Using Logic Against Other Religions, But Not in Islam

Hatem al-Haj


Channel: Hatem al-Haj

File Size: 4.46MB

Share Page
AI generated text may display inaccurate or offensive information that doesn’t represent Muslim Central's views. Therefore, no part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever.

AI Generated Summary ©

The speaker discusses the use of McClintock and the concept of "theological principles" in their approach to their work. They explain that their approach involves using their Quranic principles to defend their religion and encourage others to accept their authority. The speaker emphasizes the importance of using rationality and intertextuality to establish a balance between reason and revelation.

AI Generated Transcript ©

00:00:00--> 00:00:14

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.

00:00:15--> 00:00:17

Do you see where I'm coming from that,

00:00:18--> 00:00:26

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

00:00:27--> 00:00:31

dismantling another thought we rely upon Munchak

00:00:32--> 00:01:05

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,

00:01:06--> 00:01:10

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

00:01:11--> 00:01:15

takes priority because if someone does not accept

00:01:16--> 00:01:26

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

00:01:28--> 00:01:39

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

00:01:40--> 00:01:51

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.

00:01:53--> 00:01:57

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

00:01:59--> 00:02:10

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,

00:02:11--> 00:02:35

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

00:02:36--> 00:02:55

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,

00:02:56--> 00:03:11

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.

00:03:12--> 00:03:20

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

00:03:22--> 00:03:24

by sort of rational

00:03:25--> 00:03:27

sort of arguments.

00:03:28--> 00:03:37

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

00:03:38--> 00:03:45

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

00:03:46--> 00:04:02

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,

00:04:03--> 00:04:10

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

00:04:12--> 00:04:15

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