Faith...Logic...Relativity. Man it's driving me nuts.

Madina Archives


Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board

Faith...Logic...Relativity. Man it's driving me nuts.
MentallectCom
01/24/02 at 03:20:23
As Salaamu Alaikum,

This is a very philosophical struggle here, I'm curious to know how you guys resolve this in your heads.

I'm a skeptic, a cynic and a nerd. This sometimes is a problem for me being Muslim. (I do realize this would be a problem for me otherwise but thats not really an issue here). Be it through programming--propaganda from living in the U.S. or whatever, but I have an incredible respect for science. I'd go so far as to say I totally trust it, once the hypothesis morphs into fact. Unshakable, solid undeniable scientific fact.

Now, with that said...I am Muslim. I was born Muslim and for a while in my adolescent years I really didn't care about practicing, or the philosophies behind it. And now that I'm a little bit older, I respect it as well. I've even come to adore it. However

Being that I was blessed with a mind for logic, and a heart for Islam...I'm going brainsick.  I cannot mentally resolve some things in the Qur'an. For example: Jesus'(AS) birth. This is a big "Uh...hmmmm".

When I started to learn of human cloning, I thought this would resolve that question of his mother being impregnated. All it would require is an eletrical charge and her own dna. But the problem is, to have a male child, you need male interference to develop the XY sequence.

Now, one could easily say: Well, Allah is God, and God can do anything he wants and does not have to explain himself scientifically.

But that is the very same argument I get from Christians when we're in debate, which would essentially, despite how much scientific back up parts of the Qur'an DOES have, totally moot. That would put me on the very same boat they peddle in. And that does not sit well with me at all.


I also know at one point science suggested contrary to what the Qur'an said about the suns rotation and then corrected itself to agree with the Qur'an.  Science definitely isnt infallible...and could very well turn around and cultivate a male child from female DNA, but what do I do now?

How does one utilize their intelligence and have faith? Astaghfirullah, but I generally don't like that word. Because its almost always used in an either metaphorical story or as a last resort in an argument.

I'd like your thoughts on this.



Re: Faith...Logic...Relativity. Man it's driving me nuts.
humble_muslim
01/23/02 at 07:18:18
AA

Ever heard of parthenogenesis ?

parthenogenesis

pärthnojensis [Gr.,=virgin birth], in biology, a form of reproduction in which the ovum develops into a new individual without fertilization. Natural parthenogenesis has been observed in many lower animals (it is characteristic of the rotifers), especially insects, e.g., the aphid. In many social insects, such as the honeybee and the ant, the unfertilized eggs give rise to the male drones and the fertilized eggs to the female workers and queens. The phenomenon of parthenogenesis was discovered in the 18th cent. by Charles Bonnet. In 1900, Jacques Loeb accomplished the first clear case of artificial parthenogenesis when he pricked unfertilized frog eggs with a needle and found that in some cases normal embryonic development ensued. Artificial parthenogenesis has since been achieved in almost all major groups of animals, although it usually results in incomplete and abnormal development. Numerous mechanical and chemical agents have been used to stimulate unfertilized eggs. In 1936, Gregory Pincus induced parthenogenesis in mammalian (rabbit) eggs by temperature change and chemical agents. No successful experiments with human parthenogenesis have been reported. The phenomenon is rarer among plants (where it is called parthenocarpy) than among animals. Unusual patterns of heredity can occur in partheogenetic organisms. For example, offspring produced by some types are identical in all inherited respects to the mother.
NS
Re: Faith...Logic...Relativity. Man it's driving me nuts.
akbalkhan
01/23/02 at 12:17:52
Wa Lakum as Salam,

Real intellect is synonomous with wisdom.  An intellectual is some one filled with vast amounts of information, useless or useful is irrelevant.  Faith, is the belief is something, though it is not capable of being directly perceived. Relativity is a group of theories and principles that revolves around a central theme of 'it depends.'  A faithful, relativistic, intellectual is bound to implode, give up, or satiate their ravenous gropings for answers fiendishly from time to time before being distracted in their search by immediate considerations.

My advice is simple.  Empty yo self.  You need to this before salaat, before reading Quran, upon waking up, and upon sleeping.  All of that information fermenting in your mind adds up to a pin tip in the universe when faced with the onerous task of comprehending ilm and attaining yaqin in following the commands and laws of Allah SWT.  Understand that in science and its methodologies, you are encouraged and led to believe that you can know everything and use that information, however in iman, we must begin with the basis that we cannot witness nor confirm everything we need to do and believe with observation or testing of the physical world.  In fact it requires control, not utilization, of all the power of our intellect, in order to grow in iman and ilm.  Taqwa and subsequently right intention does not surface in the many small details of our daily existence with out our  intellect realizing the immense resevoir that is al-Islam, struck down by its immensity and the nature of our accountability for the things we know.

To be intellectually driven is a good thing.  It needs our hearts to be involved in the process, since without the hearts' participation, we grow detached from what we know.  I think that its even possible for our intellects to develop false hearts and we begin to feel certain things only because that is what our minds are telling us we should feel in a certain situation.  Its a scarey thing when the intellect takes over control of our views of life and the hereafter, because everything becomes interrelated but only in a cold, calculated cause and effect sense and not as a result of our understanding that we cannot know the extent of Allah SWT's plans and therefore must look for the opportunity to do good and to avoid evil in every circumstance.

Hope this helps you sort things out.  I'll end it there but let me know if you want anymore of this stuff.

Regards,

Qamar Akbal Kaan
Re: Faith...Logic...Relativity. Man it's driving me nuts.
*sofia*
01/23/02 at 12:39:10
Assalaamu alaikum wa rahmatullah -

I haven't read every word in this thread yet (sorry), but interesting post.  Have you ever heard of Dr. Zakir Naik?  Somewhat of an Ahmed Deedat-like prodigy, very well read in comparative religion, and obviously, medicine and the sciences, masha'Allah.  I would recommend his or Ahmed Deedat's video lectures, since they, too, are heavy into the scientific methodology/logic slant.  

Re: Faith...Logic...Relativity. Man it's driving me nuts.
MentallectCom
01/23/02 at 16:09:47
Humble Muslim, thank you very much for that information. I inted to do LOTS of research on that. I'm getting started as soon as I finish up this post.




Qamar Akbal Kaan....

Man...thats a lot of advice. My first reaction was opposition but I'm going to shut up and think on it for a while, I do however intend to ask you more specific questions to get a full feel for what you're saying as I'm thinking I'm not grasping it all. I suppose my biggest problem may be cynism. Which is a wonderful defense mechanism in this society.


As for Zakir Naik, I have a ton of his videos, he's a cool bro. Very articulate...Insha Allah I'll come back here and give links to where you can stream his debates and lectures if they arent available already.
Re: Faith...Logic...Relativity. Man it's driving me nuts.
bhaloo
01/23/02 at 20:47:57
slm

[quote]I'm a skeptic, a cynic and a nerd. This sometimes is a problem for me being Muslim.
[/quote]

Mentallect, there's nothing wrong in being a nerd, there's plenty of them out there and they go on to lead normal and productive lives, not that I would know, as I'm not one.  :)

But getting back to your problem, I personally accept each and ever word in the Quran without any reservation, question, or doubt whatsoever.  Why?  Because it is the word of Allah (SWT).  The skeptic would say, how do you know?  There are many ways to approach this, I like to use the scientific approach.  Consider all the scientific miracles mentioned in the Quran, that were mentioned hundreds of years ago, before modern science even had knowledge of them, including the example you mentioned of the sun having an orbit (which was discovered in the last 50 or 60 years), yet the Quran mentions this.  What is the probability of each and everyone of these scientific miracles being right?  Just with a few being right, the chances of being completely right are nearly impossible, UNLESS someone had knowledge of these things.  If you sit there and calculate the probability for just a few miracles it'll blow you away.  Its true that there are some things we don't have knowledge of, but do we really need to have knowledge of everything to know that its the word of Allah?

Have you visited this site?  Its filled with scientific miracles from the Quran backed up by expert non-Muslim scientists who were astounded that such things were mentioned in the Quran.
http://www.it-is-truth.org
Re: Faith...Logic...Relativity. Man it's driving me nuts.
Asim
01/23/02 at 23:08:49
slm

hmm, I think I am sorta a cynic too... nothing wrong with that :) I liked Br. QAK post, mashallah. I can never articulate such thoughts well so I will take the liberty of reproducing some sentences.
[quote]
Real intellect is synonomous with wisdom.
A faithful, relativistic, intellectual is bound to implode, give up, or satiate their ravenous gropings for answers fiendishly from time to time before being distracted in their search by immediate considerations.
My advice is simple.  Empty yo self.
Understand that in science and its methodologies, you are encouraged and led to believe that you can know everything and use that information, however in iman, we must begin with the basis that we cannot witness nor confirm everything,,,  
To be intellectually driven is a good thing.  It needs our hearts to be involved in the process, since without the hearts' participation, we grow detached from what we know.
I think that its even possible for our intellects to develop false hearts and we begin to feel certain things only because that is what our minds are telling us we should feel in a certain situation.
[/quote]
What we call science is what we can *understand* of what we can *perceive* of our environment. Both our perception and our understanding is limited. What we know from the revelation is absolute knowledge. When our science cannot explain something it reflects our limitations and not the falsity of the revelation. The way to approach science is to let our hearts (filled with eemaan) tell our minds what is true and feasible, and not the other way around as br. QAK pointed out.

