> Question Freedom of Thought and Action - A God Given Right?

[SilverLJ]

I have started this thread on the advice of Salman as it was felt that a similar one under Islamic thought and Western thought was not quite the right place for some thoughts expressed there. I will begin by asking is there a 'right' way to think given that philosophically our thinking is based broadly on rationality or observations from which we might draw inferences. Now of course to do anything we have to have a methodology and we may or may not be aware of what that methodology is but its likely to be there all the same.

If I might begin with an example from Dr Azami's book on the Qur'anic text (ISBN 978 1872 531 656) although this quote is not directly about that. So on page 44 Azami says:

The Creator purged his messengers, paragons of virtue and piety without exception, from all evil. They were model examples of human behaviour, and instructed their respective communities to follow their lead in the worship of Allah. Their core message through history was ageless.

Now, I assume he is speaking about all the prophets not just the later Islamic ones. Now this to me poses a problem to the thinking mind because Azami make it clear that a Muslim MUST accept this unquestionably but how can a rational mind accept this as a premise because its is by observation of 'all' men false - no one with perhaps the exception of Jesus has been free from evil.

So here we are it seem to me forced to accept a premises and all that might follow from it with no more that a statement that it is true. So this to me is irrational and so I cannot see how I can exercise freedom of thought if I were a Muslim.

[al-boriqee]

I know exactly what your trying to say

give me somE time to be able to reply on an actual laptop because I will not be able to articulate how I would like on my iPhone

[al-boriqee]

I will divide your post in parts 1 and 2

Part 1

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

I have started this thread on the advice of Salman as it was felt that a similar one under Islamic thought and Western thought was not quite the right place for some thoughts expressed there. I will begin by asking is there a 'right' way to think given that philosophically our thinking is based broadly on rationality or observations from which we might draw inferences. Now of course to do anything we have to have a methodology and we may or may not be aware of what that methodology is but its likely to be there all the same.

on basic broad matters of ethics and fundamentals of doctrine, there is a fixed "right" way to think despite our broad philosophical inclinations. Holding on to unity in this regard is actually necessary for vitality of brotherhood, togetherness, and the attribute of being one body. For example, the founding fathers had various ideological leanings to their political thought on what America should be. However, they were in unison and stood as one body in terms of freedom from dictatorial governments. On this single point, they were "a single body".

Likeiwse, under the Islamic paradigm, there are cetain issues of basic ethics, law, fundamental principles, and doctrine that makes the Muslim nation as a single body whereby if a muslim were to oppose it, it would be understood as creating disunity and thus seperating from the collective.

With regards to the fundamentals of the religion, it is not permissible for a Muslim to have a different viewpoint and this is what is understood regarding the verse "and hold on all of you to the rope of Allah, and do not become divided into sects"

However, in terms of subsidiary aspects of the religion, then differences of opinion is not only allowed, it is already understood that it will happen and thus it is tolerated in islamic thought. Although there is a right and wrong way or view within subsidiary matters, it is not viewed as a breach of Muslim unity.


part 2

If I might begin with an example from Dr Azami's book on the Qur'anic text (ISBN 978 1872 531 656) although this quote is not directly about that. So on page 44 Azami says:

The Creator purged his messengers, paragons of virtue and piety without exception, from all evil. They were model examples of human behaviour, and instructed their respective communities to follow their lead in the worship of Allah. Their core message through history was ageless.

Now, I assume he is speaking about all the prophets not just the later Islamic ones. Now this to me poses a problem to the thinking mind because Azami make it clear that a Muslim MUST accept this unquestionably but how can a rational mind accept this as a premise because its is by observation of 'all' men false - no one with perhaps the exception of Jesus has been free from evil.

So here we are it seem to me forced to accept a premises and all that might follow from it with no more that a statement that it is true. So this to me is irrational and so I cannot see how I can exercise freedom of thought if I were a Muslim.

1. the first blunder committed was your absolute conviction that all were sinful with the exception of only 1 prophet out of the rest, that being Jesus alaihi salam.

This blunder was the mother of all blunders because from this idea, you then concluded other blunders.

