Islamic Heresiology: Discussion between Me and Haik Monseiur

Invite one or more persons you want to have exclusive debate with by name. Only those whom you invite will be allowed to post here. Others will be removed if you ask the moderators.
Post Reply
al-boriqee
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:28 am

Islamic Heresiology: Discussion between Me and Haik Monseiur

Post by al-boriqee »

I admire your courage for defending the established set of guidelines your were taught during your Islamic years, but please forgive me when I say that I must unravel the distortions that you were taught from young.
Ibn Sina was not known as a firm Mu’tazilite, but his thoughts were in par with Mutazilite doctrine. He was not merely a philosopher of some kind but a multifaceted genius who excelled in almost all fields.
1. Actually, if you really want to get technical, he was a shi'i, specifically the baatini shi'i since the baatiniyyah were a firqa from the madhab of the rawaafidh.
2. we admire his efforts in the worldly sciences, those were not issues that were took to task by Sunni
3. the difference between the mutazilah and the philosophers was that the philosophers denied pretty much the entire religion. Their view of Allah was nothing more than Aristotle’s view of the first cause. That was it, no actual creation, not a deity whom we have to worship. In their view, He was not a being who had attributes or who can do actions, because their entire world was constricted, and thus incoherent, to nothing more than accidents and substances and that actions are muhdath and thus Allah did not do anything He said He did in the Qur'an because of such and such....
the mutazilah did not go that extreme, which is why their bida was not one that was mukafara i.e. that which negated emaan unlike the philosophers.
In fact there is no wonder if your statement amazed me. I would like to know of those scientific advances that predated the era of Al-Farabi and Ibn Sina.
well, At this moment I can't reference none that predate these two
As far as I understand, the golden era of Islam when your predecessors excelled in arts and science began in the middle of 900 under Abbasids. If you ignore the contributions of Razi Al-Razi, Al-Farabi, Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd, there would be nothing for you to get proud of. If you think otherwise, let me know of it.
yeah
Abul-Wafa Muhammad al-Buzjani (sunni)[after Ghazaali, mathematician genius]\
Ibnul-Nafis ash-Shafi'ee (Sunni, after Ghazaali, main contribution in medicine, specifically, blood circulation
Ibnul-Baytar (Sunni, after Ghazaali, Medicine, Botany)
Abul-Qaasim az-Zahravi (Sunni, After Ghazaali, Surgeon, He is best known for his early and original breakthroughs in surgery as well as for his famous Medical Encyclopedia called Al-Tasrif, which is composed of thirty volumes covering different aspects of medical science. The more important part of this series comprises three books on surgery, which describe in detail various aspects of surgical treatment as based on the operations performed by him, including cauterization, removal of stone from the bladder, dissection of animals, midwifery, styptics, and surgery of eye, ear and throat. He perfected several delicate operations, including removal of the dead fetus and amputation. )

I don't have the time to post more but you get the point.

This is more interesting. What wrong do you find with Ash’arite theology? Indeed Hamid Al-Ghazzalee was an Ash’arite, but when you trash Ash’aris too, I wonder what are you aiming to?
what wrong do I find with ash'arite theology?

What every Imaam of ahlu-sunnah wal-jama'ah found wrong with them from Haafidh Ibn Qudamah to Ibn Taymiyyah and from Shaykh Abdul-Qadar al-Jilaanee to Ibn Hajr al-Asqalaani and from Shaykhul-Isllam as-Saboonee ash-Shafi'ee to Abul-Qaasim at-Taymee ash-Shafi'ee and from Imaam al-Wanshareeshi al-Maaliki to Ibn Abil-Izz al-hanafee.

Ahl Al-Sunna wal Jama’at which is considered the most orthodox or better say traditional Islam is strictly based on six tenets.


thats not how it is deifned but I will explain in the following replies
Four Fiqhi Mad’habs and two of those Mad’hab’s of Aqeeda. Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi and Hanbali in Fiqhi matters and in matters of faith, it revolves around Ash’ari and Maturidiee Mad’habs. When you discard Ash’ari from these, I have to consider you do not belong to this orthodox Islamic credo.
1. the four madhaabs of fiqh contribute to the bulk of orthodox sunnism, but these four were not the only schools, there were hundreds of schools in the early generations, it is just that these four remained with politicl involvement. Ibn Taymiyyah said "Generally, the truth does not fall outside the four" which is why the bulk of sunnism in fiqh is these four, but there were other thoughts of Mujtahidoon lime Imam Junayd al-Baghdadee who is said to be a school in and of himself, like wise Shaykhul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, and likewise Imaam ash-Shawkaani.

Here you go. I think you follow something I am never heard of because this dissection seems different to me. You add falsafiyya as a sect which is never heard before. As far as I learnt from my Islamic past, there are primarily eight sects emerged within Islam soon after your prophet died.


If you had paid attention to my words, you would have noticed that when I outlined those sects, I was naming them based on what their doctrines were based on i.e. Ilm-Kalaam. I was naming the sects of kalaam, and not what the majority of sects are based on

They were:

1. Mu’tazila
2. Shi’a
3. Khawarijiyya
4. Ma’arija
5. Najriyya
6. Zabariyya
7. Mushabbiha
8. Najii’a
this naming was wrong to begin with. The Senior Scholars of today and some from the past have pinned for major heresiological groups from which most other sects derived from. they are
1. rawaafidh (inherent in this group comes out the baatiniyyah, sufiyya, basically a majority of the esoteric groups
2. murji'a (the initial theology composes of negating actions from faith. Carrying this theology to its most logical conclusion ends up in the religion of appeasement, thus the essence of liberal methodologies is based on this
3. khawaarij (Im sure you know this, they represent the extremity of understanding and exaggeration.
4. the mutazilah (the representation of itizaal. Thus all the aqlaani groups fall under this guise along with the kalaam based groups, which I have named above

Among this Mutazila was the first named after its founder Wasil bin Ata.
right
It was Hasan Al-Basari who called Wasil as a Mutazilite. And the most astonishing part in your sectioning is you have counted Qadariyyas and Mutazilites separately when in fact it was another name of Mu’tazilites.
that was because not every mutazili was a qadari just as not every rawaafidh is a baatini. the qadariyyah were more specific

I think you haven’t gone through this part well. Perhaps just revising your history will help you a bit here.
Oh, Im well versed in this subject, in fact, this is where I specialize

Besides, I haven’t come across Ash’arites and Maturidiyyas as counted as two sects in Islam.
That’s because your teachers had brainwashed you into this thinking which is pretty much what all ash'aris and sufis do to their muqalids.
If that is the case, you will have to divide four schools of thoughts as four sects too that is deviated from the main-stream Islam. But even most stubborn Wahabis would not dare for such a classification. I am sure.
This is an incorrect basis on which you evaluated me upon. IN Islam, divisions take place because of differences in usool, not in furoo'. So when we speak of the madhaahib of fiqh, the vastness of Islam is opened and allows for differences in interpretation because the shariah takes this into account. What allows for iftiraaq to occur is when people invent new concepts in theology thus separating from the main group i.e. ahlu-sunnah, and thus are labeled according to the founder of their thought.

Abu Hasan al-Ash'ari's ash'ari aqeedah was developed after 300 hijrah. If you had studies the works of heresiology, you would have known this, like al-Milaal wa Nihaal of Ibn Hazam and of Shahrastaani, Fiq Baynal-Farq of Abu Mansoor at-Tamimi and more importantly, Ibn Katheer's Bidaya wan-Nihaaya and adh-Dhahabee's Siyaar alam an-Nubulaa and his MIzaan al-'Itidaal.

Ibn Katheer records 3 stages in Abu Hasan al=Ash'aris life
1. the first stage was his being a mutazili. most of the biographers record him being a mutazili trained under the scholarship of Qadhi Abdul-Jabbar. al-Ash'ari was born in 260. That means he was deemed a heretic by all sunnis until 300 hijrah
2. the second stage of his life was after the first period in which Ibn Katherr reports that he found a way in between. In other words he still used ilmu-kalaam, but tried to defend sunnis, thus the ash'ari theology was developed. However, the pitfalls of that was that the ash'ari system was a theology of inconsistencies for the mutazilah and the philosopher made more logical sense than the ash'aris.
3. the third stage of his life is when he left that and became a full fledged sunni and authored his Ibaanah fi usool ad-Diyana and his Maqalaat al-Islamiyeen. This was the stage in which al-Ash'ari tried to reconcile with the pure sunnis among the Hanbalis, the leading one of which was al-Barbahaari

the purpose of my stating all of this is because Islamic orthodoxy is not defined the way you have been taught, rather orthodoxy is defined as to what the companions of the Messenger of Allah were upon and what their students were upon, both in faith (doctrine) and practices.

That is how the IMaams of Islam have defined it which is why they would always say things like "the madhaab of the salaf" or the millah of the salaf or the tariqa of the salaf.

these are some examples

Abu Haneefah said

“Adhere to the athar (narration) and the tareeqah (way) of the Salaf (Pious Predecessors) and beware of newly invented matters for all of it is innovation” [Reported by As-Suyootee in Sawn al Mantaq wal-Kalaam p.32]



Imaam al-Asbahaanee (d.535H) said

“The sign of Ahlus-Sunnah is that they follow the Salafus-Saalih and abandon all that is innovated and newly introduced into the Deen.” [Al-Hujjah fee Bayaanil Mahajjah 1/364]

lbn Taymiyyah said

“There is no criticism for the one who proclaims the way (madhdhab) of the Salaf, who attaches himself to it and refers to it. Rather, it is obligatory to accept that from him by unanimous agreement (Ittifaaq) because the way (madhdhab) of the Salaf is nothing but the Truth (Haqq).” [Majmoo al-Fataawaa 4:149]

al-Awzaa'i said

‘Patiently restrict yourselves to the Sunnah and pause where the people paused; say what they said and avoid what they avoided. Take the path of the Salajus-Saalih for indeed what is sufficient for them is sufficient for you.’

There are plenty of statements like this by which the orthodox sunni Imaams have stated whoever goes contrary to the way of the salaf is a mubtadi.

This is because the reality of Islam is based on what Imaam Maalik stated
"Whatever was not part of the religion in their time (the companions), cannot be a part of the religion at any time"

So I ask you, how is ash'arism considered an "orthodoxy" considering no one from the founders of the madhaahib were ash'aris nor were their students. Imaam Ahmad was the latest of them and he died 60 years before al-Ash'ari ever got a chance to formulate his theology in the second phase of his life. The same with Maturidiyyah. Abu Mansoor al-Maturidi came after the time of Imaam Ahlu-sunnah Ahmad bin Hanbal, and the direct Imaams of Sunnah who derived their theology from Ahmad and Maalik all condemned al-Ash'ari and the schools of Kalaam.
How can you argue the orthodoxy of a thought that came 300 years after the orthodoxy of Islam had already ben codified with the Imaams of Sunnah. In any given circumstance, the measurement of orthodoxy goes back to the original people. Sunni doctrine is based on the sunnah of the prophet. That is why the Imaams of Sunnah called their creedal works "as-Sunnah" because what they were hinting at is that our creed, the authentic Islamic creed, is based on the sunnah of the Messenger of Allah and not based on the thought of Aristotle or any of the greek logic that was brought into the Arabic world.

I won’t accuse you of being ignorant here but you are mistaken grievously. Ghazali’s refutation to Averroes and Ibn Sina’s were strictly based on the matters of faith, but Ibn Sina found it as a hindrance to the scientific development.
well, given the breakthroughs of those sunnis scholars who made breakthroughs in their field, this pretty much makes Ibn Sina's view to be false, doesn't it
For example Ibn Sina argued fire can burn on its own and no supernatural presence is involved in its burning. But Ghazali was not ready to accept this fact but argued it is god who burns the fire and there is an underlying cause involved.
this is complete insanity, but before I describe what this insanity is, allow me to go with the flow of your argument for a moment.

IN the frame of Ghazaali, Allah is a Being in which every single iota of a thing does not come to existence or that it does not happen except that it falls under the Mashea of Allah. To opine otherwise is attributing imperection to the One who claims is All Perfect. what greater kufr is there than this. If we really want to get technical, this issue is explained in a more scholastic realm by stating that the qadr and Will of Allah is divided between
1. qadr al-qawni and
2. qadr ash-shar'i

qadar al-qawni, or universal will is the regulator of established law, like for example
"what goes up, must come down" in a world of gravity of course.
and
"water is wet"
and like
"fire is hot"

It is the established norm of Allah that once a fire is lit, it goes out by certain methods, and that it is hot. In order for the nature of fire to be changed requires that Allah break the rules. So when Ibraheem alaihi salam was tested from his people by making him fo into the furnace, Allah told the fire to be cool, and it was. this qadr al-qawni was replaced by a specific qadr fil-amr from Allah.

So when we say that fire burns on its own, that is because Allah has already legislated for its alowability to burn and mandated upon the properties of fire to initiate upon certain phenomenon, like connecting sparks with flammables, etc. The logic of Ibn Sina in that fire can burn without the cause for its function to be functional is analogous to saying that the hearts continually pump blood throughout the body and there is no outside influence that governs its functionality. That logic can only apply in a world were Allah is non existent, but that would mean that the people who adopt this view would have to demonstrate how on earth did this entire universe form without a cause, because one of the universal constants is "cause and affect" and the human race does not live their lives in that fashion.
Empirical observation which is imperative to scientific advancement is halted there.


Adhering to a specific creed does not negate being empirical about an issue and the above sunni scholars whom I have named is proof for that. this fact pretty much makes this next statement of your baseless
Without getting off the shackled of theological stubbornness, there would be no chance for empiricism and without empiricism, no technology is going to flourish.


Likewise, being empirical, the primary mode of deduction is the use of the aql, and the aql, like other faculties like hearing, seeing, etc, is limited. it can be wrong and it can be right. the problem with defining when the aql is wrong and when is right is more problematic than when the other senses err. If we turn off the light in the room, we know we cannot see. If there is a dog who is barking then we know that is the case because of the other senses, like hearing. So we know a dog is there despite the fact that our sight cannot see the dog. However, for the aql, what is the criterion to be utilized when the aql is wrong and what will be the criterion to aid the aql when it is right. That is where the wahi of Alah comes into play.

getting back on point, one can be empirical while adhering to a single theological methodology. Secondly, one does not have the audacity to leave that correct way in order to validate yourself into thinking that doing so would bring about a better outcome.
That is why there came none (almost virtually none) to fill the void of Ibn Sina left. In fact, it was Westerners who exploited much from Ibn Sina’s works and it is not surprising his “laws of medicine” is still taught as a textbook in reputed Western Universities.
I’m glad that your lot takes pride in a figure that was average for us. We know how deep the level of ineptitude in the western world was in, so someone like Ibn Sina is a primer for them, where as we had many primers.

I would like to know, how science and the orthodox (traditional) Islam goes hand in hand. Can you show me how a peaceful cohabitation is possible for both?
it is quite simple, Orthodox traditional Islam is defined as the beliefs and practices of the first three generations of Islam because the ummah is unanimous to their superiority in faith and practice. The golden age was under their feet, when the ummah abandoned their way and adopted aristolian logic which generated kalaam based madhaabs like ash'arism and maturidism and sufism and its likes, we initiated an epoch of decline, which came more and more evident as the years went along but which was already prophesized.

secondly, there is nothing in the Islamic text which impugne the advancement of the sciences.

Evidence to this..? What makes you think there flourished free thought after Ghazzali? Who are these greatest free thinkers of Islam you mean?
refer to the above scholars, all of whom came after Ghazali.

likewise I believe Ibnu-Qayyim also was a master in medicine, although his main contribution was in raqaa'iq, thus earning him the title "Tabeebul-Quloob" of course much of his scholarship and expertise is due to the Hadeeth master, the Imaam of the sciences Ibn Taymiyyah
al-boriqee wrote: the purpose of free thought is allowed and disallowed. if free thought is centered on inventing new understandings of God contrary to what was already revealed, then it was obvious what its hukm was. If free thought was centered on other than faith based doctrine and on issues that really matter, like the sciences, then that was of course allowed. But then where is the model nation for the absolute allowance of free thought. We have none, because the free thought your aiming for is a facade for not all thought is acceptable even among your precious "free" world.
I see nothing in above but some mutually contradicting statements. If you can turn them into coherent statements?
Free thought in aqidah =illogical (all the prophets came with one creed)
Free thought in outside of aqidah (acceptable)

the free thought your espousing for= the right for people to challenge the acts of God, His existence, to form views about him, to do whatever one wills i.e. hedonism.

As one person put it "the freedom that they speak for is the freedom of heresy and vices"
I need to know what constitutes Islamic orthodoxy for you.


there is no "for me" when it comes to Islam. I follow the opinions of the orthodox jurists.

Imaam Ahlu-Sunnah Ahmad bin Hanbal said in his usoolu-sunnah

"The Fundamental principles of the Sunnah with us are: (1) Holding fast to what the Companions of Allah’s Messenger (sallallaahu ‘alayhi was-sallam) were upon (2) Seeking them [and their way] as a model of guidance (3) Abandoning innovation, for every innovation is misguidance (4) Abandoning controversies and abandoning sitting with the people of Desires (5) And abandoning quarrelling, argumentation and controversies in the religion."

Imaam al-Laalikaa'ee said in his famous corpus of the beleifs of the predecessors called "Sharh Usool al-Itiqaad Ahlu-Sunnahti wal-Jama'ah

"That which is most obligatory upon a Muslim: Knowledge of the aspects of the ’aqeedah (creed) of the religion and what Allaah has obligated upon His servants including the understanding of His Tawheed and of His Attributes, and believing in his Messengers with evidences and with certainty. And arriving at (all of) that and seeking evidences for them with clear proofs.
And among the mightiest of statements and clearest of proofs and understandings is: (1) The Book of Allah, the Manifest Truth (2) Then the Saying of the Messenger (sallallaahu ’alayhi was sallam) (3) And of his Companions, the chosen, pious ones (4) Then that which the Salafus-Saalih were unanimously agreed upon (5) The holding fast to all of that and remaining firm upon it till the Day of Judgment (6) Then turning away from the innovations and from listening to them – from amongst those things which the astray people have invented."


Moreover, we don’t see any of the so-called advancements under the strict Islamic regimes of either its founder Muhammad or the fourth great Caliphates. Will you please explain it briefly what is real Islam?

the best definition is what the prophet alaihi salatu salaam gave when he said explaining to his companions who were the saved sect

"Indeed, my Ummah will split up into seventy-three [sects]. All of them are in the fire except one." It was said: What is the one? He said: "Al-Jamaa’ah (the Group)."[33] And in another narration, he (sallallaahu ‘alayhi was sallam) said: "That which I and my companions are upon today."[34]
Therefore, al-Jamaa’ah is clearly the Companions and what they were upon, and whoever follows them in goodness until the Day of Judgement.
So… you are representing the Wahabi Islam.
Im representing Islam. some people call it hashawiyyah, some call it wahhabiyyah, some call it mujassimiyyah, some call it khawaarij, or what have you.
Iv'e noticed that throughout my dealings with people, wahhabism carries different meanings for different people. I remember leaning that the first to employ this name were the British when they first encountered a bunch of Hanbalis from Najd who happened to be the students of the Imaam of Ahlu-sunnah the Hanbali mujtahid Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab, they couldn't employ the name muhammadians, so they chose wahhab. later on the idol worshippers in the peninsula adopted it to apply to everyone who viewed their paganism as paganism, thus anyone who told them, "this isn't Islam" was called a "wahhabi". When the british went to Indo-Pak area, they called anyone who stood against them in resistance as "wahhabi". Logically, those who rose against them among the populace, most of them sufis, some ahlul-hadeeth, were branded as "wahhabis".

