academic method and the Qur'an

[c0de]

It takes studying great minds like Al Ghazali, Avicenna, Averros, and Al Farabi. These great minds are linked to the Greeks, including Plato and Aristotle. Perhaps we should explore this link.

Al Ghazali can not be associated with those like Avicenna/Averroes, as he was against all Aristotelian ideas being introduced into Islamic theology. His entire life was about rejecting Greek influences.

 

[Mahmoud]

Al Ghazali can not be associated with those like Avicenna/Averroes, as he was against all Aristotelian ideas being introduced into Islamic theology. His entire life was about rejecting Greek influences.

I was not associating Al Ghazali with Avicenna or Averroes, I was comparing him with other great minds. One cannot dismiss the ideas of the Greeks, Plato, Aristotle and Socrates were brilliant and made foundational contributions. Avicenna and Averroes were correct to recognize this.

 

[c0de]

I was not associating Al Ghazali with Avicenna or Averroes,I was comparing him with other great minds.

You said that you thought that al-Ghazali, Avicenna/Averroes were all "great minds" did you not? Implying of course that you admire both camps and their ideas. But that statement is rendered ambiguous by the fact that both sides were bitter rivals. Its like saying you admire both the liberals and conservatives.

One cannot dismiss the ideas of the Greeks, Plato, Aristotle and Socrates were brilliant and made foundational contributions.

But you have to eventually dismiss one or the other, because Aristotle's world view was fundamentally at odds with that of Plato/Socrates. (The same goes for Al-Ghazali and Avicenna/Averroes)

Avicenna and Averroes were correct to recognize this.

al-Ghazali disagrees with you.

 

[Mahmoud]

You said that you thought that al-Ghazali, Avicenna/Averroes were all "great minds" did you not? Implying of course that you admire both camps and their ideas. But that statement is rendered ambiguous by the fact that both sides were bitter rivals. Its like saying you admire both the liberals and conservatives.

Not really, a better analogy would be to say you admire John Kennedy and William F. Buckley (intellectual leaders of the liberal and conservative camps). Indeed I did admire both of these brilliant men.

But you have to eventually dismiss one or the other, because Aristotle's world view was fundamentally at odds with that of Plato/Socrates.

Again, one can search for the brilliance in each of these perspectives and incorporate them into your own world view. That approach makes more sense.

al-Ghazali disagrees with you.

You appear to be a fighter, Brother. I think we should analyze Al-Ghazali, Averros and Avicenna more deeply, then you will see what I mean.

 

[c0de]

You appear to be a fighter, Brother.

That I am, brother.

Not really, a better analogy would be to say you admire John Kennedy and William F. Buckley

Well, (as long as we're improving each others analogies) Hobbes and Locke fit better in our discussion, I think.

Indeed I did admire both of these brilliant men.

To state that both were brilliant men is... well, kinda lazy, yea? Only people who should be allowed to get away with statements like that are people under bureaucratic obligations... Case in point: university professors (and what a sorry sight they are).

In any case... the Truth is usually found outside the dialectical debates anyway...

Again, one can search for the brilliance in each of these perspectives and incorporate them into your own world view. That approach makes more sense.

pfft... making sense is waaaaaay overrated...

( .. but then again, so is everything else . . . )

 

[Mahmoud]

university professors (and what a sorry sight they are).

University professors

• Cumrun Vafa: Professor of Physics at Harvard University, and a member of the US National Academy of Sciences.
• Hamid Jafarkhani: Professor of Electrical Engineering at UC Irvine.
• Vahid Tarokh: Professor of Electrical Engineering at Harvard University, and a co-inventor of space-time coding.
• Iraj Zandi
• Nima Arkani-Hamed: Professor of Physics School of Natural Sciences Institute for Advance Study.
• Nezameddin Faghih: Professor of System Engineering [1][2]

List of Iranians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not all are a sorry sight. Here are 6 Muslim scholars to be proud of.

