Ibn Rushd vs Ghazali: Did the Muslim world take a wrong turn?

[hammy_lucky]

Because that’s how it works. If I told you I am God worship me would your default position would be on your hands and knees or would it be disbelief until I prove myself to be God?

I will ask you to prove not because I were to be a disbeliver of God but I will be refusing to accept YOU as God without the evidence or proof.
We were debating the existence of God first. We have not yet came to the point of defining the nature or attributes of God.
Spinoza or Einstein atleast came to the conclusion of God’s existence. Their position was different to Muslims on the nature of God. Separate entity vs Nature being God itself but they were not Atheist.
So clear your position first so that we can make a premise now.
You believe in Spinoza’s God or you don't believe in any of the God?

 

[Vitamin_C]

Spinoza or Einstein atleast came to the conclusion of God’s existence. Their position was different to Muslims on the nature of God. Separate entity vs Nature being God itself.

Believing in Spinoza God doesn’t make you a Deist. It still counts as Atheism and many Atheists are fans of Spinoza include renowned Anti-Theist late Christopher Hitchens.

What you mean by God is not nature. It’s a supernatural God that has intelligence and conscience.

 

[Vitamin_C]

I will ask you to prove not because I were to be a disbeliver of God but I will be refusing to accept YOU as God without the evidence or proof.

Please don’t be disingenuous by dodging my question.


It’s a very simple question to make you understand why disbelief is the default position on any claim.

Let’s suppose you believe God exists.

And I come and tell you that I am God. What would be your default position? Would you believe me first and worship me until you can disprove me or would you disbelieve until I can prove to you that I am God?

Its a simple question.

 

[hammy_lucky]

What you mean by God is not nature. It’s a supernatural God that has intelligence and conscience.

Yes and I gave my arguments in the previous comments.

Please don’t be disingenuous by dodging my question.


It’s a very simple question to make you understand why disbelief is the default position on any claim.

Let’s suppose you believe God exists.

And I come and tell you that I am God. What would be your default position? Would you believe me first and worship me until you can disprove me or would you disbelieve until I can prove to you that I am God?

Its a simple question.

My belief of God lies in him being the creator of the universe.
I would ask you to create the matter out of nothing. If you would I would happily worship you. Otherwise my default position would still be of a believer who cannot imagine a universe to create itself.
Spinoza in my dictionary was not an Atheist. He just had his own definition of God ie nature.
He called his infinite, all powerful substance “God.” If Spinoza was truly an atheist, I don’t believe he would have used God in his axioms and proofs.
Since big bang has almost been accepted as truth in scientific community I don't know how much room is left in favour of the arguments of Spinoza’s God because Spinoza thought matter was eternal.

 

[hammy_lucky]

The purpose of revelation is to provide the seal of truth on matters which cannot be solved through the consensus of the philosophers. Logic and reason without God’s revelation is just a never-ending debating exercise.
Purpose of life and ethics becomes self-made without the belief in God.
The analogy you gave of a unicorn is extremely wrong. The creator is demanding to ponder upon the intelligent design of the universe and his creations to conclude the existence of God. Unicorn’s presence at an unknown place doesn't make case for those signs.
How can you declare the default position to be disbelief?
What is your position on intuition & consciousness?

You have dodged a lot of questions I have asked.

 

[Vitamin_C]

I would ask you to create the matter out of nothing. If you would I would happily worship you. Otherwise my default position would still be of a believer who cannot imagine a universe to create itself.

So in other words your default position would be disbelief until I prove myself to be God correct?

 

[Vitamin_C]

Spinoza in my dictionary was not an Atheist. He just had his own definition of God ie nature.

People use Oxford dictionary but no one use Hammy Dictionary. According to accepted definitions of God Spinoza does not fall under the definition of God. You can try to be disingenuous and shift the goal posts by making up your own definitions but no one will agree with you.

 

[Vitamin_C]

Since big bang has almost been accepted as truth in scientific community I don't know how much room is left in favour of the arguments of Spinoza’s God because Spinoza thought matter was eternal.

Matter is eternal and Big Bang doesn’t disagree with that.

 

[Vitamin_C]

Spinoza in my dictionary was not an Atheist. He just had his own definition of God ie nature.

He can have his own definition but according to the widely accepted definition, Spinoza’s God is not an actual God.

I can call my friend a God of Dota because he is good at it that doesn’t mean I am calling him an actual supernatural creature who rules the universe.

