Now from the sublime to the ridiculous: Sayedna's vision (the subject of this thread). What do devotees find in it other than cheap thrills of magic and miracle. These are nothing but characteristics of a peasant society. And the talk of vision and 'gaib na jannaar' twaddle is nothing but cheap and tacky tricks of a religious demagogue who apparently has everything but vision.
The fiction of 'sayedna's vision' is as much a reflection on the character of the leader as on the gullibility of his followers.
To paraphrase a popular saying:
Sayedna has no vision, long live Sayedna's vision.
Syedana’s vision
Re: Syedana’s vision
Dear Jinx, Porus, Muslim,
Please look at the responses from those after my last response. Most have agreed with what I have written...just in different words. Br. Porus is still stuck in the idea that aql means reason...it doesn't..not by theologican nor scientist. You have still no basis to your theory other than your opinion.
As a reference article for you all to read please see: http://al-islam.org/search/index.html
The Islamic Concept of Knowledge by Dr. Sayyid Wahid Akhtar
According Shiah theology, reason and analogy(qiyas) is a lower form of the Aql. I quote a snippet:
"In the Sunni world qiyas (the method of analogical deduction as propounded by Imam Abu Hanifah) is accepted as an instrument of ijtihad, but his teacher and spiritual guide, Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq ('a), gave pre-eminence to 'aql in this matter. In the entire Shi'i literature of fiqh and usul al-fiqh, 'aql is much more emphasized, because qiyas is only a form of quasi-logical argument, while 'aql embraces all rational faculties of human beings. Even intuition or mystic experience are regarded as a higher stage of 'aql."
Dear Humsafar,
Your comment is very similar to those given to the Prophet by the unbelieving pagans of Arabia. Maybe you should check yourself.
Please look at the responses from those after my last response. Most have agreed with what I have written...just in different words. Br. Porus is still stuck in the idea that aql means reason...it doesn't..not by theologican nor scientist. You have still no basis to your theory other than your opinion.
As a reference article for you all to read please see: http://al-islam.org/search/index.html
The Islamic Concept of Knowledge by Dr. Sayyid Wahid Akhtar
According Shiah theology, reason and analogy(qiyas) is a lower form of the Aql. I quote a snippet:
"In the Sunni world qiyas (the method of analogical deduction as propounded by Imam Abu Hanifah) is accepted as an instrument of ijtihad, but his teacher and spiritual guide, Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq ('a), gave pre-eminence to 'aql in this matter. In the entire Shi'i literature of fiqh and usul al-fiqh, 'aql is much more emphasized, because qiyas is only a form of quasi-logical argument, while 'aql embraces all rational faculties of human beings. Even intuition or mystic experience are regarded as a higher stage of 'aql."
Dear Humsafar,
Your comment is very similar to those given to the Prophet by the unbelieving pagans of Arabia. Maybe you should check yourself.
Re: Syedana’s vision
Aql has various stages, "darajaat", if you dont mind.
So what?
Qiyam, Islamic Scholars cannot hold candle to philosophical rigor of a University in the United Staes or Western Europe.
So what?
Qiyam, Islamic Scholars cannot hold candle to philosophical rigor of a University in the United Staes or Western Europe.
Re: Syedana’s vision
Dear Porus,
"Aql has various stages, "darajaat", if you dont mind. So what? "
---a few posts ago you didn't agree to even this. Unfortunately, your response still gives little support for your theory. I am not insinuating comparision in scholastic merit. Philosophy has experts throughout the world...however your theory is not supported by islamic, nor secular philosphy nor seculiar science.
And a small history lesson...almost all of the islamic scholars you would mock...hold degrees from the engineering to philosophy as well as degrees in a particular theology. This is the same as though of yore. Ar'Razi, Ibn Sina, Ibn Zuhur..while pioneering medicine...were also philosophers and/or tradition experts in Islam.
"Aql has various stages, "darajaat", if you dont mind. So what? "
---a few posts ago you didn't agree to even this. Unfortunately, your response still gives little support for your theory. I am not insinuating comparision in scholastic merit. Philosophy has experts throughout the world...however your theory is not supported by islamic, nor secular philosphy nor seculiar science.
And a small history lesson...almost all of the islamic scholars you would mock...hold degrees from the engineering to philosophy as well as degrees in a particular theology. This is the same as though of yore. Ar'Razi, Ibn Sina, Ibn Zuhur..while pioneering medicine...were also philosophers and/or tradition experts in Islam.
Re: Syedana’s vision
Qiyam,
Aql is reason. According to your quote, "'aql embraces all rational faculties". 'Rational' meaning (according to Collins) 1. using reason or logic in thinking out a problem. 2. in accordance with the principles of logic or reason; reasonable. I hope we can at least define aql as reason or logical thinking. Aql is a function of the advanced human brain. Emotion is NOT a part of reason! You do not need reason to express emotion. Your thought process might be affected by past emotions in memory, but they need not. Emotion is a function of the lower brain that even lower life forms possess. So you can see lower life forms expressing emotions such as rage over territorial rights or affection for their mates, but never do you see them solving complex math problems. Or at least I haven't.