In another thread, it was mentioned that Muslims are lagging in science because their faith restricts them. I feel this is not true. What restricts Muslims' science today (among other socio-political factors) is that they have made part of their faith to be science! Such confusion of the human intellectual system can not produce brilliant science. The system should be filled with either science only, which is the non-muslim scientists' model, or the science be governed by the faith in the heart, which should be the Muslim scientists' model. I can't see how this is restrictive. In fact, it should engender a more focused and dedicated effort on the part of the scientist. For example, we know that a cure exists for every illness. Or, in the birth of Eesa alayhis salaam, we have a direction and goal to pursue as we know that there might be a scientific reasoning behind it. If we can't find it, this doesn't mean the "hypothesis" is false. It is actually a fact which we weren't able to verify with our current level of understanding and perception. In the process, however, we might make other useful discoveries.

Some principles of scientific inquisitiveness in Islam (in my opinion):
* Let our hearts filled with eemaan dictate what is true or false, feasible or infeasible.
* Science should be directed towards the betterment of mankind only, and not to explore some abstract philosophies. As Muslims, we already have our philosophy of life.
* Gain Islamic knowledge before or concurrently with scientific principles.

Believing in science and not the Word of Allah, the All-Knowing All-Encompassing Creator of Everything, is shirk. So we have to be careful.

Mentallect, to have an inquisitive mind is a positive trait. However, try to detach yourself from the philosophies you already have in mind and fill your heart with eemaan. Read the Quran and Hadith first and reflect on them, and then think about the science of today. More headaches I am sure, but it would be worth it, inshallah :)

It-is-truth.org is a great site for checking the scientific proofs and convincing oneself of some revealed facts. Let me make an additional quick comment on two dangers in using modern day proofs that are still open to debate and are not yet accepted universally among people.  First, it deflects the debate on Islam to a debate on the validity of that proof with each party finding loopholes in the other's logic. Second, it discourages Muslims and Muslim scientists in particular from further exploring and discovering the scientific validity of the fact. It is better to stress the Factuality of Revelation than the scientific reasoning for it when the reasoning itself is open to debate. (Moreover, the reasons and proofs might change in the future).

I think to convince non-muslims it is more fruitful to point out the inconsistencies in their beliefs and the simple Signs and Truths of Islam, rather than using a fallible basis such as science.

Wasalaam.
ill-Logic
AbuKhaled
01/25/02 at 01:20:01
Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem

Dear Sister MentallectCom,

Wa-alaikum assalam wa rahmatullah.

May Allah ta’ala increase you in your intellect, and ensure you continue to be an aid to this Ummah. Masha’Allah the Ummah needs people who have that drive for intellectual acuity.

I read your post earlier today and wanted to make some remarks. I hope you won’t object, and ask your forgiveness if I come across somewhat didactic.

Upon finishing your post my initial reaction was to wonder if you have ever studied any basic matn [text] of aqeedah [belief], from amongst any of the well-established and generally-accepted mutun [texts] that we have, which explain how we understand Allah ta’ala and His (awj) relationship to the world which we inhabit that He (awj) Created. I don’t ask that insultingly, so please forgive me if you feel offended. It is just that in my experience such questions like the one you’ve asked arise due to a lack of understanding, or a misunderstanding, of our aqeedah as Muslims. In this case, one of the key issues to address is the absolute primacy of the Qur’an. I’ve found a recurrent pattern in those who raise this and similar questions like yours, that they have an inadequate conviction regarding the authority of the Qur’an, though I hasten to add that I refrain from drawing such a conclusion about your good self, ma’adallah. Nevertheless, this is one of the factors that leads Muslims with such a deficiency to so quickly wonder about Qur’anic narrative when it seems to oppose science, and wonder about which of the two sources preponderate when it comes to the establishment of fact. Given the foundational nature of this aspect of our aqeedah it is imperative that one redress any deficiencies in this area, to preclude and prevent any possibility of doubt entering into the aqeedah. That said, I am not presuming that you have “issues” with the Qur’an just on the basis of my experience with others who’ve voiced similar questions. So please, again, don’t feel offended.

I am thus confident that if you haven’t, that a study of one of the basic level texts of aqeedah will resolve these matters for you, bi’ithnillah ta’ala. Though I append a proviso to that, that try *not* to rely *solely* on books for your study of aqeedah, rather, ensure you have an able, proficient and qualified teacher in the subject. Though this should hold for most all Shar’a disciplines, it holds especially strongly for the study of aqeedah, given that everything else stems from it. The way of Islam is not, and never has been, to take its knowledge from indirect sources (alone). And aqeedah is one ‘ilm which most definitely needs the guiding hand of authority. But that is just some counsel from this unlearned brother of yours, out of love towards his own. I also issue a disclaimer right now that I am no kind of learned or knowledgeable Muslim. I have no authority, or licence to talk on behalf of Islam on a matter so heavy as aqeedah, so please know that I write this with full cognisance of the seriousness of that which I’m about to say and the grave implications of being wrong, so I urge you *not* to take these words as having any kind of weight whatsoever. Much better that you verify everything you read here with one who is proficient in the matter of aqeedah, preferably an ‘Alim, for I do not wish to assume responsibility for anyone acting on my words (please forgive the assumed arrogance contained therein), even if they are permitted to be right by the tawfeeq granted by Allah ta’ala. Notwithstanding this, I ask Allah ta’ala to grant this tiny endeavour tawfeeq.

As an aside, I must admit I was a little surprised that you seemed to make a logically flawed point given your admitted predisposition towards logic, but insha’Allah we’ll traverse that as we proceed. That is not to say that one who is a logic fiend cannot make logical mistakes. I do it all the time!

To kick off, I’d like to address the paradigm upon which you are insisting to proceed. You seem to treat science as if it is some kind of Sacred Cow; a term I use in its philosophical sense. It isn’t. Science *per se* is not indisputable, nor are the findings of science. Yes, maybe *certain discoveries* of science may be incontestable – though even that point itself doesn’t possess any kind of consensus about it amongst philosophers of science - but that is not a rule any Muslim should apply wholesale, due to the method itself that science is constructed upon. Many of the nomological conclusions that science reaches are subject to a fundamental methodological flaw known as inductivism, which is the framework within which empirical discovery operates. Even the non-Muslim philosopher David Hume managed to effectively produce a scathing criticism of inductivism, given the almost insurmountable problem that inductivism *by definition* yields. Bertrand Russell in ‘The Problems of Philosophy’ [Oxford University Press, 1980, p38] admits, “The problem of the justification of induction is one of the most difficult and most debated problems of Western philosophy.” Adding to this, Professor Yamine Bouguenaya Mermer, in a quite formidable article published in the journal Islamic Studies in 1996, entitled ‘Induction, Science and Causation: Some Critical Reflections’ writes, “If induction cannot be justified it means that there is no reason to accept a scientifically established conclusion as embodying knowledge. To put it more simply, science cannot claim to yield knowledge if it cannot justify induction because ‘scientific knowledge’ is derived by induction. If science cannot yield knowledge, there is no logical reason to rely on it or give it any credit whatsoever.” [p247]

A pretty astonishing conclusion I’m sure you’ll agree. Though one which I doubt you’d accept on such a cursory basis.

She further writes that, “Scientists may have convinced the layman that the methods of science are suitable for the establishment of knowledge of the world we live in: Aren’t the accomplishments of science there for all to see? However, the situation is not that simple. David Hume’s searching analysis has shown that this way of justifying the method of science is logically fallacious. He has shown, in fact, that the problem of legitimising the cognitive claims of science is an extremely difficult one – so difficult that even at present there is no accepted solution.” [ibid]

Bit of a bombshell then. I imagine that if this is new to you you’re now sitting there quite incredulous, taken aback at what is being said. Unable to quite believe the proposition being put to you.

Well, if that is true (i.e. that you are reading this and becoming increasingly wide-eyed at what is being suggested about science) that would not be entirely surprising, given that the perception of science as some kind of Sacred Cow is a putative belief. That this belief has seen an overspill into the Muslim psyche is what needs to be addressed.

The problem here, in your context, threatens to come into play when someone such as yourself writes something like, “hypothesis morphs into fact. Unshakable, solid undeniable scientific fact.”

