Of Dialectic and Enquiry

[Haddad]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

Care to challenge it?

Why?

[NGONGE]

^^^What a peculiar question!

What exactly was your goal when you replied to this topic, saaxib? Were you interested in having a debate? Was it pointless chatter? Or was there another unknown reason behind your participation?

 

Quoting the word ‘hallow’ and hinting at the author’s view being ‘personal’ gave the impression that you were in disagreement with his arguments!

Are you with me so far? Here is where you have to step up and provide a counter argument. If this is not the case and you were merely pointing out words and comments for your own amusement rather than as part of the debate, I’m afraid you haven’t done a good job of it. But, rather ended up giving the impression of cautiously dipping the odd toe in, instead of wading into the debate and clarifying your position.

 

Most peculiar indeed!

[Haddad]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

...‘hallow’...

Correction; the term in question is hollow.

[xiinfaniin]

Saaxiib, I think it’s save to summarize the gist (marka tookha laga reebo) of your argument (unless my reading comprehension fails me) as the following:

 

1-A Muslim who accepts the literal meaning of Allah’s attributes is equally irrational when debating with Christians; answering “al-keyfu- majhul†is essentially a dodging technique.

2-The belief in a ‘composite God’ is a pointless theological roadblock to the sound and inquiring mind.

 

Now, (correct me here if these two do not represent your argument) the first argument has two gaping holes in it, saaxiib. For one it makes a false analogy by equating a solid and well-seated (in terms of it’s sources) theology with a fabricated one (trinity that is); that lacks both sourcing and reason. In that count you compared incomparable and as a result committed a fallacy, saaxiib. It’s erroneous notion to compare the two. Theology is a matter of faith and it needs be derived from a sound and original source. Trinity is a myth that does not measure up with Christianity’s original divine scripture; an evasive and slippery claim that defy the logic (so there’s a logic!). It’s a subverted logic to assert that Allah can’t have these descriptive attributes while it’s Him who claimed it! Scoffing this established theological position (the correct one, I may add) is, to say the least, intellectual dishonesty, saaxiib.

 

Another serious error (yourargument) in this argument is the implicit assumption that logic and reason should be the yardstick with which matters of faith ought be resolved! A game of cheap score keeping where one wins not by the weight and credence of his case, but by the style and eloquence with which he presents it! I wonder how that benchmark scale to the measured words of our مصطÙÙ‰; say when he came back from his ascendancy اسري to the heavens in that blessed night and responded to the doubters that he was indeed telling the simple truth. Unlike logicians, ابوبكر الصديق settled to accept the revealed truth. I also wonder how many great minds have indeed failed to see that reality; for them, it simply was not a certainty!

 

If that analogy still rings true in your mind, I have to concede to that donkey wisdom when it complained about the gross unfairness of time; a reversal of the usual order of things, it suggested, would be a proper remedy for the situation it found itself in;

قال حمار الحكيم تومــا

لو أنص٠الدهر كنت أركب

******

Ùأنا جاهل بســـيـط

وصاحبي جـــاهل مركب

 

 

As for the second point of your argument; this, I say, is not a new argument and it originated from sound intent to glorify Allah but failed to observe the bounders of نصوص. I am with Shiekhul-Islam on this though, saaxiib. It doesn’t matter a bit how you characterize him; he remains to be the embodiment of the ideals of the salaf, a matchless intellectual icon, and above all a martyr who chose the truth and died for it.

I hope you concede this fussy argument is not new one and thusly bringing it up entails re-fighting old battles and in the end accepting to observe same ceasefires and sign same peace deals. Re-inventing the wheel is not an exercise of a wise man, saaxiib, and I refuse (unless you plead to) to spend energy on this futile effort.

 

There are numerous books about this issue (both pro and con) and it’s adequate to say the argument for it is quite disarming and only the fool could dare to face its over-whelming credence.

[Haddad]

Originally posted by xiinfaniin:

summarize

Let me followup your summary with my own:

 

1. The author of this topic was irritated by the manner in which an esteemed brother in the Islamic section debated with a non-Muslim (Christian).

 

2. The author develops the notion of the existence of Many so-called muslim apologists, who like the said brother, habitually attack the creeds of other religons.

 

3. When asked to produce through online search the works of the Many so-called muslim apologists, the author suggests to search the catalogues of the online libraries of islamic universities. Since there are so Many so-called muslim apologists, his suggestion made little sense, for those affected by the attack would have provided sufficient counterargument online materials.

