|
Attention: Year 2009 is here
Wishing a very Happy New Year to all members of FFI. Our new and improved site is ready. To visit main site, click at faithfreedom.org and to visit our new forum, click at forum09.faithfreedom.org and register again. Do not worry about your old forum posts and PM, everything is saved here till 31st December, 2008 for future references.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Haik Monsieur
Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Posts: 2393
Location: FFI
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:20 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| al-boriqee wrote: |
| Ibn Sina was not a mutazili, he was a philosopher. |
Ibn Sina was not known as a firm Mu’tazilite, but his thoughts were in par with Mutazilite doctrine. He was not merely a philosopher of some kind but a multifaceted genius who excelled in almost all fields.
| al-boriqee wrote: |
| Secondly, the scientific era may have largely been acted out upon by the mutazilah, but it was not constricted to them, there were others from the sunni backdrop who as well had a hand in this. |
In fact there is no wonder if your statement amazed me. I would like to know of those scientific advances that predated the era of Al-Farabi and Ibn Sina.
As far as I understand, the golden era of Islam when your predecessors excelled in arts and science began in the middle of 900 under Abbasids. If you ignore the contributions of Razi Al-Razi, Al-Farabi, Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd, there would be nothing for you to get proud of. If you think otherwise, let me know of it.
| al-boriqee wrote: |
| 1. al-Ghazalee, under the guise of sunni tradition, was under the shade of ash'ari kalaam. In other words, he was not arguing for the sake of orthodox Sunnism, but from the backdrop of Ash'arism. |
This is more interesting. What wrong do you find with Ash’arite theology? Indeed Hamid Al-Ghazzalee was an Ash’arite, but when you trash Ash’aris too, I wonder what are you aiming to?
Ahl Al-Sunna wal Jama’at which is considered the most orthodox or better say traditional Islam is strictly based on six tenets. Four Fiqhi Mad’habs and two of those Mad’hab’s of Aqeeda. Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi and Hanbali in Fiqhi matters and in matters of faith, it revolvs around Ash’ari and Maturidiee Mad’habs. When you discard Ash’ari from these, I have to consider you do not belong to this orthodox Islamic credo.
| al-boriqee wrote: |
2. al-Ghazalai himself was a proponent of philosophical rhetoric. That is what Ash'ari theology is based on, from the methodology laid down from Aristolian mantiq. In other words, according to us sunnis, all of the ahlul-kalaam i.e. the heresiological sects of philosophic thinking include
jahmiyyah
falsafiyyah
mutazilah
jabariyyah
qadariyyah
murji'a
maturidiyyah
ashaa'irah (what al-Ghazali was) |
Here you go. I think you follow something I am never heard of because this dissection seems different to me. You add falsafiyya as a sect which is never heard before. As far as I learnt from my Islamic past, there are primarily eight sects emerged within Islam soon after your prophet died. They were:
1. Mu’tazila
2. Shi’a
3. Khawarijiyya
4. Ma’arija
5. Najriyya
6. Zabariyya
7. Mushabbiha
8. Najii’a
Among this Mutazila was the first named after its founder Wasil bin Ata. It was Hasan Al-Basari who called Wasil as a Mutazilite. And the most astonishing part in your sectioning is you have counted Qadariyyas and Mutazilites separately when in fact it was another name of Mu’tazilites. I think you haven’t gone through this part well. Perhaps just revising your history will help you a bit here.
Besides, I haven’t come across Ash’arites and Maturidiyyas as counted as two sects in Islam. If that is the case, you will have to divide four schools of thoughts as four sects too that is deviated from the main-stream Islam. But even most stubborn Wahabis would not dare for such a classification. I am sure.
| al-boriqee wrote: |
so in our view, al-Ghazali was pretty much calling the teapot black when he wrote his at-Tahaffut.
3. In no stretch of the imagination can a reasonable and logical deduction of the issues that sprang up between him and those whom he refuted have anything to do with, even remotely anything, with the advancement of medicine and other scientific revolutions. That is because contextually, if one had bothered to study the topic, the focus of al-Ghazalis criticism was centered SOLELY on the philosophers view of GOD and of faith i.e. doctrine .There was nothing of him or any of the sunni refutations towards the philosophers based on the advancement of medicine and other non doctrine related sciences which only gives evidence that the pure sunni orthodox had no qualms with anything related to the sciences that were being pioneered by either the mutazilah or others among sunis. |
I won’t accuse you of being ignorant here but you are mistaken grievously. Ghazali’s refutation to Averroes and Ibn Sina’s were strictly based on the matters of faith, but Ibn Sina found it as a hindrance to the scientific development. For example Ibn Sina argued fire can burn on its own and no supernatural prescence is involved in its burning. But Ghazali was not ready to accept this fact but argued it is god who burns the fire and there is an underlying cause involved. Empirical observation which is imperative to scientific advancement is halted there. Without getting off the shackled of theological stubbornness, there would be no chance for empiricism and without empiricism, no technology is going to flourish. That is why there came none (almost virtually none) to fill the void of Ibn Sina left. In fact, it was Westerners who exploited much from Ibn Sina’s works and it is not surprising his “laws of medicine” is still taught as a textbook in reputed Western Universities.