2. Secondly, Yes, Azami poses this stance because it is the stance that the whole nation of Islam has agreed. If any person claims to be Muslim (one who submits to the Will of God) and claims that the prophets committed sins as is claimed by the forgers of the bible, he has denied the faith and become an infidel and if he does not repent from such a belief, he is executed as this is blasphemy against the religion of Allah.

3. Your statement "How could I exercise freedom of thought if I were a Muslim" can only be contextualized based on the following scenario

In Christiandome, it is not only a particle of faith, infact it is the essence of faith, that Jesus came to die for our sins. In this religion, there is NOT a single denomination on the planet that allows for someone who can claim to be rightfully a christian with a belief that entails that Jesus DID NOT come to die for our sins. Such a belief is contrary to the bedrock of what christianity is. Christian beliefs allows "tolerance" but ONLY up to a certain level. If some John Doe christian were to claim that belief in Muhammad is also a requisite for christian beliefs, there would not be a single christian on the planet except that they would regard such a belief as heresy.

Likewise, in Islam, there is a level of freedom to exercise certain views, but it has a limit, just like any other ideology.

4. You have judged "freedom of thought" and the right to exercise as such to be a "positive" in terms of religion. That is a baseless assumption because whenever a newly formed doctrine appears, that is called the invention of a sect. Christians in modern times, adopting extreme liberal ideologies, have renamed such a reality as "denominations" rather than what it actually is i.e. sects, because the term "sects" entails negative attributes of speech which can import certain views whereas if christians sugar coat it with a term that sounds less demeaning or derogatory to appease the greater liberal ideological framework that the west has enshrined as the model for humanity, then it would relay an illusion of tolerance.

IN religion, there is a doctrine, and a branch.

in matters of doctrine, it has proven necessitated merely within the human experience alone (with the need for divine inspiration) that colliding fundamental views DOES NOT work in an environment built on unity. When people separate with their own ideas, it destroys unity.

This is the balances between two extreme views, one liberal, and one totalitarian

under totalitarian ideology, both fundamentals and branches muct be obeyed and this is what most power hungry rulers do and this is what sparks the sentiment of revolution.

the Other extreme is complete and total laxity and freedom to invent whatever view you wish. Allow complete excersize of choice in both subsidiary and fundamentals.

In the Islamic spectrum, it allows freedom of choice and exercise within subsidiary matters but obligates cohesion and unity in fundamental aspects thereby making Islam a truly singular nation yet with variances in approaches to various aspects of livelihood.

People without Islam tend to go into extremes naturally either one way or the other way. This is even applied to women as well. for the most part of western history, women were not only of those who did not have rights, they were not even held as humans and were nothing more than property. That was one extreme. And then, within a century, it catapulted itself straight ahead into the next extreme of total equalization without recognizing the differences.


I hope my speech was clear

regards

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

On basic broad matters of ethics and fundamentals of doctrine, there is a fixed "right" way to think despite our broad philosophical inclinations. Holding on to unity in this regard is actually necessary for vitality of brotherhood, togetherness, and the attribute of being one body. For example, the founding fathers had various ideological leanings to their political thought on what America should be. However, they were in unison and stood as one body in terms of freedom from dictatorial governments. On this single point, they were "a single body".

Likeiwse, under the Islamic paradigm, there are cetain issues of basic ethics, law, fundamental principles, and doctrine that makes the Muslim nation as a single body whereby if a muslim were to oppose it, it would be understood as creating disunity and thus seperating from the collective.

With regards to the fundamentals of the religion, it is not permissible for a Muslim to have a different viewpoint and this is what is understood regarding the verse "and hold on all of you to the rope of Allah, and do not become divided into sects"

However, in terms of subsidiary aspects of the religion, then differences of opinion is not only allowed, it is already understood that it will happen and thus it is tolerated in islamic thought. Although there is a right and wrong way or view within subsidiary matters, it is not viewed as a breach of Muslim unity.

I feel we can agree that there are let us call them doctrines we need to agree on and subscribe to and everyone has some kind of basis in life even if they are atheists. But agreeing that say stealing is a bad thing is not quite the same as a way of thinking, of rationality and one could argue it can be irrational. For example, some Muslims grow beards but I cannot see how that is rational. Indeed I would go further and say that more often than not in the Bible laws were given but no explanation was offered.

