Ibn Taymiyya: A Summary Dr. Qadhi’s Dissertation At Yale University
Channel: Yasir Qadhi
File Size: 31.49MB
Shaykh Yasir Qadhi gives an amazing summary of his dissertation relating Ibn Taymiyyah at the Yale University and it makes for an interesting listen as we try to decipher the concepts of Aqal and Naqal in the light of Islam.
During the sixth century of Islam, an Iranian scholar named Fakhr ad-Din ar-Razi Rah generated a treatise on the theology of the names of Attributes of Allāh SWT which was presented by some way to Ṣalaḥ ad-Din al-Ayyubi Rah. Here we stumble upon a term – The Universal Rule, which implied that if reason (aql) warred with revelation( Naqal), then emphasis should be laid upon reason and not revelation.
A few centuries later, a man by the name of Shaykh al-Islam Taqi’l-Din Ahmad b. Abd al-Haleem Ibn Taymiyyah (rah), who represented the Athari school of thought, refuted the above rule completely and gave enough proof for this. This is has been explicitly stated in a book published relating to this very aspect. Do listen intently to unravel the details and have a clear chain of thought in this regard.
Shaykh Dr. Yasir Qadhi considers Shaykh-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah as a mentor and using the theory supported by Ibn Taymiyyah goes on to extrapolate from the text that there can never be a confrontation of sorts between true reason and explicit revelation.
Before I begin even though I was born in America, I'm planning my blood, I need my tea.
Tea here I was distracted, the tea and water, which has
been handed to me no salatu salam ala Sayyidina Muhammad wa ala alihi wa sahbihi trinoma. But I'm very honored and humbled to be up to triple it, I grew up reading the works of triple it back in the early 80s, mid 80s. Of course, you know,
it's my Roger photo Fisher, he and,
and others their works have been of, you know, extreme interest to my generation of growing up here in America. And I think a larger window for the opportunity to be addressing all of you here. It's a very, very big honor. And I don't just say that as a platitude.
So I was invited to really discuss my my doctoral dissertation webpage decision at Yale, which deals with instantaneous work, the 11th volume work done without the laughter or nothing. In order to understand this work, we need to take a step back, obviously, we need to understand who who wrote it. Why did he write it? What was the context of his writing? So, even taymiyah wrote this book, as a response to a book written by the most famous theologian of the Ashanti creed before his generation, and that is referred to Deena Rosie, Papa Dean, or Rosie, and fascinating. Rosie was from Afghanistan, modern day one is done. And in the year 590 600, or 1200 ce, II wrote a book that
was called assassin police or the foundations of sanctity, the foundations of sacredness, and he presented it to one of the salons. One of the nephews of Medina up his name is a worker in a u for 1000 dinars he was given for this. And even taymiyah wrote has nothing to do with as a response to this book, assassin definitely. So what is this book, as I said, this is around 100 pages with him, he wrote the 11 volumes response to this 100 pages now realized back then, the controversies were very different than modern times. For many of us, they seem irrelevant, but in my opinion, they are not irrelevant, because even though the pieces are different, the puzzle is the same, even though
the issue might seem very little relevance, but the concept behind it is actually the same. Those days, they were interested in God's attributes, they were interested in predestination, they were interested in aspects of theology that by and large, in modern Islam is really something that is only discussed in you know, small seminars here and there. It's not something that affects the masses. But back then this is what the people were talking about. How do we understand God's attributes? When Allah says x? What does he mean by this? How do we understand the budget? How do we understand other issues of theology? So as you know, there are many multiple schools there, the
Morteza school, there's the shadow school, there's the it school, even Tamia obviously represents the sad school. And he took on the shadow school in this particular book and other schools as well, with regards to allas names and attributes, in particular, what does this got to do with after nothing, we go back to the dealer Razi, what did you write in this book as asset of this,
Arise, he writes that he begins the book with some intellectual premises of these intellectual premises is that Allah subhana wa Taala cannot occupy space or be a body, and in Arabic, these are called Jetsam or to use you cannot occupy space, or be a body. And then he proves this intellectually and rationally and even scripturally. Then he says, any time the Koran suggests that Allah might possibly be a body or occupy space, the mind says, we cannot accept this verse at face value.
And then the bulk of the book, which is around 60% of the book, 60 pages, literally, the bulk of the book is a detailed analysis of specific art and a Hadith, dealing with a lot of names and attributes, that he feels that we cannot accept this at face value, just like it needs to be reinterpreted.
So for example, just as an example, allows attribute it's mentioned in the Hadith in Sahih, Bukhari and others that Allah laughs at a person who does such and such, like a low, a low laughs, right? So, Fleur de la Rosa says, it is impossible to affirm laughing to God. And then he mentioned the reasons why, and then he says, so what does laughing mean? Perhaps it could mean this, perhaps it could mean that so he simply brings about a linguistic interpretation, then he comes to the conclusion and it is the conclusion that really isn't a media
attacks. The conclusion the chapter is entitled, if rational proofs contradict apparent textual proofs, what is to be done? Again, we're talking about a rauzein auditing tehmina. If rational proofs the law in academia, contradicts the law is not clear.
textual proofs what is to be done for color dinos are Rosie writes, and I quote directly from the book because this is the essence of what even Tamia then takes on no
That if in do biteable rational proofs and your enemy, Athena leads us to establish something. And then we find scriptural evidences that seems to conflict with our rational proofs. It says there are four possible scenarios. Number one, that both rational proofs and scripture be believed in. But this is what
contradictory. So he says, This is logical impossibility, we can't do this. Number two, that the apparent meaning of the Scripture be denied, but the rational proofs be accepted. So we reject the null and accept that he doesn't comment on this. Number three, that
they both be denied. What's the problem with denying both?
Both nothing and output are denied.
Once again, is a logical impossibility. Like if you accept both or reject both is a logical impossibility, right? Number four, that the scripture be believed in, but the opposite be denied. So these are the four logical proofs right? The four logical ways you either reject both accept both reject and accept the appeal or accept an offer and reject the offer very simple for logical possibilities. Now, he says, and I quote here, that if we were to accept the meanings of the Scripture, and belie our intellect, this, in fact, is a rejection of the Scripture as well.