You are misusing the word God to mean what you want it to mean and taking it out of context. This is the equivocation fallacy that I mentioned earlier.

 

[Vitamin_C]

You have dodged a lot of questions I have asked.

Mention one question that I dodged.

 

[Vitamin_C]

Otherwise my default position would still be of a believer who cannot imagine a universe to create itself.

According to the first law of thermodynamics energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

Matter which makes up the universe is also energy.

That means the universe cannot be created. So you are right, the universe didn’t create itself, the matter that formed the universe was always there.

 

[Cyber_Security]

Reasoning is obligatory in Islam. Allah has asked humanity to use their Aqal in the Quran atleast 50 times.
The example you gave of earthquakes or natural disasters is actually unislamic. There is nothing in the Quran to support that. If you bring hadiths to your support that is a different topic of discussion. As hadiths and Sunnah are different and there are many problemetic hadiths which are falsely attributed towards Prophet pbuh hence creating problems among Muslims.
Also even if you take some of these natural disasters as a matter of God’s wrath than bear in mind ‘the scope of science is cause and effect’. Islam and science are NOT in contradictions with each other infact there scopes are different. When Allah decide to do things cause and effect just proceeds.
Quantum physics is still working on the nature of ‘matter’.
Dont take Faith blindly. Allah has blessed us with revelation to confirm absolute truths in the matters which cannot be proven by empirical evidences. Revelation is not against critical thinking but it invites us to use our aqal also in the matters of jurispudence, law and implementation of deen. Quran is not a book of science but its a moral code which also invites humanity to look and ponder into themselves and the universe for signs which ultimately leads to the creator.

You have written that " Aqal in the Quran atleast 50 times "

So let's use Agal, here.

You criticized Mullah that they don't allow critical thinking.

You think it is compulsory. right?

Let's do some critical thinking here, lets see your reaction.


here is my point.

What are the biggest crimes against a woman since the beginning of humanity?

The answer will give, (1) Murder (2) Rape.

Rape is still a serious crime in every part of the world. While I am typing this note, many rapes would have taken place around the world. The crime is so serious that many countries give the death penalty to the accused.

Quran claims to be the best law book for humanity. Quran calls Islam a deen, not Mazhab. It gives all the laws for humanity.

What does Islam say about this heinous crime rape against a woman?

The answer is NOTHING. Not a single word. Quran does mention, sex with consent is a serious crime, it mentions if one is married then that person has to be killed otherwise punishment of thrashing. That is for sex with consent.

What about sex without consent. Which is worse.

Nothing.

So if a person doing critical thinking, will say, if a book claims to be the best law book, and has a full chapter on woman, and mentions that, sex with consent is a sin, murder is a sin, backbiting is a sin, robbery is a sin, but does not mention rape, can not be the best law book,

Or A law book that does not mention rape is not the best law book,

How will you counter that argument of critical thinking?
You have to give a reason to counter it.

Remember Quran say to use aqal 50 times.

Use your aqal and tell me why rape is not a crime in Quran, Why rape is not mentioned in Quran? what is the penalty for rape in Quran? if you think it does, then mention the ayat to me.
You will find an ayat about ZINA but not about rape (Zina bil jabar).

Now you will know why a Mullah does not allow critical thinking.

 

[hammy_lucky]

You have written that " Aqal in the Quran atleast 50 times "

So let's use Agal, here.

You criticized Mullah that they don't allow critical thinking.

You think it is compulsory. right?

Let's do some critical thinking here, lets see your reaction.


here is my point.

What are the biggest crimes against a woman since the beginning of humanity?

The answer will give, (1) Murder (2) Rape.

Rape is still a serious crime in every part of the world. While I am typing this note, many rapes would have taken place around the world. The crime is so serious that many countries give the death penalty to the accused.

Quran claims to be the best law book for humanity. Quran calls Islam a deen, not Mazhab. It gives all the laws for humanity.

What does Islam say about this heinous crime rape against a woman?

The answer is NOTHING. Not a single word. Quran does mention, sex with consent is a serious crime, it mentions if one is married then that person has to be killed otherwise punishment of thrashing. That is for sex with consent.

What about sex without consent. Which is worse.

Nothing.

So if a person doing critical thinking, will say, if a book claims to be the best law book, and has a full chapter on woman, and mentions that, sex with consent is a sin, murder is a sin, backbiting is a sin, robbery is a sin, but does not mention rape, can not be the best law book,

Or A law book that does not mention rape is not the best law book,

How will you counter that argument of critical thinking?
You have to give a reason to counter it.