Aql is reason. According to your quote, "'aql embraces all rational faculties". 'Rational' meaning (according to Collins) 1. using reason or logic in thinking out a problem. 2. in accordance with the principles of logic or reason; reasonable. I hope we can at least define aql as reason or logical thinking. Aql is a function of the advanced human brain. Emotion is NOT a part of reason! You do not need reason to express emotion. Your thought process might be affected by past emotions in memory, but they need not. Emotion is a function of the lower brain that even lower life forms possess. So you can see lower life forms expressing emotions such as rage over territorial rights or affection for their mates, but never do you see them solving complex math problems. Or at least I haven't.
Re: Syedana’s vision
Dear Muslim,
If you read the entire article I referenced..the author refers to reason or logic or analysis (qiyas) as the lower form of Aql...while things like emotion, intuition, imagination..are in the higher realms of Aql. All are apart of Aql.
Aql is the process of thought itself...not just reason.
Emotions are both physical and mental reactions to thought. If an emotion is separate from thought...you wouldn't be cognoscent of your experience of the emotion.
If you read the entire article I referenced..the author refers to reason or logic or analysis (qiyas) as the lower form of Aql...while things like emotion, intuition, imagination..are in the higher realms of Aql. All are apart of Aql.
Aql is the process of thought itself...not just reason.
Emotions are both physical and mental reactions to thought. If an emotion is separate from thought...you wouldn't be cognoscent of your experience of the emotion.
Re: Syedana’s vision
Qiyam? Imagination is now also a component of 'aql? Qiyas is defined in your quote as "quasi-logical". Imagination and emotion is nowhere mentioned. The quote makes sense, but you don't. Remember qiyas is personal judgement on matters of theology if primary and secondary sources give no clear answer. Thus it is referred to as quasi-logical. You should consider qiyas' relation to 'aql in this context. 'Aql is pure logic. Emotion and imagination has no place in 'aql. I cannot arrive at any rational conclusion based on imagination or emotion. Maybe you can.
The very same article you quote from contains a direct translation of 'aql in parenthesis in paragraph 17:
<blockquote>Once Gabriel came to Adam. He brought with him faith, morality (haya') and 'aql (reason) and asked him to choose one of the three...</blockquote>In paragraph 12 of the same article it is defined as 'intellect', which Collins defines as <B><I>"the capacity for understanding, thinking, and reasoning, as distinct from feeling or wishing".</I></B> Thus you see, what you quote from actually confirms what Porus has already said, both in definition and in scientific truth. 'Aql is reason.
The very same article you quote from contains a direct translation of 'aql in parenthesis in paragraph 17:
<blockquote>Once Gabriel came to Adam. He brought with him faith, morality (haya') and 'aql (reason) and asked him to choose one of the three...</blockquote>In paragraph 12 of the same article it is defined as 'intellect', which Collins defines as <B><I>"the capacity for understanding, thinking, and reasoning, as distinct from feeling or wishing".</I></B> Thus you see, what you quote from actually confirms what Porus has already said, both in definition and in scientific truth. 'Aql is reason.
Re: Syedana’s vision
Take special note of the words "as distinct from feeling or wishing". Feeling and wishing correspond to emotion and imagination.
Re: Syedana’s vision
Qiyam,
you say...
Your comment is very similar to those given to the Prophet by the unbelieving pagans of Arabia.
I say: The Sayedna is no Prophet and neither is this the seventh century - the age of jahilia. And comparing me to pagans is no argument. Tinking people always have and will question orthodoxies. Times have changed, and not everybody in our community is sheep.
you say...
Your comment is very similar to those given to the Prophet by the unbelieving pagans of Arabia.
I say: The Sayedna is no Prophet and neither is this the seventh century - the age of jahilia. And comparing me to pagans is no argument. Tinking people always have and will question orthodoxies. Times have changed, and not everybody in our community is sheep.
Re: Syedana’s vision
Qiyam
Read back what you posted about Imam Jaffar As Sadiq and Abu Hanifah(the founder of Hanafi school of thought). You are debating here in the manner of Qiyas(analogy) - quasi logic without having the true Knowledge of Aql or reason.
What we have in bohrisme is much lower than the Sunnis. At least they (the Sunni) try to explain their belief rationality and logically. On the other hand where is logic in Bohrisme? Where is Logic in hunting elephant, cheetah and tiger? Where is logic in doing sajdah to Sayednas feet? Where is logic when Amil loots community’s money?
And where is logic when you say follow the Dai because ppl has been doing that for years.
Tell me where was your logic explaining all the bad deeds of Khotars and his family members and the amils? Did your logic disappears then ?? or you only thing logically in having blind Faith to khotars?
