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

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

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.

As a professor, I am really ashamed of you. Allow me to show you where I am ashamed

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.

It was not meant to be an argument. It was not meant to be a "refutation". had you considered my words well, you would have made a mental highlight in your brain when I said this

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.

Thus I was merely refering to you our thoughts on philosophy particularly when applied to critiquing religion.

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.

the speaker is not talking about established logic my friend, the speaker is talking about philosophical concepts, a fine, yet drastic difference

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.

he doesn't need to. Something as obvious as falws of philosophers is not something that has ambiguity, anyone who reads a paragraph of a philosopher can conclude such a reality for philosophers.

3. It is utterly rubbish to say that of all these 100,000s of philosophers must attack each other to survive.

I don't think your using your noggin my friend

It was a humorous statement that was signifying the nature pf philosophic methodology, which is that in order for a philosopher to be well known, he has to conclude with very different analytical findings for a particular topic than his predecessor, it is just that the speaker has a sense of humor that I see you are deprived of.

To say that the speaker knows nothing whatever about scholarly research and comment

He has a bachelors in Hadeeth sciences, along with Qur'anic sciences, a masters in islamic theology, and quiring a phd in other sciences along with philosophy. My friend, I don;t think you can even reach his ankles.

.

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.

Bro, it is clearly that you are being partisan in this issue. Allow me to demonstrate how your partisanship for philosophy has blinded you from the truth

You accused him of contradicting himself and gave no evidence for it. Rather what you did was you connected two very different issues that the speaker spoke of and made them into one, which only demonstrates the extent of your intellectual eptitude.

One one hand, Yasir is talking about Philosophers that in order for them to become known among the massess, they stand out according to new ideas that they form.

whereas, when he was talking about "everyone being too scared of them", he is talking about students who go to universities and remain quite in a class of philosophy. Had you fully understood what he was talking about, he was saying that when he first studied this science, he himself was confused whereas his classmates "looked" as if they understood the subject ONLY to realize later on down the road that nonbody understand the philosophical jargon of mumbo jumbo that they speak, and the reason why they remain silent and do not speak out is because they don't want to offend anyone like professors etc.

That is how his speech is to be understood. He spoke perfect English. Are you sure you are a professor. Either you couldn;t understand what he was talking about, or your partisanship to philosophy blinded you from every understanding the reality of philosophy.

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.

sigh

I wonder how you ever managed to get your phd

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?

if you said all of this, and could not match it up with his speech on descartes, then my friend, you need psychiatric help

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.

please, save your jargon for someone who cares



Ill address the rest when i get a chance

[SilverLJ]

To make my response concise I will put al-boriqee's words in blue an mine in black. I make no comment on the usual ad hominum comments of the form - "I am ashamed of you", "using your noggin", "I have no sense of humour", "you don't reach to his ankles", " you are partisan. "you are blinded", "intellectual ineptitude", "you need psychiatric help" and several others. Well your entitled to your opinion but this kind of attack is never going to be an argument of any value.

Re the video you said "Allow me to to demonstrate a 4 minute video of our sentiments regarding philosophy.

I have examined the video and the speaker admits he knows nothing much about philosophy and he demonstrated this unambiguously by his barbed reference to one of Descartes' meditations. Surely, it is a stupid position to take to say I know nothing or I don't understand it therefore it is all worthless. We have a saying in English about 'itching ears' meaning how we all love to hear what we want to hear and that is surely your position.

the speaker is not talking about established logic my friend, the speaker is talking about philosophical concepts, a fine, yet drastic difference. he doesn't need to. Something as obvious as falws of philosophers is not something that has ambiguity, anyone who reads a paragraph of a philosopher can conclude such a reality for philosophers.

Is this your considered view? Yasir says HE does not understand it and here YOU are saying everyone does so I conclude you don't know what you are talking about. Who do you think established the laws of logic?

It was a humorous statement that was signifying the nature pf philosophic methodology, which is that in order for a philosopher to be well known, he has to conclude with very different analytical findings for a particular topic than his predecessor, it is just that the speaker has a sense of humor that I see you are deprived of.

