:wasalam: USResident and diwana
I’m having to do this the hard way, so I am preparing this response with a bit more thought this time.
I acknowledge your apathy in this matter, but this is the one area that I think is important for us to get to grips with. I apologise for the semantics, but it is in the semantics that people can misunderstand one another and it is based on semantics that we develop our more sophisticated understandings. I see though you have not entirely disagreed with me you have however lessened the importance of what I am saying. I have done my homework in this matter and I say this with utmost humility and because this matter is an area that I wish to KNOW about (mind the pun) I want to engage in rhetoric so this matter can be effectively expounded upon, and if necessary for me to adjust my stance when I am happy that I need to do so. Likewise I want to be able to explain my stance without being perceived as one who is pushing this matter for others to accept.
There is a creed based reason for my concerns in this matter and also a ray of hope for those who may have to face the tribulations of Dajjal. My concerns are as you might now become aware of is the premise in language that defines for us how we should think. This is a kin to how we should operate based on what we know (or what we think we know) – or simply what we believe.
First let me present the said definition and compare it with what the dictionaries state:
USResident definition of belief
Merriam-Webster - belief
Oxford - belief
As can be seen the three definitions are varied. USResident claims that belief is acceptance when there is no witnessing. Number 3 of M-W definition states evidence strengthens a conviction but the conviction can exist without that evidence, Oxford states that belief is merely a feeling that something is true and moreover when there is no proof. The observation that I am making is that belief can be both conviction of something to be true when it has both evidence and no evidence. The USResident definition is what I call the common definition and this is what people imply in everyday speak, but if we rule out the notion that belief can also be trust in something to be true when there IS evidence such as in the case of Merriam-Webster it therefore covers all bases. If we assume that USResident is correct about the definition of belief, then we have an equation that all belief is blind. It supports the orientation of the Oxford dictionary whose basis is secular however you can see the subtle difference in the M-W definition whose basis is religious. Either way both dictionaries acknowledge that belief encompasses all of what we ‘know’ and particularly refers to what we accept without evidence. Furthermore there is another danger in accepting the complementary definition of ‘knowledge’ or rather ‘to know’ let’s look at the definitions below:
USResident - Knowledge
Merriam-Webster - Knowledge
Oxford – knowledge
Merriam-Webster – Know
Oxford – know
You see here USResident has inserted a real gem of a statement. Knowledge is direct cognition and at this stage it has not reached intimation that we should form an opinion regarding it, it is simply knowledge whether it is true or not. I think diwana you may have missed this distinction that he made.
Brother diwana the problem in using common definitions is that creates incomplete concepts. Such as the statement you have made:
‘If one has not witnessed something that is ‘blinded’ faith’
Yet Muslims declare and bear witness that there is One God. How can that be? Because we both bear witness that God is One and this statement is considered one of faith not of logical fact. Are you saying that we are lying that we should not say ‘witness’ or have you really stumbled across a breakdown in the assumed meanings of words?
The fact is we do bear witness … we witness it with our conviction we do not have to necessarily see something to affirm its truth we can have a number of experiences that may be subjective and not objective, as you seem to have accepted by default.
Moving over to the dictionary definitions of ‘know’ it is analogous to conviction and to be sure, but furthermore it involves being absolutely sure. I mean I can say that I know something, but I could be wrong. I can say that I saw something but my eyes can deceive me. Can I really be sure?
This is the danger in attempting to separate the terms ‘know’ and ‘believe’ because the faculty of belief is what both overrides ‘knowledge’ and at the same time ‘drives’ what we ‘know to be true’, because without belief what we have is just ‘information’ … when intimate with that information and accept it after privately agreeing with it, it becomes something that we say we ‘know’, but what we know can be subject to ‘error’ just as much as what we ‘believe’. When we know something we really only believe we know and it may be that it is only our take on it. We know how we have understood it, but do not know its ‘universality’. We cannot ever know anything much with absoluteness. Perhaps the most fundamental concept that we have is the concept of identity and that is ‘one’ and that is ‘Oneness’ … it appears interesting that the only thing that we can be fairly sure about is the presiding Attribute of how our Lord wants us to acknowledge Him by. This adds reason as to why we say that we bare witness.
