Muslims is that He is above His throne in
are everywhere in His creation. Perhaps the best Qur'anic verse describing
Allah's power and knowledge over the creation, man in this case is 50:16.
It says:
> "It was We Who created man, and We know what dark suggestions his soul
makes to him: for We are nearer to him than (his) jugular vein." [50:16]
Comment:-
I do not think there is a division in Allah from His power and Knowledge.
He is One. He is Truth and His Word and Command is Truth.
But I suppose one could distinguish these in thought. On the other hand
we are required to think of Allah as One, Absolute.
I think this verse shows that Allah is imminent in His creation.
As does:-
"So when I have fashioned it, and breathed into it of My Spirit, then fall
ye down before him, prostrating yourselves before him (in obeisance)." 15:29
and
"He is the First and the Last and the Evident (or Outer) and the Imminent
(or Hidden or Inner), and He is Aware of all things." 57:3
"He it is who created the heavens and the earth in six periods, then He
firmly established Himself on the Throne (of authority); He knows that which
goes deep down into the earth and that which comes forth out of it, and that
which comes down from the heaven and that which goes up into it, and He is
with you wherever you are; and Allah is Seer of what you do. " 57:4
"To Allah belongs the East and the West, and wherever ye turn there is
Allah's face (presence); for verily, Allah is All-pervading and
All-Knowing." 2:115
Allah is imminent in the world also by His attributes. These I think refer
to the
categories or qualities that determine the characeristics of creation.
Hamid S. Aziz
..
Altway
"Altway" wrote
In Islam Allah is defined as supreme. To say that Allah is subject to Logic
is to say that Logic is greater than Allah. This is Idolatry.
Unless Logic is God, in which case Logic cannot be described by
more than a single rule that explains all other things.
Question:-
What is this single rule?
Answer:-
According to the Quran Allah is One, Unique and indivisible
and self-existing. He can do anything He likes.
".... He said, "Thus Allah creates what He pleaseth. When He decrees a
matter He only says: BE! And it is;...." 3:47
This can be regarded as the basic rule.
>From Science we learn that all the Constants of Nature and Laws
were created at the Big Bang. These describe the Universe,
There was no Universe before that. The cause of the Big Bang,
therefore, lies outside the Universe..
As far as I am concened, this subject is now closed.
If others want to continue writing nonsense about it then
I take the advice of the Quran:-
"..then sit ye not down with them until they turn to another topic..." 4:140
" Then leave them to their play of cavilling." 6:91
Hamid S. Aziz
..
M.S.M. Saifullah
> As I noted in my response to Viqar Ahmed, this position differs from
> that of Hamid S. Aziz who appears to believe that God is both
> transcendent and immanent.
In that case, it will be good if you can go and read some books by Muslims
before you come here and argue. Ignorance about who and what God is not an
excuse for projecting yourself as confused. We are not here to offer you a
course on "God in Islam 101". Nevertheless, let me make a brief statement
on who is God in Islam.
One of the attributes of Allah is that He is al-'Ala, the Most High; above
Him there is nothing. When this attribute is used to describe Allah, it
refers to the fact that Allah is above and beyond His creation. He is
neither enclosed by creation nor is any part of the creation above Him in
any way. Stating slightly differently, Allah is not the part of the
created world nor it is part of Him. This essentially means that His Being
is completely distinct and separated from His creation. His attributes
function without restriction in His creation. He is aware of every thing;
He sees, hears, knows all and He is the prime cause of all that takes
place in His creation. It is not so surprising to say that Allah is Allah
and creation is creation. Neither is one the other nor are they both one.
One should also add that in the verse of Sural-al-Fatihah, the phrase
rabb-il-'alamin, meaning Lord of the Worlds, is extensive commented upon.
The Muslim theological scholars define 'alamin as "ma siwa Allah", i.e.,
"what is other than God". Hence a clear distinction is being raised
between Allah and His creation. Allah is "al-Ghani", absolutelty free from
any need of anything He has created. He explicitly says in Surah
al-Ankabut:
"Verily Allah is absolutely free of need of anything in the worlds"
(Qur'an 29:6).
Since Allah is distinct and separate from His creation, it points to
the transcendence of God and negates His immanence. By God's immanence, I
take it to mean the concept of God being everywhere. The next question
that arises is "Where is God?" if God is not immanent. The evidence
from the Qur'an and Sunna state that Allah is above His Throne that is
over the seventh Heaven. But His power and knowledge are everywhere.
We can also look at God's existence is a logical way. To exist objectively
God must have all the attributes of objective existents. This implies that
God must therefore be "somewhere" and can't be everywhere. This is
because if God existed everywhere He would be failed to be distinguished
from other existents and thus not to have a special identity. Immanence of
God also leads to various absurdities. If God is everywhere then is He
also in existing in the human feces? If God was everywhere before He
created His creation, then where did He create them? To say that God
created them outside Himself contradicts the statement that He is
everywhere.
> >But His power and knowledge
> >are everywhere in His creation.
>
> Michael's response:
>
> I will take this comment as intended to be non-literal; otherwise,
> God's power and knowledge will come across as separate entities.
Before you confuse yourself any further, we must remind you that "Power"
and "Knowledge" are attributes of God. We take them to mean what they are.
> The "exhaustive disjunction" to which you refer "is invalid" *only*
> given the assumption that God is in no way immanent; until such an
> assumption is either demonstrated as either itself true - or at least
> consistent and coherent with regards to other beliefs in a necessarily
> very involved and possibly ceaseless process (often referred to as
> "learning"), then the referenced "exhaustive disjunction" is not
> properly - and with such apparent complete certainty - described as
> "invalid".
That God is in no way immanent is well-known among the Muslims of all
times. Claims of becoming "one with God" (ittihaad) and "dwelling of Allah
in man" (hulool) were refuted by scholars of Islam throughout the
centuries.
As far as the "exhaustive disjunction" is concerned, let us drive home a
final point. Our knowledge about what is "material" and what is
"immaterial" comes from after the Big Bang. Hence our knowledge of what is
"material" and what is "immaterial" is confined to within the contraints
of space and time. For the "exhaustive disjunction" to be valid, it should
not be constrained; since it is, it can't be "exhaustive".
Wassalam
Saifullah
M.S.M. Saifullah
> Is it really possible to have a concept of something that "is beyond
> any human comprehension" whatsoever?
Perhaps, I should have been more explicit and more clearer. What I mean is
that the concept of God can be articulated by logical means. But what
can't be articulated are the attributes. We only know what they mean, and
nothing more than that. For example, Allah is the Merciful. We know what
"the Merciful" means but we do not know the extent of it, for example, as
it is something which is beyond human comprehension. Just as none of His
creation resembles Him, so none of their attributes resemble His
attributes. And so while we know the meanings of the divine attributes, we
do not know their modality or the form which they take when they apply to
His unique person.
> >... God and who or what He is and
> >who or what He is not can't be derived from logic in toto.
>
> I am not sure what you mean here by "in toto", but I get the
> impression that your claim here is based upon some reasoning - some
> logic. Could you please explicate?
There are certain attributes of God that can be derived through
reasoning, for example, God being One, the Powerful, and the unique.
Others such as God being above His Throne, having hands, etc. can
be known only via the revelation.
> understood as something less complete than comprehension. Accordingly,
> the issue pertains to on what basis you can claim that God is beyond
> any understanding whatsoever.
I said that the attributes of God are beyond human comprehension and not
God being beyond human comprehension. These two are different issues. I
think this post keeps going on and on without even distinguishing
between God and His attributes.
As I mentioned earlier, just as none of God's creation resembles Him, so
none of their attributes resemble His attributes. And so while we know the
meanings of the divine attributes, we do not know their modality or the
form which they take when they apply to His unique person.
> Not quite right. If the "spirit" claim has been refuted at all, it is
> if and only if the domain of valid information is restricted to
> statements in the Qur'an and those commentaries and interpretations
> which concur with your own opinion.
That is not good enough. You have to show the counter-point to prove
something is false. In any case, we should also remind you that the
interpretation of the Qur'an is carried out using the Qur'an, the sayings
of the Prophet, SAW, and his companions, grammar, linguistics and
rhetoric. It is best left to those who are experts in this field. I had
mentioned the tafseer of Ibn Kathir, a well-known exegete, who does not
"subscribe" to "my opinion". You might as well try to check the tafseers
of al-Qurtubi and al-Tabari on the same verse.
> >The implication of your argument is that since material things exist
> >objectively, and God is not material, then His existence must be only
> >subjective and, therefore, immaterial.
>
> Michael's response:
>
> This is faulty reasoning. The claim that "material things exist
> objectively" in no way includes the claim that non-material (or
> immaterial) things necessarily cannot "exist objectively".
Then show us a something that is "immaterial" that exists?
> To say that human knowledge will never encompass God is hardly
> problematic; in itself, this statement does not preclude humans having
> any knowledge whatsoever about God.
The verses did not say that human beings do not have any knowledge of God
(and neither did I!). What is says is that they knowledge would not
encompass God.
> On the other hand, the second verse could be taken here as indicating
> that humans will never share any of God's knowledge - even knowledge
> about the humans themselves.
If we look at the second verse in its fullness, it reads:
"He knows what (appears to His creatures as) before or after or behind
them: but they shall not compass it with their knowledge." [20:110]
In others, God says that He knows what happened to the humans in the past
and what will happen to them in the future, but they can't comprehend Him
with their knowledge. I wonder what has happened to the statement that
humans have no knwoledge "about the humans themselves"!
> are, and yet again we run right into the issue of fideism. Where do we
> abandon human reasoning, logic?
Logic has its own limits and it is something that is not a panacea.
Logically there is no way to explain the existence of life on earth
without molecular dissymmetry. The amino acids found in proteins of living
organisms are all levorotatory or L-amino acids (the polarized light when
passes through these molecules would get deflected on left-hand side).
Outside the living world everything is racemic, which means that it
consists of equal amounts of right-handed and left-handed molecules.
Interestingly enough, in living organisms the sugars are all
dextrorotatory or D-sugars; they deflect the polarized light to right hand
side. For example, the D-configuration of deoxyribose is essentially
for a viable double helix of DNA. There exists *NO* logical explanation to
show why molecular dissymmetry is essential for existence of life. The
scientists have simply accepted it as a "fact of life" or fideism, so to
say. Similarly, we have no logical explanation of why the values of c
(Speed of Light), h (Planck's constant), and G (Universal gravitational
constant) are what they are. This begs the question of why they have the
values they do, and what the universe might have looked like were they
(and other constants like the mass of an electron) different. It turns out
you can't change these values much without making life-as-we-know-it
impossible. Perhaps you are a genius who can use logic to explain the two
above facts which scientists accept as fideism.
> How do we come upon the "unknown"?
How do you know about something that is beyond the physical world?
> This is in addition to the fact that it remains to be shown that we
> are utterly incapable of knowing anything about God via logic.
It is *your* misconception that nothing can be known about God using
logic. What was drilled in time and again was the modalities associated
with attributes of God when applied to His person. Will you please start
talking on the same wavelength rather than assuming that we are
"neglecting" logic?
> Furthermore, with regards to what God has allegedly revealed to us,
> the fact is that we humans always interpret; we always reason in
> response to statements. If what God has already revealed was
> sufficient, then there would be no need for commentaries and other
> sorts of interpretations.
The commentaries are for ocrrectly following the Scripture. If a Scripture
is given without explaining what it means, what is the use of it. That is
why Allah has always sent a Prophet with a Book to explain to people about
what is in it. Not everybody is smart to understand everyhting.
<rest deleted for brevity>
Wassalam
Saifullah
M.S.M. Saifullah
Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
> Allah is in the world by His Word and Spirit and also by His attributes.
>
> But as Allah is one, the Word and Spirit are not separately God, nor are the
> Attributes.
I have to say that you are long in writing and short in showing the
evidence. Please can you quote a tafseer that says Allah blowing His
spirit in Adam is equivalent Allah being a spirit.
As for ruh and nafs, there is a slight difference between them and it has
been discussed by Ibn al-Qayyim in one of the books that I do not recall
now.
Wassalam
Saifullah
M.S.M. Saifullah
> Let me suggest that you may well be in error when you so closely
> associate logic and proof.
To begin with, I must say that I understand what logic is and what proof
is. I made a statement to an effect that logic can't prove itself true or
false. Your mere "suggestion" to this effect is that I am "so closely"
associating logic and proof. What has this got to do with the validation
of logic? Pre-supposing that logic is true does not make it so. In fact,
logic demands that there is something besides logic that makes it valid.
> I believe that you have mischaracterized logic. Even so, it does not
> necessarily follow from what you have written that the "originator" of
> logic would not be perfectly consistent with the logic he created -
> that logic may actually be revelatory of his very being.
If your belief rest on fideism that logic is true because it is true then
I must say that you have finished off your argument. It is not I who has
"mischaracterized" logic. I have asked valid question about logic's
validity without going for fideism that logic is true. As for the
"mischaracterized" of logic, your statement is as good as the proof that
you have supplied. Need I say more?
What I have written is that through logic we discover things *about*
God. Through the Law of Non-Contradiction, we see that the one over logic
does not contradict Himself. Thus one can see in the Qur'an that one of
His attributes are al-Haqq, the Ultimate Truth, and He is one who created
everything in *truth* (in fact, the latter is a Qur'anic phrase). The
profound meaning of the latter phrase is that a created thing exists
objectively (such as an apple) and it can't be another thing at the same
time (such as a banana).
