Traditional Sunni Islamic Epistemology

[Omar HH]

I have a question that has been bugging me for some time which no scholars are able to answer for me satisfactorly.

This is based upon Ashari aqeedah:

Unaided human reason cannot by itself figure out what is good and what is bad and how to follow Allah (SWT). Things are good or bad because Allah (SWT) makes them good or bad, not because our reason dictates it to be so. Allah (SWT) sent us Messengers to know what is good and what is bad and to tell us to believe in Him and follow Him, etc. If pure human reason alone could do this then Messengers would be unnecessary. This is why Imam al-Ghazali says that those unreached by the message or reached with a distorted message are not responsible.

So what is the nature of belief? When the message reaches a person how does he accept it as the truth and become a Muslim? Someone may hear the full undistorted truth about Islam but still have doubts which prevent him from entering, while someone else may be wholly convinced on little "proof".

Shaykh Nuh Keller once said that if Islam could be proved there would not be a single kaffir on the face of the earth. So how does one accept something unproved as true?

I asked Shaykh Abu Qanit al-Hassani about this and his reply was:


The acceptance of revelation is almost always due to the person
realizing the conformity of what he hears with his "pre-programming"
which took place before his birth (and is partly mentioned in verse
7:172
of the Qur'an)...

> For example, someone hears the Qur'an, what lets him grasp Islam
> in his heart? Now the Catholic Philosopher Blaise Pascal said that
> there are 3 ways that you can believe something. You believe through
> reason, inspiration, or habit.

Another reason for belief is direct perception - this is why the Arabs
say
"al-`ayaanu yughni `ani l-burhaani" "Eye-witnessing frees one from
needing detailed proofs". In English, you say "Seeing is believing."
The actual and foremost reason for belief is perception. For the
common
man, it is a weak feeling in the heart which reminds him the truths
which
he learned before being born into this world - which he still carries
along
with him subconsciously. For the `arif and advanced spiritual, it is a
constant and strong vision of the Divine Entity which fortifies and
firmly
established this belief in his heart...

There is no "versus" here [concerning reason vs. revelation] if you want to give your heart rest, know
that
Allah knows the true nature of existence. And this true nature can be
discovered in multiple ways (more than three ways). And that rational
logic
is a means to discover this reality. And Revelation from a true
prophet
is a way to discover this reality. And witnessing with one's eyes,
ears, soul, dream body, or astral body is another way to verify this
reality. And there other ways also, such extensive research into
history and finding that all beliefs of all traditional people can be
traced
back to some ancient core teachings which agree with each other - and
the differences we see today among the religions are due to improper
preservation and adulterated conveyance away from the original
teachings.

He also said:


Rejecting Islam due to fiqh has been the major reason for leaving Islam
from the time of Abu Jahl to now. You should know that the real reason
Abu Jahl never became Muslim was that he was afraid that the laws which
Muhammad was bringing would infringe on his current "unfair" and
"dishonest"
business practices - as is recorded in some books of seerah...

The truth will remain the truth regardless of whether we believe it or
not. Belief is a choice which we are offered - a choice if made
correctly
will lead to eternal bliss and a choice which if made incorrectly will
lead to eternal pain.

qul al-haqqu min rabbika fa man sha'a ful yu'min wa man sha'a fa
l-yakfur.
inna a`tadna li l-dhalimina naaran ahata bihim saradiquha.

"Say: The truth is from your Lord; so, whoever wants let him believe
and
whoever wants let him disbelieve. Indeed, We have prepared for the
wrong-doers a Fire whose covering flames will engulf them."

[{Surah Kahf, verse 29}]

Yes. The individuated choice is real and if you understood the key to
destiny,
you would be among the scarce who understand how it works.

So belief is a choice. Now here is where my problem comes in. I do not understand how belief is a choice. Knowledge of something requires that you are convinced it exists. For example a normal healthy person may believe that the computer monitor in front of him exists because of his senses, he can see it he can touch it etc. But a person that suffers from chronic hallucinations would take more convincing to realize the monitor does in fact exist.

The same thing with Islam, this is what I do not understand, I cannot grasp this concept what so ever. Acceptance of Islam in the heart is based upon the heart being convinced of it's truth. This is belief, confirming that something is true. This doesn't seem like a choice to me. Some people may want to believe in Islam, and even chose it as their religion, but their hearts won't let them believe that it is true because they aren't CONVINCED.

So basically I have asked Shaykh Abu Qanit al-Hassani, read Imam al-Ghazali's writings, listened to Shaykh Nuh's talks, and I still cannot grasp this concept.

Allah (SWT) puts iman in the hearts of who he wishes, and put's kufr in the hearts of who he wishes. But there is also free-will for man to choice either. So belief is a choice and a gift? I am confused.

Shaykh Abu Qanit al-Hassani said that most people will never understand the "key' to understanding divine decree and free-will, but he offers it anyway:

<madrassa> Could you please clarify the two seeming contradictory statements
+that are in the Quran when Allah (SWT) says that all evil comes from Me, as
+well as evil comes from what your hands have earned. I was reading a book in
+which the author was trying to clarify this by saying:
<madrassa> That Allah created both good and evil and with him both were in
+perfect harmony, and when he released them into this dunya evil got its shape
+due to the distance from Him.
<madrassa> Now is it true that if a person on a Path moves closer to Allah,
+just because of his proximity, evil might have a lesser effect on him
<madrassa> since there seems to be a proportional relationship between evil
+and its distance from Allah (SWT)
<madrassa> done
<aq_hasani> ok
<aq_hasani> We can see the line reasoning of the quoted author, but the contained
+statement is not ...
<aq_hasani> in full conformity to the actual truth of the matter.
<aq_hasani> Firstly, we have answered a very similar question in our Previously Answered
+Ihsan Section about there usually being *two* perspectives to each issue.
<aq_hasani> One of these perspectives is called (all of these are considered synonyms
+(for now)):
<aq_hasani> shari`ah/farq/hikma
<aq_hasani> The other perspective is called:
<aq_hasani> haqiqah/jam`/qudra
<aq_hasani> And it is only the advanced and completed spiritual [rajulun kaamil] who has
+truly learned to join between the two.
<aq_hasani> Farq states that everything in Allah's creation is separate in terms of
+individuals being responsible for their own actions.
<aq_hasani> Jam` states that everything is ultimately in the control of Allah.
<aq_hasani> And the higher understanding here has to do with the key to undertanding
+destiny - which is referred to as a secret by past scholars due the rarity of
+the individual who possesses the key.
<aq_hasani> Nevertheless, we will lay bare this key for you in a single statement, which
+perhaps you may understand at a much later date:
<aq_hasani> First the pre-requisite understanding...
<aq_hasani> All responsibility returns to the concept of "consciousness".
<aq_hasani> It is only because we are conscious of our actions and experience choice
+that responsibility can be established.
<aq_hasani> Once you understand this, then you are ready to receive the key:
<aq_hasani> And again, we would not expect you to fully understand at this point.
<aq_hasani> The Key: "Our consciousness is a subset *representation* of the Divine
+consciousness."
<aq_hasani> We do not want to go into detailed references and explanations in this
+online lesson.
<madrassa> i understand
<aq_hasani> So, we ask you to use the Previously Asked Questions option...
<aq_hasani> so we can send you some previous discussions about this.
<aq_hasani> [We will also paste in part of the Previously Asked Ihsan Question]:
<aq_hasani> One reason people are confused about this matter is that the Qur'an itself
+quickly switches
<aq_hasani> from the level of shari`ah to the level of haqiqah and vice versa (often in
+the same verse).
<aq_hasani> Thus, they are unable to understand what really is meant since the same
+event is narrated
<aq_hasani> from two opposite vantage points.
<aq_hasani> An example of this in one verse is:
<aq_hasani> And these villages We destroyed when they started doing wrong and We had
+[already]
<aq_hasani> appointed for their destruction a fixed date [maw`idan].
<aq_hasani> [{Surah Kahf, verse 59}]
<aq_hasani> Now the beginning part of the verse is talking on the level shari`ah - that
+Allah brought
<aq_hasani> punishment on people because of incorrect conscious choices that they were
+making.
<aq_hasani> And the second part of the verse is talking on the level of haqiqah - that
+they were
<aq_hasani> to be destroyed on a particular date as predestined for them.
<aq_hasani> An example of this in two verses is:
<aq_hasani> "...If good befalls them they say, 'This is from Allah.' And if bad
<aq_hasani> befalls them, they say, 'This is from you [O Prophet].' Say: All
<aq_hasani> is from Allah. So what is wrong with these people that they almost
<aq_hasani> cannot understand [a simple] statement.
<aq_hasani> If good befalls you, it is from Allah and if bad befalls you, it is
+from
<aq_hasani> yourself..."
<aq_hasani> [{al-Nisa', verse(s) 78-79}]
<aq_hasani> Now, clearly, if one were think on the same level, the verses above contain
<aq_hasani> a contradiction - as many unqualified people (mostly non-Muslim) have
+claimed.
<aq_hasani> But, such passages in the Qur'an are written for the baqi who has learned
+to join
<aq_hasani> between the haqiqah and the shari`ah. Thus, he sees the shari`ah part of
<aq_hasani> "if bad befalls you, it is from yourself" and he sees the haqiqah part of
+"all is from Allah".
<aq_hasani> The spiritually immature will not be able to grasp this.

Can someone put this all together for me so I can grasp these concepts?

Jazakallahu Khayrun

[Mossy]

Heh, I just commented to someone that epistemology was mind-numbingly boring before I saw this thread..

I've always been of the supposition that faith comes through understanding.. But I'll leave this for the time being to more qualified individuals as my personal views probably don't conform with the standard ones with regard to this (too much western/eastern philosophy, doh).

[Omar HH]

To make this question easier:

How is belief a choice and not something soley dependent upon the mind's ability to accept knowledge?

Is the basic question.

[Omar HH]

Ok well Shaykh Abu Qanit al-Hassani just sent me 3 very long emails which answer this issue, but they are extremely complicated. If you would like to read them, ask me.

[Omar HH]

In the Name of Allah, the Merciful, the Powerful

Assalamu `Alaykum.

Dear Honest Student,

Sidi, you wrote:

> I hate to bother you with so many questions but Abu Hanifa
> said that if you are not sure about a question in aqidah, you
> should ask a scholar immediately (or something like this, Allahu
'Alam).

This may come as a shock to you. But, the primary reason why
we (on a personal level) answer questions is to advance in
knowledge ourselves. We always re-verify what we say when producing
references, and during this re-verification we almost always learn
something new - such that at this point we are confident that we
understand many issues to a level much higher than we were at
just two or three years ago.

And of course, there is the principle of sharing knowledge and
saving people from doubts and wrong actions which will lead
to Allah's anger.

Nevertheless, as we are involved in various projects, no one
should be offended if he/she does not receive a response or receives
only a delayed response.

> Ok so I think I understand this a little bit better now,
> belief is a choice. Also the Guiding Helper says "30 Knowledge
> is a firm conviction based upon evidence corresponding to reality
> that something is true." I think I have confused the definitions
> of knowledge and belief. Because I guess you DO NOT choose knowledge,
> you must be convinced of it, but you DO choose belief.

They are actually interlinked. If you believe something which
corresponds to knowledge, then this belief is verified to be true.
And if you believe something which does not correspond to knowledge,
then this belief cannot be verified to be true (with the current
information at hand).

