Ibn Taymiyyah’s Theology – Part 2
Channel: Hatem al-Haj
File Size: 164.05MB
Episode Transcript ©
Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate and at times crude. We are considering building a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system. No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever.
the time and project
we'll talk about epistemology ontology hermeneutics, hermeneutics and answering some of the concepts, some of the concerns of speculative theology,
talk about some of the eccentricities
where he upheld minority positions
and some of the accusations, right?
So choosing a methodology of engagement is the first thing.
Why did I talk about the turning of the tide and all of the discussions between restaurant theologians and spoken to the theologians
because he came at a time where the rational theologians continued to condemn that literalism of atheria is an alphabet batteries, and some would call them you know, has we are how shall we which way I mean, so, the report things without comprehension, and how shall we, I would mean that they are marginal and eccentric,
and no one escaped from this even the greatest of sort of imams in the traditional sense. So, someone like remember Hoceima, for instance, is, he used to be called Imam and I am the Imam of Imams. Because, you know, he was,
you know, in terms of people in his time,
he had the greatest knowledge of the crown and the sun, and the reports from the predecessors and all of that stuff,
but he was called the by some of the rational theologians sort of
and defective mentally, and things of that nature, and he was called, has we,
that, he reports things without comprehension. So, unless you are, you have mastery of the rational sciences, which basically was Aristotelian logic and, you know, philosophy and so on. Unless you have mastery of the rational sciences,
you were basically considered not fit to talk about these issues, and these are issues of creeds, so, they apparently, are relevant to those Muslim scholars, and they will talk about them. And they did not think that we need to be basically masterful in, in Greek logic to talk about
the Creed, Islamic creed. So, there were three ways to address this problem. They were not talking the same language. The, the restaurant theologians felt that they have every reason to reinterpret the scriptures, because the whenever the scriptures came into conflict with reason, then we either accepted the Scripture and in this case would be, we would be impugning the foundation, upon which the scriptures were accepted in the first place, which is reason
or accept reason or accept both, but they are in conflict. So we cannot accept both. So there are some theologians were reinterpreting, this is what they have decided
to reinterpret everything that was in conflict with a reason.
So there were three ways to go about this. For a from the perspective of a homebody, when I went up and visited in these
sorts of times,
he would either continue to cite the scriptures and statements of the predecessors or mount a counter argument that that's purely rational or put together a systematic discourse that harmonizes the scriptural and rational proofs. Third is what every time he chose.
And he makes it clear that had we not have they not talked about God in these terms, we would have not needed to talk about him in these terms. Have you not basically started this discussion,
we would have not needed to be involved in it. So he says we did not need and our belief in Allah and His Messenger such methods, rather we mentioned them because those who followed them used to contradict to the words of Allah and His Messenger By means of these methods, claiming that they have rational evidence that contradicted what the messenger is brought. We reveal the truth of these methods.
so that they are presented to demonstrate that, that he presented to demonstrate that what contradicts that texts is false. And what does not contradict the texts may be true or false. And what is true and does not contradict the texts may not be needed, rather than rational methods that the texts indicate and lead to are more powerful, easier to grasp, and more beneficial for this Qur'an guides to that which is most upright. So he's saying, I will basically be involved in Rational theology. But this is not because it is. It is my sort of desire or interest. It is
basically poking holes into the rational arguments so that we can go back and accept the Scripture
reports or imports or conclusions. And certainly, you know, someone like Kant, for instance. So the whole idea of metaphysics and the utility of metaphysics in
describing the unseen or speculating about the unseen
I think it was quite rational to think about, you know, the metaphysics is not capable of describing the unseen.
So his epistemology is based on this verse, and he quotes this verse multiple times.
In which Allah subhanaw taala says what Allah it was some article or warmonger sign like clapping Allah, licorice empathy, Allah flockmen, Petunia, Martin, I thought I'm going to show you some a lot of people are looking to screw so And to Allah belongs in the unseen aspects of the heavens and the earth. So the knowledge of the Unseen belongs to Allah. And then Allah tells us about,
you know, the faculties that he gave us to have knowledge. And he says, Indeed, Allah is over all things competent, and Allah has extracted you from the wounds of your mother's not knowing the thing.
And he made for you hearing and vision and intellect for EDA is more comprehensive than intellect, but that's the best way to translate it, that perhaps you would be grateful, be grateful. So in this first, there are three different basically sources of knowledge. You have the hearing, which points to truthful reports, and truthful reports, according to Merriam Tamiya, you know, you could basically prove their truthfulness by either miracles of the prophets, or concurrence of human beings.
Such as the existence of China and their times, despite the fact that no one has changed since China, that's concurrence and the, you know, the the miracles of the prophets, to prove the truthfulness of what they have conveyed from God. And then you have empirical findings, that's vision, that site and he calls this most certain, because laser fabric and Mahayana, so to hear is not like to see. So he calls, you know, empirical senses the most certain, but he calls the hearing, most resourceful, or most beneficial for man, because most of what man knows, comes through reports.
Most of what we know about physics, we didn't, you know,
have this knowledge, through our own experience, or biology or this or that, everything, these are things that we are being told.
And then he points out reason as have or the intellect, he calls it an ERISA an instinct, and he calls it a potency. So, it is a potency, it is not simply a blank slate. But it is also not what the innate ISTS would do, would say about it. It's somewhere between the empiricists and the netus.
It is a potency, it does have certain, the Rubery knowledge basically embedded into it certain the Rori means necessary knowledge. But but necessary here is not necessarily the necessary truth versus the contingent truth.
In the Western tradition,
So he he says that there are he wants to say that there are multiple sources of knowledge that corroborate each other.
And according to current street photography, Dr. Kern street photography,
who was on your program before? Oh, yes.
This book, it been to me on reason and Revelation is actually a PhD dissertation, which he insisted I read before I interview him, but it's very, very good actually.