Now, your statement is not *necessarily* true, but contingently true, perhaps. It really  depends on what underpins your understanding. I would be interested to know how intimate you are with the actual methodological basis – in an epistemological sense – that science works upon when it moves from the realm of hypothesis to fact. Because some of those I have come across who, like yourself, treat science with such awe, seem to not have investigated this fundamental matter. Namely, the basis upon which science is built. They become so taken with the actual discoveries of science, the rollback of new frontiers, the establishment of new knowledge, that they rarely ever actually bother to scratch beneath the surface to find out how the scientific method works. And here I am *not* talking about how a particular scientific process of discovery proceeded, but the actual epistemological bases and philosophical underpinnings upon which that procedure sat itself. Because all too often, science is so keen to break new ground that it forgets to solidify the ground it is already upon, and the epistemic justification which surrounds the cognitive apprehension of scientific knowledge is something that all too often is simply taken for granted. If you, my Sister, are indeed a skeptic, then your skepticism, to remain consistent, should also be directed at science too. Bluntly stated, one shouldn’t have blind faith in sciance. I know you don’t, given the tacit inference which is hidden within your words, “Science definitely isnt infallible”. It is good that you appreciate this, for as Professor Mermer remarks:

“Scientists usually reject all approaches that are not based on the scientific method as unscientific. They take it for granted that ‘scientific knowledge’ is synonymous with knowledge, and ‘scientific’ with rational. To justify a conclusion, it is sufficient to show that it is related to an adequate body of scientific evidence in terms of the accepted rules of inductive inference. It is widely accepted in one form or another that one is justified in accepting the canons of induction and science because this is just what it means to be rational. To ask for further justification is to ask for a justification for rationality. This connection between ‘rationality’ and the principles of scientific induction is an expression of the social approval of science. Science and its canons of induction are vindicated on the basis of the widespread social acceptability of science. This vindication fails, however, to legitimise the cognitive claims of science. On this vindication science is, indeed, a sacred cow.” [p249]

To restate the above quoted paragraph in logical terms, we could say that the belief in science is indeed putative if its vindication is on the grounds that Professor Mermer is claiming, because this constitutes a logical fallacy of the form *argument ad numerum*.

If scientific principles, and methodologies become treated as axiomatic, when in fact they may not be, then scientists proceed upon – like yourself – a paradigm that becomes unquestioned. When in fact, this is the *first* thing that needs to be questioned, and thoroughly at that. And herein lies the first contention I’d like to put to you. What is the methodological *basis* of science as you have understood it (I have indicated to you my own neophytic understanding regarding this in the preceding few paragraphs)? What is the epistemology upon which scientific knowledge is built in your opinion? How watertight is that? Is it impenetrable? How often are the findings of science that are treated as fact, in fact *not* definite and certain knowledge, but rather, probabilistic? And is this even a matter many of us have bothered to question, or has science become such a Sacred Cow that we treat it as if it is the ultimate form of knowledge? And all this is before we even begin to broach the common u-turns that scientific discovery is prone to, understandable though that may be.

At this point I’d like to emphasise that what we’re *specifically* addressing here is your point about science moving from hypothesis to fact in a way that seems incontrovertible. So, to be clear, we’re *not* trying to discredit science, but to demonstrate the putative belief that science yields *certain* knowledge. When Professor Mermer in one of the earlier quotes wrote about ‘science not yielding knowledge’, the context of her words need to be understood from an epistemic standpoint, for that is the endeavour of her piece. That is, she is *not* saying science yields no knowledge, but that when its basis is inductivism then it cannot claim to yield *definite/conclusive* knowledge. Rather the knowledge that is yielded holds the status of *probabilistic knowledge*. And this is an epistemological conclusion. Now, on a day to day level, the fact is that humans operate on the basis of probabilistic knowledge. For example, you come home after college, see your brothers rucksack in the hall, so you conclude he must be home. Why? Because whenever he returns from college his bag’s always in the hall. So you feel justified in thinking he’s home. But *strictly speaking* this is not sound logic, for the presence of his bag isn’t a proof that he’s home. He may have come home and gone out, yes? But because we tend to function according to the norms of our lives, we employ such inductive reasoning in our lives. And that is fine, because making such a conclusion hardly has earth-shattering implications if it turns out you are wrong. :) However, what *must* be underlined is that you *know* when induction is acceptable and when it is not. Whilst it is okay to use – given arguably an almost natural predisposition towards utilising it, such that many of us are probably even unaware that we do – in the environs of mundane life, it is not quite the same when it comes to matters like science. Why? Because of the epistemological implications, and for Muslims, the ramifications with respect to our aqeedah. And you have manifested the very point yourself. That generally, the layman (no disrespect to you ukhti) treats science as fact, as definite and conclusive knowledge. And this is the problem. That many of us who do so rarely actually bothered to uncover the methodological basis upon which that scientific knowledge which we take for granted as fact, was built. We become so used to thinking in this way about science, that when it is put to us that that may in fact be up for question, our immediate reaction is to reject what is being said. Now, lets compare and contrast, in order to show the difference. You believe – generally - that science is indubitable. I don’t. And this is why when both of us confront a case where science seems to contradict Islam, only one of us remains unaffected. Which one? The one who appreciates that the methodological basis of this Deen [usul al-Deen] is definite/conclusive, and that the methodological basis of science tends to be indefinite/inconclusive. It seems to me that the significance of knowing this speaks for itself. One addendum to this particular point though: that just because science constructs itself upon inductivism does *not* mean that the degree of probability of it’s findings cannot be extremely high, in fact, one could say it tends towards the truth asymptotically. Nonetheless the *key* issue is that no matter how high a degree of probability is, it still remains in the arena of probability, and that which consists of probable knowledge cannot assail that which consists of certain knowledge. This is an axiom that I would be surprised if anyone could doubt or question. Wallahu a’lam. I feel that because in many instances the degree of that asymptotic proximity seems to be so close to the axis of probable truth, science conveniently prefers to then project that as being certain truth. Confidently, we could say that this is how the conclusions of science are taken on a widescale basis. But epistemically, we have touched upon the undeniable deficiency in this, and the currently insurmountable problems this poses for the philosopher of science. To be unaware of this matter, downplay it, or overlook it has serious ramifications for a number of points of aqaid [belief].

A simple example, that should hopefully make you scratch your head if I am correct in my presumption that you have indeed not investigated the above:

One of the elemental and oft-unquestioned edifices of science – which I suspect many of us just take for granted – is the issue of cause and effect. Actually, this is an example which steps into the territory of Islamic theology too. Quite convenient that. So, lets ponder on one question briefly. Science claims the discovery of gravity. So, when I drop my plate, it falls. Science would argue that my dropping the plate is the cause, and it falling is the effect. It would attribute that connective relationship to gravity. However, can you bring me any proof to definitively establish that my dropping the plate *was* the *cause* of the effect, rather it just being the case that both events - i.e. the dropping and the falling – were merely conjoined and concurrent? What is the proof that one *led* to the other, as opposed to one occurring after the other in a non-causative sense? You see – and please correct me if I’m being totally scientific inept - the phenomenon of gravity merely explains *that* one thing will lead to another, and *not* that it is necessarily so. In other words, gravity manages to explain the two events as being linked contingently, but does not *prove* the necessary causitivity of one for the other. Wallahu a’lam. And if it did, this could be contentious from an aqeedah point of view, wallahu a’lam.

I am confident you will find that a cursory investigation into this will lead you to realise the crucial, yet extremely subtle, distinction between conjoinment and causation. That just because we see time and again two events happening in succession, we *wrongly* assume that one *must* have led to the other. That two events are *always* seen to occur in respective consecutive succession *does not* prove that one caused the other. Yet science assigns to this phenomena the explanation of gravity. But really, from the point of view of logic, this is fatally flawed reasoning, because just because two things occur one after the other, apparently always, does not mean one was the causative factor in the other occurring. At best it establishes conjoinment, not causation. For a brilliant exposition of this, I refer you to that same article by Professor Mermer, which seeks to clarify – using this example of gravity - what the Islamic belief is, and how scientific knowledge is reconciled with it. Many Muslims are ignorant of this point regarding cause and effect, and don’t realise the ramifications of accepting a scientific explanation. Insha’Allah I’ll explain below.

And this is one of the elemental problems we fall into as Muslims. We begin to view the world through the lenses of science. Now, this doesn’t *have to be* a problem, for indeed science has a very valuable role to play in the arena of human discovery. Please don’t mistake my objections as any kind of rejection of science *in toto* or *per se*. No, the point is that science needs to be limited by the Islamic theological context, as opposed to being given free reign to ride roughshod over our belief-system. Science has a jurisdiction. Another example should clarify:

If we are to accept that the Natural World operates upon a basis of cause and effect, then like many Muslims, we’d say that these were the laws that Allah ta’ala created. So far so good, right? So, we’d generally agree that fire is the cause for the effect of burning, yes? Hmm… So how then do we reconcile that with the fire not burning Sayyidina Ibrahim, alayhis salam? Well, as those with a degree of familiarity with logic may have noted, those of us who are not well-grounded in understanding our own aqeedah – or who understand science better, or more, than we understand our own Islamic belief – would tend to make a case for *special pleading*, wherein we’d make an exception to the rule of cause and effect with respect to this incident, and we term it a miracle. Now, that is fine for many of us, but I wonder if you have no problems with it Sister MentallectCom? Because, essentially, from the way I’m looking at this, if you have a problem with how Sayyidina ‘Isa, alayhis salam, was conceived, then similarly you should also have a problem with the case of the fire and Sayyidina Ibrahim, alayhis salam. Why? Because in both cases, the laws which govern the normal case of events, seem to not have operated. Namely, what science says *should* have occurred for one thing to lead to another, is claimed *from the naql [text]* not to have. So, now, for you, as one who upholds science as a valid epistemological basis for the affirmation of truth, you have a dilemma. You probably find yourself facing the quandary of thinking that, “Boy, if I am to accept what science tells me, then surely that’d entail rejecting the text, which basically means I’d be rejecting the Qur’an. Because surely the two are irreconcilable here? Sheesh!”

