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.

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.

Like his existence, creatures,
existence of wisdom in the creatures,

manifestation of nature,
manifestation of divinity,

manifestation of mercy in them.

When a person tries to see this
world, the more he dives into it,

the sooner he accepts that there must
be a creator of this world.

It is pertinent to mention that

"It does not mean that, there is
a creator" but there should be creator.

Only after that the call of the
Prophets make sense to him.

After that he comes to know about
the inception, power, knowledge

of Allah, as there is no other
intellectual method for it.

Prophets educate and introduce us in this
regard.

I had earlier explained that we
must adopt this method,

I tend to find reasons behind everything,
but what is the procedure for it?

It is similar to the fact that people
used to argue that

how can revelations be supported by
arguments.

How can it be?

A Prophet has an experience.

God tried to establish a connect with
a person,

by appointing someone to develop
that relation.

The way something becomes an observation
for us, likewise many verses are

an act of observation for him.

Which among the aforementioned things are
ever shown to us by the Prophet?

None!

Then what do we see?

We listen to the voice and speech of
the Prophet.

We look at the character of the Prophet.

We listen and observe the instructions
about the religion from the Prophet.

And after analyzing the extraordinary
character, personality and knowledge

of the Prophet, it becomes evident and
difficult to deny that he can be no other

than someone speaking for God.