Remember Quran say to use aqal 50 times.

Use your aqal and tell me why rape is not a crime in Quran, Why rape is not mentioned in Quran? what is the penalty for rape in Quran? if you think it does, then mention the ayat to me.
You will find an ayat about ZINA but not about rape (Zina bil jabar).

Now you will know why a Mullah does not allow critical thinking.

Being critical of Mullah and critical of Quran are both not the same thing. Quran is an absolute word of God. Mullahs can twists Allah and Prophet PBUH teachings so we need to be critical against them.

Allah has not stopped humans to make the laws for themselves whenever crimes arise. It's absurd to expect every detailed instruction from Allah for all crimes in all the times.

Quran is the book of guidance. It also gives parameters for certain lawmaking. However, it does not detail punishment for each & every criminal conduct.

Lawmaking & Ijtihad based on Islamic Morality has been almost abandoned in the Muslim World. I agree with many problems and questions arising from that.

Early Islamic Jurists were also Qazis (Judges) too & especially in Hanafi & Jafari jurisprudence there is a lot of emphasis on Aqal when it comes to lawmaking.
Unfortunately, current jurists do not put the same emphasis on aqal. Its a sad reality and have brought ijtihad and progress of law to halt in Islamic societies.
Societies cannot go forward, progress or advance without implementing relevent up to date laws. This has been a sad story of Muslim societies for centuries now.

 

[Cyber_Security]

Mullah’s critical thinking vs Quran’s critical thinking is not the same. Quran is an absolute word of God. Mullah twists Allah and Prophet PBUH teachings so we need to be critical against them.

Allah has not stopped humans to make the laws for themselves whenever crimes arise. It's absurd to expect every detailed instruction from Allah for all crimes in all the times.

Quran is the book of guidance. It also gives parameters for certain lawmaking. However, it does not detail punishment for each & every criminal conduct.

Lawmaking & Ijtihad based on Islamic Morality has been almost abandoned in the Muslim World. I agree with many problems and questions arising from that.

Early Islamic Jurists were also Qazis (Judges) too & especially in Hanafi & Jafari jurisprudence there is a lot of emphasis on Aqal when it comes to lawmaking.
Unfortunately, current jurists do not put the same emphasis on aqal. Its a sad reality and have brought ijtihad and progress of law to halt in Islamic societies.
Societies cannot go forward, progress or advance without implementing relevent up to date laws. This has been a sad story of Muslim societies for centuries now.

You said Quran is a book of laws , guidance.
You know there is a full chapter in the name on women in Quran.
I asked you just one question just one. And you ignored it.
What does Quran say about the most common and most heinous crime against women since the beginning of time till today i.e. RAPE ? Why beating around the bush ? You said Quran does not talk about each and every conduct. If you allow students to do critical thinking and a student asks you that if a book claim to be a law book for humanity, which gives guidance to the world till the end of time . But does not even mention the word rape, then either rape is not a serious crime in Islam or it is not a God's book. Would you accept this response from a critical thinking student?
Is sex with consent more serious crime then rape ? Because that is discussed in detail. See consensual sex punishment is mentioned in detail in Quran. You think Rape is such a minor crime that you wrote that each and every crime is not mentioned in Quran. Do you know every few minutes a rape takes place in Pakistan? Do you it is the crime which is most frequent against women and you have peace of mind that a book claims to be written by God rightly ignored it.
By the way all the holy books ignored rape in them.
Torah has 10 commandments.
Remembering the Sabbath day i.e. Saturday is a commandment but Thou must not rape is not.
Bible; They have seven deadly sin. Eating too much is a deadly sin but rape is not.
Quran: tells Muslims , what to eat, what to drink , what not to drink , what to wear , when to wake up, how much Zakat to give, how to punish for crimes related to sex. How long to wait after divorce before having sex with the new husband in a marriage. Kill the person if having consensual with another person while married otherwise thrash him/her but not a word on rape.
Is rape really the most serious crime against women? Quran , Tora , Bible don't think so . you agree ?
I guess a holly books which claims to be word of God and a final and complete book of guidance cant include every little bit of tiny crimes such as rape is that your point ? Remember you said Allah said to use Aqal 50 times. Would any aqal accept a law book ignoring rape . Explain to me. A question of a critical thinking student.