There is all the difference in the world between being funny and being stupid and he chose that latter path by ridiculing a concept he simply did not understand. There is nothing wrong with moving forward by using the work of others, sometimes you add to it, sometimes its entirely new and sometimes it means that what has gone before is totally thrown away - that is how the world works. He is doing a Phd so if all he does is simply reproduce what others have said then he will fail.

Bro, it is clearly that you are being partisan in this issue. Allow me to demonstrate how your partisanship for philosophy has blinded you from the truth

This really is calling the kettle black to say I am partisan - have you actually watched the video?

You accused him of contradicting himself and gave no evidence for it. Rather what you did was you connected two very different issues that the speaker spoke of and made them into one, which only demonstrates the extent of your intellectual eptitude.

If you watch the video then you will see who is intellectually inept by observing a man discount ALL philosophy and tacitly stand above it yet at the same time imply, well more than implies, shows he understands nothing about the subject.

Whereas, when he was talking about "everyone being too scared of them", he is talking about students who go to universities and remain quite in a class of philosophy. Had you fully understood what he was talking about, he was saying that when he first studied this science, he himself was confused whereas his classmates "looked" as if they understood the subject ONLY to realize later on down the road that nonbody understand the philosophical jargon of mumbo jumbo that they speak, and the reason why they remain silent and do not speak out is because they don't want to offend anyone like professors etc.

In any University I have ever been in students get essays that ask for critiques of the work of philosophers so this is bunkum. Let me ask you, in an Islamic University would students be asked to speak out against your forefather and critique them, say they were wrong or mistaken or partisan or would they be beyond reach, infallible?

That is how his speech is to be understood. He spoke perfect English. Are you sure you are a professor. Either you couldn;t understand what he was talking about, or your partisanship to philosophy blinded you from every understanding the reality of philosophy.

I know philosophy has weaknesses and if you read their work they also know it so they never pretend to be know-it-alls as you are doing here. If you want to discuss philosophy it cannot be done from a position of ignorance. So if you know what you are talking about give us an example because so far I have seen no hint of philosophical knowledge from Yasir or you and without wanting to insult it often sounds as if you are simply parroting what others have told you.

if you said all of this, and could not match it up with his speech on descartes, then my friend, you need psychiatric help. please, save your jargon for someone who cares.

Here sadly we see what your view is that anyone with an authentic view or knowledge that contradicts your world view needs serious help. You then show the paucity of your knowledge by saying that I am using jargon - well YOU are the one who is claiming to know enough to debunk philosophy yet cannot by your own admission understand the terms it uses - so discuss Descartes Cogito not ignore it because he was a man that few of us could reach his ankles including Yasir. (lets face it Islam itself has its own language an its term are legion so lets not again call the kettle black)[/COLOR]

[al-boriqee]

This is the last that this issue will be discussed because you are clearly deciding to not employ any reason to your discussion based on your lack of understanding of Yasir's very explicit 4 minute speech

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

To make my response concise I will put al-boriqee's words in blue an mine in black. I make no comment on the usual ad hominum comments of the form - "I am ashamed of you", "using your noggin", "I have no sense of humour", "you don't reach to his ankles", " you are partisan. "you are blinded", "intellectual ineptitude", "you need psychiatric help" and several others. Well your entitled to your opinion but this kind of attack is never going to be an argument of any value.

I don't care about charges of ad hominem, I do not subscribe to your narrow philosophical outlooks of logic invented by your absurd philosophical thinkers. If you are not using your brain, I will call you to account for not using your brain and when that happens, I demonstrate WHY that is the case. Calling it "ad hominen" and other "logic" based labels as a means to discredit a fact is rendered useless in my view and the view of those who employs a complex form of reasoning beyond the narrow principles of greek logic.

Re the video you said "Allow me to to demonstrate a 4 minute video of our sentiments regarding philosophy.

