A few questions

kashif_nazeer

kashif_nazeer

~~~Alhamdulillah~~~
:salam2:

I hope this post finds everyone in the best of health and man inshaAllah.
I have some questions which I need answers for,while I am searching,I'd really be grateful if someone helped me out here:

1)There is a book by Sheikh Ibn Taymiyya(Rahimhullah),"Dar Ta'rudh ma'al Aqil wal naqil",that is "Refuting the notion of contradictions between Intellect and Revelation",I am unable to find abridged english version online and since I cannot understand arabic,,it would be very kind if someone could highlight the points sheikh mentioned in his arguments and clear this concept of 'aql and naql for me.

2) The concept of fitrah in Islam in a brief detail and "shaakila" or "tashkeel" I am not sure what it is called,it is like an environment which shapes our ideas,if I am not wrong.

:jazaak:

:wasalam:
 
kashif_nazeer

kashif_nazeer

~~~Alhamdulillah~~~
wa alaikumassalam warahmatullahi wabarakatuhu,
ukhti I could not find exact answer but found something that did help alhamdulillah.

Part 7: Fitrah, Aql, Naql, Science and the Origin of the Universe and Man



Usamah Hasan, Darwinism, Evolutionary Forces and the Creation of Man - Part 7: Fitrah, Aql, Naql, Science and the Origin of the Universe and Man
Thursday, January 27 2011 - by Aqidah.Com
Read more articles at Aqidah.Com


Introduction

In the preceding articles in this series we addressed Usamah Hasan's claim that neo-Darwinism is the route through which Allah created man (Aadam), and that Aadam was born of "nearly-humans" (a diplomatic way of saying "apes"). We proved that there is nothing but contradiction and opposition between the revealed texts and the account of the origin of man given in Darwinism. We also cited the verdicts of the Scholars of the Sunnah that claiming Aadam descended from apes is takdheeb (rejection) of Allaah and His Messenger [takdheeb meaning that what Allaah and His Messenger have stated on this matter (creation of Aadam) is a lie] and as such, this is pure kufr and that the one who knowingly holds this belief is a kaafir (see those verdicts in this article)
There have been a number of fallouts after the occurrences of the last three weeks and there are numerous side issues which have arisen as a result. From the most significant of them in our view is:

We are being informed (through email and otherwise) of what can be characterized as unintelligable expressions from self-confessed ape-descended intellects that have decided to "come out of the jungle" and into "cyberspace" onto the various blogs, forums and websites to express their inner feelings and beliefs which are like those of Usamah Hasan, if not at least sympathetic to Usamah Hasan. This shows that it is not just Usamah Hasan, and the effect is a little wider than one might think. It is clear that Usamah is just a representative example, and that materialistic theories, beliefs and philosophies of science have polluted the fitrah of many a Muslim who has had a stretch of time in the secular institutions of learning. Hence, we have the prospect of not just one but possibly scores or hundreds of Usamah Hasans. Whilst we merely joked about the possiblity of a "battle for the planet of the apes" at the very end of Part 2, it's getting a little serious now and is looking more like a potential "conquest of the planet of the apes." The whole world seems to be in a revolutionary mode as of right now, and as such, chimps with secular ijaazahs (like Usamah Hasan and Dr. Cornelius) should never, ever be underestimated. They may have recruited hundreds if not thousands into the cause.
For this reason there are certain issues which have to be addressed so as to protect and buffer Muslims from getting drawn into "ape takeover" revolutionary movements, and from being poisoned in a) fitrah, b) aql, c) aqidah and d) deen. It is clear that many Muslims are deceived and hoodwinked by that fake appearance of "objective scientific enquiry" which is amongst the greatest of the contemporary taaghoots of the Malaahidah used to fight fitrah, aql and naql. So in this article we want to explore this subject a little inshaa'Allaah so Muslims have a clear idea of where they stand. First we will develop two themes required at this point.