Rest easy ukhti. If this is indeed the nailbiter that you find yourself looking squarely in the eyes then you have cornered yourself into another famous logical fallacy known as *false dilemma*. Since you’ve said that you are hardwired towards logic forgive me if I’m telling you what you already know, even though I have reason from your post to doubt that, as I think you use the word *logic* not in it’s true sense, but instead, as many people do, as a synonym for common sense, which logic actually is not, technically. A *false dilemma* is when you give yourself two options only, when in point of fact another, or others, may exist. You just may be oblivious to it. In this case you aren’t because you actually mentioned the answer, but then you went on to reject it as a possible answer. The problem as far as I can see it, is *not* that the possible answer you mentioned was wrong, but that your basis for rejecting it was wrong. I’ll address that further on. But more than this, there was the deeper conviction at work here which needed to be tackled. And that was your paradigm concerning science. Whilst I acknowledge that I have neither exhaustively nor comprehensively dealt with this, I hope to have at least given you a few questions to ponder, in the hope that you might re-evaluate your stance towards science. Not to disregard it, that was not my aim, nor is it my position, for I uphold science as a valid human endeavour. I merely think it has its place, and that in a conflict with revelation, it takes a back seat. Though my saying that does not mean I am admitting that a conflict does exist in this instance in any objective sense, but that if it does then it is in the subjective sense of yourself who is trying to come to grips with this point. And further, that *if* a conflict did/does exist, then science should not be placed above wahy [revelation] as any kind of benchmark for the veracity of that revelation, or to place a question mark over that aspect of the wahy. That which the qat’i naql [definitive/conclusive text] establishes by way of transitive evidence is taken by us as fact/truth, such as the conception of Sayyidina ‘Isa, alayhis salam. This is because the basis by which the authoritativeness of the wahy was/is established was/is such that it’s truth-value is beyond doubt, whereas we have tried to show that the same cannot be said of the scientific method, wallahu a’lam. To question the wahy in an aspect which is qat’i is to tacitly admit of doubt in that aspect (I am not saying you do my dear Sister), and this has serious implications for our own belief. Again, this is why it is *crucial* to have the correct basis for belief. I am not saying you don’t, but asking you to ask yourself whether *you* think you do.

Moving on…

As I read your post I began to wonder if you think that Allah ta’ala Himself must necessarily operate according to the laws He (awj) has laid down for the world to operate upon. I wonder if you believe that He (awj) is also constrained by the laws that govern our perceptible universe. I wonder how, if you do think that, you could qualify such a view? That the human species reproduce in a certain way because that is the way He (swt) has decreed – and I’m *not* alluding to the act of conjugation – does not imply that He (awj) too must function according to that same construct, wal iyadhubillah. What would be the proof for this? To suppose that He (awj) also functions like His (awj) creation is known as tashbih [likening Allah to creation], and contradicts muhkam [clear & unambiguous] ayats of Al-Qur’an Al-Kareem that stress the absolute otherliness of Allah ta’ala to His (awj) creation, wallahu a’lam. That He (awj) created His (awj) creation to function in a certain way (i) does not mean He (awj) too must function in that way, and (ii) that their functioning in such a way is a norm which He (awj) cannot break. May Allah (swt) forgive me if I have conveyed something wrong here.

Islamically, on the authority of our teachers – may Allah (awj) forgive me if I have misunderstood, or am misrepresenting the Islamic teaching - we *don’t* hold that “to have a male child, you need male interference to develop the XY sequence” is the musabbib [true cause] for conception to occur, but that that is the sabab [apparent cause] for conception to occur. Please note that I am using these two arabic terms in the context that they are used of ‘Ilm at-Tawhid, namely, in their theological context, not their lexical context. When studying tawhid, these words have specific meanings that pertain to this nomenclature, and this is important to bear in mind, so that when the words are used in this context we understand them as they were defined in that discipline, and don’t erroneously apply a linguistic meaning instead.

The problem with treating the scientific explanation as being the musabbib behind conception is that it doesn’t allow for what the Scholars of Tawhid term a *break in the normative chain of events*. Such as a miracle. This is why, if a Muslim *doesn’t* comprehend their aqeedah correctly, they may – and many do – consider the scientific reason behind an issue as the musabbib, as opposed to it being the sabab. And doing this would preclude the existence of miracles, which then is why a logician could unravel an argument that tried to make the case by *special pleading*. And it is very very dangerous for any Muslim to fall prey to this. Whereas when we understand our aqeedah correctly, and realise that what science says may – and I’m not saying it is – be the musabbib, then we will not be subject to the fallacy of *special pleading*, because treating it as the sabab allows for the *fact* that from time to time Allah ta’ala brings about a miracle.

Now, you rejected that Allah ta’ala is capable of creation outside of the realms of science on the basis that Christians also argue that “God can do anything he wants and does not have to explain himself scientifically.” You implied that to accept such an argument “would put me on the very same boat they peddle in.”

From one who claims to be logical I was surprised to witness such flawed reasoning in rejecting a proposition. Surely your discomfort doesn’t invalidate the argument? It is like me saying that non-Muslims are able to prove the existence of God, so I should reject their arguments, because accepting them would make me like them. What kind of logic is this ukhti?? :) What if those non-Muslims were using well-established and longstanding arguments used by our Ulema? The point being that a non-Muslim’s use of a valid and sound argument doesn’t render it invalid and unsound. There exists absolutely no logic whatsoever in such reasoning. It is emotive not logical. Again, I think that in the domain of logic, your reasoning here falls prey to two types of logical fallacy, the first being the reason for the second. The first is called a *non sequitur*, because the conclusion that the argument can’t be correct due to the fact that you’ve found that Christians invoke it, doesn’t follow. The success or failure of the argument is unrelated to them using it. The second fallacy may be one form of the *argument ad hominem*, in this instance the form of when you reject a proposition due to it being asserted by someone you consider as not being credible. So here, it is as if you are implying that by being Christian, they couldn’t possibly be right, which clearly is bad logic, no disrespect intended.

The final point which I’d like to make insha’Allah, concerns your final point. You asked, “How does one utilize their intelligence and have faith?”

It read like a loaded question, given what preceded it. You wrote what you wrote in the belief that your method was a sound one upon which to proceed in approaching the contention you raised about the conception of Sayyidina ‘Isa, alayhis salam. I replied by questioning your method (i.e. paradigm). So for me, your last question rests upon some questionable suppositions. You have already pre-determined that intelligence and faith are mutually exclusive. Why, when they are not? I’ll get to that shortly, but first off, the word “faith” is a misnomer when used in the context of Islam. It has negative connotations with respect to aqeedah, namely that our aqeedah is something arbitrary, unprovable, unqualifiable and unsubstantiable. This is patently wrong, since Islam demands yaqeen [certainty] from it’s adherents, and whilst subjectively yaqeen can exist in the absence of proofs and evidence, objectively it cannot. Faith by definition precludes the possibility of proof, and Islam shuns this, wallahu ta’ala a’lam. Any faith that is ultimately non-demonstratively provable in an objective sense, cannot claim for itself the status of Truth. Thus while faith may be a correct term for all other ways of life, not for Islam, for this very reason. There can be only one Haqq [Truth] when it comes to tawhid and more widely, aqeedah. The truth is not a relative phenomena, a’uzubillah (I know you never said or implied it was). From another angle, the English definition of the word *faith* is at odds with the shar’i definition of both iman and aqeedah, wallahu a’lam, which is another reason not to use it. Its use therefore creates a wrong impression concerning how we, as Muslims, are supposed to believe normatively. Admittedly we may find many Muslims today who have faith, but this is on the positive (a term being used in its technical, not linguistic sense) level, not normative.

Coming back to the main thrust of your question, it seems to me that you are equating science with intelligence, and Islam with faith, and presenting the two as opposites. As if one must suspend intelligence in order to accept the position of Islam in such matters. It is not so. Additionally, I can read more than one dimension into this last question of yours, so since I don’t know which is the more likely meaning of your question, I’ll try and tackle both possible interpretations of it, may Allah ta’ala assist me in this.

The first meaning I can read into your question is that you’re asking about how one can utilize their intelligence to reach belief (though you said “faith”).  Islamically, the use of intelligence can be – but doesn’t *have* to be - a tool in establishing our aqeedah. Islam stipulates that we ratiocinate, and ratiocination presupposes the use of the aql [mind]. Intelligence is linked to the mind. Now, intelligence varies from person to person, and it is not a precondition for belief. One doesn’t *need* to be intelligent to accept the belief in Islam, but that doesn’t mean one must be dumb to do so. I know you never said otherwise. Since intelligence is a variable quality of the intellect (i.e. mind), and is neither an essential quality nor a necessary one (meaning that just because a person has a mind doesn’t mean they will also possess intelligence) its presence or absence doesn’t add or take anything away from the aqeedah. However, its presence may assist in refining our comprehension of the aqeedah, in emplacing high standards for the acceptance of the aqeedah, and generally raising the level of ratiocination we engage in, etc. So perhaps we may say that intelligence will allow a sharper use of the aql. Now, whilst the absence of intelligence is not a barrier to belief in Islam, its presence can be – not necessarily *is* - of tremendous benefit in terms of belief. This is because certain initial – and some subsequent - aspects of the belief are aqli [rational], either wholly, or partly in conjunction with the naql. For those areas where rationality is involved intelligence can most definitely – and obviously – aid one, for its use increases the qualitative level of conceptualisation. I think this point is obvious enough that it needn’t be expanded upon and belaboured.