Okay, how so? Because we only know the truth of the Scripture, from our intellect.
So if we reject our African and accept knuckle, this, he says, is tantamount to rejecting both.
Do you understand this point is a very crucial point for Fleur de la Rosa, what tells us the Quran is Columbia Law.
Now, if then we were to take the apple and say okay, we believe the Quran is kurama. We believe that Hadith we believe the process is a lawsuit. Now we find the Quran or Hadith that goes against our apple. So we said, okay, okay, I'll just accept the number and reject what my author says that the novel cannot be valid. by rejecting the ACA, in this case for fildena, Rosie writes, in fact, we have tarnished the reputation of the APA in accepting the novel in the first place.
Right, the faculty of reason, has diminished in its value and has become tainted, how then do we know that the null is true if we're going to doubt that after for something else, right? So it's so funny that it basically writes, therefore, when all four possibilities are impossible, so for him all four are impossible, right? So these four logical possibilities, all four are impossible. He says nothing remains, except, because why is of course, you cannot reject nothing, because that's
when he doesn't even call me because it's understood, you cannot reject nothing, because that is not Islam. Right. So what is then the only possibility? So he says, we have to invent a fifth possibility. Right? So he's very honest here that logically there's four possibilities. But all four are not possible, meaning they're not, you know, feasible to believe in, right. So then what does that have forced us to do? It forces us to bring forth a fifth possibility, which is what's that? We affirm that often? And then believe that the knuckle means something other than what it says it means.
Okay, we affirm the apple, that we don't reject the knuckles, but we take the knuckle and not that, of course, means scripture or heavy, right? transmission transmitted reports, we take the knuckle, and then we conform it to the author
write the meanings of the nut that have to be interpreted in accordance with what the author says. And then he says, We can do this in one of two ways. By the way, he says, The first of them is we don't really wonder or care about the actual meaning. And we do what is called by the scholars of kilometer field. And so if we it means Allah knows what these means, like a different I mean, how many mines in the fall of noon, just the foil, we don't know what it means. So when Allah says something that the opposite seems to contradict, we just say Allah knows what it means. We don't know. And of course, in those days, as I said, the issue was ullas smells if that's right, or wrong,
I'm sure Stella and Blake alone would not so they would say, look, whatever it means it doesn't mean it's literal, meaning we really don't have to worry about its real meaning just a different I mean, how am I insane? This is the first interpretation, this is the fourth or he says we have another way of doing this and this is that we have that we it means re interpretation, right. So our model allows us to
Whether the the ever Merciful has risen over the throne actually means that a lot has conquered the dominion of the heavens and earth.
The whole heavens and earth is under his control. Right? It's still either stolen and alysha symbolic for the creation is stolen either.
Right, Roger Stella, if you wanted to do that we would mean a Rahman, Allah azza wa jal has conquered the entire creation under his control. This is the metaphorical meaning. Okay, this is facilidade raazi. And then he concludes the book by saying, how who will call noon and Cooley This is the universal rule, audio recording. This is the universal rule that is used in all unclear matters that conflict with APA number. So for dinner, Razi promotes something that he calls upon and Cooley
and by the way, in my my PhD dissertation, I showed that this is in fact, with all respect to fundamental raazi it is not his idea, these are the ideas of kasali before him, and for kalinina raazi literally cuts and pastes from causality. And then those days they would not even reference a lot of times. And Alice Azadi has a book called Apollo lunar called the fifth wheel, he has an entire treaties, right. And this booklet, literally, arazi simply cuts and pastes and rehashes and whatnot, and then does it in his own word, even the name of our lunar liquidly comes from our family. And in that book, as it says that, no, may Allah have mercy on you that if any
intellectual proof establishes something and a textual proof goes against it, we have to use the salaat which means give sold on or give authority to the intellectual proof over the textual proof.
Right, so those are the in his treatise upon unqualified will, he basically produces this entire concept, and then finally arrives, he then takes it and then puts it in his assessment of this and popularizes it and for some reason, these treaties is not that well known, compared to his other books, whereas familiarises As I said, this is very, very famous. So this is, this is the raison d'etre of the reason why I've been Tamia wrote is the toutle. So, if it's me, of course, I don't need an introduction to who even taymiyah is even Tamia, just a very, very brief introduction to the thought of imitate me and what he represents. If it Tamia comes from a family of humble scholars,
his father and his grandfather.
were both very famous humbly scholars and he was born in the ancient city of how Ron which is in modern Turkey, and the Mongols Ganges Khan's forces invaded. And so his parents were forced to flee and take him to Damascus, which was one of the intellectual capitals of the Muslim world at the time. So he grew up and he was raised and he studied in Damascus, his father died when he was a teenager. So even taymiyah took over his father's position, teaching position in the masjid at the age of 18, or 19. He became the the the teacher of the main humbly master of Damascus. And he was a neophyte. He was a very
intellectual present at a young age. He was a polymath, he mastered all of the sciences of Islam, and he did something and this is really what sets me apart from the previous humble, he did something that the previous habit or the previous 30 scholars never did. And that is he read the works of his opponents. The previous Hammadi scholars were very closed minded in this regard. They didn't want to read the books of the philosophers or the Greeks or the went to the moon. They said, these are books of heresy and deviation and don't even read them. Right, they're going to pollute your mind. And therefore if you read pre event, Tamia, 30 books, do you find them to be a whole
different character, very simplistic or on Have you thought on Have you fallen heavy, there's very little logic, there's very little rhetoric, there's very little development of ideas even right, it's simply This is what the Quran says, You have to believe this, what the hell he says you have to believe it. Very few people went against this trend. Even Tamia was the greatest example of this. Even taymiyah spent years studying every single philosophy and ideology out there, from the motor software fire to the philosopher to, you know, Greek logic to philosophy, he read the books of Aristotle, he did everything with the previous whenever that did not do, and this gave him a type of
mind and a rhetoric and a style that is simply unprecedented, dare I say unfollowed even after him, it is my claim that even many of those who follow Him and Tamia are not truly following him in Tamia. This is my claim. With all respect to that many of those who think they're following even taymiyah they have not understood this mind, and they really cannot imitate what they cannot walk even in his footsteps, because in any case, that's besides the point. That's my tangents I'm going into nonetheless, so
In Tamia, Ravello to Allah He
took on what he perceived to be the 30 cause, but in a style or manner that was unprecedented. And as I explained why that he exposed his mind to the ideas around him, and he began defending the aesthetic creed and the study methodology, in a manner that was never seen before and dare I say even after him, and there's no doubt that even Tamia was a harsh polemicist. In his writings, he was unforgiving to any other group, because he truly believed there is one Islam that is correct Islam. And every single other theology ideology methodology was weighed according to the Grand skills of the Quran and Sunnah. As understood by the early generations of Islam, the author decreed as he
called it, and no doubt his harshest criticisms, his harshest criticisms were for the philosopher and the extreme with a subwoofer such as even out of being large and even seen it no doubt these people they had very little sympathy in the eyes of him and Tamia dare I say even does it and others did not like even seen it as we all know that they also had problems with them. But in terms of sheer quantity, the number one target of imitate Mia is the fellow SUNY Ashanti school.