Read back what you posted about Imam Jaffar As Sadiq and Abu Hanifah(the founder of Hanafi school of thought). You are debating here in the manner of Qiyas(analogy) - quasi logic without having the true Knowledge of Aql or reason.
What we have in bohrisme is much lower than the Sunnis. At least they (the Sunni) try to explain their belief rationality and logically. On the other hand where is logic in Bohrisme? Where is Logic in hunting elephant, cheetah and tiger? Where is logic in doing sajdah to Sayednas feet? Where is logic when Amil loots community’s money?
And where is logic when you say follow the Dai because ppl has been doing that for years.
Tell me where was your logic explaining all the bad deeds of Khotars and his family members and the amils? Did your logic disappears then ?? or you only thing logically in having blind Faith to khotars?
Re: Syedana’s vision
Quasi-logical, Qiyam? Pray, what does that mean? Something is either logical or not. How does one define quasi-logical? I suppose you accept that quasi-truth because some Imam has said it.
And reason and analogy are lower forms of Aql? Qiyam, please make some sense or at least do not accept everything idiotic "scholars" say at face value.
Analogy, similie, metaphor are all forms of reasoning. Reasoning does not have lower and higher forms, the so called Muslim "darajaat". Reasoning is either valid or invalid according to rules of logic that are either aximotic, self-evident or agreed a priori.
And please do not indulge in petty remarks about some people being like enemies of Prophet etc. That is a form of witchhunt designed by Mullas to silence debate, especially when they lose them. Use arguments. Argument, by the way, is a type of reasoning. It is not lower or higher than any other type of reasoning. It has different function.
This darajaat of aql is a silly idea. It seemed clever to ancients but has been shown to be a complete nonsense, even if it came from Imam.
And, if Imam can express an opinion, so can I. They are both valid and can be judged by others on merit in accordance with their undestanding.
Aql is an Ismaili concept of what was first created. It is a myth and not half as useful as other archetypal myths that we can live by.
And reason and analogy are lower forms of Aql? Qiyam, please make some sense or at least do not accept everything idiotic "scholars" say at face value.
Analogy, similie, metaphor are all forms of reasoning. Reasoning does not have lower and higher forms, the so called Muslim "darajaat". Reasoning is either valid or invalid according to rules of logic that are either aximotic, self-evident or agreed a priori.
And please do not indulge in petty remarks about some people being like enemies of Prophet etc. That is a form of witchhunt designed by Mullas to silence debate, especially when they lose them. Use arguments. Argument, by the way, is a type of reasoning. It is not lower or higher than any other type of reasoning. It has different function.
This darajaat of aql is a silly idea. It seemed clever to ancients but has been shown to be a complete nonsense, even if it came from Imam.
And, if Imam can express an opinion, so can I. They are both valid and can be judged by others on merit in accordance with their undestanding.
Aql is an Ismaili concept of what was first created. It is a myth and not half as useful as other archetypal myths that we can live by.
-
Muslim First
- Posts: 6893
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 4:01 am
Re: Syedana’s vision
Br. qiyam, Kindly read the following:
*************************************
Regarding Imam Abu Hanifah's allegedly having studied under Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq, please be informed as follows:
Imam Abu Hanifah was the pupil and intellectual successor of his mentor, Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman, who was the successor to Ibrahim an-Nakha'i, who was the successor to his uncle 'Alqamah ibn Qays an-Nakha'i, who was the
successor to Sayyiduna 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, who was sent as a teacher to the city Kufah by Amir al-Mu'minin Sayyiduna 'Umar ibn al-Khattab. This
chain of intellectual descent is known to anyone knowledgeable of the legislative history of Islam.
In fact, Imam Abu Hanifah held his discourses at the very same place in the masjid of Kufah where Ibn Mas'ud used to teach. This teaching circle was passed down generation after generation, by the men whose names you have just read: From Ibn Mas'ud to 'Alqamah; from 'Alqamah to Ibrahim; from Ibrahim to Hammad; and ultimately from Hammad to Abu Hanifah, after whom it was occupied by three of his students successively: firstly Zufar ibn Hudhayl; then Abu Yusuf; and then Muhammad ibn al-Hasan.
Now, regarding the link between Abu Hanifah and Ja'far as-Sadiq, you need to keep in mind the following:
FIRSTLY Imam Abu Hanifah was born in the year 80 AH
Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq was born in the year 83 AH
In other words, not only were they contemporaries; but Abu Hanifah was 3 years older than Ja'far as-Sadiq.
SECONDLY
Imam Abu Hanifah's education took place in Kufah, in the school originally established by Ibn Mas'ud. Like other 'ulama of his time, he used to go to Hijaz for Hajj, and passing through Madinah, he used to benefit from the
knowledge of eminent men of learning, such as the father of Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq, namely Imam Muhammad al-Baqir. Many of the ahadith he narrates from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir are documented in the books of his pupils Abu Yusuf and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan.