Also, this definition is not our own (as none of the words in the
Explanatory Notes are our own), but is the definition used by
the ancient Arabic mutakallimin for knowledge.

Reference(s):
Sharh Sullam al-Munawraqi by al-Damanhuri

> You also define belief as "218 To believe something means to
> recognize that it is true."

See above.

> I was listening to Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller's lectures and
> he said that if you could prove Islam there would not be
> a single kaffir on the earth. He said the nature of Iman
> is Taqlif (which he didn't translate).

It is takleef - which means one is responsible for choosing the
correct beliefs and actions as we mentioned before.

As for not being able to prove belief, then we would state that
the attributes of Allah are rationally provable while details
of other tenets (e.g., the belief in the Messengers) are only
rationally preponderant.

Shaykh Nuh, along with many other contemporary scholars, is
repeating the misconception introduced by Immanuel Kant
which is prevalent in almost all people who have studied higher
education in the West, (e.g., Shaykh Nuh who has a Phd. in
Philosophy from some Universities in the US.) People who have
degrees in Philosophy necessarily have been exposed to incorrect
advanced belief constructs. And if they were not lucky enough
to come across the handful or so (less than ten) of advanced
mutakallimin alive today, they will assume that our past scholars
had nothing to say about such advanced issues - as some of their
ancient knowledge was not recorded in books.

For example, we are confident that our time-space discontinuity
proof is the first time that this proof has been written down
in its entirety - although from research we are sure that the ancient
mutakallimin knew this proof for it is the basis upon which the
other rational arguments are founded. And we have actually
used excerpts found in their ancient books to produce that
proof.

[One side note here is that there is a debate in philosophy about
whether mathematics applies to the real world or not (This is
an example of a kindergarten debate which goes on in the
higher academic circles of the "qualified" West.) What we
state here is that all mathematics is derived from two principles,
that of order and that of addition - and these two principles are
directly derivable from the *real* world. And if one accepts
that numbers can be larger than others and that they can be
ordered and added together, then there is no way out of rejecting
the mathematical portions of that proof. The lop-sided nature
of modern education (e.g., in Western Universities) produces
people who speak about philosophical issues without having the
necessary mathematical background around which these issues
resolve.]

The fact here is that after one proves that space and time is
discontinuous and that time cannot be circular or backward flowing
in nature, then there is no rational way to reject the proofs
of the ancient mutakallimin who knew that space and time were
arranged this way - as is evident form the traces of their
writings.

The reason why there are kuffar has less to do with rational logic than
it has to do with people following their own desires and justifying
their disbelief via "kindergarten" arguments.

> He then spoke about how we do many things without requiring proof
> such as walking into a building without asking for proof that it
> will not fall on us.

The proof for this is the certificate of occupancy which all
civil governments issue after examining the structure of the
building.

But, yes there are many aspects of our belief (which are entrenched
in the unseen) which cannot be possibly rationally proved (with our
current limited information) - such as the fact that there are eight
doors to Paradise and seven doors to Hell.

> So must knowledge comes first before belief? Is this the meaning
> of Imam al-Ghazali's statement about those who die without
> da'wah having reached them or with a distorted version of
> the da'wah?

There is no necessary order here. But, we state that belief backed
up with knowledge is *less* likely to be easily shaken.

As for this entire issue of being granted amnesty, you should
know that this is not agreed upon in the `Ash`ari school and
here is what we forwarded as a conclusion after studying this
issue:

a) Since the `Ash`ari school states that the rational mind alone
can reach the knowledge of the attributes of Allah, then
no divine-message contact is necessary for the *intelligent*
person who had an opportunity in life to ponder this issue
for him to be responsible for not committing atheism,
agnosticism,
and pure-polytheism. Such an atheist, agnostic, or
pure-polytheist
is not granted amnesty.
b) The only intelligent people who could possibly be granted
amnesty
are "conceptual" monotheists who have a vague idea about there
being
One All-Powerful Creator but have made major mistakes in the
details of belief and laws. This is because the `Ash`ari school
states that details of belief and law are *not* reachable
by the intellect alone.

The summary is very simple:

a) One is responsible for believing in and acting on whatever
one knows.

Thus, if an intelligent person is alone in the jungle, then he is
responsible for being a "conceptual" monotheist as that is reachable
via pondering alone via various avenues. And such a person would
not be responsible for knowing detailed tenets and laws which are
only learned from a divinely-revealed primary text. For example,
the person living in the jungle would not be responsible for knowing
that he cannot eat pork meat, nor is it necessary for him to know
that Allah has ordained five daily prayers on all humans. Nor is
it necessary for him to know all of the details of beliefs mentioned
in the Explanatory Notes of Song 3.

Reference(s):
[{al-Mayyarah Sharh, for Ibn `Ashir's Murshid, lines 21-28}]
[{`Ilm al-Usul al-Fiqh, Abd al-Wahhab Khallaf, Section
on Maturidi School.}]


> Since knowledge is firm conviction based upon evidence, what
> if the da'wah does not produce firm conviction based upon
> evidence in the individual? His heart is not satisfied because
> there is not enough evidence for him to accept Islam as the
> absoulte truth. Is this included in "da'wah having not
> reached them."

There is no necessity for the da`wah to produce a firm conviction
in the mind. If such were true then the kufr of the Quraysh would
be justified as Muhammad's (May Allah bless him and give him peace)
presentations did not produce such a firm conviction. But, the da`wah
has to be clear enough and unbiased enough such that it appears as
a definite possibility of the truth. And we do read that some of
the kuffar of Quraysh used to listen to the Prophet (May Allah bless
him and give him peace) surreptitious and *almost* be convinced of
the truth; but, then when they drew away they affirmed their
disbelief.