1.1 The Fitrah

The fitrah is the innate, intuitive disposition of each soul:

It is an inherent capacity through which truth can be realized, recognized and it is simply the soul having been programmed upon certain fundamental universal truths, from which are that whatever is muhdath (originated) must have a muhdith (originator) and the anticipation or expectation of justice (when wronged) and other innate dispositions and feelings. When Allaah took all the souls of all of Banee Aadam from the back of Aadam (alayhis salaam), he made them testify concerning that He is their Lord, (see 7:172). This is an inherent acknowledgement within the soul which does not need anything beyond itself to recognize this fact. It does not even need signs (aayaat), rather, it is an inherent, innate, intrinsic quality. This is the fitrah that Allaah mentions (فِطْرَةَ اللَّهِ الَّتِي فَطَرَ النَّاسَ عَلَيْهَا لَا تَبْدِيلَ لِخَلْقِ اللَّهِ), "the fitrah of Allaah upon which He created mankind, no change let there be in Allah's creation" (30:30) and this is referring to the souls knowledge that all the makhlooqaat (created things) testify to and are in need of their creator (for their existence).
We want to use a variety of statements from Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah at this point to help us to lay out a framework upon which to build the rest of our discussion. You need to pay careful attention to what is being said. He says in Majmu' al-Fataawaa (1/47):

And the intent here is that: The need of the created things upon the creator, their indication to [His existence] and testification to [His existence] is an innate affair which Allaah has created His servants upon, just as He created them [with an innate disposition] towards affirrmation of His [existence] without (requiring) these signs (aayaat)... and what is verified and ascertained is that the knowledge that the originated (muhdath) necessarily requires an originator (muhdith) is innate, necessary knowledge (ilm fitriyy dhurooriyy) with respect to the particular entities (al-mu'ayyanaat al-juz'iyyah)...
And another statement here as occurs in al-Jawab al-Sahih (3/202):

That the knowledge that the muhdath (originated) must have a muhdith (originator) is innate, necessary knowledge (ilm fitriyy dhurooriyy), and for this reason Allaah, the Exalted said, "ere they created by nothing, or were they themselves the creators?" (52:35)... And it is know by the fitrah upon which Allaah created His servants, [through] sound reason, that what is haadith (originated) does not occur except with an originator that brought it about.
He also says in Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah (1/179 - two volume edition):

... so this evidence comprises [the fact] that what is originated (muhdath) must have an originator (muhdith) and that whatever contains wisdom (hikmah) must have a qaasid, hakeem (one who desired that wisdom, and is wise).
And he says in Dar' al-Ta'aarud (4/241):

... That the actual knowledge that the originated (muhdath) must have an originator (muhdith) is more plain (abyan) and strong (aqwaa) and apparent (adhhar) in reason (aql)...
In this statement (and the one below) Ibn Taymiyyah is comparing the clarity and apparentness of this realization compared to others, such as the argument that what is possible (mumkin) needs what is necessary (waajib), which was being used by the Philosophers (like Ibn Sina), as an alternative to that of the Mutakallimeen.

And later (4/251):

...And this is because the knowledge that the originated (muhdath) must have an originator (muhdith) is more intuitive (matter of fact) to reason (aql) and more firmly-rooted in the heart and more apparent to the special and general folk...
There are many other statements of Shaykh al-Islam on this in most of his works dealing with the Philosophers and the Mutakallimeen, what has been presented is a sample, and we want to remain concise and make the core points to be extracted from them as part of a framework to build upon, even if there are many other statements. So we establish here that the entities all around us indicate the necessity of a muhdith (originator) and this is firmly established knowledge in the fitrah. It is ingrained within the fitrah, and it is proven by the collective day to day experience in all fields of human activity.

The point we are establishing here then is that as Muslims we include [uncorrupted] fitrah amongst those things that provide certain (sure) knowledge or certain (sure) truths, and this fitrah is the basis upon which the Messengers made their call, they actually appealed to fitrah, primarily and fundamentally, (قَالَتْ رُسُلُهُمْ أَفِي اللّهِ شَكٌّ فَاطِرِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضِ), "Their Messengers said: Is there any doubt concerning the originator of the heavens and earth?" (14:10). So they appealed to the fitrah and this is what is said by the likes of Ibn Taymiyyah. And where fitrah has become corrupt, then rational proofs come into play which appeal to reason (aql) and we see that there are succint expressions of rational proofs in the Qur'an such as what occurs at the end of Surah al-Tur (53:25).
However, this fitrah goes beyond the mere recognition that whatever is originated must have an originator, it actually feeds into the acknowledgement that none has the right to be worshipped except Allaah alone, which is the desired intent. Hence, there are certain states and feelings, that are necessary from the fitrah and which arise from it, (وَمَا لِي لاَ أَعْبُدُ الَّذِي فَطَرَنِي), "And why should I not worship Him (alone) Who has created me (fataranee)..." (36:22), and these are the likes of inqiyaad (compliance), dhull (humility, lowering), tasleem (submission), mahabbah (love) and so on.

