|
Disputation and Argumentation
'Ehtejaj' (Argumentation) means establishing an argument for proving the sought matter and by argument is meant proof and reasoning. (Fayumi - Mesbah al-Mnnir; Pg. 661 and Jauheri - Mesbah; vol. 1; Pg. 304 and Ibn Manzoor - Lesan al-Arab; vol. 3; Pg. 54)
In the Mu'jam (Lexicon) of 'Maqayes Lughat' it has come that: The actual meaning of Haj is 'to intend' and proof is called as 'Hujjat' (argument) for this reason that through the channel of proof, the desired reality is intended. It then gives argumentation the meaning of predominance by means of proof. (Fars ibn Zacharia - Mu'jam Maqa'ees Lughat; vol. 2; Pg. 3; similarly, Lesan Al-Arab vol. 3; Pg. 54)
Therefore, argumentation is the same literal reasoning i.e. establishing absolute proof for proving a claim which is finally accompanied with the acceptance and submission of the opposite person and or leading to the triumph and victory of one side and the silence of the opposite person.
Considering the fact that the opposite persons engaging in argumentation are different, therefore the kinds of argumentation too are different. By way of general classification it can be said that the opposite person is either possessing rational, spiritual and moral problems where discussion in this case will be propounded as “special argumentation” or is possessing one of the aforesaid problems where in this case discussion will be called as 'dispute' which itself is of two types.
A) Special Argumentation
In this kind of argumentation the opposite person is not having complete readiness for getting reminded and finding the path of true and innate Ma'refat. On the other hand, he himself seeks rational proofs with regards to God. In this case, the existence of God is rationalized through the means of created beings. In reality, it is God who has placed these created signs as a means for rationalizing His own existence and a person explains that in the form of rational reasoning and the opposite person by pondering over that, confesses to the existence of a Creator.
Although this type of argumentation the achievement of which is a rational resolution and faith, has been emphasized in the course of religions and in the life of the divine Prophets, yet it should be noted that this rationalization differs from what is discussed in the Greek philosophical and rational disposition. It is necessary to mention these differences:
1-Just as it was mentioned in the previous discussions, argumentation by this meaning cannot by any means be a true haven for religion in the guidance of the people. Rather a recognition which is acquired from this path cannot be compared with the innate and real Ma'refat.
The innate Ma'refat is a hearlty and conscientious vision of Exalted God, His Names and Attributes. This same Ma'refat whose base has been placed in the nature of everyone, is the fundamental of divine theology and knowledge and Ma'refat in reality is applied to this same class of recognition and it also is the true argument between the Creator and creatures.
Basically, contemplation and concentration in the created signs too is a bridge for the seekers of truth for transition to the real Ma'refat. However, in the Greek philosophical school, mental (rational) recognition is the only way for receiving the fact and without the philosophical journey, a person will remain in ignorancy and perplexity. The pinnacle of Ma'refat and the object of this journey too is nothing but a mental (rational) resolution and faith. It is obvious to what extent this difference and its effects separates these two disposition and draws them to two diverse direction.
The method of Greek philosophy right from the outset, keeps the way of philosophical and rational journey before the seekers of truth and does not recognize any other way (other than this) for attaining the reality. However the divine religions open the door of rational reasoning and argumentation only at the time when the person is either suffering from mental (rational) doubts and or due to the deviation of Fitrat, he is not having the requisite readiness for true guidance and seeks rational explanation about God.
It is for this reason that the divine Messengers, for eliminating the mental doubts and establishing rational proofs, were resorting to rationalization in proving God.
In the famous tradition of 'Ahlijeh' it has come that: Mufazzal narrates in a letter to Imam Sadiq (A.S.) that groups of people are denying God and that they have resorted to debate and discussion in this regard. He asks Imam (A.S.) to write to him some points about argumentation and its disapproval. Imam (A.S.) in the beginning of his reply sets forth the matter of innate Ma'refat and 'Meesaaq' (covenant) as a major argument for all and then teaches Mufazzal the rationalization of created signs.
(*) (Behar al-Anwar; vol. 3; Pg. 152)
2-Argumentation in the Ayats (signs) is easily perceivable and understandable and a slight deliberation in them will result in confirming the existence of a Creator. In other words the innate and conventional intellect is easily able to follow the causer from the effect and the Creator from the created beings. Of course the more the deliberation in the effects and the created beings, the more clear will be the reasoning for a Creator. This point is apparent in all the related Ayats (verses) and tradition. Basically the usage of such words like Ayats and signs in the Holy Quran with regards to the created beings and especially its emphasis on their being an evident and manifest proof, relates the same matter.
(*)
“We will soon show them our signs in the Universe and in their own souls, until it will become quite clear to them that it is the truth.” (Holy Quran: Fusselat: 53)
In many famous and diverse traditions too, this implication has been clearly expressed:
(*)
“Is there a house without a 'maker' or a crime without a criminal?” (Behar al-Anwar; vol. 3; Pg. 26)
(*) (Behar al-Anwar; vol. 3; Pg. 55)
3-this kind of argumentation is not in need of any preliminary and complicated sciences and is free from the shackles of every form of philosophical system and its preliminaries. In other words, it has not been formed by paying attention to one special philosophical school and method and hence it is capable of being perceived and understood by all.
