Struggle in the Muslim soul...

[Sadreddine]

Reading the interesting discussion in the Guide to Islam Thread, I´ve noticed some remarkable points. I´m referring to the famous debate between Muslims "Philosophers" and "Theologians". Now this distinction would seem pretty simplistic, but helps to understand the subject.

That debate resulted in the defeat of the philosophers in the general Muslim mind due to the famous Gazhali´s book "Incoherence of the Philosophers". Ghazali, heavily influenced by the Asharite way of thought, being himself a somewhat disillusioned philoshoper, sought to demonstrate the inability of philosophers to explain most of the things human mind can´t understand by mere abstract reasoning. The average medieval Muslim saw Gahazali´s ideas much more understable to him/her than the complex reasoning of the Muslim great philosophers. Of course, the religious authorities also always condemned philosophy, just like their Christian counterparts.

In early Islam, religious sages were forbidden, or at least severely discouraged, to interfere in politics or even have a close relationship with the government body. Their mission was to educate in Islam the masses so they acted righteously in daily life to grant their safe passage to the afterlife, and to denouce rulers who were not just or fair enough with their subjects to be Caliphs. Hopefully I´ll quote in this thread Ibn Khaldun, a remarkable Muslim sage -great XV century historian and father of the science of "sociology"-, about this subject.

After some centuries, this trend changed. Imams always had strong influence over the masses, but they started to use religious propaganda as politic tools. We have seen this tendence in its extreme in nearly all the Muslim world nowadays and, should Islam be great for humanity as it once was, that´s the major problem learned Muslims will have to face in following years or decades. For that end, strict educational measures must be taken in all the Muslim world. Whether this is possible or not is a matter of discussion in itself, but that´s not the subject of this thread. I myself like to think that such a thing is possible, if difficult, and will take decades and a lot of effort from rationalist Muslims, and "Western" sensitive thinkers also, to become a reality.

Anyway, back on topic. Gahazali´s book was challenged some years later (we are in the XII century a.C.) by the spanish Muslim Ibn Rushd´s most famous work: "Incoherence of the Incoherence", or Tahafut al Tahafut. Mostly forgotten and ignored by the Muslim world, but essential to the later european "Renaissance", this book tried to refute Gazali´s book by quoting it statement by statement.

But the Muslim mind was already set due to the influence of the Asharites, Ghazali, and the sermons of the Muslim "clerics" -that, by the way, should not exist in Islam but unfortunately they do-. The philosophers were defeated, and abstract reasoning, essential to the development of human mind, fell with them.

The world has changed a lot since those times. Most Muslims start to wonder, start to think, start to react, to criticise, to analyze. I see a ray of hope here but, again, that´s a different discussion.

I´m sorry if I got you bored by now Here:

http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ir/tt/tt-all.htm

This link will take you to a translation of the Incoherence of the Incoherence, a book that reflects the struggle in the Muslim soul by those critical times. It´s long and somewhat dense to read, but I hope it leads to some nice discussion here. Muslims and non Muslims alike are welcomed to point out their ideas and thoughts.

And here:

http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ir/fasl.htm

Short and more readable than the previous, I think this letter has some beautiful ideas to those who want to find harmony between religion and philosophy -as the title reads - or, by that matter, search for truth by abstract reasoning. Although somewhat primitive, Ibn Rushd´s ideas on this matter are quite interesting to start with.

Maybe you´re thinking I´m crazy to invite you to read such a long e-book. But if you take a look at a few pages and at least it makes you think, that´ll be enough Little by little.

I recommend you to ignore or not pay much attention to the discussion about the eternity of the world, since we know now that the world as we know it is not eternal. This discussion takes a considerable lenght of the Tahafut al Tahafut and is somewhat redundant to this discussion.

So, there you are guys..

[Dromikaites]

Very interesting [and dificult ] reading. I'm pretty sure the Muslim leaders and intelectuals who intend to reform their societies could use Averoes' (Ibn Rushd's) works to align the Muslim and "Western" values. Ibn Rushd pleads for the use of [Greek] philosophy as a tool for understanding the world creatd by Allah and it's the same tool which shaped the Western world.

[Ummon]

Averroes (Ibn Rushd) and Avicenna (Ibn Sina) are very good philosophers, the problem is that they are considered heretics in Islam.

[AngryTitusPullo]

Averroes (Ibn Rushd) and Avicenna (Ibn Sina) are very good philosophers, the problem is that they are considered heretics in Islam.

Do you have a source saying that ? If you claim that some elements of Islamic school claim they are heretic then I could understand (though I haven't read about it yet).

[Ummon]

Do you have a source saying that ? If you claim that some elements of Islamic school claim they are heretic then I could understand (though I haven't read about it yet).