Thus, when a person of sound fitrah looks at the mu'ayyanaat (entities) [through what we can loosely call "scientific enquiry" for now (we will touch upon this next)], then it brings about a certain world-view, upon the innately recognized truth "whatever is muhdath must have a muhdith". This is very different to the kaafir who, by definition, conceals and buries what the fitrah necessitates, and this concealment is through the speech of the heart (takdheeb, juhood) or the action of the heart (kibr, kurh, inaad) of the heart. Upon this, whatever "objective scientific enquiry" the kaafir claims to be operating up, then fitrah has already been made inadmissible to and annulled from it, and thus the conclusions from what are observed of the entities (mu'ayyanaat) in the universe through research and introspection (what they define as "science") are fed from the kufr of the heart that has already buried and concealed the fitrah. This is a very important point to understand here, a crucial one in fact, when we delve into the fight between atheist scientists who champion naturalism (natural causes explain all life) - [a complete violation of the fitrah] and those who argue for design (created entities point to design), and there are many non-Muslims whose fitrah in this regard is intact, even if they nevertheless remain upon kufr. At the same time, these "ape-intellects" we mentioned earlier who have come out of the jungle and into cyberspace, their fitrah in this regard has been corrupted and this is clearly seen and observed from their speech.
Where we are leading to here then is the battle over the fitrah, because that is what the whole issue revolves around, it is this very matter. It leads into the discussion of the way these people define what is "science" with a rigged definition, one that aims to challenge, fight and annull the fitrah - and unfortunately we see many Muslims going all "ape-intellect" and parroting statements like "science cannot prove nor disprove God" and "science is the domain of what is natural and observable" and "science is whatever is built upon falsfiability", "science can only prove what is observable" and so on. These people seriously need a few slaps across the face with banana-skins, in fact more than a few slaps because these are not your average Abdullah and Zayd, but self-esteemed university educated people thinking they've come out with an education, whereas in reality they've come out with something of their fitrah warped and corrupted.
This is why Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan has stated often in many of his fatwas that anyone who wishes to study any field, even things like engineering (which appear to be neutral) and so on in the secular institutions, that he must be very thoroughly grounded in aqidah and Eemaan. And we understand the wisdom of this advice when we consider that it is not because of the actual subject content in and of itself (which in many instances is not problematic), but the underlying philosophy of science and materialist world-view upon which secular sciences have developed, are taught and understood.

1.2 A Quick Illustration of The Line of Scientific Inquiry Ordered in the Qur'an

We can give an illustration here of what is manifest in the Qur'an in abundance, namely Allaah's call to observe and introspect in oneself and the universe, and a large part of the Qur'an is like this, appealing to fitrah and aql through the command to observe and reflect. Here is one example.

أَفَلَا يَنظُرُونَ إِلَى الْإِبِلِ كَيْفَ خُلِقَتْ وَإِلَى السَّمَاء كَيْفَ رُفِعَتْ وَإِلَى الْجِبَالِ كَيْفَ نُصِبَتْ وَإِلَى الْأَرْضِ كَيْفَ سُطِحَتْ
Do they not look at the camels, how they are created? And at the heaven, how it is raised? And at the mountains, how they are rooted and fixed firm? And at the earth, how it is spread out?
We mentioned previously that the maf'oolaat (entities, handiwork) give indication to what is maf'ool (that which has been done), which gives indication to the fi'l (the act), which in turn gives indication to the faa'il (the doer). And this is what we find in the Qur'an, and in the example above, we see the call to look at, observe and reflect over four things. The creation of the camel, the raising of the sky, the fixing of the mountains, and the spreading out of the earth. First of all note that these are not obscure things that only tefal-heads are able to theorize about in labs, rather they are in plain sight and vision of most of mankind, indicating that "scientific" observations and truths are not the exclusive right of an elitist group. Of course, the degree of introspection varies based upon the variation of each person's ability and means. The call here is to observe and reflect upon these affairs, and upon sound uncorrupted fitrah and aql, arrive at the conclusion of an originator, a masterful creator having utmost precision, wisdom, and unmeasurable creative power.

