some people have criticized him for that
statement and have said well then what
are you saying the selleth they didn't
know logic he actually says in another
place that in the early period their
minds were clear their minds were clear
and they were able to understand things
to make judgments about things and to
reason and argue in ways that were sound
he said but people's minds weakened and
this is a common motif in many cultures
the Golden Age it's it's the idea and
they're actually recently there was an
article written that the ancients were
smarter didn't anybody see that article
was an interesting article just arguing
that that people are actually less smart
now than they were 2,000 years ago we
have more tools now but if you actually
look at the average people and if all
you have to do is read read Euthyphro
you know or Meno you know read Meno you
know we you know Socrates takes a young
servant boy and basically gets him to
understand the Pythagorean theorem very
quickly something that you know in our
culture people go through 12 years of
mathematics and they're hard pressed to
explain that so I mean obviously it's
arguable that they had a teacher like
Socrates it probably would have been a
lot easier so so he says that logic
became necessary because people lost
that ability to reason soundly its
greatest benefit then derives from the
clarity of thought and sound reasoning
skills it engenders in one trained in
its
are coupled with more effective oral and
written communication it orders thought
it orders the mind much of people's
problems come from our inability to
define things right this is the
foundation or that my definition is the
only definition and you know and through
the looking-glass Humpty Dumpty tells
Alice you know she questions his
definition of word and he says it can
mean whatever I say it means and and the
man that wrote that book was a logician
and and both Alice in Wonderland and
Alice Through the Looking Glass are
dealing with world a world without logic
like he was showing what a world would
be like if we didn't have logic or
reason working the queen says off with
his head and now we'll have the trial
right and Alice says that doesn't make
sense where I come from we have the
trial first and then and she said no
here we do it the other way around
okay modern America so and then that the
topics now topics and subjects are
almost in our culture considered
synonyms but traditionally subjects and
and this is like genus and species a
topic can be a subject and then a
subject can be a topic so but but you
you you can look at it like a subject is
the overarching rubric and then the
topics are those things that fall under
so if we look at like the topic of
Graham the subject of grammar is a
kilometer avi Minaya and Rob will be now
all right so that that's that's like
basically what now
is about right and and so if you look at
the topics of grammar then the topics of
grammar are like the motherfu ad so you
have seven more four ads the mom so bad
you have 15 months so bad the three
maharat right so those are basically
those are topics so the illume be he is
a topic under the rubric of grammar all
right and and so when you look at the
topics of logic the topics of minor or
formal logic so that's called minor or
formal logic the lesser logic logic
Petite consists of simple apprehensions
so the simple apprehension is the
grasping of something you just grasp it
like you know a glass you see if you
grasp a glass all right then
once you grasp what a glass is then you
can bring another type of glass like
this is a wine glass okay but the genus
is glass the species is wine glass
because the difference is this one's
used for wine I mean obviously we're in
Turkey so it's a water glass but you
know in Western culture this is a wine
glass but the idea of a glass is you
grasp it as a simple concept and once
you have that concept if I say go get a
glass you can go to the kitchen and you
it doesn't matter what kind of glass you
understand the universal concept of
glass that's a simple apprehension and
so that's one of the most important
topics and then the concept where we
begin to understand the tesora at a
deeper level right it's it's it's a type
it's a it's an apprehension but the
simple apprehension is a foundation of a
concept and then the terms how we
articulate those what words we use like
see the concept of a glass right I call
this a glass in English but if I said to
I'm judge Mojave
I'm Jed being a Libyan would say today
he is Raja right so now we have a zoo
jaga what's the difference between a zoo
jaja and a glass the difference between
a zoo judge and a glass is that we use
different terms for the same concept so
the concept is universal and that's why
the concept proceeds whatever
articulation we use to describe it or
define it all right and that's why we
can call this many things in many
different languages but every single
person whether he's Arab or Chinese or
Hindu or a Pakistani or it doesn't
matter once he grasped this it doesn't
matter what word that you used to
describe it I mean it matters in terms
of being able to communicate it to
somebody but he still grasps it in his
mind
because I can say how do you say glass
in Turkish
where's Yusef is he here huh Bardock
yeah ba doc so if I say how do you say
glass in Turkish and he says ba doc how
lost he he knows the concept because if
I just said to him you know teru kataoka
he said baduk he doesn't even have no
glass in English I can get that out of
him okay so the concept of glass in your
mind is called baduk that same concept
in my mind is called glass so the
universal concept is the simple
apprehension the term is what's called
the wushu the lovely that we use because
you have Houdini was you the hockey team
that's illusion of how PAP was you then
he was you lovely we should copy how you
write it right so these are different
types of existence that things have and
then there's an argument about whether
it exists in reality in the mind or is
it only real here are they different
that's a metaphysical problem
and and then you have definitions so the
definition the HUD right the own ashati
is knowing what the genus and the
difference is that's how you define it
and that's not always easy because it's
sometimes it's hard to differentiate
between a property and or an accident
and a difference so but this is how you
learn to define things you see what
because we need definitions so when we
talk about governments government is a
genus but it has different species or
species so you have democracy is a
species of government tyranny is a
species of government oligarchy is a
species of government and each one of
them the genus is government but what's
the difference so a tyranny the
difference is it's it's it's it's
absolute rule by Fiat there's there's no
process they just say what what what
they're going to do and they do in and
they implement it and if you have a
dictatorship usually it's one a one
dictator so a dictatorship is where one
person has an absolute power and
arbitrary rule you could do whatever he
wants off with his head so though that's
the way you define things is by knowing
so that's an important aspect in the
topics of logic and then divisions how
you divide them so wine glass is the
type of division there's other types of
glasses that you have right and then Cup
Cup is is its from it the same genus but
it's different from a glass right has a
handle right Arabic does this all fit
Aloha does this because Arabs are very
specific about things right and then
they wouldn't call this a cus cus it
cuts has to have something in it so now
that's a whole other thing right when
you have the vessel and then when
something's in it you describe it with a
different word and that's that's modal
logic that's something really Aristotle
doesn't that came later
you know modal logic is where you get
modalities chain
and then you have judgments so that
study propositions are the kebaya
al-kibriya
is a judgment right and then there are
varieties because there's different
types you have you know you have their
different quality and quantity and so
there are different types of
propositions and then you have simple
compound affirmative negative
categorical hypothetical and modal so
like a categorical is John is here
it's categorical it's re there it's true
or its false but it's categorical if
it's nine o'clock then John is here
that's a conditional or a hypothetical
so if a then B a therefore B like that
and then with modal logic it's more like
it might be possible that John's arrived
right so and that's and that or it's
probable that he's here because it's
nine o'clock so that's that's modal
logic it's also there's there's a