Why is this the case when they're in fact the closest creed out of all of the Creed's Why did he concentrate on the closest creed, the number one terms of in terms of sheer quantity groups of Fatah fatawa treatises, monographs, he concentrated on the SR Sunni School of ashad ism, and he acknowledges they are so many school. He says in his writings that in the broad scale of things he always says like generally speaking, they are in the general Sunni tradition. Yes. Yet he takes them on as the number one why I explained in my dissertation, and that's just a footnote for here, but you can read this in Sharla. Whenever the decision is published, I explained the reason for this is
in the previous 150 years prior to even Tamia, the shoddy school rose from being something very small, very insignificant initial report. It became in 150 years the dominant Sunni Islam.
And that's an interesting subject of history that's beyond the scope of this class. But 300 years before had been Tamia. The 30 school was really the main representation of Sunni Islam, and in both died it was the prominent the halifa himself was a hardcore if you like sad, and there are Creed's that clearly show this right when the Ashanti creed was introduced to Baba that it caused a major chaos a major problem with this called the fitna Of course at a major problem took place. And it took over 150 years for this creed to gain political dominance over the athletic creed. When even taymiyah comes his creed is now the underdog. His creed is now the minority creed, the fit creed, so
he feels the need to defend it from its main competitor. And the main competitor was not sheer ism or Sufism or Greek philosophy. The main competitor obviously was a Shiite Islam, right. And that explains his motivation for concentrating on this claim. Nonetheless, let us move now to the adulthood and really just jump into this book that is out of
notice the output, by the way, is one of the largest books of infamy ever wrote, had been Tamia wrote many treatises, many fatawa you know, and I'm sure somewhere over here you have the books of imitate me, they take up seven eight shelves and modern print I mean, I have in my library, literally this an entire two subsections like this isn't just me, right? And one of the largest books, he wrote, is dealt with out of that after one. This is one of the largest and modern prints is around 10 or 11 print depending which print you have 10 or 11 volumes and water prints. And the title of this book, Dakota out of the blue enough that he had he named it himself, and it translates
as in English, averting the conflict of reason with Scripture. Don't doubt doubt means averting making sure it doesn't happen to outdo there's a clash, an alpha we're not going often enough that we've already done and in another writing he calls it Momofuku or the reconciliation
of the explicit scripture.
A knuckle of Sadia with the correct intellect and aka Asahi
a knuckle assadi masakatsu Appala sorry, we're not going to allow a Sahib and nothing to study, right? The reconciliation or the bringing together of explicit Scripture
with correct intellect.
And so you understand automatically the philosophy behind me is going to be very different than the philosophy of a Razzie who's positing a conflict and what is to be done in the case of the conscience.
And I'm going to summarize for the rest of the talk will really summarize the two out of the 10 volumes which I have done in my PhD and much longer. The good news that comes in I have submitted my PhD to you some insha Allah shell loss within a few weeks inshallah sharing the good news with all of you. So I'm a big burden off my chest as anybody who's gone through this phase knows that hamdulillah I feel very free today. It is last week I live in a very fresh
inshallah, technically, there's still three weeks left to get the final verdict, but inshallah it's just a technicality. So, I was I was thinking the gestation I go into a lot of detail, obviously. And I have around 100 something pages summarizing the entire 10 volumes. Obviously, I'm not going to bore you with 100 pages, but I will summarize some of the key points. What is it that Jamia do in this book, the very first page he quotes for Christina Rosie's final paragraph, which is called liquidity. He quoted verbatim, he says he says that he's telling you exactly what the book is about. It's a refutation of Elune and Cooley, right? What is
basically that are that are true or not true. Would you have attacked him? Well, actually, this isn't a philosopher in the summary, if after a knuckle or at odds, we have to prefer after over and upon and interpret nothing according to often
clear so far right? This is admittedly his main beginning that he quotes followed in or was then he commences and he says that this exercise or this, you know, issue of interpreting aka was nothing. He says this is the cornerstone of all heresy, and in had and deviation.
This is the premise that every single group basically messes up from. This is the fountain from which heresy stems.
And he says there's a generic way of refuting this and there's a specific way and the generic way. He begins by by talking over all that this is simply not what Islam is about. And he mentioned, if you look at it historically, this is exactly what the previous groups did. And you mentioned a detailed analysis of Christianity had been Timmy, by the way, we all know, was an expert in Christian polemics. One of his largest books was
the refutation of Christianity. The job of Saha even better Dena misiak, right. By the way, my own elder was embassy ditthi, whom I always joke he's leading the way because he graduated from Medina then went to Harvard graduate from Medina then went to Yale. So his PhD at Harvard was on a job assignment, but that a dilemma? Right back in the 70s. And then my PhD at Yale, is it me is that a two out so it's interesting. We didn't plan this, by the way, I wasn't even born when he was at Harvard. So this was not something planned, but some blood in Pakistan. Oh, yes, of course.
So he says, This is exactly what the Christians did with their religion. How so? He says Christians formulated their doctrines via their councils. You all know the Council of Nicea, the council over this, the Council of that, then they took these doctrines as their awesome. Then they viewed their knuckle in light of these awesome.
And they read in the Trinity. They read in the redemption, they read in the original sin, even though the Scripture is silent about these matters, or it is ambiguous about these matters. And they took these ohanian or these conventions that they held the council's that they held, right. And they made them their intellectual arson.