Okay. So, actually, this is from that book. So, he said that the various means of acquiring knowledge or for me, it says the permanent me and the various means of acquiring knowledge would be sensation,
through reports about us other self evident axioms of reason, but he has a lock sound inference more than Hassan, there is incarnations of the mechanism of touto he puts a lot of emphasis on concurrence of human beings, because that perhaps reflects the fitrah you know, so the fifth is showing through the concurrence of human beings. The position of sound, cognitive, more of this position, which is Taslima, all stand objectively at every person's disposal. Yet, there are often numerous paths, one can tread various corroborative combinations of these elements through which a person can attain knowledge. So he's saying do not limit knowledge, you know, if you're looking
versus with limit knowledge to just empirical findings, and made this would limit knowledge to the, you know, the innate knowledge of the intellect, he said, do not limit knowledge, there are different ways of acquiring knowledge. And they they corroborate each other they do not contradict each other. So if there is a truthful report, it should corroborate freezin reasons, corroborated and so on.
He has, he had an egalitarian epistemology. So, Professor yeah, here on the show, who's an eminent domain expert also
said that even if they may have fought to uphold the self sufficiency of the religious rationality manifested in Scripture, literality and common faiths, and its validity for all the elite and the crowd. So it is one basically settled beliefs for the elite and the crowd, unlike the two full truth. However, he does recognize, of course, he does recognize and he mentioned this so many times, that the depths of our beliefs, it's it's the same direction, same direction, it's not opposite directions, you know, so, the revelation is not pointing to do different beliefs and opposite directions, same direction, but the depth of your belief and with that, belief may vary according to
your competencies. And
Dr. Muhammad Yunus, Adi in his medieval Islamic pragmatics, he actually captures everything he has Miss language theory very well. So that's why I mentioned all of them, if you as resources for people who are interested in reading more about these issues. So he says,
about the many Tamia
what is discursive for a given person can thus be self evident for another consequently, contrary to the traditional logic, the middle term which hasn't had that answered in the current study and syllogism, you know, man would be inhabit also the middle term. So in the famous sort of syllogism, you know, all men are mortal and Socrates is a man Socrates is mortal. Men is a habit also toward the middle term, according to anything mania, it could be dispensable for people who are exceptionally quick at conceptualizing prepositions. So, it is not always that they need to have the outset because what is discursive to some people is necessary to others
depending on their competencies, so this is his cognitive relativism, but
basically wants to say that you do have different tools, including divine assistance. So even the public, they have different tools and some of the tools that the public may have. Philosophers may not have the concept of enhanced for instance, divine assistance.
But there's a consequence to that. It's a very Sophie concept, but it is
a very fine man concept also.
He believes that there is a role for divine assistance, the divine inspiration. It's not like the revelation that we are that is received through the angel, and it does not have contradicted and may not contradict it. But he says, When the seeker exerts effort in the clear shadow he proves so you try to find the truth through the clear Shaarei proves the Qur'an, the sun and the clear methodology of the IMA and finds no preponderance in favor of one opinion and then is inspired with a preference for one of the two actions white having good intention and consciousness of God the inspiration of not person is evidence for them, it may be stronger than many weak analogies, we have these and we
presumptions of continuity, which many of those involved in mazahub Comparative facts and principles of jurisprudence use as evidence.
So, that is why you know,
divine attributes is not only dependent on discursive reasoning, slot it, there is a role for divine assistance here. That is, that is extremely important for him and for me, and for his most devout and loyal, this disciple, Imam Abdul Karim. So in Livnat, Holzman's words according to Korean, the knowledge of God's attributes cannot be obtained by the human intellect alone, and should not be acquired for mere intellectual purposes rather than knowledge of God's attributes is the outcomes of spiritual labor, in which God participates actively by widening or opening the believers heart to receive the meaning of the attributes. The heart therefore receives this knowledge directly from the
niche of divine inspiration.
Okay, so have had
so he has a bit in terms of turmeric epistemology, he says that it's varied,
multiple, multiple sources they corroborate each other. At the center of them is the concept of Federer to the point where people call him the federal philosopher.
So his definition of Fatra would be the original spiritual, more cognitive disposition, for regional spiritual, more cognitive disposition. The understand that your fitrah is derived from the Prophet statement, it's not something that he made up. So the Prophet sallallahu sallam said, Every child is born on the fitrah and his parents convert him to Judaism, Christianity, or Judaism or thrust Arianism.
But everybody is born on the fifth after he
monotheism. The Quran affirms man's creation in the best of moles, he argues.
So, for him Federa and reason, there is a relationship between faith and reason. So the D knowledge which is the self evident Aprilaire priori axiomatic knowledge handled thoroughly knowledge, which is the necessary and compelling realization, it's necessary and compelling in the sense that, like, if I tell you one plus one equals one, you don't There is no need for discursive reasoning. You capture this without thought, without investigation. Without further investigation, they used to say for instance, you know, nowadays maybe different, like human beings are, come in two forms, like men and women are two genders, men and women. This is unnecessary, compelling, assault that does not
require investigation. It's thoroughly it's compelling. So all of the things that do not require investigation are considered sort of
But his is Federa for him is wider than this. It's wider than the D knowledge, it is wider than the self evident truths. It is the disposition that that is both that is that is not only cognitive, but also spiritual and moral.
Moral objectivity, objectivity, for instance, where is this coming from? objective morality?
Between all human beings, you know, where is it coming from that human concurrence that kindness to the parents is a good thing. cruelty to animals is a bad thing. There is human concurrence. Whether you believe in a religion or an atheist, there is a human concurrence.
Certainly someone may say no, I don't agree but but again, that exception would not matter, because
that would be an extremely rare exception. And we know that I brought up another or
extremely rare things are not considered in this discourse. So, then he said he is very, very aware of the corrupt stability of the federal deformations of the federal and he says that there are many reasons that the federal could become corrupted. He mentioned a lot of reasons such as imitation such as stubbornness,
you know, harder to clean and more rules, inherited beliefs, conjecture,
ulterior motives, and so on. What you need to do in order for you to not lose that important faculty is the rehabilitator Federer. If you want to have a correct understanding of the divine attributes,
you need to rehabilitate your football because you will need it when you hear the define, sort of address. And whatever it is that you will capture will depend on Celebrity, etc, on the soundness of your federal.