THIRDLY
It is true that Imam Abu Hanifah does narrate some ahadith from Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq. But that was according to the habit of the 'ulama to narrate from even their contemporaries. If that alone is to be taken as evidence that Imam Abu Hanifah "studied" under Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq, then we will be bound to conclude that Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq similarly learnt from people other than his father, such as Ibn Shihab az-Zuhri, 'Ata ibn Abi Rabah, 'Urwah ibn Zubaur and Muhammad ibn al-Munkadir. Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq has narrated hadith from all of these men, and even others besides them. (Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 5 p. 75)
FOURTHLY
In the year 132 the Abbasids came to power, having ousted the Umayyads. Abu Hanifah was then 52 years of age. The Abbasid khalifah Abu Ja'far al-Mansur wanted Abu Hanifah as his chief justice, which post he refused. In order to escape the vengeance of the khalifah, Abu Hanifah betook himself to the Hijaz where he spent the next 2 years. It is in terms of this sojourn in the Hijaz that he is reported to have said, "Were it not for the 2 years, Nu'man (i.e. Abu Hanifah) would have been destroyed". Creative Shi'i imaginations would have us believe that what he actually meant thereby was that it was during this period that he gained his knowledge at the feet of Imam Ja'far
as-Sadiq. The absurdity of this can be seen from the fact that by that time he was already so famous as a man of learning, that he was sought by the khalifah as the chief justice. Apart from that, he was, as already shown, over 50 years of age.
FIFTHLY
There is a famous story in circulation about Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq posing certain questions to Imam Abu Hanifah regarding the use of Qiyas (analogy). You should be informed that the story appears in this form in Shi'i books such as al-Kafi. In the Sunni literature it appears with significant
changes.
First of all, the discussion is not between Abu Hanifah and Ja'far as-Sadiq, but between Abu Hanifah and Muhammad al-Baqir.
Secondly, the story goes as follows:
Al-Baqir asks Abu Hanifah if he is the one who is changing the Deen of his (al-Baqir's) grandfather (Rasulullah sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) through the use of Qiyas. Abu Hanifah denies that he is changing the Deen. In order
to demonstrate the falsehood of the rumours, he then goes on his knees in front of Imam al-Baqir and uses the comparison between (1) the share of a man and a woman in the spoils of war; (2) fasting and prayer with regard to a woman in menstruation having to pay in the former and not the latter; (3) urine and semen in respect of the method of purification for either one.
After this lucid demonstration of his usage of Qiyas only where there is no textual evidence, and strictly adhering to the authority of text where it exists, Imam Muhammad al-Baqir stands up and kisses Imam Abu Hanifah on his forehead. (Manaqib Abi Hanifah by al-Kardari, p. 99)
It was only later that the Shi'ah would adapt the story to suit their own particular needs.
Shaykh Taha Karaan
Darul Uloom al-Arabiyya al-Islaamiyyah, Western Cape
***************************
Wasalaam
*************************************
Regarding Imam Abu Hanifah's allegedly having studied under Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq, please be informed as follows:
Imam Abu Hanifah was the pupil and intellectual successor of his mentor, Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman, who was the successor to Ibrahim an-Nakha'i, who was the successor to his uncle 'Alqamah ibn Qays an-Nakha'i, who was the
successor to Sayyiduna 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, who was sent as a teacher to the city Kufah by Amir al-Mu'minin Sayyiduna 'Umar ibn al-Khattab. This
chain of intellectual descent is known to anyone knowledgeable of the legislative history of Islam.
In fact, Imam Abu Hanifah held his discourses at the very same place in the masjid of Kufah where Ibn Mas'ud used to teach. This teaching circle was passed down generation after generation, by the men whose names you have just read: From Ibn Mas'ud to 'Alqamah; from 'Alqamah to Ibrahim; from Ibrahim to Hammad; and ultimately from Hammad to Abu Hanifah, after whom it was occupied by three of his students successively: firstly Zufar ibn Hudhayl; then Abu Yusuf; and then Muhammad ibn al-Hasan.
Now, regarding the link between Abu Hanifah and Ja'far as-Sadiq, you need to keep in mind the following:
FIRSTLY Imam Abu Hanifah was born in the year 80 AH
Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq was born in the year 83 AH
In other words, not only were they contemporaries; but Abu Hanifah was 3 years older than Ja'far as-Sadiq.
SECONDLY
Imam Abu Hanifah's education took place in Kufah, in the school originally established by Ibn Mas'ud. Like other 'ulama of his time, he used to go to Hijaz for Hajj, and passing through Madinah, he used to benefit from the
knowledge of eminent men of learning, such as the father of Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq, namely Imam Muhammad al-Baqir. Many of the ahadith he narrates from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir are documented in the books of his pupils Abu Yusuf and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan.