So what we have here I think is an appeal to authority - you or someone has told you what to believe. Of course I understand that you or me has to commit, to believe these things not necessarily knowing in every case why it might be so. I also accept that you or some one can take any doctrine and rationalise it, give a reason for it but as I understand what you have said you are accepting premises made by your pious forefather 1,400 years ago without question, indeed you do not allow them to be questioned so there is no possibility for a new interpretation even though we now have more information than they could ever have had - so to ignore what we know now (not counting what we will know in the future) is irrational.

Don't get me wrong here, I am not suggesting we get rid of the 10 commandments because almost everyone would agree that they are good principles. But in terms of thinking Abelard a 12 century Philosopher said.

For authority alone cannot create belief in the thought of a philosopher nor even lead one towards such belief, and this is why logicians agree that citing authority does not even necessarily add probability to a given argument. So if you wish to hear more from me, give me a reason. For I am not a man who can satisfy his hunger from a picture of a steak!

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

1. the first blunder committed was your absolute conviction that all were sinful with the exception of only 1 prophet out of the rest, that being Jesus alaihi salam. This blunder was the mother of all blunders because from this idea, you then concluded other blunders.

In Christendom, it is not only a article of faith, infact it is the essence of faith, that Jesus came to die for our sins. In this religion, there is NOT a single denomination on the planet that allows for someone who can claim to be rightfully a Christian with a belief that entails that Jesus DID NOT come to die for our sins. Such a belief is contrary to the bedrock of what christianity is. Christian beliefs allows "tolerance" but ONLY up to a certain level. If some John Doe Christian were to claim that belief in Muhammad is also a requisite for christian beliefs, there would not be a single christian on the planet except that they would regard such a belief as heresy.

Likewise, in Islam, there is a level of freedom to exercise certain views, but it has a limit, just like any other ideology.

If I look at your first point from a rational perspective then I simply turn it back on you, you are the one who has made the blunder of all blunders because you don't accept the death of Jesus. YOU are not being rational because you have decided that it is not true but you have also decided that what you believe is. It cannot be a rational standpoint to say as you seem to that everyone is wrong but you.

In terms of belief then you are right there are foundational beliefs but they are few in number but one of them is that redemption, mercy for our sins comes through faith in Jesus' sacrificial death by which means God makes a gift of his righteousness to us through the is act of faith demonstrated in our lives through acts of repentance and good works - that is it, there is no other requirement.

One might stop here and ask is this rational, can a rational mind accept this and we know of course down through the ages it has been what Paul describes as a stumbling block to Jews (who trust in the law) and foolishness to Greeks (who trust in rationality).

So perhaps here we simply agree - one can have faith in Islam and hope on the mercy of God or you have have faith in Jesus and accept God's righteousness through that faith. Perhaps we cannot rationally decide here but we can of course consider the various claims.

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

Yes, Azami poses this stance because it is the stance that the whole nation of Islam has agreed. If any person claims to be Muslim (one who submits to the Will of God) and claims that the prophets committed sins as is claimed by the forgers of the bible, he has denied the faith and become an infidel and if he does not repent from such a belief, he is executed as this is blasphemy against the religion of Allah.

Yes I perfectly understand what you say but is it rational? Dr Azami as a kind of proof on page 44 cites two verses from the Qu'ran (he does not always make clear which English version he is using)

17:15 Never did we dispatch a messenger before without revealing to him this: that there is no God but I; therefore worship and serve me

21:25 So be mindful of Allah (proclaimed the messengers), and obey me.

Look as I may at this I can see nothing about the messengers being sinless here or logically why it would be necessary. I conclude that Islam (if I can put it like that) simply says this is true but there is no foundation. Now both you and I know that none of the Biblical OT prophets (let's limit it to them as we agree who they are) were free from sin and often their wrongs are described in great detail. Logically, theretofore this claim of them being 'paragons of virtue and piety' has no basis in recorded fact so there is something wrong with this logic.