The most profound reality that I put people on trial for, and to this date no one could give me a response is ,"who can define for us what are the tenets or principles of the wahhabis". No on in the entire world can define for us what in the world is a wahhabi.

So Im currently working on a project about what makes a wahhabi, because pretty much every Islamic stance that the Imaams have adopted, results in the peoples view as being a "wahhabi"

secondly, on this topic, I had posted something about the actual wahhabis, who existed nearly 1000 years before the advent of Ibn Abdul-Wahhab. It can be accessed here

http://islamthought.wordpress.com/2008/ ... ahhabiyyah

Well, it took a while for me to get you. Oops… I would say you labored a lot but delivered nothing after all
only to someone whose logic is constricted to liberalism
No wonder you couldn’t digest even Ghazzali who is unrivalled for his philosophical magnificence. For you Ibn Taimiyya and Muhammad Abdel Wahhab the guys who could do nothing but cause another rift in your Ummah is acceptable. Hmm… interesting to hear Wahabi verbalism here in this forum. Perhaps the first time I encounter one.
Actually, to be honest, it was the heretics who took Ibn Taymiyyah at court and trial and caused a havoc in the ummah. The same with Ibn Abdul-Wahhab. But these two are not the only Imaams whom I follow. Also, please define for me what is a wahhabi, what do they believe and can you quote to me from which book this mythical wahhabi sect actually outlined their view in.
Dear friend, if what you say is true Islam as one found with Ibn Abdul Wahhab, the renaissance of Islam should have began from Saudi Arabia again, but in fact, what makes Saudi Arabia a hellhole is its adherence to the fused form of Wahabism.
1. for one, it did, that is why the are the most advanced apart from the rest of the Arab world, well, second to dubai of course however, pretty much most of the gulf are sunnis (what you call wahhabis)
2. according to everyone who goes there, including the kaafirs I have talked to, Saudi to them is a dream land. It is serene and safe. I never heard of anyone speak of it in a negative way except for the issue of some of its laws, like the no women driving law, which in reality has no textual basis but a customary norm rather than a religiously based ruling. If you describe this country with that description, I can only imagine how you think of Amsterdam, or better yet, Brooklyn
I am not interested in your doctrine at all.
I’m not interested in telling you my doctrine. I was only interested in correcting some of the fables you had been nurtured on.
I believe Wahabism is the most hateful of all Islamisms.


Of course, because if you allow me to be quite frank, you have absoltuely no idea what the heck your talking about, and the fact that you can't even quote a single book or even a single quotation on what the heck a wahhabi believes in is enough proof that you o not know what the heck your talking about, Sir.
You might argue it is the true Islam.
I argue that every single position that the Hanbali jurist Ibn Abdul-Wahhab believed in theologically and jurisprudentially was what the entirety of this ummah was upon for centuries before the sufis and ash'aris plagued the ummah in darkness and stuck them with intellectual terrorism and stripping them of logically thinking by enforcing taqleed.

All right, but let me see an ideal society under true Islam, not in current times, but you can revert as much as to your Muhammad. Start from there. Muhammad didn’t last for a blink, so you may start from your first Caliph Abu Bakr and point to an ideal Islamic society that you will project with pride. I will deal it then.


I do not get what your talking about. reword it in a coherent manner
Sorry to tell you friend, you started fairly well but are in a very pathetic state nw. I don’t see anything worthwhile in the paragraph above to address.
that’s because you believe philosophical thought is the ultimate mode upon which humanity can operate.
If you disregard Greek contribution and influence in your Islamic philosophy, do you think there will be anything left for you to be proud of?
yes. of course. our scientific era was based on the divine guidance of Islam being that the prophet alaihi saltu salam said
"it is upon every Muslim to seek knowledge" mainly in religion, but also applicable in the realm of science. from that point on, it was the era of ilm. give credit to Greek logic for providing some of our advancements or platforms upon which further advancement was made, but the entirety of our era was not exclusively the result of greek thought.

the other thing we owe to greek thought was the downfall of our ummah. Imam adh-Dhahabee ash-Shafi'ee stated
"once the ummah abandoned the terminology of the Muslims and adopted the terminology (thought) of Aristotle, plague upon plague appeared" and this is why Ibn Qudamah al-Hanbali, the haafidh and shaykhul-Islam o the ummah of his time wrote fiercely against the Ash'aris and the kalaam sects for injuring our Islamic unity.

Your Mutazilites are considered as the free thinkers of Islam when in reality they were the most narrow minded, they could not hear any other opinion but their own. They had to persecute the Imaam of Ahlu-Sunnah Ahmad bin Hanbal for his beliefs, something that the sunnis (or wahhabis, whatever you wish to call them) never did to them
Quran’s philosophical value is Zilch my dear friend.
of course. why would the Qur'an wish to degrade itself and become a book of inconsistencies.

I should show you the uselessness of philosophy, but IM afraid that your mind my not be able to bear the burden of falsehood being knocked upside down.
It was Sufis who saved your Islam from an inevitable collapse.
actually, the Sunni Imams stated that this is what destroyed our Islam. That is why we are in the rut we are in. Sufism was stagnation, immobile, useless, which is why the ascetic Hanbali Ibnul-Jawzi, in his Talbis Iblees, destroyed the sufis to the pits of inacceptance for the sunni world. Sufism didn't save Islam, it virtually killed it which is why the scholars have stated
"Sufism is a way that begins with dhikr and ends with kufr"

Likewise Imaam ash-Shafi'ee said "whoever practiced tassawuf in the beginning of the day and comes back for dhuhr (while remaining upon tassawuf) does not come back except an idiot"
You are projecting an Islam that is essentially similar to materialism.


I’m projecting an Islam that is simply reality. it is real and spiritual. It is not the extremism that you have been cultivated upon for however many years.
The only difference is you try to cheat yourself by believing there is a god up in heavens with a hammer in his hand, but...
The whole of the Abrahamic faiths believes that their Lord is above the heavens, only we Muslims do not beleieve He is like His creation Laysa Kamithilihi Shay
That doesn’t amount to spirituality. In essence there is not much difference between Wahhabism and pure materialism. Sorry;
please define for me what is wahhabism.

please, give me references, who said it, were they a wahhabi, and what book.
User avatar
KhaliL
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:12 am

Re: Islamic Heresiology: Discussion between Me and Haik Monseiur

Post by KhaliL »

al-boriqee wrote: I admire your courage for defending the established set of guidelines your were taught during your Islamic years, but please forgive me when I say that I must unravel the distortions that you were taught from young.
Dear Friend,

The reason I answered couple of your posts is: Muslims are too much vocal about the golden era of Islam and for the very purpose, they point their fingers to Al-Farabi, Ibn Sina , Ibn Rushd likes. My aim was to expose the hollowness of adding these great personalities in their basket. I am not supposed to engage in a theological debate with you on which section of Islam is with the true teachings of Muhammad. I am not here to lean towards any factions and argue with them. Your differences do not make my business anymore for me being an ex-Muslim now. I am here to expose the flaws of Islam and on course; will always use your most authentic undisputed sources. So, I have to chop off the irrelevant parts in your post for the reason this forum is not a place to discuss of the divergent views in Islam and I am not supposed to be the advocate of any of them. I used to be in my Muslim past but I don’t want to revert to it even for the sake of a discussion.

al-boriqee wrote: 1. Actually, if you really want to get technical, he was a shi'i, specifically the baatini shi'i since the baatiniyyah were a firqa from the madhab of the rawaafidh.
2. we admire his efforts in the worldly sciences, those were not issues that were took to task by Sunni
3. the difference between the mutazilah and the philosophers was that the philosophers denied pretty much the entire religion. Their view of Allah was nothing more than Aristotle’s view of the first cause. That was it, no actual creation, not a deity whom we have to worship. In their view, He was not a being who had attributes or who can do actions, because their entire world was constricted, and thus incoherent, to nothing more than accidents and substances and that actions are muhdath and thus Allah did not do anything He said He did in the Qur'an because of such and such....
the mutazilah did not go that extreme, which is why their bida was not one that was mukafara i.e. that which negated emaan unlike the philosophers.
Ibn Sina can either be a Dhahri or batni Shiite, but I am least bothered of it. I would thank you for underpinning my contention; Ibn Sina was not a true Muslim at all. He had to deviate from the main stream Islam and that is what made him a great philosopher and scientist. So, Islam has no credit here. When you say “you admire his contribution to worldly sciences” that is very much in par with us infidels. We infidels rate his contributions to science more but will always state it would not have been possible for him without getting off the hook (Islam). Here; for reinforcement, I will quote Ibn Khaldoon:

Abbasid Caliphs had the works of the ancient philosophers translated from Greek into Arabic. Many Muslims investigated them critically. Scholars whom god led astray adopted their doctrines and defended them in disputations. The most famous of these Muslim philosophers were Abu Nasr Al-Farabi in the fourth tenth century, at the time of of Saif –Ad –Dawlah and Abu Ali Ibn Sina (Avicenna) in the eleventh century, at the time of the Buyids in Isfahan and others. [Ibn Khaldoon/ Muqaddimah (Translated by Franz Rosenthal. Princeton University Press, Page 250]

You are echoing Ibn Khaldoon above by stating most of Ibn Sina’s views were replicas of ancient Greek philosophers.
Khalil Fariel wrote:
al-Boriqee wrote:In fact there is no wonder if your statement amazed me. I would like to know of those scientific advances that predated the era of Al-Farabi and Ibn Sina.
well, At this moment I can't reference none that predate these two
Of course you can not because there were none. Earlier scientific advance in the Muslim world is much indebted to these great figures who were not true Muslims at all. As I already pointed out, only by deviating from Islam, they made it possible but the noise now is about the golden era of Islam which is revolving around these great figures who had in fact very little or nothing to do with Islam.
Khalil Fariel wrote:
al-Boriqee wrote:As far as I understand, the golden era of Islam when your predecessors excelled in arts and science began in the middle of 900 under Abbasids. If you ignore the contributions of Razi Al-Razi, Al-Farabi, Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd, there would be nothing for you to get proud of. If you think otherwise, let me know of it.
yeah
Abul-Wafa Muhammad al-Buzjani (sunni)[after Ghazaali, mathematician genius]\
Ibnul-Nafis ash-Shafi'ee (Sunni, after Ghazaali, main contribution in medicine, specifically, blood circulation
Ibnul-Baytar (Sunni, after Ghazaali, Medicine, Botany)
Abul-Qaasim az-Zahravi (Sunni, After Ghazaali, Surgeon, He is best known for his early and original breakthroughs in surgery as well as for his famous Medical Encyclopedia called Al-Tasrif, which is composed of thirty volumes covering different aspects of medical science. The more important part of this series comprises three books on surgery, which describe in detail various aspects of surgical treatment as based on the operations performed by him, including cauterization, removal of stone from the bladder, dissection of animals, midwifery, styptics, and surgery of eye, ear and throat. He perfected several delicate operations, including removal of the dead fetus and amputation. )

I don't have the time to post more but you get the point.
I get only one point among them that Al-Buzjani was a renowned mathematician. Other figures are not much heard of because of being negligible for their contribution in the relevant field. For example, Al-Zahrawi’s contributions in surgery has nothing special and he was just continuing from Ancient Indians did way before him. It was Sushruta who used to perform successful surgeries perhaps for the first time, not to say Sushruta lived long before Christ. I am not going into details of it, but let me say the only remarkable contributions to science is coming through the route of Al-Farabi and Ibn Sina who were just copying ancient Greek texts. Muslims excel and are successful in academic level in this living period, but when it matters study of biology for instance, their religious stubbornness has to be shed to learn of theory of evolution because modern biology is strictly based on it. You can not ignore this part and become a good biologist now. Perhaps it would be possible for you to overlook it and replace it with the theory of Adam and Eve.If you do that will effectively curtail significant portion of your creativeness. How many Muslims are good biologists and true Muslims?
al-Boriqee wrote:1. the four madhaabs of fiqh contribute to the bulk of orthodox sunnism, but these four were not the only schools, there were hundreds of schools in the early generations, it is just that these four remained with politicl involvement. Ibn Taymiyyah said "Generally, the truth does not fall outside the four" which is why the bulk of sunnism in fiqh is these four, but there were other thoughts of Mujtahidoon lime Imam Junayd al-Baghdadee who is said to be a school in and of himself, like wise Shaykhul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, and likewise Imaam ash-Shawkaani.
Of these three Mujtahids, Shaikh Junaid Al-Bagdadi and perhaps Al-Shoukani would be the commonly acceptable figures for different factions among you. Ibn Taimiyya’s position is still controversial. But as I said earlier, I am least interested to debate on this now. If you consider Ibn Taimiyya as authentic and reliable, it is strictly unto you.
al-Boriqee wrote:If you had paid attention to my words, you would have noticed that when I outlined those sects, I was naming them based on what their doctrines were based on i.e. Ilm-Kalaam. I was naming the sects of kalaam, and not what the majority of sects are based on
Granted.
al-Boriqee wrote:this naming was wrong to begin with. The Senior Scholars of today and some from the past have pinned for major heresiological groups from which most other sects derived from. they are
1. rawaafidh (inherent in this group comes out the baatiniyyah, sufiyya, basically a majority of the esoteric groups
2. murji'a (the initial theology composes of negating actions from faith. Carrying this theology to its most logical conclusion ends up in the religion of appeasement, thus the essence of liberal methodologies is based on this
3. khawaarij (Im sure you know this, they represent the extremity of understanding and exaggeration.
4. the mutazilah (the representation of itizaal. Thus all the aqlaani groups fall under this guise along with the kalaam based groups, which I have named above
When you talk of senior scholars, I can’t overlook the fact you disregard majority of scholars and you have your own scholars to come up with. So, either you accept the dissection or not, I can question your disagreement on this using majority of other scholars whom you consider negligible for being heretic or deviants. But I am not going to make this a big issue at all for the reason; I don’t have time to spend for this. I am frank here.
al-Boriqee wrote:This is an incorrect basis on which you evaluated me upon. IN Islam, divisions take place because of differences in usool, not in furoo'. So when we speak of the madhaahib of fiqh, the vastness of Islam is opened and allows for differences in interpretation because the shariah takes this into account. What allows for iftiraaq to occur is when people invent new concepts in theology thus separating from the main group i.e. ahlu-sunnah, and thus are labeled according to the founder of their thought.
I didn’t mean four Fiqhi Mad’hbs are the kernels of Islamic faith, but they differ in the matter of Usool. You are right in this regard, but Aqeeda is a different subject. Totally different because it is related to faith and not acts.
al-Boriqee wrote:Abu Hasan al-Ash'ari's ash'ari aqeedah was developed after 300 hijrah. If you had studies the works of heresiology, you would have known this, like al-Milaal wa Nihaal of Ibn Hazam and of Shahrastaani, Fiq Baynal-Farq of Abu Mansoor at-Tamimi and more importantly, Ibn Katheer's Bidaya wan-Nihaaya and adh-Dhahabee's Siyaar alam an-Nubulaa and his MIzaan al-'Itidaal.

Ibn Katheer records 3 stages in Abu Hasan al=Ash'aris life
1. the first stage was his being a mutazili. most of the biographers record him being a mutazili trained under the scholarship of Qadhi Abdul-Jabbar. al-Ash'ari was born in 260. That means he was deemed a heretic by all sunnis until 300 hijrah
2. the second stage of his life was after the first period in which Ibn Katherr reports that he found a way in between. In other words he still used ilmu-kalaam, but tried to defend sunnis, thus the ash'ari theology was developed. However, the pitfalls of that was that the ash'ari system was a theology of inconsistencies for the mutazilah and the philosopher made more logical sense than the ash'aris.
3. the third stage of his life is when he left that and became a full fledged sunni and authored his Ibaanah fi usool ad-Diyana and his Maqalaat al-Islamiyeen. This was the stage in which al-Ash'ari tried to reconcile with the pure sunnis among the Hanbalis, the leading one of which was al-Barbahaari

the purpose of my stating all of this is because Islamic orthodoxy is not defined the way you have been taught, rather orthodoxy is defined as to what the companions of the Messenger of Allah were upon and what their students were upon, both in faith (doctrine) and practices.
In fact, you should not have strived this much hard to reach to this conclusion Islamic orthodoxy means how Islam is defined by your prophet and his companions. We are all agreeing on this. Muslim means the one who adheres to the teachings of Muhammad and his followers followed by Tabioon (successors). But the important factor here for you is, almost all those divergent sects deviated from your mainstream also claim the same and their references are also the same as of yours.

That is how the IMaams of Islam have defined it which is why they would always say things like "the madhaab of the salaf" or the millah of the salaf or the tariqa of the salaf.

these are some examples

Abu Haneefah said

“Adhere to the athar (narration) and the tareeqah (way) of the Salaf (Pious Predecessors) and beware of newly invented matters for all of it is innovation” [Reported by As-Suyootee in Sawn al Mantaq wal-Kalaam p.32]
What a waste of effort my dear. I am not interested and this forum is not the right place to discuss of all these.

You quoted Imam Suyuti here. Let me ask, do you agree with his “itqan” in which he is commented on Quran:

“Some of you say ‘I possess the whole Quran, but how can he know what is the whole Quran since a great portion of the same has disappeared? Let him say “I posess of it what is still extant” [Imam Suyuti/ Itqan fee ulum al-Quran. Vol. 2. Page 30-32]
al-Boriqee wrote:Imaam al-Asbahaanee (d.535H) said

“The sign of Ahlus-Sunnah is that they follow the Salafus-Saalih and abandon all that is innovated and newly introduced into the Deen.” [Al-Hujjah fee Bayaanil Mahajjah 1/364]

<Snip>

So I ask you, how is ash'arism considered an "orthodoxy" considering no one from the founders of the madhaahib were ash'aris nor were their students. Imaam Ahmad was the latest of them and he died 60 years before al-Ash'ari ever got a chance to formulate his theology in the second phase of his life. The same with Maturidiyyah. Abu Mansoor al-Maturidi came after the time of Imaam Ahlu-sunnah Ahmad bin Hanbal, and the direct Imaams of Sunnah who derived their theology from Ahmad and Maalik all condemned al-Ash'ari and the schools of Kalaam.
You remind of my Sufi past when I used to debate with Salafis on these Issues. I will answer you here, the four Imams of Mad’habs were not in need to follow Ash’ari because of being Mujtahids. It is Muqallids who need to follow Imams in Fiqhi and in the matters of Aqeedah for not being in a position to do Ijtihad.
Anyway, I am not going to engage in a full-scale debate over this issue with you for the reason, I am not supposed to be a part of your difference of opinions. I treat Islam as I find it with Muhammad, its founder. That’s all.
al-Boriqee wrote:this is complete insanity, but before I describe what this insanity is, allow me to go with the flow of your argument for a moment.

