Eid milad un nabi is biddat - Saudi mufti

[MangoMan]

Re: Eid milad un nabi is biddat - Saudi mufti

Thanks brother Psyah for taking the time to respond in such detail.

@psyah

So I have chosen to review this discussion with you @MangoMan and to be honest I could
have answered better, here is the synopsis:

MangoMan first you said the following in post #31](http://www.paklinks.com/gs/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=31)

You present an argument:

1. Islam itself is not agreed upon – therefore we cannot find the Islamic truth
   a. It is not like chemical properties, etc
2. Those who say they want to find truth … are wrong/false/deluded, etc
3. Therefore: We should accept differences

In post #32](http://www.paklinks.com/gs/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=32) … I tried to explain how 1) is not technically correct. There are tools for consistency to establish truths – Validation does exist in Islam but also 1a) is not always a one-to-one answer always either. We just need to use the tools honestly.

I don’t think validation of truth is dependent on honesty/dishonesty. If I jump up, doesn’t matter what my intention is, the creator’s law of the universe comes into play and I fall down. That’s ‘reality’. Something that can be observed by any human being with any faith/intention. Something that cannot be validated like that may also be true. We can use inferences from other established truths to get close to them. That’s the kind of truth that people have divided opinions about. Because there is space/openness for division there. Nothing wrong with that division. In the context of religion, that kind of truth is faith. People believe in different things that they think are true. They get too emotionally attached to these things. Add to it the possibility of burning forever in hell for some of these beliefs and you get an explosive situation.

@psyah

In post #38](http://www.paklinks.com/gs/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=38) you said …

1. Easy to refute arguments then why so many sects?

In post 40](http://www.paklinks.com/gs/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=40) I tried to say …

1. That difference is not necessarily a bad thing.

However, what I should have said is that I never said it is easy to refute religious arguments. It is simple if we follow an academic approach and ready ourselves for change if and where required. The problem is many do not know the tools and some who do will not use them honestly.

So the different sects are there because they do not know the tools or are not using them with honesty? I would not question their honesty but would rather say that the tools are not sufficient.

@psyah

In post #41](http://www.paklinks.com/gs/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=41) I tried to show that truth can be multi-faceted and that there can be two or more right answers. Because in religion it depends on the sincerity to do the right thing.

I think you are mixing truth and false with good and bad. You can do good in many ways and it may depend on intentions but I won’t say the same for truth. Mutli-facted? yes, but depends on sincerity? I don’t think so.

@psyah

In post #42](http://www.paklinks.com/gs/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=42) you obtained something else by what I wrote and used it to support the idea that resolution cannot be achieved.

But we achieve an understanding and respect on the opinions of the other group … so something is achieved!

I understand this but I think in the context of religion, not all the differences of opinions lead to respect of other groups. They also lead to hating other people. e.g., some people think Milaads are bid’at, some people think Shia are kafir, many people think qadianis are kafir, some people think gustakh e rasool are wajib ul qatl, some people think those who leave islam are wajib ul qatl.

@psyah

In post #61](http://www.paklinks.com/gs/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=61) you presented the argument that not all people will accept the validity of the evidences presented … I agree with you. Look at my post #32](http://www.paklinks.com/gs/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=32) – In my points 1, 2 and 3 they are supposed to acknowledge the fact that evidences – i.e. the premises of an argument could be refuted. However, we have different tools for them, and different tools for showing how they are validated and so on … until we arrive at some conformity. What we look for is not to impose our evidences on others or them on us … We are trying to understand their approach at this stage. We look for ‘internal consistency’ – this means logical correctness within their own parameters and within their own argument structure. If there is no consistency then we can conclude that something about their argument is wrong. Either the conclusion is wrong, the premises are wrong or the way they are being connected is wrong. And we can discover this by looking at several examples and analysing them with the same logical structure.

I believe it is possible to reach closer to one another – but truth is not about “definitions” it is about “experiencing” the Divine and sincerely being devoted to the religion and making it the driving force for our lives …

Reaching closer to each other should be the aim. Your path to it seems to be religion and religious discussions, mine is the avoidance of religious discussions as I believe it leads to more harm than good. I think faith is something personal. Discussions about this is allowed in Islam and that is not is a meaningless discussion in my opinion as we then start giving ‘pseudo’ evidences which can be interpreted in any way and thus the argument that whether something is allowed or not cannot be settled about many things. Hence, it is better to leave everybody practice according to their own understanding of what is allowed and what is not.

@psyah

Coming back to your first point – I think we do not have enough patience for each other and no desire to put effort in to extract details that may challenge us. This is the cause of our disunity and weakness.

I agree with this but perhaps I am interpreting it for my own convenience.