I have examined the video and the speaker admits he knows nothing much about philosophy and he demonstrated this unambiguously by his barbed reference to one of Descartes' meditations. Surely, it is a stupid position to take to say I know nothing or I don't understand it therefore it is all worthless. We have a saying in English about 'itching ears' meaning how we all love to hear what we want to hear and that is surely your position.

apparently, you have not "examined" because you continually insist on deriving an idea of it that was never stated explicitly nor implicitly by Yasir's speech. In other words, what you concluded from it were far fetched assumptions.

Yasir did not say or "admit" he knows nothing about philosophy, RATHER, he said that when he was in under graduate classes i.e. just beginning to take the subject called philosophy, he knew nothing. That ruling on himself changed after having learned it.If you can;t understand that from his speech, then quite frankly you are more in need of going back to school than seeking a philosophical discussion on an Islamic forum.

the speaker is not talking about established logic my friend, the speaker is talking about philosophical concepts, a fine, yet drastic difference. he doesn't need to. Something as obvious as falws of philosophers is not something that has ambiguity, anyone who reads a paragraph of a philosopher can conclude such a reality for philosophers.

Is this your considered view? Yasir says HE does not understand it and here YOU are saying everyone does so I conclude you don't know what you are talking about. Who do you think established the laws of logic?

This is pure imbecility silver. I did not conclude nothing. Yasir said that VERBATIM
"I looked around and everyone seems to know what the speaker (instructor/professor) is talking about except me"

and then he says after that

"It took a while for me to figure out that it was not the fact that they understood what the instructor was saying, rather they simply did not understand the philosophical jargon of the speaker and everyone was scared and daunted by their speech to point out the emperor with no cloths"

In other words, Yasir is portraying the the mentality and psyche of his classmates (and he would be qualified to discuss the view of his own classmates than yourself) during the course of his studies of philosophy.

AS FOR laws of logic, I don't care about who established the laws of logic nor are they absolute as some of them contain inherent flaws to them to begin with.

It was a humorous statement that was signifying the nature pf philosophic methodology, which is that in order for a philosopher to be well known, he has to conclude with very different analytical findings for a particular topic than his predecessor, it is just that the speaker has a sense of humor that I see you are deprived of.

There is all the difference in the world between being funny and being stupid and he chose that latter path by ridiculing a concept he simply did not understand. There is nothing wrong with moving forward by using the work of others, sometimes you add to it, sometimes its entirely new and sometimes it means that what has gone before is totally thrown away - that is how the world works. He is doing a Phd so if all he does is simply reproduce what others have said then he will fail.

Silver. allow me to demonstrate how partisan you are being. You are claiming he knows nothing of the subject (that Im sure he will proudly crumble you like a cookie with ease and tranquility) that he himself has already mastered. If he did not understand and know the subject, then you need to file a lawsuit against all his university teachers, the professors, and the university system for making him eligible to speak on the topic.

Yes, there is a difference between funny and stupid, and everyone who reviewed the video understood through common sense the humor of it which is why even the people in the video were laughing, EXCEPT for yourself. Because apparently, your reasoning and logic is different from the rest of the normal society around you. the only one that is being stupid here is you and a further demonstration of your hypocrisy is your quickness in pointing out my "ad hominem" attacks against yourself while completely disregarding an even more baseless attack emanating from yourself against Yasir Qadhi.

NOW, I will comment on the statement in bold which will basically conclude through a more complex understanding that you have inadvertently conceded to what I originally explained from the get go

You are right, there is nothing wrong with utilizing the works of others, sometimes we make tweaks to it, sometimes we adopt it fully, and sometimes some of it is abandoned and sometimes it is outright discarded. This is the nature of philosophy

WHAT WE MUSLIMS criticise is NOT this methodology but how it is applied to religious sciences. In other words we muslims have nothing against philosophy RATHER we collectively promote it and study it. This is called the philosophical sciences of the world, and in this contextual sense, the Muslim scholars and Imaams encouraged the study of the physical world. Where philosophy fails and completely lands its adherent to illogic and the abandonment of reason is the study of metaphysics and religion. WHY

because philosophy is correctly applicable to the physcial sciences because philosophy is based on empiracy or basic human observability. However, this observability and empiracy cannot fathom or surround its understanding in metaphysical and religious aspects except for only a little.