 

[hammy_lucky]

You said Quran is a book of laws , guidance.
You know there is a full chapter in the name on women in Quran.
I asked you just one question just one. And you ignored it.
What does Quran say about the most common and most heinous crime against women since the beginning of time till today i.e. RAPE ?

Quran is not the book of all the laws. It only addresses certain issues. You may want the law for rape in the Quran and according to you, it might be one of the most important issues for women since the beginning of the time. Whereas God left it to humans to sort it out themselves.
My premise was from the beginning that you cannot be critical of the revelation because God is all-wise and knowing.
You have to accept the wisdom of God for leaving this issue for humans to deal with in their own way.
Muslim philosophers and critical thinkers even Mu’tazilas who brought greek philosophy into Islam never questioned the authority or contents of the Quran.
And yes sex with consent is a major issue because it is a threat to the very basic entity for the humanity ie family and family system. Quran has a big emphasis on family.

 

[hammy_lucky]

Mention one question that I dodged.

1) Unicorn analogy > false

2) No answers for intuition, consciousness.

3) What is your own position on God?

4) How can you declare the default position to be disbelief?

You asked me a question and I gave an answer to that. Let me tell you again
My belief in God lies in him being the creator of the universe.
I would ask you to create the matter (or energy) OUT OF NOTHING. If you could do that I would happily worship you. Otherwise, my default position would still be of ‘a believer’ in an unseen all powerful God. I cannot imagine a universe to create itself.
Don't complicate this with matter and energy science. Do me a favour and PROVE me that matter or energy have existed even before the big bang.

5) I am not here to argue for the sake of argument (your friend God data example) or to counter any of your held beliefs based upon your own judgments of words such as ‘God’. I think you are obsessed with the word Oxford :)
I brought Spinoza and Einstein into debate and specifically mentioned that they belived in God but not in a Religious (personal) God.
Spinoza’s belief is called Pantheism and it is not same as Atheism so please look for the correct dictionary or I can send you Hammy’s dictionary if you need it.

6) In support of the revelation I wrote earlier that The purpose of revelation is to provide the seal of truth on matters which cannot be solved through the consensus of the philosophers. Logic and reason without God’s revelation is just a never-ending debating exercise.
Purpose of life and ethics becomes self-made without the belief in God. The creator is demanding to ponder upon the intelligent design of the universe and his creations to conclude the existence of God.

I wish you all the best in the quest for answers to life with the help of your own logic and reasoning alone.

GOD BLESS!

 

[Vitamin_C]

1) Unicorn analogy > false

2) No answers for intuition, consciousness.

3) What is your own position on God?

4) How can you declare the default position to be disbelief?

You asked me a question and I gave an answer to that. Let me tell you again
My belief in God lies in him being the creator of the universe.
I would ask you to create the matter (or energy) OUT OF NOTHING. If you could do that I would happily worship you. Otherwise, my default position would still be of ‘a believer’ in an unseen all powerful God. I cannot imagine a universe to create itself.
Don't complicate this with matter and energy science. Do me a favour and PROVE me that matter or energy have existed even before the big bang.

5) I am not here to argue for the sake of argument (your friend God data example) or to counter any of your held beliefs based upon your own judgments of words such as ‘God’. I think you are obsessed with the word Oxford :)
I brought Spinoza and Einstein into debate and specifically mentioned that they belived in God but not in a Religious (personal) God.
Spinoza’s belief is called Pantheism and it is not same as Atheism so please look for the correct dictionary or I can send you Hammy’s dictionary if you need it.

6) In support of the revelation I wrote earlier that The purpose of revelation is to provide the seal of truth on matters which cannot be solved through the consensus of the philosophers. Logic and reason without God’s revelation is just a never-ending debating exercise.
Purpose of life and ethics becomes self-made without the belief in God. The creator is demanding to ponder upon the intelligent design of the universe and his creations to conclude the existence of God.

I wish you all the best in the quest for answers to life with the help of your own logic and reasoning alone.

GOD BLESS!

I have answered all those questions but I am trying to think from your point of view why you are not getting those universal explanations. The things I said to you are same things you will find in philosophy books but for some reason you are just not understanding.

I believe its because you have a certain awareness of "logic and reason" but you are not grasping the most important basics of logic and reason such as burden of proof and why disbelief is the default position.