Hand when he talks about affirming and acknowledging the creator is not true or unnecessary, and so on. This was quite busy, but I will not basically,
I just want to say that this is a statement from Imam Tamia about the role of reason, where he acknowledges the presence of two groups on one side there are some of the Sufis who basically would find fault with reason and criticize reason. And the rationalist theologians on the opposite side, who exaggerated in the role of reason. And he says in the undermined here, Reason is a necessary condition for the realization of knowledge, excellence and actions and the perfection of both knowledge and action.
And he says that the states that are obtained without reason are incomplete. And statements that contradict reason are invalid. He says the prophets broad things that reason cannot comprehend not things that treason find impossible. He has like a word that that he says, in Arabic, the the Commonwealth, Mahabharata, Liverpool, not Mohyla, to Liverpool. So they come with that which would be well, there you not that is deemed impossible by reason.
so he does recognize the importance of freezin. And he says it has its certain domain. So that's why in his fifth, he used reason a lot, because that is the domain that reason needs to be used, you know, the divine attributes, that is a domain that that reason is basically handicapped when it you know, tries to conceptualize the unseen. So, it does have still some place, but it has a limited place, but when it comes to the laws and FATCA and so on, it should be used. So he says, the last statement here, some of the people of Hadith, may approach both sides, exaggeration and in
elevating reason and putting it down both sides, at times by retiring, retiring reason from its domain or opposing the sun with it. So, he says, in terms of reason, and right now, reason and the unseen, he says that the line between the pipe and which is an unseen and shahada, which is the scene is impermeable, except for you know, for the following one weekend through reason recognize the existence of God and some of his attributes,
such as His life, His power, His omnipotence, omniscience, etc. Superior analogy applies to him severe analogy applies, meaning that every perfection that is existent in his creation, he's deserving of more of more of it, of every perfection has existed in every profession, that is not coupled with imperfection.
He is deserving of it. He says that the fundamental axioms of reason, cross over fundamental axioms of reasons cross over to the unseen. So what is it that he will go to the to basically discourse about dancing armed with
the three laws, he would accept to those? So law of identity
non contradiction excluded middle, he would accept those, he would add to them the force like the principle of sufficient reason, you know cause and effect.
So, he says that these do crossover, otherwise you could reuse reason that is less definitive than this in dialectics, but not in
a basically conceptualizing God or not in making belief
or understanding of the, the unseen.
And the most he wants to do in dialectics with reason is to basically make holes in the rational arguments, so, that we can go all go back and accept the scriptural arguments.
So, in terms of the divine attributes he thinks that we should not take establish them through reason, although he recognizes that reason does basically exonerate God from all deficiency and attributes all perfection to him. But he says the principle in this matter is that Allah the Exalted as described, with what he has described himself with, and with what His Messenger or messengers have described him with an affirmation and negation, but he also says the point here is not the affirmation of perfection and the negation of imperfection from Allah can be known through reason, you will not establish attributes, you will not call them attributes until you hear them from the
revelation, but you can say that Allah was hearing and knowledge is an attribute of perfection reason proves it,
even before the revelation
and this is an I think, that you had
discussed this before on one of your shows. So basically, the concept of conflict between reasonable revelation
you have, he says that it is it is not a binary. And that reason
is not all about definitive conclusions or definitive imports
are conclusive. And what matters is what's conclusive. It's not whether it's rational scripture, is it conclusive definitive, heartily or is Advani speculative or inconclusive? So, we will always privilege that conclusive over the inconclusive whether it comes from reason or the revelation, but he argues that the conclusive that conclusive from Reason and conclusive from the revelation will never contradict
okay. So take me in ontology, which is extremely important also to his discussions is hermeneutics and his discussions of the attributes.
So, in platonic ontology, you have a real existence of the universals in our realm, that is separate from the sensibles the particulars. Yeah. So you have real existence real ontological existence of Katniss, and have you have Cat Cat, cat, cat, cat, okay. They participate. So the universal inheres in all of these cats.
Is this going to be extremely important for the divine attributes? The Universal inheres in all of these cats. But in Tamia, nominalism or conceptualism, I would say and I'm not gonna get into the very exact type of his nominalism.
He would use a moderate nominalist.
But, but is he Mr. And Mrs. conceptualist? Probably you conceptualist intern in time and thought, there is nothing outside of the external reality except the particular casts. And the universal is only an abstraction, a mental abstraction that only exists in your mind only exists in your mind. There is no universal outside there, the universal, but you do capture something about this gap and that gap. And then you abstract from all of this, you know, the concept of Katniss, it's in your mind.
The same applies to to the different qualities, you know, to other qualities, all other attributes, you have basically abstracted them from the particulars and they are now in your mind. So only particular things exist, no forms exist in reality. And he mentioned that
things that I'm currently are in paradise, for instance, that the statement from the lab and our best, that the only thing that is in common between this life and the hereafter and in Paradise is the names.
That is not to say, that is not to say that there will not be ha fruits in the hereafter for instance.
But, but the similarity is such that, you may say that there are only names, you know, but but certainly that does not mean that Muslims don't believe that there will be these things in the hereafter. There's not amount of disagreement now, between Muslims. Whether the these
are metaphors or or not. All Muslims believe also the Muslims believe that these things are real.
So, everything may I wanted to use the concept of nominalism to shift the paradigm from metaphysics to philosophy of language affirming the coherence and comprehensibility of the scriptural language. He says, if it is said that the throne is an existent thing, and mosquitoes are an existent thing, and people will say, how is he Why is he using this, you know, the difference between God and the creation is much greater than the difference between the throne and the mosquito, the prophets of Allah has given us the similar examples, you know, about the moon and, and things like that.
And how you know, how we see the moon without being hurt by it, or by seeing the moon, and things like that. This is not a comparison between God and the creation here. This is to tell us that the concept that we are having difficulty
about God's word to ascribe to attribute to God, we do have these differences even between the creatures, and we can use those examples not to like him to any of the creatures, but basically to clarify the concept to the audience. So he says, if the throne is existent, and the mosquitoes are existent, also, no sane person would say that they are the same, because they participated in the names thing, and existent shape, and mold, dude, that's because there is nothing in the external world in which they participate. There are no forms in which the most, there is no form called existence, in which the mosquito and the throne participates, rather, the mind abstract the
universal concept, which is called an ESP and whatnot, or absolute name.