> But those who receive the true undistorted message of Islam and
> sit there and think about it and consider it possible to be
> true but do not accept it because they do not want to follow
> the fiqh are making the choice not to believe?

Both people are committing disbelief; but, what we state is that
the actual reason for the disbelief has often less to do with
the actual tenets that some other issue, such as that of fiqh
or that of being afraid of being outcast from society.

> See my mistake was that I was looking at belief as NOT a choice.
> The reason is to recognize something is true is not conciously
> chosen. I used to think that belief was based upon being proven,
> and you did not chose it.

Now. You understand correctly that a belief is chosen. Yes. There
is usually some knowledge proof behind the belief, but returns to
the choice.

> Can you please elaborate for me on the nature of how belief
> is a CHOICE?

There are three possibilities for each belief:

a) Either you accept it as true
b) You reject it as false
c) You are inconclusive about it.

For example, if someone walks up to you and says such-and-such famous
scholar has uttered this statement. Then, you are presented with
these three choices. Now, if you trust the source and the scholar,
then you most probably will choose option (a) even though the
actual statement of the scholar may be incorrect and not correspond
to true knowledge.

This is an example of how you chose a particular belief. And it is
this
exact method which almost all humans use to chose beliefs - and that
is on the *basis of trust*.

Now, Allah has been very merciful and He has not confined us to
*only* trusting His messengers; but, rather has conveyed through them
*actual* truths and realities which can - in many cases - be
independently
verified. And a point comes, where the person understands that the
messenger is a reliable source and thus trusts all of his
*authenticated*
statements - even those for which only rational preponderance can
be achieved or no rational statement can be issued.

> And can you in more detail contrast the diference between
> choice and knowledge?
See above.


> Also what are the proofs that Sayyidina Muhammad (SAWS) was a
prophet, and
> that his revelation is divine?

This is a separate question and we will e-mail a previously asked
question to you about this separately.

> And what is the limit of proofs?

The limit of proofs is based upon trusted perception.

> Why is it that belief is not (fully) based upon proofs?

We explain this in the excerpt which we will e-mail you
separately.


Wassalamu `alaykum wa rahmatullah

Abuqanit Hasani
Main Author
Guiding Helper Foundation

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Guiding Helper Foundation
Website: http://www.guidinghelper.com

p.s. The answer provided is directed to the individual questioner
and does not necessarily apply to the general body of our din.
Please do not reply to this message as it has been automatically
generated by an unattended mailer. If you have more questions, visit:
http://www.guidinghelper.com/ask_question.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Next email is the rational proofs that Sayyidina Muhammad (SAWS) was a Messenger.

[Omar HH]

Rational proofs that Sayyidina Muhammad (SAWS) was a Messenger:


In the Name of Allah, the Merciful, the Powerful

Assalamu `Alaykum.

Dear Honest Student,

Sidi,

Here is a copy of one of our lesson trascipts with a completed
student of ours Harun al-Bostanian. It addresses your questions
about whether it is rationally provable that that Muhammad (May Allah
bless him and give him peace) was a messenger and why all beliefs
do not have proofs behind them.

Harun wrote:

> This leads to another 'difficult question' however.
> a) Allah is the ultimate source of knowledge
> b) Allah uses secondary causes (i.e. An angel is in charge of the
rain,
> Gabriel teaches the Qur'an to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)etc.)
> c) The knowledge that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)had was not possibley
> obtainable by a learned man, let alone an uneducated man, so it must
have
> come from a source with more knowledge than humans
> d) isn't it possible that another being (time-bound, created, but
more
> knowleadgeable than humans) taught him the Qur'an (i.e. like people
> hear angels etc.) ? I know that some people at the time of the
Prophet
> (pbuh) accused him of being possessed by Jinn (he (pbuh) even worried
> about this after the first revelation.)

We first place the "sought after" answer in the "statements" category.

Then, we place it in the Din category (level 1).

Then, we place it in the `Aqidah category (this is the second level).

Then, we see that there are two subcategories here:

i) Tenets which can be derived purely rationally
ii) Tenets which can only derived with the aid of Divine
Revelation. [It is not that rationality does not play
a part in deriving these tenets; but, rationality alone is
not enough to derive them accurately].

We wrote before concerning this:

Next, we must learn a general rule for placing each tenet
into one of the above two categories. One such rule
is "trial and error" - in which we first attempt to derive the
tenet rationally and upon failing consign it to the
Divinely-Revealed category. This method would be used
by non-erudite people or beginners.

The erudite would know a general rule at each level for
placing the question into the appropriate category. And
the general rule here is to see whether or not the tenet is
about an unseen arbitrary detail (e.g., in Allah's metaphysical
creation). If the tenet is about an unseen *arbitrary* detail
concerning Allah's creation (e.g., the depth of the Hellfire
or the number of doors to Paradise (e.g., 8)), then it cannot
be figured out rationally. If the tenet is about an absolute
affair which is not arbitrary (such as the Oneness of Allah),
then it can be figured out rationally.

Now for the purposes of demonstrating the "trial and error" method,
we will attempt to prove that Prophet Muhammad learned the Qur'an
from an Angel and not from another time-bound being such as a Jinn.

Thus, for now, we will place your question into category (i)
(level 3).

Now, we will attempt to build a rational argument to prove
that the Prophet (May Allah bless him and give him peace) was
in contact with an Angel and not a Jinn (or other being who can
lie (be dishonest).

Now remember that all premises in a rational argument must return
either immediately or reflectively to one of the six reliable
sources of information mentioned in footnote 26 of the Notes
of Sources. If we cannot show that these premises return to
one or more of these sources, then the conclusion cannot be
claimed to be rationally necessary.