because they have deductive inductive
and then you have Charles pierce
identified a third what he called
abductive reasoning which is this type
of reasoning it's like it's a type of
almost guessing but it's guessing when
there's reason there's reason or cause
for a for a judgment like that so and
then you have opposition and that's
there's a square of opposition and it's
the relationship between propositions so
yeah you know a universal affirmative
proposition a universal negative
proposition they call that a and E from
a firm oh and neg oh right affirming
something or negating something so all
animals you know all men are animals
right no angels are animals so one's a
universal of
and the others Universal negative but
then you have some animals our man right
you have that and so that's a particular
a particular where you're affirming and
then you have a particular where you're
negating and so those are that that's
how they work together and there's rules
that go with that so that's when you
learn the square of opposition you learn
the rules of those the contradictory the
the contraries the sub alt all turns and
then you have conversion which is
converting a subject and a predicate
just converting it so no animals are men
or no no angels are animals no animals
are angels just switching them around
and some things can convert and some
things can't
so reasoning then is the PS and that
involves the syllogism and it's
divisions like you have nineteen forms
or figures in the I what are called
moves and so there's different types of
syllogisms they're broken down out of
the nineteen an edge medina POV
identified ten in the quran out of the
nineteen that are used she identified
ten of the different syllogisms that are
used so the Perron definitely uses
they're over thirty arguments in the
quran that are using this type of logic
which interesting enough in the earlier
shadi period some of the upshot he's
wanted to argue that it was a jazz that
the month up in the quran was a jazz but
belani said no that's not part of their
a jazz of quran because humans are
capable of reasoning in that same way so
he didn't consider it acceptable as a as
a miracle of the Quran to say that and
then finally you have induction which
was developed it was first argued by
Francis
and in his Novum organum organ on which
was an attempt to rewrite aristotle
organon he was an anti Aristotelian and
then later in the 17th century mill who
was a very very influential person had
in many ways very positive effect on
society but in other ways a very
negative effect very very really
probably one of the most influential
human beings in history but a lot of
what we are in now is is Mills vision of
the world so then you have material or
major logic and that deals with the
contents of syllogisms and involves
categories so that you have ten
categories and we'll get into those like
substance you have the category of
substance and everything has to be a
substance if it's a thing God is not in
the ten categories but everything that
exists is in the ten categories so the
first one is is is about the essence of
it it's it's the johar this is what they
called the Johar in the Arabic tradition
and then you have the the nine accidents
so you have the quality so it's a big
ball it's a little ball talk about the
size of it and then you have the the
sari the quantity and then you so that's
come and then you have cave and then you
have the time the place the possession
the position these are all the the
categories that things fall under and
how we talk about things and then you
have what are called the five arts sorry
the five predicate bowls that I'd follow
the hamsa in the Arabic tradition and
this is the genus the species the
difference the property and the accident
so the Arabs called it the jinns which
is genus same root Jin's and then you
had the new art you have the fossil you
have the hasa and then you had the Arab
and and then you had the the five arts
which are the the Sunna at their humps
these are the ways that we are
you so you have for instance Bora Han is
one type of argument that is used and
he'll do that the ISA Gogi goes into
this at the end and then another
argument is with the the majora bat
that's an argument like arguing from
experiment and things like that so you
have you have axioms you know things
that are agreed upon and then you
know you argue ha baba is an argument in
Sabah is an argument so logical
fallacies are ways that people argue and
those are in the five arts because
sophistical reasoning is a tie it's a
it's a fin people learn it lawyers learn
it they know how to use it there's books
on how to effectively trick people they
study them in if you get a degree in
marketing you'll learn all about that
and then the topics the topics the topos
are you know the things that we use in
argument and this is one of the six
books that the Organon was called the
topics and this involves working with
the five predicate bowls things like
compare and contrast it's related to
rhetoric in that way and then the ystem
dad when you look at the esteemed at
what the ystem that is is what does it
derive its sources from yes the midterm
in Asia what's the method of the science
you mid to who what what's what gives it
it's the flow right the you know the the
mid will Jessa in Arabic is this a meta
forest and dad met and Jessa you have
the ebb and the flow so the tide ebbs it
goes out and then the Med is it comes in
so method is a Sufi terminology as well
right so the what what's giving it its
method what's giving it its flow what's
what's what's coming to give it its
power and so logic does not derive its
sources from any other science
so for instance v derives its sources
from Quran Sunnah hadith right PS these
are the sources each man logic doesn't
drive its source from any other science
it is the singular introductory science
and its sources are observation and
intuition logic is basic tools are
intuited concepts and concomitant
propositions that stem from them
concepts involve the minds abstraction
of universals from particulates which
enables definition propositions involved
composing or separating concepts in a
subject predicate form upon which
judgment is based these two operations
of the mind are how we reason
deductively are inductively in the third
act of the mind argument or
demonstration these three mental
operations are the sources of logic
which is essentially an analytical
inquiry into these acts of the mind
which enable us to reason soundly and
avoid the pitfalls common to an
untrained mind its sources and
foundations such as the laws of identity
non-contradiction
and the excluded middle are rooted in
self-evident truths that is any truth
the opposite of which is impossible to
conceive so in in for the Americans here
you know one of the American Creed's one
of our common notions in the United
States is that all men are created equal
right that's in the Constitution in the
Declaration of Independence but what
does he say before that we hold these
truths to be self-evident so what he's
saying is it's us common notion it's a
self-evident truth a self-evident truth
is something the opposite of which is
inconceivable that's a self-evident
truth so that's an that's probably more
of a piece of rhetoric because it's not
so self-evident you have to define those
terms what do you mean by equality
because people are clearly some people
are faster than other people some people
are stronger than other people some
people are taller
some people are lighter darker people
aren't the same so you're using a
mathematical cons
and you're applying it in a sociological
sense which is very problematic right
but we can understand something
intuitively for us it's much easier for
us to say that it's self-evident because
we've been taught certain things in the
modern world that a lot of pre-modern
peoples didn't have but the Prophet SAW
I sent I would argue is the first person
to actually argue that an S of silesia
as nan and mission I don't think you'll
find any any person in human history
before the Prophet I would challenge
somebody to do that to show me a quote
because Aristotle the greatest mind of
the ancient world arguably said there
are people that are natural slaves
because of their inferiority to other
people and women are naturally inferior
to men and that was Aristotle's opinion
which was held by many many people
educated people all over the world for
centuries but the prophet saw I sent him
said no people are equal but they're
also not equal so he meant they were
equal in the eyes of God as human beings
but they are unequal in what they do and
so we're created equal were born equal
but we don't grow up equal right there