IN the frame of Ghazaali, Allah is a Being in which every single iota of a thing does not come to existence or that it does not happen except that it falls under the Mashea of Allah. <snip>
Look dear mate. I am just pointing out how Ibn Sina went wrong according to Ghazzali. I am not here to defend Ibn Sina’s views matching them up with your Islamic orthodox standpoints. Your effort is fruitless for the same reason. (This is not the place to discuss of such matters) If you affirm Ibn Sina was wrong in his belief that is sufficient for me because all I have to state is the so-called golden era of Islam which is orbiting around Ibn Sina likes was in fact the fruit of deviating from Islam and not because of the true Islam contributed to them.
al-Boriqee wrote:Adhering to a specific creed does not negate being empirical about an issue and the above sunni scholars whom I have named is proof for that. this fact pretty much makes this next statement of your baseless
I am speaking of the truth about science. It is based on observations, and when Ibn Sina could not do it without digressing from true Islam, my point is strengthened here.
al-Boriqee wrote:Likewise, being empirical, the primary mode of deduction is the use of the aql, and the aql, like other faculties like hearing, seeing, etc, is limited. it can be wrong and it can be right. the problem with defining when the aql is wrong and when is right is more problematic than when the other senses err. If we turn off the light in the room, we know we cannot see. If there is a dog who is barking then we know that is the case because of the other senses, like hearing. So we know a dog is there despite the fact that our sight cannot see the dog. However, for the aql, what is the criterion to be utilized when the aql is wrong and what will be the criterion to aid the aql when it is right. That is where the wahi of Alah comes into play.

getting back on point, one can be empirical while adhering to a single theological methodology. Secondly, one does not have the audacity to leave that correct way in order to validate yourself into thinking that doing so would bring about a better outcome.
I am forced to bring the fire analogy again here. As Ibn Sina noted, fire burns and it can be observed. Here Aql is involved but is it necessary or what makes it necessary to believe there is a supernatural force is involved in burning of fire? Fire will burn until an external factor like water or enough carbon dioxide extinguishes it. But your methodology tells us to believe fire will burn upon the will of a deity and only will continue burning with the same will. I don’t understand why and how it helps you to formulate a logical deduction on a very simple matter like “burning”. Can you explain it syllogistically?
al-Boriqee wrote:I’m glad that your lot takes pride in a figure that was average for us. We know how deep the level of ineptitude in the western world was in, so someone like Ibn Sina is a primer for them, where as we had many primers.
But you have not shown many primers. Can you sow me one that would remotely contest to Ibn Sina’s works? What your scholars consider is of least important to me. You may bring something that is generally accepted.
al-Boriqee wrote:it is quite simple, Orthodox traditional Islam is defined as the beliefs and practices of the first three generations of Islam because the ummah is unanimous to their superiority in faith and practice. The golden age was under their feet, when the ummah abandoned their way and adopted aristolian logic which generated kalaam based madhaabs like ash'arism and maturidism and sufism and its likes, we initiated an epoch of decline, which came more and more evident as the years went along but which was already prophesized.

secondly, there is nothing in the Islamic text which impugne the advancement of the sciences.
The first three generations of Islam were the worst of all. I say this with enough back up sources in my hand. That is considered to be the era of conquests not golden by any chance. I think you are mistaken on it.

Secondly, I just showed you one way how Islam interferes with scientific advancing. Science is based on pure rationalism. A text which talks about djinns and how they are dispelled by meteors can not by any chance help in this case. It is very stagnating for the same reasons. (I am just pointing one of the many)
al-Boriqee wrote:refer to the above scholars, all of whom came after Ghazali.

likewise I believe Ibnu-Qayyim also was a master in medicine, although his main contribution was in raqaa'iq, thus earning him the title "Tabeebul-Quloob" of course much of his scholarship and expertise is due to the Hadeeth master, the Imaam of the sciences Ibn Taymiyyah
You mistook free thought for something else. I mean free thought that is not bound to any doctrinaires. Those scholars you referred were not excelling in free thoughts. They were academicians like many Muslim academicians of this era. But there is difference between being an academician and being a multifaceted genius. Ibn Sina was ingenious because he had the bravery to break the shackles of orthodoxy. But Ibn Qayyim to me is an obnoxious figure for the reason:

"It was narrated by Ahmed that a man came to him that feared that he would ejaculate while he was fasting. Ahmed said: "What I see is that he can release semen without ruining the fast, he can masturbate using his hands or the hands of his wife, If he has an "Ammah" whether be it a girl or a little child, she can masturbate for him using her hands, and if she was a non-believer, he can sleep with her without releasing (his semen), if he released it in her, it becomes impermissible".[Ibn Qayyim. Bidayat al-Fawahid] http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/ ... d_p603.jpg
al-Boriqee wrote:Free thought in aqidah =illogical (all the prophets came with one creed)
Free thought in outside of aqidah (acceptable)
This is stagnating free thought. I would say oxymoronic.
al-Boriqee wrote:Actually, to be honest, it was the heretics who took Ibn Taymiyyah at court and trial and caused a havoc in the ummah. The same with Ibn Abdul-Wahhab. But these two are not the only Imaams whom I follow. Also, please define for me what is a wahhabi, what do they believe and can you quote to me from which book this mythical wahhabi sect actually outlined their view in.
I would define Wahhabi as the one who accepts Ibn Abdul Wahab as his Imam. We call Muslims who adhere to different sects of Mad’habs as Hanafis, Malikis, Shafiees, and Hanbalis. Did you get the point? All these Imams of Mad’habs were strictly Muslims. Still that does not hinder us calling those Mad’habites with name of their Imams. None protested so far, and why should you protest for being called a Wahhabi? (if you are protesting)
al-Boriqee wrote:1. for one, it did, that is why the are the most advanced apart from the rest of the Arab world, well, second to dubai of course however, pretty much most of the gulf are sunnis (what you call wahhabis)
2. according to everyone who goes there, including the kaafirs I have talked to, Saudi to them is a dream land. It is serene and safe. I never heard of anyone speak of it in a negative way except for the issue of some of its laws, like the no women driving law, which in reality has no textual basis but a customary norm rather than a religiously based ruling. If you describe this country with that description, I can only imagine how you think of Amsterdam, or better yet, Brooklyn
Laughs laughs, laughs...and I am still laughing my dear friend. Nothing in above even necessitates an answer. You take pride in that seventh century hellhole? Have you ever been to there? I have lived there for quite a long period of my past and I know what safety and security, that government offers and what dignity for human values that society provides. Please do not talk sheer nonsense.

(It is interesting when all Muslims of this board are trying to defend their position by trashing Saudi Arabia as un-Islamic or bearing a distorted version of Islam, you are coming up with this burden. Carry on dear friend, it is your burden)

But let me ask you a simple question: What makes this Sharia heaven such a hell hole even for Muslims? You know of the divorce rate of Saudi Arabia? It is second highest in the world. Just go through the following link and see how your true Islam wins..!!
http://www.artarabia.com/artman/publish ... _149.shtml
al-BOriqee wrote:Of course, because if you allow me to be quite frank, you have absoltuely no idea what the heck your talking about, and the fact that you can't even quote a single book or even a single quotation on what the heck a wahhabi believes in is enough proof that you o not know what the heck your talking about, Sir.
Since you believe Wahabism is pure Islam, I can quote authentic Islamic texts to prove Islam and consequently Wahabism is the most vilest of all hateful ideologies.
Khalil Fariel wrote:
al-Boriqee wrote:All right, but let me see an ideal society under true Islam, not in current times, but you can revert as much as to your Muhammad. Start from there. Muhammad didn’t last for a blink, so you may start from your first Caliph Abu Bakr and point to an ideal Islamic society that you will project with pride. I will deal it then.


I do not get what your talking about. reword it in a coherent manner
What makes a rewording necessary in my quote? Where did not you get me? I am asking of the golden era of Islam. We have to see it with Muhammad and his followers. If there can be better models for Islamic governance, it should be found with Muhammad then with his followers. Can you show me how your true Islam went with Muhammad and his followers namely Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman and Ali? Sorry sir, we do not see anything but pools of blood all over. Is this what you mean Islam can offer the world? If Muhammad couldn’t, then there is no wonder in his followers failings. Dear Muslim, Muhammad could not even devise a system in which his grandson will be safe from fellow Muslims. What an irony!!!
al-Boriqee wrote:
If you disregard Greek contribution and influence in your Islamic philosophy, do you think there will be anything left for you to be proud of?
yes. of course. our scientific era was based on the divine guidance of Islam being that the prophet alaihi saltu salam said
"it is upon every Muslim to seek knowledge" mainly in religion, but also applicable in the realm of science. from that point on, it was the era of ilm. give credit to Greek logic for providing some of our advancements or platforms upon which further advancement was made, but the entirety of our era was not exclusively the result of greek thought.
I understand how confused you are being here. You first trashed all Greek additions as Un-Islamic but now accept them as a platform for your scientific advancement of the Muslim world in medieval periods.

If Islam is very much consistent to science, Muhammad should have been a great scientist, or at least a few of his followers. Can you name any among your Sahabas as great scientists or great artists?
al-boriqee wrote:of course. why would the Qur'an wish to degrade itself and become a book of inconsistencies.

I should show you the uselessness of philosophy, but IM afraid that your mind my not be able to bear the burden of falsehood being knocked upside down.
I am a philosophy student. And I can’t care any less to your above remarks. Sorry.
al-boriqee wrote:actually, the Sunni Imams stated that this is what destroyed our Islam. That is why we are in the rut we are in. Sufism was stagnation, immobile, useless, which is why the ascetic Hanbali Ibnul-Jawzi, in his Talbis Iblees, destroyed the sufis to the pits of inacceptance for the sunni world. Sufism didn't save Islam, it virtually killed it which is why the scholars have stated
"Sufism is a way that begins with dhikr and ends with kufr"

Likewise Imaam ash-Shafi'ee said "whoever practiced tassawuf in the beginning of the day and comes back for dhuhr (while remaining upon tassawuf) does not come back except an idiot"
Well, tasawwuf can be stretched back to Abu Bakr but I am not interested to waste my time over this. But what I said is; when it was on the verge of collapse, Sufism saved your Islam adding what it was essentially lacking. That means spirituality. All that is what I meant;
al-boriqee wrote:I’m projecting an Islam that is simply reality. it is real and spiritual. It is not the extremism that you have been cultivated upon for however many years.
That is why I say, Islam does not have too much spiritual value. It is a political system based on ideas of “We” against “Them”. That much simple.
al-boriqee wrote:The whole of the Abrahamic faiths believes that their Lord is above the heavens, only we Muslims do not beleieve He is like His creation Laysa Kamithilihi Shay
I am not interested in the wholeness of these Abrahamaic Faiths. But your god is essentially similar to a lunatic. I am sorry to use this word, but when your quran projects such a god, I can’t help it.
al-boriqee wrote:please define for me what is wahhabism.

please, give me references, who said it, were they a wahhabi, and what book.
I did it above, and I think that would be sufficient in this regard.

End note: Please do not try to engage in an inter-factional dialogue with me. I am not interested to waste my time. All what I addressed you for is to state there is not much Islam in Muslims’ prudential figures like Avicenna and Averroes. You reinforced my contention, so that is the end. The other inter-sectarian matters, please my dear friend, find some Muslims to discuss of them. My aim is to end the madness called Islam. If you come up and say you are a Muslim, I will treat and deal with your arguments accordingly, but don’t expect me for a debate on whether Wahabism is true Islam or not. If Wahabism all about is what Muhammad taught and his followers implemented, then that can be the true Islam and I am fighting against it. You can’t have me to endorse it. Sorry;

Regards
KhaliL
al-boriqee
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:28 am

Re: Islamic Heresiology: Discussion between Me and Haik Monseiur

Post by al-boriqee »

Dear Friend,

The reason I answered couple of your posts is: Muslims are too much vocal about the golden era of Islam and for the very purpose, they point their fingers to Al-Farabi, Ibn Sina , Ibn Rushd likes. My aim was to expose the hollowness of adding these great personalities in their basket. I am not supposed to engage in a theological debate with you on which section of Islam is with the true teachings of Muhammad. I am not here to lean towards any factions and argue with them. Your differences do not make my business anymore for me being an ex-Muslim now. I am here to expose the flaws of Islam and on course; will always use your most authentic undisputed sources. So, I have to chop off the irrelevant parts in your post for the reason this forum is not a place to discuss of the divergent views in Islam and I am not supposed to be the advocate of any of them. I used to be in my Muslim past but I don’t want to revert to it even for the sake of a discussion.
I don't think you were quite getting it. The point of explaining the entire discussion of heresiology to begin with is to fully understand the historical and contextual nature of our history and our thought in a clear way (through baseerah) because not having this capability in your "quest" of exposing Islam only decapitates your ability to do so.
Ibn Sina can either be a Dhahri or batni Shiite, but I am least bothered of it. I would thank you for underpinning my contention; Ibn Sina was not a true Muslim at all. He had to deviate from the main stream Islam and that is what made him a great philosopher and scientist. So, Islam has no credit here. When you say “you admire his contribution to worldly sciences” that is very much in par with us infidels. We infidels rate his contributions to science more but will always state it would not have been possible for him without getting off the hook (Islam). Here; for reinforcement, I will quote Ibn Khaldoon:
I commend Bill Gates for Microsoft. what the heck is the point of this. there is no need to deviate from Islam in order to get something done in a progressive state because Islam in essence does not impede progress, it facilitates it and infact the scholars of usool have clarified that it is farf kifayaah (meaning some of the ummah must partake in doing so). Your view that Islamic religious doctrine is interlinked with social and scientific progress as a deterent is baseless because our religion is the exact opposite of pretty much every other religion which is even admitted by your own Imaam Ali Sina. I do not need to shed the yoke of Islam in order to advance in astronomy because Allahs words in the quran actually imply the command to do so whcih I will not quote the verses for the sake of brevity.
Of course you can not because there were none. Earlier scientific advance in the Muslim world is much indebted to these great figures who were not true Muslims at all. As I already pointed out, only by deviating from Islam, they made it possible but the noise now is about the golden era of Islam which is revolving around these great figures who had in fact very little or nothing to do with Islam
The reason why I can;t is because al-Farabi's era was in snyc with the birth of Islam. It was not to much before him that Islam was completed.
Secondly, you have pointed out nothing with regard to the flaw that by shedding (deviating) from Islam can it be then possible to advance in the sciences as it makes no sense when we contrast this claim with the actual position of the sunni scholars of Islam who opine differently, and they speak from the position of orthodoxy.
I get only one point among them that Al-Buzjani was a renowned mathematician. Other figures are not much heard of because of being negligible for their contribution in the relevant field. For example, Al-Zahrawi’s contributions in surgery has nothing special and he was just continuing from Ancient Indians did way before him. It was Sushruta who used to perform successful surgeries perhaps for the first time, not to say Sushruta lived long before Christ. I am not going into details of it, but let me say the only remarkable contributions to science is coming through the route of Al-Farabi and Ibn Sina who were just copying ancient Greek texts. Muslims excel and are successful in academic level in this living period, but when it matters study of biology for instance, their religious stubbornness has to be shed to learn of theory of evolution because modern biology is strictly based on it. You can not ignore this part and become a good biologist now. Perhaps it would be possible for you to overlook it and replace it with the theory of Adam and Eve.If you do that will effectively curtail significant portion of your creativeness. How many Muslims are good biologists and true Muslims?
Your logic truely puzzles me. The argument in bold is graphed under the theory that Islam is antithetical to evolution. This is essentailly absurd because Quranically, the texts have shown that creational aspects have evolved, humans, the sun, etc. Islam by its essence does not condemn evolution, it condemns strange or absurd deductons that people come up with in the name of evolution.
When you talk of senior scholars, I can’t overlook the fact you disregard majority of scholars and you have your own scholars to come up with. So, either you accept the dissection or not, I can question your disagreement on this using majority of other scholars whom you consider negligible for being heretic or deviants. But I am not going to make this a big issue at all for the reason; I don’t have time to spend for this. I am frank here.
The majority is in my favor. it was the ash'aris that were a fring sect and this was claimed by the Imaam of Ash'aris Ibn Asaakir in his Tabyin. The Maturidis were definately a fringe of the fringe.
“Some of you say ‘I possess the whole Quran, but how can he know what is the whole Quran since a great portion of the same has disappeared? Let him say “I posess of it what is still extant” [Imam Suyuti/ Itqan fee ulum al-Quran. Vol. 2. Page 30-32]
I would have to check with the narrators to see if its reliable.

however, from the basic gist of it, all it is saying is that it could be pointing to the fact that the narator was speaking of the additional verses, like the ayaatul-rajm, which were abrogated by way of removal and other versus. But then again, this is a comment by someone 900 years after the completetion of Islam
You remind of my Sufi past when I used to debate with Salafis on these Issues. I will answer you here, the four Imams of Mad’habs were not in need to follow Ash’ari because of being Mujtahids. It is Muqallids who need to follow Imams in Fiqhi and in the matters of Aqeedah for not being in a position to do Ijtihad.
Anyway, I am not going to engage in a full-scale debate over this issue with you for the reason, I am not supposed to be a part of your difference of opinions. I treat Islam as I find it with Muhammad, its founder. That’s all.
actually, the opinion of the majority of all the scholars is that the laymen has no madhaab.

secondly, the logic displayed is crooked because al-ash;aris schools was a school of aqida, not one of fiqh, the majority of the shafi'ees for the next few centuries after al-Ash'ari did not include al-Ash'ari in their madhaab as a co madhaabist because they viewed his aqida to have nullified his being a follower of ash-Shafi'ee.

