ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Al Ghazali and ibn Taymiyyah on Logic & Knowledge - Shaykh Hamza Yusuf
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 พ.ค. 2018
- We are looking at expanding the channel - Support us now / islamreward We are looking at expanding the channel - Support us now / islamreward Al Ghazali and ibn Taymiyyah on Logic & Knowledge - Shaykh Hamza Yusuf
This lecture clip doesn't go into detail (and Shaykh Hamza is not saying that Ibn Taymiyyah denies logic), but in ar-Radd 3alal Mantiqiyeen, Ibn Taymiyyah doesn't deny logic, but rather Ibn Tayimiyyah is saying that some of the fundamental claims made by the mantiqiyeen (here, this term means the Greek logicians) are not rational, and their claims leads to Islamically problematic metaphysical conclusions. As the Shaykh rightly mentions, Ibn Taymiyyah is doing this in an attempt to defend Islam from what he perceives to be dangerous theological conclusions.
The project of ar-Radd seems to be to address the logic (reasoning and assumptions) on which the metaphysics of Greek philosophy stands, and to show that it (Greek logic - not logic in general) has fundamental flaws, and therefore when there is a conflict between Greek philosophy and a plain-sense understanding Islamic theology, we should not think that there is a conflict between Reason and Revelation. Rather, this just means there is a conflict between reasoning based on a certain form of classical Greek logic (i.e. a specific assumption packed brand of reasoning) and plain-sense Islamic theology.
How well ibn Tayimiyyah shows that Greek logic is not Reason with a capital "R", or objective reasoning, is up to anyone who understands his arguments to decide.
I hope my comment makes sense. JazakAllah khairan for sharing this clip.
may god guides us all
Yes but he made accusation on ibn Umar of being a biddati
Logic is fundamental in navigating the path of truth. Along the path of truth is diversion towards shirk, idolatry, sin etc. Knowledge from the Quran and the Sunnah will help us build logic to understand the truth and stay away from falsehood as long as we don’t place our own logic above the instruction of Allah SWT and the Prophet SAW
the main issue that was tackled by Ibn Taymiyyah is the viability of the process, not the application.
I guess it's logical to realize that not everything can be explained by or proved by logic...
Guessing doesn't fit here, ulama study hard in order to know but not guess. Knowing logic and using it well Al Ghazali defended Islam and defited his time sectarian
i think that bilal didn't mean guessing like the way u understood it brother ^^
Agree bro
Ibn taymiyyah refuted all of logic/philosophy by his reformed epistemology of the Fitrah. Until now no one could refute his book on the refutation of logic.
@@Fatima_33 tell me, did he use logic to refute logic? Or did he use illogic to refute logic?
Ibn Taymiyyah, may God have mercy on him & reward him with Paradise, was a bit of a controversial figure (at least in his early years of scholarship) with some of his teachings & how he approached &/or opposed his counterparts of scholars & certain sects of Muslims. However, I believe he meant well & no one denies his love for the religion of Islam & his desire to defend it. I am also glad that towards later in his life, he has corrected some of his earlier stances that caused controversy & confusion among Muslims. May God have mercy on All of Our Scholars past & present who worked tirelessly to safeguard, propagate/teach & defend the faith of Al-Islam (both the Quran & the Prophet’s Sunnah).
Shaykh Hamza is brilliant and eloquent in his expositions❤️🙏🙏🙏❤️🎈
Nice One!
I don't think his beliefs on logic were absolute. Sure, Allah has instilled this function in us and its been recommended to ponder at the verses of quran(how do we do this without logic?). Ibn taymiyah is not around to defend his understanding of logic, so his texts can be interpreted many ways.
Can you please share a link or the title of the original lecture? This is very interesting and at the end it is cut off. I would like to know what he says.
Salafīs have never denied _manṭiq_ as a science or discipline that should be studied. Where is he getting all of this from?
There's a difference between sanctifying Hellenistic Greek Philosophy and claiming it is a part of the religion and is _necessary_ and _esential_ to Islam - and simply taking from Philosophical thought that which is in agreement to the Qur'ān and Sunnah upon the understanding of the Salaf.
