Belief of the salaf, in the language of Kalam

[asharee_salafi]

Asslaamulekum wr wb,

Some time ago brother abu zubair, you wrote a really nice piece on the subject of contararies, unfortuantely, I can't find it, but that thread, despite being quite old, was one of the best threads I have seen here, shame its lost, you could of made a nice article from it ( I can't do a q-a article at the moment but if someone could take the offer, pls do so).

Anyways, so some asharee said to you, that either/or situations cannot exist for ALLAH, So if something is black don't mean its white, do you remember the thread now?

It was very pivotal in my understanding of the asharee madhab, because I was very shocked to know that they do not beleive Allah is seperate from the creation, subhanALLAH! rather he is nowehere! ( this is pure atheism squared)

then you gave the samples of contaraies that have 1 meaning out of two possibilities,a nd contarries that have an array of meanings,

you then said a very beauftul comment, and that was, that the belief of the salaf is being rendered in the langauge of Kalam.....subhanAllah.
But one question that stems from this ( well, I say one, maybe two or three..or hey -- even four ! lol)

Firstly, where did all this discussion come from? how whgere the salaf able to use logic, including the latter scholars like ibn taymiyya, in refutation of the infinite regress argument, there understanding of space and time etc, because some time ago, in my days as a muatizili/asharee, I thought that no one had to answer to my waswas and these questiosn where too hard and no one had the answeres, such as the conundrum that Allah is above the creation, ALLAH Spoke to Musa AS at a particular time etc, but alhamdullilah you have shown there are answered to these problems.

But where does this come from?

Secondly, what is logic and where does it come from? and why do we trust our logic bearing in mind what we know from the real of science such as quantum mechanics?

And now shall we fight the atheist assumptions upon the fitrah and common sense arguments put forth by us, they say that our common sense or fitrah that Allah exists, is 'probably' wrong, like when humans thought the earth was round, our common sense thought this, but then science disproved it, how answer?

And while of the subject of Kalam, why is it that tahawi never put the asharees in the list of deviants groups he mentioned in the end point? maybe theyw erenta round or tahawi was mentioning the root of all deviant beliefs,

Make dua for me,
Jazak ALLAHU khairun,

WS WR WB

[Abuz Zubair]

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showpost.php?p=4652&postcount=50

This is, I assume, what you are after.

Firstly, where did all this discussion come from? how whgere the salaf able to use logic, including the latter scholars like ibn taymiyya
The Salaf did not use Greek Logic, for as Ibn Taymiyya said, an intelligent person is not in need thereof, and a stupid person is unable to benefit from it.

It is only elementary to know that either something is inside or outside, living or dead, existing or not-existing.

Ibn Taymiyya, as far as I remember, did study logic when he was young, as that was, I think, part of the curriculum in those days.

I think he also benefited from some of Ibn Rushd's works, and this is what made him unique, in that he argued on behalf of Sunnah on every level, logic, philosophy and kalam, whereas others before him sufficed themselves with narrating traditions in affirmation of certain Sunni beliefs.

Secondly, what is logic and where does it come from? and why do we trust our logic bearing in mind what we know from the real of science such as quantum mechanics?

Sorry, I am lost :)

And now shall we fight the atheist assumptions upon the fitrah and common sense arguments put forth by us, they say that our common sense or fitrah that Allah exists, is 'probably' wrong, like when humans thought the earth was round, our common sense thought this, but then science disproved it, how answer?


I think humans thought that the earth is flat, and it was first proven by the Quran, followed by the consensus of the companions and the followers that the earth is round, and then later discovered by the Europeans.

In any case, fitra is what a person is born with, such that he does not have to acquire it as he grows older. For instance, the infant is born with the natural instinct that tells him how to suckle for the first time ever. It is not something he learns as he grows older. Similar is our belief in God, and this is why there has been a consensus of humanity of the existence of God through out the ages. And yes, atheists have always existed but their existence has been insignificant. Even in such a technologically advanced age they are losing whatever little influence they had.

On the other hand, the knowledge of earth being flat or round was something acquired via reasoning and observation and not innate in human beings.

And while of the subject of Kalam, why is it that tahawi never put the asharees in the list of deviants groups he mentioned in the end point? maybe theyw erenta round or tahawi was mentioning the root of all deviant beliefs,
This is right. His intention was not to list all the deviant groups.