The laymen,m they are to go to the alim that they feel are close to righteousness and knowledge. that is the madhaab of the laymen. The purpose of a madhaab in fiqh is to provide an overall guideline for the aspiring jurist. It was not meant for the laymen to make taqleed of the madhaab.
Look dear mate. I am just pointing out how Ibn Sina went wrong according to Ghazzali. I am not here to defend Ibn Sina’s views matching them up with your Islamic orthodox standpoints. Your effort is fruitless for the same reason. (This is not the place to discuss of such matters) If you affirm Ibn Sina was wrong in his belief that is sufficient for me because all I have to state is the so-called golden era of Islam which is orbiting around Ibn Sina likes was in fact the fruit of deviating from Islam and not because of the true Islam contributed to them.
and back to the lecture at hand, how do you prove this point. Ibn Sina's efforts is far removed from his theological opinions. Another part of your flaw is your claimin that the bulk of Islams success is rested upon his shoulders which is a historical fallacy as he is a flee among the mountains who came before and after him who were sunni. Your attempt to befuddle the rest of our giants in the shadow of Ibn Sina is nothing less than academic dishonesty to say the least.
I am speaking of the truth about science. It is based on observations, and when Ibn Sina could not do it without digressing from true Islam, my point is strengthened here.
This is my point. The orthodox Creed mandates the observation of creation. a person who disbelieves in this becomes a kaafir by rejecton of the command of Allah. Based on this ultimate fact, how does your theory coincide with this fact. It is a historical and religious blunder on your part because
1. there is no scientific evidence nor any Islamic religious evidence to prove that success in science can only be made by the methodology of deviating from Islamic tenets. You and your group are the first in history of mankind to claim this.
2. Another portion of this blunder is due to the fact of not understanding the nature of Islam. Islam, in your view, is mirrored in the realm of myth and intolerence which is contrary to historical precedent. This essential point is the reason why you made an ultimate blunder of linking a theological view with a scientific progress.

That is why we find great geniouses among any religious orientation. Infact most geniouses were religious oriented. This fact alone is enough to wither away this most preposterous viewpoint you formulated.
I am forced to bring the fire analogy again here. As Ibn Sina noted, fire burns and it can be observed. Here Aql is involved but is it necessary or what makes it necessary to believe there is a supernatural force is involved in burning of fire? Fire will burn until an external factor like water or enough carbon dioxide extinguishes it. But your methodology tells us to believe fire will burn upon the will of a deity and only will continue burning with the same will. I don’t understand why and how it helps you to formulate a logical deduction on a very simple matter like “burning”. Can you explain it syllogistically?
Im not advanced in formal logical to I will merely explain it with as much simplicity as possible

1. is it necessary?
the question applied to fire can be applied to anything else. Is it necesary that the earth encircling the sun is driven by a supernatural force.
This belief becomes necessary for someone who believes in a being called an ultimate God. For us specifically, every single iota of a thing that exist is encircled by the Mercy and Will of Allah. The reason why my heart is pumping so many times currently is because Allah is allowing for it to pump. Had He wished, He can stop it by willing it. However, most of the actions or implementations of Allah's Will happens through LAWS THAT HE HIMSELF ALREADY ESTABLISHED. These are called Universal laws i.e. qadr al-qawni.
An example of law is the law of gravity exemplified by the statement "what goes up, must come down". There are many laws. The law of the atmosphere is to ensure the deflection of most of the Suns radiation and ultraviolet ways. we can name hundreds, if not thousands of laws He legislated. So when Allah enforces His Will, it usually coms in the form of something already known by Universal law. Allow me to elaborate a little further

religiously=If a nation is indebted to following and worshipping Allah, then their condition is one of strength and humanity which is observable over the milenia as noticed by the ancient Isrealites and then succeded by their Muslim cousins. When an epoch occurs in their history were they change their own condition, then Allah changes their own condition and weakening them. He says in the Quran that "He causes a people to check another people". So due to their ireligiousity and abandoning of Allahs way, they are weakend and afflicted with trials and differences.

Universally speaking= how the religious is interpreted in universal terms is that a such a poltical nation will be over powered by their enemies because they became weakened. How many empires have been weakened internaly and giving the seed to its destruction?. plenty.

How does this relate to the topic? Because There is something called qadr ash-shar'i and qadr al-qawni. When fire burns, it is the universal law of Allah that it will continue to burn until an external factor causes an effect on this fire i.e. water, flour, or what have you. Its continual state of burning i dont so based on the Will of Allah for it to burn. If soemone opines to a viewpoint opposite of this one, this implicitly is saying that Allah is not really Allah, that God does not actually have power and ability or that His Will is limited which defies the reality of Lordship.

the flip side of universal law is religious law. Allah said that He will aid those who aid Him. Because Ibraheem aided Allah, Allah aided him when he was throne in the furnace of fire when disbeleivers did not want to believe in God. Fire, at that moment in that furnace changed its nature. This is called a karamaat, miracle which defies universal law. If Allah allows for me to die at this moment by preventing my heart to pump one more time, it will stop pumping. If He wishes to allow the emergency utensils of medical treatment to save me by pumping my heart back up, He can do that, He is Allah. If He wishes for their efforts to fail, He can do that to. If He wishes to revive me miraculously without any medical treatment, that can happen as well. To deny the fact that Allahs Will and power and mercy surrounds every single speck of creation is to deny the very basics of common sense.

But the fault of your entire predicament in this issue is making an issue out of it in the first place. The fact that you stated this
I dont understand why and how it helps you to formulate a logical deduction on a very simple matter like “burning”.
is the essence of your flaw. Thats because in reality, we we wish to realse ourselves from all the symantics and jargon, the reality is that it does not matter what viewpoint the observer has of fire. The fact that someone views fire in a way different than the other will not change the fact that
1. fire will burn
2. fire can be utilized
3. we can learn how to harness it
4. fire is hot
and any other deduction that one can scientifically prove with fire.

I believe this flaw of your stems from your fallacious notion of viewing that religious doctrinal leanings has an effect on scientific analysis, which is essentially absurd to say the least.
User avatar
KhaliL
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:12 am

Is Islam compatible with modern science?

Post by KhaliL »

________________

Dear Al-Boriqee,

The only reason I appear in this thread once again is to look for the chance of a dialog on “whether Islam is compatible with modern science”. Let me reassert again, no fuel will be burnt from my side to prove the veracity of a certain faction of Islam. This does not mean I have a version of Islam on my own. Strictly NO; but my point all along this dialog will be “Islam is as it is found with its founder”. If you think my contention is faulty for any reason, you have your rights to present your objections to it for both of us to contest on it too. I am ready to defend my position just like you are obliged to defend yourself.

Now to move on, when I made this assertion in previous post you come up with this objection:

al-boriqee wrote:I don't think you were quite getting it. The point of explaining the entire discussion of heresiology to begin with is to fully understand the historical and contextual nature of our history and our thought in a clear way (through baseerah) because not having this capability in your "quest" of exposing Islam only decapitates your ability to do so.
I beg your pardon. Let me make clear of my stance once again. My assertion on Islam is: “Islam is as it is found with its founder”. When I produce this claim, I know of the seriousness of it especially when there is the theory; Islam being the upshot of a collective effort in which many apart from Muhammad is involved. I would concur to it on certain pretexts. I say on certain pretexts because, we know there was not a copy of Quran as we have today in the time of Muhammad. It was a later innovation, or to accord with Islamic terminology, a “Bidat”. But Muslims reconcile with this Bida as Bida hasania” I am not much worried of it. But this innovation too is strictly based on the solid foundation Islam’s prophet laid. Quran was just collected and turned into a book during the reign of Othman. To be succinct, this can not be taken to prove that Islam in the time of Muhammad was incomplete and it took an Othman to do the job. If you have objection to this statement, you may come up. My point is: Islam found within the founder is still there and present day Quran is not an addition but a minor innovation occurred as the force of circumstance. Muhammad and the Islam he erected still remain pure.

[I would like to add here of my perspective on Quran. I construed the above argument in strict Islamic viewpoint, but that does not mean it is my viewpoint on Islam’s holy book Quran. I am very much doubtful of its authenticity as a holy book and I have always been the one asserted Quran alone proves there are much later additions to it. But my above contention is for the sake of this dialog for which I have to glue with orthodox Islamic standpoints of its holy book and its purity]

Another point can arise is, of Omar’s various amendments to Islam during his reign when Islam spread beyond the borders of Arabia thus became more than a tribal system. There were many additions by Omar which had much impact on the Muslim Ummah. He was the one who standardized the night prayer in Ramadhan called, Taraweeh. He was the one who prohibited Mut’a (temporary) marriages and stipulated lashes for the sin of drinking. He instituted many bidda in Islam likewise which are as said earlier, considered to be Bida hasania” (good innovations)

However, Omar’s innovations were thoroughly criticized in his own times by the faithful as deviations from the Islam of Muhammad. Caliph had to stand for criticisms and if one bothers to look on the answers he gave to the critics, it can be understood he was defending his position through analogical deduction. He turned towards Muhammad again to prove his stance. For example: in the case of Mut’a, he argued it was forbidden by Muhammad but somehow, forbiddance has not been implemented in the Ummah and the practice went on. (I have disagreements on this, but it is the matter of another debate on “Whether Mut’a is prohibited by Muhammad or not”) But my point here is when questioned of the innovations made in the deen of Islam; Omar reverted to Muhammad and effectively vindicated himself of accusations. The only reason he could prove those innovations as good or nothing contrary to the essence of Islam owes to this reversion. Again, my point: “Islam is as found with its founder”.

So, any attempt to impose the notion of an Islam that is evolved throughout time to perfection is pointless. I will wholeheartedly accede to Islam being subjected to evolution because of the consistent natural law of “change is inevitable”. Islam has evolved but not transformed, but this evolution has not contributed to its perfection as a system, but in effect has been very much detrimental to it. This obligatory evolution brought factions within Islam with varying degrees of differences to each and every. (Still I think there emerges factions within Islam on a daily basis because change is unavoidable as I said abov.) Here my point is I am not going to concur to any argument that Islam acquired perfection through phases of evolution. The perfect Islam was the Islam of Muhammad. But note here; by perfect I do not mean literally perfect and an acceptable system. I am just talking in the mode of commenting on “pure and uncorrupted evil”. There can be perfect and corrupted evil. Islam found with its founder is the perfect evil. That is all.

al-boriqee wrote:there is no need to deviate from Islam in order to get something done in a progressive state because Islam in essence does not impede progress, it facilitates it and infact the scholars of usool have clarified that it is farf kifayaah (meaning some of the ummah must partake in doing so). Your view that Islamic religious doctrine is interlinked with social and scientific progress as a deterent is baseless because our religion is the exact opposite of pretty much every other religion which is even admitted by your own Imaam Ali Sina. I do not need to shed the yoke of Islam in order to advance in astronomy because Allahs words in the quran actually imply the command to do so whcih I will not quote the verses for the sake of brevity.
There is NEED to deviate from Islam in quest of progress. Let me just explain why I affirm the necessity of deviating from the mainstream Islam in order to achieve progress.

First of all, I would like to have you defined what does it mean progress, growth or advancement to you. If you mean progress in all levels, Islam is very much against it. It is a system which curtails human capability of logical thinking and reasoning. Take the case of scientific progress for instance.

Islamic and scientific thinking are poles apart. The reason for me to say this is, in Islam there is a limit for thinking and reasoning. One is not allowed to go beyond a limit with his thought processes. There is “Allah Knows Best” we often encounter. What does it mean? Why it is necessary to say “Allah knows best”

Because Islam has no answers to many of the quests and when it meets with such a predicament, this has always been a measure of retreat. Instead of admitting “I don’t have answer”, Muslim says his god knows best” But this seldom helps. What I am seeking is answer to my question but if the questioned (here Islam) retreats to such an ad hoc fallacy, that means my quest for knowledge is effectively curtailed.

Next, science is based on definite knowledge, but Islam is not. Islam is based on indefinite knowledge which does not require much or any endeavor at all. Examples for indefinite knowledge is the knowledge one acquires through his parents (this can be considered innate knowledge in certain cases, though John Locke’s blank mind theory does not corroborate to innate aspects of knowledge. I never concurred to John Locke in this department but Berkeley’s empiricism is more acceptable for me) However, a Muslim has certain indefinite knowledge and he is bound by it. He is not supposed to question the creator of this universe as he finds in the holy text of Islam. There are still many unanswered questions nagging scientists and philosophers but redirecting all those to the yet unknown supernatural cause is not going to answer any of them but in fact it is very much damaging to the quest for knowledge and progress likewise. Science is subjected to evolve and there is no clear-cut “believe it or else” theory in it. We know or consider certain theories as factual in this living time, but science does not dictate you to limit your capability of questioning to the established facts. You can certainly evolve from it if you are capable of and there is no bound dictated. Not at all..! There is no established truth in science; rather truth no matter how sacred it seems to be is subjected to scrutiny before being accepted. In a nutshell or to be succinct, you do not need to halt on a certain point in the case of science as the doors are always wide opened for you to go as far as you are proficient of. Science only encourages you to it, and never orders you have to stay within a certain bound stating it has reached perfection. Not a single scientist has claimed it so far. All left all doors open for seekers to explore more and more and if possible, to rewrite the currently established scientific facts.

Besides, science is about questioning first rather than ending on answers. It encourages questioning because questions always do away with the mysteries surrounding the subject questioned and only through empirical means, question will be answered. I would exemplify Isaac Newton and his apple incident here. When Newton asked “why apple came down instead of going up”, he was the first one to ask such a question. Not many can ask questions like that but it requires more than enough ingeniousness. But the question shook the world thus gravitational force is discovered and explained. What if Newton did not bother to ask the question and managed to retreat to “god or an invisible pink unicorn caused apple to fall down?” would it have unraveled the fact of gravitational force?

Still, Newton’s findings were not the ultimate answer to many. One should not forget, Einstein refuted many of Newton’s contentions. We know even some of Einstein’s theories are confuted in our time. All I am asserting here is there is no last word in science. It is very much progressive. Progressive to perhaps heat death, or I would say, if the theory of heat death has to be revised with another theory better explaining the end or incessant nature of this universe, it is also welcomed in the tenets of science.

Now, I would like to focus on Islam which many argue is with progressive thinking and reasoning. Islam as a thinking process rests on several religious premises that must be accepted and agreed straight by its adherents. The belief in the One God and that Mohammed is His prophet being the prime of this. And then follows other ‘must believe’ matters like belief in the seen and the unseen, supremacy of its holy text. A Muslim mind is engraved with these beliefs so it the default position of it. If he tries to evolve from this, there are many things that would pull him back from stretching beyond it. Just for example, I would bring the Kalam cosmological argument which is still used by theists like Dr. William Lane Craig. In fact Kalam argument is an Islamic contribution owing to Imam Ghazzali. But so far it is the best and only best theist argument for god. The first premise of Kalam cosmological argument, “whatever began to exist has a cause” may be or not questionable, the second “universe began to exist” is scientifically approved. The third premise “therefore universe has a cause” is disputable because it does not and should not necessarily lead to god. There can be possibilities for the existence of universe other than a god. God makes a possibility apart from many possibilities. But what (I would single out Muslims here) Muslims have to assert and be firm upon is the cause of this universe is a personal god named Allah. While, science offers a much better explanation in the form of “Bing Bang.” There are Big Bang optimists and skeptics but evidences suggest to “Big Bang”. It is not possible to ask the question what was there before Big bang” or what caused Big Bang for the reason, there is an information cusp. All information began to flow from the point of Big Bang.

Still I would assert “Big Bang” should not be taken as Gospel and if there can be better explanations for the commencement of this universe or universes, there are doors left wide opened for skeptics to explore. It is the luxury of science which theists (as I said earlier, I would single out Muslims here too) can not enjoy at all. Muslims have stuck with one and only theory of Allah, a personal invisible god causing all these, let it be in the form of “Big Bang” or not.

Is it possible to progress through this route? I would say NOT at all. If one tries to fill all the gaps with god or gods that means he is effectively limiting his logical thinking and reasoning abilities. If answer is provided and one is forced to believe in the unquestionable authenticity of the answer, seldom he is going to dig any further than regressing to an illusionary sense of self satisfaction. But a scientific mind can not have this satisfaction at any level. It can be the curse and strength of science. No scientist halts at a certain finding even after the wide acceptance of that finding but he would stretch beyond it again and again to embark more plausible explanations or better findings than he made (if possible). But for a Muslim, the gap is already filled with god and there is no need to worry and elongate at all. If answer is found and if it is instilled in as the only answer, who is going to venture for more?

Here rests the problem with Islam. An ideology which offers answers with an affirmation “this is the only answer” can not help free thought. And in the absence of free thought, we see how progress is effectively and very unfortunately being halted.

I would have to cut this post in two parts because this has already met the limit. There would be a delay before my next post:

KhaliL
User avatar
KhaliL
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:12 am

Continuing from the above:

Post by KhaliL »

__________________
al-boriqee wrote:Your logic truely puzzles me. The argument in bold is graphed under the theory that Islam is antithetical to evolution. This is essentailly absurd because Quranically, the texts have shown that creational aspects have evolved, humans, the sun, etc. Islam by its essence does not condemn evolution, it condemns strange or absurd deductons that people come up with in the name of evolution.
In fact, I am bit puzzled here. What evolution are you talking about? How does Quran corroborate to the theory of evolution?

A text which talks of Adam and Eve meets together to create the mankind can never be in sync with theory of evolution. Let me tell you if none has told you otherwise; “Adam and Eve are never met”. There is no evidence for human beings originating from two common ancestors. If you mean some sort of evolution (or convolution?) that you may extract from your book by reinterpreting it conveniently, come up with your theory and let us examine how it would go hand in hand with the theory of evolution we know of.

al-boriqee wrote:The majority is in my favor. it was the ash'aris that were a fring sect and this was claimed by the Imaam of Ash'aris Ibn Asaakir in his Tabyin. The Maturidis were definately a fringe of the fringe.
Well, if the majority is in your favour, enjoy the luxury but I am least concerned of it. If there is one man on the other side who will refute you or will confute with your claims using another version of Islam; that would be sufficient for me to argue for him too. Meanwhile, you claim to be having majority of scholars in your side, but there is another side which claims majority is with them. It is all a mess as far as I understand. Which is which? You guys sort it out.

However, the question what makes you an authority to talk on behalf of Islam is also pertinent to some extent. If you think you can be an authority, do not forget the other side too can use the same logic to question your authority and state their version is true and yours is deviated. Still, I am least concerned of it as I said above.
al-boriqee wrote:I would have to check with the narrators to see if its reliable.
however, from the basic gist of it, all it is saying is that it could be pointing to the fact that the narator was speaking of the additional verses, like the ayaatul-rajm, which were abrogated by way of removal and other versus. But then again, this is a comment by someone 900 years after the completetion of Islam
It is not from such a gist, in fact Imam Suyuti is talking of Quran being lost. And where is your evidence for “Ayat Rajam” (verses of stoning) is abrogated? Even if I concur to you the verse is abrogated; what makes it disappeared from current Quran? There are abrogating (Nasikh) and abrogated (mansookh) verses in Quran. All are preserved but not the verse of stoning? Why? Isn’t this indicative of the impurity of your text in which at least a verse (according to the authentic sources) is lost?

