Once Yasir Qadhi got into his full stride, from around 20-30 minutes onwards, this was excellent. Lots of material covered and lots of new insights.

His very last point, about the limited approval of reason is especially useful. I also liked how he showed the importance of the idea of fitrah in theological discussions.

Would it be possible to have cliff notes posted? :S

Garsh…I wish I had more time for my brothers and sisters here on MM, but I really don’t now… :(
Salam aleikum

That was….fascinating…

Salam aleykum Sh. Yasir,

Thank you for the great lecture, it definitely raises the bar on our understanding of Aqeedah.

I have taught aqeedah classes for 10 years and quite honestly, it is ashari-centric for the most part. Being so, and having listened and taken several of your lectures, and having a profound respect and love for Sh. Taqi-ad-Did Ibn Taymiyya, I must say that the arguments you present are not entirely convincing. In fact, I have several reservations, and for the sake of knowledge and guidance would appreciate your feedback. I’ll just mention two points here pertinent to your talk.

1). I think we should acknowledge that Ibn Taymiyya’s views on the existence of God are not as cogent as you suggest. In fact, Hallaq mentions in “Ibn Taymiyya’s Logic and the Arguments for the Existence of God” that IT never wrote a treatise on the issue itself, but rather he had to consult 18 of his works in order to piece together Ibn Taymiyya’s belief on proving the existence of God.
IT’s reliance on fitra is undoubtedly paramount in his thought as you state. But at the same time there are some inconsistencies in his thought, on one hand he emphasizes fitra as the way we know God exists, at other times he argues for a more empiric basis for the existence of God. His empiricism is definitely in contrast to the syllogism (Arisitotelian in nature) of the kalam schools. By empiricism I mean his emphasis on sense perception and expediting the sentient realm through those external (and internal – like hunger) senses (as opposed to the formalism of syllogism which pairs together a couple premises to arrive at an already sentient conclusion). So for example, like you said in you lecture, everything about the world we experience was an evidence of God’s existence for IT.

However, IT’s empiricism is still different from some closer-minded Asharis’s whose empiricism was based on an inductive mode, in which a repetition of sense experience lead to the conclusion. So through the inductive mode one would observe the “natural laws” of the world or in other words adat or ayat Allah and then conclude the existence of the Creator. So my point is, I think your division of methods of proving God’s existence as two (kalam vs. fitra), is not entirely accurate. I would break up the methods as such: 1) the cosmological method (purely kalam based), 2) the empirical sensory method (one of Ibn Taymiyya’s postulates), 3) fitra (another of Ibn Taymiyya’s postulates), 4) the empirical, inductive mode (some Ashari’s opted for this). I know IT’s reservation with #4 was that since in inductive mode we draw analogies between particulars and thus come up with a universal (eg. We witness different types of dry wood burning every time a flame is put to it), the existence of the Creator should not turn on an analogy.

Although I accept IT’s sensory method, I don’t think his criticism of the inductive mode is convincing, and I think sustaining the argument of fitra is very difficult. We know that Islam came for all people at all times, therefore it must be universal, and we know it is the Haq, therefore it must be the truth. Whereas the concept of fitra may play a role in making a case for the haq, by itself it doesn’t establish the universality of the aqeedah.

2) You mention near the end that once you believe in the Quran there is no need to rationalize what’s in it. I completely agree, and the ashaira have held that position too (contrast the Mutazila). Once we believe that the Quran is from Allah we don’t question why we have to perform and believe what’s in the content. We must ask ourselves though, well how do you first come to believe in the Quran? That needs rationalization, we must be convinced that this Book truly did issue from the Creator (it is very deductive as you mentioned). It’s not sufficient to say well Allah put this knowledge within my breast and I can only articulate it’s veracity by mentioning that Allah put it in my breast. So the fitrah argument doesn’t’ get you out circular reasoning.

