From alimhaq@city-net.com (Jeremiah McAuliffe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam,alt.religion.islam
Subject: Geisler-Saleeb Anti-Islam Book, Part 1 (2/3)
Date: 1996/09/04
Message-Id: <50k1dk$l34@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>

Jochen Katz  wrote:

>I will leave this thread for Abdul Saleeb to answer ...

Looking forward to it. Should I continue my analysis and posting while
we wait for him?

> In article <50b9e1$gsn@shellx.best.com>, 
> alimhaq@city-net.com (Jeremiah McAuliffe) writes:

>| He writes that we believe God to be One from both revelation and
>| reason. Wrong. We know it from revelation alone. Reason cannot
>| penetrate God. We know only what has been revealed to us. We rejected
>| long ago the type of speculative philosophy and theology that would
>| provide a "reason" for us to say such a thing.

>This is a most strange sentence to hear. THE most often advanced
>objection by Muslims against the Trinity is "that it does not make 
>sense".

Well, most often advanced or not, I would not agree with it as the
reason for its rejection. The Qur'an itself states objections to it.
The problem here is the *foundational* causes for our statement that
God is One and thus the rejection of the doctrine of the trinity.
Foundationaly it is purely because of revelation, secondarily it will
be because of reasons. Remember, that in Islam reason and revelation
are complementary.

Please note how I qualified the type of reason, when alone-- apart
from reference to revelation-- as "speculative". Our reasons rest on
the foundation of the Qur'an-- not speculative thought. Again, and to
stress the point: it is an issue of the foundations for the belief and
secondary forms of support for the belief. We believe it because it is
in the Qur'an, which we think is revelation. Why someone has faith in
the Qur'an as revelation is in the realm of the mystery of God's
guidance.

>Now, what is "making sense" other than putting the standard of "reason" 
>against that of revelation? Muslims time and again reiterate that Islam
>is a "reasonable religion" supposedly in contradistinction to the
>unreasonable Christianity...  Muslims accuse us of BLIND Faith, while
>Islam supposedly has clear evidence and reasons for believing it.

Yes. I was responding to Geisler saying it as a *foundational*
statement. The bottom line for a Muslim is what is in the Qur'an, and
the issue of trinitarian monotheism is clearly in the Qur'an. This
does NOT mean that nothing else comes into play, or is not also used,
such as reason. I mean, the Qur'an is constantly urging us to use
reason by looking at the patterns in creation, history and ourselves.

However, something so transcendent as the "essence" of God, which was
the general topic, is not at all amenable to reason, though reasons
may be used to support one's statements about the "essence" of God in
light of revelation. This is the same in Christianity.

>Based on this background, I am really wondering why you are rejecting
>that reason is an important part of 'how Muslims believe in God'.

I'm not. But it is always in response to, and dialogue with, the
Qur'an. Our use of reason does not originate out of nothingness, but
out of the Qur'an.


Jeremiah McAuliffe
alimhaq@city-net.com
-------------------------------------------
Visit Dr. Jihad's Page 'O Heavy Things!
http://www.city-net.com/~alimhaq/miaha.html

I did not reply. The issues are taken up further between Jeremiah and Abdul.

Overview on the debate between Jeremiah and Abdul
Answering Islam Home Page