And so he said this is exactly what the other groups are attempting to do as well. And he then begins a detailed refutation what is the detailed refutation 44 points in 10 volumes, and I'm not going to go over all 44 he goes 44, the first one that said he literally has all 44 points, we're going to mention probably around 10 of them. And then I will summarize all 44 in a page, that was the main one of the main things I did for the dissertation to group all of these 44 into a broader motif. So we're going to summarize basically 10 of these 44 in the next 10 minutes in shallower, 15 minutes, we'll see.
He says, of these ways of these 44 ways. The binary distinction of evidence into either rational or scriptural is false athlete or Luckily, is false. This is an incorrect way of viewing the world you're already setting up a clash. rather he says evidences are looked at in weight of their inducibility their European status.
And if the outcome is your clean, we will give precedence to the Apple because not it is after but it is your thing.
And if the NACA is your key, again, we will give precedence to the NACA not because it is nothing but rather because it is your thing.
We should not differentiate between alcohol and knuckle in terms of acceptance. Rather, we look at the weight of each evidence, independent of what and why this is if you think about is a very profound point you, this is not an ad hominem attack, is it actually or nothing, you weigh it based upon its own evidence, and then you accept or reject. So he says, so he says, the very positing of this binary,
if you like, set up, the very positing of this binary demarcation is false. Rather, an evidence is judged based upon its own merit, regardless of its outcome, or it's not. Right. He then says that, I'm the claim that Auckland is the basis and foundation for accepting up nothing. So pause here, I need to give you a footnote. So let's pause for a second, a shoddy theology has a very set way of going about creed. Number one, you start with a tabula rasa, your mind is blank, right? So you have to rationally prove a god exists.
And then you have to rationally prove that he sends profits, and then you prove that the Prophet has to bring miracles, then you prove that the Prophet Mohammed sysm is a true prophet, then you accept the faith, right, because they didn't want blind faith because blind faith Eman and Mohammed, the majority, even though there's a bit of a distinction within the shadow school demand and it is something that is frowned upon or maybe even not even accepted. So you have to as the as the shadow textbooks say a one word you have been added Micallef, another horrible job another or a hostile another, a word watcher but hadn't woken up another, the first thing that the rationally sane adult
has to do is to reason his faith out, right. So the point that Rosie is saying, if this is output, and this is nothing, so outcome has to be before nothing, because output leads us to nothing. Right? Now, if we find that contradiction, and then we reject the actual, we're actually rejecting the null as well. Even taymiyah says, your claim that icon is a precursor to NACA, this is the big claim, your claim is accurate as a precursor to NACA is not correct. This is not correct. Rather, what nocal posits, is independent of
what Allah and His Messenger says, is true, regardless of whether you know it or don't,
or whether you're after understands it or not. And then he brings an interesting point here, and he says, what these scholars mean is, the truth of the Scripture for them, is dependent upon their outcome, not the truth of the Scripture. Ultimately,
this is a very profound point, right? The truth of the Scripture cannot be dependent on my mind or your mind. It says cunnamulla. Rather, they are saying for them, the truth of the Scripture is dependent on their outcome. So they need to understand this point, that in fact, their outcome will not add any characteristic to the knuckle that it doesn't independently possess. In other words, whether funan or funan, accepts or rejects the Quran, it will not change the Puranas kalambo.
This is an interesting point to where there's so and so or so and so accepts or rejects actuality, the cunnamulla will remain independent of what any one man or one shape or one shape and rejects it. So what doesn't change the characteristics of the photon? Rather, they need to understand as he's saying, that they are being very subjective, that the truth of NACA according to them is dependent on their aka Yes, this is true, not that the truth of nothing unconditionally is dependent on their
right. So he basically says put yourself in your place. He doesn't say so, bluntly, but basically say, he then moves on and he says, and this is one of the main points of the deluxe album, what exactly do you mean by alchemy?
What exactly do you mean by aka, if by Akon You mean the internal instinct in Arabic dulat Isa,
that people possess, then this supposition is completely false, because this internal instinct is not capable of contradicting the Scripture. If by article you mean the acquired knowledge, physics, mathematics, chemistry, this is acquired knowledge right. Then even in this case, we say this is not correct. Why? Because and he goes into a lot of details here number one, he says,
acquired knowledge varies from time to time place to place, person to person.
And what one person deems to be intellect today, he himself will discover tomorrow is not
and what one society deems to be intellect today. The other thing
society will come and say it is not intellectual tomorrow. And so historically intellectual solid proofs right? Especially, he says, have an ethical and a religious nature that are derived from the open change. And this is a historical you cannot deny this.
Another point he brings, he says, one of the biggest problems of facilitator Razi and the shoddy school he says, and all of the other schools is to make one big, on divisible entity.
And he says, This is simply wrong.
What proved the truth of knuckle is one part of all of what you have one section of your upper it proved to the Profit System is a profit. Now what what is coming from the profit might contradict another section of your often not the section that proved is the profit. So he's dividing often into a lot of mini parts. And he is saying the part that proved he's a prophet is something nothing to do with Allah's names and attributes can conflicting with this issue or other that you don't understand or this or that it's another top part basically, of their so you're not positing a clash of African and knockin? Rather, you're positing a clash of one nothing with another element of action, that's
independent of what affirmed the knockin in the first place. Is that clear, or should I go back, I'm sometimes using too much.
going too fast. Sometimes it's my, my problem is I speak too fast.
He also says that
he also says that this is a contradiction in thought. Because you either know that the Prophet system is a true prophet or not. If he is a true prophet, then Apple demands that you accept him for everything that he says, if he's not a true prophet, then there is no clash in the first place. You cannot posit a clash between something you don't believe in versus something you do believe right, if you don't believe is a prophet, there is no clash. So he says, You are contradicting yourself because and he said, he says here it is, as if you are telling yourself do not believe what you know must be true, because it shall conflict with your knowledge of the truthfulness of the person who's
speaking. Let me say that again. What he's saying is, you end up rejecting the Prophet system because you didn't want to reject it.