 

[Mahmoud]

But you have to eventually dismiss one or the other, because Aristotle's world view was fundamentally at odds with that of Plato/Socrates. (The same goes for Al-Ghazali and Avicenna/Averroes)

al-Ghazali disagrees with you.

Since you seem to be an Al-Ghazali supporter, lets take a closer look at Averroes views:

His [Averroes] most important original philosophical work was The Incoherence of the Incoherence (Tahafut al-tahafut), in which he defended Aristotelian philosophy against al-Ghazali's claims in The Incoherence of the Philosophers (Tahafut al-falasifa). Al-Ghazali argued that Aristotelianism, especially as presented in the writings of Avicenna, was self-contradictory and an affront to the teachings of Islam. Averroes' rebuttal was two-pronged: he contended both that al-Ghazali's arguments were mistaken and that, in any case, the system of Avicenna was a distortion of genuine Aristotelianism so that al-Ghazali was aiming at the wrong target.

Averroes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please respond to this argument.

 

[c0de]

Here are 6 Muslim scholars to be proud of.

Here's a 7th: Abdus Salam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since you seem to be an Al-Ghazali supporter...

I think he is smarter than his opponents,
and that he was on the right track, that's all.

Please respond to this argument.

You didn't post any argument, but I assume you want me to critque Averoes' thesis? I would, but that would be unfair (for you) since most of my work has already been done by others.

The core concept of Averoes was that philosophy is compatible with faith. This is what he tried to do, i.e. rationalize Islam/faith. Such thinking has since been crushed, primarily by Hume, most clearly in his dialogues. In those dialogues Demea (like al-Ghazali) rejects rationality, but Cleanthes decides he can argue for a rational faith (much like Averroes). Philo then proceeds to utterly humiliate Cleanthes and shows how there is no way to mix philosophy with faith, something Demea (and al-Ghazali) already knew.

Not only can you not defend faith from the philosophical point of view, but the mere attempt causes one to sacrifice critical articles of faith (such as the absolute transcendence of God). Averroes went so far in this approach that his ultimate version of "Islam" could hardly be called Islam at all. This is why Averoes was never well received in Muslim lands.

But that is all besides the point anyway... because Averoes can not even be compared to al-Ghazali since he was a "foundational thinker" much in line with those like Kant or Hume. Averoes was basically an interpreter of Aristotle.

Yes, there were some aspects of Ibn Rushd's thinking which are moving in the right direction, but over all, al-Ghazali is in a different league. I noticed that on the wikipedia page someone even wrote that Incoherence of the Philosophers was a precursor to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, which itself should be proof of its gravity.

The only thing Averroes has been credited with is founding existentialism, and even that mistakenly, as the idea that "existence precedes essence" was not his own, but Aristotle's. And dont even get me started on existentialism... theres already a thread here somewhere where this dog has been beaten to death.

 

[Mahmoud]

But that is all besides the point anyway... because Averoes can not even be compared to al-Ghazali since he was a "foundational thinker" much in line with those like Kant or Hume. Averoes was basically an interpreter of Aristotle.

You do not give Averroes enough credit:

He has been described by some[2] as the founding father of secular thought in Western Europe and "one of the spiritual fathers of Europe," [3]

Averroes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not some small time philosopher, indeed.

Further, here were some more of his contributions:

According to Ibn Rushd, there is no conflict between religion and philosophy, rather that they are different ways of reaching the same truth.

Averroes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This seems to be good common sense, to me.

He believed in the eternity of the universe.

Of course he had to way of know this, as we still do not today.

He also held that the soul is divided into two parts, one individual and one divine; while the individual soul is not eternal, all humans at the basic level share one and the same divine soul.

I have some doubts about this analysis.

Ibn Rushd has two kinds of Knowledge of Truth. The first being his knowledge of truth of religion being based in faith and thus could not be tested, nor did it require training to understand.

This sounds reasonable to me. Faith cannot be tested, hence it has some inherent weaknesses. It is also true that faith does not need training.