are people that that are more beneficial
than others and the prophets Eliza them
said that Hydra comb Hydra comb right
he said Heydrich o Muhammad Allah I'm
Fatima Ali he the best of you and and
those most beloved to God are those that
are most beneficial to his creation to
his dependents which are all these
things that depend on God so that just
means creation really everything but
humans are first and foremost the
dependents of God that most things are
just here to sustain and so
the those three laws are the are these
are the axioms of logic if you if you
don't accept them or understand them
you'll never understand logic so the
first one is the law of identity and the
law of identity is very simple it's
things are what they are right a is a
and a is not not a right there's double
negative a is not not a in other words a
is a so a thing is what it is an
identity right is something that's
identical something else is the same
so identity is your sameness right so
I'm Jed is not aside then we can
differentiate between the two even
though they're brothers they're not the
same they're different and Amjad can't
be Assad than Assad can't be em yet
that's a law of identity the law of
non-contradiction is related to the law
of identity and the law of the excluded
middle is also related that in fact the
law of non-contradiction the law of the
excluded middle some will argue that
they're the same thing and just looking
at from two perspective but there is a
subtle difference between the two but
the law of non-contradiction is simply
that something cannot be and not be at
the same time right something cannot you
know I'm Jed cannot be on Jed and aside
at the same time he's either I'm Jo
Dory's Assad one or the other I'm sorry
to use you as an example but you're
right in front of me so that and then
the law of excluded middle is arguing
that there's not a middle position where
it can be you know it that it's it's
it's either a or it's not a it has to be
one or the other so in in these three
laws of thought this is the foundation
of logic these are axioms so this is the
ystem dad is from intuitive now one of
the things I mentioned last night was
about quantum physics and where the laws
of logic
they break down well there is a law
called the law of the inclusive middle
which is exemplified in certain aspects
of quantum mechanics and the law of the
inclusive middle is also a Buddhist
concept in the Nagarjuna logic which is
an Indian logic that came out of
Buddhism they will argue for the
included middle so something can be
something and not be that thing at the
same time so a light can act as a
particle and a wave particles and waves
are two different things because a wave
is more like a line and a particle is
more like a point right and a point is
not a line a line is made up of points
but it's not a point right so if
something is a point in a line at the
same time then you've got included
middle it's not an exclusive middle
because it's a thing and it's it's
something else at the same time the
Ishod e's use this law of the included
middle in some of their formations and
that's why when you talk about God God
transcends logic he's outside of the
categories and there are certain logical
things that even though we use logic in
theology there are certain things where
it breaks down and what an example of
that is that God is neither create and
neither connected nor disconnected from
his creation so the ashati and logicians
the ashati muta caddy moon say that
allah is a halo with the sanam be hunky
he will hate him false in a nun who he's
neither connected nor disconnected don't
put him in either of those and the
reason for that is because both of them
are problematic so they suspended that
judgment and said that it's neither nor
in this case which is breaks the law of
the excluded middle and the law of
non-contradiction because if we say God
is connected to his creation then what
we're saying is
that the corruptable is part of the
incorruptible or the divine because we
know that creation is by its very nature
corruptible whereas if we say that he's
disconnected then we have a separate
existence beside God so so they chose to
say he is neither connected nor
disconnected this is a super irrational
if you like we're renting to into the
room we're out of Newtonian physics and
we're into quantum physics this this is
a different and these are murajjab and
woods not everything works in logic
logic breaks down but it works in the
realm of Shetty it works in the realm of
cause-and-effect that's here in reality
the majority of Muslims historically did
not believe in cause and effect and this
is even Tamiya one of even tamiya´s real
problems with a shoddy kaanum is that
the Saudis were arguing that what in the
West is attributed to malabon she was a
French Metta physician and they called
occasional ISM Hume also hints at this
although he wasn't an occasional s but
he did argue that we cannot in any way
we cannot assume you know if I do that
intuitively we say that the force of
this acting on this created that sound
what Hume argues is that that's just an
assumption we've seen it so many times
that we assume you know if a then B so
if if this hits this we get the sound he
said that's actually a type of fallacy
this therefore that right the probe
there hoc fallacy so he argues that
that's just the mind does that right to
be fair to the Ashanti's they did argue
that by Shetty there is cause and effect
but in Hakata
there isn't so again at the Newtonian
level they were arguing for Newtonian
law so if you push somebody onto an
oncoming train you caused his death
and you can't say oh there's no
cause-and-effect God did that I'm just a
suburb right you can't make that
argument in an Islamic Shetty out court
no you caused his death but if we look
at it from the istikhara the fit of the
actual action is an action of God he
enabled and that's why tophi occurs when
he enables you to do good killed 11 is
winning and enables you to do bad and
what you're doing is the cusp
so you're acquiring that so this is this
is the way our scholars interpreted and
arguably most of modern physics would
probably argue they're moving towards
that worldview cause and effect in fact
if anybody was following the accelerator
events that happened in burnin in
Switzerland did anybody follow that
right where they're actually seeing
these particles faster than the speed of
light I mean they're basically arguing
we're gonna have to throw cause and
effect out the window if this proves to
be true and they've replicated the
experiment several times so they're
really I mean they're saying it's
undermining so many of their principles
but primarily cause and effect so you
know but cause and effect is the realm
of Sharia but in how pika
most of our scholars argued that there
is no cause and effect there it only
appears that way that in reality every
act is an instantaneous creation whether
you're part of Yoruba Cikini when we
through who you're part of it's asking
if in the hula hope you wash up
hallelujah ba ba ba don't say that the
knife cuts don't say that the fire burns
because that there should be an
intermediary between God's actions and
the action itself the those of innermost
understanding deny that they say it's
impossible so this is an argument that
basically I mean we're getting into
theology a little bit but it's all
related this is the thing I mean we you
know in in the West they've recently
discovered what they call
interdisciplinary studies right
I mean Muslims were never they didn't
have separate disciplines in that way
they saw they had a unified
understanding of knowledge it's a
holistic understanding that all of these
knowledge is relate to each other but
they have what is is better called
transdisciplinary as opposed to
interdisciplinary it transcends the
separateness of these disciplines and
recognizes the interdependence of these
disciplines that that that they're all
really hovering around the same thing
which is existence I mean all everything
because logic is just about existence
it's we're talking about the world
that's why we use logic we're talking
about things in the world so it's all
about metaphysics in the end and
metaphysics you know the great questions
of metaphysics why is there a world
where did the world come from what are
we supposed to do while we're here in
the world and given that we see that the
world ends ie we end I mean the world
might go on but as far as we're
concerned we're gone what happens after
we go if anything these are metaphysical
questions and these are the only real
questions in the world all the other
things you know gee the price of
tomatoes what do you think about that I
mean that is not serious in the light of