And if it is said that this exists, and that exists, then the existence of each one of them pertains to it uniquely. And others do not share in it, even though the name is a reality in each of them. So it's not metaphorical. So the existence of the mosquito is not metaphorical.
Or the existence of the throne is not the fork, it's free for both.
So one may say that this is the Platonic platonic ontology but not our superior ontology because Aristotle did not believe that forms have a separate existence, separate ontological existence in a different realm. But he believed in their ontological existence yet the subsist in sensibles mama apart from them in a separate limb. So the same problems will apply also, in that problem of composition will apply also according to our study, or study and ontology, because those forms,
you know, are those universals those qualia
every particular is composed of these qualia.
So what did you know?
Every man is composed of many qualia, there are certain universals that will apply to every man.
We're all organisms, we all have sensation, we all have self motion, have the distinctive
characteristic here is we're all rational that separates us from animals according to Aristotle,
then that, these universals he add them up and that makes human you add to a tallness and you have a total human etc. So anytime it says that particulars preceded the universals, that the universals are abstractions in the mental conceptions,
the particulars are not composed of universals. The universals are our mental abstract
Since from the particulars and there was nothing outside except the particulars.
So why is it why is it important? Why is this important, because when you say that God is also hearing, and also this and also that, that in our study and in the Asturian sense is a composition, you're bringing different universal here, the universal of hearing, the universal of mercy. These are different qualities vary, and now you're claiming that God is composed of those qualities, and if he's composed, he needs a composer. And if he is composed, his his FCT is that is a need of His power is a need of his knowledge is a need of this and that. And that need would be unbefitting of the double seat on differentiated, that they also have a problem with, you know, God's knowing of
the particulars and all of that, because that would be composition and certain people suggested different ways of reconciling between how is it that you know, and even the philosophers they they ever describe God by different names, because there is no existence outside, as they may have says, Rahimullah that does not have qualities, it just doesn't happen. You don't have an existence without qualities.
So his hermeneutics,
no one has ontology his hermeneutics he was completely for a closed hermeneutical system that does not allow foreign discourses and philosophical conventions to rupture it.
He believed that our system hermeneutical system already accounted for the place of reason, it already gave reason its right place it's already accounted for.
And the summary of his hermeneutics is affirmation in the divine attributes affirmation of the primary meanings of the Quran, son has understood within their immediate and broader contexts of the revealed text and the linguistic conventions of the first audience using pure reason or clear reason, I may say. So if it's not confused with the Critique of Pure Reason, using pure reason, as a vital instrument. That's in summary, his hermeneutics, he wants to say that the primary meanings will be privileged, but the primary meanings are understood within the context. This is the immediate context. And the broader context of the revelation, another verse, another Hadith, and
within the linguistic conventions of the first audience, so you do not transmit us Islamic terminology with philosophical definitions that are foreign to the linguistic conventions of the first audience.
And then use pure reason as a vital instrument.
Mocha demo or Mocha dama fucile. tafsir is basically a book that he wrote later in life. It has been explained by Dr. Ackerman, Natalie, you know, he's in Britain.
And it it talks about a lot about the main hermeneutics for people who are interested in in terms of his language theory, that particular book medieval Islamic pragmatics. It's a Routledge Arabic linguistic series publication, and it's the PhD
of Dr. Muhammad Yunus it
it talks about about his contextual language theory. So, in order for us to understand the relationship between utterances and meanings,
and how the divine attributes apply here, or how this applies to the divine attributes, in Arabic, you have this division. So you have something called the water which is concordance. So, when you say human, it applies to all humans equally.
You have to shacklock which is difference in degree that's gradable expressions, when you say why it applies to different white things differently. So, ivory is called White for instance, you know, it may be called off white in one language, but in Arabic it will be called White Ice will be called White, even White would be called White etc. So, when you
say that is gradable that is, that is what it means they may I will use to say that the divine attributes apply in this sense
to God and to us difference in degree there is a distinct measure and there is a shared measure, but the shared the measure the distinction between God and creature is not only quantitative, it is qualitative. Then we have the concept of the hull of Alta Gyan. So book and horse apply to different things, you know, so, different words for different meanings. The first one one word that applies similarly, to every to all the objects. Second one word applies differently in grade two different objects. Third, as disjunction, book and horse, the different words and different meanings. Fourth is called Ciroc, Hamana. Me. So that's like the bark of a tree, and the barking of a dog, its bark
and bark, but they are completely unrelated. So in Arabic, the where the Hein is, the common example that's used, a high in in Arabic would refer to the AI, gold spring,
like water, spring,
Sky, all of these would be called AI.
So that's Hamana me.
And some people say that the divine attributes apply to God, you know, they belong to this category. This is only basically participating in the word and not participating in any meaning, which will eventually mean that they don't mean anything when we use them for God. So mercy does not mean anything,
because it's nothing that we have ever experienced. So then you have the concept of Terada, which is synonymy, like happy and glad, for instance,
the concept of polygamy in Arabic would be knuckled, but this would come under umami.
Even though polygamy not only means what the transfer used, you use the word first for a person for a particular referent, and then you transfer the use to something else, some other reference or some other meaning. So then, for instance, so the commonality between the bank of the river and the bank as the fine as in the financial institution, is not both store and keep things you know, with water, or your money, records, etc. So that's Melissa may not come out of me because there is something
in common between the two reference,
even though it's extremely remote.
So there is when
whatever they may
says is that the participation, when we say God exists, and we exist, when we say God is merciful, and the Prophet was merciful. When we say
whatever it is the the attributes of God, God hears and we hear, he has knowledge, and we have knowledge, the participation here, is this participation, lovely in the sense of the verbal word, the word thing. So Hamana me, or is there a struck mahimahi analogical signification, conceptual commonality shared semantic content, different translations for the concept of extract Manone? Is there a meaning that you can capture that's in common that you can capture because otherwise you can't conceptualize it? If you've never, if you have no familiarity with it? If it doesn't refer to anything that you're familiar with? You can't conceptualize it. So even if a man says it is a
stockman lie, there is something that you can capture in terms of meaning it is not that we are using that word for God and for us.