THIRDLY
It is true that Imam Abu Hanifah does narrate some ahadith from Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq. But that was according to the habit of the 'ulama to narrate from even their contemporaries. If that alone is to be taken as evidence that Imam Abu Hanifah "studied" under Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq, then we will be bound to conclude that Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq similarly learnt from people other than his father, such as Ibn Shihab az-Zuhri, 'Ata ibn Abi Rabah, 'Urwah ibn Zubaur and Muhammad ibn al-Munkadir. Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq has narrated hadith from all of these men, and even others besides them. (Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 5 p. 75)
FOURTHLY
In the year 132 the Abbasids came to power, having ousted the Umayyads. Abu Hanifah was then 52 years of age. The Abbasid khalifah Abu Ja'far al-Mansur wanted Abu Hanifah as his chief justice, which post he refused. In order to escape the vengeance of the khalifah, Abu Hanifah betook himself to the Hijaz where he spent the next 2 years. It is in terms of this sojourn in the Hijaz that he is reported to have said, "Were it not for the 2 years, Nu'man (i.e. Abu Hanifah) would have been destroyed". Creative Shi'i imaginations would have us believe that what he actually meant thereby was that it was during this period that he gained his knowledge at the feet of Imam Ja'far
as-Sadiq. The absurdity of this can be seen from the fact that by that time he was already so famous as a man of learning, that he was sought by the khalifah as the chief justice. Apart from that, he was, as already shown, over 50 years of age.
FIFTHLY
There is a famous story in circulation about Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq posing certain questions to Imam Abu Hanifah regarding the use of Qiyas (analogy). You should be informed that the story appears in this form in Shi'i books such as al-Kafi. In the Sunni literature it appears with significant
changes.
First of all, the discussion is not between Abu Hanifah and Ja'far as-Sadiq, but between Abu Hanifah and Muhammad al-Baqir.
Secondly, the story goes as follows:
Al-Baqir asks Abu Hanifah if he is the one who is changing the Deen of his (al-Baqir's) grandfather (Rasulullah sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) through the use of Qiyas. Abu Hanifah denies that he is changing the Deen. In order
to demonstrate the falsehood of the rumours, he then goes on his knees in front of Imam al-Baqir and uses the comparison between (1) the share of a man and a woman in the spoils of war; (2) fasting and prayer with regard to a woman in menstruation having to pay in the former and not the latter; (3) urine and semen in respect of the method of purification for either one.
After this lucid demonstration of his usage of Qiyas only where there is no textual evidence, and strictly adhering to the authority of text where it exists, Imam Muhammad al-Baqir stands up and kisses Imam Abu Hanifah on his forehead. (Manaqib Abi Hanifah by al-Kardari, p. 99)
It was only later that the Shi'ah would adapt the story to suit their own particular needs.
Shaykh Taha Karaan
Darul Uloom al-Arabiyya al-Islaamiyyah, Western Cape
***************************
Wasalaam
Re: Syedana’s vision
Abu Hanifa was a student of both Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (AS) and Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (AS). This is a claim made not by Shias but by many Sunni historians.
Re: Syedana’s vision
Dear Muslim,
Please read the entire article...and note I didn't write it...but it is representative.
"Aql is reason. According to your quote, "'aql embraces all rational faculties". 'Rational' meaning (according to Collins)..."
Firstly, Collins is the one the author disputes...so your entire basis of argument is incorrect. Collins belief, like Porus and yourself, that logic, reason are the scope of aql. This is false. All rational faculities include things that are beyond our reason and logic. Our senses for instance are part of our rational faculities...but we cannot base our thought solely on our senses. This applies to logic and reason. Logic and reason are only based on what we already know...which may fall short of the actual reality. For example, a couple of hundred years ago...astronomers believed the earth to be flat based on logic and reason...of their time. They even scientifically proved this as true. But if you used all your rational faculties (senses, imagination, etc) as we do now regarding the issue...it is easy to see the earth as round (actually slightly eliptical).
"Aql is a function of the advanced human brain. Emotion is NOT a part of reason!"
---This is based on your definition of reason and aql. Emotion is not part of reason...but aql is both reason and emotion. Your decisions in life are based on both emotion and reason (whether subconscious or not).
"You do not need reason to express emotion."
---Actually this is subjective. What you call reasonable and logical maybe totally irrational and illogical to someone else. Part is this is emotional/life experience.
Please read the entire article...and note I didn't write it...but it is representative.
"Aql is reason. According to your quote, "'aql embraces all rational faculties". 'Rational' meaning (according to Collins)..."
Firstly, Collins is the one the author disputes...so your entire basis of argument is incorrect. Collins belief, like Porus and yourself, that logic, reason are the scope of aql. This is false. All rational faculities include things that are beyond our reason and logic. Our senses for instance are part of our rational faculities...but we cannot base our thought solely on our senses. This applies to logic and reason. Logic and reason are only based on what we already know...which may fall short of the actual reality. For example, a couple of hundred years ago...astronomers believed the earth to be flat based on logic and reason...of their time. They even scientifically proved this as true. But if you used all your rational faculties (senses, imagination, etc) as we do now regarding the issue...it is easy to see the earth as round (actually slightly eliptical).