your mortality right you know
you think the Yankees are gonna win this
year that is not a really important
question in the scheme of things but
these are the things that people
preoccupy themselves from the big
questions by being obsessed with the
little questions right small-mindedness
and then finally know we've got a few
more the founder and while there the
founder of something is the one that
posited it first and there you know
what's interesting is we had books well
he nodded and asked it he wrote a book
called Keith havin a lion which is a
book of all the first things that
happened like who you know who started
grammar like one day somebody was
sitting around thinking you know we say
these things and why are they in the
order that they're in and what's the
difference between this thing that we're
saying and this thing you know Oh hmm
this one relates to time whereas this
one doesn't
I mean somebody came up with these
things at some point reflected on them
and thought about them I mean Euclid if
you study Euclid it's where did he get
those ideas like whoa where why did they
start thinking about these thing where
did the Pythagorean theorem come from I
mean how did they work that out how did
that how did they how did they work out
the universal law of gravity I mean what
is that like an apple fell on his head
and that's it
I mean how did that well you know just
amazing insights so who's the first one
reasoning is elemental to the human
condition I mean people have been
reasoning as long as we've been here
thinking we're rational beings reasoning
is elemental the human kitchen we're all
gifted naturally with the powers of
reason that govern our action
everybody's doing things for reasons I'm
going to Turkey to study
I'm going to Turkey to have a good time
I'm going to Turkey to see the Topkapi
I'm going to Turkey to find a manuscript
I'm going to Turkey to visit Oh Elly I'm
going to Turkey to get married right
people go to places for reasons and if
they don't there we say they're nuts
like why are you here if you don't know
where you're going any road will get you
there why are you here
you know I'm I'm still thinking about it
haven't worked it out I'm that you can
be in that place as well I'm here
because my mom told me to come and
that's a reason your mom had a reason
you might not or your reason is you're
just being a good Muslim you know doing
what your mom said that's a reason so
according to Muslim sources logic as a
codified science was first developed by
the ancients and remained latent in
other words they hid it from people so
when you read the Muslim early Muslim
books of logic that's what they argue
that they kept it it was too dangerous
to teach people because it can be used
for good and evil
it's a dangerous art in that way because
it's a it's a powerful tool and if you
have this tool you can do a lot of good
with it but you can do a lot of evil and
sophis master this Sophists are our
masters of certain elements that are
found in this science and then Aristotle
who died in 322 I think he's born around
384 Aristotle recorded its rules to find
his terms and revealed its secrets he's
called Aristotle ease or at a stall
right in the Greek tradition he wrote
the six books known collectively as the
organ on which means the tool the Allah
and they're considered the first books
on logic and thus he is typically
considered the founder or the first
teacher of logic so he wrote this
organon that had this the categories the
ten categories he defines those and as a
book on interpretation de interpretación
a and then he's got the prior analytics
the posterior analytics he's got the
topics and then he's got the on
sophistical reasoning like how you can
argue the fallacies so in the Islamic
tradition and Farabi who dies in 961 or
350 and Hadera is considered the second
teacher they call them and Marana
Matheny and then Farabi was a great
intellect to a truly great intellect he
was he was once asked and there's
there's some humility but it's argue
that there's not a whole lot but he was
asked if if he would have had he been
alive at the time Aristotle would would
have he surpassed Aristotle he said no
but I would have been his best student
so so he basically introduced logic he
studied it here in Turkey and he
actually when he arrived in Holub he
arrived wearing Turkish clothes
Byzantine clothes this actually a
Turkish hat by the way this was a
Byzantine hat that the Muslims adopted
after they conquered Constantinople so
the fast they caught the fast in Morocco
the fast actually spread from Turkey but
anyway he he he went to to Aleppo and he
spoke 70 languages he was a master of
music he knew all the Mohammed and I
have a friend of mine from Nubia who's
Egyptian some you might know him but
Hamza Aladeen he was a good player
brilliant musician but he knew he knew
the mama likey - least he gave me the
book of Al Farabi because al música
kitab-o-moosa al kabir the big music
book and it's like it's this thick it's
the biggest book in my library single
book but he gave me that book and it's
all the Mohammed's
and in there are the secrets of music
the the which they used to use here in
Anatolia and and they still do as five
her dear still in Turkey people that
know the science of healing through
musical instruments the using the
Mohammed and they do this also in in
Morocco in there were Mary stands in
Andalusia Morocco Iraq where they would
treat people from with their mental
diseases they would treat them using
mom's to to try to re harmonize the
imbalances in the body through sound
because sound has an effect and this is
why people move when they when they hear
sound you know you have a startled
movement because it affects you the
sound affects you so sound is very
powerful which is why the code is so
powerful because the these are sacred
sounds that are affecting resonating in
you and that's why doing them either
even silent dhikr is is has that effect
also so anyway and Farabi when he went
to to Hannah
they came in and somebody you know they
were there a bunch of aluminum out there
they used to have the much this and the
ruler there was there and he asked him
if he knew anything no he he was he was
sitting in and one of the servants spoke
a dialect and he couldn't understand
what the ruler was saying and so Farabi
explained it to the servant and he said
oh do you do you speak their diet their
tongue and he said see who said they're
in Aloha
I can speak 70 languages and he said
Jesse no Shannon at arabiya
you know something about Arabic he said
you know test me out
and so the grammarian started talking to
him and finally they just said he's he's
ahead of all of us and then they fit
Papa has said you know and then he asked
him do you know anything about music he
said bring me a note so they brought him
in and
then he played til they all laughed and
then he played till they all cried and
then he put them to sleep so he knew and
which is one of the reasons why you know
Plato warned about music in the Republic
because of its effects on the soul and
some of the automatic prohibit music
argue it's because of the effects that
it has it's it's it's called te matua
Satyan which is not the thing in and of
itself but what the effects of the thing
and most musicians don't know what
they're doing how they're affecting
people's souls
so some music will drive people mad and
it's clear if you just see certain
concerts how people start behaving it's
the music that's doing it to them and
they might like it because it's a
Dionysian experience it's very ecstatic
and wild and out of the body but often
aided and abetted with illegal
substances but nonetheless it's very
dangerous and if you change the modes of
music you'll affect the whole culture so
great ships and culture happened when
musical shifts occur according to that
theory ethos theory
so later even Cena who died in 428 1037
attempted to provide for the Muslim
world what Aristotle did for the
Hellenic civilization and encyclopedic
work covering logic natural science
mathematics the metaphysics but and then
he the lot he wrote a book called the
Shiva which is very similar to the organ
on he has a section on the Iliad which
is theology and but it's basically an
organ on of logic and that key became
the basis for Arabic logic it has some
differences in its metaphysical
assumptions after mastering even Cena's
work Imam al-ghazali removed what he
deemed any objection 'el aspects of it
and then he wrote five works of varying
levels of difficulty
so America's Adi wrote these books on
logic to help students and I think the
most interesting of them is called it
estas and mu stopping which is where he
argues against a botany person and