[asharee_salafi]

nice replies brother,

what I meant about that quantum mechanics business was that we see many weird things happen in that field, apparently, it is said that two things exist at the same place at the same time, how is this possible ? and how does our logic stand up to these facts?

I think that some of what is seen in the quantum realm is disputed, but still, how shall we deal with it?

[Abuz Zubair]

apparently, it is said that two things exist at the same place at the same time, how is this possiblelike body and soul, you mean?

[asharee_salafi]

jus quickly,

forget that thing for now,

what i mean about ibn taymiyyah is where did he get the knowldge about infinitre regress etc, and how to reconcile asharite dilemmas, how did he get this from the salaf when they didn't talk about these things,

is it right to say he orginated all this? if not, who else discussed the ways to refute ashrite dilemma, I mean, where does the whole shebang come from?

u get what I mean?

( I think my id is messed up, i dont get to bold headings etc, lol)

[Abuz Zubair]

what i mean about ibn taymiyyah is where did he get the knowldge about infinitre regress etc, and how to reconcile asharite dilemmas, how did he get this from the salaf when they didn't talk about these things,

Several things:

1) He was extremely intelligent, and perhaps even that is an understatement. Very academic with sharp thinking. He was simply blessed, and in fact, known by his adversaries as the wonder of the age. So he was more than exceptional.

2) He did a lot of reading on his own, so he read works by philosophers, shia, ash'aris, etc etc... he was a very quick reader, quick to understand and very quick to write, too.

3) The Salaf never discussed these issues in kalami terms for several reasons, amongst them, a) it was deeply abhorred amongst them to learn or discuss kalam, and b) they would use other rational and textual arguments to refute Ahl al-Kalam, such that they weren't in need to resort to ilm al-kalam. By Ibn Taymiyya's time, 'ilm al-kalam became part of the syllabus, so it was not that much disliked for a person to read a work on kalam and be acquainted with it.

is it right to say he orginated all this? if not, who else discussed the ways to refute ashrite dilemma, I mean, where does the whole shebang come from?

I don't think he originated it, because if you are discussing with an Ash'ari and he is throwing terms like eternal, temporal, body, divisible, composed, substance, accidents, etc, at you, you cannot just put your fingers in your ears and pretend you didn't hear anything. And hence, many of the traditionalists refuted the rational arguments using their own terms, such as Ibn Qudama saying that eternal can be divisible. However, Ibn Qudama never read up, and studied very deeply, the Kalami arguments from their perspective. Ibn Taymiyya on the other hand, mastered any science he came close to - literally. He was in fact known for that.

So this is why whenever Ibn Taymiyya speaks in a science, it is as if he knows no other science but that (can't remember who said it, Ibn Kathir or al-Dhahabi). So of course, he went 100 steps further than Ibn Qudama in terms of rational argumentation and rocked the Ash'ari world of substances and accidents.

[jinnzaman]

Just out of curiosity, what is the definition of "Greek logic"?

[Abuz Zubair]

In our context, we're referring to Aristotle's Logic:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/#Def

[jinnzaman]

In our context, we're referring to Aristotle's Logic:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/#Def

How would you differentiate this from Mantiq?

[jinnzaman]

also, not being aware of kalam is a separate question from rejecting kalam.

[Abd al-Haqq Marshall]

Even Western thinkers no longer recognize Aristotelian logic.

Aristotelian logic said: The logical belief is that the universe has always been, and forever will be.

Islam said: The universe (ad-dunya) has a beginning and an end.

Modern physics says: The universe has a beginning (the big bang, the unfolding of the universe), and an end (the big crunch, the folding up of the universe).

Islam was right all along, Aristotleans were wrong.

[joefso]

are there still Muslims today who mix their Aqeedah with Greek philosophical ideas?

[Abd al-Haqq Marshall]

are there still Muslims today who mix their Aqeedah with Greek philosophical ideas?

Yes. Nuh Ha Mim Keller justifies it with a clumsy chess metaphor.

[aMuslimForLife]

Aristotelian logic said: The logical belief is that the universe has always been, and forever will be.






So what Ashari believes this?????

[jinnzaman]

Even Western thinkers no longer recognize Aristotelian logic.

Aristotelian logic said: The logical belief is that the universe has always been, and forever will be.

Islam said: The universe (ad-dunya) has a beginning and an end.

Modern physics says: The universe has a beginning (the big bang, the unfolding of the universe), and an end (the big crunch, the folding up of the universe).

