Greek Fire
When Salafis use the term “Greek Logic” as being an innovation, they are referring to either one of two things: (1) The theological conclusions that are the rational products of a particular interpretive process or (2) the interpretive process itself. If they are referring to the former, then clearly, the sources of legislation might come into conflict with Greek logic.
If they are referring to the interpretative process itself, they would have to show that the sources of legislation conflict with the interpretative process since one cannot accuse a novel interpretative process as being an innovation merely because the Salaf didn’t discuss it, otherwise other sciences such as ilm ul hadeeth, ilm ul tafseer, usool al fiqh, which largely developed after the era of the Salafus Saleh, would be invalid as well since they are, in some sense, since they developed a posteriori.
Thus, merely claiming that an interpretative process is an innovation because it chronologically developed at a later time than the Salaf is an invalid argument. Therefore, they would be forced to deconstruct the interpretative process itself in a systematic fashion. In order to deconstruct the interpretative process called “Greek logic”, one would have to develop a rational set of principles in order to so since the sources of legislation don’t address this particular question since one cannot proclaim something to be a bid’a without first studying it.
Thus, either Salafis would have to develop a systematic mode of thinking derived from the sources of legislation in order to rebutt this interpretative process in which case they themselves would have engaged in a bid’a since the Salaf never did this or they would have to affirm the Ashari methodology since in essence, this is what it has done.
Sphere: Related ContentPublished February 9, 2007 . Filed under: Polemics
Posts
I came across this post on another blog that seems to at least touch upon some of the issues you bring up:
“Ibn Abbas(ra) said,
Ponder over the creation, not the Creator
This proves that the Salaf did not object to rational approach in proving Allah
’s existence, as many Ash’aris and other rationalists would claim. They had a different methodology in proving Allah 
’s existence, which was very simple and straightforward, far from Neo-Aristotelian arguments.
Ponder upon the creation and you would know the Creator; was their argument.
To categorise reality into substance and accidents etc, was Aristotle’s argument and not of the Salaf’s.
More importantly, the purpose and the main focus of the Prophet’s message was not to know Allah
exists. Rather, it was to worship Allah 
alone in all affairs. This, as far as the Muslims and the early generations are concerned, was the primary objective.
To the philosophers, the primary objective and focus has always been to know Allah
exists, and the Ash’arites simply inherited that from the philosophers. This is why we find that their books of Tawheed is simply about what is necessary, possible and impossible for Allah 
. They hardly touch upon worshipping Him alone, ruling by His laws alone, seeking His help alone. Of course, it was due to their negligence of this important aspect of Tawheed that many of them allowed Shirk to spread through out the Muslim world, such as calling upon other than Allah 
.
Let us also not forget that al-Razi, the most intelligent mutakallim the Ash’aris ever had, wrote works in astrology and other subjects, which according to al-Dhahabi was outright witchcraft, and if it was not for his will in which he repented, he would have died an apostate!”
In another post on the same blog, the author inserts a quote that summarizes the traditionalist, ie, Hanbali, school of Aqeedah:
“Whosoever held a similitude for Allah
from His creation has committed disbelief [kufr], whosoever disputes what Allah 
has attributed for Himself has committed disbelief [kufr], there is absolutely no similitude [tash’bih] in what Allah 
taala has described Himself or His messenger; so, whosoever affirms [the attributes] for Allah 
ta`ala [just] as they have been mentioned in the [qur’anic] verses, and in the authentic reports - that is befitting the Majesty of Allah 
ta’ala and negates all flaws from Allah 
ta’ala has truly struck the path of guidance.”
W’Allahu Alam
February 10, 2007 @ 9:58 am
Saracen,
Your comments have been addressed in the post above.
The core tension is over the nature of the properties that differentiate between the Creator and the creation. For example, whether one uses the term “accident”, “substances”, or “colors” or “subatomic particles” is irrelevant. The human intellect observes particular phenomenon of created beings and constructs terminology to describe that phenomenon. However, whatever terms are used are still attributes of the Created beings.
The problem is more complicated then you are making it out to be. There is an apparent conflict between the various Islamic texts. No where does Allah
(subhana wa ta’ala) ever state “I have a yadd but it is dissimilar from His creation.” Rather, these statements are separated. There are statements that Allah 
(subhana wa ta’ala) has a yadd and there is a separate statement that Allah 
(subhana wa ta’ala) is dissimilar from His creation. The latter is clearly an attribute since Allah 
(subhana wa ta’ala) uses this to define Himself, such as in Surat al Ikhlas which is the Surah from which the key attributes are described. The term “yadd” is not an attribute. If taken literally, it means a physical hand that is a body organ. Allah 
(subhana wa ta’ala) describes Himself as being One, Free from Needs, and Absolutely Dissimilar creation.