Start Proof:

a) Angels are beings which can only tell the truth and can
only perform actions which Allah commands them.
b) Conscious beings who are not angels (e.g., jinn and humans)
have the ability to go against Allah's apparent/external
command.
c) If the Prophet received his information from an Angel,
we can be sure that it is an accurate representation
of what Allah wanted to convey.
d) If the Prophet received his information from a non-Angel,
we cannot be sure that it is an accurate representation
of what Allah wanted to convey (again in His external
or apparent command).
e) Since Allah would want to ensure trust and reliability,
He would choose an angel and not a non-angel to convey
His message.
f) Since we know that the Qur'an could not have been produced
by a time-bound being due to its accuracy and expansiveness,
we conclude that it must have been produced by Allah.
g) Since we know that the accuracy of the Qur'an is
unblemished and all previous and current attacks
against its accuracy can easily be proven wrong, this
proves that the Qur'an actually contains the words which
Allah wanted to convey - as Allah's knowledge is only
accurate.
h) Since (g) is true, it is most likely that an Angel
conveyed the Qur'an to Prophet Muhammad (May Allah bless
him and give him peace) and not a being who is prone
to lie (be dishonest).

Now we will examine this proof with the measure of footnote 26 of the
Notes of Sources.

Statement (a) needs empirical evidence in order for us to accept it.
What this means is that we have to capture an angel and dissect its
mental capacity and find out how it actually works. And after such
as examination, we could probably see that an angel was not much
different than a computer programmed with artificial intelligence
(with the exception of consciousness).

As this method of verifying statement (a) is a long shot, we conclude
that we will probably not be able to verify the truth of statement (a)
this way.

Thus, we search for other ways. One way would be to collect mutawatir
transmissions from angels which show that all of their statements are
honest and no lies are issued from them. Even if we were able to do
this, that still wouldn't prove that angels *could not* lie as the
mere fact that no lie is recorded will not serve as sufficient evidence
that no lie is possible - again until we examine their mental
capacities and realize that their knowledge, statements, and actions
is "programmed" by Allah and as such "lies" cannot be manifested by
them.

Thus, we conclude that statement (a) is not a sufficient base for
a rational statement until a dissection and study is done on the
angel species.

Now moving on to statement (b). It can be proven via mutawatir
reports (mostly in the East where people are "into" this stuff) that
jinns can both lie and tell the truth. The same is true for humans.
Thus, we conclude that statement (b) *is* rational.

The rationality of (c) depends on whether we are able to prove
if (a) is rational or not.

(d) is rational since it is based upon (b), which is verifiable.

(e) has nothing to do with rationality (by the strict definition
of the term). Rather, our stating that Allah would want to ensure
reliability in his transmission assumes that He wants what is
best for us. And as explained in lines 51-52 of al-Jawharah
al-Tawhid, His wanting what is best for us is not rationally
verifiable or necessary.

(f) is rational; but, it requires a long proof which ties into
why a time-bound being cannot issue such words and such words
can only issue from a being who is independent of time. As a side
note, another way to prove that the Qur'an cannot issue from a
time-bound being would be to show that its mere mathematical
complexity goes beyond what a time-bound being can construct
[We are not talking about about the arrangements of the words,
letters used, topics discussed, language styles employed, rhetoric
techniques used successively in a way which goes beyond the
capacities of a time-bound being who can only experience linear
thought, etc.)].

(g) is internally inconsistent - even if it is rationally provable
that there are *no* errors in the statements of the Qur'an. The
inconsistency is that there is no link between its being accurate
and it being *revealed* by Allah to the Prophet (May Allah bless
him and give him peace). This is because Allah manifests accuracy
at the hands of people who have not had anything revealed to them.
For example, the following statements can be said to be accurate
but are not revealed:

* All matter is made up of distinct building blocks.
* A rainbow consists of multiple colors of successively
increasing/decreasing wavelengths.
* When an opaque layer covers the human eye, no light
reached the retina.

Thus, a collection of such accurate statements does not necessarily
indicate that they are revealed from Allah.

O.K. So, we failed (albeit on purpose) but we'll try again:

TRY #2:

a) Angels are beings which can only tell the truth and can
only perform actions which Allah commands them.
b) Conscious beings who are not angels (e.g., jinn and humans)
have the ability to go against Allah's apparent/external
command.
c) If the Prophet received his information from an Angel,
we can be sure that it is an accurate representation
of what Allah wanted to convey.
d) If the Prophet received his information from a non-Angel,
we cannot be sure that it is an accurate representation
of what Allah wanted to convey (again in His external
or apparent command).
e) Since we know that the Qur'an could not have been produced
by a time-bound being due to its accuracy and expansiveness,
we conclude that it must have been produced by Allah.
f) Since we know from mutawatir transmission that the Prophet
reviewed and finalized each and every verse of the Qur'an,
that proves that the entire Qur'an is traceable back to
the Prophet (May Allah bless him and give him peace). Due
what we note in (e) - and due to knowing that the Prophet
was an illiterate man - and due to knowing that he did not
have any "scholar" contacts (again by mutawatir transmission
- as a side note, the claim that the Monk Buhayra taught him
does not hold ground after learning that he did not really
spend time with him and also knowing the great span of time
between that event and the start of his prophethood), we
conclude that the Prophet must have learned each surah of the
Qur'an from a "spiritual" means.
g) Now in view of premises (a) and (b), we give preponderance
. to the fact that the Prophet (May Allah bless him and give
him peace) learned the Qur'an from an angel.

Now, this proof has potential to be a rational proof. However
as we mentioned before, premises (a), (b), and (e) need long
digressions or extensive research to prove why they are actually
rational beliefs.