esotericist he argues that the way you
judge is not through the imam assume
like some hidden occultic knowledge that
a teacher has but the way you judge is
is using the Crispus on mustaqim that he
says is in the quran and so he shows how
the Quran teaches you logic so he uses
that book as a book of logic but it's
only from the Quran a very interesting
book its relationship to other Sciences
its relation to other Sciences is that
of a universal to a particular as all
other Sciences are comprised of concepts
propositions and arguments so every
science has concepts you study grammar
there's concepts the verb is a concept
in grammar it has a definition right the
noun is a concept and then propositions
there are propositions in any science
and then there's reasoning also so you
make arguments based on your terms and
on your and on your propositions the
virtue and the right and it's called in
the West they call that liberal arts a
liberal art according to Aristotle a
liberal person a free man is somebody
who lives for his own sake a slave lives
for another sake which is why if your ad
the law you live for the sake of Allah
but if you're free to other people
you're not living for their sake you're
a free man in that way and and so the
the liberal arts are arts that are
studied for their own sake they're not
studied for like a vocational art so you
study some arts for others sake so
Aristotle and the Muslims would later
take this categorization have they have
productive arts practical arts and then
they have theoretical arts so the
productive arts are
things like carpentry you learn how to
make things that's a that's a productive
art and then you have the practical arts
that are beneficial like politics and
ethics or medicine right and then you
have the theoretical and he and in in
the modern world because of not
philosophical pragmatism but because of
moral pragmatism you know or or sorry
sociological pragmatism theoretical
sciences are seen really as a waste of
time but the ancients put them first and
foremost the highest Sciences were those
that were for their own sake like
theology it's it's not it's not studied
as a practical or a productive art it's
studied to know fandom no phanom right
know that there's no god but Allah just
know that I mean obviously there's
benefits but in essence it's to know
because you were created to know Maha
doctoring so agenda Eleni I'll go to an
eight Li a typhoon come apart even our
best to know me and to know him is to
love him and to love him is to worship
Him so in in the in the Muslim world
they were called illumined Anna the
instrumental arts these are arts that
help you understand and then you have
father to who or shut off ahora Tibet -
who all three are used the the the
virtue and rank is its rank in relation
to other Sciences and this is important
in terms of the hierarchical nature of
science Marathi balloon that we have
marked Tibet we are Marathi below Jude
Marathi balloon there-there's degrees of
knowledge and alumina silica and Monahan
I ask you for beneficial knowledge right
and in the Mayan felony the prophets
sought refuge in knowledge --is that
were not beneficial and then what's the
most beneficial knowledge the Omaha PI
you do some for war well I saw wound
to be hushirat that was the traditional
hierarchical nature of knowledge aha
Mahalo a kite the most important are
right thinking and then the next
metaphor what right action right
behavior how to behave properly from
meta so wolf right states were added to
be hushirat and a tool that you begin
with grammar logic and rhetoric so you
need those tools to begin the most
important obviously is via so given its
Universal benefit visa via other
Sciences logic is an overarching science
its subject matter concepts propositions
and arguments is integral to every other
science hence scholars have always
considered it a necessary propaedeutic
science and a means to sound knowledge
well as ends other sciences surpass
logic and rank so in terms of ends other
sciences are more important but in terms
of means it's one of the most important
so logic and rank its supreme virtue is
as a means that ensures intellectual
rigor in the pursuit of knowledge the
hokum ashada
is the final the legal category the
opinions of scholars can be categorized
as to those who consider the study of
logic Minh Dube recommended permitted
jazz or MOBA 3 a collective obligation
for casaya
and finally muharram prohibited the
first opinion recommended is that of
most theologians and legal theorists the
old Saudi scholars so the most kennyman
and little suebian
most of them argued that it was men do
and many of jurors including imam
al-ghazali according to one narration
even out of the great monarchy jurors
from tunis and OB great monarchy jurist
a Sanusi great monarchy jurist and this
is the sound disappear so according to
most scholars the second opinion is that
logic is permissible for those whose
intellect is sound and who have
knowledge of the book and the sooner
this is the opinion of Tuffy
Sukie he great chatty scholar from Syria
died in 7:56 1355 and the third opinion
is that it is an obligation this is the
opinion of ultimate act Annie they had
fought Aberdeen at foe pani he lived in
the room over him and they had Dean
attacked Annie so they were they were
both in teachers in the same madrasa and
they were both logicians so he
considered him watching as mentioned by
a jury and as our Connie in the chapter
on jihad because they always deal with
the Frederica fire in the chapters on
jihad some argued that the obligation
was individual because sound knowledge
of God relies upon sound reasoning and
others said it was collective because
the religion is made safe by protecting
its beliefs and that has to be done
through the use of reasoned this is the
opinion of Imam Lucy who he's called the
Ghazali of the West he was a great great
Moroccan scholar died in 1650 or 1060
Hadera and then of Imam al-ghazali and
is yeah so Imam al-ghazali there appears
to be two different opinions but given
how much emphasis he put on it it's
arguable that he saw it as a
failure for people that were working in
either Kalam or all salute film the
fourth opinion held by such formal
scholars is even Salah Imam and Noah we
Seop and even Samia is that
preoccupation with logic is prohibited
however our scholars concluded that what
they were actually prohibiting was not
logic per se but rather philosophical
logic specifically the metaphysical
foundations of it and the false
conclusions derived from them on the
contrary logic is none other than the
grammar of thought that's what they
called it Imam al-ghazali calls it the
now a knockin it's the grammar of the
intellect
just like now is the grammar of the
tongue he said it is to the intellect
what grammar is to the tongue and
furthermore and also our scholars
codified it and purified it of any
ungrounded epistemic speculations
contained in philosophical logic
furthermore given that the cause of the
prohibition was removed the effect
became null and void so the reason being
that in a legal ruling based on
Scholastic opinion a cause cannot be
disassociated from an effect in its
presence in its absence so in in the
Sharia and in the to to doodle and
manually Rubin were Adam and this is a
Qaeda and so when when the reason for
the thing is there the hokum is there
when the reason is no longer there the
ruling is no longer there so the reason
for its prohibition was philosophical
speculation if there's logic without
philosophical speculation then it gets
removed now I would argue and this is
for whatever it's worth my two cents I
would argue that for Part C for Western
students and people that are exposed to
a lot of these ideas that are out there
and their formidable ideas
post-modernism is real the academia is
filled with philosophical and
epistemological assumptions one of the
things that you'll find if you go into
studies in any of the social sciences or
Islamic studies for instance you'll find
that nominalism is the dominant approach
to their epistemology they do not
believe in essences anymore they don't
believe that human nature has an essence
which is why homosexuality is viewed you
know the dominant theory is a bundle
theory of human beings that were just a
bundle of contradictions neuroplasticity
that we move in and out of states that
we have no fixed essence there's it's
all accidents right so these are these
are ideas that you're going to be
confronted with in your life and you
might not be able to identify them
because you haven't studied them but
that you're being affected by them and
so I would argue that the enema today if
they really understood what was going on
and unfortunately a lot of our own AMA