The trouble with this from a logical point of view is that you then compound it by dismissing the OT accounts by saying they are the work of 'forgers' - who are they and why would forgers add in such lurid details as it would hardly enhance the Bible's image to tell tales of Abraham's lies or David's infidelities. I cannot accept or at least find it difficult to accept this as the work of rational thinkers and conclude again that authority and not rationality is your guide even when the propositions are it seems to me are unfounded.

Some questions
1. Why is it necessary that the prophets be in simple terms perfect, can God not work though anyone?

2. Why would forgers (according to you) paint such a black picture of OT characters: Noah being naked and drunk, Jacob as a cheat, David as an adulterer and murderer etc

3. Coupled with Q2 - who were these forgers and if they existed they must have been around for thousands of years.

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

You have judged "freedom of thought" and the right to exercise as such to be a "positive" in terms of religion. That is a baseless assumption because whenever a newly formed doctrine appears, that is called the invention of a sect. Christians in modern times, adopting extreme liberal ideologies, have renamed such a reality as "denominations" rather than what it actually is i.e. sects, because the term "sects" entails negative attributes of speech which can import certain views whereas if christians sugar coat it with a term that sounds less demeaning or derogatory to appease the greater liberal ideological framework that the west has enshrined as the model for humanity, then it would relay an illusion of tolerance.

in matters of doctrine, it has proven necessitated merely within the human experience alone (with the need for divine inspiration) that colliding fundamental views DOES NOT work in an environment built on unity. When people separate with their own ideas, it destroys unity. This is the balances between two extreme views, one liberal, and one totalitarian

under totalitarian ideology, both fundamentals and branches muct be obeyed and this is what most power hungry rulers do and this is what sparks the sentiment of revolution.

the Other extreme is complete and total laxity and freedom to invent whatever view you wish. Allow complete excersize of choice in both subsidiary and fundamentals.

In the Islamic spectrum, it allows freedom of choice and exercise within subsidiary matters but obligates cohesion and unity in fundamental aspects thereby making Islam a truly singular nation yet with variances in approaches to various aspects of livelihood.

People without Islam tend to go into extremes naturally either one way or the other way. This is even applied to women as well. for the most part of western history, women were not only of those who did not have rights, they were not even held as humans and were nothing more than property. That was one extreme. And then, within a century, it catapulted itself straight ahead into the next extreme of total equalization without recognizing the differences.

If I just consider you first point about 'freedom of thought' then you seem to be arguing against yourself. If I cannot think rationally and freely then I cannot combat what I might regard as heresy. If I simply retreat into dogma then I have no answer, no refutation. But surely you must be aware that there are plenty of Muslim sects as well and it is only knowledgeable people and rational people can make a case - do you agree?

I more or less agree with you except that in practice Islam is authoritarian and will not or cannot accept any other opinions or notions and I would contend that is not a rational position to take.

[al-boriqee]

Okay. Now I think I have more or less idenfitifed our matter between us and you. Your whole world is based more on philosophy more than anything else. Believe it or not, it is more entrentched in the doctrines of philosophy rather than christianity. Your just simply submit to some of its dictates for a spiritual benefit out of it, but your entire methodological view is based on philosophy

Allow me to to demonstrate a 4 minute video of our sentiments regarding philosophy.

TubeIslam - ShareIslam Video Site - Uselessness of Philosophy

<embed src="http://www.tubeislam.com/player.swf" width="360" height="270" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" flashvars="width=360&height=270&file=http://www.tubeislam.com/flvideo/1644.flv&image=http://www.tubeislam.com/thumb/1_1644.jpg&displayheight=270&link=http://www.tubeislam.com/video/1644/Uselessness-of-Philosophy&searchbar=false&linkfromdisplay=true&re commendations=http://www.tubeislam.com/feed_embed.php?v=20160f1b04cf5b27f5cc" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" />

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

I feel we can agree that there are let us call them doctrines we need to agree on and subscribe to and everyone has some kind of basis in life even if they are atheists. But agreeing that say stealing is a bad thing is not quite the same as a way of thinking, of rationality and one could argue it can be irrational.

This is one of the problem of philosophical, or in this case, theosophical rhetoric, which pertains to your rational/irrational framework. What philosophy does is it interprets everything in binary code as if we are robotic computers where everything that exists MUST fit within the binary code 0 or 1 and that everything operates itself based on an algorithm or set of codes based on this.