"Aql is a function of the advanced human brain. Emotion is NOT a part of reason!"
---This is based on your definition of reason and aql. Emotion is not part of reason...but aql is both reason and emotion. Your decisions in life are based on both emotion and reason (whether subconscious or not).
"You do not need reason to express emotion."
---Actually this is subjective. What you call reasonable and logical maybe totally irrational and illogical to someone else. Part is this is emotional/life experience.
Re: Syedana’s vision
Firstly..the article address should be:
http://al-islam.org/al-tawhid/islam-know-conc.htm
Sorry for the screw up.
Dear Muslim,
"Imagination is now also a component of 'aql"
--All thoughts (which include imagination) are part of aql. Aql is thought or thinking itself.
Qiyas is defined in your quote as "quasi-logical".
---It is quasi-logical because based on the person's level of logic they correlated between two separate issued. But this is only rudimentary thought and doesn't incorporate all aspects of what was originally intended.
"Aql is pure logic. Emotion and imagination has no place in 'aql. I cannot arrive at any rational conclusion based on imagination or emotion. Maybe you can."
---See your own statement don't make sense. You say aql is logic...yet logic is based on one level of understanding...which incorporate both imagination and emotion. For example, I, a shiah, logically believe in imamat based on recorded statements of people whom were truthful to both shiah and sunni. This is logic from my perspective. Sunni have entirely different logic to this...based on the same recorded statement. Both use logic...but different degrees of emotion and imagination are incorporated as well.
Regarding the quote of Gabriel...you failed to to quote the entire hadith:
"Once Gabriel came to Adam. He brought with him faith, morality (haya') and 'aql (reason) and asked him to choose one of the three. When he chose 'aql, the others were told by Gabriel to return to heaven, They said that they were ordered by Allah to accompany 'aql wherever it remained. This indicates how comprehensive are the notions of intellect and knowledge in Islam, and how deeply related they are to faith and the moral faculty."
--read the last lines a few times. Morality and faith must remain with aql.
http://al-islam.org/al-tawhid/islam-know-conc.htm
Sorry for the screw up.
Dear Muslim,
"Imagination is now also a component of 'aql"
--All thoughts (which include imagination) are part of aql. Aql is thought or thinking itself.
Qiyas is defined in your quote as "quasi-logical".
---It is quasi-logical because based on the person's level of logic they correlated between two separate issued. But this is only rudimentary thought and doesn't incorporate all aspects of what was originally intended.
"Aql is pure logic. Emotion and imagination has no place in 'aql. I cannot arrive at any rational conclusion based on imagination or emotion. Maybe you can."
---See your own statement don't make sense. You say aql is logic...yet logic is based on one level of understanding...which incorporate both imagination and emotion. For example, I, a shiah, logically believe in imamat based on recorded statements of people whom were truthful to both shiah and sunni. This is logic from my perspective. Sunni have entirely different logic to this...based on the same recorded statement. Both use logic...but different degrees of emotion and imagination are incorporated as well.
Regarding the quote of Gabriel...you failed to to quote the entire hadith:
"Once Gabriel came to Adam. He brought with him faith, morality (haya') and 'aql (reason) and asked him to choose one of the three. When he chose 'aql, the others were told by Gabriel to return to heaven, They said that they were ordered by Allah to accompany 'aql wherever it remained. This indicates how comprehensive are the notions of intellect and knowledge in Islam, and how deeply related they are to faith and the moral faculty."
--read the last lines a few times. Morality and faith must remain with aql.
Re: Syedana’s vision
Dear Humsafar,
I did not say you were a pagan nor did I say Sayedna was like the Prophet..I compared your comments and not just say things that don't amount to much.
I did not say you were a pagan nor did I say Sayedna was like the Prophet..I compared your comments and not just say things that don't amount to much.
Re: Syedana’s vision
Br. Porus
"Quasi-logical.."
--Please see my comments to Muslim.
"And reason and analogy are lower forms of Aql? Qiyam, please make some sense or at least do not accept everything idiotic "scholars" say at face value."
---See..now you've lost all crediablility. I could say the same of those you've studied from as well...but since you have yet to substatiate your viewpoint...I guess that "scholar" is you.
"Analogy, similie, metaphor are all forms of reasoning. Reasoning does not have lower and higher forms, the so called Muslim "darajaat". Reasoning is either valid or invalid according to rules of logic that are either aximotic, self-evident or agreed a priori."
--see my comments to Muslim. Reasoning and logic are far from just clear cut...except to the one making the conclusion.
"And please do not indulge in petty remarks about some people being like enemies of Prophet etc."
---Please see my comments to Humsafar. Maybe you should take your own advice regarding the Imams and scholars you call "idiotic".
"Aql is an Ismaili concept of what was first created. It is a myth and not half as useful as other archetypal myths that we can live by. "
---note the quote of Maulana Ali regarding aql that I quoted from the article. There wasn't an Ismaili sect then.
"Quasi-logical.."