There is an opinion that we already know everything, taken from the story of Adam (AS) who was taught the names of things, and it is embedded in our natures, but what we do is draw it out from within through inspiration and guidance and echo this against what information we have to our disposal. When we agree with that information from what we have drawn out we can either do so erroneously, self-deceivingly or with guidance from whatever mechanism; we call it affirmation and that affirmation is a private affair, when we affirm in public it is a different matter. This private affirmation is the same function drawn from our faculty to believe.
To believe something therefore is no different to knowing something except that linguistically to know something infers that we can objectively demonstrate it, but it should not mean that what we believe defies reason. We should not be beings who defy reason. We of course can defy reason and we do it all the time, but we should not do it and our Islamic belief is distinct from other beliefs because it is grounded in reason. Logic is only one form of reasoning. Which brings me to USResidents’ statement, which is in agreement to the essence of what I have been saying:
And it seems that diwana has accepted this. But you have not accepted the argument of reasoned belief as a middle condition. As I said it is the only condition we are allowed to have as Muslims. I think you do have reasoned belief, but I think in my humble opinion you are mistakenly equating it with blind belief and furthermore you are also mistaking any form of reasoning to be that of logic, which I think you are not really saying anymore.
So what is logic?
Logic necessitates conclusions based on premises. Logic can lead to false conclusions and it can also lead to inconclusive answers. I am not talking here about false arguments, which are something else entirely. False arguments are when the logical process has been compromised. This will happen when the premise presented is wrong or when the conclusion drawn is wrong and also when both the premise and conclusions are partially correct but infer totality.
Example of false premise in line 1:
- All Fungi are deadly
- Mushrooms are fungi
- Therefore, Mushrooms are deadly
All fungi are not deadly and hence not all mushrooms are deadly
Example of false conclusions in line 3:
- A man and woman have intercourse
- Intercourse is the precursor to having babies
- The man and woman will have a baby
There is missing information which causes the line of argumentation to mandate the conclusion which is not true; at best it CAN be true.
Example of false inference:
- Some fungi are deadly
- Death-caps are fungi
- Death-caps are deadly
Here the conclusion is true, and both the premises also, but the construction of the logic assumes that death-caps are part of the group of some deadly fungi.
The limitations of logic therefore are in the premises which are context specific. We cannot set upon ourselves conditions in the premise that are unreasonable, nor can we allow logic to dictate what is or is not an all encompassing set of premises.
The correct logical answer in the above third example is that death-caps MAY be deadly, which makes us none the wiser. So the logical construct has been a waste of time.
This is where reason comes in. If something could be deadly then it is better not to eat it, we could test it against an animal and if that animal dies it could mean we would die too, we start to use fuzzy inferences to help us make our decisions we use analogies and they are not logic in themselves.
It is also called reason to base a belief on a previously established belief. This should answer the question posed by brother diwana:
It is true that is what I have said, but to believe that the Qur’an cannot be faulted is itself subject to reason. The reason I use is that for 1400 years no one has achieved a successful challenge against the Qur’an. Therefore I can base it as my premise to form beliefs upon that. This strictly is not logical, because logic tells us that even if it has not been successfully challenged it does not mean that in the future it will not be successfully challenged. I have used reason and not logic to deduce that up until now for 1400 years there has been no successful challenge so I am confident that there will not be any challenge that will succeed ever.
However, even to believe in something first and then to obtain wisdoms for it is still better than not finding anything and not pondering.
Now USResident states:
Agreed! To note that it does not mean non-logical arguments cannot achieve some sort of objectivity. We have made binary what is in fact a spectrum of evidences. Some evidence is clearer than others, but earlier it has been argued that even the clearest evidence can be wrong and as I now state even the most illogical evidence can be perceivable to many people; such as the feeling of love for example.
Brother diwana writes:
That may be the case for some people, but we are encouraged where capability allows to see through our bases for forming opinions. I believe that ‘Iman is strengthened when we ponder over creation. Now we are told that the Qur’an is authentic we can choose to accept that or we can try to prove it wrong. To prove something right we need evidence upon evidence and it may never be enough, but to prove something wrong we only need one statement provided it is in the right context. If we cannot prove the Qur’an to be inauthentic then we must deduce that it should be trusted as though it is authentic.
