tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672880129970799148.post7053465751609085999..comments2023-08-22T07:01:08.590-07:00Comments on Agent Intellect: Islam, Christianity, and EuthyphroJim S.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15538540873375357030noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672880129970799148.post-22999446339062504592014-06-12T14:10:03.442-07:002014-06-12T14:10:03.442-07:00Just a small correction, Allah did not "lie&q...Just a small correction, Allah did not "lie". The relevant verses 8:43,44,45 describe the scene that in the muslims eyes, the enemies appeared as few, and in the enemies eyes the muslims appeared as many. This was done as a mercy to the believers so they wouldnt be disheartened or fearful, and as a warning to the enemies.Ahmedhttp://www.hilmi.eunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672880129970799148.post-44023861666012343022012-05-08T09:54:25.208-07:002012-05-08T09:54:25.208-07:00Good sir,
"The Mu'tazilites were the las...Good sir,<br /><br />"The Mu'tazilites were the last main school of thought to maintain those doctrines in Islam."<br /><br />Again, not quite. The Islamic philosophers, as well as Twelver Shi'i theologians (who were influenced by them and the Mu'tazilites) have always maintained it.<br /><br />"[...]Sunni and Shia schools; but these are both fatalistic, saying God does not and cannot have a nature, since if he did it would limit his power and God's power cannot be circumscribed. This is a central doctrine of Islam."<br /><br />Sunnism of the Ash'arite type is certainly fatalistic. But mainstream Twelver Shi'ism is certainly not. So you have to specify just "which or whose Islam" you're talking about. <br /><br />"So I do know that the Aristotelians were sometimes tolerated, sometimes not tolerated, but almost never held in high regard."<br /><br />This isn't true either. Sure they weren't held in high regard by Ash'arite theologians and jurists. But even this needs major qualifications, especially if you know anything about the post-Avicennian tradition.<br /><br />"Al-Ghazali ended his Incoherence of the Philosophers by asking, since the philosophers contradicted fundamental Islamic doctrine, whether they should have their heads cut off. He answered, in effect, "Well, I'll leave that to my readers."<br /><br />Ghazali's opinion is was that, one opinion, and not even a major one. That's why after his death, philosophy flourished (in the eastern lands of the Islamic world) even more so that it did during his time. Serious thinkers just did not take such pronouncements seriously. Again, you'd have to know something about the post-Avicennian tradition to really get a sense of what i'm talking about it. <br /><br />"You don't see that in the writings of Jewish or Christian theology or philosophy."<br /><br />Sure you do. The official Condemnations of the various doctrines of the philosophers, among which were those of St.Thomas. In any case, what does it matter. It's irrelevant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672880129970799148.post-4460071278789931772012-05-06T06:23:03.924-07:002012-05-06T06:23:03.924-07:00Sorry to take so long to respond. The Mu'tazil...Sorry to take so long to respond. The Mu'tazilites were the last main school of thought to maintain those doctrines in Islam. Again, Islam is certainly diverse, looking at the differences between the Sunni and Shia schools; but these are both fatalistic, saying God does not and cannot have a nature, since if he did it would limit his power and God's power cannot be circumscribed. This is a central doctrine of Islam.<br /><br />I am familiar with medieval Islamic philosophy and its reception among Muslims at the time, not so much with its current reception. So I do know that the Aristotelians were sometimes tolerated, sometimes not tolerated, but almost never held in high regard. Al-Ghazali ended his <i>Incoherence of the Philosophers</i> by asking, since the philosophers contradicted fundamental Islamic doctrine, whether they should have their heads cut off. He answered, in effect, "Well, I'll leave that to my readers." You don't see that in the writings of Jewish or Christian theology or philosophy.Jim S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15538540873375357030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672880129970799148.post-2421161613507562832012-04-09T12:19:13.589-07:002012-04-09T12:19:13.589-07:00Good sir,
that the Mu'tazilites thought that,...Good sir,<br /><br />that the Mu'tazilites thought that, i grant. but that they were the ONLY school of thought in Islam that thought that, i deny. that's simply not true. again, islamic philosophers of various schools definitely held that as well. and they certainly can be categorized as a school of thought in Islam. further, there is also the Shia tradition in Islam. they doctrines are not only influenced by Mu'tazili thought, but, more importantly, they're also heavily influenced by Avicenna's philosophy, thanks to certain followers of his thought who were of that (Shi'i) background.<br /><br />you then say Islamic philosophers were great because Christian Europe thought so. well, that's not at all true. sure, you're right about them being considered heretics by certain theologians, but two points should be made about that: first, who cares who the theologians (especially of the Sunni Ash'arite variety) think is a heretic or not. it just did not, (and does not) matter to the philosophers (and others who did not agree with them). the relation between authority and orthodoxy in Islam is not as it is in Christianity. you seem to assume that it is. so, one can then say that Shi'i Islam represents mainstream Islam just as much as Sunni Islam. second, if you were even remotely familiar with the post-Avicennian Islamic philosophical tradition, you would know that Avicenna is The Philosopher around which all discussions revolve. so you have both his supporters and his detractors (the latter were usually, again, philosophically minded theologians).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672880129970799148.post-60535218682099076142012-04-08T11:10:47.517-07:002012-04-08T11:10:47.517-07:00Well, of course all world views are diverse, you&#...Well, of course all world views are diverse, you're right. I pointed out in one of the comments, however, that the only school of thought in Islam that argued that God was constrained by rationality or morality was the Mu'tazilites, and they've been gone since the 11th century or so. The great Muslim philosophers, like Avicenna (Ibn Sina) were great because Christian Europe thought so. They were considered to be at the fringes of Islam if not out and out heretics by mainstream Muslims precisely because they gave such a high priority to the Greek, Roman, and Christian tradition which argued that God has a nature. Mainstream Islamic theology denied this specifically because it would mean that God would be constrained by his nature and God cannot be constrained by anything.Jim S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15538540873375357030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672880129970799148.post-28628871864418549102012-04-06T10:03:05.643-07:002012-04-06T10:03:05.643-07:00Good sir,