> A demonstrated consistency in and of itself is insufficient for
> establishing truth.
That is a statement lacking any reasoning.
> First, a creed is not presented as a philosophical/logical statement.
That is interesting. All of sudden, we are suppose to dump logic to
understand a creed. What are we expecting next? Dump the language! How are
we to analyze and understand a set of statements without even making head
and tail of it? Are we to assume that the "philosophical/logical"
statements are beyond the grasp of logic and reasoning?
> Second, you have failed to demonstrate why something is subject "to
> the laws of logic" simply because it is "man-made".
How will we then scrutinize a statement made by you? By some mysterious
black magic devoid of any logic?
> Third, you have not demonstrated "that the Attributes of Allah are as
> Allah described it." You and the imams you cited assume that this is
> the case - and this can be a legitimate assumption - but these
> descriptions most certainly can be considered as subject to logic for
> at least two reasons: 1) to see whether the assumption is either
> refutable or at least reasonably doubtable, and 2) to see whether
> these descriptions qualify at least as human knowledge to the extent
> that they exhibit demonstrable consistency and coherence.
We have already demonstrated as opposed to your fideism for logic that
logic is validated only by somebody who is over it. God is the one who
originated logic is above logic. So, whatever attributes God has got, when
revealed, can only be understood as they are as we do not know the
modality or form of these attributes which they take when they apply to
His unique person. This is because His attributes are beyond the realm of
scrutinizing tools such as logic. Thus attributes of Allah are as He has
described them.
> Fideism - just like ignorance - justifies nothing, and I see no reason
> why anyone would or should insist that Islam requires fideism.
Perhaps, it is time that you take your advice a little bit more seriously.
Wassalam
Saifullah
Michael S. Pearl
>The trouble is you do not have a grasp of history of development of
>Christian doctrine of Trinity. The definition of what Trinity is
>comes from the well known Athanasian Creed from 4th century CE ...
>
>Like any other Prophets of Jesus called to worship one God when he
began
>his ministry as mentioned in the New Testament as well as the Qur'an.
>
>"They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three;
when
>there is no god save the One God. If they desist not from so saying a
>painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve." [5:73]
>
Michael's response:
Is this verse you cite supposed to add weight to your comments
regarding the Trinity?
Is this verse from the Qur'an supposed to refer to and to proscribe
each and every Trinity concept and all Trinitarian expression?
This verse does not accurately describe the Trinity of the Christians
- at least any Christians with whom I am familiar and certainly not
the Trinity of the Athanasian creed; so, why would you use it as part
of an "argument" regarding the Christians' Trinity?
If one assumes that the Qur'an is somehow the word of God such that
the statements contained within the Qur'an are without error, then it
would seem that this verse would have to be understood as not
referring to the Christians' Trinity or, at least, not the Trinity as
per Athanasius.
If this verse is inapplicable to the Christians' Trinity, then maybe
you would be better off just relying on a logical argument against the
Trinity concept and Trinitarian expression -- but be sure that you are
thorough in your consideration of possibilities before you proclaim
such matters to be wholly unrepresentative of the one true God.
Michael
M.S.M. Saifullah
> argument. Altway's first contention, that 'There are no "laws of
> Logic",' is one I do not agree with. For example, suppose I have one
I did not support Altway on this issue. So, let us move on....
> rule we created; rather this is a rule of logic that we discovered. It
> is the way the universe works (even if no language is involved).
Logic comes first before the language. It is logic that makes language
has meaning associated with it.
> Altway's second contention was that Allaah "certainly transcends the
> rules by which He creates the Universe." This seems to be leaning
> heavily in favor of something that Dr. Saifullaah has positively
> asserted a number of times in this forum: that Allaah is not subject
> to the rules of bivalent logic (id est, Allaah can transcend bivalent
> logic). This is a point of contention I find to be very interesting,
> and will discuss further below.
For your benefit let me restate what I had mentioned earlier. Allah is
outside the realm of logic and hence not subjected to the laws of bivalent
logic. I have supplied ample amount of reasoning for such a case and it
can be found in Google archives. They are not mere "assertions".
> Imagine using Altway's argument in reverse, where a Christian first
> contends that the Trinitarian ontology of the Divine Godhead is
> possible on the grounds that God is not restricted by the rules of
> bivalent logic. Then the Christian's second contention is that "the
One has to say that the Christian line of argument against Muslims come
from a direction that the Muslims are delibrately limiting the
possibilities of Divine Godhead. God can incarnate because such a
possibility exists. Why? Because God can do anything. The possibility of
incarnation is one of their prime justifications for God being a
Trinity. Their justification of Trinity has *nothing* to do with whether
or not God can be bound to the rules of bivalent logic. Even if we assume
that Trinity is possible on the grounds that God is not restricted by the
rules of bivalent logic and why not quadrinity? Or pentanity? Or 100 in 1?
Obviously, one has to bring on X number of characters in someway or
another and then say that a Godhead X in 1 by denying that this
Godhead X in 1 can't be subjected to bivalent logic. Actually, the
argument was not about assuming that bivalent logic was inapplicable to
God. It was about showing it.
Our argument of showing why bivalent logic is not applicable to Allah was
based on the understanding what is meant by affirming what God has
affirmed of Himself and denying what God has denied of Himself and the
implications associated with it. When something is affirmed, all other
possibilities are denied. Everything is in the definition. We did not
reject or accept bivalent logic downright without stating *valid* reasons.
Now on what reasoning should we accept Trinity as being not subjected to
bivalent logic? Could Mr. Freethought kindly enlighten us on this issue as
he is great fan of Trinity, if not Trinitarian brand of Christianity.
> made one, not a revelation." Suppose further that the Christian makes
> no attempt to defend his second contention; rather he just asserts it.
And we did not simply make an assertion in the case of Allah being not
subjected to bivalent logic.
> The Trinitarian doctrine was encapsulated in the Athanasian Creed, but
> the doctrine did exist (in various forms) before this Creed was
> formulated. Like Altway, Dr. Saifullaah is poisoning the well. Imagine
Since when has stating Trinitarian doctrine being encapsulated in the
Athanasian Creed became poisoning the well. Athanasius formulated it.
Christians mention it. The scholars admit it and what is wrong when we are
stating a similar thing. What is wrong in calling a spade a spade?
> a Christian giving a bunch of Biblical verses that he interprets as
> supporting the Trinity, and then further saying that the Islamic
> conception of God is from the Qur'an, which is "a man-made text, and
> thus is not revelation."
Well, there are other biblical passages that explicitly deny Jesus being
God. And here we do not need to have an "interpretation".
> heart of this thread: how can Dr. Saifullaah claim the doctrine is
> inconsistent or logically problematic if God is not subject to the
> rules of bivalent logic? Dr. Saifullaah seems to want to harp on about
> the doctrine being a man-made concept. Would he change his mind if I
> (or someone else) claim to have received a revelation directly from
> God that affirms the Triune ontology of the Divine Presence?
Now comes the issue of how. How can I claim that the doctrine of Trinity
is inconsistent or logically problematic? Well, it is very simple. Using
logic we know things *about* God. If we find that the definition of God
violates Law of Non-Contradiction, then we know that the statement is
logically false. Coming to the Trinitarian creed, the distinction
between the three components is important. That is the Father is distinct
from the Son is distinct from the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father.
If three components of the Trinity have to be distinct then
they can't be the same, i.e, one God. Consequently, they can't form one
God. This is because according to language, the words "distinct" and
"same" are antipodes. This is a contradiction in language and hence the
violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction in logic.
We can do a similar study of God as mentioned in the Qur'an. Using logic
we know things about God. The Qur'an states that Allah is One. Nowhere
in the Qur'an is this fact contradicted. In fact, it is affirmed by
denying explicitly that Allah does not have a son, daughter or consort and
that He is al-Ghani, absolutely free of need of anything in the worlds.
> The question is if a Triune ontology for God is possible, and if we
> start from the premise (positively asserted by Dr. Saifullaah) that
> God is not subject to bivalent logic, our conclusion has to be a
> resounding yes!
We showed not just asserted that Allah is not subjected to bivalent logic.
Now you show not just assert that a Trinitarian Godhead can't be subjected
to bivalent logic.
Now as for Lane Craig's philosophical musing or rather gymnastics, let us
try to look at the way he sees Trinity. Trinity for him is analogous to a
triangle - one shape, with three angles each being a part of the whole. We
only understand concepts or things by how they are defined. Logic
precedes language. For language to be viable objects should be
defined without any contradiction, i.e., the Law of Non-Contradiction
should be applicable. In Trinity, each part of Godhead is distinct, i.e.,
that is the Father is distinct from the Son is distinct from the Holy
Spirit is distinct from the Father. When entities are distinct, they can't
be the same. Obviously, in a triangle if a distinction between the
angles/corners is made, they can't be the same. Hence, they can't be same
and not same at the same time. Furthermore, each angle/corner of the
triangle does not constitute the triangle itself, whereas the definition
of the Trinitarian creed is that each of its component is God.
I suspect that Criag's Trinitarian ideas are way off from the
traditional one. His main focus is on substance but substance
is only a *part* of Trinitarian Godhead.
Wassalam
Saifullah
Denis Giron
> > The reality of the crucifixion is accepted by nearly all
> > New Testament scholars (both religious and secular). Hardly any
> > scholars accept the substitution theory proffered by the Qur'an.
>
> 1. Where in the Quran is it claimed that there was a substitution?
A mildly similar/related topic is being discussed in another thread in
SRI:
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=bac0a2be.0401060901.2dfdbf6c%40posting.google.com
Is the Qur'an explicit about there being a substitution? No, it is
not. That being said, if Imran retracts/withdraws his statement about
the substitution (or if others argue similarly to Imran, minus the
mention of the substitution), we see what he was trying to say. For
example, the phrase "ma salaboohu" (as per Soorat an-Nissa 4:157 in
the Qur'an) is generally taken by the vast majority of Muslims
(including you, based on quoted text below) to mean Jesus was not
crucified (though as Altway pointed out, if Jesus was crucified,
hypothetically speaking, "ma salaboohu" would not necessarily be an
error since it literally means "they did not crucify him," thus if we
understand this to mean the Jews specifically did not crucify him, it
still leaves open the possibility that he was crucified). This
general/popular interpretation of Soorat an-Nissaa is in serious
conflict with the opinions of qualified historians. This, I believe,
is closer to Imran's point. If we assume this interpretation reflects
the author's intention (id est, we assume "ma salaboohu" means
specifically that Jesus was not crucified), then we have to conclude
that the Qur'an does not fit well with the conclusions of serious
scholarship on the historical Jesus.
> 2. Provide proof that the crucifixion is accepted by 'nearly all NT
> scholars, especially in light of the 'authenticity' of the Biblical
> accounts.
First, what would you accept as proof? A list of all NT scholars and
then a second list of names of serious NT scholars who accept the
crucifixion, so as to properly determine the proper percentage? I
would put it simply that I have never seen any serious NT scholar who
has entertained the idea that the historical Jesus was not crucified.
We are now seeing this fact being used more and more in
Muslim-Christian debates. Muslims are rightfully unimpressed with the
argument that "the Qur'an is in error when it contradicts the Bible,"
but a more sophisticated version of such a criticism of the Qur'an can
be constructed, and it is quite powerful. The argument is not, as Dr.
Saifullaah once put it here in SRI, "old is gold" - where we assume
the older text is more reliable than the more recent text. For
example, there is no reason to believe the Biblical creation account
is more reliable than the Qur'anic creation account (assuming, for the
sake of argument, that they cannot be reconciled). With the historical
Jesus, however, the NT comes off as being much closer to being primary
source documents than does the Qur'an.
As William Lane Craig put it, "no scholar who is not already a
committed Muslim denies the crucifixion" (paraphrasing). I remember
when Craig debated Jamal Badawi, Dr. Badawi claimed that while this
may be the concensus among scholars, other scholars do claim he was
not crucified. In his rebuttal, Craig, with a nearly ear-to-ear grin,
held up his thumb and said "I'm so confident that this claim is false
that I challenge him [i.e. Badawi] to name one [i.e. just one scholar
who doubts/disputes the crucifixion]." Badawi never responded, and I
can't imagine what he would have said if he did attempt an answer
(would he have named some Muslim who isn't actually an NT scholar? or
would he have named ultra-radical scholars like Wells, Remsberg or
Neichin who claim Jesus was not crucified simply because Jesus did not
exist?).
Second, as for the Biblical accounts, scholars generally approach them
as having an historical core. It is this historical core (as alluded
to above) that can be part of a criticism of the Qur'an that rests on
an appeal to the Bible. SRI might not be the place to discuss this,
but there is a general methodology, and while the 'historical Jesus'
is drawn from a very small portion of the corpora (i.e. a much larger
amount is deemed unhistorical than that which is deemed historical),
this is nonetheless a Jesus who conflicts badly with the mainstream
interpretations of the Qur'an held by Muslims over the last 1,400
years. First and foremost, this is a Jesus who was executed via
crucifixion.