There is more to holding on to a single creed than the mere affirmation or agreement of basic broad premises of ethics. Doctrine is another field. Fundamental principles is another field, all three can be a single body adopted by a nation which would not hint to a "infringement" on the freedom of expression.

allow me to demonstrate this binary philosophical code that you apply

For example, some Muslims grow beards but I cannot see how that is rational.

When it coms to the orders or rights of Allah, they fall outside the realm of rationality. In other words the validity or invalidty of them is not determined by human logic.

There are three types of speech
1. logical
2. empirical
3. legislative

a logical statement is a statement that the intellect cannot deny, for example, the sun is hot

an empirical statement is applicable to statements that naturally apply to the properties of empirical investigation. For example, the Children of Israel wondered in the wilderness of the Gobi desert. Such a statement can be studied to see if that were true, or if it was in the desert of the middle east.

Legislative statements are not arrived at, determined, judged by, or proved inaccurate based on empirical evidences. If God commanded that we worship Him, such a command does not need empirical investigation to see WHY such a command exist or to validate the command.

However, the illogic of philosophy tries to undermine this point and it advocates that everything, including God Himself and all that He is claimed to have said must be scrutinized by the intellect in order for us to see the rationality of it, and if our minds cannot wrap around its dictates, then we abandon it in favor for our rational viewpoint.

This is the mother fallacy of philosophy.

Indeed I would go further and say that more often than not in the Bible laws were given but no explanation was offered.

Exactly, because normal people understood the difference between what can be investigated and what does not. Normal and average minds accepts the premise of "authority" because that is how the human experience has structured the concept of "organization" whereas Philosophy, its basic premise is structured around anarchy of thought. What made science as successful as religion is that it BASED its foundation on what was already investigated and then built on that. What killed philosophy is that it did not do that for the most part.

Anyways, laws do not need to offer an explanation.

The purpose of faith in God is through submission. We are asked to surrender our right to disobey and to submit to the Will of God to the exclusion of our will. This concept is extremely antithetical to Philosophy which is why in essence, the world is mainly divided between two mother conceptual thoughts

1. the philosophical discourse
2. the prophetic discourse

The first raises the rationality o human being to a level of divinity and beyond its abilities whereas the second renders our rationality the level it is at.

So what we have here I think is an appeal to authority - you or someone has told you what to believe.

even in American law, there is "appeal to authority". In fact the term was applied to law, because people of la understood this as a natural and valid premise to the validity of a matter, in law.

Of course I understand that you or me has to commit, to believe these things not necessarily knowing in every case why it might be so. I also accept that you or some one can take any doctrine and rationalise it, give a reason for it but as I understand what you have said you are accepting premises made by your pious forefather 1,400 years ago without question,

not necessarily. firstly, our doctrine is not what our ancestors stated, rather our doctrine is based on "Allah said", and they were those who conveyed that to us.

secondly, the purpose of faith is through submission and it is not based on questioning. This is why philosophy and prophetic methodology has no congruency with each other and incompatible because philosophical thought is the exact opposite of this principle I laid above.

indeed you do not allow them to be questioned so there is no possibility for a new interpretation even though we now have more information than they could ever have had

That is fine and dandy, however, you will find my argument to be all more powerful and Im glad you brought this up.

DESPITE "advancements" of technology, arrival of new data into the human experience, NOT a single iota of that data runs contrary to what our forefathers have brought in terms of the prophetic theology.

Now, the higher question is "Why is the phenomenon existing in light of new data"

The answer, is because matters of doctrine and fundamental principles DO NOT CHANGE from time to time or place to place. In other words,
1. doctrine
2. Fundamental principles
3. Basic broad outlines of ethics and some more detailed aspect of ethics

fall outside the properties of time and thus fall outside the parameters of change.

example

our civilization can advance up to warp speed, but God will always remain one, and thus monotheism is not undermined

No matter what we develop or what information reaches us, the angels will will never change. Our belief in angels will not alter because their existence has not changed just because of our advancements. The beleif in the last day will not change just because of our societal advancements.

likewise, fundamental principles do not alter due to societal advancements. In 14 centuries, NOT a single fundamental principle of Islam has been undermined through explicit human advancement, rather instead, our advancement further solidified our principles, which is a living testament to the prophetic methodology that Islam offers to humanity.