Now, a second and possibly more probable meaning of your question (given what you wrote preceding it) is that you’re asking it rhetorically, in the sense of ‘how do we stick to our faith if and when it contradicts what our intelligence would have us believe? I don’t see how we can.’ I believe that what lies behind this reading of the question is your belief that sometimes our belief asks us to accept things which seem to oppose what science is leading us to believe. In other words, our belief demands of us to sometimes suspend our intelligence and just unquestioningly accept what it is telling us. And in this case how can we possibly reject our intelligence and just have blind belief?

The point I wish to make here is that it is only your over-elevation of science that allows you to think like this. And in fact you’ve jumped the gun, because your post asked a question about Sayyidina ‘Isa, alayhis salam, yet in that same post you admitted that at present science cannot explain this phenomenon. Despite this, you seem unwilling to accept the Qur’anic explanation, and this unwillingness is based on the absence of affirmation of the Qur’anic narrative by science, since you wrote. “Science definitely isnt infallible...and could very well turn around and cultivate a male child from female DNA, but what do I do now?” In other words, in order to accept the word of Allah ta’ala as true, you need for science to validate it, until which time you feel unable to accept the word of Allah ta’ala in this regard. Which could permit someone reading your post to infer that you place science above the Qur’an, since your validation of what the Qur’an states is subject to the approval of science. Do you see something not quite right with this my dear Sister? A certain inconsistency being present?

That for you, when science confirms something the Qur’an asserts, you are then comfortable with what the Qur’an has said. But when science fails to do this, rather than question science, you wonder about the Qur’an. As far as I can assess, this can only be due to one reason, and that is your stated resolute conviction in scientific “truth” vis a vis the absence of a same/greater level of conviction in Qur’anic truth. Well, this is one of the reasons I sought to implant in you some questions regarding the methodology of science. Whether I have managed to achieve that only you can reveal. I am not so foolish to presume that I will have managed to make you ask some searching questions, but bi’ithnillah ta’ala I hope I did. Like I’ve already said, not to undermine science totally, no. But just to restrict it to its proper domain.

The belief in the Qur’an necessitates that we accept all that it reveals as true, else the implication is that the words of Allah ta’ala contain untruth, wal iyadhubillah. And here we are only referring to those ayats of the Qur’an whose meaning cannot be differed upon, for we know that some other ayats allow for more than one interpretation of the meaning. That is not the case with the conception of the Prophet ‘Isa, alayhis salam, and I have *never* heard of *any* scholar contend the miracle of this occurrence. So, if a Muslim then finds some degree of unsettlement with some of what the Qur’an asserts, from the perspective of it’s epistemic truth-value, then eventually that Muslim needs to ask what exactly it means to believe in the Qur’an being the word of Allah ta’ala. Again, I am not so foolhardy as to presume this about yourself. I am merely pointing to the direction that this could head if it remains unchecked.

Next, to not accept the Qur’anic truth regarding how Sayyidina ‘Isa, alayhis salam, was conceived, until science reveals how this could have been possible is to predetermine that science *will* one day discover this. Logically, this cannot be substantiated. You cannot qualify a belief that science will one day find out, because doing so entails knowing the future, which is illogical. You might contend me in one of two ways now. You might say that given that the Qur’an informs us about this issue, then this means science must eventually head in that direction, for science cannot oppose the Qur’an in the long-term. Unfortunately, if you were to argue like this, you would be subject to the logical fallacy known as *petitio principii* [begging the question].

Or, you might argue that time has shown that science always manages to explain the unexplainable. So too, you will continue, in this case, science will one day furnish an explanation for this event we currently consider a miracle. Well, if you were to take this line of reasoning then we’d be back with the problem of induction.

Furthermore, by mentioning that science might eventually manage to cultivate a male child from female DNA, is another instance of presupposition. To suggest what science might one day do is not something which can be soundly reasoned, except by the fallacy of analogy (i.e. well science managed to obtain answers in X issue, and Y issue, and so it will in Z issue). To further suggest *what* that discovery might be is also speculation, built upon conjecture. The danger here is that by awaiting *this* specific answer, one may run the risk of rejecting any other, having predetermined that this can be the only acceptable explanation. This runs the risk of inculcating bias in the one seeking an answer.

Yes, it often has turned out to be the case that science eventually manages to explain the unexplainable, but that is a separate matter to someone stating a conviction that it will, for that is something unknowable. It is precisely the problem of induction, when one leaps, logically unjustifiably, by using that which is known, to extrapolate conclusions about that which remains unknown at that point. Such as in using what science has achieved in the past to forecast what it will one day achieve in the future. In this instance arguing that science has figured out many things in the past, and so this matter is also a thing to be discovered, so science one day will. If logic is a forte, then one will realise how utterly flawed such reasoning is.

I should stress here, lest anyone infer wrongly, that I am not denying the possibility that science may one come up with an explanation. But nor am I affirming that possibility. Rather, I am remaining non-committal, because I see that as the only sound logical position to take, for unless I am in error, the premises for either proposition cannot be qualified *logically*. They can be justified inductively, and if one merely seeks a probable justification for their view, then that *might* do, but then it will need to be borne in mind that such a view won’t be conclusive, rather, at the least, possible, and at best, probable. And of course, the usual problem that exists with induction will be present.

Finally, we have to realise that not everything is explainable through recourse to science, rationality, or logic. One example is that of loud laughter during salat. It is my understanding that this breaks one’s wudu, which in turn invalidates the prayer, wallahu a’lam. Now, what possible scientific, rational, or even logical reason can anyone cite to explain how and why laughing breaks wudu? You can’t, it is just a hukm [legal rule/law] which Al-Shaari’ [The Lawgiver/Legislator] has decreed, wallahu a’lam.

Similarly, we need to realise that expecting there to be an explanation for absolutely everything within the wahy is again an unjustified predetermination. There is no basis for thinking this. Rather, there are things which can be explained, and things which cannot. And here, when I say “can be explained”, I mean in the sense of scientific or rational or logical explanation. Not in the sense of textual explanation, as in someone saying that, ‘Well the reason is that this is how Allah ta’ala decreed it to be.’

Islamically, what is required of the Muslim is to accept the word of Allah ta’ala as true. If we established our belief in the Book of Allah (awj) soundly, correctly, and properly, this should present no problem whatsoever. If we haven’t, then, voila.

May I ask a favour of you ukhti? You see, I don’t know you other than having read your post. But you are my Muslim Sister, and so you have a right over me. So please, let me know if what I wrote was not pitched at your level. Obviously since I don’t know you, I could not know what level to pitch my post at, so I tried to make it challenging enough such that it would at least retain your interest, and provoke some thought. My concern is whether I have failed in that. Maybe what was written was beneath you (i.e. way too simplistic for you), or above you, or just right. Only you can tell me. It is a Prophetic virtue to communicate to people on their level, but one that I consider myself woefully inadequate at, and shamefully so too. So what is paramount is that what is given is able to be taken. If what I wrote is incomprehensible to you, then no matter if it was correct, it is rendered meaningless *for you*. The point was *not* to intimidate you with sophistry, and cow you into thinking that just because I’ve used a few big words, and latin terms, that I therefore *must* know what I’m talking about, astaghfirullah. Such pretension and deceit has no place amongst the fraternity of this Blessed Ummah, and I ask Allah ta’ala to assist me in combating such lowly elements within me should they exist, arise, or be present. So please, if *anything* was not understood, tell me. It is shameful for me if that is the case, for I would deem it a failing if one who was reading something I wrote couldn’t follow it. That is not the same as someone being a little challenged, or having to pick up a dictionary occasionally. ;) But if what I write is perceived as so convoluted, verbose and frankly, boring, then of what use has that effort been? Sure, if the niyyah [intention] was right, insha’Allah the thawab [reward] will be earned, but still, no progress was made in terms of the *purpose* behind writing, in wanting to achieve something productive and of benefit. This is why I invite you to let me know if anything was unclear, or too simplistically reasoned, badly constructed, or even if it was too hard to follow. All of it can be broken down further insha’Allah. The use of the vocabulary and technical terminology was only because in my estimation, they best articulated the points I was endeavouring to make. The lack of explanation of logical fallacies I mentioned (especially in latin) was only because I felt justified slightly in not doing so given your penchant for logic, so I assumed some familiarity (on your behalf) with first principles, even though I also indicated a doubt that we both were referring to logic in different senses. All of that aside though, the bottom line is that if what was being communicated was not, then it is my shortcoming, not your inability to comprehend. Why? Well, because if someone doesn’t understand something, it doesn’t immediately mean they are incapable on an intellectual level, but perhaps the one conveying didn’t articulate ably enough. So in the first instance my concern needs to be that it is I who have failed to deliver. I hope you will aid me in determining this insha’Allah.

My dear Sister, I pray that Allah (swt) grants you closure on this important matter, allows sakina [tranquility] to enter your heart concerning it, and keeps you firm with yaqeen always.

For myself, if anything that I have written rankled, upset, offended, or insulted you, know that it was not intentional, and extend to me your forgiveness please. I am but one who is unlearned yet too arrogant to realise the greater benefit of his silence.