there we have different types but the
majority of our
are just trying to hold on to to this
tradition as best they can and they're
not really engaging the intellectual
ideas of the world but one of the
obligations of scholars is rubbish
abides you cannot make a you know you
cannot deal with obfuscation 'z with all
of these philosophical problems if you
don't understand them I don't want to
hear somebody who has a degree in Shetty
I give me a legal ruling about evolution
I don't want to hear them do that I want
somebody who knows Islamic theology
really well and who knows evolutionary
biology really well at a very high level
I want to hear their opinion Imam
al-ghazali before he made judgments
about the philosophers he wrote a book
called Mufasa that a philosopher it's
it's a pretty neutral book he bases you
so here's what they say it was kind of
like during his time it would be like
philosophy for dummies and a lot of
other 'mo were really upset with him
because he made philosophy so clear that
even common people could understand it
so and these books for dummies are
written by experts in those fields very
often but what he did was he followed
that up with to half of them philosophy
so what he did first he showed them look
I know what you're talking about
here's why you're wrong we just say
here's why you're wrong
I don't really know what you're talking
about but here's why you're wrong that
that's the modern approach so we get
people you know and then we have people
that grapple with these issues and
unfortunately they evolve in the public
space sometimes we had a young scholar
from England who caused a bit of a stir
by saying he believed in evolution and
but he was a physicist you know he's
trained in the highest levels of science
and this in I'm talking about the West
in the Western which is now globalized
here as well it's everywhere and he had
some background in Islamic Sciences and
he's grappling with these issues I don't
think you should grapple with them in
the public space because people you
shake up common people you cause
problems and I think there's better ways
of doing that but these are problems of
our time and to simply just write them
off and not deal with them not
understand them
it's hard enough though to be fair it's
hard enough just to learn this tradition
on its own let alone learn another
tradition and that's why we really need
people of HT HOD people that are willing
to really struggle hard and work hard
too so that they can understand these
issues and and and provide guidance for
people because a lot of people are
confused we have lots of young Muslims
confused about evolution because they
study it and it's taught us fact you
know and you know like there's a man
here in Turkey that writes all these
books about evolution but they're not
going they're not going to convince
somebody at Cambridge or Harvard or I
mean they might be useful for simple
people that you're trying to protect
there's probably some validity to that
approach but in terms of really
grappling with these problems you need
really trained intellects and logic is
one of the tools that you need to be
fortified with and arguably symbolic
logic as well because that's very much
in the arsenal of the enemy any
questions
so I could can you repeat the Muslim
understanding of transdisciplinary
knowledge and how we understand the
categories as opposed to and how it all
kind of this term that came from Piaget
back in the 70s
I like the IJ he's famous child
psychologist because I tested some of
these things on my own kids at the
appropriate age and they didn't work so
I know not totally convinced but he had
this idea of the holistic nature of
knowledge and transdisciplinary approach
is an approach that transcends the idea
of separateness in these so
interdisciplinary is working within
between disciplines so you
interdisciplinary studies will utilize
the tools of historical methodology you
know a sociological methodology might
bring in some of the hard sciences this
interdisciplinary transdisciplinary is
really recognizing that there is a meta
discipline that involves a holistic
understanding of the relationship of
knowledge --is that knowledge azar
related to each other
and this is this is extremely important
because Muslims really saw all knowledge
as facets on a diamond the diamond was
one and they really understood and
that's why when you get into later
scholastic tradition in Islam a good
example of that is Imam at about Judy
he's he's bringing in logic rhetoric
grammar theology fit it's all in one
book the book is primarily on logic or
or hadith or I mean he wrote on many
subjects he was mostly a wrote glosses
on other works but he's late tradition
so he had all the tools of the entire
tradition and you see that he's using
them all in a holistic approach and he
brings our old Intuit prosody and
amazing and and and so they didn't see
they saw all of these as working
together for enlightenment
that these were all tools for one thing
which is madatha and and and they were
all helpful towards that end is that is
that clear
why they don't believe in cause and
effect in the Ashanti school the reason
is because cause and effect if if we
accept that I can cause something or
that this can cause something that I am
giving this some kind of intrinsic power
and if I give it intrinsic power then
I'm giving something that is God's alone
la haula
well quwata illa billah' I'm giving
something that is intrinsically God's
alone and I'm attributing it to a
created thing and in that way it's a
type of it's sugarless about and so
what they argued was that in every
instant it's a new creation that home
feel absent Malkin jadeed in every
instant it's a new creation so to give
you a modern metaphor to understand this
if you've ever been in a theater when
the projector breaks down has anybody
ever had that experience when the
projector breaks down okay
now you have digital so it just all goes
crazy but in in the old days if you're
old enough to remember when they
actually had film what happens is
suddenly the frames you see the still
frames now between those still frames is
a dark space what happens is the the
projector is going so fast that it
appears to be a linear movement but in
reality their individual frames that are
frozen moving at a very fast speed
was called a magic lantern it was
invented in France and this is the
beginning of cinema and we little kids
if you ever did those little papers
where you draw the little stick men and
and then you flip them real fast and it
makes it kids love that because what
they're seeing is what it's an optical
illusion and the optical illusion is of
sync when Shiell linearity a moves to B
moves to C and it's a succession of
events according to the the dominant
opinion of the a shot ease what happens
is it's actually an on-off cycle and so
Allah is creating and destroying it's an
on/off so the that he's creating it in
each I mean we can't even say nanosecond
because we don't know that whatever time
that is it's some type of time but it's
so fast that it creates the illusion
that we feel like we're moving around
but in reality it's just one creation
and then it stops and then it's again
and then it stops so we're like those
stick men and Allah is making the thing
happen so when when the knife cuts it's
not really cutting Allah is creating an
opening so the knife is just a suburb
it's Allah who's actually recreating the
thing anew but now it's opening and then
blood and then so if you could see it if
if you had a you know what what what
Imam and Junaid called Fenna
you know annihilation if you had that
moment you'd go on to an on-off cycle
and you'd see that nothing exists that's
annihilation where you see that nothing
exists except Allah and that's why he's
a higher volume he's sustaining the
whole thing and that let her loose in
attune when unknown because if he if if
a moment of
of hafla took God the whole thing would
just disappear so his pal Mia you know
in one of the doors you know Hatta
Arafah you me Atticus Arrieta Fiji me
and maracas you know let me see your pal
Mia that's happening in every instant in
creation that Imam Ali said Mara yo
Shannon Laura it's Allah comin over
Wahiawa Bardo who I never saw anything
except I saw God in it before it in and
and after it meaning that he saw that
it's God that's doing all of this in
every instant and and and that's that is
what the position that most of the
scholars took which is arguably from
spiritual experiences that they had I
mean I find that very hard to believe in
a book on the atomic theory in history
which was written by a scholar from
England he argues that the Muslim atomic
theory is unique in the history of