Having a “yadd” in a physiological sense is to have a body part and Allah
(subhana wa ta’ala) has described Himself as not being divided into parts. If so, then Allah 
(subhana wa ta’ala) would not have castigated the Christians for dividing Godhood into components, as well as for making Isa (alayhi salam) a creator. Now, to say that Allah 
(subhana wa ta’ala) has “parts but not like the parts of creation” would be wrong because Allah 
(subhana wa ta’ala) Himself condemns the Christians for exactly this statement. Such beliefs are kufr.
Furthermore, “yadd” in the physiological sense would mean that Allah
(subhana wa ta’ala) had body organs and body organs, whether big or small or transparent or opaque or made of substances or accidents or subatomic particles or pure energy is still a created being that is linguistically used to refer to a component of a larger body that performs a particular function. To attribute this Allah 
(subhana wa ta’ala) is kufr since Allah 
(subhana wa ta’ala) is absolutely free from needs. To say “Allah 
has a body organ, but it is a body organ unlike the Creation” merely means that Allah 
(subhana wa ta’ala)’s body organ is something that humans haven’t conceived yet, but it is a body organ nonetheless from which the Creator derives sustenance and such a belief would be kufr.
The core disagreement is what the phrase “absolutely dissimilar from the creation” entails and which attributes are exclusively for the Creation and which attributes are exclusively for Allah
(subhana wa ta’ala). This is why the Salafus Saleh would affirm the terms theologically, but not linguistically, and this is the Ashari position.
Thus, irrespective of whether one uses the term substances or attributes, the problems raised by the texts themselves must still be addressed. Aristlean logic, neo-plantonicism are not defined solely by particular terms, but are modes of reasoning. It is one thing to say that some of Aristotle’s conclusions are kufr, it is another thing to say that the mode of reasoning developed by Aristotle and refined throughout the ages by later thinkers is haram or kufr. In order to prove that a mode of reasoning is kufr, then you have to bring strong proofs from the Qur’an or hadeeth that such reasoning itself is kufr or haram. In other words, you would have to use proofs from the Qur’an and hadeeth to show that syllogistic or analogical reasoning is itself haram. The phrase “yadd unlike yadd of creation” is itself the product of both forms of reasoning (syllogistic and analogical). It is not a literalist textualist claim. Their is not a single verse of the Qur’an or hadeeth that says “Allah
has a yadd but unlike creation”, this statement is a logical conclusion by combining two distinct texts.
Secondly, your claim that the reason the Prophet (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) was sent was to worship Allah
(subhana wa ta’ala), is true. However, one cannot worship that which one does not know. As described above, some beliefs can lead to anthropomorphism and that is kufr. Even if one has all of the ibadah in the world, kufr negates all such deeds. Thus, it is imperative to properly understand Allah 
(subhana wa ta’ala) as He Himself desires to be understood without engaging in excessive likening or dislikening.
The rest of your post is just gibberish thats already been addressed. Please read the posts properly before making comments.
Nothing you have shown in your comment has met the challenge of this post: to refute logic itself using the Qur’an and Sunnah. I’m not taking about Aristotel’s conclusions or his use of particular terminology, but to critique particular modes of reasoning, such as syllogistic and analogical reasoning, using Islamic texts without engaging in bid’a.
February 11, 2007 @ 8:54 am
also, if aqeedah is about ibadah, then of what use is discussing whether Allah
(subhana wa ta’ala) has a yadd, ayn, wajh, etc? What do these attributes have to do with ibadah? If anything, discussing such things will cause the worshipper to inadvertently visualize Allah 
(subhana wa ta’al) or liken Allah 
to His creation, which are two things that are absolutely prohibited in ibadah and can lead to kufr.
February 13, 2007 @ 3:00 am
Alsalamualaikum (forgot to include this in my previous comment, asif)
Looking back at my remarks, it seems they were a bit unclear. The majority of my comment was taken from another brother’s blog, a detail that was perhaps missed due to poor adjective use in my first sentence (heh). My aim was merely to juxtapose his comments with yours and get your take on them; it wasn’t necessarily to attack your position. To be sure, I due lean more toward his line of thought in regards to aqeedah, though I do apologize for not being more particular in what I quoted of his. I should have highlighted the key points and put aside the rest of his points.