The second knowledge of truth is philosophy, which was reserved for an elite few who had the intellectual capacity to undertake this study.

This is elitist, hence I agree with its criticism.

So these ideas put Averroes near the top of the Islamic philosophers. I think we should continue our analysis, C0de, and delve further into the minds of these three brilliant Muslims and some of the others as well.

Takalam bebot’ men fadlek, C0de !!

 

[c0de]

I think we should continue our analysis, C0de, and delve further into the minds of these three brilliant Muslims and some of the others as well.

As you wish.

You do not give Averroes enough credit:

But why should I or anyone else give him as much credit as he usually gets (with regards to his philosophical accomplishments)? He was just a translator/interpreter. All he did was re-introduce bygone ideas. Nothing new came out of his works.

This seems to be good common sense, to me.

Nevertheless, it is an untenable position as it is self-defeating (not to mention dangerous, for both faith and reason).

Takalam bebot’ men fadlek, C0de !!

Farsi?

 

[Mahmoud]

existentialism... theres already a thread here somewhere.

Is this the one you mean:


http://www.interfaith.org/forum/existentialism-11693.html#post204884

Might be fun to revisit that one with a focus on Averroes and Avicenna.

 

[Ghazali]

Farsi?

Arabic !.........

 

[c0de]

Is this the one you mean:


http://www.interfaith.org/forum/existentialism-11693.html#post204884

Might be fun to revisit that one with a focus on Averroes and Avicenna.

No, its this one: http://www.interfaith.org/forum/existentialism-vs-the-existentialists-11957.html

Existentialism takes it for granted that we have any essential existence to give us any essence to begin with. Just as Descartes initiated modern philosophy on the initial assumption: "I think therefore I am" Modern existentialists take it for granted that they have any inherent and concrete existence because it is empirically unprovable.

When applied to religion e.g. If there is a God, Who created us, then technically, and by virtue of the argument itself, only He exists, and all of creation is given its existent properties by Him (since only He "always existed" and everything else was created i.e. given its existence, by Him).

This line of thought is something Al-Ghazali initiated in something called Islamic Occasionalism. "When fire touches the cotton, it is not the fire which burns, but God who burns the cotton". This is based on the empirical argument that any phenomenon which we observe can NEVER be effectively proven to be the efficient cause of anything.

This is the ultimate consequence of empiricism. A tool which can be applied against anything "rational". Science itself can not stand up to empiricism in its purest form, let alone someone trying to rationalize faith. So forget about Avicenna/Averoes etc.... they are children compared to men like Hume, Locke, Berkley, Kant and al-Ghazali.

Empiricism dude... it is beyond existentialism. The only thing which survives its strikes, is pure faith (whether you place that faith in God, or "science" is up to you). But whoever tries to compromise and mix the two together, is bound to lose the argument....

Arabic !.........

My bad

 

[Muslimwoman]

i think this is a very interesting piece. although it was originally written about ten years ago, the issues it raises will be ongoing.

As you say it was written a decade ago (I found a Muslim response to it dated 1999) so you would think if anything earth shattering was going to come of the Yemeni documents we might have had a hint about it by now.

Just my view but the issue of whether the Quran was created or uncreated is not particularly relevent to my day to day life. I am a Muslim, I believe that the Quran is the Word of Allah (swt) (whether that is directly or indirectly) and no revelation about who wrote it on what is going to shatter my beliefs .. so an academic study would not phase me at all, provided it was carried out to find the truth, rather than to prove a point.

Regarding whether the Quran as a book is now in it's original form as revealed to the Prophet the answer of course is a resounding NO .. I believe the first revelation to the Prophet was the first 5 ayats of Sura 96. We know the Quran does not run chronologically but I find the idea that there were vastly varient versions very hard to swallow.

Firstly there was the Sunni/Shia split, which really came to the fore at the death of Uthman. Given that both groups accept the Quran as it is today and yet differ so widely on a number of other issues, surely this was the perfect time to say "you lot are hypocrites because your Quran is not as it was revealed to the Prophet .. we're right and you're wrong ner ner ner ner ner" yet it didn't happen.