Four completely different meanings. That would be like Hamana me would be like, you know, hi in referring to gold and referring to AI and spring and spy No, that's not true. If we do say that, it will mean that we don't know anything about God. And that the revelation never told us anything about God.
Because it's it's all Hamana me.
If it is Hamana me, we cannot try
And sleep from me they may have believes that we can translate them and we may come to this discussion shortly.
enhance contextual language theory. Single expressions don't mean anything. So, if you have single expressions are not meant to mean anything. He says that languages are not designed to signify the meanings of single expressions.
It's all in fact contextual, because the same word may mean different things in different contexts.
And there is no hotkey can majesta Him there is no basically allegorical, there is no hotkey and modality.
For for everything man, there is no need for about distinction.
The people who make the distinction between happy and mercy, he answers them by saying, if you say lion is happy, when it refers to the animal, and it is my jersey, when it refers to a brave man, you will need to prove you will need to prove that language was developed by people having like several meetings, where they first met and decided to use the word wine for the animal.
So that became the happy the first use by water or the first water or the first establishment of the meaning. And then we have another meeting. And they said, Well, we will have described brakeman
with that term.
So basically, anyone who can prove that chronologically, will be able to prove that there is hockey tianma, Jersey. And he argues that it may the opposite may be very true that people first were meeting each other before they met lions. And they may have used the word lion to describe the animal because of something in the word that made them use it. And then when they saw the lion, they use that for that animal afterwards. So he says that this is not enough to justify the distinction between hockey and jazz. So when people say the distinction between how TTM or jazzy
is not only based on this, but it is based on what first comes to your mind when the word is mentioned.
When they say that, if the word is mentioned outside of any context,
the meaning of the word outside of any context is the heartbeat. He says that there is no such thing. Like if someone says lion, that doesn't mean anything, it's not meaningful. It's not a meaningful expression as this
set, you know, it could be it could be wise
to alert people to the presence of a lion, but it does not mean anything in and of itself.
people's say that what what is basically the word without any context, refers to the hotkey the meaning and within a context where refers to my jazzy meaning, he will say there is no use of words except within a context. So when you say I saw, I heard a lion speaking from the pulpit.
No, you know, the primary meaning would be a brave man. There is no way that anyone will think and that you're talking about the animal
has a reason is not dependent on demand denial of hierarchy and modality. There are referees and I'll have to just forward to this slide here to tell you that someone like a mountain of the battle Rahimullah, he has he believes in the distinction between hockey and majority. But he says that these attributes are hockey are real when it comes to God, and they don't mean that the necessary concomitance That you ascribe to them. So we believe that this comes to us in truth. He says in our northern border he says that when we say that we're they are a Buddha and your Lord has come.
You're saying that this is corporeal, this
we're saying that he comes in truth, pockets and nutmeg, jazz and not metaphorically.
But we're also saying
The desk comes to us in truth for Socrata multiball.
So the Qur'an also uses the Mudgee or the coming for this. So is this a body? No, it's not. So just like we use that here we use, we're using it there. It's both it's literal here and there. So I just wanted to say that, you know, atheism is not really dependent on that denial of distinction between hookipa and majaz. And this may be a man thing, although some linguists had corroborated or have agreed to that preposition. In the past. A chef or commodity, for instance, mentions that he's is he's not Hello, and if you know,
Sperber and Wilson,
these are the champions of the relevance theory. They say that there are already strong grounds for rejecting the notion of figurative meaning. It's all contextual.
Evidence, comes with this concept of Mosaic or gradable expressions, you know, it's not that he comes up with this concept, but he uses the concept of moussaka gradable expressions to say that the language is flexible already.
That the language does recognize that
the words capture a wide spectrum of meanings. The words do not refer to every reference. Exactly, but the words in our language would capture a wide spectrum of meaning, like how many words do we have for the different colors? For instance?
Finite, but But can we make a distinction in any language, between that color be equipped with between all the different colors and all different kinds of current? No. So the words are just used to capture a scope, like a spectrum of meanings. And what they mentioned in the lexicons is basically, what the common usage of people what they what they define, however, they define words and lexicons, through the common usage of people. Some of them, some of the lexicon, lexicographers would basically give a primary meaning to every word, and some of them use the
novel and epistemology, but rather, the shared meaning in the word and consider this to be a primary like I'm so honey, for instance, he would say that the word of the bog, which would mean see,
or would mean a horse with wide steps.
For mean, a scholar with immense knowledge,
that where the bar is not literal for the see the body of water, and metaphoric for the others, it is literal for something that's white, that's huge. That's immense. And then it applied to all of those
Why is he Why is he trying to say all of this is again trying to say that using the these words to describe the Define does not necessarily in truth does not necessarily entail assimilation.
So, the shared measure, he says that there is a shared measure and a distinct measure between any two things. So hearing is not a homonym. There is a shared measure, you know, recognition of sounds and extinct measure, we thought we spoke about sound waves and stuff that's distinct, doesn't have to apply.
Any two things have a shared measure, they are a thing. And they are existent. If we're talking about existent things,
they are a thing and they are existed.
The shared measure or commonality is only a conceptual notion in the mind and has no extra mental reality. So that is Terokkar participation is only in the mind. So when we say that God is merciful and there are humans are merciful, the Prophet was merciful. This is struck participation in this meaning is only in the mind
Outside the mind that there is no participation whatsoever. Because there is neither forms that in here in the different particulars there is neither a form it's called Mercy or a universal that has a real ontological existence that's called Mercy that in yours in the particular in the different particulars, nor is there an ontological reality to that concept has away from the particulars.