Islam was right all along, Aristotleans were wrong.

What I really want to know is when and where the Salaf objected to the types of statements made by Aristotle.

There's a difference between rejecting a methodical way of thinking and the conclusions using that process.

[ibnislam]

Yes. Nuh Ha Mim Keller justifies it with a clumsy chess metaphor.

Assalaamu alaykum,

Maybe this is what you were thinking of?

Taken from http://www.livingislam.org/k/ki_e.html:


The historical proof for rational argument – unmentioned in kalam literature but perhaps even more cogent than either of the Qur'anic proofs just mentioned – is that nothing else could meet the crisis that Ash'ari and Maturidi faced; namely, the heretical mistakes of the two early proto-schools of `aqida, the Jahmiyya and the Mu'tazila. We say "nothing else" because a chess player cannot be defeated by playing checkers, and the only way to refute the arguments of the Jahmiyya and of the Mu'tazila was by intellectual means. Mere political suppression would have but hardened their party spirit into sectarian obstinacy, so it was necessary to defeat them with rational argument.


Allah already said:
And indeed We have put forth every kind of example in this Quran, for mankind. But, man is ever more quarrelsome than anything [18:54]


These people were never content to let the Quraan do the talking for them, and they are the most argumentative of all people.

People like Imaam Ahmad and his brethren on the sunnah already refuted these deviant ideas brought forth by the philosophers, making the Ashari/Maturidi approaches irrelevant.

However these "intellectuals" aggrandize this "rational" approach (when the reality is that true reason is only that which agrees with all of the revelation), they start to hate anything that opposes it.

Hence, you always see their Jidaal bil Baatil against the thaahir meanings of the Quran and Sunnah. Ja'a al-Haqqu wa zahaqa al-baatil, inna al-baatila kaana zahooqaa!

Ma'asalaam,
Ibn Islam

[justabro]

Imām `Uthmān b. Sa`īd al-Dārimī states in al-Radd `Alā al-Jahmīyyah:

Some of them have said, “No, we base our view on the rational (ma`qūl).”

We say: it is here that you have strayed from the right path and fallen into misguidance from which you have no escape, for reason (ma`qūl) is not a monolithic entity with uniformly defined limits for all people such that it would be sufficient. If such were the case, it would be a relief for the people and we would also base our view upon it and go no further. In that case, Allāh would not have said:

“Each sect rejoices in what it has.” [Al-Mu’minūn:53]

Thus, we find that according to each group, the “rational” (ma`qūl) is that which they are upon while that which opposes them they regard to be “irrational” (majhūl). Consequently, O assembly of Jahmīs, we find your factions to be in dispute as to what is “rational”. Each faction amongst you claims that reason is with it and that is calling to it, while that which opposes it is irrational. Thus, having seen that “reason” is disputed amongst us and you and all the People of Desires, we have not been able to find a precise definition for it in all things. Consequently, we hold that the most guided way is to refer all manners of reasoning to the order of Allāh’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) and to that which was considered rational by his Companions and was well-known amongst them, because it was in their midst that the revelation would descend. Hence, they are more knowledgeable of its meanings than you or us. Furthermore, they were in agreement about the fundamentals of the religion (Usūl al-Dīn). They did not divide into factions concerning them, innovations did not appear amongst them nor desires which lead one astray from the path.

Hence, in our view, the rational is that which corresponds with their guidance and the irrational is that which opposed them. Furthermore, there is no way to know their guidance and their way except by these Āthār, and you have detached yourself from them and claim to select only some of them, so how can you be guided?

http://islamicsciences.wordpress.com/2007/02/07/establishing-al-ruyah-and-a-narration-from-a-tabii/#more-40

[Abd al-Haqq Marshall]

So what Ashari believes this?????

The Asharis don't believe it, the Faylasufs did.

[aMuslimForLife]

The Asharis don't believe it, the Faylasufs did.
Yet one more proof that Ashari Aqidah is NOT based on Aristotelian logic.

[Abuz Zubair]

Yet one more proof that Ashari Aqidah is NOT based on Aristotelian logic.

How foolish of you as always...

When you grow up and learn a bit of Arabic, and actually have a real Shaykh (and not an imaginary one), to teach you mantiq and kalam, then do yourself a favour:

Try to compare between mantiq and the link I posted about Aritstotle's logic and then try to spot the difference.

Try to acquire all the reliable books on Ash'ari theology and try to look for the one that does not start off with jawhar, 'aradh and jism.