The same with basic ethics.

Women will always need to veil themselves in front of men. No advancement on the planet will alter the properties of a women which would entail a "change" in the law of women covering. Our dietary laws will not change. We will always remain human. No advancement will alter the properties of humans which would entail a change in our diet entirely.

This is why we say that our doctrine, fundamentals, and certain aspects of ethics fall OUTSIDE the parameters of time and change, because they inherently don;t change through any form of advancement.

In fact, it should be a further piercing proof to the disbelieving world that when advancements take place in human history, whether it be from muslims or non muslims, what they find in terms of new data always "CORRESPONDS" to what we have already held as doctrine, ethics, and fundamentals all along. There is not a single religion on the planet who can boast of this remarkable attribute without borrowing other ideological concepts.

So with all of this, when you make the following statement

- so to ignore what we know now (not counting what we will know in the future) is irrational.

we say, that it is inapplicable because adoption of our fundamentals DOES NOT entail the ignorance of newly found data, rather only other religions fall into this quandary.

Don't get me wrong here, I am not suggesting we get rid of the 10 commandments because almost everyone would agree that they are good principles. But in terms of thinking Abelard a 12 century Philosopher said.

For authority alone cannot create belief in the thought of a philosopher nor even lead one towards such belief, and this is why logicians agree that citing authority does not even necessarily add probability to a given argument. So if you wish to hear more from me, give me a reason. For I am not a man who can satisfy his hunger from a picture of a steak!

and this is the ultimate flaw of philosophy.

This methodology was implemented by Satan in the Qur'an. Have you read the story yet.

In the Qur'an

After Allah created Adam, He told the Angels and those who were with them from the Jinn to bow down to Adam

Allah then states
"except for Satan. He refused to bow down and became of the disbelievers"

then, Allah ask him
"Why did you not bow down to one whom I have created with My Own Hands"

Satan replied back by saying

"How can I bow down to him. I am made of fire and he is made of clay"

In this story, Iblees demonstrated the ultimate principle of philosophical "thinkers"

Here, Satan could not "rationally understand" why would God order for him to bow down to someone who Satan felt was inherently inferior to himself because he was made of fire and Adam was made of dirt.

However, Allah made him of the disbelievers and made him an outcaste and due to that, Satan became the ultimate enemy of man.

Anyone can easily substitute Satan here for any philosopher, for it is imaginable that if Allah would command them with something, their philosophically orientated minds that illogically are centered on a "rational/irrational" binary world being applied to Allah's orders would be exactly the same reasoning that Satan himself used in applying such reasoning to Allah's orders

ON the other hand, the people of the prophetic methodology understand that the basis for Allah's orders are entailed and wrapped in His "Divine Wisdom" and almost all of His Divine Wisdom does not fall within the comprehension of the finite human logic, which is a concept that philosophers and those who are ideologically influenced by their methodology fail to grasp. This failure to grasp is coupled with the arrogance of "we MUST understand it rationally or else" mentality which is in total contradistinction to everything that was sent to the prophets and messengers of God

I hope my speech was ample explanation for your inquiry

regards

[salman]

the other problem with these philosophers is that they tell us to not to appeal to Prophetic authorities because their concepts are "irrational" according to understanding to philosophers, yet at the same time they want to us to appeal to them to take their understanding and single them out from this standard of appealing to authority.

really give us a break; we are not going to give up the understanding of the Creator for flaws human's understanding

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by salman

the other problem with these philosophers is that they tell us to not to appeal to Prophetic authorities because their concepts are "irrational" according to understanding to philosophers, yet at the same time they want to us to appeal to them to take their understanding and single them out from this standard of appealing to authority. really give us a break; we are not going to give up the understanding of the Creator for flaws human's understanding

When I read this I begin to wonder if you have any idea what philosophy means and why it is a subject that has taxed minds for all of recorded history. What I find odd is that you and others regularly appeal to logic and you are quick to identify what you see as fallacies. How can it be that on the one hand you despise philosophy and then use one of its very foundations - logic and argument because these were not invented by Islam were they?

