Hatem al-Haj – Using Logic Against Other Religions, But Not in Islam

			In terms of utilizing McClintock, for reputation, especially of the Trinity, but then sort of
kicking that you're throwing that tool aside and saying, forget it now, we have no source. And
that's it.
		

			Do you see where I'm coming from that,
		

			that we have, we just use our Quranic verses and our Hadith for ourselves. But when it comes down to
taking down another thought,
		

			dismantling another thought we rely upon Munchak
		

			could you expound upon that? Seeming, it seems to be a type of conflict, like you want to use this
principles, to tear down the Trinity, for example, or to debunk it. But then in our own theology,
those concepts are not present. Okay. Well, you know, if you use particular concepts are particular
philosophical principles, to defend the religion. The idea here, when you invite people to the
religion, when you invite people to God,
		

			I think that the face of reason, or the office of reason,
		

			takes priority because if someone does not accept
		

			the authority of the Quranic can tell them the answer such and such, they don't accept the authority
of the Quran. So the authority here is
		

			that a reason so you will have to basically use rational arguments to convince them once they
arrive.
		

			And now like, like, when you arrive at the door, the king, you leave your horse or mule or donkey
outside the door, and you come in barefoot.
		

			And then you when you walk into the presence of the king, given you will listen.
		

			If I come to you with a message from the King, I need to establish that this is from picking when
you arrive in their presence,
		

			you know, the presence of the king of the king. So as a van, you need to listen and obey someone on
our town. Now, even when, you know, but this does not mean, and I understand that we're trying to
talk about, you know, the balance of between reason and revelation. And this does not mean that we
will
		

			turn reason off, because in our hermeneutical system, we rely a lot on contextuality and
intertextuality, we have to check, you know, the different reconciliation, which it could be between
different texts, you know,
		

			and the context of the revelation and all of that. So a system of hermeneutics that relies this much
on contextuality and intertextuality, we're not on to you to turn it off.
		

			But it will what it would want you to not contest the sort of the definitive proofs of revelation
		

			by sort of rational
		

			sort of arguments.
		

			Now, where work how can we establish the balance that is the whole discourse between, you know, the
universal law and
		

			order the knock on effect or harmony between reason and revelation? And I believe that,
		

			you know, the definitive, whether it is, you know, the binary is not between reason and Revelation
binary is between definitive and speculative. So, whatever it is that is definitive, we take it
whether it is from reasonable revelation,
		

			and we prioritize it over the speculative. And when you have conflict between speculative and
speculative
		

			use, you have to look for what's more probative.