So, yes, Ahlus-Sunnah *do not* _create_ their 'Aqīdah based on Hellenistic Greek Philosophy and our Predecessors in this religion aren't Aristotle and Plato. If that is "rejection" of logic, then so be it.
ibn taymiyyah wrote a book on refuting logicians. So Hanbalis look at logic negatively.
@@Mohammad-ji8pz
Naql > Aql
Revelation is above logic. Logic applied to revelation is Truth.
Where do you find these lectures
Deenstream is a good source for these type of lectures
Spotify has hamza Yusuf , organized clipped versions of them to, its pretty cool
archive.org
@@TheWorldisTemporary yup. i testify w you
Probably from introduction to logic on yt
Seeing some Muslim preachers call for ignoring logic and reason because they claim that it contradicts the teachings of religion, reminds me of the time when the Catholic Church rejected intellectual innovations and thus put the whole of Europe in its dark ages.
In reality, Islam has taught us that there is no contradiction between revelation and reason, as they both come from the same source, which is Allah.
Hujjatul Islam Imam Al Ghazali -may Allah be pleased with him- writes:
والعقل منبع العلم ومطلعه وأساسه والعلم يجري منه مجرى الثمرة من الشجرة والنور من الشمس والرؤية من العين فكيف لا يشرف ما هو وسيلة السعادة في الدنيا والآخرة أو كيف يستراب فيه
"Reason is the source and fountainhead of knowledge, as well as its foundation. Knowledge sprouts from it as the fruit does from a tree, as light comes from the sun, and as vision comes from the eye. How then could that which is the means of happiness in this life and the Hereafter not be considered the most honored? Or how could it be doubted?"
Logic if it goes against authentic hadith is a sin
Salam aleikum. It depends how do you understand the texts, logic is the guiding path towards full submission, if you submit to Allah without thinning (afala tatadabbarun) it is lower in recompense or it is just blind follow as do many sectarian.
Logic is a problem only when we talk about the unseen and the names of Allah
What's the name of the complete lecture?
Dear brothers, at the beginning shayh mentioned about 'tasdiqat', what does it mean?
Tasdeeqaat is the plural of tasdeeq. As a term in kalaam, tasdeeq means an affirmation (kind of like a statement that makes a claim).
For example, if I said: "Shaykh Hamza is a great alim" that would be a tasdeeq - I a making a statement or an affirmation.
The reason this is relevant in Greek logic is because the Greek logicians say that everything that someone affirms (every tasdeeq) needs to be backed up by proof. However, the only type of proof they consider strong enough to lead to true, certain knowledge is qiyas burhani. However, some consider the idea that only qiyas burhani can lead to true, certain knowledge to be problematic.
Logic is a hardware fundamental function of the brain. A sunnat Allah fee khalqihee. All the babies know logic. We can't avoid it! Without logic we can't even count..... Thanks a lot for sharing. The URL of the complete speach?
Full lecture please?
Full video?
On ppe word to explain the Islamic life is "The-Balancing-Act". The perfect alchemy of reason, intellect, intuition and experience.
Going extreme into logic is as harmful as being illogical.
Logic is a magic wand that have the potential to prove a cold murderer to be an innocent person.
thr rest of the video?
Please give me the link for the full lecture, Jazakallah Khair
The Wolf is hidden amongst the sheep
Ibn taymiyyah limited the hands of Allah to having 2 hands 🙌. Imam ghazali would consider that to be blasphemy
the quran uses logic, yes, but only the universal logic that agrees with the fitra
They criticized the Aristo Logic; not mathematics logic; is different.
the english translation is a bit confusing . Please correct it .
It seems remiss to consider Ibn Taymiyyah a nominalist. Am I wrong in thinking this? Didn't IT profess some form of infinite regress, with Ibn Sīnā in the background of this line of thinking?
That infinite regress are the af’aal of Allah, his actions which have no beginning in time! Like his zaat which has no beginning in time!! Barakallahu feek!
We are all logicians. This statement is unfortunately lost on many many muslims. When a religious proposition does not fit into logic, there is a "problem" that needs to be addressed. It is futile to use reason in order to suppress reason itself.
