(useless post)
(since the thread has been hijacked from my initial purpose, I am removing the post content and will try again later.)
(since the thread has been hijacked from my initial purpose, I am removing the post content and will try again later.)
Buzz, 
Ibn Sadiq, and 1 other are discussing.
Shams al-Nahar 12:07 pm on September 30, 2009 Permalink
The Granada/TI debate is isomorphic with Taymiya and Ghazali, not Rushd and Ghazali.
Taymiya argued that Ghazali was intellectually promiscuous in that he used Other (christian, greek) philosophy (as opposed to purely Islamic philosophy) in argument.
Ghazali argued that truth is seperable from origin.
It was not adab that failed us in the fitnutz thread (well mine did, okfine), but our shared mizan, our methods and criteria for the resolution of intellectual conflict.
Because interpretive disagreement is legitimate, and that is how knowledge expands and grows.
Buzz 1:02 pm on September 30, 2009 Permalink
Shams – you could atleast try to hide that you have drunk the Granada koolaid. You regurgitate so verbatim it is like a purple ring around your lips.
Shams al-Nahar 1:08 pm on September 30, 2009 Permalink
What do you expect?
Like my beloved Ghazali, I am intellectually promiscuous.
I see both value and flaw in TI and Granada.
Buzz 1:11 pm on September 30, 2009 Permalink
ok
Buzz 1:17 pm on September 30, 2009 Permalink
Is that the same as polytheism?
Shams al-Nahar 1:18 pm on September 30, 2009 Permalink
no……but it IS kinda like being bi-spectual in the World[of Warcraft].
Buzz 1:10 pm on September 30, 2009 Permalink
That was a little rude. I apologise.
I thought toeing the party line exactly was a right-wing-thing that you abhored. Have you become that thing? The mirror image of western imperialism?
Shams al-Nahar 1:15 pm on September 30, 2009 Permalink
whose partyline am i toeing?
yours? theirs?
aziz 1:22 pm on September 30, 2009 Permalink
i wasnt referring to granadablog at all.
Shams al-Nahar 1:23 pm on September 30, 2009 Permalink
I was.
lol
Ibn Sadiq 6:15 pm on September 30, 2009 Permalink
shams
I think Granada is intellectually promiscuous without being theologically promiscuous (not saying anyone here is… I have to be so sensitive on this site).
there is no way granada is on the “ibn tayimya side” in your analogy, notwithstanding, that we ourselves are sufis; and half of our blog is an attack on salafees (well one aspect at least)…. lol the idea that granada is on the tayimya side v ghazali debate would go down with a laugh here in our home city. Since one of our members is deconstructing and questioning “the book of tawheed” on another forum.
the other half of our blog is littered with western philosophy, post colonial thought, feminism, marxist critical theories and debate over liberalism and modernity, ideas we have adapted and engaged with as well as our own traditional islamic disciplines; all governed by a maqsid grounded in our Muslim tradition…all pinned together with our belief in Allah (swt) and the Quran and sunnah as guide…
I dont know where this charge that we are resilient, unworldly and isolated (lacking intellectual adaptability) comes from. (apart from coming from buzz who hasn’t a clue what we are on about, and who joins an army of moral commentators who are anti-granada because they can’t put us in a box and thus latch themselves onto a few sentences or two… to justify their uneasiness)
I know now that many clearly have not read the granada project network page…. which speaks about the necessity of cross disciplinary and cross pollination in respect to science and ideas…
True, We adhere to principles, that we believe are unambiguous, and unquestioned, in that these have travelled through revelation through systems like the shariah … and there is an overwhelming consensus that Islam abrogated the shariah, and correct the aqidah, of religions before it…
But perhaps then we come across as “overly-Muslim” because this site is a little less so… in that everything here is a rationalist perspective, where if the blog was written by a few cosmopolitan surfers… much of the conclusions would be the same, since you derived only from observing your surroundings, while the content and key phrases might change….say from calling each other “bro” you might call each other “dudes…” there is no obvious discussion on what exactly is Muslim about your politics
Buzz might be Muslim, and may Allah guide us all, (I;m not making takfir) but there is nothing Islamic (adherence to Muslim sciences) in his conclusions, he just thinks, being “universal”, tolerant and intelligent makes you, somehow, be default an excellent Muslim who’s captures Islam’s spirit.
…anyway, I promise this is the last time I come to Granada’s defense. Too many people write about too many intelligent things for the conversation to be about Talk Islam xenophobia to anything different and anything they perpetually misunderstand…
Salam
Buzz 6:46 pm on September 30, 2009 Permalink
Haha. Let me play too, Yasir. You are not a takfiri but you do say all the things a takfiri would say. May whatever gods you worship guide you as well, both the political ones and the spiritual ones (which is NOT to say you are a polytheist who uses the Name of Islam as a label to faux legitimize your political agendas cuz I am TOTALLY NOT saying that)
Thankfully, the “Islamic” club you belong to is not something I need or want to belong to. I am glad you have come out of your phony phase and you are really letting your hair down in these last couple of posts.
So NOT polemicist.
shams 6:28 pm on September 30, 2009 Permalink
well…I am referring to Taymiya’s rebuttal of kalam al-nafsi, the inner speech that is separate from the politics, etc you describe. Ghazali was the opposite side in that.
Taymiya maintained that knowledge was inseperable from identity, and that is why he fiercely resisted cultural borrowing from western thought.
I did not mean to offend…Taymiya has some excellent points…
He was a polymath and a great scholar.
The other way you remind me of him is the “thunderbolt” style of argument.
Please forgive me if I have offended thee….it was not deliberate.
I will still come to Granada’s defense.
Shams al Nahar– Defender of Granadablog!
Ibn Sadiq 7:05 pm on September 30, 2009 Permalink
a takfiri is someone who says another is NOT muslim. Don’t reinvent the term … to make yourself some pathetic granada victim so you can justify your moral pontificating about how wrong we are….
believe me if I wanted to call you a kafir I would do it directly, … I call you a maftoon. If you were a kafir i would excuse you from the things you say…as a maftoon I’m obliged to argue/clarify what part of Islam you have reshaped for your secular benefits…
Bro this is not about joining a club, this is about our obligation to those less fortunate and what message we should promote on their behalf… I’m sorry you see this as a lifestyle choice.
phony phase?
subhanAllah, like the true racist, always suspicious, when i say the opposite to what you think I’m “phony” when I reaffirm your xenophobic image about being violent I’m being the “real” me.
We’ll leave it at that. Buzz your an animated corpse made active by the Other’s gaze…. Muslim shell – white politics
You offer nothing to the ummah, and want instead the Ummah to offer you peace of mind by reorganizing into good Muslims v bad Muslims … hope you find yourself in gaza one day, try telling them their enemy’s zionism is just another path to Allah (swt).
Buzz 7:10 pm on September 30, 2009 Permalink
You have no idea what I believe you incredible fool. You are the one who comes here to make friends and engage in dialog and then rips into people when they don’t buy into your load of turds.
You must have some kind of psychological issue. The prescription is patience, being an example of your (fake) position and if all else fails, anti-psychotics.
You are a goof and not to be taken seriously as far as I am concerned. I read you and Granada blog for amusement purposes only.
aziz 7:17 pm on September 30, 2009 Permalink
I’m closing this thread.