Think about that. Why did you reject this hadith? He still did it. Because to accept it means you're going to reject him as a prophet. Right. Right. Do you see the circularity here? Let me let me go back again. Okay. Ross's main point is, if I accept something that is intellectually unfeasible for me to accept, I am in fact, impugning my intellect, when it tells me this man is a prophet of Allah.
If my intellect is wrong about this particular Hadith, or ayah, maybe it's wrong about his a prophet, and this is the book of God. So in order for me not to reject the Prophet system, I have to reject the Prophet system.
Do you see this is what happened to me to say, in order for me not to reject the processes, I have to reject this, how do you throw the processor, and you end up doing exactly what you said you don't want to do in the first place? Right? And he says, This is obviously a logical fallacy.
He also says this is the sixth point they get him summarizing very briefly, obviously, each point is five pages tend to sometimes some points are 700 pages. So obviously, I'm just summarizing it a bit.
He also says the opposite were it to be said, is closer to the truth than the fundamental clearly worded to be said the opposite what is the opposite, either 1000, aku, and Nakuru wotja. But they will not clear either. Luckily, if I've got an apple conflict, in fact, in fact, we should give precedence to knocking over apple. He says, if we were to say this, he doesn't say this. If we were to say this, it would make more logical and rational sense. Why? Because he says,
it is clear that the app can prove the knuckle to be true and valid overall.
So when it finds a particular issue that it doesn't understand, it would make sense to simply accept this issue and acknowledge the limitations of DACA because the uncle has confirmed the validity of the NACA generically, but they're not called has not confirmed the validity of every outcome.
You see, it's a one way street here. It's a one way street. We know the Quran to be cunnamulla.
Once we come across an ayah, we don't understand. Our cousin tells us that now that we know Quran is cunnamulla Alex, we accepted that.
This is our article should tell us this and he gives a beautiful example. He says imagine a stranger goes to a city
And he has a film question he wants to ask a Mufti. So he finds somebody the message he says, you know, can you tell me where is the Mufti? So he says, I'm going to take you to our main Mufti. The best Mufti of the town, holds him by the hand takes him to the Mufti.
The stranger asks the Mufti the question, the Mufti gives his fatwa. Then on the way back, the guy who took him they said, No, no, no, you know what? The Mufti is wrong?
I'm sorry, I don't agree with the move to the Mufti is wrong. So the man will say, But you told me he's the Mufti. Yeah, but this doesn't make sense. You have to follow my opinion. The man will say no, this isn't me speaking. No, no, the fact that you testified he is the Mufti. And the best Mufti of the town means that this is the person whose futsal I need to take. And the fact that you disagreed with one fatwa from him, does not strip away your earlier testimony that he is the Grand Mufti of the town.
And this is the role of the uncle and
forgive me, obviously, that doctor says the knuckle is cunnamulla. So if one particular idea or issue is not understood, then it doesn't take away from the fact that the Apple did testify. It just kind of
okay, that's an interesting point that he brings. He also says, that, if one
allows there to be a conflict between aka and nothing,
and these conflicts, they always occur in areas that are not purely intellectual, I find this very profound. He says, never does a conflict occur with something that is purely mathematical, or calculations or science, rather you positive conflicts and ethics, in the gods attributes, right in philosophical issues. So he says, If clear cut, aka which is mathema, he goes the clearest athlete sciences, mathematics. This is what even taymiyah said, the clearest intellectual sciences, mathematics, right? If mathematics can never contradict the Koran, and science, he says, Can never contradict the Koran, you expect there to be contradictions in the finer issues of ethics and, and
and theology. This does not make any sense.
He also brings another point. And he says, Whoever opens this door, have one issue being problematic to potentially something actually opens the door for every issue being problematic to something ugly. In other words, he says, and this is a very long point that he says
the shadow find God's attributes problematic in the Koran, according to me, obviously, you know, because he's 33, the shadow find God's attributes problematic. So they will reinterpret all of the facts, the way that they need to reinterpret them. He says, What is there to stop others from finding another issue problematic, that is not problematic today, when I couldn't find or discover something else, because after he says changes, often subtle water
keeps on expanding his horizons. Right? So if you open up this door, you're not going to be able to shut it. This is the floodgate argument. Right. And then he points out and this is a very deep point
it is contradictory to use this rule in one area and not in another.
So the shadow use it in God's names and attributes. And yet he says the same a shadow such as on Rosie and aloha, Sally, one, the philosopher do the exact same thing to agenda and now they call them coffee. No, this is true. You know, this, was it in his talk with a philosopher, what does he do? Right?
He says, because even Siena deny his gender nod and resurrection and bodily and whatnot, because he denies it, and he makes that we have it right. He's not a Muslim. And even me, of course, agrees with
his analysis they've been seen, even seen, obviously, you know, this point. I mean, I'm not saying anything new to so he says, but
you are doing the exact same thing in one area that they're doing in another
which is taking explicit scripture and finding it to be problematic with an intellectual premise, and then reinterpreting based on this one intellectual premise hundreds of iron are these.
This is double standards that you consider them to be coffered. But you consider this to be legit to yourself, just because the area involves Allah's names and attributes or other or predestination, whereas they're doing a to
gender and no resurrection, Bama, right? And basically, all Sunni scholars and even mainstream shadow scholars said anybody who denies a claim, I mean, obviously any one of the pillars of faith is, you know, anybody who denies In fact, when they're short and whatnot, and you really cannot be called a believer in this script.
Right. And this is a huge amount of points amongst scholars of Islam. And we all know that many of the philosopher they really denied an actual birth. And sure, they said this is metaphysical or you know, something family or Tahiti or something. So he is saying, but the Ayat of Allah attributes are more in number than the ayat of genda.
So you're doing this to a quantity and quality of versus even more than what they are. And yet you think this is permissible, there's something that is a problem over here. Another point of his is, and we'll just go to more points, and then summarize and then open the floor for q&a, shall I obviously have a lot that can be said.
And you caught me at a time where the PhD is fresh in my memory, right? As you invited me Sharla, 1020 years from now, the PhD now will be long gone, you know, whatever it was, but I have just reviewed the 370 pages and reviewed it like eight times in the last, you know, 20 days, you know, going over and whatnot. So it's all now I can probably quote you the page numbers and stuff I would love to stage. So another point that he mentions, is that which outcome Are you referring to? Which groups happen? And then he makes a really sarcastic comment. I think it's sarcastic. He doesn't say he goes if you look at the more desert and the OSI era, they have Mashallah Tabata Cola, so much
and yet no two amongst them end up agreeing with each other.