So he uses like, for instance, to prove that there is a shared meaning that there are many proofs, there are hundreds of proofs in the Quran and Sunnah. When Allah uses the word automata, I mean, the Most Merciful of the merciful, can he? Can this be
Hamana me? Can we can can his Rama and our Rama be completely different things. But yet he's saying he's the Most Merciful of the merciful can the first word merciful means something completely different from the second word merciful. He says, Of course not. So every time Allah says he's more knowledgeable,
he's more powerful. He uses a product of the comparative superlative that means that there is a shared meaning.
So the distinct measure, again in the same book that you have next you presume revelation and reconstitution of rationality.
Yeah, that's Yeah, yeah. That highly recommended do read it absolutely fascinating.
it's, he says, Dr. Toby says, It is these four fundamental qualities, necessity versus contingency internality versus temporality, perfection versus deficiency, indestructibility versus destructibility, that for everything may or define the hot data or fundamental essence of any existing thing.
Every attribute outside is colored by them, inseparable from this distinction. It follows that whatever attributes an entity possesses, apply to it in a manner commensurate with the entity's underlying ontological reality as determined by this limited set of crucial traits.
So how did he answer the sort of the accusation of assimilation?
Certainly he, there is there is much in terms of textual proofs. But this is a statement from amateur meze where he was talking about how the Jeremy's
they say that they are the means, the power or the hand that means power and so on the reinterpret the attributes of God in a way that the predecessors did not interpret them. And then he says that is Huckabee Abraham said he approvingly reports from his Hakuna Brahim that this be is when you said likening God to the creation is when you want says hand like my hand, or seminar to my hand, or here that hearing like my hearing are similar to my hearing, then this is the speed. But if one says what Allah has said, hand hearing, seeing, and does not speak of modality, nor does He say like my hearing, then it is not the speaker or assimilation. It is what Allah the most the lesson and Most
High said in his book, there is none like unto Him, and He is the hearing, and the hearing and all seeing. So that's the concept of the speaker according to the predecessors.
What they will be later tried to do is basically say that, if you describe him as existent, and you describe us as existence, that is a simulation that's likening him to us, and that would have never made any sense to the predecessors, because ultimately, it amounts to denial of God. So, every time it says here, if they said that the necessary and the contingent participate in the name of existence and self subsistence, and that both of them are living, knowledgeable and capable,
whatever is possible for one of them is possible for the other, it would be set they remember like in this matter, in which they participated, but this
establish for God in this regard is not like what is established for the creative team. And if it is said that they participate in this matter, then this means that they participate in the absolute universal, which does not exist in its absoluteness, except in the mind, not in the external world, and whatever each of them has of this is specific unique to them, and not shared by others. And this certain thing, common measure does not imply any deficiency. So, if we say that the end of the day, there has to be a common misery, there has to be a shared the misery. So,
in order for this not to be simply Hamana me, you would have to say that they participate in a shared meaning, that shared meaning which is on the mind does not imply any deficiency. So, if we say hearing is the recognition of sounds and yes, they do participate in the recognition of sounds, that does not imply any deficiency of air imperfection to God.
Fan, then he stresses the fact that avoiding lightning completely amongst the denial of God.
Because, you know, avoiding lightning is not just and he makes a very important observation, that to avoid wakening got to the career of creations is not merely about the negating things of God. As the Jeremy's he says, imagine, but mainly about affirming God's true names and attributes. So the more you affirm the true names and attributes of God, the more you distinguish God from the creation, the more you embrace his greatness and His difference, the more you distinguish him from the creations and Imam I've met.
He made this
observation in one of his books, ragdoll Miyasaka, or response to the Jeremy's and there's another car, heretics.
It's a book by Muhammad. He said, we said, he is a thing, God is a thing he means they replied, He is a thing, but not like other things. So it would be important to know that he's not like other things, but to to, to deny sameness is absolutely right, in every respect, but to deny that the
God and the creatures could be like each other, in some respects, is impossible. So to say that God and the creatures are not like other each other in any respect, then you're saying that God does not exist. So we said the thing which is not like other things, in any respect, the people of reason have recognized it as nothing. At that point, it became clear to the people in my mind my sense that they are, they don't believe in anything, anyway.
So that is, that's the concept that ever is want to basically drill in everybody, that you cannot run away, you can if you run away, you will always have to run away farther, if you run away from affirmation,
you either reach the very end or you will be contradictory and the very end is basically denial of God or you will be contradictory and the contradiction will
be pointed out by the people who are next to you
in or or more extreme than you in negation ism.
So, the the issue of corporal realism, specialism and directionality and divisibility. So, there are basically the first main response that we have to start with is the denial of touch seen the word that just mean Arabic is completely inappropriate of God.
However, I will say now why he was asked Professor Hoover says anti anti corporeal is not accordionists but antha antique reporting this and I will say why
but the Damien responses when it comes to the scene, if it is about that scene, if it is about the word in Arabic what this word in Arabic means we absolutely absolutely exonerate God from being a body and just in Arabic, so he says most of that is sunnah of our Muslim and others accused the assimilationist, Masha Bihar and much
which sometimes you will have to translate as corporeal lists, but we will talk about why I use, but I made it clear, because we just said that in Arabic in the conventions of the first audience means body, in the sense of body, like this body, like this body, like a body like this.
So, in everything that goes on, so, imagine me approving the set, that our male people from our men's lab and from the rest of it, so, now, the accused will just simmer of this belief, and he approvingly said that.
But then he said, however, this person arrived when he saw that this is the meaning of the apparent meaning of these verses and Hadees. The apparent meaning is that which comes to the sound mind, which is important here. Remember, Tamia does not say any primary meaning but comes to any mind.
No, the apparent meaning that is intended is what comes to the sound mind the sound mind had a primer of tansy already had a primer often Xie already exoneration of God, the sound mind that knows the greatness of God, the incomparable comparability of God, the transcendence of God is what's going to capture the right meaning from these verses, which comes to the sound mind of those who understand that language, it may be apparent by default or because of the context, these innovative meanings that are impossible to pertain to Allah exalted as he or not the meanings that come first to the mind of believers, nay, the hand to them, is like the knowledge, the power and the absurdity,
as much as our knowledge, power, speech and other attributes, our current accidents indicate in our dues, temporary origination, that our unbefitting govern law, deem this he above all deficiencies. Likewise, our hands and faces are at Sam bodies, which are also temporal. And it is impossible for Allah exalted this he to be described by that. So it seems that he's very clear on this, that the word body as its refer as it is used by in the language does not apply to God.