Again only the rational argument (not cosmological) is universal (in that all people with aql can engage in and potentially come to its realization) and absolute (not based entirely on some inner purported proclivity to the truth but rather based on a transparent process). As you mentioned the Quran asks people to use their senses to experience the world around them and realize the existence of a Creator and His Oneness. And as far as these ayat only applying to non-Muslims who are not sure, that’s not entirely true, the verses are general and carry a general import. Moreover, we know that majority of humans when they come to the age of maturity (and taklif) do look within to question whether what they’ve been following is true, so to use the rational arguments as propounded in the Quran (observation of the sentient realm) is necessary, but imagine what happens to that person if you say that it is fitra, not really convincing, doesn’t quite fulfill the statement that Islam is for all people at all times as many ayat and ahadith mention. As far as the implications of maintaining that Iman should be arrived at rationally. Some Asharis certainly held the opinion that to arrive at Iman rationally is better (afdal) than taking something for gratned, but if one did not they are not deemed non-Muslim, in fact their Iman is completely in tact, but if they face people of a different intellectual culture it may very well sow the seeds of doubt and therefore it is better to be prepared and ensure that doubt will never loosen that tie of Iman.

Moreover, you didn’t go over the reason why Muslims engaged in the rationalist discourse per se? Obviously the spread of Islam, and engaging other cultures, thoughts, and philosophies impelled Muslims to be relevant to those societies and convince them of the veracity of Islam, had they just gave the fitrah argument, I don’t think you would find many people accepting. It’s just like IT, engagning in these discussion according to their vernacular as they put it to be more relevant, meaningful, and effective.

Also, btw your point about Yuhanna ad-Dimashqi is not original; it has been noted by many that he had an influence on early kalam. But your point about his influence on Ja’d is something I’ve never heard before, masha Allah.

Shaykh, you’re really an inspiration! Masha Allah. I love you f’illah.

I apologize but I incorrectly referenced Hallaq’s article, it’s actually entitled, “”Ibn Taymiyya on the Existence of God.” I just want to quote a statement in Hallaq’s conclusion here:
“But his [Ibn Taymiyya] concept of fitra is highly problematic, lending itself to two possible interpretations. On one hand, fitra represents a knowledge of God inborn in men upon birth, and on the other, it represents a medium for knowing the existence of God through the necessary sense perception of the Signs. If it is the first, then Ibn Taymiyya’s argument is clearly circular, since it would in effect be tantamout to asserting that through fitra, which is created by God, we know that God exists. If it is the second, then fitra must be seen in the context of Ibn Taymiyya’s theory of knowledge which postulates sense perception of Signs as the sole means by which God’s existence can be known – the other two means, reason and revelation, being of no use for this purpose. Thus, in the second interpretation Ibn Taymiyya seems to construct a valid argument grounded in empirical metaphysics. But if we take his statement to the effect that fitra knows that God exists without the medium of Signs, then a flagarant contradiction in his argument results.” (pg. 66).

Btw, Wael Hallaq, as I’m sure Sh. Yasir is aware is the author of the excellent book “Ibn Taymiyya Against the Greek Logicians.”

As-salâm ‘alaykum Ustâdh Yasir,

When Dr. William Lane Craig presents the Kalâm Cosmological Argument in his debates, he presents it as follows:

Premise 1: Everything that has a beginning, has a cause.

Premise 2: The Universe has a beginning.

Conclusion: The Universe has a cause.

Is this a reformulation of the arguments of the Mutakallimîn of old, or is it a simplified rephrasing? If it is the former, would it be permissible to use it as an argument against atheists, i.e. does it have some unacceptable implications? I ask because I personally find this argument very strong and have not yet heard a coherent counter-argument against it.

sorry, forgot a very important statement from hallaq continuing from above, “The superiority of Islam would have been a sufficient argument against the Greek doctrines had these doctrines not penetrated the Islamic sciences.”

Asalamu alaikom, please brother Yasir you are very hard to speak to personally. Could you please give me an email address as I have a question regarding a private matter. I previously tried yqadhi@hotmail.com but had no response. Jazakallah.

Wa alaikum us-salam, Ustadh Yasir.

You accept that the premise ‘every change must have a cause’ is Quranic, while at the same time, a part of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. In fact, that premise IS the basis for the Kalam Cosmological Argument in the modern articulation (although I would prefer to outline the premise in the following way: ‘every change requires a being to cause that change’).

And if you accept the premise ‘every change must have a cause’, then you must also apply that premise to your concept of God.

And so you are left with the same criticism that you have tried to level at the Kalam Cosmological Argument – are you not?

By saying that God does not change, ‘Asharis’ cleanly avoid the contradiction that you have found yourself in.