Deliverance From Error | Part 3 | Lesson 7 | Shaykh Asim Yusuf
One of the most remarkable documents to have come down from classical Islamic civilization, this autobiography of the most influential thinker of medieval Islam (1058-1111) describes his education and his intellectual crisis, which left him so paralyzed by doubt that he was forced to resign the most distinguished academic appointment.
His faith returned after years of wandering and seeking, during which he achieved direct knowledge of God in the form of the illuminative experience of the Sufis. Among his most outstanding contributions to Muslim intellectual life were masterly defenses of Islamic orthodoxy, mysticism, and law, against the attacks of those who advocated purely legalistic, or entirely esoteric, readings of the religion.
He hence articulated the Islam of the middle way, in balance between the extremes of the letter and the spirit. As such, his works have become a manifesto for modern Muslims struggling against extremist and hence heterodox readings of the faith.
The volume also contains extensive translations from other key works of Ghazali. One is the Definitive Criterion (Faysal al-Tafriqa), which shows the generous, inclusive nature of Islam and the difficulties involved in excluding any individual from it. This is followed by a tract against the Ismaili sect, and writings on conforming the character to the divine, and on the 'Wonders of the Heart', an important Sufi tract about the nature and function of the soul.
Пікірлер: 8
سلام عليكم... جزاك الله خيرا.... I am benefiting So much from This.. Not every episode is available.. It would be great if someone knows where I may find those lectures together..
32:35 4 types of causes
Ghazali's psychological examination into the inward state of mankind is what makes the Ihya so powerful. He goes beyond a simple statement of what we should be doing and seeks to understand why we do and should behave in certain ways. The inability of the Muslims in Ghazli's age to square their belief in God with demonstrative proofs of science was compounded by the 'foolish defenders of religion' who denied philosophy and demonstrative proofs by osmosis. However Ghazali's approach (his differentiation of levels of causality) offered a way of accepting mathematical proofs without rejecting faith. Scientific investigation is based on inductive reasoning which does not conclusively prove that a particular scenario will always produce the same result.
1. The Munqid is a statement of what constitutes as knowledge 2. Last great struggle of Imam Ghazalis life was to bring back religion for the masses. Ibahiya was becoming prevalent whereby the erosion of religious belief was demonstrated in the erosion of their religious actions. 3. Danger of an ignorant defender of religion. One who is well versed in Religious sciences and not so in 'non-religious' sciences. Deeming them to be of irrelevance and trying to prove otherwise using religion, making himself and the religion look foolish Farhat Hussain
The “philosophy” of today is science. The acceptance of scientists views about God and things associated with religion by the general public is both an admiration of the scientists and their achievements in science (belief by osmosis) and a dismissal of what the perceived views religion puts forward based on their view of the Molvis. There is no religious issue with Methodological Naturalism. Teach intelligent design in religious science, but within science you look at things within the ambit of methodological naturalism. There are there are two levels of causality; the how and why; i. How: Rain is generated by change in pressure, evaporation etc. ii. Why: Why it happened today instead of yesterday is not something it can answer. Nothing to do with science. If something cannot be observed, measured or demonstrated, then it is outside the remit of “how” i.e. science.
Where is Lesson 8?
The Ihya is unique and powerful in comparison to other great works on spirituality due to Ghazali’s systematisation of the interior life of a muslim based on a rational and universal understanding of ethics through his deep exploration of topics Ghazali identified three types of philosophers: the naturalists (believe in the eternity of the universe), the material positivists (the scientists of today - natural things in and of themselves cause effect, and the deists (believe in an ultimate cause)…all of these relate to the notion of causality ‘God of the gaps’ is an argument from ignorance ‘ I do not understand this therefore I believe in God…I do understand this therefore I don’t believe in God’ There are two different levels of cause: a ‘how’ cause and a ‘why’ cause The ‘how’ causes are: Material cause - a substance is required to cause an effect eg you need metal to build a car Formal cause - a constituent design eg gravity is the formal cause of stars coming together Efficient cause - one who brings about an effect eg taking the material cause, applying the formal cause and putting it into action Ultimate cause - the purpose for which it is created is the ‘why’ cause There are 3 beliefs that are held by philosophers that constitute disbelief: 1/ the pre-eternity of the universe 2/ denial of physical resurrection 3/ God’s ignorance of particulars (God knows universals but does not know particulars) Ghazali divided all philosophical investigations into 6 categories: maths, logic, physical science, metaphysics, political science, and moral science
1. Imam al-Ghazali made the study of philosophy superfluous in the muslim world because he wholly incorporated the beneficial aspects of it into orthodox Islamic theology, such that there was no point in studying philosophy beyond what al-Ghazali had incorporated. 2. One of the reasons for why we find intelligent, educated muslims leaving Islam is because they become trapped between the metaphysical naturalists (only look at material causes), and the supernaturalists (anything that cannot be explained must be caused by something supernatural). People fail to realise that that there are levels of causality i.e. there is a ‘how’ cause and a ‘why’ cause. The ‘how’ cause may be explained by science, but the realm of science has a remit, and the ‘why’ cause is beyond the remit of science and within the realms of theology. 3. One of Imam al-Ghazali’s axioms is: “Better the intelligent critic (of religion) than a foolish supporter (of religion)”. This is because an intelligent critic can be persuaded on the basis of rationality, but a foolish supporter will not only make themselves look foolish, but by extension, will make their religion look foolish. Q] The statement: “We sought knowledge for other than [the sake of] Allah, but knowledge refused to be for other than [the sake of] Allah” - some attribute this to his later life when Imam al-Ghazali questioned what he was really seeking knowledge for and embarked on the pursuit of rectifying the inner state. For those that attribute this statement to al-Ghazali’s earlier life, was there a point then at which this realisation came for him i.e. that they’d gone to the madrasa for food/shelter but there was a turning point in his intention? [SAA]