And when he says the attribute when he says the attributes are Herat accidents, that's that's a translation the common translation but rather than Arabic would mean changes that are defective, you know, diseases, a harlot for instance, weakness, sleep, things of that nature are considered odd in Arabic.
So, why some people describe to me as theology as anti anti corporeal, just because he would certainly he is clear that he's denying corporeal ism here in the first statement, but look at what he says here. He says the intellectuals have used on another the intellectuals who have used the term and just the body in a more general sense than its linguistic meaning, just as they have done with the terms and Joe heard the substance of the accident and will do the existence and that essence and others, they use the term algiz to refer to that which exists independently and can be pointed to and that can be quantified by attributes. So attribute so so basically, philosophically
during their time, everything that is existent has to be one of two things. Jowhar substance are not accident, movement and stillness color. These are what these are, are these are accidents.
There has to be a Jowhar, in which these are not subsist. The Jowhar stands independently exists independently subsists independently, but the art needs a Jowhar to exist or to subsist.
So they used they would refer to anything that subsists independently as a dismount body.
So if you deny that God is at this moment in that sense, so God does not basically exist or subsist independently, cannot be pointed to and cannot be described by quality
Is cannot have qualities, because
if he is an accident, if he is a mental abstraction, that can you know qualities cannot subsist in that.
So, that was his great hesitation have negating
But then he says, saying that Allah is a body or another body, job or substance or another substance, specialty located or not, has a direction or not originated events supervene in his essence the holy field however, this or not, all of this is innovated by the people of Quran and the set of Imams never spoke about these things, neither by negation or affirmation contrarily they used to condemn these are those who spoke who speak like that, concerning God Exalted is He, so he doesn't want to use it. He doesn't want this to be part of the discourse, neither an affirmation or negation. But when you when it is clear what you mean by Justin, and it is clear that you mean by
Justin, the linguistic meaning in the linguistic convention of the first audience that received the Quran, he would say No, Allah is now just in this sense. So here's the era's what core, you know, divine corpus, the existence of a divine corpus that is not objectionable by the fitrah of men.
No, you have someone like Lazada, which I used before and people thought that I am using is amusing this critically, Mulla Sadra.
But you have someone as are fairly
spiritual and philosophical as moolah Sandra who's a watershed figure,
certainly in the Cle tradition, not in the Sunni tradition, but in the Shiite tradition, but generally, Muslims who are interested in theology and philosophy and spirituality they they read manga sutra and I read manga.
As one of the watershed figures in our history, he puts forth the concept of a divine body that is totally distinct from all other bodies, yet chairs with the characteristic of dimensionality this aspect of his philosophy has certainly caused criticism by some she
Marrazzo like Chef Satan, who II
and cost some of them to actually excommunicate him.
Because the CIA tradition has been thoroughly transfused with the mortality discourse, there was some sort of earlier affinity between the Shia and the MATA Zilla and the CA tradition is thoroughly transfused with the mortality discourse or at least the contemporary one.
So of course, Mala sobre, negated dismay and many places in his writings, he negated dismay as in the language.
But what he negated is different from what he affirmed, there is a semantic shift here between what he proposed and what he negated if you're talking about just me, in the sense of the how the word was used, at the time of the revelation. Now, we negate that, but there is no problem in affirming of the fine corpus which you may say, a divine independent existence
that has real ontological reality. And certainly salarians would disagree with ascribing dimensionality, but this is what
many people that are mouths Adrienne's, understand from his statement when he divided the bodies when he said that, you know, the characteristic of body is dimensionality, and then he divided the bodies and said that there is no problem in affirming the divine body, or that's unlike all bodies.
So, so anyway, he also pointed out that it is necessary for empiricists to have to believe in God.
So, now that we are saying that, you know, the existence of a divine sort of Corpus or independent existence, which we are not saying, because that is not what the revelation said, and we will just stick to the revelation. But the point in mentioning this is to say that this is not something that the
is rejected by the fitrah the human Phaedra
forget about what they call the masses. Well of course, most of us have the right is not the masses.
So, where is this concern, this heightened obsession about Corporal realism?
Where is it coming from? Because the Kalam Cosmological Argument
it is proving the the beginning of this world by the fact that
these are bodies and bodies had a beginning because bodies have accidents subsistent them and accidents alternate. So, accidents have a beginning bodies have a beginning you know and therefore,
the world has a beginning. So, anything good that will come in the way of this would have to be removed.
So, but but then then corporeal ism was set because we use the all of these arguments to prove the second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument which can which can be proved by other arguments, whether they are complicated philosophical arguments or more sort of natural arguments, but the arguments
but we use those complicated arguments. So, corporeal ism now is unnecessary concomitant of composition, directionality and speciality and new events subsisting, subsisting and God. So, composition would mean but this is not according to the rest of the theologians in terms of the three Ds and expertise but the Morteza these composition would mean for poor realism for the Moto series, directionality and specialities spaciality
would mean how corporate realism to the Moto series and that rational theologians from the Sunni tradition knew events subsisting and God will also point to corporeal Muslim because, you know, new events subsist in Assam. So, if we say that new events subsist in him, then he is just more he is about your corpus. So
the amount of Tamia exonerated God from the false meetings while rejecting the necessary concomitance
terminal and he rejected the terminological shifts also. And he rejected that there is any deficiency in what ather is affirm to God. Hathor is a firm that he has attributes. He has the essence and the attributes that can position according to the motto Zira after is firm that he's about as strong as directionality according to the Morteza and other rational theologians, after he say that he does whatever he pleases whatever he pleases, his volitional attributes or the affirm is relational attributes and that constitutes new events subsisting in him
according to the rational theologians.