So in terms of physical studies, philosophy cannot work outside the methodology you mentioned, which is understand even by someone like myself.

HOWEVER, in terms of religious truths, specifically from the prophets, its origin and basis operates on the exact opposite. Within the methodology of the prophet, it is INCUMBENT that the worshiper of God RESTRICTS himself or herself to the views and implementations of the prophets without innovating ideas, beliefs, or practices, nor subtracting what they came with.

This is where and why Muslims perfectly accept physical philosophy of the sciences, but becomes inapplicable in religious sciences and this is what I and others here are trying to demonstrate to people like yourself and others.

Bro, it is clearly that you are being partisan in this issue. Allow me to demonstrate how your partisanship for philosophy has blinded you from the truth

This really is calling the kettle black to say I am partisan - have you actually watched the video?

I did watch the video, but at least I understood from it what everyone else understood except for yourself

You accused him of contradicting himself and gave no evidence for it. Rather what you did was you connected two very different issues that the speaker spoke of and made them into one, which only demonstrates the extent of your intellectual eptitude.

If you watch the video then you will see who is intellectually inept by observing a man discount ALL philosophy and tacitly stand above it yet at the same time imply, well more than implies, shows he understands nothing about the subject.

He is not intellectually in ept, rather the ineptitude that the reader is observing here is yours. He amply has much more understanding of philosophy than yourself. What adds to his intellectual stamina is that his expertise does not extend only to philosophy, but Islamic creed as well as ilmu-kalaam, whihc was the bridge between neo-platonic philosophy and Islamic creed.

If you get a chance, I hope you enlighten yourself with watching this video

YouTube- Knowing God: Reason, Revelation, and Intuition - Yasir Qadhi

YouTube- Knowing God: Reason, Revelation, and Intuition - Yasir Qadhi

Whereas, when he was talking about "everyone being too scared of them", he is talking about students who go to universities and remain quite in a class of philosophy. Had you fully understood what he was talking about, he was saying that when he first studied this science, he himself was confused whereas his classmates "looked" as if they understood the subject ONLY to realize later on down the road that nonbody understand the philosophical jargon of mumbo jumbo that they speak, and the reason why they remain silent and do not speak out is because they don't want to offend anyone like professors etc.

In any University I have ever been in students get essays that ask for critiques of the work of philosophers so this is bunkum. Let me ask you, in an Islamic University would students be asked to speak out against your forefather and critique them, say they were wrong or mistaken or partisan or would they be beyond reach, infallible?

yes, everyone in Islamic sciences is critiqued in the university level, and if they find no point to critique them, it means that their argument is impervious from all angles. This does not denote the extremism of infallibility nor does it denote the extremism of baseless critique, rather there is a perfect balance, something that your western model cannot comprehend and has a dire partisan outlook to by deeming anything outside of its own revisional methodology as "ancestor worship"

That is how his speech is to be understood. He spoke perfect English. Are you sure you are a professor. Either you couldn;t understand what he was talking about, or your partisanship to philosophy blinded you from every understanding the reality of philosophy.

I know philosophy has weaknesses and if you read their work they also know it so they never pretend to be know-it-alls as you are doing here. If you want to discuss philosophy it cannot be done from a position of ignorance. So if you know what you are talking about give us an example because so far I have seen no hint of philosophical knowledge from Yasir or you and without wanting to insult it often sounds as if you are simply parroting what others have told you.

well thats fine and dandy, but I don;t care to talk about philosophy and its boring heap of jargon and basic nonsense that 80 percent of it cannot be applied in any form of modern life today. Rather, when an issue arises and the door opens up to where a philosophical issue is brought forth, then you will be able to see how i can or will address it. But mainly it will be from the religious or metaphysical aspect of philosophy, and not from the physical sciences as i have no quarrel with philosophy from that angle.

if you said all of this, and could not match it up with his speech on descartes, then my friend, you need psychiatric help. please, save your jargon for someone who cares.