> Are you saying Jesus (AS) was crucified when the Quran explicitly says
> he was not? Sorry, but I just don't see a 'moral lesson' to be
> learned if the Quran teaches that "he was not crucified nor killed" as
> opposed to 'accepted' history'... Maybe you would care to clarify this
> lesson so as I may take heed of it...
Well, this sort of misses the point of the discussion between Imran
and Abdus-Salaam (thebit). Abdus-Salaam wrote:
We can, of course, remain mute, rather than reject the
'historical facts' in the Qur'an because they are "false".
All 'secular disciplines' must, afterall, admit to their
limitations, whereas 'faith' would demand that all
knowledge is with God alone.
Imran said that he agrees, then added the text about the lack of
historical evidence for the belief that Jesus was not crucified (as
the Qur'an apparently claims), and ended off by saying that "the
believer is free to accept by faith that Jesus was not crucified, but
very little *historical* support can be gained for that belief." So
the issue here is not that the Qur'an is necessarily wrong. Obviously
it is not *necessarily* wrong since, as alluded to indirectly by
Abdus-Salaam, the opinions of accepted scholarship is not proof beyond
all doubt - their conclusions are adduced rather than deduced, thus
there is a margin of error (even if a small one). So, assuming, as you
seem to do above, that "the Quran explicitly says [Jesus] was not
[crucified]," Imran is not positively asserting that Jesus was in fact
crucified or that this is an indisputable truth. This (alleged)
assertion by the Qur'an just does not have any historical support at
the moment (though believers can take it as true on faith, as the
cream of serious scholarship can still be wrong).
-Denis Giron
http://freethoughtmecca.org/home.htm
Zuiko Azumazi
"Altway" <ham...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:107547358...@damia.uk.clara.net...
<snip>
> Dialectics is about words. You can define your words to create consistent
> systems and all those who agree to using the words that way will
certainly
> be able to communicate with each other. But this can produce a delusional
> society. Many such have existed and do exist.
Comment and Questions:-
I cannot be presumptuous and state what I consider to be the "Islamic
position", even if I understood what that man-made explanation was in its
entirety. Personal prudence, dictates a 'suspended judgement' on such
weighty issues.
Did not the great mediaeval Islamic scholar Al-Ghazzali use "dialectics" to
arrive at his dicta? Are his explanations 'false' because he used this
ubiquitous 'device'? Should we automatically discount all 'scholarly'
treatises because they use 'dialectics' and 'logic', in part, to argue or
arrive at their conclusions?
> Such lingual agreements do not constitute Truth.
Questions:-
I agree, but they help to explain it, don't they? Is it not true that "The
Truth" needs explanation? If not, why the need for so many 'commentaries'
and 'annotations' to the Qur'an?
<snip>
> You say:-
<snip>
Comment:-
I'm just quoting the words of a the well respected Islamic scholar Al-Kindi.
This timeless quote is not mine, although it's kind of you to suggest that I
have such a lucid capacity.
<snip>
> Certainly we should acknowledge Truth (That is what Islam, Surrender to
> Allah means. Allah is Truth.)
> The important point, however, is to understand what "truth" is.
> The opinions expressed by you above appear to imply that
> Truth is "verbal consistency or agreement".
> That is not the Islamic position.
Question:-
Where in my previous articles, in this thread, have I confused "The Truth"
with truth, this is your conclusion and misconception, isn't it?
> You are, of course, free to consider the subject from any point of view
you
> like. But I thought we were here to discuss Islam which is not, it seems
to
> me, what you or Imran Aijaz are doing.
Question:-
Let's "discuss Islam" from your perspective isn't Islam in its totality, is
it? For example, is Sufism Islam? Is Sufism 'A' way or 'The' way? Isn't
Sufism a personal choice that you have made using your own intellect?
Therefore, in this context, is Sufism "irrelevant" to Islam? Can you concede
that some people, Muslim or otherwise, could perceive that it is?
BTW I've got nothing against Sufism as a practice or Sufi's in general, that
is a matter of personal taste as far as I'm concerned.
<snip>
> To get back to the subject you comment on that Imran finds it logically
> inconsistent that Muslims should suppose that God cannot be subject to the
> laws bivalent Logic and yet criticise the Trinity doctrine as being
> illogical. This clearly depends on what you understand by Logic, God and
> Trinity.
Question:-
Where in my articles have I supported this notion? I have never used the
terms "bivalent Logic" or "Trinity" or stated that God can be subject to
man-made laws? What I have said is that "man qua man" uses the 'tools' and
'devices' that God has given us so that we can 'explain' things to
ourselves, and if need be to others? These "explanations" may be true or
false depending on your viewpoint. This is exactly what you are doing isn't
it? Why is it that you constantly find the need to 'misconstrue' or
're-define' what other people, Muslim or otherwise, have to contribute? Are
you the 'sole' authority in these matters? Aren't you, often, confusing
"sermonising" with teaching?
Imran Aijaz
Therein lies the problem. How do we decide? Surely you're not a
relativist?
> And I can see that there are a range of things between white and black.
> So I reject the axioms "Ether A or not-A", "Not both A and not-A".
> And I reject the axiom that A is always A. Things do change though the
> label applied to them remain the same.
But this shows that you have not grasped the basics of logic. If I
give you a disjunction of (W v B), then it is a *non-exhaustive*
disjunction. The two disjuncts do *not* represent contradictories -
rather, they are contraries. Thus, the axiom "Either A or not-A" does
not apply to "Either white or black." It does, however, apply to
"Either white or not white" and "Either black or not black". These two
disjunctions are comprised of disjuncts that constitute
contradictions. So your counter-example does nothing to refute logic.
> These are inventions.
> Even if they were discoveries, they would be biased selections.
> You also mistake words for reality.
> The premises can only be valid is the terms used refer to something
> observed, experienced which is itself not an illusion or hallucination.
Well, this is something you have to prove; you have to prove that
logic is not something discovered but rather invented.
> You are applying your logic which I have rejected.
> Reason and observation tells me that nothing can be done by anything
> that is not part of its capabilities.
> That the parameters by which something is described cannot
> themselves be validated by the same parameters.
> That human beings make rules only because they transend those rules.
I'm sorry, but this isn't making sense. Please proffer a coherent and
plausible account of your rejection of logic.
> But there are people that think that the supreme power in the Universe is
> an Elephant or a Tortoise. And we can all assert anything we like and claim
> it to be
> a revelation.
Well, yes. So how do you substantiate - without falling back onto
logic - your presuppositions about Islam? You see, you appear to be
starting from premises which are highly controversial. You begin with
the supposition that the Qur'an is the Word of God, for example.
Others will disagree. You might say, "Well, fine - I have my
presuppositions and that's that!". But then you have slipped into the
swamp of relativism. And, ironically, Islam is very anti-relativist -
Muslims have been nearly unanimous, for example, in claiming that
polytheism is irrational.
> I have denied that Trinity refers to the Divine World.
> It refers to the created world.
And how do you know this? The trouble is, your fideism appears to
banish logical discourse altogether, and thus the charge of special
pleading. Consider a Calvinist who holds you, along with all other
Muslims, to be spiritually blind due to the unfortunate use of "Muslim
logic". It is sin that has resulted in this deficiency in the Muslims'
souls. This is why they think that the Trinity is a man made concept,
when, in fact, it is perfectly rational in the Divine realm. The
Qur'an, the Calvinist may urge, is a man made document. Allah refers
to the created world and not the Divine World - which is really
constitued by a Godhead that is triune. Now, please show how you know
this view is incorrect. Also, please do not appeal to logic.
> Strange fellow!
> Are you quite unable to see the absurdity of what you have
> just said?
>
> I said "Trinity refers to the created world of trinity."
> And you say that this means "Arguments against the Trinity fail."
> Is this how how your logic works?
You have obviously missed the point here. Your relativism appears to
concede too much to the Christian - which was exactly my point. Thus,
you are committed to the belief - unless you specially plead - that
Christians may use exactly the same line of reasoning to rebut Muslim
attacks on the Trinity. It seems all metaphysical postulates are in a
hopeless impasse with each other because reason cannot solve the
problem of which metaphysical postulate is superior to another. Thus,
you appear to be committed to the view that the metaphysical postulate
of *tawheed* is no more metaphysically superior than the metaphysical
postulate of the Trinity. Is this how your non-logic works? Just who
is unable to see the absurdity of his position?
> Try to make your silly syllogisms out of this and see if you can find the
> error. Clue: Logic applies to the Realive World, not the Absolute.
That's it, then, it seems that Hamid is a metaphysical relativist.
BTW, you're not a Kantian are you?
> What your argument proves is that the proof of something
> lies in the perception and intelligence of those for whom it is
> proof and not in the logical argument.
This is really trivial - and it does nothing to discredit logic. One
can have an argument that is either valid or strong, but which
contains premises which gain support empirically. Thus, logic and
empiricism overlap.
> I am sure even you can see that the Trinity doctrine as
> presented by some Christians is a contradiction of the concept of God
> in the Quran which Muslims accept..
Again, you have completely missed my point. Let's have some fun here.
Suppose we have a Christian person by the name of Benny Jinn. Benny
Jinn says:
BENNY JINN
> I am sure even you, Hamid, can see that the Allah doctrine as
> presented by some Muslims is a contradiction of the concept of God
> in the Bible which Christians accept..
Will you accept Jinn's claim? Of course you won't. But why not? And
let's see how your non-logical system fares when it comes to the
arbitration of beliefs. On what basis do you reject Jinn's claim?
> But you may continue to believe what you like.
This really does sound like it's coming from a relativist. Too bad.
Imran.
Denis Giron
> When we come to sub-atomic physics we see this kind of Logic
> breaks down. The logic people construct apply to specific realms only.
> They are methods.
Hmmmm... assuming this is true, it would mean that logic of the sort I
mentioned represents how the universe works in our 'realm'. Fine.
Second, it would seem to mean that even certain (allegedly) created
things, such as sub-atomic particles[?], are not subject to bivalent
logic. Assuming this is true, I have no objection.
Neither of these agreements on my part conflicts with my position that
logic, for the most part, is discovered rather than created. Nor does
it get into the real meat of the discussion regarding Allaah not being
subject to the laws of logic, and the implications this has. We touch
on that below...
> According to the Quran Allah is not like anything. He transcends creation.
> All descriptions and explanations are relationships with something known.
> It follows that Allah cannot be dealt with anything that requires
> relationships. This includes Logic.
So then you hold that Allaah is not subject to logic. You're even more
clear on this point when you write the following:
> In Islam Allah is defined as supreme. To say that Allah is subject to Logic
> is to say that Logic is greater than Allah. This is Idolatry.
So again, you are positively asserting that Allaah is not subject to
the rules of logic. If Allaah is above and beyond the rules of
bivalent logic, I think that pretty clearly means he can transcend
bivalent logic.
> We are discussing the Islamic concept of God. If you want to discuss
> some other concept, then you must excuse me - I do not recognise
> that as Allah.
What you recognize as Allaah is not immediately relevant to the
discussion of the thread. Notice that the title is "God, Logic &
Special Pleading." Imran's argument still stands (and it is one that
has been raised in SRI before): if you accept that Allaah is not
subject to the rules of logic, then you cannot claim a certain
conception of God is false on the grounds that it violates some rule
of logic. For example, suppose a Christian claims Allaah is either
part of the triune Godhead, or is the totality of the tri-personal
divine essence. Suppose further that this conception is logically
inconsistent. The fact that it is logically inconsistent does not
render it false considering the fact that Allaah is not bound by the
rules of logic (according to you). So Imran's argument is very clear:
it is duplicitous to claim Allaah is not subject to the rules of logic
on the one hand, and then try to reject other conceptions of God on
the grounds that they are logically inconsistent on the other. Imran
is exposing a double standard in the methodology and argumentation
employed by *certain* Muslims (I would dare to say a majority of
Muslims).
-Denis Giron
http://freethoughtmecca.org/home.htm
Michael S. Pearl
>To say that Allah is subject to Logic
>is to say that Logic is greater than Allah.
>
Michael's response:
I have not seen anyone here say - or even suggest - that "Logic is
greater than Allah"; so, how is this sort of response even responsive?
Hamid S. Aziz wrote:
>Allah is One. All knowledge consists of relationships or comparisons.
>This requires more than one factor.
>
Michael's response:
Does this notion about "knowledge" reflect a commonly promulgated
Islamic epistemology?
Is the word "knowledge" in the just noted comment supposed to read as
"[human] knowledge"?
If not, then "before" Allah created, if Allah, "the One", can be said
to have been all that there was, then Allah would not have been
omniscient inasmuch as there was *not* the "more than one factor"
necessary for there to be "knowledge". Based on the presented notion
of "knowledge", would God have even been aware of Himself?
It must be preposterous according to Islam to imagine God as ever
unaware of Himself; therefore, either a different understanding of
just what is "knowledge" is required, or a different context must have
been intended.
If "[human] knowledge" was intended as the strictly delimited context,
then what is the problem with understanding God, having "knowledge"
about God, considering God, from the human perspective and by using
human means (including logic)?
No one is claiming that the human perspective is sufficient for
utterly comprehensive knowledge, but, then again, no one has shown
that there is nothing about God that can be known via logic.
Does the Qur'an forbid or recommend against the use of logic when
attempting to further one's understanding about God?