 

4. When pressed hard, the author names two works found at libraries in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. He also names the works of Ibn Taymiyyah & Ibn Qayyim, although those prominent Islamic figures are no longer active so-called muslim apologists.

 

5. The author fails to leave inquiring minds to make their own opinion and understanding about the works of the Many so-called muslim apologists, by already making it (laughable, bloated, fallacious, hollow) for them. The impression that what others find in those works will necessarily mimic his own is, illogical.

[Rahima]

Interesting topic!

 

Sophist,

 

Looking forward to your reply and please be as explanatory as possibly (for those of us who are challenged as far as this topic is concerned).

[NASSIR]

Originally posted by Mutakallim:

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

 

Yeeynaan runta ka sineysan

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

 

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

 

With Salaams

PK

Mutakalim, You raised thought-provoking questions and points and resigned from further explications. Finally, you said that you aren't here to engage in a polemical debate with Nomads who aren't extensively knowledgeable in Islamic teachings. Are you trying to galvanize the nomads into fact-finding research of what we believe?

 

I find your topic murky. As Ngonge replied, i would also ask if you continue explaining in detail the arguments and counter-arguments of this topic.

[xiinfaniin]

Rahima,

You need not be confused, sister. This is not difficult at all. How is unknown (al-keyfu- majhul) is not an intellectually bankrupt proposition. That Allah created the universe is an article of faith but How is unknown; that Allah will revive the dead but how is unknown; and He ascended Jesus for his rescue, but How is unknown. Likewise Allah had attributed divine qualities to Himself; sight, knowledge, hand, and more, but How is unknown!

That ( How is unknown) does not signify, fellow nomads, irrationality rather it’s a candor acknowledgement of human inability and reliance on revealed truth.

 

We have to concede, however, that this theology can’t be defended by a mere logic. If logic is the only yardstick then not only Mutakallim is right but atheists would be right as well.

[Rahima]

^JZK, very much appreciated .

[Medley of extemporanea]

Originally posted by xiinfaniin:

Rahima,

This is not difficult at all.

How is unknown

(al-keyfu- majhul) is not an intellectually bankrupt proposition. That Allah created the universe is an article of faith but

How is unknown

; that Allah will revive the dead but how is unknown; and He ascended Jesus for his rescue, but

How is unknown

. Likewise Allah had attributed divine qualities to Himself; sight, knowledge, hand, and more, but

How is unknown

!

Are these simply unknown or unknowable?

[xiinfaniin]

It is both in terms of how it does happen or it is.

[Mutakalim]

ومن البلية عذل من لا يرعوي

عن جهله وخطاب من لا ÙŠÙهم

 

Xiinfaniin et al: I must own, that apologies are due for my belated reply. However, it seems that the intial arguments, hitherto presented, have not yet been duly acknowledged and addressed. No matter. This shall be my last reply to this topic. The key of hearts are in God's hand ; He opens hearts when He wills, as He wills, and How he wills, and the only thing opening up at this moment is a supplementation.

 

Now, (correct me here if these two do not represent your argument) the first argument has two gaping holes in it, saaxiib. For one it makes a false analogy by equating a solid and well-seated (in terms of it’s sources) theology with a fabricated one (trinity that is); that lacks both sourcing and

REASON

[emphasis is mine]

 

Walaal, waan saluugay qoraalkaa

 

What we have are two notions of God:

 

I: The notion of a God who is three in one (ostensibly biblical)

II: The notion of a God with hand, face, and eye (ostensibly quranic)

 

Now, if you accept II on the basis that it is in the Quran and reject I on the basis that it is in the bible, then you have begged the question. On what grounds have you accepted II? One cannot accept the Quran itself without ratiocination.

 

In the intial stages of enquiry, to the seeker of truth, the Bible and the Quran of equal solidity and authenticity. One cannot make suppostions about either book at this stage. The conclusion only comes after enquiry, and not at the begginning of enquiry. One must closely inspect the claims of both books to ascertain which book engenders contradictions, inconsistencies, and incongruities.

 

I find it most peculiar and counter-intuitive for one to argue that the belief in Trinity is wrong not in itself, but it is false because the bible is the source thereof, while the belief in a God with a hand and shin is correct because the source of such a belief is the Quran. Oh, how foul is the fallacy! With what tool does one come to know that the Quran is "well-seated" and "solid". In fact, what does it mean to say some such thing? Am I the only one who percieves the "ideal circle" of our esteemed Nomad?