Philosophy is about knowledge and understanding and if you muddle that up with theology which is about hearing what God has to say as you are doing here you end up with a mess. Philosophy is in large part about rationality and how it relates to doubt and gaining understanding. Without wanting to labour the point an argument is valid when there is no way, meaning no possible way, that the premises or starting points could be true without the conclusion being true. Further, argument are said to be sound if it is valid and it has true premises in which case its conclusion is true as well.

It follows that always in religious arguments there are what I shall call hidden premises to do with God and revelation and these premises cannot be shown to be true - they might be but there is no way to be sure; that is the premises are unfalsifiable. Logically, this implies that religious arguments are bound to be fallacies in a strictly logical world. For example, suppose I say:

"He lied because he's possessed by a demon"

This could be the correct explanation but there is no way to check it - the claim that he's possessed can't be verified if its true and can't be falsified if its false. So such a claim CANNOT be relied on as an explanation of his lying. To put it another way suggesting demon possession is not a way to gain understanding in this situation.

Now I guess I like you would say there is such a think as spiritual understanding as well as simply a rational understanding. That is we believe that God has spoken and we act on it and we can build arguments on what we believe and those arguments within a spiritual dimension can be valid but they will never be purely logical and rational because of hidden premises about God.

In summary and I will answer more fully in a post to al-borigee (see below) but you must understand what philosophers are saying - they are not against spirituality and many are believers its is just that we are talking about two different things.

If one is talking about making a water filter we don't appeal to God or spirituality or look it up in the Bible or Qu'ran do we - that would be plainly stupid?

In a similar way if we wanted to talk about prayers we don't get Karl Popper on Falsification off our library shelf - that would be plainly stupid. as well.

There are of course overlaps and we can see them through either rational or spiritual eyes but in general we use our rational faculties because that is the only real way we come to understanding for the simple reason that if you take those away nothing is left - you might as well be unconscious.

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

Okay. Now I think I have more or less idenfitifed our matter between us and you. Your whole world is based more on philosophy more than anything else. Believe it or not, it is more entrentched in the doctrines of philosophy rather than christianity. Your just simply submit to some of its dictates for a spiritual benefit out of it, but your entire methodological view is based on philosophy. Allow me to to demonstrate a 4 minute video of our sentiments regarding philosophy.

TubeIslam - ShareIslam Video Site - Uselessness of Philosophy

I watched the video and of course I have heard this speaker before and he can be entertaining but he has a tendency to labour his points to exhaustion. Let me just review what he said.

1. Firstly you cannot seriously regard this as anything more than the briefest of introductions since not a single argument is presented. If you think this is a definitive refutation of philosophy then you disappoint me and I have come to expect more of you.

2. Secondly, he speaks of flawed premises but as I have said elsewhere every philosopher I have come across accepts say the rules of logic and argument so the speaker is quite wrong. Sadly, he gives no examples of flaws other that to talk about revelation from God without any understanding that from a strictly logical point of view that must be a premises that leads to a fallacy.

3. It is utterly rubbish to say that of all these 100,000s of philosophers must attack each other to survive. To say that the speaker knows nothing whatever about scholarly research and comment. Does he think any subject stands still? With regard to people being 'scared' I have rarely heard such a foolish notion and he clearly contradicts himself because on the one hand he says philosopher must come up with something new and never agree but at the same time are too scared to say anything.

4. Let us just look at one point to show how weak he is and so lacking in understanding that its breathtaking. He ridicules Descartes as if he had no mind at all and the only thing he said was the Cogito.

Descartes is speaking about the self the elusive "I" - you for example have never seen me and I have never seen you so what is the picture of each other that we have. For all you know I might be a computer just fooling around. Even if I could see you would that mean I really 'know' you or is the real you locked up in your head and its inaccessible to the rest of us. Where does that real you live, exist, point to it show us where it is?

So, to understand what you are I must use my understanding not my senses. Senses are like messengers that deliver information that needs interpreting. So you and me and everyone else is an elusive thing so as Descartes would have said a ball of wax can take different properties: shape, colour, smell, taste etc. In the same way the self, the 'I' at different times thinks different thoughts.