However, even if (a), (b), and (e) can be rationally proven, we
will only be able to give *preponderance* to the fact that the
Prophet learned the Qur'an from an angel and not from a jinn.
This is because it is contingently possible that the Jinn read
the Preserved Tablet and accurately conveyed the information in
it.

The only *rational* conclusion we can reach using this approach
is that the Qur'an again was received from some divine/spiritual
source.

And unless we can prove something rationally, we are forced to
group the issue into the category of `aqidah of arbitrary facts.

Thus, after we have failed with this trial and error method.
We go back to level 3 and place the original question into
category (ii) (arbitrary beliefs).

Now it is quite easy according to the first injunction A, which
we gave previously for this category to show that the Qur'an
was revealed by an angel.

Surah 26, Verse 193

nazala bihi r-ruhu l-amin

The trustworthy angel (this is one meaning of ruh according to
Fayrozabadi in Classical Arabic) came down with it (i.e. the
Qur'an).

Thus, we can prove rationally that the entire Qur'an was
learned through some spiritual/divine means by the Prophet
Muhammad. But, we can only give rational preponderance to
the belief that this spiritual/divine means was an angel.

Now this brings us to a point which the erudite know about,
which was hinted at in the injunction for aqidah (level 2):

a) Allah has on purpose obscured necessary premises for
rationally concluding the details of the `aqidah we
are asked to believe in. This is hinted at in many
places of the Qur'an, such as:

"And they say why was not an angel sent down (in front
of us)? If We had sent down an angel, then the issue
would have been decided and they would not be given
this time (in the world) to tarry." [6:8]

"Say: If I had [the proofs] which you are asking for,
the issue would have been decided between you and me.
And Allah is best-aware of the wrong-doers." [6:58]

He has done this to see how many of His servants can trust
their heart over their senses - as all rationality returns
to sensory perception.

It is quite easy to believe one's senses as this is the first
conscious perception that we have as babies. It is part of
the test to trust one's heart which vaguely recalls the first
meeting with Allah mentioned in verse 172 of surah 7:

"And when we took from [Adam] the [souls of the] Children of
Adam who would come later [dhuhuri-] and made them witness
against themselves asking, 'Am I not your Lord?' And they
replied, 'Of course, we witness [that you are our Lord]'.
And then we said, 'We did thus so that you would not claim
on the Day of Resurrection that you were unaware of such.' "

Thus, the erudite know the following:

a) The beliefs mentioned in Song 2 of the Guiding Helper can
be rationally proven (somehow or the other).
b) The beliefs mentioned in Song 3 of the Guiding Helper are
mostly arbitrary details which if Allah willed would have
been different.

Now, we have reviewed the proofs given by certain previous scholars
for the beliefs in Song 3, but we have found the premises falling short
of the requirements for a rationally necessary statement as outlined
in footnote 26 of the Notes of Sources. And this returns to what
`Abd al-Rahman al-Akhdari notes in his matn al-Sullam al-Munawraqi
that logical proofs are of various types and of various levels -
the highest of which is called a "burhaan" which has premises which
return to one of the six reliable sources of information.

And in any of this, you are free to challenge anything we say (for
purposes of learning). For example, you may attempt to give a
rational proof why there must be angels or why Allah sent down
books or why the dead will in fact be resurrected, etc.

End Lesson Transcript

Wassalamu `alaykum wa rahmatullah

Abuqanit Hasani
Main Author
Guiding Helper Foundation

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Guiding Helper Foundation
Website: http://www.guidinghelper.com

p.s. The answer provided is directed to the individual questioner
and does not necessarily apply to the general body of our din.
Please do not reply to this message as it has been automatically
generated by an unattended mailer. If you have more questions, visit:
http://www.guidinghelper.com/ask_question.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Omar HH]

Shaykh Abu Qanit al-Hassani's comments on the rational proofs that Sayyidina Muhammad (SAWS) is a Messenger:


In the Name of Allah, the Merciful, the Powerful

Assalamu `Alaykum.

Dear Honest Student,

Sidi,

Here is a supplement to the lesson which we sent you seraptely:

Harun al-Bostanian wrote:

> a)We have concluded that the complexity and accuracy of subjects in
> the Quran could not have been learned from scratch in a lifetime
> (esp. 1400+ years ago) by an uneducated man. Therefor, this
> information must have come from a more knowledgeable source, a being
> more knowledgeable than a human.

Right. This is done via mutawatirat, mujarrabat, and hadasiyyat.

> b) If I write "red is green." Due to our rationally neccessary
> conclusion that Allah exists, and that He is the ultimate creator of
> everything, we know that he is the creator of those words and the
> medium (keyboard, computer, etc.) through which they came to be, and
> of my action of typing them, and in his forknowledge, he knew I would
> write them, etc.

Yes. It is rationally provable that Allah is the ultimate creator
and the continuous subsequent creator (via the Cosmological proof
coupled with the spacial-temporal discontinuity proof).

At this point, it is important to emphasize, that in order to
understand that this above statement is rationally necessary, one must
not have any preconceived notions of who Allah is. Rather, Allah is
simply the *name* we've been taught for the Being Who necessarily
exists, Who is beginningless, Who is permanent, Who is one, Who is
independent, is different from His creation, has
power/volition/knowledge/life, and has the ability to perform or leave
undone any contingent action.

And the fact that this being exists, is beginningless, is permanent, is
one, is independent, is different from His creation, has
power/volition/knowledge/life, and has the ability to perform or leave
undone any contingent action is *figured out* step-by-step from
*scratch* (meaning using one of the six reliable sources for
a premise) using rational logic.

> c) If it is possible for Allah to create a being more
> complex/knowledgeable than a human, it is possible that
> such a being (if it existed) could write something which
> would go beyond the capacity for a human to write, and
> deliver it to a Human. We would still be forced to conclude
> that Allah created the being, its actions, etc. but we would
> attribute the text it wrote to it(the being) on a hikmah
> (or shari'a?) level and to Allah on a Qudrah (or haqiqah?)
> level.