Here sadly we see what your view is that anyone with an authentic view or knowledge that contradicts your world view needs serious help. You then show the paucity of your knowledge by saying that I am using jargon - well YOU are the one who is claiming to know enough to debunk philosophy yet cannot by your own admission understand the terms it uses - so discuss Descartes Cogito not ignore it because he was a man that few of us could reach his ankles including Yasir. (lets face it Islam itself has its own language an its term are legion so lets not again call the kettle black)[/COLOR]

my friend, there is no authentic view outside the view of Allah, I am simply one who submits to it. I dont even have a viewpoint other than what my Lord legislated upon me to have. That is the essence of faith that came with and was taught by the prophets and demonstrates the prophetic methodology overall.

2. I never claimed i can debunk philosophy, that was just your imagination. Likewise, i never said I did not understand the terms and jargon used by philosophy, again a product of your own imagination. Just because I said that their jargon is nothing more than useless babble does not mean I do not understand it. On the other hand, I am not claiming I understand all and sundry of philosophy.

3. yeah, Islam has its own dialectic or nomenclature but at least it is understandable to those with intellect. That is the difference, the Islamic dialectic can be understood by anyone as well as the elite, whereas the philosophical jibberish of the philosophers, one would have to be acquainted with bubbles and jibberish of dimension X in order to understand what they are talking about.

Likewise, philosophy offers theories that it likes to posit in forms of facts whereas Islamic dialectics offers facts and theories, its facts can never be disproven and its theories continually evolve.

I would like for you to observe this lecture by Yasir qadhi if you have the time

regards

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

AS FOR laws of logic, I don't care about who established the laws of logic nor are they absolute as some of them contain inherent flaws to them to begin with.

because philosophy is correctly applicable to the physcial sciences because philosophy is based on empiracy or basic human observability.

Within the methodology of the prophet, it is INCUMBENT that the worshiper of God RESTRICTS himself or herself to the views and implementations of the prophets without innovating ideas, beliefs, or practices, nor subtracting what they came with.

... whereas the philosophical jibberish of the philosophers, one would have to be acquainted with bubbles and jibberish of dimension X in order to understand what they are talking about.

Likewise, philosophy offers theories that it likes to posit in forms of facts whereas Islamic dialectics offers facts and theories, its facts can never be disproven and its theories continually evolve.
Yasir qadhi if you have the time

1. I am happy to move on as the Video in question has in my view little value to anyone but I will watch the other video you mentioned and report back.

2. I would like to ask you which laws of logic are flawed and what are those flaws you speak of - I ask because it is an absolutely outrageous claim.

I have no idea where you get this notion that philosophers only use empiricism and so it seems you have no idea what rationalism means; of course philosophers use their rational powers unaided by observation. I note elsewhere in this thread you could not distinguish between logic and senses and you seem to be making then same error here. Do you know for example, what it means to have a theory?

3. With regard to the prophets and innovation etc are you saying that the writings are so plain that they need no explanation, no interpretation, no thinking is involved, not powers of reason are needed?

4. I note what you say on facts but do you know what a fact is? I am also confused as in one place you say you must follow absolutely what you have been told in the past and then you say things must evolve - it does not make sense does it?

The trouble with some Islamic facts is that you are right, they cannot be disproved but by the same token they cannot be shown to be corrects either. Logically, if you suggest something that cannot in principle be falsified, that is one cannot think of any way to do that then it is not admissible because it cannot be tested. You can still believe it of course but that is all. If you have something that passes the falsifiable test lets here it as if nothing else it is a test of logic.

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

1. I am happy to move on as the Video in question has in my view little value to anyone but I will watch the other video you mentioned and report back.

finally, i am happy that you have nmoved on as the posting of the four minute video had nothing to do with convinging you of anything, much less have any value or significance to you, because the original intent and purpose of it was to expose the reality of philosophism according to the "masses" and to express OUR sentiment towards it. Whether you like it or not or find it significnt or not has no bearing on the original intent or the extended discussion that took place on it.