How is a God that is genuinely inaccessible via human thought
processes (meaning, at least in part, logical processes) in any way
distinguishable by humans from a God that does not exist (anywhere
outside the human imagination)?
Hamid S. Aziz wrote:
>And it becomes clear that Logical arguments cannot
>prove anything.
>
Michael's response:
Proof (the certainty afforded by actual proof) is not necessary for
learning, for improving awareness, or for growing in "knowledge", but
humans definitely do not learn or become more knowledgeable without
logic (this does not mean that all learning depends upon the conscious
application of logic processes).
The issue is not proof; the issue is learning; the issue pertains to
whether the search for greater knowledge about God is generally
considered a virtue in Islam or whether fideism which necessarily
prevents the possibility of greater learning is essential to Islamic
philosophy/theology.
Michael
Michael S. Pearl
>Ignorance about who and what God is not an
>excuse for projecting yourself as confused. We are not here to offer
you a
>course on "God in Islam 101".
>
Michael's response:
Thus far we have evidence that some Muslims deny that God is immanent
while others assert that God is immanent. Whether this situation
should cause confusion is not really germane, is it? What is more on
point is whether and how we might be able to provide a resolution to
problems made manifest by conflicting statements about Allah.
M. S. M. Saifullah wrote:
>Allah is above and beyond His creation ... Allah is not the part of
the
>created world nor it is part of Him. This essentially means that His
Being
>is completely distinct and separated from His creation.
>
Michael's comment:
What you have not addressed is why Allah has to be wholly separate
from creation. Those who believe that God is immanent as well as
transcendent do not restrict God to the confines of creation, but they
do deny that God is wholly "separated from His creation", and all that
is important for the moment is the fact that you have failed to show
that it is impossible for God to be immanent.
If you cannot show that it is impossible for God to be immanent, then
how can you be certain that your belief is true?
You may feel certain (psychologically) that God is only transcendent,
but such a feeling does not establish an objective fact about God,
and, ultimately, it is the objectiveness of matters that is at issue
here. Would you not agree?
M. S. M. Saifullah wrote:
>We can also look at God's existence is a logical way. To exist
objectively
>God must have all the attributes of objective existents. This implies
that
>God must therefore be "somewhere" and can't be everywhere.
>
Michael's comment:
Your above explanation of what it means "[t]o exist objectively" is
significantly inaccurate. This is especially apparent from the
implication that you draw.
It does not follow logically that a thing must be "somewhere" to exist
objectively; such a notion is logically necessary only given certain
unstated assumptions. For example, if one presumes that our physical
universe is all that there is to reality, then it would be logical to
state that anything which exists objectively must be "somewhere".
However, I do not assume that the physical universe is all that there
is to reality, but, even if the physical universe were all reality,
then the universe itself would be everywhere; therefore, it is
possible for a thing that exists objectively to be somewhere and
everywhere.
Let me suggest what I think is a preferable way of understanding
"objectivity", "objectiveness", or "to exist objectively", stated with
particular reference to God, since that is our ultimate concern here -
but it should still be clear that other terms can be substituted for
"God" and the description of objectiveness still remains valid for the
purposes of this discussion:
> To assert that it is an objective fact that
> the being, God, exists is to say that God exists regardless of
> whether or not any particular person is aware that God exists; this is
> also to say that God exists regardless of how many people are unaware
> of God, and this is also to say that God exists whether or not anyone
> can prove that God exists.
>
> In addition, to assert the existence of God as an objective fact is to
> claim that whatever are the characteristics of the being of God, that
> being exists as it is regardless of how God is described by any person
> and regardless of how God is described by any number of people.
If one wants to pursue the exists "where" question, that is fine, but
as the above description makes clear, the matter of objective
existence does not depend on resolution of the "where" issue.
M. S. M. Saifullah wrote:
>... we must remind you that "Power"
>and "Knowledge" are attributes of God. We take them to mean what they
are.
>
Michael's response:
As per the above brief introduction to objectiveness, what you "take
them to mean" is, in itself, a matter of subjectivity - not
objectivity. The issue to which your cited comment pertains is whether
God's "Power" and "Knowledge" are to be understood as existing apart
from God. I doubt you would agree with a claim that such attributes of
God's exist objectively apart from God; maybe you would agree with the
notion that such attributes merely refer to, partially describe God.
But, with regards to the transcendent/immanent part of this
discussion, if God's "Power" is somehow present and continues to be
present in the universe, and if God's attributes (such as "Power") do
not exist objectively apart from God, then it is reasonable to believe
that God is somehow immanent.
M. S. M. Saifullah wrote:
>That God is in no way immanent is well-known among the Muslims of all
>times. Claims of becoming "one with God" (ittihaad) and "dwelling of
Allah
>in man" (hulool) were refuted by scholars of Islam throughout the
>centuries.
>
Michael's response:
First off, is this a claim that Hamid S. Aziz is not a Muslim?!?!?!?!?
Maybe you do not really mean to use the definite article "the" with
the word "Muslims" in the above statement.
That aside, it is possible the problem here is that you use terms such
as "refuted" far too loosely, far too imprecisely. Is this because you
confuse subjective (psychological) certainty with objective certainty?
Maybe you would like a more detailed discussion about objectiveness
not only in reality but especially with regards to epistemology.
M. S. M. Saifullah wrote:
>... our knowledge of what is
>"material" and what is "immaterial" is confined to within the
contraints
>of space and time. For the "exhaustive disjunction" to be valid, it
should
>not be constrained; since it is, it can't be "exhaustive".
>
Michael's comment:
It is time for you to suggest definitions for the terms "material" and
"immaterial". With regards to "our knowledge", remember that at the
crux of this discussion is "our knowledge" about God. Maybe you have
not yet given much thought to the matter of how humans "know", how
humans come to "know", but one thing you will want to keep in mind is
that human "knowledge" does not seem to ever be considered as
"exhaustive"; consequently, if validity depends on being "exhaustive",
and human "knowledge" is not exhaustive, then by your own reasoning
humans do not have valid knowledge - in which case you cannot
legitimately claim to have refuted anything.
Michael
asimm...@yahoo.com
> hypothetically speaking, "ma salaboohu" would not necessarily be an
> error since it literally means "they did not crucify him," thus if we
> understand this to mean the Jews specifically did not crucify him, it
> still leaves open the possibility that he was crucified).
This interpretation, about the plausibility of others crucifying him,
is rejected by the Quran, when the Almihgty says "the body was raised
up".
AS A SIDE NOTE, if one examines the context, the verse is not
specifically talking about what happened to Jesus (AS), but denying
the claim of the Jews that he was killed. The implications of why the
Quran denies it has nothing to do with the 'return of Jesus'. But
that is subject to a different discussion.
This
> general/popular interpretation of Soorat an-Nissaa is in serious
> conflict with the opinions of qualified historians. This, I believe,
> is closer to Imran's point.
'Qualified' historians do nto accept the virgin birth of Jesus (AS),
nor his miracles. Is he going to believe these 'historical accounts'
from the NT but not the Quran's claim that Jesus was not crucified.
And I do not think it is closer to Imran's point. He was speaking
specifically in the context of the miracles of Prophets.
>
> > 2. Provide proof that the crucifixion is accepted by 'nearly all NT
> > scholars, especially in light of the 'authenticity' of the Biblical
> > accounts.
>
> First, what would you accept as proof? A list of all NT scholars and
> then a second list of names of serious NT scholars who accept the
> crucifixion, so as to properly determine the proper percentage? I
> would put it simply that I have never seen any serious NT scholar who
> has entertained the idea that the historical Jesus was not crucified.
Are you saying its so illogical that it cannot be true? Are you
saying that its impossible for people to assume that another person is
dead? The Quran simply says the Jews (AS) claimed they killed him,
nor crucified him, and the Quran denies it. They boasted about it and
perpetuated what the Quran says is a lie. What's so hard about that?
Even if we were to thoroughly read the NT, it becomes very clear the
Pharisees desire to have Jesus (AS) killed, and they even tried to
accuse him of blasphemy so as to stone him. Why would they not boast
about it considering he came to prepare the way for the "Kingdom of
Heaven on Earth."
One can even find subtle illusions in the NT about Jesus (AS)
prophesizing that they would try and kill him, just as they had killed
John the Baptist before, and Zechariah (AS). Surely, the attempted
killing of Jesus (AS) is made in this context, and further, Jesus (AS)
prophesizes the new nation rising forth.
Why would it be so hard to believe the Jews trying to kill Jesus (AS)
and failing. In fact, this is much more logical than the 'die on the
cross for the sins' argument.
How really illogical is that to accept?
For
> example, there is no reason to believe the Biblical creation account
> is more reliable than the Qur'anic creation account (assuming, for the
> sake of argument, that they cannot be reconciled). With the historical
> Jesus, however, the NT comes off as being much closer to being primary
> source documents than does the Qur'an.
>
And this is coming from the assumption that the NT is wholly
authentic... No SERIOUS NT scholar can prove the land was darkened for
three days and nights upon the alleged crucifixion of Jesus Christ
(AS). But then again, are we suppose to accept this as an eye witness
account?
Neither I can prove, nor any NT scholar can prove Jesus (AS) was
crucified.
We don't have his body, nor do we know where it is, and we cannot run
an autopsy on it. Further, this is even more strange considering that
he laid down a movement that forever changed the course of history.
IT IS A MATTER OF FAITH. But I can tell you, the Quranic version is
much more consistent than the Christian theological interpretation.
> As William Lane Craig put it, "no scholar who is not already a
> committed Muslim denies the crucifixion" (paraphrasing).
William Lane Criag is basing it upon the NT account, and I'm sure
Craig believes that the earth was darkened for three days. Can he
prove that? And I am sure that no serious NT scholar accepts the
INTERPRETATION OF JESUS DYING FOR THE SINS OF MANKIND ON THE CROSS
like Craig does. But he believes it.
Further, no serious person could NOT consider the NT a legitimate
historical document that can attest to an understanding of the
cultures of the time, but that does not mean it is in totality true or
that the writers had no motives behind it.
> when Craig debated Jamal Badawi, Dr. Badawi claimed that while this
> may be the concensus among scholars, other scholars do claim he was
> not crucified. In his rebuttal, Craig, with a nearly ear-to-ear grin,
> held up his thumb
Can Craig explain why Jesus (AS) is alleged to have eaten after the
Gospels report his being seen after the crucifixion.
> Second, as for the Biblical accounts, scholars generally approach them
> as having an historical core. It is this historical core (as alluded
> to above) that can be part of a criticism of the Qur'an that rests on
> an appeal to the Bible. SRI might not be the place to discuss this,
> but there is a general methodology, and while the 'historical Jesus'
> is drawn from a very small portion of the corpora (i.e. a much larger
> amount is deemed unhistorical than that which is deemed historical),
> this is nonetheless a Jesus who conflicts badly with the mainstream
> interpretations of the Qur'an held by Muslims over the last 1,400
> years. First and foremost, this is a Jesus who was executed via
> crucifixion.
>
>From what I understand, the Quran only alludes to the alleged boast of
the Jews ONCE, and this in the context of the Jews attitude with
respect to the truth.
How does that radically differ from the 'historical Jesus'?
Other than that, the Quran denies Jesus' claim to godhood, and accepts
his miracles. How does that conflict badly with the historical Jesus
(AS)? Even the mentioning of Jesus (AS) as prophesizing the Ahmed, is
in the context of fighting and jihad, and the Jews AT THAT TIME AND
PAST were awaiting that one who would establish a supremacy in the
land EVEN through war.
> historical evidence for the belief that Jesus was not crucified (as
> the Qur'an apparently claims), and ended off by saying that "the
> believer is free to accept by faith that Jesus was not crucified, but
> very little *historical* support can be gained for that belief."
Of cousre its priamrily a matter of faith, just as the virgin birth ,
which neither the writers of Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John witnessed,
is. So what historical support are we suppose to gain from them about
these incidents?
vmi...@yahoo.com
> Viqar Ahmed responded:
> >In my view there is no way for us to make any definite assertion
> about
> >this.
>
> Michael's current comment:
>
> Well, Hamid S. Aziz was certainly willing to make an assertion in his
> response to this query of mine; he says:
> >... Allah is Absolute, One
> >He, is transcendental, immanent as well as Personal.
I think you should first read all my posts in this thread to properly
understand my argument.
What Hamid Azis has written does not contravene my argument. This is
because Hamid is basing his opinion on what is **Revealed** in the Qur'an,
not on something deducible from human knowledge, especially pure logic.
In my very first post in this thread, I wrote:
"A vague, abstract, perception of higher realms is, in all probability, all
that our mind can aspire to on its own. No truth pertaining to higher
dimensions can become more apparent, or comprehensible, unless **Revealed
and Explained by the Supreme Being**, and eventually recognized and
accepted by our own intuitive (perceptive) abilities".
What Hamid Azis has stated is consistent with this.
> Michael's current response:
>
> Well, "the notion of exhaustive disjunction" has at least brought us
> to this - the realization that what might really be the subject here
> is whether there might be some way of "perceiving" God. It is not so
> simple as God as material or immaterial; it is not so simple as God as
> only transcendent, or God as transcendent and immanent, but such
> attempts at disjunctives take us further to the matter of whether God
> is in any way "perceivable" - whether we can be aware of God simply in
> the course of being human.