I will try one more time to explain it to you after that it is your job to go search for knowledge and try to learn more about what the position of atheism is and why they think they way they do, before you engage another atheist. If you want to read in Urdu, I think there are some books in urdu by Pakistani atheists such as Ghalib Kamal and Haris Sultan.

Back to the basics of logic and reason:

Why Default position is disbelief

Because Reason and Logic requires that one must not believe claims without any reason of proof. If your default position is belief then what is the point of reason and logic? Then you can just believe anything on default without any evidence or logic or proof. Then why not just throw philosophy, logic, reason out of the window as you are so fond of?

What is atheism
Atheism just means without any theism. You will find different kinds of atheists, those who believe there is no God, those who do not believe in God (disbelief in God and believing there is no God are 2 completely different things) The first one is not making a claim the second one is making a claim that he needs to prove, and there there is those who believe in abstract concepts such as Spinoza etc...

But in its most simplistic forms Atheists dont say whether there is God or there is no God, they say: I dont believe there is a God until we have evidence or proof to believe there is a God. Since reason and logic requires to believe things only when there is reason of evidence to believe it.

Whats the difference between saying 1) There is no God, 2) I dont believe there is a God?

Imagine I bring you a big jar of gummy bears and I ask you a question. Is the number of gummy bears in this jar an odd number or an even number? You are not allowed to open the jar or count the gummy bears.

Now in this situation neither of us have any evidence to give a proper answer, you cannot say if it is odd and you cannot say if it was even. In this situation the best thing to do would be to say, I dont know, whether its even or odd and I wont give an answer until I have enough evidence.

Similarly athiests say I dont know whether there is a god or not, and I dont know what happened before the big bang, but once we have enough evidence we will try to conclude something.

You are neither saying the number of Gummy bears is even or odd, similarly you are neither saying God exists or God doesnt exist. You simply do not have enough information to take either of the 2 opposing positions so you will just suspend judgement.


Hope that helps and I implore you to study this topic a bit more and understand both sides of the argument and then hopefully we can engage in a more fruitful debate.

 

[hammy_lucky]

Whats the difference between saying 1) There is no God, 2) I dont believe there is a God?

Imagine I bring you a big jar of gummy bears and I ask you a question. Is the number of gummy bears in this jar an odd number or an even number? You are not allowed to open the jar or count the gummy bears.

Now in this situation neither of us have any evidence to give a proper answer, you cannot say if it is odd and you cannot say if it was even. In this situation the best thing to do would be to say, I dont know, whether its even or odd and I wont give an answer until I have enough evidence.

Similarly athiests say I dont know whether there is a god or not, and I dont know what happened before the big bang, but once we have enough evidence we will try to conclude something.

You are neither saying the number of Gummy bears is even or odd, similarly you are neither saying God exists or God doesnt exist. You simply do not have enough information to take either of the 2 opposing positions so you will just suspend judgement.

I appreciate your response and recommendations for the Urdu books :)

The above position you have described is of an AGNOSTIC. Are you referring to agnosticism as a type of atheism? If that so please specify.
I have repeatedly asked your position regarding God for a specific answer so that I can also take the discussion forward accordingly. Is it pantheism, agnosticism or atheism?
I think you are trying to engage in the discussion structurally and academically. I, on the other hand, prefer my own way because I know the limitations of western philosophical approach in these matters.

 

[Vitamin_C]

The above position you have described is of an AGNOSTIC. Are you referring to agnosticism as a type of atheism? If that so please specify.

Agnostics are people who believe that it is impossible to know whether or not there is a god. Which is also a claim they have to prove.

But you maybe right that modern rational atheism is a mix of agnosticism and atheism. Since saying there is no God is a claim which also has not been proven.

 

[hammy_lucky]

Agnostics are people who believe that it is impossible to know whether or not there is a god. Which is also a claim they have to prove.

But you maybe right that modern rational atheism is a mix of agnosticism and atheism. Since saying there is no God is a claim which also has not been proven.

Exactly. So from that perspective we can argue on the default position too now.
Disbelief by default doesn't seem to work.

Any statement is considered false until proof of the contrary. However, this doesn't seem to be possible.

Example #
Consider the two statements below:

• Earth is the only place in the universe that has life.
• Life exists in places other than Earth.

There is no way to disbelieve both of these statements by default. If you disbelieve one, then you must believe the other.

Or

1. I accept this claim.
2. I don't know enough to judge this claim either way. (Default)
3. I believe this claim is false.