And when you fail, go a step further and find out who actually invented the concepts of jawhar, 'aradh and jism and HOW these concepts go slipped into Islamic thought.

As you can see, you have a LONG way to go, until you become a knowledgeable heretic. Until then, you remain an ignorant bigot.

[aMuslimForLife]

As you can see, you have a LONG way to go, until you become a knowledgeable heretic. Until then, you remain an ignorant bigot.knowledgeable heretic. Until then, you remain an ignorant bigot.

The day I want to become a knowledgeable heretic, is the day I'll take any advice you give regarding din, until then I am content with just following the Quran and Sunnah according to the understanding of the Salafus Saleh.

Jazakullah Kharian.

[jinnzaman]

AbuZubair,

Which aspect of Aristotlean logic do you find objectionable? I'm not asking which philosophical conclusions you find objectionable (i.e. such as the universe being coterminous with the prime mover, the form of good), but rather, which rational principles that he developed do you specifically reject as being in conflict with the Qur'an and Sunnah?

What I'm driving at: is their an Islamic mode of reasoning that is distinct from the logical principles developed by Aristotle?

[Abd al-Haqq Marshall]

Why do we need Aristotle? We have the best of creation, Rasulullah (salallahu alayhi was salaam). Why would we mix our pure and noble deen with the pedantry of some ancient Greek kaafir?

BTW, if it wasn't so expensive, I'd get this book:
http://www.onlineislamicstore.com/b4678.html

[jinnzaman]

Why do we need Aristotle? We have the best of creation, Rasulullah (salallahu alayhi was salaam). Why would we mix our pure and noble deen with the pedantry of some ancient Greek kaafir?

BTW, if it wasn't so expensive, I'd get this book:
http://www.onlineislamicstore.com/b4678.html

Logic is an interpretative process, a mode of thinking, not necessarily an aqeedah. Logic itself is not kufr or shirk or iman. It is methodology of reasoning.

There is a difference between castigating the conclusions of an interpretative process and the interpretative process itself.

Thus, although Aristotle himself believed that the universe was co-terminous with the prime mover, i.e. the good, using logic does not require one to agree to this conclusion. Aristotle's philosophical conclusions are one of many permutations using logic. One can equally use logic to believe that the universe was not co-terminous with the prime mover, just as equally as one can use logic to disbelieve in the universe or the prime mover.

Logic itself has evolved beyond Aristotle, especially in the modern era.

When you say logic is invalid, are you saying logic is invalid altogether as a source of reasoning. By implication, all sciences that are derived from logic would be considered invalid as well, such as mathematics, linguistics, physics, and computer science.

What is acceptable and what is unacceptable about this mode of reasoning?

For example, how do the sources of legislation reject syllogistic reasoning? What proof is there in the Qur'an and Sunnah that syllogistic reasoning is haram? What proof is there that the Salafus Saleh prohibited syllogistic reasoning? What about analogical reasoning?

[Abd al-Haqq Marshall]

Logic is an interpretative process, a mode of thinking, not necessarily an aqeedah. Logic itself is not kufr or shirk or iman. It is methodology of reasoning.

There is a difference between castigating the conclusions of an interpretative process and the interpretative process itself.

Thus, although Aristotle himself believed that the universe was co-terminous with the prime mover, i.e. the good, using logic does not require one to agree to this conclusion. Aristotle's philosophical conclusions are one of many permutations using logic. One can equally use logic to believe that the universe was not co-terminous with the prime mover, just as equally as one can use logic to disbelieve in the universe or the prime mover.

Logic itself has evolved beyond Aristotle, especially in the modern era.

When you say logic is invalid, are you saying logic is invalid altogether as a source of reasoning. By implication, all sciences that are derived from logic would be considered invalid as well, such as mathematics, linguistics, physics, and computer science.

What is acceptable and what is unacceptable about this mode of reasoning?

For example, how do the sources of legislation reject syllogistic reasoning? What proof is there in the Qur'an and Sunnah that syllogistic reasoning is haram? What proof is there that the Salafus Saleh prohibited syllogistic reasoning? What about analogical reasoning?


I never said logic is haraam or shirk or anything, but I believe mixing our deen with Aristotle is as haraam as mixing it with Kant, or Nietzsche, or Shopenhauer, or Sartre. Aristotlean logic goes well beyond common sense, it is an entire system of looking at the world and categorizing it (a way that has been greatly criticized by western philosophers as well), and I don't see what at all it has to do with Islam.