[As a side note, first we would like to say that hikama can
be used synonymously with shari`ah and that qudrah can be
used synonymously with haqiqah - even if hikam-qudrah and
shari`ah-haqiqah have different connotations.]

>d) The text of the Quran, Muhammad himself, and the scholars of the
> Ummah, all claim that the Quran is both on a hikmah and qudrah level
> 'written' by Allah. In other words, it is not admixed with the
> will/intention of a timebound being (like my statement 'red is
> green,' or from a possible being more complex than humans.)

High-level scholars are honest with themselves and do not stick
dogmatically to some beliefs or writings that have been handed
down just because some religious authorities have stated these
beliefs/writings.
[As a side note, the high-level scholars can remain safe while
doing this (remaining safe means not incurring Allah's anger
and deserving the Hellfire) while the non-astute people are
prone to falling into Allah's anger and into His Hellfire with
their rejection of such beliefs which they do not understand.
The reason for this is that the high-level scholar has figured out
the following base injunctions of knowledge (level 0 - concerning
statements):

A) All statements are made up of linked subjects and predicates
(a subject is a visualization of an object which can
be described and a predicate is a visualization of
a quality which can describe that object).
B) Statements are of two types: those that are internally
consistent and those that have a contradiction built
within them (e.g., It is a circle-square).
C) Statements that are internally inconsistent can be
discarded as false.
D) Statements that are internally consistent can either be
true or false (e.g., Harun is a man who lives on earth).
E) If the statement is true, there is no reason to be
afraid of it since Allah made it that way.
If the statement is false, there is no reason to be
afraid of it since Allah made it that way.

In other words, the high-level scholars are never challenging
Allah in any of their beliefs - and thus remain safe with Him.
But, they are honest in their pursuit of knowledge and admit
when they don't enough premises to build the argument or when
they are aware that a contradiction or paradox situation has
arisen which prevents them from going further].

Now, Harun, we ourselves are constantly increasing in knowledge
and after studying this subject in detail (after your recent
inquiry), we have come to a paradox situation which prevents
us to from going further.

Now, we (personally) have always trusted the scholars (without
even asking many questions) from the start of the matter and
that is the reason why we were able to master such a large number
of subjects of din in such a short time (since we did not expend
time researching the veracity of each and every statement we
learned from the previous and current scholars). [Of course,
what we are doing now with you has a different purpose -
and that purpose is to make you among the top ten `aqidah
scholars alive.]

And in this subject, we trusted the previous scholars who have
written about the I`jaaz (inimitability) of the Qur'an, such as
al-Zamakhshari (in his tafsir al-Kash-shaaf), al-Jurjani (in his
book Dala'il al-I`jaaz wa asraar al-balaaghah), al-Qadi al-Baqalani
(in his book I`jaaz al-Qur'an), Qadi `Iyaad (in his book also called
I`jaaz al-Qur'an), and the more recent scholar al-Rafi`i.

But after studying this further, there is paradox we are faced
with:

a) The arguments of inimitability search for a "code" that
is behind the writing of the Qur'an which is so complex
that nothing produced by humans even resembles it or comes
close to it. This is the crux of all the arguments given.
This code could be a code of eloquence (such as balagha).
a code of language style, a code of word arrangement, a
code of letter values, a code of conveying previously unknown
scientific facts, a code of letter shapes, a code of letter
sounds, a code of letter meanings, a code of word meanings,
a code of successive statements, a code of successive paragraphs,
a code of successive surahs, a code of successive narration
of events, a hidden embedded code (which can only be found
when one goes beyond the external meaning), a spiritual
code which finds the links between the recitation of the
Qur'an's letters and words and the occurrence of spiritual
events (or even physical events brought about by spiritual
links), a code of prophecies of the future, a code of
accurately conveying history, a code of speaking about
too many subjects for single man to master, a code of expert
legislation, etc.
b) If it is possible for a time-bound being to discover the
true hidden code behind the Qur'an, then that proves that
this true hidden code is intelligible to this time-bound
being.
c) But if the code is intelligible to a time-bound being, then
it is contingently possible that a *time-bound* being
actually embedded this code (again on a hikma level).
d) Thus, if we were to discover the true hidden code which
makes the Qur'an inimitable, that would prove that a
time-bound being could have produced it.

Thus, this is the paradox (or dilemma with this approach). If
we actually find the true code which makes the Qur'an inimitable,
then our finding this code proves that a time-bound being could
have produced it.

We (personally) are always honest with ourselves and this paradox
is the honest conclusion one comes to after examining this approach.

Thus, the codes of inimitability given by the previous scholars can
again only act as a rational means of proving (via induction) that the
Prophet Muhammad (May Allah bless him and give him peace) who was an
unlearned illiterate man could not have possibly produced it
without some sort of divine/spiritual source 1400 years ago.

These codes can give preponderance of evidence that even a more
advanced time-bound being would have trouble producing the Qur'an
(again on a hikma level), but they cannot establish concretely that
the Qur'an is not a production of a time-bound being - as the mere
fact that the codes are intelligible to time-bound beings proves
that they could have been produced by such time-bound beings.

Thus, we conclude that the true code which Allah has embedded
in the Qur'an which makes it inimitable - mentioned in the verse:

Say: If the humans and jinn were to gather together to produce
something similar to this Qur'an, they would not be able to
produce something similar to it even if they were to help each
other.
[al-Qur'an 17:88]

- is *undiscoverable* by time-bound beings. We would have a theory
that the code has something to do with timelessness or
time-independence as the only being who could understand such a
code would be the Beginningless and Endless One.