Secondly there is oral tradition itself, as well as the written word. How could nothing survive of the suggestion that there were varying version of the Quran? Surely someone at the time, certainly among non-Muslims in the area, knew of these variations and would want it to be known and no Christian or Jew (that I am aware of) has ever suggested they have proof of any such thing, even through oral tradition.

Thirdly when the created/uncreated issue really hit the fan in the 8th century surely this was the perfect opportunity for the 'created' believers to prove their case by these varient versions (or even rumours of them) yet this appears not to have happened.

So for me to accept the idea of varient versions (that is varying in content and not just dialectal) I would have to accept that all knowledge of them was wiped from history .. even with a very strong Caliph I can't accept it could be wiped away so thoroughly.

The academic study of hadith in Turkey is a more interesting prospect to me. Many of the contentious issues in islam for westerners come from hadith interpretation and certainly for me personally I see the rights of women in Islam often removed by hadith interpretation. My personal feeling is for reform in Islam to happen we need to be examining hadith and reinterpreting them, not to suit modern life but to deal with modern issues.

Does any of that mean there should not be academic study .. of course not, any historical text should be examined over and over again given advances in technology.

Takalam bebot’ men fadlek, C0de !!

Nothing too exciting C0de, just means speak slowly please

 

[Ghazali]

Existentialism takes it for granted that we have any essential existence to give us any essence to begin with. Just as Descartes initiated modern philosophy on the initial assumption: "I think therefore I am" Modern existentialists take it for granted that they have any inherent and concrete existence because it is empirically unprovable.

Are you discussing a proof for the existence of God ? If so, I agree, it is probably impossible.

When applied to religion e.g. If there is a God, Who created us, then technically, and by virtue of the argument itself, only He exists, and all of creation is given its existent properties by Him (since only He "always existed" and everything else was created i.e. given its existence, by Him).

How do you know God always existed ? What if the multi-big bang model is true with multiple expanding and collapsing universes. What about parallel multi-dimensional universes ?

This line of thought is something Al-Ghazali initiated in something called Islamic Occasionalism. "When fire touches the cotton, it is not the fire which burns, but God who burns the cotton". This is based on the empirical argument that any phenomenon which we observe can NEVER be effectively proven to be the efficient cause of anything.

I am familiar with Occasionalism, but I do not agree that cause and effect are not provable. Again, I think you are undervaluing and not fully understanding the insights of Avicenna and Averroes. They did more than regurgitate Aristotle.

This is the ultimate consequence of empiricism. A tool which can be applied against anything "rational". Science itself can not stand up to empiricism in its purest form, let alone someone trying to rationalize faith.

I agree science cannot try to rationalize faith. They are mutually exclusive and there is no need for reconciliation. On the other hand, science does a better job of explaining empiricism than any other approach.

So forget about Avicenna/Averoes etc.... they are children compared to men like Hume, Locke, Berkley, Kant and al-Ghazali.

This a laundry list of the Babe Ruth's of philosophy. Because the others that mentioned are all stars it does not detract from the great Islamic philosophers, Avicenna and Averroes, you might want to study these brilliant philosophers more deeply.

Empiricism dude... it is beyond existentialism. The only thing which survives its strikes, is pure faith (whether you place that faith in God, or "science" is up to you).

But of course, we also have spiritualism and mysticism.

The academic study of hadith in Turkey is a more interesting prospect to me. Many of the contentious issues in islam for westerners come from hadith interpretation and certainly for me personally I see the rights of women in Islam often removed by hadith interpretation. My personal feeling is for reform in Islam to happen we need to be examining hadith and reinterpreting them, not to suit modern life but to deal with modern issues.

Does any of that mean there should not be academic study .. of course not, any historical text should be examined over and over again given advances in technology.

I agree with this approach competely.

 

[c0de]

MW + Ghazali


@MW

Nothing too exciting C0de, just means speak slowly please

oh... kay.

i guess its the "Talk less, say more" kinda thing... roger that.