--Please see my comments to Muslim.
"And reason and analogy are lower forms of Aql? Qiyam, please make some sense or at least do not accept everything idiotic "scholars" say at face value."
---See..now you've lost all crediablility. I could say the same of those you've studied from as well...but since you have yet to substatiate your viewpoint...I guess that "scholar" is you.
"Analogy, similie, metaphor are all forms of reasoning. Reasoning does not have lower and higher forms, the so called Muslim "darajaat". Reasoning is either valid or invalid according to rules of logic that are either aximotic, self-evident or agreed a priori."
--see my comments to Muslim. Reasoning and logic are far from just clear cut...except to the one making the conclusion.
"And please do not indulge in petty remarks about some people being like enemies of Prophet etc."
---Please see my comments to Humsafar. Maybe you should take your own advice regarding the Imams and scholars you call "idiotic".
"Aql is an Ismaili concept of what was first created. It is a myth and not half as useful as other archetypal myths that we can live by. "
---note the quote of Maulana Ali regarding aql that I quoted from the article. There wasn't an Ismaili sect then.
Re: Syedana’s vision
Firstly, Collins is the one the author disputes...so your entire basis of argument is incorrect. Collins belief, like Porus and yourself, that logic, reason are the scope of aql. This is false.
Err... Collins = Collins English Dictionary
Err... Collins = Collins English Dictionary
-
serendipity
- Posts: 145
- Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2002 4:01 am
Re: Syedana’s vision
Qiyam RE:
"--All thoughts (which include imagination) are part of aql. Aql is thought or thinking itself." I have ALREADY suggested this (see above). Do you agree that Aql as ismailis understand it is partially a GNOSTIC concept, having to do with the entire nature and essence of thought?
ALSO what ever happened to my OWN questions? Has the good mullah told you to ostracize me??
"--All thoughts (which include imagination) are part of aql. Aql is thought or thinking itself." I have ALREADY suggested this (see above). Do you agree that Aql as ismailis understand it is partially a GNOSTIC concept, having to do with the entire nature and essence of thought?
ALSO what ever happened to my OWN questions? Has the good mullah told you to ostracize me??
Re: Syedana’s vision
Dear Muslim,
Misquote...my apologizes...I was referring to Rosenthal's argument..not Collins (the dictionary).
Misquote...my apologizes...I was referring to Rosenthal's argument..not Collins (the dictionary).
Re: Syedana’s vision
Dear Serendipity,
Regarding your own questions...I am still researching the historical background that your asking for. I have not forgotten you my friend.
Regarding your post on the topic at hand..you've hit the nail on the head..which is why I didn't comment further. The Aql (thought) was created by Allah in the human to remember and worship in all forms Allah...which is gnosticism or the heart of TAWHID.
Regarding your own questions...I am still researching the historical background that your asking for. I have not forgotten you my friend.
Regarding your post on the topic at hand..you've hit the nail on the head..which is why I didn't comment further. The Aql (thought) was created by Allah in the human to remember and worship in all forms Allah...which is gnosticism or the heart of TAWHID.
Re: Syedana’s vision
Pardon my confusion, but I've lost all sense of this in this lengthy thread:
Has someone actually proposed a strict definition of "aql"?
It seems that people are debating over the characteristics of aql and what is and is not encompassed by it, but I can't figure out what it's supposed to MEAN. If I were to look it up in a philosophy dictionary, what would I find?
shukran wa salaam
Has someone actually proposed a strict definition of "aql"?
It seems that people are debating over the characteristics of aql and what is and is not encompassed by it, but I can't figure out what it's supposed to MEAN. If I were to look it up in a philosophy dictionary, what would I find?
shukran wa salaam
Re: Syedana’s vision
<a href="http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ei/aql.htm">This link</a> might help.
Re: Syedana’s vision
Khairan,
This is typical of mullahs. they will take round and round in circles without going anywhere. they will confuse and befuddle you until you get fed up and give up.
This is typical of mullahs. they will take round and round in circles without going anywhere. they will confuse and befuddle you until you get fed up and give up.
Re: Syedana’s vision
Qiyam,
The closest English definitions of aql are reason, logical thought, rational thought or intellect. This is how it is translated in most books and articles where it is mentioned (including the one you are fond of). Nowhere will you find aql translated merely as "thought" or "thinking" so I do not wish to waste more time in debating about what one single Arabic word means. You are, of course, entitled to your own "extended" definition of aql.
The closest English definitions of aql are reason, logical thought, rational thought or intellect. This is how it is translated in most books and articles where it is mentioned (including the one you are fond of). Nowhere will you find aql translated merely as "thought" or "thinking" so I do not wish to waste more time in debating about what one single Arabic word means. You are, of course, entitled to your own "extended" definition of aql.
Re: Syedana’s vision
Qiyam,
"The Aql (thought) was created by Allah in the human to remember and worship in all forms Allah..."
Well then, you should agree that all humans have Aql; not simply Bohris.