Anything of benefit and truth was by the Rahma of Allah (swt), only the many mistakes were mine, wal iyadhubillah. I solicit your du'a ukhti, and the du'a of any and all who may read this, for this wretch.

Raheemaka’Allah,

Abu Khaled
Re: Faith...Logic...Relativity. Man it's driving me nuts.
Asim
01/23/02 at 23:13:38
Assalaamu alaikum,

Oooooh, AbuKhaled!! Long time no see. Man, I just posted something ... it can't stand in front of you post :) Mashallah, good to see you post.
Re: Faith...Logic...Relativity. Man it's driving me nuts.
MentallectCom
01/24/02 at 03:12:53
Wow...a lot to digest. Keep it coming. I'm wading through slowly but surely.
Re: Faith...Logic...Relativity. Man it's driving me nuts.
humble_muslim
01/24/02 at 12:11:22
AA

AbuKhaled, though we have had disagreements in the past, I am sooo happy to see you back on this board!!!  May Allah SWT grant all of us your wisdom and the ability to speak the truth in a beautiful and kind way, without in any way sounding as if you are being patronizing.

As far as learning aqeedah is concerned, I agree with AbuKhaled.  One of the best modern shcolars to learn aqeedah from is Bilal Phillips.  You can purchase many of his tapes from the following link :

http://store.yahoo.com/islamicbookstore-com/audio-lectures-speeches-single-tapes-abu-aminah-bilal-phillips.html
NS
Re: Faith...Logic...Relativity. Man it's driving me nuts.
Dawn
01/24/02 at 16:10:40
Ok, folks, here I go again, jumping headlong into where I have no clue, but ...  

Based on AbuKhaled's post (which I thought was brilliant and eloquent as well as a tough read), I perceive someone who is way more educated than me in the fields of Philosophy and Logic.  So, if you all don't mind, I would like to ask some questions to see if I understood correctly and to see how this might be extended.  

First, as I understand it, Hume, Russell, and Mermer comment on inductivism as the basis for the scientific method.  I have not heard the term directly used, but I presume it is similar in nature to the mathematical "proof by induction"?  The differences, I presume would be in the ability to establish the underlying axioms and the function f(n).  Perhaps I have been working in engineering too long, but I was under the impression that it was understood that the scientific method was stochastic (or perhaps statistical would be the better word, and the stochasticity implied therein) in nature, and just because a counter example hasn't been found, doesn't mean one doesn't exist.  However, one builds technology, algorithms, etc., based upon the very high probabilities that are associated with the "rules" science discovers/creates.  Perhaps I am being a little too naïve here in my attribution of self-understanding to the scientific community.  In any case, from my experience, most in that community work, whether aware of it or not, with the underlying framework (axiom) of Ocham's Razor.  Which brings me to my next question.

If I understood it correctly, one of AbuKhaled's points to MentallectCom was that of establishing his axiomatic basis, and that if this was established to be that the Qur'an is God's revealed Word (which of course implies the existence of God) in it's entirety, then there is no conflict per se with science.  The argument presented here was excellent, I think, but applicable only as long as one has already embraced the axiom.  What kind of response could be made if MentallectCom (or myself, as the case may be :)) were examining the Qur'an from outside of Islam (i.e., "outside" the axiom) rather than in?  For instance, all of the "scientific" supports for the Qur'an that I have seen, fall into the same category as that of the virgin birth.  That is, as it is possible that a virgin could become pregnant, it is also possible that Mohammed could have written the whole thing himself.  I perceive another, similar, logical problem with the simultaneous existence of an all-knowing God and the notion of free will (of course this one is also a problem in Christianity).  

Thank you, AbuKhaled, for the time you took to respond to the original post.  The response was quite lengthy, and so I know must have been time consuming.  But for those seekers like myself, it is much appreciated!  

Peace,
Dawn
Re: Faith...Logic...Relativity. Man it's driving me nuts.
MentallectCom
01/24/02 at 18:24:02
Still here, still wading. I've got a bit of a hectic schedule and am pretty pressed for quiet time to read to myself so I cant really respond yet. However I'm wondering Abu, if you have AOL Instant Messenger, if not, I implore you skip over to AOL and install the program so that I may get into a more immediate dialogue with you.
Re: ill-Logic
MentallectCom
01/25/02 at 08:32:55
Wow...let me first start off by saying that is perhaps the longest post in internet history. It intimidated me initially and I had to step away from it a couple times due to that.

THEN, you came through and for me, punched a huge hole in the chest of science. Or rather, in me. Based on what I got from you, I'm beginning to suspect I've turned my idea of science into some devine pillar for lack of a better term. That is disconcerting. To the point where I had to step away from it again because now I feel a bit vulnerable. But thats natural considering that I'm realizing I know less than what I originally thought, and before this post I didn't think I knew much anyway.

Nothing you said offended me in the least bit. I am totally into mentally stripping down to the bare essentials and starting over when I'm interested in a particular subject. I'm even willing to come into this discussion as an infant, so please do speak to me as if that is the case. Please don't assume I know anything, in fact, assume exactly the opposite.

Also with that said, don't concern yourself with streaming flawed information to me. No more disclaimers needed. I'm totally aware that this is simply your collective thoughts and findings and that you dont claim to be some authority on any of the subjects breached here. :)

Now I'll try to respond to some key points and or ask for further explanation:

[quote]


Upon finishing your post my initial reaction was to wonder if you have ever studied any basic matn  of aqeedah , from amongst any of the well-established and generally-accepted mutun  that we have, which explain how we understand Allah ta’ala and His (awj) relationship to the world which we inhabit that He (awj) Created. I don’t ask that insultingly, so please forgive me if you feel offended. It is just that in my experience such questions like the one you’ve asked arise due to a lack of understanding, or a misunderstanding, of our aqeedah as Muslims. In this case, one of the key issues to address is the absolute primacy of the Qur’an. I’ve found a recurrent pattern in those who raise this and similar questions like yours, that they have an inadequate conviction regarding the authority of the Qur’an, though I hasten to add that I refrain from drawing such a conclusion about your good self, ma’adallah. Nevertheless, this is one of the factors that leads Muslims with such a deficiency to so quickly wonder about Qur’anic narrative when it seems to oppose science, and wonder about which of the two sources preponderate when it comes to the establishment of fact. Given the foundational nature of this aspect of our aqeedah it is imperative that one redress any deficiencies in this area, to preclude and prevent any possibility of doubt entering into the aqeedah. That said, I am not presuming that you have “issues” with the Qur’an just on the basis of my experience with others who’ve voiced similar questions. So please, again, don’t feel offended.

[/quote]

To answer your first wonder, I'm not fluent in the basic matn of aqeedah. Please provide any and all information you can get your hands on. But since its pretty obvious that I'm  pretty much questioning Islam (and now science) anyway, I don't understand why your initial suggestion is to go to the basics of Islam. As if to suggest its a form of reference when its the very thing I'm trying to sort out. To use a horrible analogy: I can't very well cure a cell from cancer with the very same cell. (Or can I? What do I know...)

I am not suggesting the Qur'an is the cancer, but rather its my uncertainty attached to various parts. Blah, it was a poor analogy but I can't think of anything else offhand and I'm pretty sure you get what I'm saying. Ah moving along.



[quote]

Secondly, I must admit I was a little surprised that you seemed to make a logically flawed point given your admitted predisposition towards logic, but insha’Allah we’ll traverse that as we proceed. That is not to say that one who is a logic fiend cannot make logical mistakes. I do it all the time!

Firstly, I’d like to address the paradigm upon which you are insisting to proceed. You seem to treat science as if it is some kind of Sacred Cow; a term I use in its philosophical sense. It isn’t. Science *per se* is not indisputable, nor are the findings of science. Yes, maybe *certain discoveries* of science may be incontestable – though even that point itself doesn’t possess any kind of consensus about it amongst philosophers of science - but that is not a rule any Muslim should apply wholesale, due to the method itself that science is constructed upon. Many of the nomological conclusions that science reaches are subject to a fundamental methodological flaw known as inductivism.....
[/quote]

Well, what you put here and then on was just mind blowing. I went here: http://www.it.swin.edu.au/schil/phlsci/philsci_session1.htm

And did futher research on what you added on in that paragraph....and I'm just flat out befuddled.

[quote]Bit of a bombshell then. I imagine that if this is new to you you’re now sitting there quite incredulous, taken aback at what is being said. Unable to quite believe the proposition being put to you. [/quote]

Incredulous isnt the word, brother. Excuse me while I go find my head, as it fell off after reading that.


[quote]Well, if that is true (i.e. that you are reading this and becoming increasingly wide-eyed at what is being suggested about science) that would not be entirely surprising, given that the perception of science as some kind of Sacred Cow is a putative belief. That this belief has seen an overspill into the Muslim psyche is what needs to be addressed.[/quote]

I couldn't agree with you more, now.