2. I would like to ask you which laws of logic are flawed and what are those flaws you speak of - I ask because it is an absolutely outrageous claim.

When I come across them again, i will highlight them, i don;t have time to waste.

I have no idea where you get this notion that philosophers only use empiricism and so it seems you have no idea what rationalism means; of course philosophers use their rational powers unaided by observation. I note elsewhere in this thread you could not distinguish between logic and senses and you seem to be making then same error here. Do you know for example, what it means to have a theory?

sorry, re read everything again as this tangent does not describe what has happened from my side of the aisle

3. With regard to the prophets and innovation etc are you saying that the writings are so plain that they need no explanation, no interpretation, no thinking is involved, not powers of reason are needed?

interpretation and explanation is one thing, and innovation and bringing newly invented ideas that undermines what the prophets came with i an entirely different matter altogether.

4. I note what you say on facts but do you know what a fact is? I am also confused as in one place you say you must follow absolutely what you have been told in the past and then you say things must evolve - it does not make sense does it?

There are constants and variables in life. There are things that will change, and there are things that will never change. Your extremism is exemplified by the idea that things are EITHER unchangable or they are changable and there can not be a balance between the two.

Our Islamic creed and overall methodology with regards to basic fundamental principles don't change, however the application and to what extent of the practice of Islam may change from time to time and place to place.

e.g.

variable=how we make jihad may change from time and time and place to place

constant=jihad will always be a pillar of Islam

variable=what the hijaab is will change from time to time and place to place

constant=what the hijaab covers will never change due to time or place.

get my drift.

The trouble with some Islamic facts is that you are right, they cannot be disproved but by the same token they cannot be shown to be corrects either. Logically, if you suggest something that cannot in principle be falsified, that is one cannot think of any way to do that then it is not admissible because it cannot be tested. You can still believe it of course but that is all. If you have something that passes the falsifiable test lets here it as if nothing else it is a test of logic.

the fact that you allowed yourself to articulate this statement WHILE believing in the doctrine of Christianity that you do only demonstrates the schizophrenic nature of your entire self. This statement of yours is enough of a refutation of your ownself and that which you believe in.

regards

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

finally, i am happy that you have nmoved on as the posting of the four minute video had nothing to do with convinging you of anything, much less have any value or significance to you, because the original intent and purpose of it was to expose the reality of philosophism according to the "masses" and to express OUR sentiment towards it. Whether you like it or not or find it significnt or not has no bearing on the original intent or the extended discussion that took place on it.

Well we end here. I note in an earlier post you mentioned Yasir as talking about the 'emperors new clothes' and I wondered who you thought he was talking about, who tales the emperors cloths; was it the students, was it the teachers, was it the philosophers but I guess you don't know but perhaps it applies to you.

If you don't want to engage with this thread then that is a matter for you but if you do then I would like to see some sign that you understand and have a view on the basics of thought and action. So far you have just avoided the issue in several posts so I restate some of them:

1. Given the theme of this thread I think my question on the flaws in logic you claim to know about was fair but were you serious or is it you simply do not know of any and your statement was bluster?

2. Yasir in the second video talks about reason but what do you understand by that - do you think it is the same as logic or is it empiricism or something else?

My position is not one that says we can get to God by reason alone and for me there is a spiritual dimension in which anyone can hear God speak especially if one seeks for him. Having heard God speak then we like Abraham can reason about his purposes and will and over all that as Pindar once said "[God's] law is not written on papyrus rolls or wooden tables, but is his own reason within the soul, which perpetually dwells with him and guards him and never leaves his soul bereft"

[salman]

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

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?

it seems to me that you yourself have no idea about philosophy and how it is different from common sense and logic.

