1. The forms that can be conceptualized, whether these forms are real physical objects, or written objects or spoken objects.
2. comparisons that yields assertion, whether these comparison are generic, or exemplifiers, or deduced from a wide past events.
Their description is characterized –in most cases- by over pretension; either in knowledge or in talk. So, they either pretend to know something which really they do not know, so they speak with ignorance, OR, they come to a thing which is already known, and try to express is will much elongation and stuff their statement with un-necessary tiresome discussion. This is something disliked by religion as well as reason.
[86] Say "No wage do I ask of you for this (the Qur'ân), nor am I one of the Mutakallifûn (those who pretend and fabricate things which do not exist). [Saad (38): 86]
In an authentic saying Ibn Masud said: “O mankind: let someone who knows, says his knowledge, and let those who does not know say: I do not know. Because, it is of knowledge to say of something one does not know: I do not know” [Bukhari and Muslim]
Allah disliked speaking without knowledge in Quran:
وَلاَ تَقْفُ مَا لَيْسَ لَكَ بِهِ عِلْمٌ
And follow not that of which you have no knowledge [al-Isra (17): 36]
Say"(But) the things that my Lord has indeed forbidden are Al-Fawâhish (great evil sins, every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse) whether committed openly or secretly, sins (of all kinds), unrighteous oppression, joining partners (in worship) with Allâh for which He has given no authority, and saying things about Allâh of which you have no knowledge." [al-Aaraf (7):33]
Also disliking to speak a lot that has no benefit. Also Allah ordered to say al-Qawl as Sadeed (speaking truth) and say al-Qawl al-Baleegh (effective words).
And these logicians, they talk about forms and limits with too many words with little benefit, they talk too much in arguments and reasoning, some of them as they say, and many are false, and it is saying without knowing, and talking without truth.
For example, they claim that the forms they speak about results in visualizing the truth, and that occurs only when expressing this object with common characters of this object with other objects and with the distinguishing character of this particular object. And some might say: the conceptualization can never be done without formulation. And they say: the compound formulation is necessary for compound types which has common as well as distinguishing characters, and not for simple compounds.
The detailed discussion of logic is made somewhere else, but here I want to refute their argument through few points:
FIRST,
Their saying:“the non trivial conceptualization can not be attained without setting boundaries” is false. Because, the boundaries of an objects is created by the person setting the boundaries. Because, the ‘boundary’ here refers to definition of the object to be bounded. So, the knowledge of boundary occurred only after making the boundary. So, if the person who mentioned these boundaries knew the object without a boundary, then their claim that “only can be known with boundaries” is defeated, but if he knew about the object from a different boundary, then for this previous boundary, we apply the same previous argument. So, if this man knew about the first boundary after the second boundary it breaks sequence, but if he knew about it before, then it leads to infinity. (and in both cases, their argument is falsified).
SECOND
Till now they have not reached into a consensus in a single matter whereby a matter is clearly defined by boundaries. So, if the fundamentals can not be comprehended except through boundaries, it entails that no human being knows anything, which is an obvious false, and entails that knowledge acquisition is impossible.
THIRD
Those opting for using boundaries to define matters are only a small segment of mankind, because it’s founder was Aristotle. However, it is known that the knowledge of mankind is exercised outside this segment. This entails that knowledge of anything is attained only through identifying boundaries.
It is definite that the group of Prophets were staying outside this method, and also their followers. The three golden centuries of Islam (first, second and third) contained the greatest scholars of Islam, yet they were staying far from such tools. They did not invent these tools, nor the Roman books were translated. These were translated after their period, and since then, ignorance started to creep inside the Muslim house.
Also the books of medicine and mathematics which contained so much knowledge, yet the Greek logic was not used there, where the compound boundaries of species and distinguishers were used, except only with those authors who were logicians and used these other sciences.
Also, the book of Sayboueh in Arabic grammar which has no second in it’s filed, he has not used the method of boundaries in defining what is a noun or subject or so on, as others did. And when later on some grammar people started to use boundaries to define a noun, they produced so many complications and no consensus was made, and no great scholar of language supported them.
Also, the people of Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) have pretended to design boundaries for purity and impure, and other technical terms, also the people of Usool al-Fiqh (the foundational science of fiqh) made boundaries to define the informative declaration, comparison, knowledge and etc, and none among the great scholars joined them in this business, and till today no one gave them full consensus on these. Also, the boundaries those so called scholars of Kalam.
So, if the greatest scholars of mankind could describe and exercise their knowledge without these pretended boundaries, then their claim that knowledge depends on these boundaries is false.
As for the knowledge that is possessed by the majority of the mankind who has not authored any books, then these knowledge are even greater in volume. So, how could they claim that any knowledge is dependent on these boundaries?