[quote]
If scientific principles, and methodologies become treated as axiomatic, when in fact they may not be, then scientists proceed upon – like yourself – a paradigm that becomes unquestioned. When in fact, this is the *first* thing that needs to be questioned, and thoroughly at that. And herein lies the first contention I’d like to put to you. What is the methodological *basis* of science as you have understood it (I have indicated to you my own neophytic understanding regarding this in the preceding few paragraphs)? What is the epistemology upon which scientific knowledge is built in your opinion? How watertight is that? Is it impenetrable? How often are the findings of science that are treated as fact, in fact *not* definite and certain knowledge, but rather, probabilistic? And is this even a matter many of us have bothered to question, or has science become such a Sacred Cow that we treat it as if it is the ultimate form of knowledge? And all this is before we even begin to broach the common u-turns that scientific discovery is prone to, understandable though that may be. [/quote]

Well, now I have no convictions on science.  I'm pretty phlegmatic to it now once the chargin settled in my head. Your example with the bookbag and explanation made perfect sense. I can't find any flaws in it what so ever, however I'd really like further explanation on this:

[quote]One of the elemental and oft-unquestioned edifices of science – which I suspect many of us just take for granted – is the issue of cause and effect. Actually, this is an example which steps into the territory of Islamic theology too. Quite convenient that. So, lets ponder on one question briefly. Science claims the discovery of gravity. So, when I drop my plate, it falls. Science would argue that my dropping the plate is the cause, and it falling is the effect. It would attribute that connective relationship to gravity. However, can you bring me any proof to definitively establish that my dropping the plate *was* the *cause* of the effect, rather it just being the case that both events – i.e. the dropping and the falling – were merely conjoined and concurrent? What is the proof that one *led* to the other, as opposed to one occurring after the other in a non-causative sense? You see – and please correct me if I’m being totally scientific inept -  the phenomenon of gravity merely explains *that* one thing will lead to another, and *not* that it is necessarily so. In other words, gravity manages to explain the two events as being linked contingently, but does not *prove* the necessary causitivity of one for the other. Wallahu a’lam. And if it did, this could be contentious from an aqeedah point of view, wallahu a’lam.[/quote]

Are you suggesting cause and effect arent the only elements in the late scenario? Or that the dropping and the falling are on the same side of the fence in the cause and effect equation? Or neither and I'm just daft? I dunno help me out here, I'm drowning.



[quote] Now, that is fine for many of us, but I wonder if you have no problems with it Sister MentallectCom? Because, essentially, from the way I’m looking at this, if you have a problem with how Sayyidina ‘Isa, alayhis salam, was conceived, then similarly you should also have a problem with the case of the fire and Sayyidina Ibrahim, alayhis salam. Why? Because in both cases, the laws which govern the normal case of events, seem to not have operated. Namely, what science says *should* have occurred for one thing to lead to another, is claimed *from the naql * not to have. So, now, for you, as one who upholds science as a valid epistemological basis for the affirmation of truth, you have a dilemma. You probably find yourself facing the quandary of thinking that, “Boy, if I am to accept what science tells me, then surely that’d entail rejecting the text, which basically means I’d be rejecting the Qur’an. Because surely the two are irreconcilable here? Sheesh!”[/quote]

This has been a big big problem. To the point where I've question if I'm even Muslim in the first place.

[quote]

As I read your post I began to wonder if you think that Allah ta’ala Himself must necessarily operate according to the laws He (awj) has laid down for the world to operate upon. I wonder if you believe that He (awj) is also constrained by the laws that govern our perceptible universe. I wonder how, if you do think that, you could qualify such a view? That the human species reproduce in a certain way because that is the way He (swt) has decreed – and I’m *not* alluding to the act of conjugation – does not imply that He (awj) too must function according to that same construct, wal iyadhubillah. What would be the proof for this? To suppose that He (awj) also functions like His (awj) creation is known as tashbih [likening Allah to creation], and contradicts muhkam [clear & unambiguous] ayats of Al-Qur’an Al-Kareem that stress the absolute otherliness of Allah ta’ala to His (awj) creation, wallahu a’lam. That He (awj) created His (awj) creation to function in a certain way (i) does not mean He (awj) too must function in that way, and (ii) that their functioning in such a way is a norm which He (awj) cannot break. May Allah (swt) forgive me if I have conveyed something wrong here.[/quote]

You know, I thought about this. And realized my reply to it would've brought me to this tangled knot process and would end up not knowing what I was getting at anyway. And even if I did, it would've been based on what I thought before I chucked the Sacred Cow to that slaughterhouse in the sky anyway so its moot. I don't expect the Creator to have to work under the confines of the created. That, I never did. However, it struck me as a serious confusion for an entity to demand my faith when my mind, something else I was given by Him, was pulling me in an opposite direction. Especially considering the severity of getting this whole life thing wrong. It was basically the equivilent of sitting me in the middle of a minefield maze and me being told to pick which map would get me to the right door out of the puzzle without sufficient information to make a decision, you dig?

[quote]

From one who claims to be logical I was surprised to witness such flawed reasoning in rejecting a proposition. Surely your discomfort doesn’t invalidate the argument? It is like me saying that non-Muslims are able to prove the existence of God, so I should reject their arguments, because accepting them would make me like them. [/quote]

Fair enough but the whole faith issue by itself, Christian practiced or not was a problem for me. As I imagine faith is that elevator you take to the next level when you dont feel like climbing the stairs (i.e. resolving the unanswered question). Not to mention I've yet to see the difference in Muslim and Christian faith, perhaps you can explain it to me...and if there isnt a difference, I don't understand how one is wrong and the other correct.

[quote]

The final point which I’d like to make insha’Allah, concerns your final point. You asked, “How does one utilize their intelligence and have faith?”

It read like a loaded question, given what preceded it. You wrote what you wrote in the belief that your method was a sound one upon which to proceed in approaching the contention you raised about the conception of Sayyidina ‘Isa, alayhis salam. I replied by questioning your method (i.e. paradigm). So for me, your last question rests upon some questionable suppositions. You have already pre-determined that intelligence and faith are mutually exclusive. Why, when they are not? I’ll get to that shortly, but first off, the word “faith” is a misnomer when used in the context of Islam. [/quote]

I definitely didnt mean to suggest anything I said was solid, if things were resolved in my head, I wouldn't have asked the question. I'm obviously coming up short as I'm having headaches over this stuff....

[quote]I’ll get to that shortly, but first off, the word “faith” is a misnomer when used in the context of Islam. It has negative connotations with respect to aqeedah, namely that our aqeedah is something arbitrary, unprovable, unqualifiable and unsubstantiable. This is patently wrong, since Islam demands yaqeen  from it’s adherents, and whilst subjectively yaqeen can exist in the absence of proofs and evidence, objectively it cannot.[/quote]

I groan in pain here. Two words give me problems here. Subjective and Objective. The two evil twins arrghghgghghg!

I'm tentative to tell you where I stand in subject and objectivity although I'm pretty sure you know what I think about those two....you've shattered enough tonight :)


[quote] Faith by definition precludes the possibility of proof, and Islam shuns this, wallahu ta’ala a’lam. Any faith that is ultimately non-demonstratively provable in an objective sense, cannot claim for itself the status of Truth. Thus while faith may be a correct term for all other ways of life, not for Islam, for this very reason. There can be only one Haqq  when it comes to tawhid and more widely, aqeedah. The truth is not a relative phenomena, a’uzubillah (I know you never said or implied it was). From another angle, the English definition of the word *faith* is at odds with the shar’i definition of both iman and aqeedah, wallahu a’lam, which is another reason not to use it. Its use therefore creates a wrong impression concerning how we, as Muslims, are supposed to believe normatively. Admittedly we may find many Muslims today who have faith, but this is on the positive (a term being used in its technical, not linguistic sense) level, not normative.[/quote]

You have no idea now distrubed I am now. So you're saying, that by Islamic principle or whatever you want to call it, subjective truths are null and void? This is a whooooole new subject.

[quote]Coming back to the main thrust of your question, it seems to me that you are equating science with intelligence, and Islam with faith, and presenting the two as opposites. As if one must suspend intelligence in order to accept the position of Islam in such matters. It is not so. [/quote]

I was doing this more or less, I'm thinking its a knee jerk reaction. (I'm so agnostic in some ways.)

[quote]The first meaning I can read into your question is that you’re asking about how one can utilize their intelligence to reach belief (though you said “faith”).  Islamically, the use of intelligence can be – but doesn’t *have* to be - a tool in establishing our aqeedah. Islam stipulates that we ratiocinate, and ratiocination presupposes the use of the aql . Intelligence is linked to the mind. Now, intelligence varies from person to person, and it is not a precondition for belief. One doesn’t *need* to be intelligent to accept the belief in Islam, but that doesn’t mean one must be dumb to do so. I know you never said otherwise. Since intelligence is a variable quality of the intellect (i.e. mind), and is neither an essential quality nor a necessary one (meaning that just because a person has a mind doesn’t mean they will also possess intelligence) its presence or absence doesn’t add or take anything away from the aqeedah. However, its presence may assist in refining our comprehension of the aqeedah, in emplacing high standards for the acceptance of the aqeedah, and generally raising the level of ratiocination we engage in, etc. So perhaps we may say that intelligence will allow a sharper use of the aql. Now, whilst the absence of intelligence is not a barrier to belief in Islam, its presence can be – not necessarily *is* - of tremendous benefit in terms of belief. This is because certain initial – and some subsequent - aspects of the belief are aqli , either wholly, or partly in conjunction with the naql. For those areas where rationality is involved intelligence can most definitely – and obviously – aid one, for its use increases the qualitative level of conceptualisation. I think this point is obvious enough that it needn’t be expanded upon and belaboured.
[/quote]

I really need to stew on this. Hopefully you'll get AIM and we'll build on this better.

