Top Members

Isagoge of Athir Al Din Al Abhari and the concept of animal

You have contributed 0.0% of this topic

Thread Tools
Appreciate
Topic Appreciation
To appreciate this topic, click 'Appreciate Topic' on the right.
Rank Image
Soulaimani's avatar
Offline
Unspecified
19
Brother
6
Soulaimani's avatar
#1 [Permalink] Posted on 14th October 2018 15:01
ألسلام عليكم ورحمة ألله وبركاته

I just start reading the إِيساغوجيَ (Isagoge) of Athir Al Din Al Abhari.

Before The Isagoge of Athir Al Din Al Abhari, I never read anything, in Islamic/Sunni literature, that affirms that human is an animal.

I have tried to get something with the root of إنسان, yet I did not find any link between human and animal (حيوان/إنسان), as إنسان seems related to نسي (to forget), what is perfectly in accordance with the description of human in the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

Paradoxically, the Isagoge of Athir Al Din Al Abhari, in the mean time, starts with the accuracy of statements, expression, significations… but I cannot find the origin of his claim.

Strangely, I have heard some Shaykh that use this terminology…

Does anybody now from where, particularly in the Qur'an and the Sunnah, Athir Al Din Al Abhari gets this affirmation that:

"كالإِنْسانَ يدلُّ على الحيوان الناطق"

جزاك ألله خيرا
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Offline
Unspecified
61
Brother
30
#2 [Permalink] Posted on 15th October 2018 08:42
السؤال: ما رأي فضيلتكم في وصف الإنسان بأنه حيوان ناطق؟

الإجابة: الحيوان الناطق يطلق على الإنسان كما ذكره أهل المنطق، وليس فيه عندهم عيب، لأنه تعريف بحقيقة الإنسان، لكنه في العرف قول يعتبر قدحاً في الإنسان، ولهذا إذا خاطب الإنسان به عامياً فإن العامي سيعتقد أن هذا قدحٌ فيه، وحينئذ لا يجوز أن يخاطب به العامي، لأن كل شيء يسيء إلى المسلم فهو حرام، أما إذا خوطب به من يفهم الأمر على حسب اصطلاح المناطقة، فإن هذا لا حرج فيه، لأن الإنسان لا شك أنه حيوان باعتبار أنه فيه حياة، وأن الفصل الذي يميزه عن غيره من بقية الحيوانات هو النطق. ولهذا قالوا: إن كلمة "حيوان" جنس، وكلمة "ناطق" فصل، والجنس يعم المعرف وغيره، والفصل يميز المعرف عن غيره. ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ مجموع فتاوى و رسائل الشيخ محمد صالح العثيمين المجلدالاول - باب المناهي اللفظية.

report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Soulaimani's avatar
Offline
Unspecified
19
Brother
6
Soulaimani's avatar
#3 [Permalink] Posted on 16th October 2018 09:24
With all due respect, this does not answer my question.

This is the same claim, that state of something, but give no proof.

It is said to be obvious, but for who?

Why human == life == animal?

What about Djinns? They are not animal, yet they live.

Again, where can I find a proof, particularly, from the Qur'an and the Sunnah?

جزاك ألله خيرا
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Offline
Unspecified
61
Brother
30
#4 [Permalink] Posted on 16th October 2018 12:14
From my little understanding حيوان is derived from حي , which is in the meaning of life. Hence, human and animals both can be called حيوان from a mantaqi ( logical) point of view. But offcourse humans being the one who can articulate and has been given a higher intellect and free will etc.

In quran the word نطق does come in different forms, which is in the meaning to articulate. So the word in the context of articulating has its Asl in quran and then it is obvious that man can articulate best from amongst the حيوانات، so the people of mantiq probably called it such.

بِسْمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحمَٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ
وَقَالُوا لِجُلُودِهِمْ لِمَ شَهِدْتُمْ عَلَيْنَا قَالُوا أَنْطَقَنَا اللَّهُ الَّذِي أَنْطَقَ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ وَهُوَ خَلَقَكُمْ أَوَّلَ مَرَّةٍ وَإِلَيْهِ تُرْجَعُونَ

Fussilat -21

Regarding jinn , i am not sure but it’s possible because they don’t have flesh or blood such as humans and animals, hence they probably don’t fit exactly in that meaning of “life” in that sense, therefore not counted as حيوان. Not sure really.