I agree with the part of your thought here about this not being simple.
And, I hope, I am not suggesting that it is. Further, things are not
intrinsically necessarily *simple* or *complex* . It depends on the level
of knowledge one has to work with in order to comprehend them. To Einstein,
the concepts of relativity were child's play. To us, more ordinary mortals,
comprehending some of the abstractions therein seems a very formidable
challenge.
My feeling is that in our present state of existence (the three dimensional
physical domain) our intellect is incapable of bearing the type (and level)
of knowledge that is essential to comprehend higher realities in their
proper perspective. It is hoped that, in the afterlife, our being (and
therefore our intellect) would have evolved to a level that we can more
clearly see and comprehend concepts which are presently inaccessible to us.
> This is why the issue is legitimately approached from the human, or
> physical, domain. We have no other starting point.
I disagree. We do have a starting point. And it is identical with the
end point. Islam teaches us not to waste our time with things that are
presently beyond the limits of our physical and intellectual abilities.
Instead we ought to focus our energies, and power of the tools at our
disposal, productively within the scope of their applicability.
> Viqar Ahmed wrote:
>
> >Is there any way that you, or Imran, or anyone else, could "prove",
> >strictly with the help of laws "of the physical realm" (to which such
> >realms may not be subject) that such a realm does not exist?
> >
> Michael's current response:
>
> Neither Imran nor I claim to have proved "that such a realm does not
> exist"; neither of us has attempted to "prove ... that such a realm
> does not exist."
>
> However, you most certainly have tried to use logic to show that such
> a realm is logically possible, and I, for one, am perfectly willing to
> acknowledge such a possibility, but if such a realm is utterly blocked
> to human awareness, if it is utterly inaccessible via human mental
> processes, then what is there - from the human perspective - that
> distinguishes such realms from human fiction.
Big difference. And they can hardly be branded "human fiction". The
Revelation (Qur'an) explicates, and human intution attests, to their
existence. However, apprehending the existence of such a realm is wholly
different from comprehending, with any level of certainty, their internal
nature, their operative laws, and all else pertaining to their creation and
purpose.
Here again, the apparent contradiction that you perceive is due to not
having having the full scope of my views in your picture. Let me use,
as an analogy, what I had written in my same earlier post:
"Realizing that there is a space-time continuum is a different thing from
knowing the reality of the space-time continuum".
What I state in regard to the space-time continuum and its reality is
perfectly generalisable to entities and concepts which muslims accept
based on God's Revealed Word and the evident fact that their plausibility
cannot be negated with the knowledge at our disposal.
> Furthermore, if God is in a realm that is utterly inaccessible to
> humans, then how can you even know that God reveals Himself?
The discerning capability of your heart. It is the characteristic of truth
that, while your intellect may not discover it on its own, it can certainly
intuitively recognize and accept it. Without it, the word "faith" would
have no meaning.
> Why should your assertion not just be considered rather ad hoc - a
> mere attempt to fill in some gaps in your human knowledge?
>
> You are relying on logic in order to make your other realms appear
> somehow reasonable, but are you sure that you have exhausted all other
> logical possibilities? Of course not.
And whay not? Plus, I am not "disregarding" possibilities. I am taking
issue with attempts to pass as "fact" that which may, at the most, be a
"logical possibility".
> Accordingly, this recommends that you consider the other possibilities
> just as you would have us consider the one you present and prefer.
I doubt it. And the analogy is not apt. I am advocating limiting the use of
logic within the scope of its applicability. Within that scope (i.e. in our
three dimensional universe) if you can show other alternatives that I have
disregarded, then you may have a case. But it is certainly not a license
to push in any position, no matter how illogical and invalid, as worthy of
discussion.
> And this brings us back to the matter of fideism. If one is going to
> assert an utterly inaccessible realm as explanation (and reliance on
> revelation as the *only* means of access to such a realm will not
> dispense with this problem), then one has opted to insulate himself
> from critical discourse without being able to be certain that he
> clings to truth.
Not true. Progress, intellectual progress included, occurs in small steps.
At the most, what one can say is that human intellect, and the level of
knowledge, might one day evolve to the point that concepts currently beyond
our reach would become comprehensible. That time, however, is not yet and
whether we can get to it within the context of our earthly existence is
debatable. Either way it does not make sense to take on inquiries, for
critcal discourse, for which we currently do not have tools. At the very
least, let us continue our intellectual progress, in quantum steps, until
such time that we do.
> After all, just as Muhammad was instructed to say, "My Lord! Increase
> me in knowledge" (20: 114), maybe we should say likewise, and maybe it
> is one of our most paramount duties to undertake to forever increase
> our awareness/knowledge about God.
Exactly! That is all I am saying as well. Let us persevere and be patient
until such time that the above prayer has been answered. And, in the
meantime, let us stay within our skin, and not be all over the place.
Regards,
Viqar Ahmed
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service New Rate! $9.95/Month 50GB
Michael S. Pearl
>... the concept of God can be articulated by logical means. But what
>can't be articulated are the attributes. We only know what they mean,
and
>nothing more than that.
>
Michael's response:
"Articulated" has a few different meanings including "uttered with
distinctness" and "systematically arranged".
There is no doubt that purportedly divine "attributes" can be "uttered
with distinctness", but, since you also refer to "articulated by
logical means", do you mean to say that, according to (at least your
version of) Islam, God's attributes are not "systematically arranged"
- at least from the human perspective?
But, then, your claim (later in the same posting) that
>There are certain attributes of God that can be derived through
>reasoning
>
could not possibly be true.
Does Islam attribute what appear as frankly and necessarily
incompatible characteristics to God?
If not, then it seems arguable that even from the human perspective
there is at least some kind of consistency or coherence - some kind of
systematic arrangement - associated with the divine attributes.
Maybe what you are saying is something along these lines: individual
attributes can be understood in and of themselves but not in relation
to other attributes or in relation to the oneness of God. Then the
question becomes, how can humans claim to "know what [the attributes]
mean [in and of themselves]" and how can anything at all about God be
"known" via logic?
Are there any Islamic epistemology scholars that you would recommend?
Do you have a preferred definition or understanding of just what
constitutes human "knowledge"?
M. S. M. Saifullah wrote:
>Just as none of His
>creation resembles Him, so none of their attributes resemble His
>attributes.
>
Michael's response:
If possible human attributes such as mercy, honesty, being
knowledgeable, etc., do not even "resemble" what would otherwise
appear to be corresponding characteristics or qualities attributed to
God, if such human attributes have no similarity at all to the
similarly designated divine attributes, then what sense does it make
for a Muslim to claim to "know" what the divine attributes mean? There
is a difference between "knowing" and reciting by rote, would you not
agree?
M. S. M. Saifullah wrote:
>And so while we know the meanings of the divine attributes, we
>do not know their modality or the form which they take when they
apply to
>His unique person.
>
Michael's response:
I do not understand what you mean here by "modality", because, for
instance, there is such a thing as "modal" logic (which I doubt is
what you have in mind) and "modalism" has been judged an heresy in at
least one other religion since it entails the belief that the One God
has exhibited different, multiple "modes" or "forms" at different
times and never concurrently.
If what you are saying is that we do not completely understand exactly
how all of the divine attributes relate concurrently as the oneness
that is God, well, OK, but that has not really been in contention.
M. S. M. Saifullah wrote:
>I said that the attributes of God are beyond human comprehension and
not
>God being beyond human comprehension.
>
Michael's response:
But you also said:
>There are certain attributes of God that can be derived through
>reasoning
>
So, did you mean to say "that [some] attributes of God are beyond
human comprehension"? No one has argued against such a possibility.
Michael had written:
> Not quite right. If the "spirit" claim has been refuted at all, it is
> if and only if the domain of valid information is restricted to
> statements in the Qur'an and those commentaries and interpretations
> which concur with your own opinion.
M. S. M. Saifullah responded:
>That is not good enough. You have to show the counter-point to prove
>something is false.
>
Michael's current response:
You are incorrect. You claim to have "refuted" the God as spirit
possibility; this is to say that you claim to have proven with
certainty and beyond any possible reasonable doubt whatsoever that God
is not a spirit (or immaterial or non-physical).
What I demonstrated was that your so-called "refutation" is true if -
and only if - your premises, your assumptions, are objectively true.
You have not proved that your assumptions are objective facts. What I
demonstrated is that you have not presented adequate support for your
claim of epistemic certainty; what you know is quite conditional and,
to this point, still interlocked with assumptions that may be
avoidable or frankly false.
M. S. M. Saifullah wrote:
>The verses did not say that human beings do not have any knowledge of
God
>(and neither did I!).
>
Michael's response:
Good. So we seem to agree that humans can have at least some knowledge
about God, and we seem to agree that at least some attributes of God
are available to us via our reasoning faculties.
M. S. M. Saifullah wrote:
>Logic has its own limits ...
>
Michael's response:
Well, it remains to be seen whether particular "limits" are because of
"logic" or because of the limitations associated with the data
available or the limitations that pertain to how humans think.
M. S. M. Saifullah wrote:
>There exists *NO* logical explanation to
>show why molecular dissymmetry is essential for existence of life.
The
>scientists have simply accepted it as a "fact of life" or fideism, so
to
>say.
>
Michael's response:
Say what you want, but, when at the current edge of logical
understanding, accepting something as if it were a fact, assuming some
description to be true, does *NOT* constitute fideism.
I do not know whether your understanding of science is as pedestrian
as you present it or whether you are just directing yourself to a
particular audience that is not especially scientifically imbued. It
is true that scientists can be fideistic (for example - those who
associate science with strict atheistic physicalism), but science
properly conducted actually does not differ essentially from
philosophy.
An assumption in science is an hypothesis (and theories do not escape
the limit of being based on hypotheses); in science, all hypotheses
and theories are subject to refutation and improvement. This means
that with science properly conducted (in an intellectually honest
fashion), all hypotheses are expected to be subject at some point to
testing that may either refute or weaken the apparent validity of the
working hypothesis or produce an alternative - and for the moment -
apparently superior hypothesis.
Your attempt at demonstrating parity between your assumptions which
you do not subject to critical discourse and the assumptions employed
in science fails.
Could it be that you do not realize how or when you seem to exhibit
fideism?
I have heard and read that the Qur'an provides guidance. Maybe you
understand "guide" and "guidance" differently than I do, but the fact
that we have a guide suggests to me something other than us already
having all the information that can be or is available to us; this,
then, suggests to me that fideism should be anathema according to
Muslims.
Michael
M.S.M. Saifullah
> Thus far we have evidence that some Muslims deny that God is immanent
> while others assert that God is immanent. Whether this situation
> should cause confusion is not really germane, is it? What is more on
> point is whether and how we might be able to provide a resolution to
> problems made manifest by conflicting statements about Allah.
What you have are the statements not the evidences that some Muslims say
that God is immanent and others do not. As far as the evidence is
concerned, from the Islamic point of view, God is above His throne that is
over the seven heavens. This fact comes from the Qur'an and Sunnah. The
Prophet's famous Mi'raj to heavens is the best example to show that God is
not everywhere. This miraculuous journey was bestowed upon the Prophet,
SAW, in order that he be in the direct presence of Allah. It was above the
seventh heaven, the five daily prayers for Muslims were made compulsary.
If Allah were everywhere then there would be no need for the Prophet, SAW,
to go anywhere. He could have been in the direct presence of Allah on the
earth and in his own house. Hence the implication of mi'raj of the
Prophet, SAW, to heavens is that God is not the part of the creation.
The solution to conflicting statement made about Allah is to go back to
the Islamic sources. If the Islamic sources deny that Allah is everywhere,
which they do, then you accept the fact that Allah is where He has said to
be, rather than pitching one statement against the other.
> What you have not addressed is why Allah has to be wholly separate
> from creation. Those who believe that God is immanent as well as
> transcendent do not restrict God to the confines of creation, but they
> do deny that God is wholly "separated from His creation", and all that
> is important for the moment is the fact that you have failed to show
> that it is impossible for God to be immanent.
The immanence of God leads to various absurdities as I had already
mentioned. If God is everywhere then is He also in existing in the
human feces? Or in the toilet? Or in a bull-dog whom I can take for a
walk? Or in a sausage that I can eat? If you assert that God is immanent
then you should live with the fact that God can exist in human feces, or
He can be taken for a walk as in a bull dog or He can be eaten as in the
case of a sausage. Let us see what do you say about these possibilities
or rather absurdities? I have many more interesting possibilities of God's
existence if He is immanent. But I will hold it for the future.
It is very likely that you will deny these abusrdities because people are
naturally repulsed by the fact that God, the Creator of the Universe, is
present in human excrement or in places of filth or that He can be taken
for a ride for He is present in a bull-dog or that He can be eaten for He
is present in a sausage. It is easier to believe that Allah is Allah and
the creation is creation rather than to believe in absurdities.
Since you are too eager to show that God is immanent, why not show us your
proof and not just sending your feelers about who God is? You have been
talking about how God can be immanent without evidence. To us, this is
quite interesting.
> You may feel certain (psychologically) that God is only transcendent,
> but such a feeling does not establish an objective fact about God,
> and, ultimately, it is the objectiveness of matters that is at issue
> here. Would you not agree?