[jinnzaman]

I never said logic is haraam or shirk or anything, but I believe mixing our deen with Aristotle is as haraam as mixing it with Kant, or Nietzsche, or Shopenhauer, or Sartre. Aristotlean logic goes well beyond common sense, it is an entire system of looking at the world and categorizing it (a way that has been greatly criticized by western philosophers as well), and I don't see what at all it has to do with Islam.

Okay, what exactly about Aristotlean logic is haram?
What about non-Aristotlean logic?

Logic is not a simple concept that can be reduced. The only scholar, I'm aware of, whose ever given a systematic critique of logic itself was Ibn Taymiyyah, but even his arguments have certain problems, both from a logical perspective and a textual perspective.

[Abd al-Haqq Marshall]

Okay, what exactly about Aristotlean logic is haram?


Namely, the heretical conclusions it leads to. You said that there is a difference between rejecting the conclusions something leads to and rejecting the premises it's based on. That doesn't make sense. If Aristotle's premises lead to heretical conclusions, his premises are, ipso facto, heretical.


That's the difference between Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and Imam Al-Ghazali. Ghazali just rejected the conclusions philosophy led to, Ibn Taymiyyah rejected philosophy itself.

[ibnislam]

Namely, the heretical conclusions it leads to. You said that there is a difference between rejecting the conclusions something leads to and rejecting the premises it's based on. That doesn't make sense. If Aristotle's premises lead to heretical conclusions, his premises are, ipso facto, heretical.


That's the difference between Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and Imam Al-Ghazali. Ghazali just rejected the conclusions philosophy led to, Ibn Taymiyyah rejected philosophy itself.

Jazaakullahu khayran for that analysis; it helps me understand things better.

By the way that book is sold slightly used for 30 dollars cheaper at Amazon!

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0198240430/ref=dp_olp_2/002-8060313-2950407

[jinnzaman]

Namely, the heretical conclusions it leads to. You said that there is a difference between rejecting the conclusions something leads to and rejecting the premises it's based on. That doesn't make sense. If Aristotle's premises lead to heretical conclusions, his premises are, ipso facto, heretical.


That's the difference between Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and Imam Al-Ghazali. Ghazali just rejected the conclusions philosophy led to, Ibn Taymiyyah rejected philosophy itself.

Syllogistic and analogical reasoning doesn't lead to heretical conclusions. The very concept of qiyas is nothing more than analogical reasoning. In fact, the organization of Islamic texts in the science of ilm ul hadeeth is predicated upon a form of logic. Linguistics is also a form of logic. The way that the grammarians have organized the Arabic language is ipso facto a form of logic.

So when you say "logic is haram" you have to be more specific. Logic is not a set of philosophical conclusions, its a set of reasoning. Although a lot of it originated with Aristotle, it has evolved and incorporated different strains of reasoning. It has been criticized by the empiricists who were counter-criticized by the rationalists, then the pragmatists, and then the phenomenologists.

However, my point is: what is the textual basis for critiquing logic as a mode of thought? Is there a verse in the Qur'an or hadeeth which prohibits syllogistic or analogic reasoning or the use of definitions? If logic itself is haram, then on what grounds does one accept the rationalization of the Islamic texts in the science of tafseer, hadeeth, jurisprudence?

My ultimate question is: can logic be used to understand the Sunni aqeedah if the conclusions are in conformity with this aqeedah? Most importantly, whats the daleel for this?

[Madarijas-Salikeen]

Not accepting the sifaat upon their apparent meanings without tashibih due to rational thought i find is disturbing. ANd this is what it comes down to is rational thinking.

You can sit ten people in a room and speak about sifaat of Allaah and speak rationally and you will have different opinions. This is just like the ashariyah and maturidiyah and mutazilah etc..


If we reject Allaah has a Hand because we think affirming Yad literally is kufr then we are basically saying Allah revealed kufr. Just because our intellect cannot understand Hand without tashbih.

Soon if you use rational thought and move through the ocean of Tafwid you will fall into the error of stripping Allaah of His Attributes (Exalted is He from what the fools say). So Ar Rahman you would not affirm literally rather you would affirm the wording only. Same with ANGER AND PLEASURE (maturidiyah affirming the wording while asharis making tawil) so all together they both will reject the apparent meanings because amongst creation we get angry and pleased. The problem is that you must understand Allah's sifaat can be affirmed without tashbih.