Muhammad carried out the stoning punishment in his times. He commanded to stone some people too. All these times was he; the prophet of god acting against his god’s diktats? Muhammad did not utter a word against stoning. Can you prove it otherwise? Can you show me a single Sahih Hadith to state Muhammad abrogating the punishment of stoning?
al-boriqee wrote:
Look dear mate. I am just pointing out how Ibn Sina went wrong according to Ghazzali. I am not here to defend Ibn Sina’s views matching them up with your Islamic orthodox standpoints. Your effort is fruitless for the same reason. (This is not the place to discuss of such matters) If you affirm Ibn Sina was wrong in his belief that is sufficient for me because all I have to state is the so-called golden era of Islam which is orbiting around Ibn Sina likes was in fact the fruit of deviating from Islam and not because of the true Islam contributed to them.
and back to the lecture at hand, how do you prove this point. Ibn Sina's efforts is far removed from his theological opinions. Another part of your flaw is your claimin that the bulk of Islams success is rested upon his shoulders which is a historical fallacy as he is a flee among the mountains who came before and after him who were sunni. Your attempt to befuddle the rest of our giants in the shadow of Ibn Sina is nothing less than academic dishonesty to say the least.
Have a close look at my post on that bolded, highlighted words; I said Ibn Sina likes. And I am still with that statement. Ibn Sina is the most prominent figure Muslims love to be proud of. What makes you claim he is a nothing or negligible figure compared to other great Islamic scientists? Can you show me one? I asked you earlier too. Can you show me a single figure who will have a remote chance to beat Ibn Sina in ingeniousness? Do not come up with Al-Farabi, Al-Razi, Ibn Rushd likes. Someone who was strictly in line of Islamic orthodoxy should stand up here to beat Ibn Sina. This is a challenge.
al-boriqee wrote:This is my point. The orthodox Creed mandates the observation of creation. a person who disbelieves in this becomes a kaafir by rejecton of the command of Allah.

Here lies my point too. First of all, according to your version, failure to observe the creation guarantees “Kufr” = “Blasphemy” to the failed person. He is rejected by Allah; but why this strictness? What about looking at the reasons "why the person failed" before smiting his neck with Kufr? There is a price to pay for knowledge and don't you think it would be better to assess the person at first before rejecting him? What is the hindrance for it?

Secondly; if there is a strict limit for everything, (as you suggested above) none will be trying to stretch beyond that limit. And here the limit is already dictated. All quests should necessarily end up in the creator Allah. Person can observe and ask questions about the creation, but he can only find one answer. And that answer is already given.

What should I name this recklessness?
al-boriqee wrote:Based on this ultimate fact, how does your theory coincide with this fact. It is a historical and religious blunder on your part because
1. there is no scientific evidence nor any Islamic religious evidence to prove that success in science can only be made by the methodology of deviating from Islamic tenets. You and your group are the first in history of mankind to claim this.
You did not bring any ultimate fact that is fact enough. It was an awkward statement, so my theory would stand. Please come up with novel abstractions so that the debate will turn into an interesting feast for readers here.

Next, the very basic, all observations should end up in one already given point is not going to help observation. You see a monitor in front of you, but I see possibilities in it. How do I see possibilities? Because I think I will observe more. But what if someone is there behind me with a hammer in his hands insisting to do the observation but to reach to the fact of the hammer in his hands? Do you think I am going to observe more? Simply; to save my head from the hammer, I will pretend to be doing something and very awkwardly, I will point to the hammer as the fruit of my observation. I know I am at fault, but there is no chance for me to correct it.

Such a closed system will breed only conditioned human beings with a lot of inadequacies. Because your faith catches thought processes of human beings and conditions it in a certain way. So, there is definitely a limit for an orthodox Muslim to excel in the field of arts and science. Either he can be with religious orthodoxy, or with floating freethought. A choice should be made and both will not go hand in hand.
al-boriqee wrote:2. Another portion of this blunder is due to the fact of not understanding the nature of Islam. Islam, in your view, is mirrored in the realm of myth and intolerence which is contrary to historical precedent. This essential point is the reason why you made an ultimate blunder of linking a theological view with a scientific progress.
I made it clear above the problem of Islam with science. I don’t think my contention is contrary to historical precedent. The fact you have to understand is a Scientist can claim to be a theologist, but a theologist can not claim to be a scientist. Here lies the difference and the core of the issue at hand. If any Muslim scientist claimed to be a good orthodox Muslim too, that means he likes to claim to be one. That’s it, no big deal. (Many factors will have their influence in this phenomenon considering the penurious lives Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd. They had to pay the price because of rejecting orthodox tenets)
al-boriqee wrote:That is why we find great geniouses among any religious orientation. Infact most geniouses were religious oriented. This fact alone is enough to wither away this most preposterous viewpoint you formulated.
See above. I answered this too.
al-boriqee wrote:Im not advanced in formal logical to I will merely explain it with as much simplicity as possible

1. is it necessary?
the question applied to fire can be applied to anything else. Is it necesary that the earth encircling the sun is driven by a supernatural force.
This belief becomes necessary for someone who believes in a being called an ultimate God.
I would hold this god responsible for not getting answers to many questions. But there are many deists and theists who do not hold such a god or gods. Scientific pantheism is based on god which is the sum total of natural laws. Believing in any of these types of gods will not make one binding to deem there is a supernatural presence behind the burning of fire.
al-boriqee wrote:For us specifically, every single iota of a thing that exist is encircled by the Mercy and Will of Allah. The reason why my heart is pumping so many times currently is because Allah is allowing for it to pump. Had He wished, He can stop it by willing it. However, most of the actions or implementations of Allah's Will happens through LAWS THAT HE HIMSELF ALREADY ESTABLISHED. These are called Universal laws i.e. qadr al-qawni.
This is the problem of Islam and its god. Because there is nothing your god is willing to give up. He patented the whole of universe or universes furthermore he has patent even on intracellular activities. But here the problem is in one breath you say god has already established some laws so everything should move according to it. Again, you will say "if god wills he can change the whole pattern". Hmm..
al-boriqee wrote:An example of law is the law of gravity exemplified by the statement "what goes up, must come down". There are many laws. The law of the atmosphere is to ensure the deflection of most of the Suns radiation and ultraviolet ways. we can name hundreds, if not thousands of laws He legislated. So when Allah enforces His Will, it usually coms in the form of something already known by Universal law. Allow me to elaborate a little further
Oh dear please, I don’t need further elaborations because the damage has already been done. Let me say, nature does not necessarily follow a pattern (or call it laws if you want) You say god has established some forces like gravitational force and everything will move according to it to the end of times. Is it what you want to say? Well, but we are not sure of it. There can be another theory which refutes the theory of gravitation, then you will have to foot on that and argue my god established this law and not the old-fashioned one. Life on other planets are still rare of the rarest possibilities, but if such occurs, again this already established laws of god will embark another set of laws, still you will be there to claim it is the original. Doesn’t look impressive to me; why should your god involve in this business only to ridicule himself?
al-boriqee wrote:religiously=If a nation is indebted to following and worshipping Allah, then their condition is one of strength and humanity which is observable over the milenia as noticed by the ancient Isrealites and then succeded by their Muslim cousins. When an epoch occurs in their history were they change their own condition, then Allah changes their own condition and weakening them. He says in the Quran that "He causes a people to check another people". So due to their ireligiousity and abandoning of Allahs way, they are weakend and afflicted with trials and differences.
This is stupidity at its best. How can you say nation follows Allah and flourishes but crumbles because of not following your god? Isn’t it Allah who is doing all these jobs? Allah created people. Allah did not assign free will to any living beings; that is why all what we witness are episodes of an already directed and well rehashed drama of god. You can not say in one breath many a nation has been destroyed because they failed to follow Allah, and say Allah is the one who make things happen. Can you?
al-boriqee wrote:Universally speaking= how the religious is interpreted in universal terms is that a such a poltical nation will be over powered by their enemies because they became weakened. How many empires have been weakened internaly and giving the seed to its destruction?. plenty.
See the above. I think it answers this too. Next?
al-boriqee wrote:How does this relate to the topic? Because There is something called qadr ash-shar'i and qadr al-qawni. When fire burns, it is the universal law of Allah that it will continue to burn until an external factor causes an effect on this fire i.e. water, flour, or what have you. Its continual state of burning i dont so based on the Will of Allah for it to burn. If soemone opines to a viewpoint opposite of this one, this implicitly is saying that Allah is not really Allah, that God does not actually have power and ability or that His Will is limited which defies the reality of Lordship.
Here is why you fail to produce a logical syllogism on a simple matter like burning. You can not exclude your Allah from it, so you can not explain the process of burning syllogistically. This is very pathetic indeed. And this is very much destructive to freethinking minds. If there is an ambient factor of almighty Allah above all natural processes, it might not be possible to deduce them syllogistically.
al-boriqee wrote:the flip side of universal law is religious law. Allah said that He will aid those who aid Him. Because Ibraheem aided Allah, Allah aided him when he was throne in the furnace of fire when disbeleivers did not want to believe in God. Fire, at that moment in that furnace changed its nature. This is called a karamaat, miracle which defies universal law. If Allah allows for me to die at this moment by preventing my heart to pump one more time, it will stop pumping. If He wishes to allow the emergency utensils of medical treatment to save me by pumping my heart back up, He can do that, He is Allah. If He wishes for their efforts to fail, He can do that to. If He wishes to revive me miraculously without any medical treatment, that can happen as well. To deny the fact that Allahs Will and power and mercy surrounds every single speck of creation is to deny the very basics of common sense.
No need to classify something as Universal Law and religious law. You asserted both are essentially the same. Allah is the ambient factor in all laws, so tell us simply that Allah’s laws. That would be sufficient. Otherwise, you will have to concur to me Allah’s influence will not affect gravitational force even if he tries to influence it. Can you? So, simply stating Allah’s laws is sufficient and there is no need of this categorization.

And I am least interested in the mechanism of your god’s laws. The only thing noteworthy above is “karamat” = “miracles”. You have mentioned it but that makes me surprised. In our terms miracle means something that goes against the natural laws. But in your case, there can not even be miracles because nothing goes against your god’s laws here. The one who burns the fire is also the one who saves from fire. There is no miracle involved as far as god is there to do all the things. What makes you call “Karamat” = “miracle” when in fact it is in perfect concordance with your Allah’s laws? Either you admit you have a different definition for “miracles” or be with us and state natural laws are not within the grip of a supernatural being. Not have your cake and eat it too.
al-boriqee wrote:But the fault of your entire predicament in this issue is making an issue out of it in the first place. The fact that you stated this
I dont understand why and how it helps you to formulate a logical deduction on a very simple matter like “burning”.
is the essence of your flaw. Thats because in reality, we we wish to realse ourselves from all the symantics and jargon, the reality is that it does not matter what viewpoint the observer has of fire. The fact that someone views fire in a way different than the other will not change the fact that
1. fire will burn
2. fire can be utilized
3. we can learn how to harness it
4. fire is hot
and any other deduction that one can scientifically prove with fire.

I believe this flaw of your stems from your fallacious notion of viewing that religious doctrinal leanings has an effect on scientific analysis, which is essentially absurd to say the least.
This means you do not know what is syllogism. I asked you to deduce a syllogism on the process of burning. For us it is:

1. Oxygen is essential for burning
2. Fire burns owing to the supply of oxygen
3. Fire burns as long as the supply lasts.

Now, how would your syllogism be? Have a look.

1. God is essential for fire to burn
2. Fire burns because god makes it burn
3. Fire burns as long as god allows it to burn.

Mi bondad … what a logic…!!!

Regards
KhaliL
al-boriqee
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:28 am

Re: Islamic Heresiology: Discussion between Me and Haik Monseiur

Post by al-boriqee »

Dear Al-Boriqee,

The only reason I appear in this thread once again is to look for the chance of a dialog on “whether Islam is compatible with modern science”. Let me reassert again, no fuel will be burnt from my side to prove the veracity of a certain faction of Islam. This does not mean I have a version of Islam on my own. Strictly NO; but my point all along this dialog will be “Islam is as it is found with its founder”. If you think my contention is faulty for any reason, you have your rights to present your objections to it for both of us to contest on it too. I am ready to defend my position just like you are obliged to defend yourself.
1. Im not here to defend positions, Im here to bring forth evidences or to explain what was mistook
2. You forget who you are talking to. I am salafi, therefore I am a muslim who is in the most agreement with you concerning the principle "Islam is as it is with its founder". however from here on out, I will demonstrate to you the fallacies or misrepresentations that you had assumed on Muhammad because at the end of the day this principle "Islam is at it is with its founder" has to have a base on which it is looked at which will be explained later on.
Now to move on, when I made this assertion in previous post you come up with this objection:
al-boriqee wrote:
I don't think you were quite getting it. The point of explaining the entire discussion of heresiology to begin with is to fully understand the historical and contextual nature of our history and our thought in a clear way (through baseerah) because not having this capability in your "quest" of exposing Islam only decapitates your ability to do so.
I beg your pardon. Let me make clear of my stance once again. My assertion on Islam is: “Islam is as it is found with its founder”. When I produce this claim, I know of the seriousness of it especially when there is the theory;
Actually, I do not believe that you know the ramifications of this claim because this claim has to be built on a foundation. You see, your claim, which is what I believe is not understood in the correct light whereas when I present the principles of this claim, it is backed with evidences. Your claim is nothing more than a regurgitation of the claim of Maalik who said almost the same thing when he said
"Whatever was not part of the religion in their time (the time of the prophet) cannot be a part of the religion at anytime"

You see, the very purpose of extracting the entire discussion on heresiology on this matter is because your world view of "Islam is as it is found with its founder" is nothing more than how you were taught with peoples whose Islam was merely that of heretical views and ideas. You were never taught Islam as was understood by the founder himself, which is why your conceptual view of this claim is the mere making up of positions you invented, and then casting them upon its founder using the heretical usool you were being told to follow.

In other wods Islam itself has to be looked at through a mode. There is understanding Islam in light of you own 20th century views, there is understanding it based on certain individuals etc. What we, the entirety of the scholastic theologians throughout the eras understood that the foundational understanding in order to view islam in its correct light is to view it based on how the companions and their student had understood, implemented and carried out its methodology. In other words whatever is a practice that they didn't do, cannot be called Islam.
When I produce this claim, I know of the seriousness of it especially when there is the theory; Islam being the upshot of a collective effort in which many apart from Muhammad is involved. I would concur to it on certain pretexts. I say on certain pretexts because, we know there was not a copy of Quran as we have today in the time of Muhammad. It was a later innovation, or to accord with Islamic terminology, a “Bidat”. But Muslims reconcile with this Bida as Bida hasania” I am not much worried of it. But this innovation too is strictly based on the solid foundation Islam’s prophet laid. Quran was just collected and turned into a book during the reign of Othman. To be succinct, this can not be taken to prove that Islam in the time of Muhammad was incomplete and it took an Othman to do the job. If you have objection to this statement, you may come up. My point is: Islam found within the founder is still there and present day Quran is not an addition but a minor innovation occurred as the force of circumstance. Muhammad and the Islam he erected still remain pure.
1. Yes, Islam was an upshot of a collective effort of others who partook in its establishment, but whose methodology was based on the prohetic methodology.
2. actually bida is not divided like that it is
A. Bida ash-shar'i (or Ibaadi) and
B. Bida ad-Dunyawi
the prohibition of bida mentioned upon the tongue of Muhammad has to do with those matters that fall into the first, not the second. In other words, bida, innovations, was encouraged and not included in the prohibition.
3. Qur'an was collected with Abu Bakr who made a mushaf out of it. It was during the time of Uthmaan who codified it into the quraishi dialect as this was the one used.
[I would like to add here of my perspective on Quran. I construed the above argument in strict Islamic viewpoint, but that does not mean it is my viewpoint on Islam’s holy book Quran. I am very much doubtful of its authenticity as a holy book and I have always been the one asserted Quran alone proves there are much later additions to it. But my above contention is for the sake of this dialog for which I have to glue with orthodox Islamic standpoints of its holy book and its purity]
you see this is a prime example of the error I was talking about with regards to your view of "Islam is as it is found with its founder" because what you assert in this claim is that what you have brought forth as an argument is "Islam" which as we have seen according to the above was not, but only your misconstruence of the historical affair, much less its methodological affair. Therefore I reiterate what I originally said in the previous post which was

I don't think you were quite getting it. The point of explaining the entire discussion of heresiology to begin with is to fully understand the historical and contextual nature of our history and our thought in a clear way (through baseerah) because not having this capability in your "quest" of exposing Islam only decapitates your ability to do so.

I will bring further examples of these errors through on out as further validation for my initial argument.
However, Omar’s innovations were thoroughly criticized in his own times by the faithful as deviations from the Islam of Muhammad.
here is another prime example
Firstly, your speaking of a man, who, was the severest of the sahaba against innovation. Secondly, if the sahaba did witness innovation from him, He would have been deposed and warred with, which never occured. That means that the issue your actually addressing is ijtihaad, which is allowed in Islam because it is allowed for the mujtahidoon, of which Umar was among them.
Caliph had to stand for criticisms and if one bothers to look on the answers he gave to the critics, it can be understood he was defending his position through analogical deduction.
Firstly there was no "qiyaas" in his time, there was ijtihaad he had to make of which its operational structure is based on the prophetic manhaj.Thus if he is wrong, he is rewarded one rewad and if he was correct he gets two rewards. In citing this hadith, it is proven that even if ijtihaad is performed, it is aknowledged that not everyone will be correct.Thus whatever is proven that it was incorrect cannot be slapped as the Islamic position of it even though the mujtahid is excused for the error.
He turned towards Muhammad again to prove his stance. For example: in the case of Mut’a, he argued it was forbidden by Muhammad but somehow, forbiddance has not been implemented in the Ummah and the practice went on. (I have disagreements on this, but it is the matter of another debate on “Whether Mut’a is prohibited by Muhammad or not”)
You see, this is another demonstration of the fallacy you illustrate concerning the claim "Islam is as it is found with its founder" because your personal view of Islam (well one aspect of it) is that Umar invented the prohibition of Mutah whereas Muhammad did'nt. This is in total contradistinction to the actuality of the Islamic position. The position I am about to assert is the more correct position in light of "Islam is as it is found with its founder"

On the authority of Leader of the Faithful `Ali bin Abi Talib who said, "The Messenger of Allah prohibited Mut`ah marriage and eating the meat of domesticated donkeys on the day of Khayber (battle). [recorded by Bukharee and Muslim]

likewise another hadith states
Ar-Rabi` bin Sabrah bin Ma`bad Al-Juhani said that his father said that he accompanied the Messenger of Allah during the victory of Makkah, and that the Prophet said, (O people! I allowed you the Mut`ah marriage with women before. Now, Allah has prohibited it until the Day of Resurrection. Therefore, anyone who has any women in Mut`ah, let him let them go, and do not take anything from what you have given them.) Allah's statement, (but if you agree mutually (to give more) after the requirement (has been determined), there is no sin on you.) is similar to His other statement".[recorded by Muslim]

So there is no discussion on this as it is quite definative.
But my point here is when questioned of the innovations made in the deen of Islam; Omar reverted to Muhammad and effectively vindicated himself of accusations.
That right there is a problem, you have assumed he commited these innovation in the deen of Islam and vindicated himself through the guise of ijtihaad when in reality, which is contrary to your view, is that these position were Muhammadian from the get go.
The only reason he could prove those innovations as good or nothing contrary to the essence of Islam owes to this reversion. Again, my point: “Islam is as found with its founder”.
I see here that you maybe trying to insinuate that anyone who can make a claim on behalf of Islam can actually be pasted on Islam (as it is found with its founder) due to the vindication process of qiyaas or ijtihaad. This is a half truth by which falsehood may be intended because
1. ijthiaad or qiyaas is not applicable accept to one who is qulified to do so, and it is based on qawaa'id laid down by the salaf
2. Not every deduction can be called Islam, Rather if it is correct, then it is the spirit of Islam, if it is proven as incorect, it cannot be pasted onto Islam, and therefore its founder. Thus when Bin Laden makes his scrupulous ijtihaad regarding the kuffar, the very fact that his opinion never found any home among the minds of Muslims for 14 centuries is enough of a proof for the inaccuracy of pasting the view of him and his cohorts as "Islamic" which is something that this very site is somehow trying to insinuate.
So, any attempt to impose the notion of an Islam that is evolved throughout time to perfection is pointless. I will wholeheartedly accede to Islam being subjected to evolution because of the consistent natural law of “change is inevitable”. Islam has evolved but not transformed, but this evolution has not contributed to its perfection as a system, but in effect has been very much detrimental to it. This obligatory evolution brought factions within Islam with varying degrees of differences to each and every. (Still I think there emerges factions within Islam on a daily basis because change is unavoidable as I said abov.)
Change is inevitable and therefore acceptable on matters where change can occur. This is because now, If you have noticed or not, you have slipped into the topic of morality. In the various views of people, certain peoiple have certain topics which are unchangeable. The person who has a reserved number of topics that are unchangeable are said to be more conservative whereas those who view that almost everything or infact everything can change are more certain to fall in line with liberalism. After studying the modes of these methodological outlooks, the mode of liberalism seems to be the most incoherent and the most contradictory. That is because liberals tend to demonize opinions outside of their own and along with that their entire world view is contradictory. At one time homosexuality is evil and in another time it becomes acceptable.At one time pre-marital sex was taboo, and the next generation it is highly encouraged.