We do not just feel it. We have evidence from His revelation to confirm
that He is indeed transcendent. Remember what I said earlier, Allah's
Essence and Attributes can't be known in toto by using reasoning. This is
why we require revelation to know Who and What God is.
> Your above explanation of what it means "[t]o exist objectively" is
> significantly inaccurate. This is especially apparent from the
> implication that you draw.
In fact, your objection is based on your fideism that God is immanent. You
have not shown that God is immanent except that you have made an
assertion. As assertion, as everybody knows, is not a proof.
In fact, we have stated that as the Creator, God must exist and exist
objectively. To exist objectively God must have all the attributes of
objective existents. Therefore, God must be "somewhere" and cannot
thus be everywhere. This is because if God existed everywhere He would be
failed to be distinguished from other existents and thus not to have a
special identity. The way we know of God is that He is unique and nothing
in the creation holds His Essence and Attributes. Immanence, on the other
hand, suggests the presence of God everywhere and hence fails to
explain where He exists or His uniqueness.
> It does not follow logically that a thing must be "somewhere" to exist
> objectively; such a notion is logically necessary only given certain
What I have said is that if God exists objectively then He must have the
all the attributes of objective existents. God must therefore be
"somewhere" not everywhere. If God is everywhere then He can't have
attributes of objective existents. Without the attributes God is simply
reduced to nothing.
> > In addition, to assert the existence of God as an objective fact is to
> > claim that whatever are the characteristics of the being of God, that
> > being exists as it is regardless of how God is described by any person
> > and regardless of how God is described by any number of people.
This is precisely the reason why revelation takes precedence over human
reasoning. The human experience is very limited and our ideas form
and get conditioned according to the conditions we have lived in and
experienced.
> >... we must remind you that "Power"
> >and "Knowledge" are attributes of God. We take them to mean what they
> are.
> >
>
> As per the above brief introduction to objectiveness, what you "take
> them to mean" is, in itself, a matter of subjectivity - not
> objectivity. The issue to which your cited comment pertains is whether
> God's "Power" and "Knowledge" are to be understood as existing apart
> from God. I doubt you would agree with a claim that such attributes of
> God's exist objectively apart from God; maybe you would agree with the
> notion that such attributes merely refer to, partially describe God.
If anyone opens any dictionary to see the meaning of "Power" and
"Knowledge", it will be clear to them what it means. People agree on what
it means when a word "Power" or "Knowledge" appears before them. It is not
a matter of subjectivity. If language ends up being subjective, then
everybody would have its own idea of what "Power" and "Knowledge" would
mean; this would lead either to an infinite regress or an impasse.
> But, with regards to the transcendent/immanent part of this
> discussion, if God's "Power" is somehow present and continues to be
> present in the universe, and if God's attributes (such as "Power") do
> not exist objectively apart from God, then it is reasonable to believe
> that God is somehow immanent.
The position of Muslims, i.e., Ahl as-Sunnah, is that God is above His
Throne and it is over the seventh Heaven; but His power and knowledge are
everywhere.
> First off, is this a claim that Hamid S. Aziz is not a Muslim?!?!?!?!?
> Maybe you do not really mean to use the definite article "the" with
> the word "Muslims" in the above statement.
We Muslims are not quick to judge people on the basis of limited knowldge.
Judging a person non-Muslim is a job of a scholar. We are not scholars.
Even if a person errs in some matter of religion, it is best that he or
she is advised.
> that human "knowledge" does not seem to ever be considered as
> "exhaustive"; consequently, if validity depends on being "exhaustive",
> and human "knowledge" is not exhaustive, then by your own reasoning
> humans do not have valid knowledge - in which case you cannot
> legitimately claim to have refuted anything.
Sorry, but where did I made a claim that "humans do not have valid
knowledge"? I do not remember it or is it you who is putting words in my
mouth?
Wassalam
Saifullah
Michael S. Pearl
>>Pre-supposing that logic is true does not make it so. In fact,
>>logic demands that there is something besides logic that makes it
valid.
>>
Michael's response:
What does it mean to say "logic is true"? There are different theories
of just what is literally "truth". Do you have one which you prefer? I
tend toward a correspondence theory according to which "truths" can be
appreciated as statements that correspond (let us say most often via
description for now) with particular aspects of reality. Clearly, by
this understanding, it makes no sense
to say "that logic is true" or to claim that someone is "Presupposing
that logic is true".
"Logic" is not a statement, although logic may be considered as a
process by which we attempt to arrive at (conclusive) truths.
Accordingly, I do not "Pre-suppos[e] that logic is true".
M. S. M. Saifullah wrote:
>>If your belief rest on fideism that logic is true ...
>>
Michael's response:
No. Maybe my error has been in assuming that you know what fideism is
- how it can be defined or described. As discussed in the "Historical
Development" thread, one is not fideistic merely by relying on an
assumption (disregarding the fact that you are in error about how I
regard "logic"). Would you like a more detailed discussion about the
nature of fideism?
M. S. M. Saifullah wrote:
>>... through logic we discover things *about*
>>God.
>>
Michael's response:
Good. Add the word "can" to your statement and we are in complete
agreement.
Michael had written:
>>... a creed is not presented as a philosophical/logical statement.
>>
M. S. M. Saifullah responded:
>>All of sudden, we are suppose to dump logic to
>>understand a creed. What are we expecting next? Dump the language!
How are
>>we to analyze and understand a set of statements without even making
head
>>and tail of it?
Michael's current response:
Are you coming over to my side of the discussion, or what?!?!?!
No, we are not supposed to dump logic; in fact, it is perfectly
legitimate to analyze a creed by using logic. The non-explicit point
was that logical analysis is essential to all statements - including
statements that compose the Qur'an and claims that are made about the
Qur'an!!! It is just that a creed is not, in itself, to be taken as a
logical argument.
The issue that concerns this thread is whether you are willing to
subject the Qur'an, for example, to the same sort of scrutiny to which
we think it is legitimate to subject Trinitarian statements.
You indicate that the Trinitarian doctrines are different in that they
are man-made, but the Qur'an as it is available to us qualifies as "a
set of statements" which you have just indicated cannot make sense
unless subjected to scrutiny.
This recommends in favor of your dumping the distinctions by which you
try to conjure up some sort of imagined justification for your
fideism.
Michael
M.S.M. Saifullah
> >... the concept of God can be articulated by logical means. But what
> >can't be articulated are the attributes. We only know what they mean,
> and
> >nothing more than that.
>
> There is no doubt that purportedly divine "attributes" can be "uttered
> with distinctness", but, since you also refer to "articulated by
> logical means", do you mean to say that, according to (at least your
> version of) Islam, God's attributes are not "systematically arranged"
> - at least from the human perspective?
Articulate not only means to arrange systematically but also it means
expressing oneself or the thoughts clearly without ambiguity. Before we
get bogged down by semantics, let me re-state the position clearly.
Logic, in itself, can't define God in toto. This is because God is the one
Who validated logic and hence He is above it. In fact, logic demands that
there be something besides logic to make it valid.
Logic is binding on that which is under logic. Since God is the one who
validated logic and hence outside of it, it is He who defines logic and
not logic defines Him. He must, therefore, be outside the realm of His
creation.
That does not mean that humans can't know who God is and what are His
attributes. They can always figure out some fundamental facts about God
such as He being One and that He is the Most Powerful through reasoning.
However, certainty about God, His Essence and His Attributes comes only
through His revelation to the chosen Prophets.
As for the Attributes, while we know the meanings of them, we do not know
their modality or the form which they take when they apply to His unique
person. This is directly derived from the fact that God is God and
creation is creation. God is outside of what He has created, including
logic, and He is unique. The creation can only comprehend, in principle,
what is present in the physical world. And God is not present in the
physical world.
An issue which is related is, if God is outside the realm of logic, is He
then arbitrary in His ways. The answer to this is no. God has given His
creation certain abilities to discern the way everything is around it.
Using logic, we can find things about God. Using the Law of
Non-Contradiction, we can conclude that the one Who is outside the realm
of logic does not contradict Himself. Therefore, God can't lie and this is
also confirmed through the revelation and we know that Allah does not lie.
He has set His Sunnah or the way, such as those who disobey Him gets
punished and those who obey Him are rewarded. If God can't lie, then the
Law of Non-Contradiction is valid and so does rest of the logic flowing
from it. Using logic we can also judge a revelation or a book that makes
statement about God. If they are contradictory, then they get dismissed.
> Does Islam attribute what appear as frankly and necessarily
> incompatible characteristics to God?
Frankly, can you read carefully enough without confusing yourself?
> If possible human attributes such as mercy, honesty, being
> knowledgeable, etc., do not even "resemble" what would otherwise
> appear to be corresponding characteristics or qualities attributed to
> God, if such human attributes have no similarity at all to the
> similarly designated divine attributes, then what sense does it make
> for a Muslim to claim to "know" what the divine attributes mean? There
> is a difference between "knowing" and reciting by rote, would you not
> agree?
What the humans have is the language to comminicate. The language can only
be meaningful if the words that are used inside defined. We understand
what is meant by the words "knowledge", "mercy", etc. even when they are
mentioned attributes of God such as "The Most Knowledgeable", "The
Merciful", "The All-Hearer", "The All-Seer" etc. In fact, the Attributes
of God almost always succeed after describing an event or a situation in
the Qur'an and this confirms what is meant by God's knowledge, mercy,
power, seer and hearer. So, what we know are the meanings of the Divine
Attributes, but what we do not know is the modality or the form which they
take place when applied to His unique person. God is unique because He is
outside of our physical world and relam of logic. Nothing resembles Him.
This brings us to the next issues that you have raised.
> I do not understand what you mean here by "modality", because, for
> instance, there is such a thing as "modal" logic (which I doubt is
> what you have in mind) and "modalism" has been judged an heresy in at
> least one other religion since it entails the belief that the One God
> has exhibited different, multiple "modes" or "forms" at different
> times and never concurrently.
I am quite surprised by your confusion. English is not my first language
and it is not even second. I have no trouble understanding what is meant
by a particular word when used in context with some statement. Instead of
worrying about what is meant by what is "modality" why not look at the
context in which it is refered to. Surely, it can't refer to "modal logic"
or "modalism". Perhaps you can take a dictionary and work it out yourself.
> If what you are saying is that we do not completely understand exactly
> how all of the divine attributes relate concurrently as the oneness
> that is God, well, OK, but that has not really been in contention.
The issue has been made clearer above.
> You are incorrect. You claim to have "refuted" the God as spirit
> possibility; this is to say that you claim to have proven with
> certainty and beyond any possible reasonable doubt whatsoever that God
> is not a spirit (or immaterial or non-physical).
>
> What I demonstrated was that your so-called "refutation" is true if -
> and only if - your premises, your assumptions, are objectively true.
> You have not proved that your assumptions are objective facts. What I
> demonstrated is that you have not presented adequate support for your
> claim of epistemic certainty; what you know is quite conditional and,
> to this point, still interlocked with assumptions that may be
> avoidable or frankly false.
What was demonstrated quite clearly by you is the way you dismissed the
argument. In fact, you demonstrated nothing. Your argument against the
idea of spirit not being God was that I quoted from those people who
"agree" with me. This is the best that you could "show". But then your
knwoledge about possessive pronouns in Arabic is as good as your
argumentation. Possessive pronouns in Arabic have two general meanings
depending upon the context in which they are used. They may describe an
attribute or a possession which is or is not part of the owner. As for
the latter, there are numerous examples in the Qur'an such as Allah
blowing "His Spirit", "Allah's camel" sent to as a sign to the people of
Thamud, Allah's covenant with Ibrahim and Ismael that they purify "My
House", the righteous on the Day of Judgment would be told by God to
enter "My Paradise", Allah addressing the righteous as "My Servants", etc.
The use of possessive pronouns is to give the thing that is referred to a
special honour. You are most welcome to refer to the books of balagha
(rhetoric) to confirm what I am saying.
The use of "I", "We", "Us", "He" and "My" in the Qur'an and the shifts
associated with it have a special purpose. Much of it is discussed in the
links given below.
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Grammar/robinson.html
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Grammar/iltifaat.html
For Muslims, our objectivity when it comes to discussion God and His
Attributes coming from the Qur'an and Sunnah. And for you, your
objectivity comes from nowhere when it comes to discussion about God. One
has to have a basis to argue about issues and not just throwing pebbles in
the air aimlessly.
Wassalam
Saifullah
asimm...@yahoo.com
> What you have are the statements not the evidences that some Muslims say
> that God is immanent and others do not. As far as the evidence is
> concerned, from the Islamic point of view, God is above His throne that is
> over the seven heavens. This fact comes from the Qur'an and Sunnah. The
> Prophet's famous Mi'raj to heavens is the best example to show that God is
> not everywhere.
1. The Quran does not say the Prophet (S) was taken before the direct
presence of the Almighty, and even if it did, it does not necessitate
that God is 'above' the heavens in a spatial sense. One may
counterract that by simply saying God Almighty spoke to Musa (AS) from
behind the burning bush?
2. The context of the statement 'istiwaa alal arsh' is made
immediately after the statement that He, Most High, created the seven
heavens and earth. The idiom is combined with the attribute
Ar-Rahman, and its implications are that He, the Most High, did not
leave the heavens alone, but is constantly involved in its management.