[quote]The belief in the Qur’an necessitates that we accept all that it reveals as true,
Similarly, we need to realise that expecting there to be an explanation for absolutely everything within the wahy is again an unjustified predetermination. There is no basis for thinking this. Rather, there are things which can be explained, and things which cannot. And here, when I say “can be explained”, I mean in the sense of scientific or rational or logical explanation. Not in the sense of textual explanation, as in someone saying that, ‘Well the reason is that this is how Allah ta’ala decreed it to be.’[/quote]

What is the supported rationale that or basis in thinking somethings can and cannot be explained ultimately?

[quote]Islamically, what is required of the Muslim is to accept the word of Allah ta’ala as true. If we established our belief in the Book of Allah (awj) soundly, correctly, and properly, this should present no problem whatsoever. If we haven’t, then, voila.

May I ask a favour of you akhi? You see, I don’t know you other than having read your post. But you are my Muslim Sister, and so you have a right over me. So please, let me know if what I wrote was not pitched at your level. Obviously since I don’t know you, I could not know what level to pitch my post at, so I tried to make it challenging enough such that it would at least retain your interest, and provoke some thought. My concern is whether I have failed in that. Maybe what was written was beneath you (i.e. way too simplistic for you), or above you, or just right. Only you can tell me. It is a Prophetic virtue to communicate to people on their level, but one that I consider myself woefully inadequate at, and shamefully so too. So what is paramount is that what is given is able to be taken. If what I wrote is incomprehensible to you, then no matter if it was correct, it is rendered meaningless *for you*. The point was *not* to intimidate you with sophistry, and cow you into thinking that just because I’ve used a few big words, and latin terms, that I therefore *must* know what I’m talking about, astaghfirullah. Such pretension and deceit has no place amongst the fraternity of this Blessed Ummah, and I ask Allah ta’ala to assist me in combating such lowly elements within me should they exist, arise, or be present. So please, if *anything* was not understood, tell me. It is shameful for me if that is the case, for I would deem it a failing if one who was reading something I wrote couldn’t follow it. That is not the same as someone being a little challenged, or having to pick up a dictionary occasionally. ;) But if what I write is perceived as so convoluted, verbose and frankly, boring, then of what use has that effort been? Sure, if the niyyah  was right, insha’Allah the thawab  will be earned, but still, no progress was made in terms of the *purpose* behind writing, in wanting to achieve something productive and of benefit. This is why I invite you to let me know if anything was unclear, or too simplistically reasoned, badly constructed, or even if it was too hard to follow. All of it can be broken down further insha’Allah. The use of the vocabulary and technical terminology was only because in my estimation, they best articulated the points I was endeavouring to make. The lack of explanation of logical fallacies I mentioned (especially in latin) was only because I felt justified slightly in not doing so given your penchant for logic, so I assumed some familiarity (on your behalf) with first principles, even though I also indicated a doubt that we both were referring to logic in different senses. All of that aside though, the bottom line is that if what was being communicated was not, then it is my shortcoming, not your inability to comprehend. Why? Well, because if someone doesn’t understand something, it doesn’t immediately mean they are incapable on an intellectual level, but perhaps the one conveying didn’t articulate ably enough. So in the first instance my concern needs to be that it is I who have failed to deliver. I hope you will aid me in determining this insha’Allah.

My dear Sister, I pray that Allah (swt) grants you closure on this important matter, allows sakina  to enter your heart concerning it, and keeps you firm with yaqeen always.

For myself, if anything that I have written rankled, upset, offended, or insulted you, know that it was not intentional, and extend to me your forgiveness please. I am but one who is unlearned yet too arrogant to realise the greater benefit of his silence.

Anything of benefit and truth was by the Rahma of Allah (swt), only the many mistakes were mine, wal iyadhubillah. I solicit your du'a akhi, and the du'a of any and all who may read this, for this wretch.

Raheemaka’Allah,

Abu Khaled
[/quote]

Ameen

Masha Allah, thank you very much. I really hope you post frequently as I'll probably be bugging you so long as I know you're here. I understood you after hitting up the dictionary a couple times. *laughs* I've got a pretty good vocabulary but you dance circles around me. In any event, please stay as you are in your aim because its just far above me for me to work for it, and my brains been a bit muddled lately and this kind of stimulus and research is what I need.

I look forward to expanding on this....Ma Salaama


Re: Faith...Logic...Relativity. Man it's driving me nuts.
BrKhalid
01/28/02 at 12:32:55
Asalaamu Alaikum ;-)

[quote] The problem with treating the scientific explanation as being the musabbib[true cause] behind conception is that it doesn’t allow for what the Scholars of Tawhid term a *break in the normative chain of events*. Such as a miracle. This is why, if a Muslim *doesn’t* comprehend their aqeedah correctly, they may – and many do – consider the scientific reason behind an issue as the musabbib[true cause], as opposed to it being the sabab[apparent cause]. And doing this would preclude the existence of miracles, which then is why a logician could unravel an argument that tried to make the case by *special pleading*. And it is very very dangerous for any Muslim to fall prey to this. Whereas when we understand our aqeedah correctly, and realise that what science says may – and I’m not saying it is – be the musabbib[true cause], then we will not be subject to the fallacy of *special pleading*, because treating it as the sabab[apparent cause] allows for the *fact* that from time to time Allah ta’ala brings about a miracle. [/quote]


The following is the way I understand the above. [Br Abu Khaled and others, please correct me if I'm saying anything incorrect here.]


If you are sitting by a candle and decide to put your finger in the flame you'll get burnt. This is the "normative chain of events".


Finger + Flame = Burning


Our belief as Muslims is that the world is run by Allah along these lines of "normative chain of events"


However, every so now and then there is a time when :


Finger + Flame = No Burning


and it is our belief that Allah temporarily breaks these "normative chain of events"


[quote]What kind of response could be made if MentallectCom (or myself, as the case may be ) were examining the Qur'an from outside of Islam (i.e., "outside" the axiom) rather than in?[/quote]

Dawn I'm no engineer, and trust me its actually been a long time since I did any Math, but if I read the above correctly you would have a problem with the

Finger + Flame = No Burning

equation because of being a non Muslim?


How about then we keep the equation "within" the axiom and say:


Finger + Flame + Factor Unknown = No Burning

As a scientist if one observes the phenomena as outlined above, then research will be made as to what this factor is, which has prevented normal burning from taking place.

As Muslims, however, we believe:

Finger + Flame + Allah's intervention = No Burning


Hence the laws which are used to run the world are temporarily suspended and thereafter normal service is resumed.


[color=Blue](Abraham) said, "Do ye then worship, besides Allah, things that can neither be of any good to you nor do you harm?

"Fie upon you, and upon the things that ye worship besides Allah! Have ye no sense?"..

They said, "Burn him and protect your gods, If ye do (anything at all)!"

[color=Red]We said, "O Fire! be thou cool, and (a means of) safety for Abraham!"[/color][/color] [21:66-69]


Anyway its not an easy topic to discuss on a message board but I hope I've made some sense and I apologise if I have chosen examples which are too simplistic and inappropriate.

Wasalaam
Br Khalid
Re: Faith...Logic...Relativity. Man it's driving me nuts.
Dawn
01/29/02 at 06:20:25

[quote]
Dawn I'm no engineer, and trust me its actually been a long time since I did any Math, but if I read the above correctly you would have a problem with the

Finger + Flame = No Burning

equation because of being a non Muslim?
[/quote]
Actually, that is not really the problem.  Let me use the following example to illustrate.  I am pretty sure that everyone has tapped their pencil or pen on their desk, and I am also pretty sure that no one has ever witnessed their pen or pencil pass through their desk in the process of doing so.  Now, this is not to say that your pencil can't do such a thing -- it has just never been witnessed as happening (with such light tapping).  Actually, it is fairly well known that, because of the nature of the atomic structure of your table and your pencil, it is possible that just that could happen.  It is just associated with such a small probability that if someone were to claim that it did happen, it is quite justifiable that people would dismiss this person's evidence on the basis that this person is an attention seeker or they were distracted for a moment.  That is, of all the "fill-in-the-blank"-illions of times that pencils have tapped on desks, one has yet to pass through a desk.  Hence, it is much more likely that the individual is making the story up for attention or just thought they saw their pencil do that, but in reality they just missed the table with that particular tap, or some other similar explaination.  It is a question of probability or likelihood, not of possibility.

AbuKhaled correctly pointed this out (although in a much more fluent use of language, and with more support than a simple example) in response to the original post, to support that events such as the virgin birth cannot be disallowed by the scientific method.  So, one who already adheres to Islam is perfectly justified in accepting the "miracles" that appear in the Qur'an.  My question was more down the line of, given that one is not Muslim, what would AbuKhaled's response to the same or similar post have been?

I hope that I have not further muddied the waters. (And if I have, I know it wouldn't be the first time :))

Peace,
Dawn


Individual posts do not necessarily reflect the views of Jannah.org, Islam, or all Muslims. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster and may not be used without consent of the author.
The rest © Jannah.Org