When we use common sense and logical argument then we are not using philosophy because philosophy is not limited to logic. Philosophy is based upon its whole science and rules whereas common sense is not. We do not despise every single branch of philosophy rather we despise the use of philosophy to derive moral values and religious issues because they contradict what has come to us through revelation. A man's understanding is not superior to his Creator and prophetic methodology is based upon submission whereas philosophical doctrine is based upon limited knowledge and human reasoning.

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

Well we end here. I note in an earlier post you mentioned Yasir as talking about the 'emperors new clothes' and I wondered who you thought he was talking about, who tales the emperors cloths; was it the students, was it the teachers, was it the philosophers but I guess you don't know but perhaps it applies to you.

I was not going to respond to these petty comments, but I figured why not.

If you don't want to engage with this thread then that is a matter for you but if you do then I would like to see some sign that you understand and have a view on the basics of thought and action. So far you have just avoided the issue in several posts so I restate some of them:

1. Given the theme of this thread I think my question on the flaws in logic you claim to know about was fair but were you serious or is it you simply do not know of any and your statement was bluster?

we find no problem using expressions like the emperors cloths and I know where yasir gets these expressions, they are from philosophers, so what. I am beginning to think that you would like for us to critique people rather than the substance of their ideas which is not our way. Our method of attack to people is with regards to their ideas, agendas, and the advocacy of thoughts that bring harm to people overall. So using the fact that we may at times quote some dumb line of expression coined by a philosopher as a way to indict Muslims of some form of hypocrisy is a straw man at best (and yeah, straw man is one of the logicians formal argument fallacies, i know i know, no need to reiterate it)

2. Yasir in the second video talks about reason but what do you understand by that - do you think it is the same as logic or is it empiricism or something else?

reason is one thing and logic is another.


Listen man, there is a whole history of things about logic that you may be unaware of and that fact may be solidified if you have never learned the development of mantiq (logic) in Islamic thought and the logic of its critics in islam. Im not going to go in depth into this as I don't have the time to partake in this endeavor with you.

However, we did have one of our great Imaams, the Shafi'i jurisprudent and Hadeeth specialist Ibnu-Salaah ash-Shahrazuri. He secretly studied logic under the brother of one of his first teachers. His teacher told him that "people think well of you and people generally ascribe irreligion to everyone who studies this subject".

Later on Ibnu-Salaah would say sourly dismiss Logic as "pompous words which God has made superflous for all sane people"

and this is pretty much the jargon I was speaking before. Anyways there was more written by Ibn Taymiyyah called "Dar at-Ta'arrud al-Aql wa Naql" or "the clash between the intellect and the texts" which was semi translated into English with the title "Ibn Taymiyyah against the Greek Logicians" I believe.
Similarly, his profound student, adh-Dhahabee has something wonderous on the same topic which he titled "al-Muntaqa min Manhaj al-'Itidaal fi Naqd kalaam Ahl al-Rafd wal Itizaal"
Likewise, the great Shafi'ee jurist and traditionist as-Suyootee wrote something on the subject titled "Sawn al-Mantiq",

It is incumbent on me to clarify that all of these works that attack logic are with regards to applying this logic upon a deity (Allah) beyond the properties upon which logic is applicable (i.e. creation). In other words the main reason why logic and logical principles do not fully entail absolutes upon the divine is because most of these concepts are based on what is perceivable to the human mind. The problem is that Allah and His attributes are beyond the human perception and its howness which thereby creates a limbo for logical assumptions because logical principles only work with regard to perceptional realities that have been perceived by man. But an object that is beyond man's reach of knowledge or experience cannot thereby be judged on or correctly viewed under the principles of human reasoning.

This is why Islamic theologicans derived the creedal concept that creedal matters, specifically geared towards the fundamentals of faith are tawqeefiyyah (revealed) or established through revealed evidences rather than tawfeeqiyyah (granted or bestowed) to the human intellect.