If by affirming apparent meaning you are talking about likening to creation than the salaf negated this and ibn taymiyah rahimullah negated this. Rather the apparent meanings were taken without tashbih, tateel, tahreef, tawil, and without kayf.

After swimming in kalam of the ashariyah and maturidiyah i realize i get no where. my imaan just keeps decreasing. Why? Because its all intellect over the clear matn of the Quran and Sunnah.

So if i chose to be ashari i will dwell into their kalam and reject some of what maturidiyah have said etc.. and all sorts of ideals will be thrown around and in the end it does not benefit me in the deen.

However if i Take the Sifaat upon the apparent meanings without negating them, or making tawil, tahreef, tamtheel, and without dwelling into kayfiyyah i find myself happy and i find that i start to learn about my Rabb(exalted Is HE). I find the beauty in reading about His Names and reading about His PERFECT attributes. Knowing that Allaah has a HAND unlike anything at all. And that Allaah will roll the heavens up like a scroll in His HAND because HE IS SO GREAT and unlike creation. I find myself learning about the beautiful names al ghafir the one who forgives etc.. so i can make tawasul by saying Ya Al Ghafir forgive me etc... so i get closer to Allaah for He did say he was Ma' with us. So maiyah I affirm unlike us being with creation.

It makes me happy to look at the sifaat this way instead of making tafwid in some instances, tawil in others, and remaining silent in others. Rather i see it is much more pleasant to affirm the sifaat without kayfiyyah and without likening Allaah to creation.

May Allaah allow me to die upon this blessed creed of Islaam.

[jinnzaman]

When the Arabs used the term 'yadd' to describe a being, they understood it as a body organ. With regards to Allah (subhana wa ta'ala), one cannot use the literal import of the meaning of this, and other similarly situated, terms because that would be anthropomorphic. Thus, even a Hanbali or Salafi would have to agree that one does not take the actual literal terms themselves, but must add an additional clause. Their is not a single verse in the Qur'an that says "Allah has a yadd unlike the yadd of creation." The conclusion that Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) has a yadd that is dissimilar to the creation is derived from other verses of the Qur'an that say that Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) is absolutely dissimilar to His creation. Thus, it is a rational conclusion that Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) does not have a yadd like His creation. This is actually a form of syllogism, not a literalistic interpretation since no text actually conjoins this principle of dissimilarity with His attributes, its an argument by analogy.

Thus, even the Hanbalis and the Salafis use syllogistic and analogical reasoning.

My question is: what is the textual proof that syllogistic and analogical reasoning itself is haram if it does not lead to incorrect conclusions?

Furthermore, if there is textual proof, did the Salafus Saleh understand the texts to be absolutely against syllogistic and analogical forms of reasoning?

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

Not accepting the sifaat upon their apparent meanings without tashibih due to rational thought i find is disturbing. ANd this is what it comes down to is rational thinking.

You can sit ten people in a room and speak about sifaat of Allaah and speak rationally and you will have different opinions. This is just like the ashariyah and maturidiyah and mutazilah etc..


If we reject Allaah has a Hand because we think affirming Yad literally is kufr then we are basically saying Allah revealed kufr. Just because our intellect cannot understand Hand without tashbih.

Soon if you use rational thought and move through the ocean of Tafwid you will fall into the error of stripping Allaah of His Attributes (Exalted is He from what the fools say). So Ar Rahman you would not affirm literally rather you would affirm the wording only. Same with ANGER AND PLEASURE (maturidiyah affirming the wording while asharis making tawil) so all together they both will reject the apparent meanings because amongst creation we get angry and pleased. The problem is that you must understand Allah's sifaat can be affirmed without tashbih.

If by affirming apparent meaning you are talking about likening to creation than the salaf negated this and ibn taymiyah rahimullah negated this. Rather the apparent meanings were taken without tashbih, tateel, tahreef, tawil, and without kayf.

After swimming in kalam of the ashariyah and maturidiyah i realize i get no where. my imaan just keeps decreasing. Why? Because its all intellect over the clear matn of the Quran and Sunnah.

So if i chose to be ashari i will dwell into their kalam and reject some of what maturidiyah have said etc.. and all sorts of ideals will be thrown around and in the end it does not benefit me in the deen.