The point Im trying to make is that it seems to me that you are of an ultra liberalist mindset where everything can change which is absolutely not true. pre-marital sex will always taboo in nature just as killing soemone without due right will always be taboo in nature and this prohibition does not become nullified basedon the viewpoints of people.
Secondly, The reason why this assumption of yours is fallacious as well is that in the shairah, yes, there are things that are changeable, but maters of doctrine are not changeabl which is why I initially stated that certain things are unchangeable. That is because everything inherent in doctrine is by its very nature unchangeable. Allah;'s nature does not change He is the same Lord, with the same Attributes, the nature of Angels do not change and all matetrs of doctrine, in its esence does not change which would mean that an aqida that "evolves" is nothing more than a heresy and deviation which is why all the prophets came with the same creedal message and with slight variations of law becaue the shariah of Allah takes into account change on matters where change is necessary and applicable, while at the same time preserves the basic broad outline of certain issues of morality that never change. Deviation of mankind comes about with holding a different viewpoint than this.

factions come about due to a number of factors and not for the reason you stated. However, most of these factors are either beyond your ability to understand them based on your ideological leaning, or just being simply opposed to things that fall outside of the scientific material world (which I fundamentally found it ironical that you have labeled me with being a materialist in the beginning part of this discussion, but no biggie)
Here my point is I am not going to concur to any argument that Islam acquired perfection through phases of evolution.
Me neither becaue Islam is inherently perfect. That is why there is no evolution of it. Islam evolutionized before the advent of Muhammad. Fro mthe tim of Adam all the way up to Muhammad Islam was continually being built and pefected, and when Muhammad finalized the last few blocks in the house of Islam, it thus became perfected as a hujjah.
There is NEED to deviate from Islam in quest of progress. Let me just explain why I affirm the necessity of deviating from the mainstream Islam in order to achieve progress.

First of all, I would like to have you defined what does it mean progress, growth or advancement to you. If you mean progress in all levels, Islam is very much against it. It is a system which curtails human capability of logical thinking and reasoning. Take the case of scientific progress for instance.
You see, this is part of the problem, which is the manipulation of words here which I have outlined here http://islamthought.wordpress.com/2008/ ... -of-words/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You see, my view of progress is defined on a more definitive based concept of progress. Your definition of progress is incorperating things that have absolutely no relevance to progress. Lets take for example the issue that many of the antagonist have a problem with. The issue of women covering. I ask how in this galaxy does a women covering have to do with the regressiveness of actual advancement in the fields of science. Can you logically explain to us the parameters on a women covering and how it has an adverse affect to progress in actual fields of science. Until this day, no one on earth has provided a bonifide logical argument for the validity of this baseless claim. Likewise when sunni scientist observed the shariah, observed the sunnah and all of its "cockamanee beleifs" that you may deem as, why did they still make advancements in the fields of the various sciences. this is a fundamental historical fact that for some reason, your perceived bigotry is still overlooking for reasons which I see to be quite obvious.

Secondly, what you have called logic is not logic. refer to this link for more informaton http://islamthought.wordpress.com/heres ... and-islam/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am not going to outline all the information in the link, just read it in order to understand where we stand.
Islamic and scientific thinking are poles apart. The reason for me to say this is, in Islam there is a limit for thinking and reasoning. One is not allowed to go beyond a limit with his thought processes. There is “Allah Knows Best” we often encounter. What does it mean? Why it is necessary to say “Allah knows best”
this is essentially absurd. Yes, and that limit is in the contemplation on matters where it is incontemplatable like Allah. That fact that almost every bonifide revolutionist scientist beleived in the very existence of Allah is by default a detinment to your argument because this fact highlights that even the scientist knew that there was a limit. Those who tried to cross the limit entered into insanity and maybe you know of these individuals already. Yet, these very individuals who went insane in the matter they were trying to break through, I have looked into the matter indepth, and there was nothing they opined to, that was inherently contradictory to Islam.

secondly, allahul-alim is used in reference to things that are not known until they are made known. The fact that the employment of "Allahu-Alim" does not negate the command of Allah to seek the ilm and contemplate "its nature" (this is empiracy here). Your portrayal of the revolutionist is quite narrow for even they aknowledge that the topic of God cannot be "defined" and that the only true definitive knowledge of Him can only be found in scriptural sources. Yet, with their aknowledgement of a limit where the mind cannot go beyon, they were still among those who took the world into advancement because the very things that were in fact advancements were things that has no connection either explicitly or implicitly into the nature of God.
Because Islam has no answers to many of the quests and when it meets with such a predicament, this has always been a measure of retreat. Instead of admitting “I don’t have answer”, Muslim says his god knows best” But this seldom helps. What I am seeking is answer to my question but if the questioned (here Islam) retreats to such an ad hoc fallacy, that means my quest for knowledge is effectively curtailed.
firstly, A Muslim who says "Allah knows best" implies by default that "he does not know"
Secondly, Maalik said 'stating that you do not know is half of knowledge".
thirdly, just because you point out the fact that "We do not know" does not negate that "Allah knows best."

fourthly, what type of question is being asked. Are you askin something that is an impossibility of the mind, or something that bewilders the mind. What is the subject of your question? Please explain your "questioning"
Next, science is based on definite knowledge,
wrong, science is based on a collection or conglomeration of information on a given subject and then tested to see if it is proven or not or only theoretical. In other words it is based on the removal of possibilities so that impossibilities remain. The reason why we know that the earth has a atmosphere after its study is because all posibilities of opposing information are proven irrelevant and thus rooted out and only impossibilities remain. This is the basis for the scientific outlook which I beleive you have highlighted that "nothing is absolute in science"
In other words things that are absolute can be challenged. Thus your attempt to try to make science as definite knowledge is an utter logical fallacy based on the premise of the sceintific view of no absolutes.
but Islam is not
Islam is. But it is called faith, and Im sure you know the linguistic meaning of faith. This faith, is however supported by certain fundamental facts that go in successtion. The first fundamental fact is Allah's existence. What atheist will never be able to answer scientifically is the challenge Allah gave to them when He said

أَمْ خُلِقُوا مِنْ غَيْرِ شَيْءٍ أَمْ هُمُ الْخَالِقُونَ

Were they created by nothing, or were they themselves the creators?
( سورة الطور , At-tur, Chapter #52, Verse #35)

And hence the relatively few solidified facts like these strengthen the reality of faith. If faith is totally proven through materialistic proofs, then the concept of faith is thus nullified and there would not have been no reason for sending of prophets for guidance, or anything that they all fundamentally came to reassert to their own people.
Islam is based on indefinite knowledge which does not require much or any endeavor at all. Examples for indefinite knowledge is the knowledge one acquires through his parents (this can be considered innate knowledge in certain cases, though John Locke’s blank mind theory does not corroborate to innate aspects of knowledge. I never concurred to John Locke in this department but Berkeley’s empiricism is more acceptable for me) However, a Muslim has certain indefinite knowledge and he is bound by it. He is not supposed to question the creator of this universe as he finds in the holy text of Islam.
Of course, but what He is required to do is to question everything else outside of the creator. That is because scientific views related to the unseen can never be promoted to scientific facts. They will always remain "theories" and thus possible or not. However, what was stated about the unseen by sources of the unseen is far more reliable in the field of acceptability than those who have no knowledge of the unseen particularly if the source of this khabr remains constant and uncontradictory as is found with the qur'an and the broad outlines of theology found in the previous islamic revelations given to Moses and Jesus and the other prophets.
There are still many unanswered questions nagging scientists and philosophers but redirecting all those to the yet unknown supernatural cause is not going to answer any of them but in fact it is very much damaging to the quest for knowledge and progress likewise.
Why do you feel it necessary for them to be answered. Do you actually believe that answers that fundamentally have no benefit in the overall betterment of your life will actually be of any value. Do you aknowledge that the human mind is limited or unlimited?
Science is subjected to evolve and there is no clear-cut “believe it or else” theory in it.
hence you contradict your initial claim of stating
science is based on definite knowledge
because you cannot logically claim that science is definite knowledge and then turn around and proclaim it to be subject to evolve and therefore change its initial definiteness because in reality, if a scientific proof has been circumvented by further analysis, then the initial judgement before the new information was brought out to light was itself indefinite to begin with. This is one of the fundamental logical fallacies of a segment of the scientific community who become strong propagandist for the athiest perspective.

thus now I hope you can see the ridiculousness and contradiction of this
We know or consider certain theories as factual in this living time, but science does not dictate you to limit your capability of questioning to the established facts. You can certainly evolve from it if you are capable of and there is no bound dictated. Not at all..! There is no established truth in science; rather truth no matter how sacred it seems to be is subjected to scrutiny before being accepted. In a nutshell or to be succinct, you do not need to halt on a certain point in the case of science as the doors are always wide opened for you to go as far as you are proficient of. Science only encourages you to it, and never orders you have to stay within a certain bound stating it has reached perfection. Not a single scientist has claimed it so far. All left all doors open for seekers to explore more and more and if possible, to rewrite the currently established scientific facts.
Besides, science is about questioning first rather than ending on answers. It encourages questioning because questions always do away with the mysteries surrounding the subject questioned and only through empirical means, question will be answered. I would exemplify Isaac Newton and his apple incident here. When Newton asked “why apple came down instead of going up”, he was the first one to ask such a question. Not many can ask questions like that but it requires more than enough ingeniousness. But the question shook the world thus gravitational force is discovered and explained. What if Newton did not bother to ask the question and managed to retreat to “god or an invisible pink unicorn caused apple to fall down?” would it have unraveled the fact of gravitational force?
Yes, because if a Muslim were in the same predicament and in unison with sunni orthodox belief, His question would have been "Why did Allah allow for the apple to fall down instead of up". Thus the difference is merely symantical whereas the empirical thinking remains. This is why I continually state that empiracy, in the fields of anything unrelated to the essence of God, has nothing to do with deviating from Islam. It is when empirical thinking performs on the nature of God where it is problematic for Muslims, and for most of the scientific revolutionists before the age of atheist concepts comes into effect.

Still, Newton’s findings were not the ultimate answer to many. One should not forget, Einstein refuted many of Newton’s contentions. We know even some of Einstein’s theories are confuted in our time. All I am asserting here is there is no last word in science. It is very much progressive. Progressive to perhaps heat death, or I would say, if the theory of heat death has to be revised with another theory better explaining the end or incessant nature of this universe, it is also welcomed in the tenets of science.
thats quite ironic considering Einstien's views of God.
He viewed God as a "cosmic religious feeling" that enables scientists to advance human knowledge. One of Einstein's most famous quote on the subject of science and religion is:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Islam as it is found with its founder, is the latter. Science as is found with you, is the former.
Now, I would like to focus on Islam which many argue is with progressive thinking and reasoning. Islam as a thinking process rests on several religious premises that must be accepted and agreed straight by its adherents. The belief in the One God and that Mohammed is His prophet being the prime of this. And then follows other ‘must believe’ matters like belief in the seen and the unseen, supremacy of its holy text. A Muslim mind is engraved with these beliefs so it the default position of it. If he tries to evolve from this, there are many things that would pull him back from stretching beyond it. Just for example, I would bring the Kalam cosmological argument which is still used by theists like Dr. William Lane Craig. In fact Kalam argument is an Islamic contribution owing to Imam Ghazzali. But so far it is the best and only best theist argument for god. The first premise of Kalam cosmological argument, “whatever began to exist has a cause” may be or not questionable, the second “universe began to exist” is scientifically approved. The third premise “therefore universe has a cause” is disputable because it does not and should not necessarily lead to god. There can be possibilities for the existence of universe other than a god. God makes a possibility apart from many possibilities. But what (I would single out Muslims here) Muslims have to assert and be firm upon is the cause of this universe is a personal god named Allah. While, science offers a much better explanation in the form of “Bing Bang.” There are Big Bang optimists and skeptics but evidences suggest to “Big Bang”. It is not possible to ask the question what was there before Big bang” or what caused Big Bang for the reason, there is an information cusp. All information began to flow from the point of Big Bang.
Im glad you pointed this out because this shows the "errancy" of your view on Islam is as it is found with its founder.

1. Whether the muslim is pulled back from expanding or evolving the argument is only because of the logical concept that there is no benefit in that which is known to be futile. the Belief of atheism is inherently futile, whcih is why it is rooted out from actual scientific progress which is why most of the advancements of mankind happened on the basis of the person who was advancing us was of a theistically inclined view. I cannot think of a bonifide atheists advancement brought forth by an atheist other than Darwin, whose atheistic origin is itself doubful.
2. The kalam cosmological argument is weak concerning the argument for God. It has its ups, but it is okay. Muslims do not usurp al-Ghazali's theological argument for God as their criterion for their defense of God. The best statement and challange produced is by Allah Himself in one single phrase

أَمْ خُلِقُوا مِنْ غَيْرِ شَيْءٍ أَمْ هُمُ الْخَالِقُونَ

were they created by nothing, or were they themselves the creators?

This phrase is a theological bodyslam against the essence of atheism.

3. your insinuation of 'whatever began to exist has a cause" as "may be questionable or may not be" is a scientific fallacy. We do not operate our lives on the assumption that something that was done does not have a cause. If I placed my gatorade in the fridge and then come home to find it in my room, I know that there was a cause, something had the ability to move it from one place to the other. I do not conclude that it moved itself on its own. And this is the essence of Allahs statement above. Your atheistic view is inherently illogical by this very fact that you have tried to circumvent with the phrase "may be questionable or may not be" Becuase you afirm this concept in everything that exists except for th advent of the universe. We ask, what is the contributing factor that nullifies or excludes the universe from being incorperated along with evrtyhing else in the case and effect process.

4. Now I will address the last few sentences in this quote of yours. The fact that the universe has a cause can only lead to God, no matter how many entities in the chain. If it happened through a big bang, something cause that big bang to occur. If it was the gases and whatever else that caused the big bang, something cause for that gas to formulate and begin to exist. we can keep on going further up the chain of trnasmission until we can only come to the conclusion that a Creator deity was the cause of this.

Secondly, the big bang is not something that is impossible nor is it a theory that is condemned. The only fraction of this theory that is condemned is due to the conclusions of the atheists who assume that based on this theory, it is the big bang that created us and not God, which is essentially absurd because a big bag does not have the physical properties to create anything. Rather there is a Quranic text which alludes to the bi bang theory. HOW. Because the eseence of the big bang theory is that because of this initial explosion the universe began and has ever since been conintually expanding which would explained why they found the galaxies to drift farther apart. There is a text in the Quran that points to this cosmic phenomenon

thirdly, Ali SIna attemptd quite poorly to refute the Quran's position on the "big bang which can be found here
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/bigbang50221.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It laughed too hard when reading his fallcious inaccuray because when he attempted to expain the issue using the Qur'an, He brought versus that are irrelevant to the topic he was speas speaking about. The versus that he was representing was merely supplying the inherent universal properties of these entities (earth, hevenas etc) and not about the big bang. So allow me to recycle the Ali SInic argument versus the Quranic argument and I use this only to depose your flimsy argument about the big bang an the issue fo Islam being an entity that condemns it.

The heavens are expanding. Modern science tells us that the universe was started from a singularity. The pictures taken by Edwin Hubbell in Mount Wilson observatory in 1929 showed that the universe was expanding which led to the Big Bang theory. The Qur'an anticipated this "discovery" by 14 centuries.

Here is the relavatory ayaah that Ali SIna somehow"forgot" to incorperate in his so called nullification of this theory being promulgated by the Qur'an.

With power did We construct the heaven. Verily, We are Able to extend the vastness of space (thereof), [51:47]
this is Muhsiin Khan Translation which is a much more accurate rendition of the versus in english.

5. Lastly, your argument which is exemplified by your statement "It is not possible to ask the question what was there before Big bang” or what caused Big Bang for the reason, there is an information cusp. All information began to flow from the point of Big Bang."
is a logical fallacy. All it means is that information can not be ascertained before the advent of the universe. Indeed if the big bang is true, which the ayaah above alludes to, then certainly, it was the cause of gases and smoke which was the opinion of the big bang theorists which was exemplified by the Qur'an in the ayaah

Then He rose over (Istawâ) towards the heaven when it was smoke, and said to it and to the earth: "Come both of you willingly or unwillingly." They both said: "We come willingly." [41:11]

and we scientifically know that smoke is a mixture of gases and suspended particles.