civilization that nobody really came up
with that type of atomic theory before
and it's arguable that there's certain
theories now like string theory they're
very similar to to that type of
understand they're trying to work this
out there trying to get some theory of
everything that's going to explain these
four forces and how they interact and
but they don't have it because the
theory of everything is God you know and
if you're denying him how are you gonna
see him so go ahead
what's your name Cameron uh-huh sorry
come um I reckon yesterday you talked
about to define something you need to
conceptualize it right and I think the
Arabic word you use is the solver so
then how would we define God if we can't
conceptualize him and does everybody's
conceptualization differ yeah that's a
really good question the you know the
definition of God you can't put God in a
genus and you can't put them in a
species and that's why in the end our we
can't define God and and therefore we
use negative things so the argument
about is this called the via negativa in
the Latin tradition scholastic tradition
the Muslims call it the salvia right so
he has she fattest salvia the attributes
that negate the opposite so wushu does a
FIFA Neff SIA and that's why you judo at
wushu dine and mowjood and we'll get
into that when we get into the
categories and I'll explain that but
it's a good question so we don't we
don't we you know we can define God in
terms of our limited understanding of
how God has spoken about himself and
there's also rational definitions like a
Tamil Stephanie on it cool what coolin
moved to Peru aleyhi I mean that's one
definition the 20 attributes that you're
learning in Arpita is is another way of
really defining God but if you really
break it down it's working around what
is undefinable and that's why cool
mahaprabhu Vatika although he left with
Attica everything that occurs to the
mind God is other than that and so we
cannot in reality define Allah other
than how he has described himself so we
use our awesome and not had really the
descriptions that God has given us that
he is that he is fine that he is valued
that he is a party that he's a Lennie
that he's a Jabbar that he's medical
caduceus Raman
Mahima NIM how can we know him well in
the same way that there are things that
that you can grasp right without
definition so there are there are ways
of understanding God and grasping God
but in the end you'll you'll never know
his essence his essence is completely
unknowable and the only way you can know
him is through his see fat and the fat
in the end are our the the our scholars
don't use the term accident for God
because when we get into categories you
understand why but to see fats in
relation to that that are like the
vanilla hand method Ilana
they're like the accidents in relation
to the to their essence mm-hmm so I'm
like following from your previous
differentiation between concepts names
and subjects can a person believe in the
concept of God without using the name of
God or knowing that the subject of the
concept in which they believe in is God
I mean here you have people who say they
don't believe in God and you ask them
yeah do you believe in something and it
pretty much same yeah it's a good again
we get back to what you know what was
just talked about that when you say the
concept of God in reality we don't have
a concept of God we don't have a tussle
water what we have is a type of
understanding right there's a type of
modifier that we have and and that
modify has degrees at the most basic
level it's a man which is toss deal so
we know that that God is rajababu Jude
and and Rajeev is a concept who Jude as
a concept and that's why we know God
analogically like Allah SWA notices
LASIK Amitha t he shade
well who was Samia and bossy oh there
there is nothing like God so don't any
tough so what do you have got as other
than that and then it says and that was
called is Steph and yet and yet he hears
and he sees so how do we know hearing
and seeing
we know hearing and seeing because we
have hearing and seeing well via unfussy
comb after that tops your own in your
own selves don't you see so we can
conceptualize hearing and seeing but
when we relate that hearing and seeing
to God we have to get rid of any
conceptualization that it's like our
hearing and seeing LASIK emitted ishe so
there's no touch be in reality but you
know you have tangia and touch via but
you need to be to approximate this is
called terrible mani to approximate the
meanings alright so if somebody says I
don't believe in God
first you you need to define what they
don't believe in so you can say I don't
believe in this God that came down and
died for our sins you could say well I
don't believe in that God either so
we're both atheists of that God right
and then we can discuss other
understandings right but in the end we
you know alone RC Athena and I can't
accommodate an f ck we can't ever say
what you are we but we can only say what
you said about yourself go to Allah who
I had a low summit let me I did what I'm
you don't want to be kuku fauna had our
scholars say that negates the eight ways
that people fall in to shirk so those
are all negative approaches to God they
negate concepts of God who Allah who I
had that negates the concept that God is
plural or that he's composite right one
is not a number and this is one of
Euclid's in book in one of his books I
think it's book seven he says that that
you
it is that thing which we call one
that's a unit that's a Wagga and then he
said number is a multitude of units so
one is not a number every number is a
multiple of one but one is not a number
so when we talk about God we're saying
that he is one and that's negating Petra
and to add dude it negates the idea that
he's composite that he's made up of
parts so he's a simple reality simple I
mean by that there's no parts it's
infinite simplicity there's it's pure
oneness and then allow some odd that
negates the haja if T as knucks it
negates deficiency and ie so it negates
we can't conceive of God as needing
anything or having any blemishes
he's salam he's perfect sad in one
minute are you and then lemmya did what
amulet that negates Elna when luleå it
negates cause and effect
nothing caused God and God is not the
cause of anything in a cause-and-effect
relationship in other words that cause
and effect cannot be separated right so
we can't one of the things Aristotle his
problem with God he called him the prime
mover because he said that God is the
uncaused cause of all existence so we
say that God is the cause of existence
but we say it Maja's on we say it to say
that he's not not a cause do you see I
mean these are these are you were
getting into advance Kadam and it's you
know you really need a lot of
preparation to get into into these
concepts but God says being it is an
American failure kunu that fight is not
suburbia if it was suburbia it would be
Mizzou
he says kun fea Kuno be and it is so
there's no there's no God is is not
interacting in his creation in a cause
and effectual way in that way that
things are interacting with other things
in a cause-and-effect way Julia and then
when I'm your Kula Hawk of one I had Yin
fee a Shiva one of the year you know
that he could have shabeeha no not via
that he has a likeness or an opposite so
the devil in you know if you get into a
hora Mazda a hairy man and a hora Mazda
and do dual dualistic thinking the devil
is seen as a another of God you know
that there's a dark God and a light god
that's a dualistic Manichaean thinking
that's negated by that
so the pululahua had is the the via
negativa of our tradition it is the it
yes leave oh and you know and what Kufra
samanya it negates those eight types of
Kufa and that's why ever really
understands if Klaus understands so he'd
at least in at that level does that help
yeah it's is that valid though if the
person even believes in God or believes
in the concept in the way that you you
have described it but they don't know
what to be God that I mean is that
designation a lot to judge you know I
can't we can't you know what is doomed
wants them to be Aquabats like one of
the anonymous said you were said to call
people not to judge people only a lot
can judge people you know I can't I mean
if somebody is born into a house and
there's a little kid and they're
molested from the time they're like two
years old or something like that and and
they're so messed up and they end up on
drugs and and you know crack cocaine or
whatever I mean I'm not gonna judge that
person I mean that's for God to judge
that but I'm not gonna judge that person
you know so we're living in a world
where
the Sharia is judges if you're a father