What's the use and importance of following guys who came centuries after the Holy Prophet PBUH ! You're just straying people away from the right path ! No scholar ever talks about the duty which Allah has imposed upon us, that is to love & follow Ehlul Bait PBUT !
You need to understand imam ibn taymiyahs position first or stop talking about him.
The speaker misunderstand the early debates on syllogism altogether: it wasn't about the validity of logic, but whether it produces new knowledge, and whether it improved the production of that new knowledge. Furthermore, to say that Ibn Taymiyya was the first nominalist is absurd; al-Ghazali himself was a nominalist inasmuch as he rejected Platonic and Aristotelian realism.
Salam Dr Ovamir, can you please elaborate on what nominalism means?
Nominalism - It means that you dont believe in essences. Its associated with William of Ockham. A rejection of universals.
If you google it
"the doctrine that universals or general ideas are mere names without any corresponding reality. Only particular objects exist, and properties, numbers, and sets are merely features of the way of considering the things that exist. Important in medieval scholastic thought, nominalism is associated particularly with William of Occam.
"
SUFI-4- LIFE! Sufi idiot
@@1spiders1 sufi have stream of knowledge...plus to become a sufi master ,they shud also have wisdom
"One may use a catapult against [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them....If a person of the Ahl al- Kitab [People of The Book: Jews and Christians, typically] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked....One may cut down their trees [means of livelihood]….One must destroy their useless books. Jihadis may take as booty whatever they decide."
-Al-Ghazālī (1058-1111), sometimes called Islam's second-most-important Muslim
"... Clearly had a problem with the concept of universals...". One of the most rediculous things I've heard regarding Ibn Taymiyyah رحمه الله and his understanding of Islam. It's flat out wrong. Anyone who has read Ibn Taymiyyah thoroughly enough, not even entirely, knows that Ibn Taymiyyah was far from a nominalist, rather some of his most principle arguments are against nominalist theories; such as his writings regarding the Fitrah (natural human disposition) - it's attributes and the role it plays in human ethical morality. Alas, Allāhul-Musta'ān wa'alayhi At-Tuklān (Allāh's aid is sought and upon Him ﷻ is trust placed). Hamza Yusuf being a celebrity, his words will blindly and fanatically be accepted as fact by a great number of people. May Allāh bless and preserve the Muslims and guide us all to that which He Loves, āmīn.
Abu Layth Ziyad Ibn Saleem Qureshi, im not following the sheikh is saying that ibn taymiyyah rejected universals. just for you to go on and name some of the reasons why disagrees with nominalism. is your point that ibn taymiyyah he partially agreed.
Ibn Taymiyyah was misguided
formal logic is the problem. ibn taymiyya criticized the syllogism
why do you think he critized syllogism?
@@peaceful_warrior7627 i forget exactly why, but generally he demonstrated that syllogism is fallacy. See ibn Tamiya against the Greek logicians
Wow, a fallacy. I hope to find that specific refutation online in English.
so the early arabs didn't need logic and we do? you confused language and logic
This guy is infested with sufism point of view!
As always many claims!!
ibn taymiya was misguided
Habashi?
@@islamrisesagain1104 na yara
@Imtiaz Ahmed what are you on about my brother.
@Imtiaz Ahmed i agree with you, but you know very well where the extremism comes from, its not the Asharis or Maaturidis. Its the Wahabis.
@@truthoverhappiness7338 I am yet to be told who those "Wahhabis" are.. there is no sect in Islam called Wahhabi because I can't find Sheikhs that say they belong to wahhabism, it's what the Shiaa Muslims (and similar sects to them) actually call the Salafis, and if you mean Salafis, then please point me in the direction where Salafism promotes extremism.
Rather I found that it promotes doing everything by the Quran and Sunnah, and leaving what men do out of them thinking that they know better than Rasoullu Allah PBUH (which is called a Bid'aa).
Point me to your references on Imam Abdul Wahhab and where he promotes extremism, please.
If you can't do that then you are falling into the Rafida line of thinking brother when you use the "it's Wahhabism ladies and gentlemen" phrase.
Allah knows best.