This conclusion is through sound reasoning, that whatever is muhdath (originated), and has purpose, wisdom, design in its entity, can only have come from an agent with ilm (knowledge), iraadah (wish), qudrah (power) and fi'l (action). This is a universal truth embedded in the psyche, the heart, the soul, the reason, of every human, whether he lived in the Amazon jungle 5000 years ago, or whether he lives in New York today, or 17th century Japan, or 9th century "Australian" outback. To exclude this from being "scientific reasoning" or a "scientific line of enquiry" is pure mukaabarah (arrogance), and this is the very line of enquiry used in forensic science, historical archaeology, and likewise in insurance fraud claims - where what is merely accidental is distinguished from what amounts to nothing but calculated intent and design. So this line of enquiry (inferring the best possible explanation out of competing explanations) is indeed found in what is otherwise labelled as "science". In fact, this is the very methodology Darwin uses in Origin of the Species (inference to best out of competing explanations). Today, there is a rightful challenge to the core premise of Darwinism that takes the form of "Natural selection upon random mutations cannot explain the complexity and diversity of life." Unfortunately, we have many people deceived and not able to see and recognize inherent truths (concording to fitrah and aql) found with certain factions of people and dismiss them merely on account of the propaganda coming from atheist militancy. It really shows the strength of "peer pressure" that affects many a self-acclaimed "intellectual" Muslim whose had a stretch in academia, thinking he'll be one of those "clever Muslims" hoping to get a following. Such people never got "an education". Theey got a brainwashing and their fitrah (and aql) got boxed senseless.
2.1 'Science' And The Routes to Objective, Certain Truth

This brings us then to "science." But before we do that, we want to make absolutely sure about the significance of what we have just discussed.

To a sound fitrah, the entire universe, all of its entities (mu'ayyanaat) and all observation (nadhr) and deduction (istidlaal) and whatever would be referred to as "scientific enquiry" into living things, "nature" and the universe - then all of that constitutes the most direct and most powerful of dalaalaat (indications), aayaat (signs) to uncorrupted fitrah of the necessity of an originator. And we see that in the entirety of human experience, this same deduction is rooted in the psyche of all people, in that they operate and conduct their entire lives upon what is rooted in the fitrah, that every muhdath requires by necessity a muhdith. Their food never came on the table thanks to the mere wind. And nor did they win a job promotion through evolutionary forces. And nor did they become scholarly through random undirected processes. Within the field of all human activity, every muhdath (originated thing or entity) must have an originator (originating agent with intent, purpose), and this is a firmly established and rooted assumption and belief that all of humanity operate their daily lives upon.
This reality was never rejected or challenged until the emergence of naturalist and materialist philosophies starting with Auguste Comte, Karl Marx, Charles Darwin and others in the early 19th century (1800s) where naturalistic and materialistic philosophies attempted to explain life, the universe and so on, and this was the beginning of a large-scale assault upon fitrah, aql and naql (in the name of aql). To a large degree, this was due to fundamentalist biblical Christians pushing their version of creationism onto others (upon a corrupted naql amongst other things).

2.2 Defining What is "Science" and What is "Scientific"

Darwin proposed a particular methodology that became the foundation for those after him in laying down rules to separate what they claimed was "science" from "non-science", and it was here that "science" was redefined much more narrowly than it had previously been. Darwin did have the fundamentalist Christian creationists in mind, and that bunch would pretty much annoy anyone. After Darwin came the "logical positivists" who claimed that the only statements which are true and meaningful are those that can be verified by sensory experience, and that anything that cannot be verified by sensory experience cannot be affirmed. And here came "verifiability" and "falsifiability" and references to natural laws for all explanations.