The point is, is that if the theory is indeed true then the existence of those things which contributed to the big bang was not only the cause o the big bang, but as wel can be studied in some light. This means that information can and may be still atainable and not that there is an information cusp. And quite frankly this is contrary to the very spirit of science, which you have tried to profess in the above remarks but then hypocritically have denied it. I therefore, am being empirical that I do not believe that information can stop there. and I believe some one in the science community may share my view. As you said, nothing is established in science, it can continually be questioned, or is it that this rule only applies to certain things and not for others.
Still I would assert “Big Bang” should not be taken as Gospel and if there can be better explanations for the commencement of this universe or universes, there are doors left wide opened for skeptics to explore. It is the luxury of science which theists (as I said earlier, I would single out Muslims here too) can not enjoy at all. Muslims have stuck with one and only theory of Allah, a personal invisible god causing all these, let it be in the form of “Big Bang” or not.
Thats quite strange considering that the luxury by the scientist was brought about through their theism.
Is it possible to progress through this route? I would say NOT at all. If one tries to fill all the gaps with god or gods that means he is effectively limiting his logical thinking and reasoning abilities.
Says who and under what logic does this take effect? And in all honesty, history bears witness against you. The fact that most breakthroughs took place in the hands of theists to the exclusion of atheists is enough of a burhan against your sophistry.
If answer is provided and one is forced to believe in the unquestionable authenticity of the answer, seldom he is going to dig any further than regressing to an illusionary sense of self satisfaction. But a scientific mind can not have this satisfaction at any level. It can be the curse and strength of science.
Thus you have just agreed with me and must now concede to the entirety of my argument and become welcomed back into the spirit of science as exemplified by Einstein.
It can be a curse when the mind has no business delving into matters that will not benefit him nor anyone else, and it is a curse for someone to believe that there is no bounds the human mind which is based on al-aql. As i have clarifiedin the link posted above earlier in this reply of mind, the aql is a faculty among the rest of the faculties or senses that we were blessed to have like hearing, seeing, smell, taste, and feeling. Likewise intellect, is a faculty which has its limit. The extremist is one who goes beyond the limit.

It is a curse if it is opposed the sunnah of Allah and it is a strength when it is utilized in the path of the sunnah of Allah. That is why the history of mankind, in the field of science, has given strength to those who were theists, and cursed and weakened the views of the atheists. And thus fundamentally goes back to issue of why were "some" of our scientist criticized? That is that they were criticized based on their empirical thinkng of God, and not on the application of empirical study into the creational aspects of creation. Thus your entire argument to try and prov that there must be a deviation from the "orthodox understanding of God" in order to advancements to be made is nothing more than a delusionistic attempt to bring about a reality that has never existed and will never exist.
No scientist halts at a certain finding even after the wide acceptance of that finding but he would stretch beyond it again and again to embark more plausible explanations or better findings than he made (if possible). But for a Muslim, the gap is already filled with god and there is no need to worry and elongate at all. If answer is found and if it is instilled in as the only answer, who is going to venture for more?
Muslims, because the command of Allah to "venture for more" is our scientist behaved as their methodology in history, whether sunni or mutazili. The problem with the mutazili aspect was in its empiricy in things that cannot fall into the realm of empiricy because Allah is not "observed"
"No vision can grasp Him be He grasp all vision"
Here rests the problem with Islam. An ideology which offers answers with an affirmation “this is the only answer” can not help free thought. And in the absence of free thought, we see how progress is effectively and very unfortunately being halted.
thats because your conecpt of free thought is convoluted. Again, like progress, you incorperate things that does not fall into the realm of free thought and then attribute them to free thought. The problem with the proponents of "free thought" is their informal legalization of expressing oneself in matters that is of absolutely no benfit and at times can actually cause harm. One of the proponents to free thought told me one time that "if I can come to criticize and defile Muhammad, then that is because free thoguht allowed that". At the same time, in the name of free thought, what people who espouse this extremist form of practice incorperate all types of vices and negatives into this which is contrary to the second golden rule that Ali Sina has never addressed which is "if you do not have anything good to say, then say nothing at all". So yeah, I can call you a bigot, dumb ass, idiot, etc. But what good will this do me in the name of free thought. If a belief constrains me from saying negatives like this, I do not call this belief an "impediment to free thought" rather I call it an "encouragement to righteous actions and statements"

but lo, the shaytan makes evil fair seeming to some.
In fact, I am bit puzzled here. What evolution are you talking about? How does Quran corroborate to the theory of evolution?

A text which talks of Adam and Eve meets together to create the mankind can never be in sync with theory of evolution. Let me tell you if none has told you otherwise; “Adam and Eve are never met”. There is no evidence for human beings originating from two common ancestors. If you mean some sort of evolution (or convolution?) that you may extract from your book by reinterpreting it conveniently, come up with your theory and let us examine how it would go hand in hand with the theory of evolution we know of.
your talking about the strangely formulated ideas of evolution, whereas Im talking about the specific details of a certain creation. for example, when scientist assert that at one time the appendix was a usefall organ in our body because we use to eat raw meat, and by which this organ did some kind of purification process so that the bodies would not get sick, and linking this theory with the fact that this was part of the reason why we have wisdom teeth, but that now thesetwo comonents in are body are irrelevant now, then this is a theory that is acceptable in Islam. But when other scientist claim that we come from monkeys is something that is of course not acceptable in Islam, but at the same time, it remains a theory. There is no scientific fact that we cam from monkeys. This is what I mean about evolution, in that yes, the creation was given the ability to adapt and therefore evolve from one state to the other, but to link absurd opinions in contradistinction to the reality laid down by religious revelation is what is not acceptable, in islam, and quite frankly in any other religion.
Well, if the majority is in your favour, enjoy the luxury but I am least concerned of it. If there is one man on the other side who will refute you or will confute with your claims using another version of Islam; that would be sufficient for me to argue for him too. Meanwhile, you claim to be having majority of scholars in your side, but there is another side which claims majority is with them. It is all a mess as far as I understand. Which is which? You guys sort it out.

However, the question what makes you an authority to talk on behalf of Islam is also pertinent to some extent. If you think you can be an authority, do not forget the other side too can use the same logic to question your authority and state their version is true and yours is deviated. Still, I am least concerned of it as I said above.
yeah whatever.

The truth is clear, its night is like its day, no one deviates from it except that they are destroyed"

the ummah is of the opinion that the madhaab of the salaf is the only acceptable interpretation of Islam, and the madhaab of any other way (in doctrine, not in fiqh) is a way that is deviated fro mthe path of Islam.

I will have to address the rest of you rhetoric another time.
al-boriqee
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:28 am

Re: Islamic Heresiology: Discussion between Me and Haik Monseiur

Post by al-boriqee »

It is not from such a gist, in fact Imam Suyuti is talking of Quran being lost. And where is your evidence for “Ayat Rajam” (verses of stoning) is abrogated? Even if I concur to you the verse is abrogated; what makes it disappeared from current Quran? There are abrogating (Nasikh) and abrogated (mansookh) verses in Quran. All are preserved but not the verse of stoning? Why? Isn’t this indicative of the impurity of your text in which at least a verse (according to the authentic sources) is lost?

Muhammad carried out the stoning punishment in his times. He commanded to stone some people too. All these times was he; the prophet of god acting against his god’s diktats? Muhammad did not utter a word against stoning. Can you prove it otherwise? Can you show me a single Sahih Hadith to state Muhammad abrogating the punishment of stoning?
here is a much more contemplative and academic study on the issue of naasikh wa mansookh in contrast of the neo experts of Islam who does not even know a single dropling of arabic.

http://islamthought.wordpress.com/shari ... on-part-1/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

there is a lot more on this topic but I would have to transcribe it which is time consuming for my schedule.

in essence, the issue regarding the ayatul-rajm is that there are three types of naskh

Naskh al Hukm means that ruling has been abrogated but the text remains.
Naskh al Qiraah means that the text has been abolished but the ruling remains.
Naskh al Hukm wal Tilwah, both the text and rulings are treated as abrogated.

therefore, the issue of rajm, it is a naskh of qirah, its recitation is aborgated and hence it is not in the Qur'an, WHILE THE RULING REMAINS IN EFFECT. Thus your supposed impurity of the texts goes out the window.
Have a close look at my post on that bolded, highlighted words; I said Ibn Sina likes. And I am still with that statement. Ibn Sina is the most prominent figure Muslims love to be proud of. What makes you claim he is a nothing or negligible figure compared to other great Islamic scientists? Can you show me one? I asked you earlier too. Can you show me a single figure who will have a remote chance to beat Ibn Sina in ingeniousness? Do not come up with Al-Farabi, Al-Razi, Ibn Rushd likes. Someone who was strictly in line of Islamic orthodoxy should stand up here to beat Ibn Sina. This is a challenge.
Listen bro. let me be frank with you. I could care less about the challenge. The point and essene of our discussion is that "Does there need to be a deviation in the creedal aspects of God in order for advancement to take effect in the sciences or not?"

your view is that this is a requisite.

Our view is that this is not only is your view baseless, it is a view that no one in history ever opined to and a view by which the arguments laid therein are weak and decapitated under the awkward views of the proponents understanding of "Islam is as it is found with its founder" since everything you brought up with what is assumed to be with the founder is actually not with the founder, and therefore not Islamic.

So in all honesty, it does not matter whether I accept the challenge and prove it or concede to your view. Infact, to grant you the satisfaction therefore, I will say that no one has touched Ibn Sina. But so what. He was condmened as a kaafir vfor his views of Allah, not for his achievements and your attempt to intertwine the concept that a doctrinal view of God must deviate from Islamic or any other divine teaching in order for progress to be visible in the field of sciences is not only astounding and absurd, the arguments put forth is not supported by any relevant information other than the coincidence that Ibn Sina was "better" than the rest and was "deviant" which is nothing less than a Non Sequitur fallacy.

Ibn Sina was the biggest deviant and he was the best Scientist, therefore deviation must occur.

please, bring forth coherent logical arguments for this claim, and not this fallacy
Here lies my point too. First of all, according to your version, failure to observe the creation guarantees “Kufr” = “Blasphemy” to the failed person. He is rejected by Allah; but why this strictness? What about looking at the reasons "why the person failed" before smiting his neck with Kufr? There is a price to pay for knowledge and don't you think it would be better to assess the person at first before rejecting him? What is the hindrance for it?
Okay allow me to clarify myself as I aknowledge I have erred in presenting my argument. When kufr is mentioned by the ulema, it is brought forth under two guises, and it is brought forth as well in the Qur'an and sunnah

Takfir bi wasf
takfir al-ayn

When I said my statement, I was merely relaying the hukm in its wasf form, and not the ayn form. In otehr words I was trying to convey that a person who does this is a kaafir, but If I found someone to have done this, I would not say they are a kaafir nor will I condmen him, but merely be forbearing and establish the proof because in order for a hukm to change in its wasf form and into its ayn form, iqaamatil-hujjah must be established.

So yes, I agree a person's state is "assessed" first before judgment is actually made, nd for that Im sorry if I gave an improper reality.
You did not bring any ultimate fact that is fact enough. It was an awkward statement, so my theory would stand. Please come up with novel abstractions so that the debate will turn into an interesting feast for readers here.
I would, but part of the principles of debate is that the burden of proof is upon the claiment. I did not claim anything about the essence of this thread. You are the one claiming that "deviation of Islamic tenets must be made in order for scientific advancements to occur". I did not make this claim, you did, therefore, you are the one that has to substantially provide any rudimentary groundwork for this accusation that in actuality has never been made before. All I am here to do is point out the implications and false information in your arguments because I never made the claim to begin with.
Next, the very basic, all observations should end up in one already given point is not going to help observation. You see a monitor in front of you, but I see possibilities in it. How do I see possibilities? Because I think I will observe more. But what if someone is there behind me with a hammer in his hands insisting to do the observation but to reach to the fact of the hammer in his hands? Do you think I am going to observe more? Simply; to save my head from the hammer, I will pretend to be doing something and very awkwardly, I will point to the hammer as the fruit of my observation. I know I am at fault, but there is no chance for me to correct it.
that is your perception of empiricy in Islam, but that is not the perception of those who actually took its methodology while remaining sunni. And quite frankly, your personal viewpoint does not count as an established fact, please argue under a substantial and logical basis.

I'll haveto address the rest later
User avatar
KhaliL
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:12 am

Re: Islamic Heresiology: Discussion between Me and Haik Monseiur

Post by KhaliL »

______________________

Hi Al-Boriqee,


Don’t know whether you did finish or not, but I hate this debate. My mistake, I should have ignored you the moment you demonstrated your shallowness saying a seventh century hellhole is a dreamland for all over the world.

You seem to be more interested in bringing forth your Salafi version of Islam to get it attested, but, I am not going to burn my fuel over it. A dialog on “whether Islam and modern science is compatible or not” It is the topic of my interest. As long as you stick with this, I will comply or else, I beg your pardon for ignoring you.

To learn of the divergent factions of Islam and of the existing disparities between each and each, I am afraid my lifetime won’t be enough because you guys could not yet sort out which is which. You may believe whatever you want to believe but it is an issue of high importance only if you contest with your co-religionists who will perhaps be disagreeing with you. To save my time, I will simply glue with the definition I already gave you and that will be pulling the plug.

Moving to the relevant part in your postings, I see you are bringing up covering of woman and trying to attack a straw man asking me how it is going to be a hindrance for scientific progress. Excuse me; I am not obliged to answer something you pulled out of thin air. I never made an accusation progress relies on how women dress up. Did I?

You are getting extremely hasty and emotional in your response, but that is not the way of proffering. I see a lot of typos, grammatical errors in your posts which are reflective of your jitteriness. Sorry… man. I can not consider emotional outbursts as arguments. What you wrote about ALL revolutionist scientists believing in Allah is the joke of this year. Who are these revolutionist scientists quaked the world with their remarkable findings tagged to Allah? You mean there are many in Saudi Arabia? Could it be the reason Saudi is considered to be the most scientifically advanced nation of this world?

No good scientist can be a religionist in the sense you want them to be. None can. Because as I said earlier, religious tenacity and scientific advancement; both will not go hand in hand. A Scientist can claim to be a theologist but that claim alone is not sufficient to surmise he is a theologist of the orthodox kind. You made this blunder when assessing on Einstein’s god too. Do you know of Einstein’s god? He was not the conventional Jewish Yahweh.

To know of Einstein’s god and his religious self, just go through his quotes below:

Although I am a typical loner in daily life, my consciousness of belonging to the invisible community of those who strive for truth, beauty, and justice has preserved me from feeling isolated. The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavours in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that is there.[Einstein/ Denis Brian. Einstein, a Life, New York, 1996 p. 234]

Then you made a bald assertion (stupid to the most) stating those who tried to cross the limit entered into insanity. Well dear Muslim, I would advise you to be careful; a bit more judicious while discharging such statements. Abnormality is not a trifling issue and I don’t think you are versed to define it like having a go at it. Change this attitude at first. You have to be broad and sincere otherwise, it is going to end up in real chaos. For example, I can rightfully argue Muhammad was totally insane. What would you call a man who is sexually aroused by a nine year old girl? What would you call a man who says raising voice in his presence will annul all past and present good deeds of his followers? What would you call a man who says, he has gone to a farthest mosque which was not in existence, then from there to heavens to meet the denizens of paradise and hell and returned to earth safely by next morning? What sucking sanity you sense in this man or do you delude believing in such fairytales makes you Muslims perfectly sane individuals?

I know of the superiority complex of Muslims especially of those who are revolving around that seventh century hellhole. But please don’t try to trade them here. If you are happy in the contention only those who are adhered to a seventh century cult are perfectly normal, I can not deny you this privilege. But trying to sell them to a world which is much larger than a sordid land..!! Sorry it is a pathetic attempt. What makes you delusional to this extent?
al-boriqee wrote: secondly, allahul-alim is used in reference to things that are not known until they are made known. The fact that the employment of "Allahu-Alim" does not negate the command of Allah to seek the ilm and contemplate "its nature" (this is empiracy here).


Not clear what you meant above. If there is something beyond the spectra of your comprehension, simply skirting it stating “Allah knows best” is an illegitimate excuse. If you have such an escape route to evade daunting questions, nothing is going to be made known. It will always remain with your Allah. Don’t you sense this obvious (hurdle)? If not, will you care to explain?
al-boriqee wrote: Your portrayal of the revolutionist is quite narrow for even they aknowledge that the topic of God cannot be "defined" and that the only true definitive knowledge of Him can only be found in scriptural sources.
Yet many like Spinoza could get hold of the idea of god without the help of scriptures. Again, who are these revolutionists you speak of?
al-boriqee wrote: Yet, with their aknowledgement of a limit where the mind cannot go beyon, they were still among those who took the world into advancement because the very things that were in fact advancements were things that has no connection either explicitly or implicitly into the nature of God.
Hey….you are talking of a god that is not the same as the one you believe. Remember, our subject or the topic I am interested to debate is “Islam’s compatibility with modern science”. If you talk of any conception of god outside the spectra of Islam, I would be harsh to treat it as a red herring. Be with the topic.
al-boriqee wrote: firstly, A Muslim who says "Allah knows best" implies by default that "he does not know"
It is not that simple. “Allah knows best” is an excuse not a trigger.
al-boriqee wrote: Secondly, Maalik said 'stating that you do not know is half of knowledge".
I am not very concerned of the common “I do not know” because it does not close the doors as “Allah knows best” excuse.
al-boriqee wrote:thirdly, just because you point out the fact that "We do not know" does not negate that "Allah knows best."
The case is not about whether “Allah knows or not”. It is about “leaving it” to Allah.
al-boriqee wrote: fourthly, what type of question is being asked. Are you askin something that is an impossibility of the mind, or something that bewilders the mind. What is the subject of your question? Please explain your "questioning"
Try this then: "Is it good because of god or is it good because of it is good?"
al-boriqee wrote:
KhaliL FarieL wrote: Next, science is based on definite knowledge,
wrong, science is based on a collection or conglomeration of information on a given subject and then tested to see if it is proven or not or only theoretical. In other words it is based on the removal of possibilities so that impossibilities remain. The reason why we know that the earth has a atmosphere after its study is because all posibilities of opposing information are proven irrelevant and thus rooted out and only impossibilities remain. This is the basis for the scientific outlook which I beleive you have highlighted that "nothing is absolute in science"
In other words things that are absolute can be challenged. Thus your attempt to try to make science as definite knowledge is an utter logical fallacy based on the premise of the sceintific view of no absolutes.
You could have saved this sheer verbalism. Obvious, you have no clue in epistemology at all.

Definite knowledge is most demanding and you burnt your fuel for nothing without getting hold of it. If nothing is ever taken as truth until it is empirically verified, that can add to definite knowledge. Truth, however compelling it appears to be is scrutinized and substantiated by the facts plus evidences surrounding to it. There is no a priori truth in definite knowledge. Why did you overlook this?