 

Indeed, if the Quran supported the concept of Trinity, or any other illogical concept, I would not be a muslim. After many moons of reflection and pondering, I have not found the slightest notion of discrepancy and contradiction. Yes, it is a formidable book of reason and logic. اÙلا يتبدرون القران ولو كان من غير عند الله لوجدوا Ùيه اختلاÙا كثيرا

 

In this vein, Allah challenges Man to duplicate a book, which includes a conception of Godhood, that is not only free of contradictions and inconsistencies, but is the pink of eloquence and articulation.

 

A game of cheap score keeping where one wins not by the weight and credence of his case, but by the style and eloquence with which he presents it! I wonder how that benchmark scale to the measured words of our مصطÙÙ‰; say when he came back from his ascendancy اسري to the heavens in that blessed night and responded to the doubters that he was indeed telling the simple truth. Unlike logicians, ابوبكر الصديق settled to accept the revealed truth.

 

Would that I see you answer the intial query, good Xiinfaniin? Why do you ascribe divinity to a God with a hand and face, and not to a God that is three in one? Do you know why prophet Abraham, the Knower of God, refused to ascribe divinity to the Sun and Moon? You are, good Xiinfaniin, I reckon, intelligent enough to understand my passing references without there being any need for me to explain the matter at length. Indeed, to do so would be to show the Sun with a lamp; the obvious I shall not labor.

 

Finally, it has been a consensus between theologians of different camps of articulation, that there are some literal meanings which cannot be used with respect to God(مستحيلة ÙÙŠ حق الله). If such meanings were not impossible, then would have no means by which to know God.

 

In reference to your comment about the domain of faith, I shall say that one can believe in a propositon in asmuch as the proposition does not commit an illogicality. Hence, the Journey by Night, Al-Isra Wa Al-Mi'raaj, is not in any manner illogical, rather it is "possible" (ممكن). The belief in a possible proposition does not lead to an intellectual incompatability. Brevity is the soul of wit, so I will give you a cursory instance of my statement:

 

If I place three coins in a drawer, close it, come later to check it, and find four coins, then there is no problem in logic. There is only a problem in ontology, because a fourth coin appeared. I must guess, "how did this happen"?. Obviously, the normal explanation is that somebody put a fourth coin there; however, I can also imagine many other possible explanations (coins are actually reproducing in the full moon, ants brought another coin, God put the coin there miraculously, etc.). Compare these possible explanations with impossible explanations (e.g. somebody took two coins out of the drawer, so that the result is four coins: 3-2=4). The first kind of explanation is possible while the second is inconsistent with logic. Now you see, the Journey of the Night is "Mumkin" and not "Mustaxiil", and as such no logical anamoly arises. That God has parts (hand, face, eye) is an impossible explanation, which results in the assertion of a limited or multiple Gods. You must not confuse ontological possibility with logical possibilty.

 

I think I have expounded this subject matter in the foregoing posts with utmost clarity. It shall appeal to all critical and understanding minds.

 

لعمرك ان الحق ابيض ناصح

ولكن حظ المعاند اسود

 

With Salaams

PK

[Haddad]

Originally posted by Mutakallim:

It shall appeal to all critical and understanding minds.

One can only hope it shall appeal to all critical and understanding minds. What you're essentially saying in your above statement is; if it shall (a form of must) not appeal to me, I am not of critical and understanding minds. That's an illogical intellectual imposition, for there's a chance it shall not appeal to at least one critical and understanding minds.

[Mutakalim]

^^^Inaan caruuraha yar yari u jawaabaa way macno la'aane

[Johnny B]

I don´t understand arabic , but to judge what was written here in English/Somali i think Mr Muta was trying to explain the relativity theory to bunch of hedonists.

 

They lost him somewhere near the junction of quantum mechanichs , becouse it wasen´t fun anymore.

Mr Muta , all they needed to tell you was that the Theory (relativity) itself is relative

 

I think ( am not sure ) i understand your way of reasoning as to why and how some muslims apply "logic"( a keyword here ) to miscredit or make less rational other doctorines like christianity etc etc, but abandon the VERY logic when it comes to Muslims and islam, specially they way GOD is perceived and reffered to (with hands, eys .. etc etc).

 

If logic = The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning then You´ve lived far within your limits.

 

If a Hedonist is enjoying n puffing a good sigar and you tell him he shoulden´t smoke becouse it hurts him , you haven´t logically reasoned any better than his own reasoning namely ( simply enjoyable ).

 

it simply is Relative