By definition then, that which is rooted in the fitrah, that which is most abyan (clear), aqwaa (strong), adhhar (plain, manifest) and firmly-rooted in the heart: the principle that every muhdath must have a muhdith, is effectively declared "non-science" through a rigged, exclusivist, definition of "science" and "science" now becomes an exclusivist domain through the mere right of assumption and definition. What this means is that to reason that the very intricate and complex mechanisms found in cells, for example, are indicative of "design" and indicate a "designer" is non-science, despite the fact that this is a firmly established, undisputed principle in fitrah, aql and in the collective human experience of all of mankind in all of their activity. Is the theory that an Audi Q7, by virtue of its improbability, complexity, and implied information content must have intelligent agency and design behind it a "non-scientific theory." What makes this non-scientific and why is it not in the realm of "science" and certain truth? And is this theory invalidated and made inadmissible for serious consideration through nothing but definitions of what "science" is and is not, or is there something of actual substance for disallowing it?
What is going on here is pretty much like the Philosophers and Mutakallimeen who said that only their conceptual tools (kalaam, falsafah, logic) are the only routes to knowing universal and objective truths. It is just like the Mutakallimeen said: It is only our proof, the proof of huduth al-ajsaam (origination of bodies), which can be used to prove the existence of a creator. So they limited the field of enquiry and the routes through which knowledge of a creator can be attained to certain areas. Ahl al-Sunnah do not restrict the proof of Allaah's existence to just one method (which is what the Jahmiyyah, the Mu'tazilah, the Later Ash'aris did). There are many proofs (for Allah's existence and His Tawhid), the proof through the emergence of entities (a'yaan), the proof through transformation (e.g. development of the embryo, or the living into the dead and the dead into the living, or development and deterioration of things), the proof through fitrah (natural disposition) [i.e. demonstrating that every originated thing (Muhdath) must have an originator (muhdith) which is ingrained in the fitrah], the proof through miracles of the Prophet, the proof through the character of the Prophet, the proof through the rulings of Islaam, the proof through ijmaa' (consensus), the proof through idtiraar (compelling necessity) and so on. But this exclusivist approach of the Mutakallimeen led them to deny many truths that are known independently of their kalaam, whether that be through pure reason, or pure revelation. And this is the point we are making here about "science" which has been defined in a certain way, not for any truly "scientific" reason in and of itself, but in order to escape having to make certain uncomfortable conclusions which are supported forcefully by pure sound reason, after their acknowledgement that everything does in fact "give the appearance of design", to use the words of Dawkins, and we see in this short remark of Dawkin's the fitrah being oppressively drowned by the kufr of arrogance.
If we fast foward to today we find that philosophers of science now affirm that there isn't any specific set of criteria that can define what is "scientific practice" and what can and cannot be said to have "scientific status" and this is after their realization that many of the claimed demarcation criteria that are used to separate "science" from "non-science" would actually invalidate the scientific status of many theories and ideas which have been accepted for a long time, including Darwinism itself! Also, the logical positivism that we referred to earlier (to accept only what sensory perception captures, observational evidence) received a death blow when it was shown that the theory itself cannot satisfy its very own criteria. It died a death and Atheists and Materialists were then seen walking the alleys, idling about, hands in their pockets, kicking stones and soft drink cans, playing with dogs and cats, until Antony Flew came along in the 1950s and gave them a revival through his paper "Theology and Falsification" which gave them a breath of air and a new cycle of puffed-up arrogance, these cycles tend to occur in bouts of around fifty years when the current paradigm in which they placed all hope [for an answer besides the one necessitated by fitrah and aql] changes form and starts attracting flies that want their meal out of it before it decomposes. Additionally, the idea of "falsifiability" is not what it is made out to be. There are games being played in that the core elements of most theories are not really testable or falsifiable, and so additional hypotheses are added (to the core theory) and it is the additional hypotheses which are tested (through prediction and falsifiability) and not the actual core theory which has always remained unfalsifiable and untestable. Be assured, there is a lot of "blind faith" in science labs and scientific instutions. Its simply hidden in all the fancy and technical language. But, the situation is reached today where Philosophers of science at the higher levels are coming to the conclusion that the real question is not whether a theory is "scientific" or "not scientific" (because defining exactly what that is, is very difficult and problematic) but that the issue is whether a theory is true on account of the evidence presented along with it whatever form that evidence might take, and whether that evidence provides "certain knowledge" in that matter. In other words the definition of "science" is not really the issue and arguing over what is and what is not "science" is not a useful exercise, because the sum total of what is accepted to be "certain knowledge" in all fields of knowledge has not come exclusively through any one methodological procedure that can be labelled as "science". At best, broad criteria can be applied, but they can never be absolute, because arriving at "certain knowledge" can be through many different routes and certain knowledge has been arrived at in many fields, disciplines and "sciences" through what would never meet the criteria for being "science."

Read more inshaAllah>> http://www.aqidah.com/creed/print.cfm?bmymh

:jazaak:
:wasalam:
 
elqouds2020

elqouds2020

Junior Member
kashif_nazeer said:
:salam2:

I hope this post finds everyone in the best of health and man inshaAllah.
I have some questions which I need answers for,while I am searching,I'd really be grateful if someone helped me out here:

1)There is a book by Sheikh Ibn Taymiyya(Rahimhullah),"Dar Ta'rudh ma'al Aqil wal naqil",that is "Refuting the notion of contradictions between Intellect and Revelation",I am unable to find abridged english version online and since I cannot understand arabic,,it would be very kind if someone could highlight the points sheikh mentioned in his arguments and clear this concept of 'aql and naql for me.

2) The concept of fitrah in Islam in a brief detail and "shaakila" or "tashkeel" I am not sure what it is called,it is like an environment which shapes our ideas,if I am not wrong.

:jazaak:

:wasalam:
Click to expand...
essallaou alaykum that god gives you the courage to learn Arabic so well lague understand Arabic in chaa ellah
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top