you have to judge but the party should
judge with fear and trepidation and
that's why the Prophet said two parties
in hell one in Jena you should judge
with fear and trepidation so you know we
don't know people say they're atheists I
don't know what that means I don't know
what that means I don't know how what
led them to that point and what how
God's going to judge them one of the
things that I find interesting about
atheists and I think this has to be
appreciated by somehow is that they do
more thicker than God than most
believers and they just think about God
all the time
they write books about God every
conversation you get in with an atheist
within two minutes they're talking about
God it's amazing they just they're just
obsessed with God and in some ways their
opinion of God is so high that they end
up disbelieving in him you know it's
like if their opinion is so high that
they I can't believe in God I can't
believe in a God that will allow
pedophilia I can't believe in a guy you
know this these are the arguments along
to use it and who is it for me to say
that's a that's rubbish you're just
saying that you know there's certain you
know the cheese-and-cracker crowd you
know I mean you know having their wine
and you know I dunno how these people
can believe in God you know
really quite absurd they're imaginary
friends you know you know that kind of
there's a certain arrogance of those
type people but some of them people in
the greatest tribulation are are the
biggest believers I mean that's what's
so amazing about people in really
difficult dire circumstances and yet
they don't give up their faith in God
and they believe in a lots of behind
with data so you know there's there's
it's just not for us to judge people you
know and people can move in and out of
faith you know what you shouldn't feel
so secure about your faith you should
ask Allah for us to know ha tema and be
concerned about that I mean there's
Christians that have lost their faith
that's why these Christians say I asked
a Muslim they always doubt whether
they're going to heaven or not they
don't know but we know we're going to
heaven you don't know where there's
Christians that ended up leaving
Christianity becoming atheists Bart
Ehrman you know writing books why it's
not true and they were devout
fundamentalist Christians so people can
lose their faith Muslims lose their
faith there's people that lose their
faith in Islam you know but why and what
are the reasons and what led up to that
I don't know I mean there's people that
drive people out of Islam to prove its
allies that I'm said that he was the
advocate for the dimi that was
mistreated ano moppy amma like he's
gonna be his lawyer with god to say he
didn't he didn't see the real Islam he
was mistreated by Muslims he said that
on a huh small man other than me and
you'll know qiyama
I'm the advocate of a vim me on the day
of judgment so he's gonna actually say
don't judge him the way you would judge
somebody else cuz what happened to him
was it right so there's going to be
people in Mahmoud Abbas Adi says that if
Islam was presented in a distorted way
and somebody rejects it they're not
rejecting true Islam they're rejecting a
distortion and he says that he didn't
think they'd be taken to account for
that he says that and fights with a
taffeta cloud so
all right so any other questions I
didn't I've been kind of it's not when I
come I'm not sure if I've understood the
negatives but how would you then
reconcile for example what God says
about himself in terms of his
omnipotence and certain negatives for
example he cannot lie well like I said
what you have to what you have to
understand is that you can you can
conceptualize attributes but you can't
conceptualize the essence so we can have
a conceptualization of attributes of God
like we can conceptualize power but then
we have to recognize that that power is
not like our power but but the essence
of God you can't conceptualize it and
you can't define without conceptualizing
in essence and in that way the
definitions of God are all negative
definitions the work I think dr. Cleary
I mean dr. winter one of his contentions
is that theology is the search for the
least silly definition of God 22:22
yeah theology is the quest for the least
silly definition of God so I mean he's
pretty much saying the same thing that
we you know we define God but in the end
we're defining the undefinable so you
just always have to keep that in mind
that the Qaeda is leisa committed he che
that's the foundation of all Islamic
theology there's nothing like God
so his knowledge is not like our
knowledge but we have some approximation
of what that means because we have
knowledge like he put his attributes in
us in a limited temporal way we have
divine attributes speaking Kalam yada
some besar these are these are divine
attributes of God but there are only
approximations to for us to get a hint
at what that means
even the arkarow all the descriptions of
paradise in the Quran even a bath said
they said the Quran in the lace
virginity minute duniya Allah as smell
the only thing in paradise that's the
same as this world is the names so he's
saying the same thing even about the
creation of paradise it's male I know
and rats what are the known seminars
what I hopped on a puppy pusher jenna is
what no eye has seen no ear has heard
and no thought has ever been
conceptualized in the mind of a human if
that's about paradise then what is God
and that's just that's another creation
and we still can't conceive of it I was
guinness sorry kosher so based on this
logic is the tool by which we study all
the other sciences but it doesn't work
for Peter or we don't use it I mean much
about Peter laid our peda is it uses
logic a lot I mean for instance the
there are different bara Hien for the
existence of God the quran uses logic it
uses you know
ronita manor is a proof that God uses in
the Quran Borana topic for instance the
the idea that God is uncreated that you
can't have an infinite regress the
argument from contingency these are all
logical arguments and they're studied in
syllogistic form in the Muslim
scholastic tradition and they're you
know I mean most philosophers in the
West after Conte will argue that to use
a very hackneyed academic statement that
you can't really define you you can't
you can't prove the existence of God I
mean that's pretty much that's one of
Kant's arguments that you can't prove it
and that's even Tamia's argument as well
he argued against using logic with God
he just said it's waste of time and in
that way he's very content or can't it's
very tiny in or something like that so
but for me these are fifth oral
arguments the idea that something can
come from nothing is intuitively so it's
so against our fifth nature and so even
though quantum physics is trying to make
this argument now and there's people
like Stephen Hawking that are obsessed
with this and there's a recent slew of
books that have been written on this
subject that we've finally proven that
the universe can come from nothing you
know I don't know Allah says in surah
that calf that we didn't show you the
creation the beginning of it we need
even show the beginning of your own
creation you know so I that argument for
me is very you know but you know kundo
hadith and mahalo lucano hadith he then
had Kohima look you know that's the
argument in a really simplistic form but
the the argument for the cosmological
Kalam cosmological argument is arguably
the last argument Stan
I mean even most philosophers will have
to admit that all the arguments have
pretty much fallen by the wayside except
for the clam I mean there's some that
will argue the ontological argument is
still an argument but like the
teleological most philosophers will not
take that argument seriously
I personally teleological is very
convincing to me it certainly was a
traditional Muslim argument but the the
Kannamma cosmological argument which is
a very sophisticated argument that you
cannot have an actual infinity and by
that it means an infinity of discrete
number so you can't have an infinity of
discrete things and that if we say that
the universe is infinite then it's an
it's it's an infinity of discrete things
and that's impossible the alternative to
that is obviously pantheism or
panentheism which some people will argue
for that but the Muslims were not
pantheous if an auto b was not a
pantheist even though western scholars
don't worry antlerless scholars not not
even out of these scholars of late but
the earlier scholars people like
Nicholson and others they'll say that he
was a pantheist and that's only because
they don't have any other term in their
limited mind to describe some of his
articulations but he was