Dear
Mr. Zafar Rehmani,
I hope all is well with you. I have no
misderstanding about your post and the views of
Dr. Iqbal as mentioned by you. In your earlier
post on which I had commented, you had quoted
Dr. Iqbal saying that the three arguments
presented by scholastic philosophy namely
cosmological, teleological and ontological show
their inadequacy. Then while commenting on my
post you have again quoted Dr.Iqbal on the
subject as such:" But regarded as logical
proofs, I am afraid, they are open to serious
discussions and further betray a rather
superficial interpretation of experience." The
word "inadequacy means some thing lacking."
According to Dr.Iqbal these arguments are not
perfect and strong arguments and need something
more. That something more is the prophetic and
spiritual experience that the Quran betrays.
Inadequate argument does not mean the rejection
but improvement and that improvement is made by
the rational and spiritual mode of the Quranic
argument. So it can be said that these words of
Dr.Iqbal do not reject the three arguments given
by scholastic philosophy. Dr. Iqbal finds these
arguments week on the bases of logic and
experience when compared to the Quranic concepts
of the cosmos and spiritual experience. In my
opinion the three arguments propounded by the
scholastic philosophy are not un-Quranic but
they lack the force of intuitive and spiritual
experience and logical arguments that the Quran
presents on the question of the existence of
God. This is the reason I discussed the Quranic
view point on the existence of God referring
Dr.Iqbal and the scholastic philosophy. For Dr.
Iqbal, the Quranic method of argument about God
is more reliable than the three arguments given
by the scholastic philosophy and Dr. Iqbal
showed his disinterest on the scholastic
arguments. Thanks.
Sincerely yours,
Dr.Maqsood Jafri
New York
|
|