The most pertinent issue he brought up is the way in which we should understand Allah
(SWT). I assume that when you speak of the use of logic that you are referring to it viz. the understanding of Allah 
’s nature. Your remarks on my comment lead me to further believe that this is the case; though please feel free to tell me if I’m mistaken. Now, continuing under that assumption, it is clear that logical deduction is not the sole means by which to understand Allah 
. As the brother in the other blog pointed out, one can, as Ibn ‘Abbas encouraged, ponder on the beauty and intricacy of the creation and from that find proof in the existence of Allah 
. Further, in regard to the specific nature of Allah 
, you are correct in stating that “it is imperative to properly understand Allah 
(subhana wa ta’ala) as He Himself desires to be understood.†That being said then, it seems that the view of the scholars who follow the aqeedah of Imam Ahmed is the most sound.
Specifically, if Allah
(SWT) refers to His hand, His face, and other attributes of this sort, who are we to deny them and impose a figurative meaning on His words? The most straightforward approach, that of Imam Ahmed, asserts that one is to take what Allah 
has said and accept it as it is. Also, contrary to what you suggested, this does not anthropomorphize Allah 
(SWT) (wa yuathubillah). One is not to believe that Allah 
has a hand in a physical sense (i.e., that it succumbs to the laws of earthly physics), nor in a physiological sense (i.e., that it is part of a living organism), but rather in a literal sense (i.e., that it is real as opposed to figurative).
Also, the assertion that “Allah
has a yadd unlike any other yadd†is not, as you state, a singular claim devoid of specific textual backing. Rather, it is a composite claim that asserts that, in line with Quran text, “Allah 
has a yadd†and, in anticipation of the inevitable question of the nature of this yadd, that it is “unlike any other yadd†(more specifically, that it is befitting His Majestic nature).
To further clarify this position, I’ve excerpted passages from “The Muslim’s Belief†By Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen (RA) (I think I’ll stick to simply quoting scholars from here on in, heh)
“We believe that Allah
has two generous hands: “No, both His hands are wide open; He spends how He pleases” (5:64); “They do not esteem Allah 
with the esteem that is due to Him. The whole Earth will be His handful on the Day of Resurrection, and the Heavens will be rolled up in His right hand. Glory be to Him and exalted is He above that which they associate with Him” (39:67).†[there is also a hadith in which RasoolAllah (SAW) speaks of Allah 
’s unique hands]
by His Revelation:
……
“Describing Allah
We believe in all that He assigned to Himself or what His Messenger described Him with, of names and attributes. However, we reject two concepts: 1) To say or believe that Allah
’s attributes are similar to those of his creatures; and 2) To say or believe that Allah 
’s attributes are like such and such.â€
Next, to your point on the usefulness of discussing Allah
’s yadd. Well, that’s just it—you don’t discuss it. One is to accept the ways in which Allah 
(SWT) has described Himself and not be overly contemplative in that regard. You believe in the totality of revelation, in Allah 
’s unique attributes and submit yourself fully to Him. Now, I will grant you that taking a literal perspective in regards to Allah 
’s attributes can perhaps lead one to inadvertently visualize their Creator, in which case they should immediately seek His forgiveness. Such an involuntary moment of human weakness, however, is not likely to affect one’s ibadah. That is to say, simply because one has momentarily imagined Allah 
in a manner unbefitting Him does not lead one to fashion an idol and pray to it as an intermediary. Conversely, it is the needlessly analytical approach to Allah 
’s attributes that can easily lead one astray. Through employing syllogistic reasoning, for example, one can ponder about whether Allah 
is within or without, above or below, and finally end on Allah 
being everywhere; this conclusion, and the methodology used to reach it, has indeed been the mother of countless forms of bid’ah since the death of our beloved Prophet (SAW).
I want to conclude with a few points. First, I don’t believe I met your challenge based on your specific requirements, but I hope I’ve at least shown how it is my belief (based on historical evidence and scholarly opinions) that the use of Greek logic with regard to the understanding of Allah
is at least unnecessary and can easily become dangerous. Second, if you are to comment on this posting (which I suspect you will :)), then I ask that you limit your critique to my most recent contribution. Whether it was due to expediency (or laziness, whichever, heh), or some misguided bout of academic integrity, my quoting the other brother’s post in its entirety was a misstep and I hope that my current post clears up my position. Lastly, and most importantly, I pray that my words have not transgressed the bounds of adab. You seem like a sensible brother, alhamdulilah, and so I am confident that, inshAllah, we can have a civil discussion about our deen without spiraling into the fitnah that pervades on many a-forum and chatroom. At the end of the day, neither of us is a scholar, so we are really, at least how I see it, simply attempting to share our perspectives and deepen our understanding of Islam.
Anyway, I look forward to hearing your views.
Wa’salamualaikum
February 13, 2007 @ 2:51 pm