However if i Take the Sifaat upon the apparent meanings without negating them, or making tawil, tahreef, tamtheel, and without dwelling into kayfiyyah i find myself happy and i find that i start to learn about my Rabb(exalted Is HE). I find the beauty in reading about His Names and reading about His PERFECT attributes. Knowing that Allaah has a HAND unlike anything at all. And that Allaah will roll the heavens up like a scroll in His HAND because HE IS SO GREAT and unlike creation. I find myself learning about the beautiful names al ghafir the one who forgives etc.. so i can make tawasul by saying Ya Al Ghafir forgive me etc... so i get closer to Allaah for He did say he was Ma' with us. So maiyah I affirm unlike us being with creation.

It makes me happy to look at the sifaat this way instead of making tafwid in some instances, tawil in others, and remaining silent in others. Rather i see it is much more pleasant to affirm the sifaat without kayfiyyah and without likening Allaah to creation.

May Allaah allow me to die upon this blessed creed of Islaam.

alhamdulillah brother! maasha'ALLAH! I agree with you 100%

[Abuz Zubair]

until then I am content with just following the Quran and Sunnah according to the understanding of the Salafus Saleh.


I know you are following your Salaf 'al-Salih':

http://web.hao.ucar.edu/public/education/sp/images/aristotle.gif

After all, he taught you substances, accidents and bodies..

[Abuz Zubair]

AbuZubair,

Which aspect of Aristotlean logic do you find objectionable? I'm not asking which philosophical conclusions you find objectionable (i.e. such as the universe being coterminous with the prime mover, the form of good), but rather, which rational principles that he developed do you specifically reject as being in conflict with the Qur'an and Sunnah?

What I'm driving at: is their an Islamic mode of reasoning that is distinct from the logical principles developed by Aristotle?
Aristotle's logic falls apart when dealing with the seen world, and is completely crippled when it comes to the unseen world.

For instance... a stone being alive or dead for Aristotle's logic and his followers from the Ash'aris is an absurdity, because life and death is from Possession and Privation types of contraries...

The Quran on the other hand transcends such categorisation, for we are told that even stones posses life, they cry, and are likewise described with life or death. And this is only to do with the world that is seen. how about then with the unseen world?

[jinnzaman]

Aristotle's logic falls apart when dealing with the seen world, and is completely crippled when it comes to the unseen world.

For instance... a stone being alive or dead for Aristotle's logic and his followers from the Ash'aris is an absurdity, because life and death is from Possession and Privation types of contraries...

The Quran on the other hand transcends such categorisation, for we are told that even stones posses life, they cry, and are likewise described with life or death. And this is only to do with the world that is seen. how about then with the unseen world?

Again, you've made the same mistake everyone else has made in failing to distinguish between a logical conclusion and logic itself. Aristotlean logic is not a monolithic concept, it is a rational process by which one arrives at particular conclusions.

I gave the example above of how one can use Aristotlean logic and arrive at different conclusions. This is why some of the philosophers/Mu'takallimun arrived at different conclusions regarding the temporal nature of the universe. They all used "logic" but they arrived at different conclusions.

Asharis do not subject Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) to the laws of logic since logic is a human attempt to reason, and Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) is All-Knowing and beyond reason, He is supra-rational. Instead, the Asharis attempt to use logic, just like the other sciences such as usool al fiqh, to reconcile conflicting texts.

There is a world of a difference between Aristotle and Aristotlean logic.

In essence, Islamic scholars whether in ilm ul hadeeth, ilm ul tafser, and usool al fiqh have been using elements of Aristotlean logic such as syllogistic reasoning and analogical reasoning.

If you are claiming that Aristotlean logic itself, such as the use of definitions, various proofs, is itself Haram, then my question to you is: what is the daleel for this? What is the proof from the Qur'an and Sunnah that it is haram to use syllogistic reasoning or analogical reasoning?

If you are saying it is haram, then you have to meet the requisite burden of proof to answer this question since only Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) can declare something halal or haram.

[Abuz Zubair]

Asharis do not subject Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) to the laws of logic since logic is a human attempt to reason, and Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) is All-Knowing and beyond reason, He is supra-rational. Instead, the Asharis attempt to use logic, just like the other sciences such as usool al fiqh, to reconcile conflicting texts.

Not quite. All Ash'ari manuals on theology begin with Aristotle's categorisation of existence into substances and accidents, and it is only on this premise that they are able to prove God's existence. For the Ash'aris, without Aristotle's help, they wouldn't be able to prove God's existence.