4-In this type of rationalization there is no way for intellection in the Essence of God and the Creator. On the contrary, intellection in the creatures is the basis for confessing and confirming the Creator and thus in the traditions, contemplation and intellection in the Essence of God has been prohibited and condemned. However, contemplation in the creatures has been praised and in many verses and traditions such contemplation has been called for which we will mention two of the traditions as examples:
(*)
“Be on guard against contemplation in God.” (Behar al-Anwar; vol. 3; Pg. 259)
(*)
“When the talk reaches to God, then pause and talk about what is below the 'Arsh' (Throne) and not what is above the 'Arsh'. (Behar al-Anwar; vol. 3; Pg. 259)
This method, by making use of concept and combination of meanings does not terminate in the imagination of God and His Attributes. Rather, by paying attention to the creatures and the effects it achieves the Causer and the Creator and this is having a fundamental difference with what was seen in the Greek philosophical school which was the imagination of the Attributes of God and His existence.
Basically, with deliberation in the created beings, the intellect finally terminates in a recognition which admits a Creator This rational recognition is not worthy of comparison with the innate Ma'refat of God because in the latter, the personal and external God is perceived in the conscience and this conscience in reality is the grant of Ma'refat from God in the heart of the human beings. The same is true with regards to the Attributes of God.
Various traditions explain this matter very explicitly:
(*)
“Surely intellect (reason) recognizes God for this reason that it becomes the cause of confessing to the existence of God and not because of being conversant in His Attributes.” (Behar al-Anwar; vol. 3; Pg. 147) (After mentioning the four kinds of rational recognition he says)
(*)
“The real recognition of God is not possible by the aforesaid ways except to the extent that He is existing.” (Behar al-Anwar; vol. 3; Pg. 148)
(*)
“God is not he who can be rationalized.” (Behar al-Anwar; vol. 3; Pg. 266)
In a tradition it has come that “one can confess to the Attributes of God but he cannot be conversant in it. Thus we know Him to be Wise but the Essence of His Wisdom is unknown to us.” (Behar al-Anwar; vol. 3; Pg. 147)
In other words, just as it has repeatedly come in the exposition of Ahle Bait (A.S.) this reasoning only provides us with recognition confined to the two limits of nullification and simile.[30]) This proof obligates us to confess to the existence of a Creator and the bestower of Life but does not present any kind of His notion and description. The rational Ma'refat of God is set forth in the form of exit from the two boundaries i.e. God exists but not like other creatures, God is an entity but not like other entities, God is Wise but not like other wise beings… (Behar al-Anwar; vol. 3; Pg. 257 chapter 9. Section three, first stage)
These differences guides us to one Universal principle and it is this that the kind of rationalization and its categories in the school of divine Prophets can have differences with what we see in the human school of thought. Argumentation should be such that it should possess all the aforesaid specialities and more important than all it should not lead to any kind of notion and description of the Divine Essence, His Names and Attributes. The reasoning which finally terminates in some kind of notion and description of God cannot by any means, be approved by Shariat (Divine Law). Therefore it should be noted that putting into operation the concepts and categories in rationalization is accepted to the extent that it does not draw the mind towards mental and even heartly llusion and does not lead to an alien path far from the divine Fitrat (innate disposition).
6-Considering that this kind of argumentation can easily be perceived and understood, if a person does not, by this method confess to the existence of God then it is either due to the non-reflection and non-deliberation with regards to reasoning and or due to commitment of sins and sickness of the heart.
(*) (Behar a1-Anwar; vol. 3; Pg. 152)
(*) (Behar al-Anwar; vol. 3; Pg. 26)
This matter will be explained more in the discussion of “Obstacles of guidance and submission.”
B) Disputation ('Jedal')
Disputation ('Jedal') on the measure of 'Fe'aal' is one of the infinitives of 'Bab-e-Mufa'eleh' and in meaning it has been described as dispute and discussion between two parties where normally one is on the truth and the other on falsehood.
Therefore, the addressee of the dispute is not empty-minded and has something to say and does not merely intend to learn (only). As such, the one who engages in disputation and debate with the believers, possesses such thoughts which become an obstacle for him to accept guidance. This mental obstacle is either in the form of contravention, which enter the religious beliefs and or is in the form of false delusions, which he believes and becomes an obstacle from accepting the truth.
In the first case, the rightful disputer should reply to his contravention and in reality should erase his contravention and finally show the true matter devoid of any blot and difficulty. In the second case he should remove the false thoughts of the opposite person and render them futile. In both the cases the obstacles in the path of guidance get destroyed and the ways for finding guidance (which were previously mentioned) are opened.
In all of the disputations which the Holy Imams have had with the opposition, one can see reasoning in the created signs and their unrefutable regularity and preciseness. Therefore, in some of these debates while the matter of the opposite person(s) would be contravened eventually they would also be reminded of God through these very created signs.
The above matter applies to that person who intends to seek the truth. However, if he is obstinate and even after the finalization of argument he denies the truth and conducts the discussion for other reasons like enfeeblement of religious beliefs of the Muslims then in such a case, disputation with him is performed for defending the beliefs of the Muslims and showing the power of divine Ma'aref, without having any consideration for the opposite person.
Ibn Abil Auja says; “He (i.e. Imam Sadiq [A.S.]) counted so many signs of God's power to me that I thought this very moment God will appear between him and me.” (Usul-e-Kafi; vol. 1; Pg. 76) Even though his companions brought faith in God and became Muslims, he himself was not prepared to submit before God because he was not clear-sighted. This is a sentence which was said about him by Imam Sadiq (A.S.) and which can also be seen in Holy Quran[31] and other heavenly books.[32])
Notes:
[30] 30-(*
[31] 31-Baqareh: l8 and 171, A’raf: 64, Naml: 66 and 81, Rum: 53, Fusselat: 17, Mohammad: 23.
[32] 32-At the time when Hazrat Isa (A.S.) was in Jerusalem having an argument with the obstinate army they told him: “Show us your God so that we become Jews.” Then Isa at that moment replied: “If you were having vision I would have showed Him any time, but since you are blind I am unable to show Him to you.” (Bible of Barnaba; Chapter 152; Pg. 310
|