And then he starts quoting look at Allah look at a novaform look at a rosy look at an Ummah we look at it, and he has a detailed analysis of like, 1520 theologians, right? This guy refuted that guy, that guy refuted this guy, and this is all accurate proofs. Right? So he says for ba aklan user kitabi. Watson, which article Do you want me to choose from amongst these record? Which article Do you want me to choose to judge the book.
So he makes a, somewhat of a mockery, that you consider yourselves to be people of intellect. You would think it with me writing that if it was one thing that was unanimous, all of these intellectual people would agree upon something. But the fact of the matter is that each group amongst them differs with each other. So they're more intensely led believe intellectually, that this is possible from all of this is not possible. The Shadow believes intellectually, this is possible, this is not possible to philosophy, I believe. And then within each group, you have a whole spectrum.
And there is nothing that combines between every single scholar of every single one of these groups that they call intellectual. So intellectual becomes whatever you think is the truth. And you just call it alchemy.
This is whatever Tamia says that for these types of people. Intellectual is simply what you believe to be the truth, because there is no uniform consensus about what type of outcome can be agreed upon.
One of his motifs as well is that of the repentant philosopher or the repentant, once attended, and even Tamia brings this up in many of his books, and he really loves doing this. And he says, the majority of the scholars of philosopher and calamp that were sincere, they repented towards the end of their lives. And they realized that this is not the correct way that we were doing something that caused more doubt and confusion. And in particular, he loves quoting Charlie himself, as you know, he went through a number of phases and you won't Alabama at the end of his life, and Charlie, and Charlie, when he passed away, he was really excited about it, if you remember, and he basically
said, you know, this is my Akita, and this book will Bahati and join it and enjoy it. Here. he advises students. According to potamia, he advises students that don't enter into this philosophical column that I went into, because it has destroyed me any type of destroying and he said to me, this really messed me up. And for her, Rosie, and her father Rossi By the way, he wrote I will see ya at the end of his life in the year 2010, ce II.
And this will see is actually preserved in Konya and Turkey is was a property that was actually preserved. And it is printed. And you find it also in the biographies of arrazi. It's a three page we'll see you and in it, he
writes a poem at the end of it, and the higher two in the middle column, a column that the end result of
this element or this intellectual, you know, tangent that I went into, is called which is hampering, it's brought me back right. Well has to do dunia Anna Taylor will call you all that we got from all over this was he said this, he said that he said this he said that theta will call you right. And he kept on going and then he writes that I read the Koran and nothing was clear in theology than the Hold on.
Come on fitness about a rock man. I was just woken up in nephew Lisa committed he she read a lot of attributes when he affirms He is such and such. What
Send me an email. See, he writes a few examples and then read the negation There is nothing like him. Let me akula Khufu and I had simple enough leave it at that. This is his we'll see that he read it, it's actually a valid we'll see if we actually when we were at Yale, we took a class and familiarize you. And so we actually got this copy of the we'll see and read it. So it's a valid, we'll see it, he wrote it himself. And it's found in all of the documents that mentioned for Halina Ross's biography. And so he's actually expressing regret that you know, I wasted my entire life, just going into this philosophical tangent, nothing is better and simpler than the Koran. This is
what even taymiyah rebels in quoting kasali quoting or Razi quoting or joining all of them saying, towards the end of their life, they repented. So why don't you follow their repentance, that's what he's telling his readers as well.
Even Timmy also says that much of what you claim to be intellectual is not intellectual. Rather, this is one knee.
One, what much of what you claim to be intellectual is not intellectual, it is abundant. And this is a very, I found this very interesting what it meant to me. And he says,
You have purposefully and intentionally obfuscated these concepts with difficult language, with a type of rhetoric and a type of writing that the average beginner finds difficult to read.
And when a person challenges you with something that is very trivial and basic, you simply dismiss it as Oh, you don't understand that this is too complicated for you. Right? And so the the the young student feeling insulted simply swallows up his it's you know, the the story of the Emperor the naked Emperor, you know, the, the what is it the kid in the Emperor without any clothes was correct that so this is given to me his version of that, okay, that when some innocent young student comes along, and ask some really probing questions that exposes this all to be false, because there's now a quintillion Tamia a click, there's now a group, there's now a guilt, right? If he wants admittance
to this Guild, the guild has to approve his admittance. How do they do it? You have to be a member of the guild. It's a circular thing, right? So even taymiyah says, and I found this really intriguing. They intentionally obfuscate, and they write in difficult language, and they bring about issues that are a little, you know, validity. And so then the neophyte the beginning student simply agrees to acquiesce to just bow down, because he wants to be admitted to the Guild, right. And this is basically with me his version of the Emperor with no clothes. And then I just want to conclude with summarizing, so it was just as Apple here, all of the 44 points, what I did was I summarized
them into broader motifs and one page basically, right, so I'll just conclude with these broader motifs and then inshallah, leave the floor for q&a with some personal thoughts about how this is relevant in modern times.
I summarized a bit he has 44 points into, let us just say primarily, six, six points, all of these 44 can be categorized into six.
The first primary attack of image damia I called it faith based arguments. 17 of the 44 arguments are faith based.
And by faith based we mean that
either involving the Koran or involving the role of the Prophet Mohammed solicitors. So for example, he says that if the Prophet system has spoken definitively, then nothing can possibly contradict him to do so undermines the truth of his prophet. If he is truly Rasulullah, Sodom, then he is speaking the truth. To say that the for him He says, the essence of Islam is Islam submission. We all know this, the real meaning of Islam is actually submission as we know, the essence of Islam is submission to Allah and His Prophet. Hence, he says, a conditional belief in the Prophet system is not belief in the prophecy. is variable firm about this point? I will believe in Him as long as my
office agrees and then I'll disagree with the rest of it, right. This is not belief. Any conditional belief in the Profit System is not belief. Find out what are bigger now. You mean Who the heck do you have Kaimuki? Mashallah VEDA, somebody with hydrogen alpha data within the mu tasneem. The Quran is very explicit, right? Complete submission to the Prophet system. Anyone and he mentioned the examples anytime a chieftain or a Bedouin came and said, I will believe in you as long as you make me the king after you write, I will believe in you as long as you give me half of the power after you will say to him and whatnot, right? He's mocks this he goes this isn't belief and that's why
their belief was rejected. their belief was not belief because it was conditional belief.
any belief that is conditional cannot be any a belief in the prophets of the law while you send them. He also says again, the purpose of the Prophet system was to explain the very theological issues that the philosopher and then we take on the moon find problematic. That was his role to explain in my life to the greatest extent that we need to know. And the very role of the process is being diminished when you say we cannot accept him in these areas.