The implications in the transformation of human conduct is that one
understands the universe has a purpose, and that everything is in the
Almghty's hands. It is better that man find out this purpose, and
adjust accordingly, and serve only God, who has absolute control.
3. The Quran speaks about God as the ultimate personality. It does
not shy away to describe Him qualitatively. This is one of the
differences between philsophy and religion, where the former tends to
subject God to a mere intellectual concept. This is one of the
problems with the philosopher, who through his own reasoning fails to
see that these descriptions are primarily mean to ENGENDER MORAL
TRANSFORMATION WITHIN THE INDIVIDUAL. The Quran is a book on MAN, not
a dialectic on God's nature. The limits of human knowledge are known,
and the Quran concerns itself with the KNOWLEDGE THAT HAS A PURPOSE AT
THIS STAGE OF THE HUMAN LIFE, his moral judgement on the Day of
Reckoning. A deep study of the Quran reveals that EVEN the
attribuutes of God are ultimately related in the context of
reformation of man's character. Further in regards to the unseen and
the revelation, though the Quran says: "They ask you concerning the
spirit... Say: the spirit is from the command of thy Lord. You have
been given only a little knowledge" in surah Najm, the revelation's
truth is corraborated by the conduct of the Prophet (S), his acting in
space and time. "Your Sahabah (close, intimate Companion) is neither
mad nor follows his own desires." It is no coincidence that the word
Sahabah was chosen, for the unbelievers were very well aware of the
Prophet's (S) exemplary conduct. THUS, MORAL TRANSFORMATION IS THE
ESSENTIAL MESSAGE OF THE QURAN.
4. The problem of viewing God spatially does not exist if viewed from
the relativistic standpoint. God's infinity is 'INTENSIVE, NOT
EXTENSIVE'. As Iqbal (R) points out , based upon the physics of
Whitehead, creation is ultimately movement, i.e. the reality is the
ACT, and the THING is the act as perceived by the viewer. The mind
localizes the act in space and time. Viewing the thing as the
reality, the Greeks could not prove the theory of movement simply
because of the minds nature to categorize the act as an object.
Movement is only movement when EXPERIENCED.
> If Allah were everywhere then there would be no need for the Prophet, SAW,
> to go anywhere.
If this were the case, than why did God Almighty speak to Musa (AS)
from behind the burning bush? The significance of the miraaj, as told
by the Quran, was to 'show him some of our signs'. It is no
coincidence that it preceded the hijrah of the Prophet (S), and gave
birth to the Islamic state. Further, it was mean as an honour to the
Prophet (S), and cannot be used as a proof that 'God is literally
above the seven heavens.'
> The solution to conflicting statement made about Allah is to go back to
> the Islamic sources. If the Islamic sources deny that Allah is everywhere,
> which they do, then you accept the fact that Allah is where He has said to
> be, rather than pitching one statement against the other.
>
The Quran also says 'whichever direction you turn, it is the face of
the Almighty.' Nobody in their right mind takes this literally, but
idiomatically.
>
> We do not just feel it. We have evidence from His revelation to confirm
> that He is indeed transcendent. Remember what I said earlier, Allah's
> Essence and Attributes can't be known in toto by using reasoning. This is
> why we require revelation to know Who and What God is.
>
The Quran says God is AHAD, absolutely unique, but it combines this
attribute with SAMAD. A purely transcendent view of God has led to
idol-worship. "We worship idols as to bring us nearer to God." The
Almighty, in order to check this imbalance in man, has combined this
attribute with As-Samad, 'the Rock whom shelter is sought'. Or as
Daud's (AS) Pslams, he (AS) says "The Lord is My Rock, my shelter."
Once again, the Quran engenders a CHARACTER transformation in man,
reliance on the Almighty, and is not concerned with dialectics. "Call
upon ME and I will answer". The description of a SELF, a PERSONALITY,
IS ONE WHO COMMUNICATES AND RESPONDS.
>
> In fact, we have stated that as the Creator, God must exist and exist
> objectively. To exist objectively God must have all the attributes of
> objective existents.
This is Greek dialectics, where the object is given precedent as to
the act. It is essentially materialism, and modern science has
basically shattered this notion from my understanding. God is the
ULTIMATE-CREATIVE WILL, the most INTENSIVE PERSONALITY. "Neither
slumber nor sleep overtakes Him." As Iqbal (R) had said, in
contradiction to Descartes, "I am, therefore I think"
>
> If anyone opens any dictionary to see the meaning of "Power" and
> "Knowledge", it will be clear to them what it means.
The knowledge of God is not discursive, but formative of the very
being itself. If God's knowledge were discursive, it means that the
'thing' has an existence in and of itself. God created everything out
of NOTHING, there were no previous examples. The Quran has a more
descriptive attribute for the Almighty other than "Al-Khaliq" for
this, and it is "Al-Badii".
Michael S. Pearl
>If Allah were everywhere then there would be no need for the Prophet,
SAW,
>to go anywhere.
>
Michael's response:
You apparently deny that God is omnipresent - where "presence" is
understood in strictly physical terms. That is not a problem, in part
because I do not have strictly physical terms in mind when I refer to
immanence, but also because such is not the only way of understanding
what is intended with regards to immanence.
Immanence can be reasonably understood as indicating God as somehow,
always and everywhere available to each person (or conscious being or
some such similar description). Of course, this understanding would
mesh well with the idea that we do not fully avail ourselves of God
(for whatever reasons); sometimes we are more open to God's
availability when we have a change of scene or by using our
imaginations to reconsider problems that seem for the moment
insuperable - by now you should be able to have some grasp of this
understanding.
M. S. M. Saifullah wrote:
>The immanence of God leads to various absurdities as I had already
>mentioned. If God is everywhere then is He also in existing in the
>human feces? Or in the toilet? Or in a bull-dog whom I can take for a
>walk? Or in a sausage that I can eat? If you assert that God is
immanent
>then you should live with the fact that God can exist in human feces
...
>
Michael's response:
Oh, well, if the feces discussion is unavoidable, let us have a brief
go at it.
Whether God is physically in the feces is not really pertinent to
immanence as above described.
Nevertheless, is it not a marvel - a frank miracle - that God could
create such a wonderful system for life? A system that not only expels
poisons from one creature so that it may go on living but also a
system in which those same poisons serve as a source of vigor for
other creatures?
M. S. M. Saifullah wrote:
>We do not just feel it. We have evidence ...
>
Michael's response:
Evidence is not proof. Until you have proof, your "evidence" at best
only affords some reasonableness to your feelings.
M. S. M. Saifullah wrote:
>In fact, your objection is based on your fideism that God is
immanent. You
>have not shown that God is immanent except that you have made an
>assertion. As assertion, as everybody knows, is not a proof.
>
Michael's response:
Once again, you have exhibited a misunderstanding of just what fideism
is. The act of assuming, the act of asserting, is not in itself the
same as being fideistic. Maybe you keep repeating your error because
of the delays associated with posting to this group.
With regards to proof, it is you - not I - who claims to have proven
the truth regarding the transcendent/immanent issue, and, yet, what is
becoming painfully apparent is that you use the word "proof" let us
just say very loosely.
Well, there is one other possibility worth considering, and since that
possibility is more in line with the more significant aspect of the
on-going discussion, I will, in closing, address that possibility.
You use the word "proof" in a strictly fideistic manner. You demand
that those whose beliefs differ from your own provide an indubitable
explanation in support of their beliefs, and yet you place no similar
responsibility upon yourself.
Despite this, and the other error-filled reasoning which you displayed
but which I have opted to by-pass at least for now, I still see no
reason why anyone would think that Islam has to be fideistic to be
worthwhile or replete with truth.
I think that we may be as close to a resolution as you and I will get
when (or if?) the moderators finally allow my response to you to
appear in the "Special Pleading" thread.
Michael
Denis Giron
> ...
Pax Vobis Asim Mehmood!
Readers who wish to get the full context of the post by Asim which I
am responding to should note that it has been archived by Google here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=92717884.0402030833.43db39dd%40posting.google.com
> This interpretation, about the plausibility of others crucifying him,
> is rejected by the Quran, when the Almihgty says "the body was raised
> up".
>
> AS A SIDE NOTE, if one examines the context, the verse is not
> specifically talking about what happened to Jesus (AS), but denying
> the claim of the Jews that he was killed.
Here I am a bit lost. Nonetheless, I think it is clear that either the
Qur'an is explicit about Jesus not being crucified or it is not (and
if it is not, then that leaves open the possibility that he was
crucified, which would mean that even if we had indisputable proof
that the historical Jesus was crucified, the Qur'an would not
*necessarily* be in error). I'm going to move forward under the
assumption that the Qur'an does explicitly deny that Jesus was
crucified (and I get the impression that you agree in light of the
first sentence above).
> > This general/popular interpretation of Soorat an-Nissaa is in serious
> > conflict with the opinions of qualified historians. This, I believe,
> > is closer to Imran's point.
>
> 'Qualified' historians do nto accept the virgin birth of Jesus (AS),
> nor his miracles. Is he going to believe these 'historical accounts'
> from the NT but not the Quran's claim that Jesus was not crucified.
When you refer to 'he,' do you mean Imran? Regardless, the approach
that is being taken here is with regard to historical scholarship and
how this matches up with the Qur'an. With regard to the alleged virgin
birth of Jesus, I personally know of no scholars who believe this to
be true. Of course, this is for another discussion, but the Qur'anic
assertion of the virgin birth of Jesus can also be explained via
historical/natural means, in which the text reflects the claims of
earlier works (it seems the more plausible conclusion than the claim
that both the Qur'an and earlier sources that affirm the virgin birth
are ultimately drawn from the revelation of some divine source). But,
as I said, that is a different discussion.
> And I do not think it is closer to Imran's point. He was speaking
> specifically in the context of the miracles of Prophets.
I was referring specifically the point Imran was, I believe,
attempting to make when he brought up the apparent denial of Jesus'
crucifixion put forth in the Qur'an.
> Are you saying its so illogical that it cannot be true? Are you
> saying that its impossible for people to assume that another person is
> dead? The Quran simply says the Jews (AS) claimed they killed him,
> nor crucified him, and the Quran denies it. They boasted about it and
> perpetuated what the Quran says is a lie. What's so hard about that?
First of all, there are very few things that are "so illogical" that
they "cannot be true," so no, I'm not claiming this about the Qur'anic
version of events. I'm not claiming that Qur'anic claims about Jesus
are illogical or logically inconsistent; rather I'm claiming that they
do not match up with the adduced conclusions found within the
scholarly concensus. It is possible to have a statement that is
logically consistent, but historicallly or factually false. I am
referring specifically to the claim that Jesus was not crucified
(again, I'm working under the assumption that the Qur'an is explicit
in denying that Jesus was crucified - if one interprets the Qur'an as
leaving room for the possibility that Jesus was in fact executed via
crucifixion, then this discussion becomes moot).
> Why would it be so hard to believe the Jews trying to kill Jesus (AS)
> and failing. In fact, this is much more logical than the 'die on the
> cross for the sins' argument.
I'm not arguing for some bifurcation between (a) the Jews failing to
kill Jesus and (b) Jesus being a divine son who died for the sins of
you and I. I don't even agree with such a birfurcation. The
distinction I want to make is a logical birfucation between (1) Jesus
was executed via crucifixion, and (2) Jesus was *NOT* executed via
crucifixion. As noted above, I am working under the assumption that
the Qur'an explicitly affirms (2), and I agree with Imran that we
should consider the fact that no serious scholar agrees with (2) to be
somewhat problematic for those who positively assert that proposition.
> And this is coming from the assumption that the NT is wholly
> authentic...
No, wrong. I have not assumed that "the NT is wholly authentic" nor
did I have in mind any scholars who assume such (and I highly doubt
Imran had in mind any scholars who assume such). The approach taken
here is one that has in mind the adduced conclusions of NT scholars
who are not committed inerrantist/fundamentalist Christians - I refer
to scholars such as John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Robert Funk,
Christopher Tuckett, Gerd Ludemann, and many more. The approach treats
the NT as a collection of human documents which contain both
historical and unhistorical information. From there I would like to
look at the (admittedly small) "historical core" that the scholars
generally agree upon, and compare that with the popular understanding
of the Qur'an. So, somewhat in line with what Imran was alluding to,
if the scholarly concensus is that the historical Jesus was crucified,
and the Qur'an explicitly states that Jesus was not crucified, we have
a problem. This is roughly what Imran meant when he said that "Hardly
any scholars accept the substitution theory proffered by the Qur'an."
I would reword that as "no serious scholars believe Jesus was not
crucified, as the Qur'an apparently claims." Nowhere in this argument,
however, is it assumed that "the NT is wholly authentic."
> No SERIOUS NT scholar can prove the land was darkened for
> three days and nights upon the alleged crucifixion of Jesus Christ
> (AS). But then again, are we suppose to accept this as an eye witness
> account?
First of all, I know of no scholars that believe the land was darkened
upon Jesus death (though they all agree that present editions of the
Bible *claim* this happened). Furthermore, I know of no scholar who
believes that any of books of the NT were written by eye-witnesses. So
this objection is not in tune with my argument regarding the scholarly
concensus on the historical Jesus vis a vis the claims of the Qur'an.
> Neither I can prove, nor any NT scholar can prove Jesus (AS) was
> crucified.