what is and what is not the "the I...Good sir,<br /><br />what is and what is not the "the Islamic' views is a complicated matter. but it seems to me you're not entirely correct about what it is. i say not entirely because the view you've mentioned in the OP is just one take on the issue in Islamic thought. but that's all it is, one among others. and it's only the view of a certain school of theologians, not philosophers. in the Islamic intellectual tradition, there's a strict distinction between two and they have had widely opposed views on central question (like the one you're post is about). so, when you say:<br /><br />"According to Islam, God is not constrained by anything, including morality."<br /><br />i ask: according to whose Islam? Ash'arite theologians, like al-Ghazali? well, that's true. but the Muslim philosophers, e.g., like Avicenna, think that's false. God is constrained by something i.e., His nature. And all truths, theoretical and practical, are ultimately rooted in that nature. So why in the world would one think what Ash'arite theologians say is 'the view of islam'?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672880129970799148.post-44489354566993508302011-04-13T12:34:32.008-07:002011-04-13T12:34:32.008-07:00Well, thanks for the comment, even though it's...Well, thanks for the comment, even though it's pretty condescending. I'm well aware of the 99 names of God in Islamic theology, and about God's identity with justice, etc. Unfortunately, Muslim theologians and philosophers have not drawn the same conclusions from this that you have. If God simply <i>is</i> justice, then whatever God does is just. So "just" is defined as whatever God decides to do, and according to Islam, God is not constrained by anything, he is pure act. So the laws of morality, not to mention the laws of rationality, are whatever God wants them to be.<br /><br />This is the almost universal position of Muslim theologians and philosophers throughout Islamic history, at least since the 11th century. The only main school that thought otherwise were the Mu'tazilites, who thought that the philosophy of the Greeks, Romans, and Christians should play a role in the development of Islamic philosophy and theology. They didn't last long because the Western concept of God is difficult to reconcile with the words of the Qur'an.<br /><br />The reason you've erred is that you have taken the claim that God is "just" in isolation from other Islamic doctrines. According to Islam, God is not constrained by anything, including morality. This concept is imbued throughout Middle Eastern culture. You could have made your case stronger by pointing out that man is created in God's image in Islam as well as Judaism and Christianity. But they haven't taken that the same way the Jews and Christians have, that we share in God's morality and rationality. As I wrote in the post, the view that God is completely transcendent -- transcending even our moral and rational categories -- is a <i>core Islamic doctrine</i>. You can find it in any work on Islamic philosophy, it's pretty much the starting point for all Islamic thought. That you're apparently unaware of this means that you don't have much credibility on the subject.Jim S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15538540873375357030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672880129970799148.post-78779340887308124742011-04-12T18:33:19.967-07:002011-04-12T18:33:19.967-07:00Your knowledge of Islam, as you so aptly put it, i...Your knowledge of Islam, as you so aptly put it, is limited. Limited indeed my friend. <br /><br />I suggest you consult any basic Islamic text dealing with the '99 Beautiful Names of Allah' to learn that in Islam, Allah literally is Justice, is Mercy etc. Thus in Islam, morality is grounded in Allah's very nature. He does not transcend morality, as you seem to suggest, for this would amount to transcending His own Essence.<br /><br />Back to the drawing board in your attempt to discredit Islam pal...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672880129970799148.post-40448991492614444792010-03-21T14:48:06.555-07:002010-03-21T14:48:06.555-07:00Hi Speaker. I would say, first, that the descripti...Hi Speaker. I would say, first, that the description of a lying spirit being sent down to the false prophets to deceive the king is a <i>parable</i>. The prophet Micaiah is telling a story about all of these prophets telling falsehoods to the king, and the "lying spirit" imagery is just meant to show that the claims of the false prophets are false.<br /><br />I would say, second, that even if we ignore this, God is not the agent responsible for the lie in 1 Kings 22, as is the case in the Quranic texts mentioned. This of course leads to the further objection that God is still a <i>party</i> to the lie, but this is really just the problem of evil under a different name. If God allows someone to perform an evil act, and uses that act to bring out a counter-balancing good, then isn't he responsible for the evilness of the act, albeit not directly? That's a bigger issue than what I'm addressing in this post, though.Jim S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15538540873375357030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672880129970799148.post-22397751567411031282010-03-19T09:35:30.831-07:002010-03-19T09:35:30.831-07:00How do you deal with cases such as that of the lyi...How do you deal with cases such as that of the lying spirit in 1 Kings 22?JoPohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15266945428217730988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672880129970799148.post-34807700879912144222010-02-01T13:56:39.185-08:002010-02-01T13:56:39.185-08:00Wonderful post.Wonderful post.KCFleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00124201866124646626noreply@blogger.com