The reason stated for this was perfectly explained by our shaykh, the Hanbali jurisprudent, Saalih al-Fawzaan when he said

Aqeedah (Islamic creed) is 'tawqeefiyyah', meaning that it is only established through evidence from the shari'ah. There is no room in it for opinions or conjecture. Thus, its sources are restricted to that which has been reported in the Book and the Sunnah, since no one is more knowledgeable than Allaah about the obligations due to Him and what He is free from and after Allaah, there is no one more knowledgeable about Him than the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alaihi wasallam). Thus the manhaj of the Salaf us-Saalih and those who followed them in learning the 'aqeedah was restricted to the Book and Sunnah.

My position is not one that says we can get to God by reason alone and for me there is a spiritual dimension in which anyone can hear God speak especially if one seeks for him. Having heard God speak then we like Abraham can reason about his purposes and will and over all that as Pindar once said "[God's] law is not written on papyrus rolls or wooden tables, but is his own reason within the soul, which perpetually dwells with him and guards him and never leaves his soul bereft"

the statement after the bold is in opposition to the statement claim in bold and italics. Getting to God essentially is through obedience to His Will and obedience to His law is the extension of His Will for us. contrary to what this Pindar states, Gods law IS written on scrolls, paper, or whatever, and it is the basis of mans actions and it is the basis on which man will be judged by. That law is not arrived by a man's heart, but through the revelation of Him above the Throne to one among us whom He chose.

We have a common saying regarding Allah's law and the equation is a chronological and mathematical perfection invented by a mind indoctrinated on upon the radiance of faith. It states

"Upon Allah is the message, Upon the Messenger is the conveyance, and upon us is the submission"

This is the exact essence and spiritual code of the believers because it denotes the religion of the prophets and the believers who believed as they believed.

In other words, it is upon Allah and no one else to derive the Guidance, and it is not for anyone other than God to derive guidance. It is upon the Messengers of God to deliver that guidance and it is upon the humans to accept the guidance that will land to their success ultimately in the afterlife or to reject that guidance for something that they invented for themselves thinking that what they have with them is more "proper", "befitting" or "reasonable" than what Allah has legislated for them and ultimately reject the guidance of Allah to the detriment of their own souls.

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by salman

it seems to me that you yourself have no idea about philosophy and how it is different from common sense and logic.

When we use common sense and logical argument then we are not using philosophy because philosophy is not limited to logic. Philosophy is based upon its whole science and rules whereas common sense is not. We do not despise every single branch of philosophy rather we despise the use of philosophy to derive moral values and religious issues because they contradict what has come to us through revelation. A man's understanding is not superior to his Creator and prophetic methodology is based upon submission whereas philosophical doctrine is based upon limited knowledge and human reasoning.

Just to go back a few steps. Yasir spoke about philosophy as being the 'emperors new cloths' and if his analogy means anything at all he implies it has no substance, nothing, and its only the deluded who think it does. Philosophy at its roots is about what is knowledge and how can it be undercover and codified and I see nothing wrong with such a view although that does not mean I or you have to agree with everything it says.

I have no idea what rules in philosophy you are talking about so I cannot comment on that or the supposed superiority of this thing you call common sense since common sense is never going to be infallible is it?

Of course I agree with you that if one accepts there is a creator then we are in no way superior to him. On the other hand all we have is our minds to try to understand what God is saying although I would go so far as saying we have let's call in a spiritual intellect as well that guides us.

I am not sure where you feel philosophy contradicts moral values although it does explore them and may have an alternative viewpoint and value system. Perhaps you can give an example where you feel there is a difference?

The problem I have is that you have one view of revelation and you are I think implying that we accept the prophetic message without any thought or interpretation or that somehow your scholars had infinite wisdom in order to construct an infallible methodology and out of that construct say sharia.

To put it more simply, your scholars constructed laws and a methodology and logically they could only do that with the limited information they had yet you would argue that it holds for all time and that to me is absurd because the chain of reasoning would have to be that Allah passed everything to your prophet perfectly but there are no witnesses to that, that the scriptures can be perfectly understood by your scholars, in areas where the Qu'ran says nothing you scholars had to in some way arrive at the perfect solution and a solution that is timeless, that the thousands upon thousands of hadith sayings and stories are in some way perfect examples from which to draw truth etc - it simply is not credible is it?