Now, it depends on the depth of your comprehension whether you grasp the basic contrast between definite and indefinite knowledge. Moreover, the definition itself answers Islam is strictly based on indefinite knowledge. Should I explain it more?
al-boriqee wrote: Islam is. But it is called faith, and Im sure you know the linguistic meaning of faith.
Nonsense; faith can never be verified by empirical means. Yet you say Islam is established on definite knowledge..?!
al-boriqee wrote: This faith, is however supported by certain fundamental facts that go in successtion.
It would be helpful if you define “fundamental facts” or just tell us what amounts to “fact”. How would you differentiate between fact and illusion?
al-boriqee wrote: The first fundamental fact is Allah's existence.
Allah or any kind of god (if you mean it) is yet to be verified. What makes you vocal on Allah being a fundamental fact while his existence has yet to be verified?
al-boriqee wrote: What atheist will never be able to answer scientifically is the challenge Allah gave to them when He said

أَمْ خُلِقُوا مِنْ غَيْرِ شَيْءٍ أَمْ هُمُ الْخَالِقُونَ

Were they created by nothing, or were they themselves the creators?
( سورة الطور , At-tur, Chapter #52, Verse #35)
Your way of erroneous reasoning is suffocating to the most. How does this question stand when the questioner’s existence has NOT been verified yet?
al-boriqee wrote: And hence the relatively few solidified facts like these strengthen the reality of faith. If faith is totally proven through materialistic proofs, then the concept of faith is thus nullified and there would not have been no reason for sending of prophets for guidance, or anything that they all fundamentally came to reassert to their own people.
Can you sense the obvious irony in the above paragraph?

If there are solidified facts (I haven’t yet come across of this term so far, but I think you mean verified facts) paving the way to faith that means faith is proven by empirical means. Yet you contradict above stating there was reason for sending prophets.

Look my dear contester; I don’t think you have elements with you to engage in a philosophical debate on the existence of god or matters pertaining to the notion of "verifiable". You may better do without them for time being.
al-boriqee wrote:
Islam is based on indefinite knowledge which does not require much or any endeavor at all. Examples for indefinite knowledge is the knowledge one acquires through his parents (this can be considered innate knowledge in certain cases, though John Locke’s blank mind theory does not corroborate to innate aspects of knowledge. I never concurred to John Locke in this department but Berkeley’s empiricism is more acceptable for me) However, a Muslim has certain indefinite knowledge and he is bound by it. He is not supposed to question the creator of this universe as he finds in the holy text of Islam.
Of course, but what He is required to do is to question everything else outside of the creator.
If there is something you should render it to creator, then my point is valid. Reason: “creator” is not verifiable. Is he?
al-boriqee wrote: That is because scientific views related to the unseen can never be promoted to scientific facts. They will always remain "theories" and thus possible or not.
That is what science is about. It never assimilates before verification. But your point..?
al-boriqee wrote: However, what was stated about the unseen by sources of the unseen is far more reliable in the field of acceptability than those who have no knowledge of the unseen particularly if the source of this khabr remains constant and uncontradictory as is found with the qur'an and the broad outlines of theology found in the previous islamic revelations given to Moses and Jesus and the other prophets.
It is what theology is all about. But unfortunately, nothing of the above is proven. Guilty (doubtful) until proven otherwise;
al-boriqee wrote: Why do you feel it necessary for them to be answered. Do you actually believe that answers that fundamentally have no benefit in the overall betterment of your life will actually be of any value. Do you aknowledge that the human mind is limited or unlimited?
I didn’t state it is essential to find answers to all. I am against lending unanswered questions to god. If my understanding is limited, that doesn’t justify rendering the rest to something that has not been verified.
al-boriqee wrote:
Science is subjected to evolve and there is no clear-cut “believe it or else” theory in it.
hence you contradict your initial claim of stating
science is based on definite knowledge
Scroll up. You grievously mistook definite and indefinite knowledge.
al-boriqee wrote: because you cannot logically claim that science is definite knowledge and then turn around and proclaim it to be subject to evolve and therefore change its initial definiteness because in reality, if a scientific proof has been circumvented by further analysis, then the initial judgement before the new information was brought out to light was itself indefinite to begin with. This is one of the fundamental logical fallacies of a segment of the scientific community who become strong propagandist for the athiest perspective.
Again, scroll up. What a waste of time…!!!
al-boriqee wrote:thus now I hope you can see the ridiculousness and contradiction of this
It is your invented contradiction just because you never attended a philosophy lesson. Can I chop off the rest (unwanted) now?
al-boriqee wrote:Yes, because if a Muslim were in the same predicament and in unison with sunni orthodox belief, His question would have been "Why did Allah allow for the apple to fall down instead of up". Thus the difference is merely symantical whereas the empirical thinking remains.
It is not easy to simplify by stating difference lies on Semantic only. Can you sense the obvious answer in the question “why did Allah allow apple to fall down instead of up?”

Answer is there; Allah allowed apple to fall down. There is nothing for a Sunni orthodox Muslim (as you want it to be) left to question about then. Question contains the answer too. “Allah allowed”. Did you get it?
al-boriqee wrote: This is why I continually state that empiracy, in the fields of anything unrelated to the essence of God, has nothing to do with deviating from Islam. It is when empirical thinking performs on the nature of God where it is problematic for Muslims, and for most of the scientific revolutionists before the age of atheist concepts comes into effect.
No idea what the above paragraph is all about. All I get is you believe the concept of atheism is relatively new. So what? What does it have to do with the force and legitimacy of atheism? What makes you delude maturity has a lot to do with the validity of a conception? Many matured concepts are proven outright wrong thus rests in peace in the necropolis of history without having any influence in the worldly affairs now. Gods are not exception to this. Did you forget the fact we are missing a lot of gods that once were very dominant?
al-boriqee wrote: thats quite ironic considering Einstien's views of God.
He viewed God as a "cosmic religious feeling" that enables scientists to advance human knowledge. One of Einstein's most famous quote on the subject of science and religion is:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
I answered this in the opening of this post. Should I repeat again?

Einstein is not the best authority to attest to the existence of god. Besides, his fused conception of god differs a lot to conventional gods.
al-boriqee wrote:Islam as it is found with its founder, is the latter. Science as is found with you, is the former.
You mean Islam found with its founder is “blind because it is without science”?
If not, you have to rephrase it more explanatorily.
al-boriqee wrote:Im glad you pointed this out because this shows the "errancy" of your view on Islam is as it is found with its founder.

1. Whether the muslim is pulled back from expanding or evolving the argument is only because of the logical concept that there is no benefit in that which is known to be futile. the Belief of atheism is inherently futile, whcih is why it is rooted out from actual scientific progress which is why most of the advancements of mankind happened on the basis of the person who was advancing us was of a theistically inclined view. I cannot think of a bonifide atheists advancement brought forth by an atheist other than Darwin, whose atheistic origin is itself doubful.
Existence of god is not proven because some or more scientists believe or believed in it. Likewise, scientific progress is not rooted in theism just because some or more scientists claimed to be theists.

I repeat my previous statement again: “Any scientist can claim to be a theist”. That does not amount to the fact scientific advancement is rooted on theism.
al-boriqee wrote:2. The kalam cosmological argument is weak concerning the argument for God. It has its ups, but it is okay. Muslims do not usurp al-Ghazali's theological argument for God as their criterion for their defense of God. The best statement and challange produced is by Allah Himself in one single phrase

أَمْ خُلِقُوا مِنْ غَيْرِ شَيْءٍ أَمْ هُمُ الْخَالِقُونَ

were they created by nothing, or were they themselves the creators?

This phrase is a theological bodyslam against the essence of atheism.
[/quote]

Nonsense;
What difference do you sense here? You brought an argument essentially similar to Kalam Cosmological argument.

If you could not get it, both arguments stress on the first cause. The first premise of Kalam cosmological argument is begging the question since it states “everything that began to exist has a cause”. The premise has obvious flaws. If to accord to Kalam argument, the first premise should have to be rewritten as “everything that began to exist EXCEPT GOD has a cause”. It is very much begging the question.

And the argument you prop up too begging the question. It primarily stresses on nothing begins to exist without a cause. Much harmonious with Ghazzali thus necessarily has the same flaws of earlier. If everything began to exist should have a cause, the first cause (god) can not be exempted from this requirement. Then it leads to circular reasoning which is logically fallacious hence can not amount to a legitimate argument.

I will stop here. There is something more in your post to deal with. I have to do it in another post since this has exceeded the limit.

But let me say, I am very reluctant to spend my time on this. I really mean it. Sorry.
>>>>
User avatar
KhaliL
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:12 am

Re: Islamic Heresiology: Discussion between Me and Haik Monseiur

Post by KhaliL »

[Continuing from above]
al-boriqee wrote: 3. your insinuation of 'whatever began to exist has a cause" as "may be questionable or may not be" is a scientific fallacy. We do not operate our lives on the assumption that something that was done does not have a cause. If I placed my gatorade in the fridge and then come home to find it in my room, I know that there was a cause, something had the ability to move it from one place to the other. I do not conclude that it moved itself on its own. And this is the essence of Allahs statement above. Your atheistic view is inherently illogical by this very fact that you have tried to circumvent with the phrase "may be questionable or may not be" Becuase you afirm this concept in everything that exists except for th advent of the universe. We ask, what is the contributing factor that nullifies or excludes the universe from being incorperated along with evrtyhing else in the case and effect process.
There is no scientific fallacy involved in here asking for the cause of the first cause since the first cause has not been confirmed yet. If you find something from freezer is misplaced in your room; that leads you to think of its cause. If you find a cause behind it, you can move on to find the cause of that cause. We call infinite regression. Only if you can prove me infinite regression is not possible, you will make case through this. Otherwise; you have to concede to the infinite regression. And if you did not know of it yet, infinite regression does not lead you to god at all.
al-boriqee wrote: 4. Now I will address the last few sentences in this quote of yours. The fact that the universe has a cause can only lead to God, no matter how many entities in the chain. If it happened through a big bang, something cause that big bang to occur. If it was the gases and whatever else that caused the big bang, something cause for that gas to formulate and begin to exist. we can keep on going further up the chain of trnasmission until we can only come to the conclusion that a Creator deity was the cause of this.
Well, I would call this hasty conclusion. You did not provide any reason to put a full stop in god.
You may regress and regress but what makes you surmise there is an extreme end? Ever thought of infinite regression?
al-boriqee wrote: Secondly, the big bang is not something that is impossible nor is it a theory that is condemned. The only fraction of this theory that is condemned is due to the conclusions of the atheists who assume that based on this theory, it is the big bang that created us and not God, which is essentially absurd because a big bag does not have the physical properties to create anything.
Nonsense;
Big Bang is the cause of this universe. It is not an entity like your personal god who stays up in heavens. It is the cosmic explosion that eventuated in the formation of this universe. If it caused the universe, and if you accept the theory, what makes you stupid to say it didn’t cause anything? This universe was caused by it. What more do you want out of it?
al-boriqee wrote: Rather there is a Quranic text which alludes to the bi bang theory. HOW. Because the eseence of the big bang theory is that because of this initial explosion the universe began and has ever since been conintually expanding which would explained why they found the galaxies to drift farther apart. There is a text in the Quran that points to this cosmic phenomenon
I beg your pardon. For the time being, we may put aside this absurdity of Quran alluding to Big Bang.

(If you are dying to argue your Quran refers to Big Bang, we may debate on this but not now. But I can’t help saying your performance so far has been poor to the extreme. I am not interested to debate you for the same obvious reason. )

So, pardon me again, I chop off the part in your post that pertaining Quran and Big Bang. Let me see what else remains then.
al-boriqee wrote: 5. Lastly, your argument which is exemplified by your statement "It is not possible to ask the question what was there before Big bang” or what caused Big Bang for the reason, there is an information cusp. All information began to flow from the point of Big Bang."
is a logical fallacy. All it means is that information can not be ascertained before the advent of the universe. Indeed if the big bang is true, which the ayaah above alludes to, then certainly, it was the cause of gases and smoke which was the opinion of the big bang theorists which was exemplified by the Qur'an in the ayaah
You do not have a remote understanding of what it means information cusp. There is no “before” the Big Bang for the same reason time and space commenced from the point of Big Bang. Stop this nonsense please.
al-boriqee wrote: Then He rose over (Istawâ) towards the heaven when it was smoke, and said to it and to the earth: "Come both of you willingly or unwillingly." They both said: "We come willingly." [41:11]

and we scientifically know that smoke is a mixture of gases and suspended particles.
And you believe this is big bang….??? Wow…what a finding..!!!

Again I have to chop off a good part of your post because you are doling out your ignorance of Big Bang and information cusp. Let me see what remains then:
al-boriqee wrote: Says who and under what logic does this take effect? And in all honesty, history bears witness against you. The fact that most breakthroughs took place in the hands of theists to the exclusion of atheists is enough of a burhan against your sophistry.
No big deal. This is an argument you wish to bring forth persistently. Remember what I said: Any scientist can claim to be a theist. This is the projecting appeal to history fallacy. Just because something has been the case to date, doesn’t mean that it is the case.
But I think you forgot of the great scientists who had to struggle against Muslim orthodoxy. Ibn Sina is still well behind you.
al-boriqee wrote: Thus you have just agreed with me and must now concede to the entirety of my argument and become welcomed back into the spirit of science as exemplified by Einstein.
It seems that your whole points revolving around a quote of Einstein. BTW, I have explained of the so-called god of Einstein. He was dead focused on the existence of objective moral values. He tried to base it on faith, when in fact objective moral values have to be redefined in a more appropriate sense. Einstein’s’ is just an assertion among the many of such assertions. I dare to say this line of argument is the fallacy of appealing to misleading authority.

You have yet to make a case without subscribing to fallacies. Sad, you don’t seem to be capable of it either.
al-boriqee wrote: It can be a curse when the mind has no business delving into matters that will not benefit him nor anyone else, and it is a curse for someone to believe that there is no bounds the human mind which is based on al-aql. As i have clarifiedin the link posted above earlier in this reply of mind, the aql is a faculty among the rest of the faculties or senses that we were blessed to have like hearing, seeing, smell, taste, and feeling. Likewise intellect, is a faculty which has its limit. The extremist is one who goes beyond the limit.
I used the word “curse” very loosely but I see you are dead on it. Sorry, it is not meant for you to hang on.

Thought processes are often well beyond one’s control. For the very reason, your misleading assertion is not going to stand. If you let your thought processes to float freely, it will delve in many things that would seem to be unnecessary for you. But it is the exact default position. You can’t help it.

How are you going to assess the limit of intellectual faculty? For the best you can deduce, your intellectual sphere has a certain limit.
You are talking of subjective reality, forgetting the fact you can not make a general conclusive statement on it.
al-boriqee wrote: It is a curse if it is opposed the sunnah of Allah and it is a strength when it is utilized in the path of the sunnah of Allah.
I know this is your theological stance. But how are you going to prove it?
al-boriqee wrote: That is why the history of mankind, in the field of science, has given strength to those who were theists, and cursed and weakened the views of the atheists.
Too shallow a statement; the fact you want to realize is even if I accede to your convoluted theory of ‘majority of scientists being theists’ that does not connect to truth. There is not even a remote possibility of something being true just because it is generally approved.
al-boriqee wrote: And thus fundamentally goes back to issue of why were "some" of our scientist criticized? That is that they were criticized based on their empirical thinkng of God, and not on the application of empirical study into the creational aspects of creation. Thus your entire argument to try and prov that there must be a deviation from the "orthodox understanding of God" in order to advancements to be made is nothing more than a delusionistic attempt to bring about a reality that has never existed and will never exist.
Hasty conclusions do not help your stance on any matter. I answered already, why it is faulty to appeal to history.
And I was not attacking “orthodox understanding of god’. It was Islamic conception of god that I mentioned as hurdle to scientific thought and advancement. Stop attacking straw man.
al-boriqee wrote: Muslims, because the command of Allah to "venture for more" is our scientist behaved as their methodology in history, whether sunni or mutazili.
Hardly refutes my contention “if there is an already cooked up answer, none is going to venture for more." You are appealing to the “command of Allah” conveniently forgetting the fact, all answers are already given and established by this same Allah. Who on earth is going to endeavour in such a framework? Can you explain how it is possible to stretch to regress?
al-boriqee wrote: The problem with the mutazili aspect was in its empiricy in things that cannot fall into the realm of empiricy because Allah is not "observed"
"No vision can grasp Him be He grasp all vision"
That is your problem and NOT the real problem with Mutazilism. Mutazilites brought about scientific progress to some extent because they ventured to deviate from Islamic orthodoxy. I think you almost arrived at the point I spotted already.
al-boriqee wrote:
Here rests the problem with Islam. An ideology which offers answers with an affirmation “this is the only answer” can not help free thought. And in the absence of free thought, we see how progress is effectively and very unfortunately being halted.
thats because your conecpt of free thought is convoluted. Again, like progress, you incorperate things that does not fall into the realm of free thought and then attribute them to free thought. The problem with the proponents of "free thought" is their informal legalization of expressing oneself in matters that is of absolutely no benfit and at times can actually cause harm. One of the proponents to free thought told me one time that "if I can come to criticize and defile Muhammad, then that is because free thoguht allowed that". At the same time, in the name of free thought, what people who espouse this extremist form of practice incorperate all types of vices and negatives into this which is contrary to the second golden rule that Ali Sina has never addressed which is "if you do not have anything good to say, then say nothing at all". So yeah, I can call you a bigot, dumb ass, idiot, etc. But what good will this do me in the name of free thought. If a belief constrains me from saying negatives like this, I do not call this belief an "impediment to free thought" rather I call it an "encouragement to righteous actions and statements"

but lo, the shaytan makes evil fair seeming to some.
Huh…You are defiling the concept of free thought even without having a proper understanding of it. Is it because that affects your beliefs..? Having your cake and eating it? You can not advocate free thought if you want to whine when it catches you up.
al-boriqee wrote: your talking about the strangely formulated ideas of evolution, whereas Im talking about the specific details of a certain creation. for example, when scientist assert that at one time the appendix was a usefall organ in our body because we use to eat raw meat, and by which this organ did some kind of purification process so that the bodies would not get sick, and linking this theory with the fact that this was part of the reason why we have wisdom teeth, but that now thesetwo comonents in are body are irrelevant now, then this is a theory that is acceptable in Islam. But when other scientist claim that we come from monkeys is something that is of course not acceptable in Islam, but at the same time, it remains a theory. There is no scientific fact that we cam from monkeys. This is what I mean about evolution, in that yes, the creation was given the ability to adapt and therefore evolve from one state to the other, but to link absurd opinions in contradistinction to the reality laid down by religious revelation is what is not acceptable, in islam, and quite frankly in any other religion.
Stupidity at its best and perfect form; what does the above have to do with the veracity of theory of evolution or the question I asked how does theory of evolution and Islamic conception of creation go hand in hand?
al-boriqee wrote: The truth is clear, its night is like its day, no one deviates from it except that they are destroyed"
Not interested in this sermon. Anything else?
al-boriqee wrote: the ummah is of the opinion that the madhaab of the salaf is the only acceptable interpretation of Islam, and the madhaab of any other way (in doctrine, not in fiqh) is a way that is deviated fro mthe path of Islam.
I know it is your Salafi position. Applicable only when you have the right person at the other end. I said it already.
Btw, I have to stop here and let me tell you, my participation in this thread largely depends on the quality of your response. If you come up again with a low quality product like this, consider this as my last post.

KhaliL
Post Reply