@ Ghazali

Are you discussing a proof for the existence of God ?

Nope, I mean the existence of YOU... (and me.)

"Cogito ergo sum" - Criticism

How do you know God always existed ?

Its an article of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims.

Quran: Surah Ikhlas 112:3
Torah: Isiah 44:6
New Testament: Revelations 22:13

What if the multi-big bang model is true with multiple expanding and collapsing universes. What about parallel multi-dimensional universes ?

These possibilities have no affect on the argument.

.... but I do not agree that cause and effect are not provable.

David Hume - Causation

Again, I think you are undervaluing and not fully understanding the insights of Avicenna and Averroes.

and i think you are overvaluing them.

science does a better job of explaining empiricism than any other approach.

???

But of course, we also have spiritualism and mysticism.

these are just catch phrases bud,,,, for marketing purposes.

 

[Ghazali]

Nope, I mean the existence of YOU... (and me.)

"Cogito ergo sum"

It appears that you are a fan of Descartes. Brilliant philosopher, mathematician, and physicist. These ideas are foundationally Aristotilian and Platonic.

Ghazali:
How do you know God always existed ?

C0de:
Its an article of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims.

Quran: Surah Ikhlas 112:3
Torah: Isiah 44:6
New Testament: Revelations 22:13

You are a student of all the Abrahamics, that is excellent!! There is much to be learned from Christianity and Judaism as well.

Ghazali:
What if the multi-big bang model is true with multiple expanding and collapsing universes. What about parallel multi-dimensional universes ?

C0de:
These possibilities have no affect on the argument.

These possibilities are central to the question of whether the universe is temporal or infinite in time. You must relax your biased thinking and look deeply at the science.

Ghazali:
.... but I do not agree that cause and effect are not provable.

C0de:
David Hume - Causation

I am quite familiar with modalities of cause and effect. You are confounding causality, empiricism and faith.

Ghazali:
But of course, we also have spiritualism and mysticism.

C0de:
these are just catch phrases bud,,,, for marketing purposes.

Far from it, brother, al-Ghazali understood their importance....

 

[c0de]

.

Mr. Ghazali/Mahmoud, It looks like you are not paying attention.

It appears that you are a fan of Descartes. Brilliant philosopher, mathematician, and physicist. These ideas are foundationally Aristotilian and Platonic.

I am his critic, actually. All this time I was criticizing him.
How could you miss that?

These possibilities are central to the question of whether the universe is temporal or infinite in time.

First you pose the question: "How do you know God always existed?"
And then you start talking about cosmology...

... do you see the problem here?

You must relax your biased thinking and look deeply at the science.

You are confounding causality, empiricism and faith.

ahan... rite.

You have a nice day, brother.

Salaam

 

[Ghazali]

.

Mr. Ghazali/Mahmoud, It looks like you are not paying attention.

I am his critic, actually. All this time I was criticizing him.
How could you miss that?

Quick to a boil, I like that !

It appears you do not understand how brilliant Descartes was. We are here to discuss Islam, so I will not explain the accomplishments of Descartes to you as well.

However, you also do not seem to understand the greatness of Avicenna or Averoes. We shaill wait to see whether other posters have an opinion on this issue, in the meantime, Salaam, brother, we shall discuss further shortly.

 

[c0de]

It appears you do not understand how brilliant Descartes was.

For the past couple of days bro, all you have done is tell me how I don't understand anything, without actually developing a single argument. Maybe its time you consider the possibility that it is your understanding that is lacking....

We are here to discuss Islam, so I will not explain the accomplishments of Descartes to you as well.

Yea, spare yourself this time. Good idea.

However, you also do not seem to understand the greatness of Avicenna or Averoes.

rite...

We shaill wait to see whether other posters have an opinion on this issue, in the meantime,

Yea, you better wait for back up.


w'salaam



p.s. Its always fun sparring with sufis.

Happy (Pagan) Holidays