Even Timmy also says that the Koran so this is also faith based. So the Koran describes itself as being the source of guidance, a light, a mercy, in clear Arabic, Venus and in our V and well being we have made the Quran easy to understand yet you are claiming that the Quran is contradictory. It's a book of symbols, it's a book of interpretations and the Quran never calls itself in this manner. The Quran itself criticizes those who consider its message to be misguided, it criticizes people of the book for doing to their books, what the people of the unknown accordingly are doing to the Koran, right? To evaluate evidence, right? The that you had a definite kenema while they're at but
it's changing, you're doing this right adding subtracting all of this has been criticized. When you say that often enough that we'll have a conflict you're going to have to do the same to the Quran as they did to their scriptures before them. So these are all faith based arguments. And essentially what he is saying is to believe in the unknown makes belief in the Quran and Sunnah meaningless.
To say that Auckland will be over knuckle makes knuckle useless. That the faith base argument, the second of the six arguments that will that I summarize them in
his that he attacks the premises of the phone and the structure of its wording.
And an example of this, we said is to make this binary distinction of equity versus Nothing is wrong. This is incorrect from the very getgo. He claims that one of the main problems the a priori assumption of the multicolor moon that the Quran cannot be understood properly. The Quran is symbolic the Quran is always difficult to understand this is an assumption, whereas he says this is an incorrect premise at signing out of em moving, right Allah azza wa jal says in the ins and outs on anatomy, I let them tap into the Quran. We've made the Quran in easy Arabic or in clear Arabic yacine we'll put it in Hakeem. So the entire description of the Quran for Hellman with decades and
an a priori assumption of them would tickle the moon. The Quran is complex, it's elastic, its mandible is this and that. Whereas according to the Quran, the Quran is saying it's understandable, right. So this assumption he challenges from the multicolor moon
moving on to the third of the six,
at least eight of those 44 points. And this is a one of the main concepts of the duck is his critique of defining reason and rationality what is happening, this is eight of those 44 points or attacking what is often
often according to even taymiyah is not one single indivisible entity, rather every group differs in its understanding and definition of what is often additionally he says hopfully judgments are not absolute, but rather relative, what is actually for one person is not accurate for another, what is athletes for one time is not athlete for another what is athlete in one context will not be athlete in another context. Rather, it is revelation that is unchanging.
And outcome will change. And then he says, much of what is assumed to be actually on further inspection is found to be one knee. It's simply how it's simply your desires that you couch in pseudo intellectual language that in fact is not actually scientific or it's not actually intellectual. And in fact, your goals can even be shown to be irrational or contradictory. What is even more convincing for even taymiyah is that the people who follow this are known. The people who follow this are known
seem to contradict the Quran and Sunnah in areas that are pseudo scientific, such as theology, and not in areas that are actually scientific, such as mathematics, as we said, and astronomy and whatnot, because the Quran can never contradict. Now, by the way, this is a big issue in our times of terms of evolution, right, but it never has time they had not ever found anything that scientifically contradicted the product in our days. We can add a footnote here, if if Tamia was not aware, obviously, of the controversy of evolution. But this is a major issue in our times. How do we reconcile and that's a whole different tangent, but I'm saying frankly, before the theory of
evolution, you know, clashed with the Koran. Really, it was almost implied
To find a scientifically solid evidence that contradicts with anything that was clearly organic. And I believe that the theory of evolution is the very first time in our history. And it's ever, that's a very big deal for us, we need to see a different tangent. It's a very difficult and I had a debate two months ago in London, if it's online, you can talk that you can see my views on that. But I don't think in the history of our religion, we have ever come across something that is as scientifically solid as a theory of evolution, and yet still seems to go against the explicit scripture. So when Jamie is writing, he can write confidently that look, the physical sciences,
mathematics, chemistry, biology, they have never contradicted the phenomena. So now, and yet, you're claiming that pseudoscience because the ology is not actual science, right? theology is not an intellectual science, the way that biology is, right? theology is something that you really think about, it's a, it's a philosophical science, right? So he is saying you're positing a clash in the sciences. And yet the explicit sciences never have a clash. Right. So this is another point of even Tamizh. And then, the final point that we'll mention is
that the noon brings about objectionable corollaries, the mostella xemacs, are the necessary binary ramifications of the following.
He says that if each and every text from the Quran must be verified from the article, then you have compromised the integrity of the whole Quran.
And in fact, it makes the revelation of the Quran superfluous, who needs it is always after there's going to be judging every single ayah what was the purpose of the forum. He also says that this would lead to every single individual having a unique Islam of his own.
Because every person is often would be something different. Every person would have an own unique Islam. And then this would also make following the Profit System, and basically surfacer superfluids, there's no need for a lot as a region to have sent a profit. And thereby the whole point of what a revolution seems to go, you know, into a meaningless and there are other points as well. And I just want to conclude with something that I found very interesting. And then from here, we will just mention why I believe this is useful in our times.
In point number 38, out of the 44 events, he has a brief paragraph, which I found very profound for modern Islam.
Point number 38. If aimia says, it is established,
that a messiah in media are superior to and more important than an masala amellia.
theology is more important than long.
And this causes, you know, everybody agrees to this and then just moves on. It's a given.