Here is where the topic shifts a bit, diwana you say:
First of all I am not saying that logic is the only way to obtain belief, but what I am saying is that logic should not be defied its place. Where it can be used it must be used. Where it cannot be used then other evidences will suffice. And the whole ensemble of evidence should be used for how we make our decision, not to make the decision on impulse alone.
It is true that people who know our scriptures better than us are still not Muslim, but this is testified in the Qur’an, by His Signs Allah (SWT) can cause people to be guided and to go astray. It is a matter not of logical reasoning, but rather a matter of choosing ones own desires over what they can see to be true.
When logic is used honestly then it will provide evidence to make a decision whether or not to believe in something, but when it is used dishonestly then such people as you mention will ‘hide’ this fact. This is another aspect of the miracle of the Qur’anic Arabic is that it calls the disbeliever the ‘hider’ … a person who simply does not believe is ‘astray’ or ‘misguided’ but the person who sees the truth be it through logical deduction or otherwise and still does not openly accept the truth even when in his heart he has seen it, then this is called ‘kufr’.
I spent a long time introspecting over this matter and have come to the conclusion that when a matter has reached intimation with us, we then employ a sub-cognition to evaluate where it needs to be privately classified. This is strewn from our Fitrah and is not in our control. Where it settles is based purely on tawfiq we then assess this classification against our cognitive and irascible functions which lets us know whether we privately agree with this private classification or whether we do not. There are five possibilities, when:
A matter is classified as true and we offer it private acceptance – true to self
A matter is classified as false and we offer it private acceptance – true to self
A matter is classified as true and we offer it private rejection – untrue to self
A matter is classified as false and we offer it private rejection – untrue to self
A matter is classified as either false or true, but we prevent ourselves from assessing it.
Then when we are required to cognitively assess these states if we are privately truthful to ourselves on a matter but in the open we reject its truth, this is called kufr. But there is a form of honesty here.
However, if privately we deny ourselves the truth and claim otherwise this is both being dishonest to ourselves and to others and renders a greater illness … this to me gives reason why the hypocrites ‘munafiq’ are worse than the kafir.
Please interject at any stage …
The fifth condition is what I define as ‘blind faith’ … it is when a matter is open to our private assessment but we choose to accept it based on our public deciding faculties only. This is blind faith and blind faith will have the fruits of prayer without khushu and rituals without meaning or understanding. The mechanism of Blind belief is similar to kufr because in kufr we disobey our private conclusions and in blind belief we disallow our private conclusions to form.
Diwana you go on to say:
But where it is possible it should be used
I agree logic should not be used in isolation, and it should be noted that there are more fundamental forms of premises than logical constructs. Senses such as sight and smell are two of these. Feeling of wellbeing is another.
brother diwana your last points:
That actually did happen to a friend of mine about 15 years ago he tried to do a session in the debating society that there is 100% proof of God, he was not successful at convincing people. When to use logic and knowing its limitations is important for Muslims.
But this can be seen another way, the miracles they used was to show that reason to believe can go beyond mere logic. Miracles are a form of evidence to believe that person is from God. But the fundamental thing that tests a true prophet is his truth. And when it came to arguments the people could not defeat the prophets in matters of reason.
This brings me nicely on to the point I want to make about the Dajjal. We are going to face times that are really hard to know truth from falsehood. I pray often that Allah (SWT) gives me clarity of thought and perception and to show me truth and to guide me. This is because I have had some bad times in the past.
I believe that we are systematically through trends in society being made to ‘believe’ things that are false and nothing is stronger than the ‘eyes’ in making us do this. If we are ‘blind’ to this or accept things in a blind manner then if the time should come upon us when the Dajjal arrives it will become increasingly difficult to discern the reality of the situation.
The Ummah will fall prostrate to him because he will show us things, but it will be reason alone from the worldly gifts and tawfiq and guidance that will protect us from the fitnah of Dajjal. Our reason that dictates that ‘Lam yalid wa lam you lad’ needs to be put before what we think we ‘know’ from our eyes.
