Khuda se Mutaliq Sawalat aur Ilm 
al Kalam ka Jawab - PART 2

by Jawed Ahmad Ghamidi

[Hassan Ilyas] Yesterday, I asked you a 
question related to hypothetical statements

that we use in relation to Allah, 
nauzubillah (I seek refuge with Allah)

That Allah can lie, or he can make a rock
which even he can lift.

You detailed out your views on these 
kind of discussions.

There is a relative aspect and doubt, I 
want you to explain us in detail.

When you are in a discussion related to
the existence of God,

the argument behind confirmation for 
God's being,

or the various aspects of atheism or 
agnosticism that are put forward.

It is said that you logically conclude 
the arguments with intellectual evidence.

And the other party to the discussion is
puzzled with your style.

My question to you today is that,
Even you include these

intellectual evidences and arguments in 
your discussions,

People often say that a conversation 
with Ghamidi Sahib is very rational,

logical, enlightened and intellectual.

So, even your paradigm answers 
these modern suspicion or doubt

by way of intellectual and logical 
arguments.

Then what about simple and inherent 
arguments given by the Quran

as you often say?

[Javed Ahmad Ghamidi] Don't you consider 
the inherent arguments given

by the Quran as logical?

What I had earlier mentioned was that,
things that evolve from a specific

philosophical or logical background and 
people present these questions just to

?? of the religion.

These are the things that clearly convey 
that your addressee does not have that

perceptive attitude to understand or dive
into something of this imperative nature.

In that case you should follow ??

Arguments will be have there significance.

The Quran itself is an example of 
reasoning,

But what sort of argumentation?

I had explained that reasoning only.

I often present this reasoning, infact
I have penned it down in my book Meezan.

If you read the topic of 
"Believe in Allah" in my book,

I have explained in detail that how
Allah himself has presented arguments

on his own essence.

That is the argumentation that I term 
as Fitri "simple" reasoning.

The argumentation that is based on the
intellect of common people.

Its evident that when we focus our 
attention towards God, and say that

look around the world, try to comprehend 
what is around you,

try to look at your own existence, try
to understand how God has bestowed

different abilities and wisdom to 
different creatures in the world.

So, are they only trying to find reasons?

I was actually trying to explain the way 
of reasoning.

I have never said that you should
accept the religious cases

without proper reasoning.

Rather, I was trying to throw light on 
how the Quran educates us

to find logic in the religion and 
religious affairs.

There are two types of things: the 
first one is the knowledge that is

limited to our own understanding, and 
the discussion of argument is either

based on observation or experience.

In fact this is also the way of 
argumentation

which is employed in the religion.

For instance, there are few things that 
have been prohibited in the religion.

Those things that have been prohibited in 
the religion and

why they have been prohibited in the 
religion.

If you want to base your argument on 
why certain things are prohibited

in the religion on experience or observation 
then you can do that.

Certain things are related to the world 
that is hidden from us and

we cannot see that, We cannot observe 
or experience it.

Similarly, same is the case with the being
of God.

Because it is not possible the God can 
be shown to you or else you can

be called up into the heavens to observe 
God or his being.

So here in this case we can make 
logical conclusions.

How does the Quran educate us as 
to how we can make a

logical inference in relation to God.

The methods employed by our eminent 
Scholars and the experts of logic

do not relate to what has been 
mentioned in the Quran.

Of course I was not having a detailed 
discussion at that point in time you

had asked me a question and I was 
answering that.

In reality, ancient philosophy paved the
way for discussions and

assumptions in this matter.

If you pay attention, modern 
science has rejected all of these.

These things were neither based
on experience nor observation,

then what was the basis of 
these things.

For instance, look at the philosophy of
idealism by Plato,

even Aristotle denied it immediately
after him.

And he clarified that in the philosophy 
of idealism,

ideas or mental images are considered at
par with reality.

If we try to culminate all the 
philosophies of metaphysics in one word,

then this is it (((?))).

In the philosophy of idealism, majorly 
mental state or circumstances are

considered as real.

And there has been such a logical
connection among the mental state

and the reality which corresponds to that
of a fictional author.

What does he do?

He creates the plot, circumstances out of
his own intellectual imagination and

also tries to visualize the characters 
from his mental images and creates

such a mutual relationship that while
we read a novel or a story we feel

like we are living a real world and 
all the characters in it are real.

Therefore, the philosophy of metaphysics
which was even adopted by the masters

of Sufism was based on these fancy 
imaginative interpretations.

[Ilyas] Please elaborate about takhayul 
(imagination)?

[Ghamidi] Those things that do that
encompass your experience or observation,

it is an imaginative world that you create
on your own.

All of poetry is based on Takhayul 
(imagination).

Imagination has its own beauty, but
only for poetry.

Not for the discovery of facts and 
reality.

So, when this method was adopted then
these sort of logical questions were also

included in it, i.e. to measure the 
divinity of God.

To reproach the knowledge of God.

To connect the existence of God
in retain to space and time.

I have quite often tried to throw some
light and make people pay attention

to these sort of things.

"Ayaz Qadr-e-Khud Ba-Shanas"

The Quran has taught us a great lesson,

When people started to raise questions
on a very serious issue then the Quran

gave a response to it in a conflux.

wama uteetum minal-ilmi illa qaleela

i.e religion never proclaims that
"come we will show you God"

You would experience the divinity
of God.

Or else come to us and we have the 
capability to let you observe

some of the attributes of Allah in 
the heavens.

We can inscribe the existence of God
by way of a sketch in front of you.

None of this is real, rather the Quran
clearly states that

Neither is none that can be compared 
with Allah,

And if there is none like him,
Laysa kamithlihi shay'uw,

then how can you employ the
concept of similitude?

And without presumption and similitude,
how can you define something which

can neither be experienced or
observed?

Therefore, the Quran has guided us that
a person should be taught from a point

wherein he has developed the innate
qualities of thinking about God.