So, basically, reduction of the necessary concomitants This is not only something that Imam Tamia started, this is this also remember it in his third phase, how he was very, very clear on this, we reject all the research in confidence. So why did you even have what hasn't already in his book and Eban?
And this is one of his last books. That's why at the moment, they may have says, whoever follows any amount of hassle, rush it in his book, The banner is of Addison.
It's not like I want you know, followers. Don't follow me, follow, any member has an authority in his book or the banner, but don't contradict it, and then you will be the I will consider you have a sudden. So, you know, what has an attorney says here, why did you assert is saying to the, you know, negation is, why did you assert that if the hand is not a favor, then it must be a limb, the refers to our empirical experience. So
he answers them by saying, we have not found a living being among the creations except that it is of flesh and blood. So when you deny God's life, because in our empirical experience, living things are all common flesh and blood. So,
so he says at the end of the statement, if you instead affirm that God is a living being in
out like any other living being among us, then why do you deny that the two hands that Allah the Exalted has mentioned are neither favors nor limps and are unlike all other hands. So no assimilation, no corporeal ism.
So that's the important concept of rejecting the necessary concomitance Because even if it is necessary concomitance In our empirical experience, gap does not cross over to the unseen
whatever crosses over to the unseen or the the the three laws and
the principle of sufficient reason. So,
then the concept of composition. So Imam Tamia wants to answer the concept of conservation, composition, he says that there is no universals in existence, no divisibility and God God is with is without any need no existence without qualities.
So the Aristotelian notion of simple perceived undifferentiated composition, universals, etc. So to the Martez era, not to the Ataris and vettery, these, this was a valid argument, that's why they had to deny the attributes about God is not composed of the safety and the attributes. So they don't take me I said, no universal is in existence, to compose, you know, particulars from so that we say that God was composed of this and this, we got some mercy for him from that universal, we got some, you know, hearing, and so on, no divisibility in God and no existence without qualities.
So what Turkey berry talking about, if you're talking about keep in the sense of divisible bodies, that you can be chopped off, no one said this about God and no one in his right mind would say that, the that that is described by life, knowledge, hearing, etc, that this means at visible, that there is no existence out there, that is not described by attributes.
so, this is my statement, I explain in my wording, his position, that we agree that a perfect unity is not compatible with quantitative or aggregate Unity, we agree that the perfect one cannot be of this this soluble nature subjected to disintegrative or augmentative change, this is not what they meant by Turkey. This is not what they meant by Turkey remember, they may agree no divisibility No, this union in God, he said when he explained to some of the year follow Allah Allah Who summit summit some of the year of Allah self sufficiency, even if the creator the end may be summit in certain aspects or respects the reality of some of the year does not exist in them since they are
subject this union and the visibility are also dependent on others.
So, he clearly denies and you will see here a denial of the God you know the hand the face or anything of the like this meaning glimpse or Oregon's
nothing in the apparent meaning of the phrase that suggests that it refers to what is specific to the creatures such as memes are Oregon's
Okay, so direction and space. So this is the concept of composition we're done with the concept of composition. No, God is not composed in that sense. But you cannot say that the the attribution of qualities to the essence of God is a form of composition that's only in your arts, the theory of mind or platonic mind of real universals, direction and space.
So, one of the major conventions is, has gone above the throne.
direction and space would mean to rational theologians corporeal ism and they have a chain of basically links here. So here is the chain or low or above in essence they were entail directionality they're directionality Jaya, intense spatial located near the high use speed
Should located and as the highest entails corporate realism that seem corporeal ism that seem intense the visibility and Sam and composition Turkey and the visibility and preserve and composition or keep entail temporal origination Hadith. So you will then understand why they think that anyone who says that God is above the throne has committed this belief, because going through these links for you eventually you're eventually saying the lesson necessarily concomitant of your belief in the above notice is not God is temporal and has a beginning. So the immune response is to basically say he wants to simply and that is why, you know, the recent writing of Professor Hoover,
I don't blame him because he even said when he described that a man now yeah, not that book, the book where he talks about the spatial
when I mentioned that this is an excellent gathering, a critical word by leading Western professor of Islamic Studies, University of Nottingham here in England. Yeah, I do recommend it as a good primer. Anyway, yeah. Yeah. But when he when he talks about his position on spatial extension,
you know, of God. He himself, Professor Hoover himself said that using the terminology of Razi even if they may or is likely saying this, the gist of his of what he said, but even if they may, I would not be called that saying.
So anyway, but But at any rate,
so whatever they may have wanted to do is to make holes in
that chain, so that we can go back and believe that goes above the throne.
That's at the end of the day what he wants,
but it's not only in the day man. In fact, the commentator and the commentator has ever rose have noticed, you know, the some of this he is shatter.
They call him a shout out, he is the one who wrote wrote the the most sort of significant commentaries on Aristotle's philosophy in the Middle Ages. So, the commentator is not done. Well, I think that you would not say that the commentator is, is mentally deficient. And according to the commentator,
this this chain is completely broken in the in different in different links, it's completely broken. So he believes that God's aboutness which is said to entail directionality does not necessarily necessitate
the high use spatial located this and cooperativeness.
So Professor Hoover said that Deputy Mayor drew on our strategic notion that our stand notion of space in these counter arguments, so all things in the world are surely existing in spaces. However, the world as a whole is not.
Because spatially extended objects are not dependent on the space they occupy. Spatial extension subsists in the object or body itself. And it depends upon the body for its existence, the body does not need independently existing space, but space derives from the body, there is no such thing like space without bodies.
So outside of the world, the whole world, the whole universe, there is no space. Space is a relation between me and you. location or direction may indicate a relation between two things, but their relation has no real existence. That's even Taymiyah. Now saying all of this, so location or direction may indicate a relation between two things, but the relation has no real existence of its own.
Gods a buffness is a relation between God and the world does not mean that God needs space or location that he is located in, in a in a particular space. And he goes on to saying, anyone who describes God with attributes similar to those of the creatures is definitely an error. This is like someone who claims that God descends. So he travels from one place to another, like a human descending from the roof to the lower level of a house or like someone who says that throne is vacated of God. So his dissent is of a Kate