Getting back to Muslim First's post.....
What has Syedna's so-called Vision contributed to this "thought", (sense) created "in the human" ?
Simply trying to get back to the original post in this thread.
Per your defintion, all humans with Aql can now understand the Quran without help from the clergy since by your own admission "The Aql (thought) was created by Allah in the human "
"The Aql (thought) was created by Allah in the human to remember and worship in all forms Allah..."
Well then, you should agree that all humans have Aql; not simply Bohris.
Getting back to Muslim First's post.....
What has Syedna's so-called Vision contributed to this "thought", (sense) created "in the human" ?
Simply trying to get back to the original post in this thread.
Per your defintion, all humans with Aql can now understand the Quran without help from the clergy since by your own admission "The Aql (thought) was created by Allah in the human "
Re: Syedana’s vision
jinx,
You are a faithless creature. In everything you see a doubt. I pity your worthlessness and the severity of the punishment you will incur. You will burn with Phiraun. What a lovely companion !
You are a faithless creature. In everything you see a doubt. I pity your worthlessness and the severity of the punishment you will incur. You will burn with Phiraun. What a lovely companion !
Re: Syedana’s vision
Dear Khairan/Humsafar,
If you will refer to my first post regarding this topic...I clearly defined the Islamic definition of Aql. It you all who have so far listed 6 different definitions of Aql...based on non islamic sources.
Dear Muslim,
"The closest English definitions of aql are reason, logical thought, rational thought or intellect."
---Note the differences of the defintion...it may help you understand why they vary. You may also note that usually after giving the word translation...they give a description of the intent of the translation. The link you posted reflected a defintion of Aql as intellect based on Islamic and Greek philophosers, still pointly out that this is not entirely correct. Yet if you look at the description of the word...they clearly intention their definition to reflect thought as itself. Even the link I listed translated Aql as intellect...but he said this is a poor translation and further explained what Aql actually incorporates.
"Nowhere will you find aql translated merely as "thought" or "thinking" so I do not wish to waste more time in debating about what one single Arabic word means."
---That seem odd..look at the word you listed as what Aql is translated as...rational thought, logical thought, intellect (which is thought).
I would also point out according to almisbar.com (a online arabic-english translation site):
reason = sabub
thought and logic = manathaq
intellect = fakara
Aql (ayn, qaf, lam) is translated as mind (which is the originator of all thought itself)
If you will refer to my first post regarding this topic...I clearly defined the Islamic definition of Aql. It you all who have so far listed 6 different definitions of Aql...based on non islamic sources.
Dear Muslim,
"The closest English definitions of aql are reason, logical thought, rational thought or intellect."
---Note the differences of the defintion...it may help you understand why they vary. You may also note that usually after giving the word translation...they give a description of the intent of the translation. The link you posted reflected a defintion of Aql as intellect based on Islamic and Greek philophosers, still pointly out that this is not entirely correct. Yet if you look at the description of the word...they clearly intention their definition to reflect thought as itself. Even the link I listed translated Aql as intellect...but he said this is a poor translation and further explained what Aql actually incorporates.
"Nowhere will you find aql translated merely as "thought" or "thinking" so I do not wish to waste more time in debating about what one single Arabic word means."
---That seem odd..look at the word you listed as what Aql is translated as...rational thought, logical thought, intellect (which is thought).
I would also point out according to almisbar.com (a online arabic-english translation site):
reason = sabub
thought and logic = manathaq
intellect = fakara
Aql (ayn, qaf, lam) is translated as mind (which is the originator of all thought itself)
Re: Syedana’s vision
Dear Godbless
"Well then, you should agree that all humans have Aql; not simply Bohris."
---most do not know how to use their aql.
What has Syedna's so-called Vision contributed to this "thought", (sense) created "in the human" ?
Simply trying to get back to the original post in this thread.
"Per your defintion, all humans with Aql can now understand the Quran without help from the clergy since by your own admission "The Aql (thought) was created by Allah in the human "
--No, I didn't give that definition. God gave humans the ability to understand everything...doesn't mean everyone wants to seek out that knowledge to understand. This is the difference.
"Well then, you should agree that all humans have Aql; not simply Bohris."
---most do not know how to use their aql.
What has Syedna's so-called Vision contributed to this "thought", (sense) created "in the human" ?
Simply trying to get back to the original post in this thread.
"Per your defintion, all humans with Aql can now understand the Quran without help from the clergy since by your own admission "The Aql (thought) was created by Allah in the human "
--No, I didn't give that definition. God gave humans the ability to understand everything...doesn't mean everyone wants to seek out that knowledge to understand. This is the difference.
Re: Syedana’s vision
Brother Qiyam,
Will I be using Aql when I say that .. since 100% of the Amils that I know are corrupt, then the assumption that most are corrupt, is accurate?
Will I be using Aql when I say that .. since 100% of the Amils that I know are corrupt, then the assumption that most are corrupt, is accurate?