Ibn Rushd presented two arguments against strict believers in doctrinal reasoning. The first argument targeted the notion that rational reasoning is a heresy because it did not exist in the early days of Islam. His argument was that doctrinal reasoning, as well, did not exist then and was only introduced later. Yet it is not considered a heresy. The second argument was based on the Qur'an itself. Should a scholar deduce the inevitability of doctrinal reasoning from God's words "... therefore take heed you who have eyes" (59:[end of] 2) [trans. Arberry], then he/she must deduce the inevitability of rational reasoning. Ibn Rushd explains that it is the scholar's rational faculties that constitute his/her means of doctrinal reasoning. Therefore, the mind is the ultimate tool of knowledge, prepared as it is by God to deduce his presence and to reason in earthly matters as well. This divine qualification renders the human mind continuous in space and time, and open across all nations to a common knowledge. "Therefore," he said, "we must make use of what those who preceded us had said, whether they share our religious beliefs or not," clearly referring to the Greek philosophers.

Presenting the logical proof (the mind is a divine aquisition perfectly qualified for theological inquiry) and the factual proof (scholars of Islam have always looked into the identity of God rationally), Ibn Rushd concludes: "Who forbids the study of ancient books is only deflecting people from the true path to God, called for by Islamic law. This (deflection) is utmost ignorance and remoteness from God." He understood the Qur'anic phrase cited above as a divine order to use rationality to pursue knowledge of all kinds. Any suppression of the mind, therefore, would be a clear violation of this order.

An advocate of intellectual liberty and openness toward other nations' cultures, Ibn Rushd posed a threat to the rigid minds of Caliph Al-Mansour's scholars. The Caliph, who had been close to the philosopher and had welcomed him in his court in Qurtuba as a distinguished scholar, quickly came under pressure from the hard-liners in his court who coerced him with their influence on the public. Soon, Al-Mansour yielded and Ibn Rushd was tried and sentenced to exile in the Jewish village of Alishana. The Caliph then ordered the burning of Inb Rushd's and other philosophers' books except for mathematics, medicine and engineering. Clearly acting without conviction, the Caliph issued an amnesty soon after he returned to Marakesh. Ibn Rushd, on the other hand, stayed away from all provocations until he died in Marakesh in 1198 where he was buried. Three months later, his body was moved to Qurtuba, the tribune of his thought.

The Caliph, who is the supreme religious aouthority as well, ordered his exile.

I also found, on various philosophers, including Ibn Sina, this interesting link by one... Sher Khan:

http://www.islam-watch.org/SherKhan/...tten_islam.htm

[AngryTitusPullo]

The Caliph, who is the supreme religious aouthority as well, ordered his exile.

I also found, on various philosophers, including Ibn Sina, this interesting link by one... Sher Khan:

http://www.islam-watch.org/SherKhan/...tten_islam.htm

The Caliph while some were given the title the Commander of the Believers do not have the same infallible right as for example, the Pope.

p/s: you mean my signature ? I'm sorry I can't because we muslims can't change or corrupt our Qur'an text freely to suit whatever our needs are.

[Tom Paine]

And the Caliph also revoked said exile:

the Caliph issued an amnesty soon after he returned to Marakesh. Ibn Rushd, on the other hand, stayed away from all provocations until he died in Marakesh in 1198 where he was buried. Three months later, his body was moved to Qurtuba, the tribune of his thought.

By the by... provenance of your quotation being?

[Ummon]

Revoked the exile like the Pope with Galileo's custody. Yet he didn't rehabilitiate him.

From here: http://www.aljadid.com/features/IbnR...heologian.html

[Tom Paine]

It says solely that Ibn Rushd did not return, not that the Caliph did not offer rehabilitation.

[Ummon]

Your signature should be: "I want to believe what I want to believe" IMHO.

[Tom Paine]

This does not get us anywhere in debate; slur is a poor debating technique, and you fail to show how, in fact, there is information that demonstrates your point, you presume it to be true seemingly because you want to believe it.

[Ummon]

No I mean Ozymandias'.

[Tom Paine]

And there was me thinking it would be perfect for you. Your arguments end up as meaningless if we take the logical positivist views' we cn't prove the good intent of Muslims, because they're all lying to us all the time, for instance...

[Ummon]

The fact is, I never believe what I want to believe. I often come to understand what I would absolutely want to ignore, alas.

[Tom Paine]

Ummon, you believe the more complicated unprovable. The only way to do this is by believing not what the facts and logic portray, which is the less complicated unprovable if not the provable, but what you want to believe.

[Ummon]

Actually, there are many ways of knowing. Not necessarily all rational.

[Tom Paine]

No, there aren't. There are many ways of believing, but belief is not knowledge.

[Ummon]

You just said the opposite, you said infact that knowledge is belief.

[Tom Paine]

Knowledge is belief; justified true belief. Then again humans are mammals; but this does not make mammals human. You are using illogicisms to attempt to discredit me and failing...

[Ummon]

True? Oh my goodness.