This is why everything matter in theology to them is subject to Aristotle's categorisation. Any thing it may be of the unseen, the feel the need to either categorise it as a body or an accident... Even soul, some o fthem categorised it as a body, whilst others as an accident. And on this very premise the Ash'aris endeavour to prove that God must not be a body or an accident, and therefore, must not have any of the qualities of a body or an accident, because the two are emergent.

There is no running away from what your books are crammed full of.

In essence, Islamic scholars whether in ilm ul hadeeth, ilm ul tafser, and usool al fiqh have been using elements of Aristotlean logic such as syllogistic reasoning and analogical reasoning.

Incorrect with respect to hadeeth and tafseer (both I have studied, so you cannot convince me otherwise), but correct with respect to Usul al-Fiqh, post al-Ghazzali, for he was the first Usuli to introduce mantiq to Usul.

If you are claiming that Aristotlean logic itself, such as the use of definitions, various proofs, is itself Haram, then my question to you is: what is the daleel for this? What is the proof from the Qur'an and Sunnah that it is haram to use syllogistic reasoning or analogical reasoning?

If you are saying it is haram, then you have to meet the requisite burden of proof to answer this question since only Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) can declare something halal or haram.

Dear brother, scholars of Islam from the Salaf, up until our time have been writing works against Mantiq and Kalam. Refer to al-Suyuti's Sawn al-Mantiq and he would tell you why it is Haram. I am not saying it is completely haram. Some Salafi scholars would often encourage their students to learn it, at least to be aware of it, while others completely detested it.

The bottom line is what Ibn taymiyya said: Logic is a science which an intelligent person is not in need of, and a stupid person cannot benefit from.

[jinnzaman]

Interesting.

In your opinion, what is the difference between Qiyas and analogical reasoning?

Are you saying that the doctrine of Qiyas, a form of logical reasoning, wasn't a component of usool al fiqh until after Imam Ghazzali?

With regards to the science of hadeeth, categorization of various texts upon certain grades is a very rational, and logical process.

[Abuz Zubair]

Yes, all our sciences are quite logical... but 'ilm al-hadeeth was developed without any support from Greek logic... it is simply common sense, and the same goes for Usul...

Mantiq is not the same as Qiyas... linguistically speaking, yes they both use logic... but logic, or mantiq is a faculty on its own, and in Arabic when one says 'ilm al-mantiq, he is not referring to Qiyas... he is referring to a completely different science... al-Ghazzali was the first to add a chapter on mantiq to a book on Usul... and not the first one to invent qiyas... Qiyas is an agreed upon principle since the time of the companions... no one rejected qiyas except the dhahiriyya... mantiq is always frowned upon even by the likes of al-Suyuti.

[jinnzaman]

can you define 'greek logic' again and differentiate it from syllogistic/analogical reasoning?

[Abuz Zubair]

If you have access to al-Mustasfa of al-Ghazzali then read the very first chapter on logic, and then the chapter on Qiyas which appears in al-Qutb al-Thalith, then you may deduce yourself the differences between the two.

[jinnzaman]

If you have access to al-Mustasfa of al-Ghazzali then read the very first chapter on logic, and then the chapter on Qiyas which appears in al-Qutb al-Thalith, then you may deduce yourself the differences between the two.

Jazakallah khairun.

I have both of these texts. I will peruse through them.

[Abu_Abdallah]

I was checking lately the translation of Nihayat al-Aqdam fi 'Ilm al-Kalâm, by al-Shahrastani the famous Ash'arite Mutakallim.

The Nihayah is a famous authoritative manual of Ash'arism, in the past (how about today?), and its beginning is filled with some philosopher's names from Greek history and some of their ideas.

Just look at it, here: http://muslimphilosophy.com/books/nihya.pdf

This is a good testimony of how Ash'arites borrowed the philosophical framework of the past polytheists, following the Mu'tazilah and Jahmiyyah therein. I just want to make people aware of that.

There are many other manuals which begin in an (Aristotelian-) philosopical way their books on Tawhid of Allah, subhanahu wa-ta'ala 'an mâ yasifun, such as:

Tawâli' al-Anwâr of al-Baydawi, and its Sharh by Shams al-Isfahani. Or the Mawaqif of al-'Iji and its Shuruh by several Ash'arites. Also older works such as Fakhr al-Din's books as al-Muhassal and al-Arba'in, beside al-Juwayni's manuals as al-Shamil and al-Irshad.