Khuda se Mutaliq Sawalat aur Ilm al Kalam ka Jawab - Part 2 - Javed Ahmed Ghamidi

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.