I would like to know, how science and the orthodox (traditional) Islam goes hand in hand. Can you show me how a peaceful cohabitation is possible for both?
| al-boriqee wrote: |
| thats strange, then why was the period after al-Ghazali the most free thinking of them all. |
Evidence to this..? What makes you think there flourished free thought after Ghazzali? Who are these greatest free thinkers of Islam you mean?
| al-boriqee wrote: |
| the purpose of free thought is allowed and disallowed. if free thought is centered on inventing new understandings of God contrary to what was already revealed, then it was obvious what its hukm was. If free thought was centered on other than faith based doctrine and on issues that really matter, like the sciences, then that was of course allowed. But then where is the model nation for the absolute allowance of free thought. We have none, because the free thought your aiming for is a fasade for not all thought is aceptable even among your precious "free" world. |
I see nothing in above but some mutually contradicting statements. If you can turn them into coherent statements?
| al-boriqee wrote: |
actually it was none of that bcause your entire evaluation of historical events is off mark
al-Ghazali didn't revert Islam back to its original point, other wise we would have continued our golden era. As I stated, al-Ghazali was an ash'ari, and as well innovated concepts into the creed of tassawuf that had never existed within the nation before. You see, you are arguing for the orthodoxy of al-Ghazali when in reality the sunni orthodoxy chasitises al-Ghazali for his heresy on some issues. |
I need to know what constitutes Islamic orthodoxy for you. Moreover, we don’t see any of the so-called advancements under the strict Islamic regimes of either its founder Muhammad or the fourth great Caliphates. Will you please explain it briefly what is real Islam?
| al-boriqee wrote: |
| Secondly, Islam is not in its purest sense today. Most of the nation has abandoned the methodology of the pious predecessors and the only nation that half way keeps that in tact is Saudi, but since they are not ruling by the ruling of Allah, they come up with other awkward positions. It is because most of our nation has abandoned this methodology which gave rise to cultural views of female genital mutilation, and other non qur'anic views of tribilistic practice that Islam came to abolish. |
So… you are representing the Wahabi Islam. Well, it took a while for me to get you. Oops… I would say you labored a lot but delivered nothing after all. No wonder you couldn’t digest even Ghazzali who is unrivalled for his philosophical magnificence. For you Ibn Taimiyya and Muhammad Abdel Wahhab the guys who could do nothing but cause another rift in your Ummah is acceptable. Hmm… interesting to hear Wahabi verbalism here in this forum. Perhaps the first time I encounter one.
| al-boriqee wrote: |
| on neither becaue we don't see the heresy of Ghazali's arguments as beneicial to Islam or the Muslim nor do we see the backwards and extremely incoherent logic of Ibn Sina and his likes. We do not believe Allah can incarnate in people, we don't believe that Allah does not know what will happen, we don't believe in a God that has imperfections, we don't believe in a God that is Attributeless. We actually believe in a Lord in the way the oiginal Israelites had beleived and understood that He was deserving of our worship and none else. We actually believe in the hereafter and the day of judgment. A negation of all of these beleiefs is pretty much tantomont to todays barbarism that your secular and atheists world were pretty much the contributors thereof. We don't beleieve in any of the radical views of Ibn Sina, nor of al-Ghazali. |
Dear friend, if what you say is true Islam as one found with Ibn Abdul Wahhab, the renaissance of Islam should have began from Saudi Arabia again, but in fact, what makes Saudi Arabia a hellhole is its adherence to the fused form of Wahabism. I am not interested in your doctrine at all. I believe Wahabism is the most hateful of all Islamisms. You might argue it is the true Islam. All right, but let me see an ideal society under true Islam, not in current times, but you can revert as much as to your Muhammad. Start from there. Muhammad didn’t last for a blink, so you may start from your first Caliph Abu Bakr and point to an ideal Islamic society that you will project with pride. I will deal it then.
| al-boriqee wrote: |
we asa nation are not proud of this backwards greek thought. It was this greek thought that contributed to our dectruction. it contributed to the fall of Baghdad, it contributed to the weakness of the Ottomon state whcih eventually resulted in the satanic whims of the secularists to be enforced causing the Khilafa and the reign of civlized civilization to end and the initiations of the bloodiest century of our existence and with no end in site if I might add.
I wish none of those heretics translated anything of those greek works into our thought. But why are you complaining. When Muslims followed their religion, their success went hand in hand with their religion. When Muslims abandoned their religion, humiliation and backwardness was their affliction. So logically speaking, you should be glad that we, by adopting greek thought, contributed to our desctruction. That is why certain governments tend to aid heretical groups among sufis and even qadianis in opposition to Islam so as to keep the Muslims in their depravity and humiliation. |
Sorry to tell you friend, you started fairly well but are in a very pathetic state nw. I don’t see anything worthwhile in the paragraph above to address.
If you disregard Greek contribution and influence in your Islamic philosophy, do you think there will be anything left for you to be proud of? Quran’s philosophical value is Zilch my dear friend. It was Sufis who saved your Islam from an inevitable collapse. You are projecting an Islam that is essentially similar to materialism. The only difference is you try to cheat yourself by believing there is a god up in heavens with a hammer in his hand, but...
That doesn’t amount to spirituality. In essence there is not much difference between Wahhabism and pure materialism. Sorry;
Regards
KhaliL
_________________
________________________________ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