[Now, we understand why Allah did not give tawfiq to that man
named Rashid Khalifah in his claim that the number nineteen
is the true hidden code behind the Qur'an using the values of
letters and numbers of words/verses/surahs as a base for his
argument. As if it were that simple, then there is no reason
why a time-bound being could not have produced it (e.g., with
the aid of a computer). As a side note, someone entered his
residence and stabbed him nineteen times to death - what an
awful journey's end.]

Now this does not mean that that the minor codes discovered
by the scholars over the ages (some of which we have mentioned
above in premise (a)) have no value. Rather, those codes taken
together with common human experience help us to inductively
conclude that the Prophet Muhammad must have had some
divine/spiritual source.

But, your question about what prevents a more-advanced time-bound
being from producing the Qur'an cannot be adequately answered
using a rational logical argument - since again as soon as we
find the hidden code it serves as a proof that a time-bound being
could have produced it.

Thus, our previous stated method about examining all time-bound beings,
analyzing their capabilities, and showing that their capabilities fall
short of the content of the Qur'an cannot prove rationally that the
Qur'an was not produced by a time-bound being - as we will be unable
to come up with an intelligible code which no time-bound being could
replicate.

Thus, our previous statements need to be qualified. And the
qualification is that our method will only give *preponderance*
of evidence that the Qur'an could not be the production of a
time-bound being.

>
> How do we prove d)? Regardless of who delivered the message to
> Muhammad, how do we prove that what was delivered is directly Allah's
> words, and not admixed with another being's.

We can prove that the Qur'an does not have any words added or
subtracted from its original source.

The way we can prove that the Qur'an does not have words admixed
with it from its original source is something called a security
watermark (this is used by humans in the computer age and is also
enters into encryption).

This method calls for embedding a certain discernable code within the
verses and letters which will be noticeably destroyed even if a single
letter/word is removed or altered. There are methods to check and
verify if the security watermark is still intact or not.

We are almost sure that Allah has put such a security watermark
in the verses of the Qur'an. This is our theory, which someone
would have to prove.

But again as soon as someone discovers the "security watermark
code", it can no longer serve as a means to rationally prove that
a time-bound being could not have produced it and this is the
paradox or "brick wall" we are faced with in answering your
question.

Now we mentioned at the beginning of this training that our method
will allow you to answer any question that you have, but the
answers may be a finite set of choices.

Thus the question was: Rationally speaking, could an advanced
time-bound being have produced the Qur'an?

The answer is: Human rational logic allows the following two
possibilities:

a) The Qur'an was produced by Allah
b) The Qur'an was produced by an advanced time-bound being
who ultimately is the creation of Allah.

As for the ruling of believing that a time-bound being produced
the Qur'an, it is that the person who hold this view has exited
the sphere of Islam as it is point (t) of the 21 acts listed in
Ibn Juzayy al-Kalbi's list. And this ruling is taken from verses
in the Qur'an which clearly state or imply such.

Thus, the proper place of this question should be in the "Arbitrary
Beliefs" section of `Aqidah. And if we place it there, then it is
quite easy to obtain a single cohesive answer using verses from the
Qur'an and statements from hadith.


Wassalamu `alaykum wa rahmatullah

Abuqanit Hasani
Main Author
Guiding Helper Foundation

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Guiding Helper Foundation
Website: http://www.guidinghelper.com

p.s. The answer provided is directed to the individual questioner
and does not necessarily apply to the general body of our din.
Please do not reply to this message as it has been automatically
generated by an unattended mailer. If you have more questions, visit:
http://www.guidinghelper.com/ask_question.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Omar HH]

Shaykh Abu Qanit al-Hassani clarified conceptual monotheist for me:


In the Name of Allah, the Merciful, the Powerful

Assalamu `Alaykum.

Dear Honest Student,

Sidi,

We have to attend to other issues here, but as a clarification, we
would consider the people of fatrah (at least most of them) to
be conceptual monotheists.

So, you are perhaps not understanding who a conceptual monotheist is.
A conceptual monotheist is a person if you were to ask them "Who
created
the heavens and the earth", they would say "Allah." This is explicitly
mentioned in the Qur'an in several verses which speak about the
Arabian Jahiliyyah Pagan Polytheists.

And this was the exact belief of the people of fatrah including all
of the Prophet's ancestors.

Second issue about where we derived the conclusion about amnesty from.
No. It is not from the Maturidi school. It is actual one of two
opinions in the `Ash`ari school and the opinion which if you ponder
yourself is more consistent with the school in general. And is
considered
by many to be the stronger opinion. It is also the opinion of
Imam Ibn `Ashir himself - this is the reason why you will see that in
his orginal Murshid, he did not mention the necessity of having the
divine message reach one, to be responsible - and he accurately
mentioned
the other two prerequisites for responsibility which we have noted in
the Explanatory Notes for Song 1.

The Maturidis are saying something totally different, that specific
laws are understandable via the intellect and that isolated people
would
be responsible for the "larger" laws such as the unlawfulness of
fornication, wine, and homicide.

Reference(s):
Sharh Mayyarah for Murshid, verse 10-13


Wassalamu `alaykum wa rahmatullah

Abuqanit Hasani
Main Author
Guiding Helper Foundation

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Guiding Helper Foundation
Website: http://www.guidinghelper.com

p.s. The answer provided is directed to the individual questioner
and does not necessarily apply to the general body of our din.
Please do not reply to this message as it has been automatically
generated by an unattended mailer. If you have more questions, visit:
http://www.guidinghelper.com/ask_question.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Omar HH]

Ok... now the question is, what about false things that aren't revelation. For example a false Prophet or a false revelation. Couldn't the mind also find those to be "logically possible" or not?