Well, if we mean prove beyond all doubt, I agree 100%. This is what
both Imran and Abdus-Salaam both alluded to and apparently agreed
upon. I have already said that even though the scholarly concensus
conflicts with the apparent Qur'anic view, the scholarly concensus is
still limited, and not 100% proof. So there is room for doubt, and
people can continue believing in the Qur'anic version of events. In
light of our imperfect sources, however, I would ask what the best
conclusion is. I, personally, lean in favor of the scholarly
concensus, and think the best conclusion is that Jesus was, contrary
to the claim in the Qur'an, crucified (I say this as a person who for
years leaned in favor of the fringe scholars like Wells, Remsberg and
Neichin, who claim there was no historical Jesus).
> > As William Lane Craig put it, "no scholar who is not already a
> > committed Muslim denies the crucifixion" (paraphrasing).
>
> William Lane Criag is basing it upon the NT account, and I'm sure
> Craig believes that the earth was darkened for three days. Can he
> prove that?
Craig may very well believe that, and I think he believes that Jesus
was born of a virgin. However, I've seen many of Craig's debates, and
I would doubt that he would be so foolish to attempt to prove either
of those beliefs. In his debates he puts his faith aside and takes the
approach of the scholars. The question becomes, what conclusions do we
reach when we take the somewhat more objective approach of the serious
scholars who are neither committed Christians nor committed Muslims?
First and foremost, the best conclusion (and the conclusion adduced by
the vast majority of such scholars) is that, contrary to the Qur'an,
Jesus was crucified.
> Other than that, the Quran denies Jesus' claim to godhood, and accepts
> his miracles. How does that conflict badly with the historical Jesus
> (AS)?
With respect to this, I think it is fairly obvious that the vast
majority of scholars would roughly agree with the Qur'an in terms of
him not being a deity or considering himself such. As for Jesus'
alleged miracles, I would imagine that very few would agree with the
Qur'an on that (and most would lean in favor of explanations that have
the Qur'an reflecting earlier literary works, both canononical and
non-canonical, that make similarly fantastic claims about Jesus).
> Even the mentioning of Jesus (AS) as prophesizing the Ahmed
I know of not a single serious scholar who thinks Jesus prophesized
the coming of Ahmad.
-Denis Giron
http://freethoughtmecca.org/home.htm
Michael S. Pearl
>What Hamid Azis has written does not contravene my argument.
>
Michael's response:
Hamid Aziz believes that God is immanent as well as transcendent; M.
S. M. Saifullah believes that God is only transcendent; you claim that
we cannot "make any definite assertion" with regards to this
particular issue.
It seems to me that the only way neither Hamid Aziz nor M. S. M.
Saifullah "contravene" your position is if they, too, are willing to
acknowledge that despite their beliefs and assertions, the most
accurate fact of the matter is that we are not epistemically,
objectively certain despite reasons that might be had for each of the
respective assertions.
If your "[no] definite assertion" comment is properly understood as
acknowledging epistemic uncertainty, then I agree with that particular
position.
Of course, you do not allow such uncertainty to prevent you from
proposing ways of thinking about the transcendence/immanence matter,
and I also agree that, in general, the proper response to such
uncertainty is to propose ways by which we might consider how the
uncertainty may be resolved. We will have preferences or reasons for
one possible explanation over another (assuming we even recognize just
why it is important to produce multiple hypotheses), but, then, the
vital aspect of this issue pertains to whether we are able to pursue
an admittedly non-definitive course without resorting to fideism.
Viqar Ahmed continued:
>This is
>because Hamid is basing his opinion on what is **Revealed** in the
Qur'an,
>not on something deducible from human knowledge ...
>
Michael's response:
For example, you present this just cited remark as some sort of
purported explanation for why Hamid Aziz's opinion is not in
disagreement with your own, but the words which you use make it appear
that Hamid Aziz's undeniably differing expression is to be taken as
legitimate simply as a result of its being supported via direct
reference to (and, of course, interpretation of) Qur'anic verses and
"not on something deducible from human knowledge".
Even if the phrase you produced does not, in retrospect, accurately
represent what you intended to say, it must be clear to you how such a
remark seems to be setting the stage for an approval of fideism (more
on this later in this posting).
Do you think that fideism is inappropriate, erroneous, unethical, or
unIslamic? I do not think anyone in this group has yet answered this
question.
Michael had written:
> This is why the issue is legitimately approached from the human, or
> physical, domain. We have no other starting point.
Viqar Ahmed responded:
>I disagree. We do have a starting point. And it is identical with the
>end point. Islam teaches us not to waste our time with things that
are
>presently beyond the limits of our physical and intellectual
abilities.
>Instead we ought to focus our energies, and power of the tools at our
>disposal, productively within the scope of their applicability.
>
Michael's current response:
I take the "starting point ... identical with the end point" to be
intended as a reference to God. But such a comment on your part is
unresponsive at best.
We are talking about human knowledge or human awareness or human
learning - however one may wish to approach the subject - and God's
perspective is not - and cannot be - the "starting point" for human
inquiry. Each of us is a being distinct from God (even if one believes
that God is immanent), and, accordingly, we have no place to start
except within ourselves - with our own thoughts, perceptions,
experiences (this will also relate to the below discussion about
intuition).
I wish to make one other point with regard to your above comment. To
say that "Islam teaches us not to waste our time with things that are
presently beyond [our] limits" is to say that Islam teaches us not to
expand the current scope of our limits. This is surely false.
Human progress and the growth of human "knowledge" depend on and are
the direct result of refusing to be constrained by current limits of
understanding. If your comment were true, then Islam would be a
religion dedicated to preventing progress and to preventing the
improvement of, or growth of, human understanding.
In SRI, one has to be on guard against being too philosophical
(whatever that means); therefore, I will not launch into a discussion
about epistemology. Instead, for now, all I can do is hope that you
see how we have to consider how humans learn and what it might mean to
"know" before we claim to actually "know" and before we can claim -
with objective certitude, rather than subjective, psychological
certitude - that holy scriptures (such as the Qur'an, or the Bible) or
any other "set of statements" (as per M. S. M. Saifullah) are, in
fact, unquestionably and objectively true.
Michael had written:
> ... but if such a realm is utterly blocked
> to human awareness, if it is utterly inaccessible via human mental
> processes, then what is there - from the human perspective - that
> distinguishes such realms from human fiction.
Viqar Ahmed responded:
>Big difference. And they can hardly be branded "human fiction". The
>Revelation (Qur'an) explicates, and human intution attests, to their
>existence.
>
Michael's current response:
I do not think you can come anywhere close to making a good case for
human intuition as a tool sufficient in itself for establishing the
truth of statements about aspects of reality. However, what you think
of as intuition may often serve as a fine starting point.
Viqar Ahmed wrote:
>What I state in regard to the space-time continuum and its reality is
>perfectly generalisable to entities and concepts which muslims accept
>based on God's Revealed Word and the evident fact that their
plausibility
>cannot be negated with the knowledge at our disposal.
>
Michael's response:
There is a distinction that needs to be made here, and it relates to
the matter of "concepts which ... cannot be negated with the knowledge
at our disposal."
What you describe is the perspective undertaken in apologetics, but
apologetics by definition and historically is a defensive posture; it
is not the posture necessary for the seeking of truth (although
apologetics can have a role within this truth-seeking). Apologetics is
not concerned with whether the primary assumptions employed in the
apologetics process are, in fact, true, and to insist that statements
based on those assumptions - conclusions drawn from those assumptions
- are actually (instead of possibly or, maybe, probably) true is to
commence down the path toward fideism. It is, by definition, not
within the scope of apologetics to investigate the employed
assumptions, but why should the scope of any religion, including
Islam, be limited so that its own assumptions (such as descriptions or
comments about the nature of God or the status of statements within
its holy scripture, for example) are to be proclaimed as certainly
beyond reasobale questioning?
If you do not consider assumptions that we make about God, scriptures,
etc., - including our own such assumptions - to be "beyond reasonable
questioning", then you will not be fideistic so long as you not only
take into consideration - but also remain open to - others' ideas
about how to possibly explain what we do not at present know with
certainty (obviously, this comment invites a much lengthier
discussion). This is not to say that all assumptions are equally close
to "truth"; this is not to say that agnosticism is the only
"reasonable" position to hold - but all that pertains to a different,
albeit related discussion. No, what is pertinent here is the question
of why some Muslims react so very disapprovingly to the introduction
of (let us call it) "philosophical logic" in discussions about God.
It appears to me that Imran's approach has been seriously
mischaracterized, and the "justifications" thus far provided tend, as
already noted, toward fideism, but no one has outright insisted that
fideism is necessary to Islamic belief, no one has plausibly
demonstrated that his opposition to Imran's approach is based on
anything other than fideism, and no one who seems to oppose Imran's
approach has claimed fideism to be incompatible with Islam.
Viqar Ahmed wrote:
>The discerning capability of your heart. It is the characteristic of
truth
>that, while your intellect may not discover it on its own, it can
certainly
>intuitively recognize and accept it. Without it, the word "faith"
would
>have no meaning.
>
Michael's response:
First of all, I am not sure to what the "it" in your "Without it"
refers, but I would say that "Without (some) uncertainty, the word
'faith' would have no meaning." If that is what you mean, then I
agree; many - probably most - people, and not just Muslims, disdain
uncertainty and would rather feign certainty while disregarding the
actual epistemic status, but for reasons that I believe I have
adequately outlined, such a feigned certainty generally has the effect
of cutting one's self off from - let us just say, for the sake of
brevity - efficient learning.
And this takes us back to the matter of intuition.
Your above statement limits the discussion to "truth" not discovered
by the intellect alone. If I am correct in understanding that by
"intellect ... on its own" you mean "logic" or "pure logic", then your
reference to "intuition" really provides no difficulty whatsoever. I
certainly have not denied any validity or usefulness whatsoever to
"intuition" - in fact, I would say that "intuition" is often a very
good starting point from which to begin an (intellectual)
investigation.
Let us take a look at what I found to be a very powerful statement by
SRI's own Greg Kavalec:
> I went [to an Islamic learning session]. They called adzan and then one of the brothers with a good voice recited al-Fatiha.
> It was like nothing I can explain. The Southern Baptists talk about being 'born again'. Brothers, sisters: is that the right word!
> I cried like a baby ... Tears streaming down my face.
Even if we refer to what Greg has described as an experience, it can
rightly and reasonably be said that he had an intuition regarding the
fact of the very existence of God. I regard this as a valid
experience/intuition, but, then, I believe in God, and I believe that
God is always available to us even though we are only relatively
rarely aware of this availability (as an aside which, as soon as I
have the time, I will take up in a separate response to M. S. M.
Saifullah, such an "availability" - rather than a "physical" presence
- can also be what is meant when people refer to divine immanence).
Although I take Greg's experience to be one regarding God rather than
a purely psychological quirk as it might be considered by some
atheists, for example, the fact remains that such experiences and
intuitions do not in and of themselves demonstrate that what is
believed about God is certainly a fact about reality.
Imran, as I am sure you are aware, engaged in a public debate in which
he posited the Kalam argument in defense of the belief in the
existence of God. By Imran's own admission, even if his argument is
taken as sound, valid - even as a "proof", the fact remains that what
has not been demonstrated is the God of Islam, the God of
Christianity, etc. Much more must still be taken into account, and
this is also true when intuition is our starting point.
Viqar Ahmed wrote:
>... I am advocating limiting the use of
>logic within the scope of its applicability. Within that scope (i.e.
in our
>three dimensional universe) ...
>
Michael's response:
Taken literally, your comment could be seen as arguing against any
attempt at furthering our understanding about the strictly
extra-dimensional God despite the fact that we have some
(experiential) intuition of this God. "Logic" can be said to be
limited according to epistemic uncertainty; it requires no artificial,
human-imposed limitation of its scope. To claim otherwise is to insist
on fideism.
Viqar Ahmed wrote:
>Progress, intellectual progress included, occurs in small steps.
>At the most, what one can say is that human intellect, and the level
of
>knowledge, might one day evolve to the point that concepts currently
beyond
>our reach would become comprehensible. That time, however, is not yet
...
>
Michael's response:
Good. You appreciate progress, but now we are back to the epistemic
matter: How does progress occur? How do humans learn?
What are the possibilities most relevant to this stage of the
discussion?
1) Humans only learn when God directly provides or implants
information.
2) Humans learn (the precise mechanisms are not germane for now) as a
result of some efforts that they make on their own.
3) Both 1 and 2 are or can be true.
I think #1 can be appreciated as a sort of revelation, but, if those
Muslims (as well as other theists) are correct when they claim that we
are already in receipt of the final divine revelation, then #1 is no
longer viable for us a means by which to garner new information; all
that there is to know is already in our possession, and we
increase/improve our individual and collective awareness via the
"sublime recapitulation" of what is already available to us.
Of course, revelation can be - and often is - understood differently
than as just described. There are people who believe that such things
as creation, "natural" law, and the like, are revelatory about God.
Not only could such an understanding also produce an appreciation of
"logic" as revelatory about God, such an understanding of "revelation"
could lead to an appreciation of a never-ending revelation. This
understanding would tend to favor #2 and #3 above presented.
Do you think that this understanding of revelation is necessarily
unIslamic?
Michael