FOURTH
Allah has created in son of Adam, some senses whereby he is able to sense the physical outside matters. So he knows through hearing, sight, taste, smell and touch so many things. Also, inside him there is a mind and heart by which he is able to know the inner feelings. So, these are the tools of acquiring knowledge.
As just using words to describe something will –alone- not make a matter comprehended, except if coupled with analogy and comparison or added words.
So, the prior knowledge that a person acquired through outer or inner sense is sufficient and does not require the verbal boundaries. If that person has no comprehension about a matter by his sense, then just the verbal boundaries will not cause him to know that matter. This is something that all human being experience. If someone already tasted honey, then verbal description and boundaries will not cause greater conceptualization. And for that person who did not taste say Sugar, then defining sugar through words and limits and boundaries will not cause this man to know sugar, rather what will help is to give analogies and other things that is close to it’s taste which this man already experienced. These analogies and comparisons is not the boundaries which these logicians claim.
Also, the inner sensory objects, like anger, joy, anxiety, tension, knowledge, and etc, those who experienced these things, knew these things, and those who did not, then verbal description will not let him conceptualize it. The color blind will not know color by verbal boundaries, the person who by nature has no sexual urge, will not comprehend sexual intercourse by verbal boundaries. So, the person who advocates that boundaries will results in visualizing the reality of matters, is a person who speaking false which is known by inner and outer senses.
FIFTH
(abridged)
The boundaries are generic terms, like : speaking animal, which does not talk about a specific reality, rather it expresses a generic meaning. These generic meanings reside in concept, not in reality. What is in the reality can not be specified and known through only boundaries, and what is in the mind is not the reality of matters. Therefore, boundaries does not help to realize matters at all.
SIXTH
Boundaries are verbal words. These words does not convey to the listener any meaning, if the listener has already conceptualized these words with prior tools other that the word itself. Because, a word by itself will not express to the listener any meaning, if that listener did not know that this word was coded to express a certain meaning. So, visualizing meanings is an activity prior to understanding the words. If one claims that meanings are driven from words, then this requires Daour (before is depended on after to an eternity). (abridged)
SEVENTH
Boundary is a separation and distinction between the bounded matter and the things outside the boundary. In this way, it conveys what the names convey in terms of distinction and separation between this particular name and others. So, in this sense, no doubt that this causes distinction. But this will not cause one to visualize the reality of something, only it may add more details on top of what a name conveys, but this is not conceptualizing the reality of a matter. The condition of that is that the characteristics of the matter must be of it’s self (dhatiyyah), so it is like a division of a whole into pieces, this will be clear by the following point.
EIGHT
The inner and outer senses aids in visualizing the reality absolutely. However, generalizing and personalizing is an exercise of the mind. Because the heart comprehends some meanings from an object, and takes another close meaning from another objects, and forms inside his mind a common general meaning which stays in his mind.
So, when he comprehends the animal character in one animal, and the animal character in another animal, and speaking character of one man, and speaking character of another man, then, from these two general observations, he reaches to conclusion that in human race there is a meaning which is common to all animals, and a meaning which is not found in other animals. There former is called: Jins (sex, type, species, etc) and the later is called Fasl (distinguishing character). So, this new boundary did not added any new information apart from what he already had it developed in his mind about human and animal. So, what the boundaries do, is just use the pre-understood meanings that words convey to make some kind of distinction. So, it turned out that boundaries uses either the absolute name, or adds some characteristics to this name, through some complex statements of description. So, it was proved that, pretended boundaries does not have an extra advantage over what the absolute names convey without any pretension.
NINTH
Our knowledge that a matter has various shared properties is true, but to distinguish between these unique properties and making some of them part of the matter (dhaty) , and the rest follower (lazem) is an erroneous distinction.The truth is, that all the unique properties of a bounded object is a single collection, and can not be split.
The matter which is composed of complex properties, could be (these properties) in the mind, or in the outer world, and in some third place. If it is meant to be outside, then, for example, speaking and laugh, are two properties attached to man only. And if we meant the conceptual idea in the mind, then any mind knows these two characters is bound only to human.
But if claimed that: one of the characters is required to conceptualize the truth, because no one understands man until he understands him speaking, as for laugh, then that is something that follows the human understanding. This is why they say: “an object can not be comprehended without comprehending it’s Dhaty (adhered to the object) property…”.
In reply, it would be said that: the degree of comprehension is a relative term. So, when a mind does not comprehend something until it comprehends a prior thing is a property of this mind, and not a property of the object. So, to distinguish between dhaty property and arady (secondary) property, there should be a distinguishing factor from within the object, (not from the character of the mind that comprehends it).
Filter
No comments...
Write Comment
Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article.
Personal verbal attacks will be deleted.
Please don't use comments to plug your web site.. Such material will be removed
Indeed, We have sent down for you (O mankind) a Book, (the Qur'ân) in which there is your reminder (and Honor). Will you not then understand? [Quran al-Anbiay (21):10]
Garden of Ibn Taymiyyah