Rationalism the power of unaided reason can get insights, can see that things must be one way and not another without any senses being involved - it is called 'a priori' meaning something can be seen to be true immediately, without any experience of the way of the world.

In summary Descartes is saying that because you can think you can make sense of what you see as well as think new thoughts and if anything defines the real me or you it is our minds for without them as I have said before we might as well be unconscious.

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

When it comes to the orders or rights of Allah, they fall outside the realm of rationality. In other words the validity or invalidity of them is not determined by human logic. There are three types of speech: logical, empirical and legislative

A logical statement is a statement that the intellect cannot deny, for example, the sun is hot. An empirical statement is applicable to statements that naturally apply to the properties of empirical investigation. For example, the Children of Israel wondered in the wilderness of the Gobi desert. Such a statement can be studied to see if that were true, or if it was in the desert of the middle east.

Legislative statements are not arrived at, determined, judged by, or proved inaccurate based on empirical evidences. If God commanded that we worship Him, such a command does not need empirical investigation to see WHY such a command exist or to validate the command.

However, the illogic of philosophy tries to undermine this point and it advocates that everything, including God Himself and all that He is claimed to have said must be scrutinized by the intellect in order for us to see the rationality of it, and if our minds cannot wrap around its dictates, then we abandon it in favour for our rational viewpoint.

This is the mother fallacy of philosophy.

1. You first point about the 'right of Allah' would imply that he is illogical or cannot explain his actions. The Universe to me seem a rational place and I cannot therefore see how the God who I believe made it can be irrational though we may not know all the answers?

2. You appear to be muddled on your logical and empirical. In the example you gave logic does not tell you the sun is hot your senses do. In your second case it is logic that be used because one might have a theory of where the Israel wanders and then test it - if one were empirical you might look anywhere at all.

3, I am having difficulty linking logic and empiricism with the legal because the first two are basic ways of thinking the third is not. The reason I say this is that in Islam there are 4 ways to get law: consensus, analogy, the sunna and the Quran. Clearly the first three are a mix of logic and empiricism and the last dogma and dogmas itself needs interpretation so again the intellect is involved.

What you fail to see that all this goes through the mind, we cannot exclude the intellect because even if we say something is from God it has to be interpreted - as Jews and Christians say, and to me its undeniable, to go from revelation to practice without interpretation itself heresy.

[SilverLJ]

Al-boriqee - DESPITE "advancements" of technology, arrival of new data into the human experience, NOT a single iota of that data runs contrary to what our forefathers have brought in terms of the prophetic theology. Now, the higher question is "Why is the phenomenon existing in light of new data". The answer, is because matters of doctrine and fundamental principles DO NOT CHANGE from time to time or place to place. In other words,
1. doctrine
2. Fundamental principles
3. Basic broad outlines of ethics and some more detailed aspect of ethics

fall outside the properties of time and thus fall outside the parameters of change. Our civilization can advance up to warp speed, but God will always remain one, and thus monotheism is not undermined No matter what we develop or what information reaches us, the angels will will never change. Our belief in angels will not alter because their existence has not changed just because of our advancements. The beleif in the last day will not change just because of our societal advancements.

likewise, fundamental principles do not alter due to societal advancements. In 14 centuries, NOT a single fundamental principle of Islam has been undermined through explicit human advancement, rather instead, our advancement further solidified our principles, which is a living testament to the prophetic methodology that Islam offers to humanity.

This seem to be a seriously flawed argument because it rests on the premise that nothing has changed. Now, I might go some way with you in saying for example, the 10 commandments are still applicable and sin exists. However, some points.

1. If nothing has changed for the last 1,400 years then Islam has had no effect and will not have any effect.

2. Secondly if we look at way of making law in Islam we see for example consensus. One presumes from this that such consensus was reached using some kind of evidence or circumstances. It must be a fallacy to assume therefore that such circumstance are exactly matched for all time and eternity so the ruling can never be wrong.

From a thinking point of view this is known as the problem of induction because even if the premises are true the conclusion may be false and for you the only way round it is to assume infallibility - that is you have kind of engineered a bridge to the past but cannot argue that the bridge is reliable except by assumption which no rational man would accept.