And instantaneous time that was the case. It's a given, what are the Morteza and the shot around the 30s and the shear all arguing over? Not, we all know, she felt more intensity feel Hanafi felt Shafi refill overlap in 99 or 95% of the areas, right? Jaffa the fifth is not that different than Hanafi, filled in most of its loss, right. That's not what separates she is a more tentative ism. Soon as what separates these are theology athletes. And if it's me, it takes it as a given, he doesn't even need to prove it, because it's something well known as a massage
in me are superior to a massage anomaly. And then he goes in, and you guys are positing a clash with massage in me, that's not relevant. What I wanted to say I wanted to say, in the 21st century, it's flipped around. What we are witnessing this is my personal ideas, take it or leave it, what we are witnessing is a complete changing of this simple paradigm that the bulk of the oma lived with. And throughout, in our times, theology has really taken on the backburner. We really are not that interested, by and large, about what you believe about God's names and attributes about your mama about Canada, these are done controversies. What are the hot topics of our times? sexuality, women's
Fifth issues, freedom. These are the topics of our times, democracy, systems of government. Right? And I just found it interesting that, again, this is just you know, we need to take a step back and look at overall what's happening in history, right, that what we are interested in now are issues that by and large, were not very interesting or Givens are considered to be facts, you know, 100,000 years ago, and I'll conclude conclude with this point. No doubt. I am not just a person who studies Epitome I'll be very frank. I definitely admire the guy I consider him to be
One of my main intellectual mentors that I find his arguments very deep and very profound. And yes, I am sympathetic to much of his claims as well. At the same time.
Obviously, he is a human and do we have to take and reject things that he says like every other intellectual thinker at the same time.
And let me be very frank here, and this is my own personal opinion. There's no doubt that we're facing some tensions between various strands of Islam. We call them conservative, ultra conservative, liberal, progressive modernistic. These are all tensions. Regarding Imani issues, not aka the issues. We really don't even care about what you think about all those names and attributes anymore, right? What is your view about women's rights? What is your views about sexuality? What is your views about homosexuality? What is your views about freedom? These are how we Yaniv pigeonhole each other let's be frank here. These are how we put boxes to each other and whatnot, right now.
Even to me as arguments,
even though the concepts might no longer be relevant to the small stuff, but the arguments still stand.
And anybody who wishes to
bring about change in Islamic thought, does need to understand the appeal of figures like even taymiyah over the masses, why is it that he has been so popular? It'd been Tamia manage to redeem alcohol, while keeping up with Supreme,
even taymiyah praised awkward, he didn't dismiss it. But he said, Ah, cool tells us to follow knuckle.
And in the process, he kept the both of them respectable. He said, in essence, that just like man reaches his Pinnacle, when he submits to Allah subhanho wa Taala. Similarly, the ACA reaches its Pinnacle, when it knows its limits, and submits to the text of Allah.
And frankly, anybody who wants to bring about some radical change in the new source
needs to understand that you are following exactly the same issues have been raised about changing the entire structure of the Knossos bringing the new source making them superfluous. What is the purpose of these new source anymore, right. And let me give you a very controversial example. And I'm not going to take sides here, I'm just going to give you an example with this.
One of the issues that I have to face with a lot a lot and it's very difficult a lot here, the modern world that we live in
the issue of same sex marriage, as we know, has now become a human rights issue around the world. Right. And to say anything wrong about same sex marriages to say even it's immoral, just to see it as immoral, right, you are viewed literally as a racist. This is what is now developing. And it's only a matter of time where literally everybody will think if you believe this, you are like, like a racist. Right? Now, this is a huge problem in our times for us as, at least for me, let me say it's a Muslim. It's a huge problem, because in my opinion, the forum is very clear on this issue. And my opinion, on on is explicit as soon as explicit HMR is explicit. Human fifth law is very clear. I
mean, in my opinion, there's not much debate that a serious theologian really can come in and disagree with the Quran and say, Well, you know, and yet, we know for a fact that there are many, many groups and philosophies and intellectuals out there that are arguing for a for ionic, acceptance, we're not talking about lack of violence. We all say nobody should have harmed and we all agree, same wavelength. We're talking about moral acceptance, moral, right, arguing that the story of law has been misinterpreted from the very beginning.
That in fact, I know this sounds bizarre, but maybe some of you are aware of this right? The story of loot supports loving same sex marriage. What is wrong is the raping same sex marriage, that's how they interpreted right now I'm not making this up. There are very famous academics and intellectuals here and in this land that Muslims that are promoting this right now. Question and food for thought here. If you find that problematic,
then also understand that people will find problematic other interpretations of other news source that other groups might be dealing with as well. ie, I'm getting back to David, Amy's point with the shard on the philosopher if the bulk of the Muslims can understand the philosopher really seem a bit weird man, the 10 intellects and the cosmological cosmological issues and denying a lost knowledge. He doesn't even know who we are and Allah is the opposite for me, the average Muslim reads this like what is this? your interest? You agree right? The average Muslim cannot accept this God, the prime mover, the unmoved mover. In fact, I don't know what as being alone.
We understand this point. Well from a man's perspective and think about this, he is saying oh you Muslims, he called them essentially they're more visit our Muslim, the the shy or Muslim or you Muslims? Don't you see you're doing some things very similar in your own intellectual games that those groups are doing. Right. And with that point, I as well ask everyone here to think about any change that we're positing, in Islam, any, you know, advancement that we want and then the hamdulillah our religion is eternal, and it is valid for every time and place, and no doubt, we will fine tune in every single circumstance. But we have to keep in mind some of these harsh some of
these very blunt criticisms of Batavia as we maneuver our way and I'm one of those who firmly believes that yes, we need to fine tune Islam we need to adapt it to the time and place, but personally, this is my opinion. I don't believe we need an overhaul. I don't really want to change the engine. I don't believe we need to redo the Quran and Sunnah. This is my opinion. Yes, we need to fine tune, Tinker, adapt. But personally, my heart is sympathetic to what happened to me I wrote in this regard, and I believe that calling for a complete overhaul is making the Quran and Sunnah superfluous. There was no need then for Allah to send the book or to send the Prophet. Rather Allah
sent the book and sent the Prophet for a reason to be the ultimate guides. And then he gave our intellects a realm when we stick in those realms, even Tamia says perfect, but when we take the intellect to the realm that it's not supposed to be in and we try to clash it with the Quran and Sunnah, we will end up losing both the intellect and the foreign and the analyst.
Thank you very much
for a very stimulating presentation.
On behalf of all these groups, and on behalf of triple ID we congratulate you on this on this work.