Also many a times a label/title might not be found in quran or hadeeth, but what that label describes is found in there. Such as tasawuff is a word not found in quran or hadeeth, but what it stands for or alludes toward is found in quran and hadeeth.

Interesting question, wasalam.
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Soulaimani's avatar
Offline
Unspecified
19
Brother
6
Soulaimani's avatar
#5 [Permalink] Posted on 16th October 2018 16:17
I know that is not a thread of discussion, but I need to clarify things.

PLEASE correct me if I am wrong.

To make it short, if I am not mistaken, the root should be حيو.

Anyway, if we limit ourselves, only to these reasoning, from a logical perspective there are several problems:
  • For حيو characterize Animals, like نسي characterize Human, حيو does not necessarily imply that human == life == animal.

  • Why to link directly Human and Animal, just because the two canنطق?

Again, if we limit ourselves, only to this concept, if we take the vocalization of human as standard, we find that Parrot can vocalize better than any other animals… So why we are not just like parrot?

You could answer that we are animals in a general sens, as animals, in general, vocalize. But it leads to other problems and the following questions:
  • Why it is deemed sufficient, that Human vocalizes to make him equal to Animal?

  • Why it is deemed sufficient, that Human lives to make him equal to Animal?


This cannot be enough, because it sounds, until now, subjective. And nothing prevent some wrong conclusion with this principle applied differently, but always axed around mere appearance.

For example:
(Very stupid, I must admit)
Quote:

Earth is spherical.
A sun is spherical.
So sun == Earth,

which is false.

(More stupid, I must admit)
Quote:
A football (ball) is spherical.
A planet is spherical.
So football (ball) == planet,

which is false.

In these examples, objects share some characteristics, but they are not the same… Human can share some characteristics with Animals without being the same… (Reminds me the problem with anthropomorphism.)

But here a "more correct example":
Quote:
Man looks like an animal, so he must be an animal.
Among Animal, Man looks like an ape, so it is a primate.
He must have an ancestor with apes.
So Man have evolved from a common ancestor that he had with apes.
As evolution did not start from here, well it have started from inert matter, etc…


This is exactly what did, wrongly, Lamarck and Darwin… They have not Islam to protect them from total misguidance, so they get this conclusion. They start from a subjective postulate that leads them to what we know as "Evolution". (Unfortunately, even Muslims have erred far away, even with Islam. Beware, I do not say, nor insinuate that linking Man with Animal, as Ahl Al Mantiq do, is misguidance.)

Now the question is "why should we take for sure, what seems, at least until now, not linked to Islam, but subjective". I even asked a Shaykh who answered me "There are proofs". But he did not give me anything concrete from the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Even when I insisted, he seemed clearly annoyed, he insisted, yet without proof…

Again, PLEASE correct me if I am wrong.
Now if I start with this reasoning:
  • Life is the opposite of Death.

  • Death is the opposite of Life .

  • Everything that exists and can die must live, so must have life.

  • Man can die, Djinns can die, Angels can die.

  • So, if human == living == animal, well Djinns are animal, Angels are animals, vegetables are animals, etc…

which is wrong, as we know that Djinns are not animal, nor Angels, nor vegetables.

So either:
  • I am wrong,

  • either the is something missing in the proof of this logic, hence my question

  • either there is no proof of this statement in the Qur’an or in the Sunnah


Now, why I insist?
Well, as Prophets are Human, عليهم سلم, as the Prophet Muhammad, صلى ألله عليه وسلم, is a Human, they are also concerned by this affirmation. And I will not dare to affirm this, without proof.

And you right,
Quote:
tasawuff is a word not found in quran or hadeeth, but what it stands for or alludes toward is found in quran and hadeeth

but the concept is in the Islamic Tradition. The word are different, even new, but the concept is not alien to the Shariah.

So what I ask, what I want, what I need is something like these:


No ambiguity, no doubt, only clear proofs and reasoning.
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Offline
Unspecified
61
Brother
30
#6 [Permalink] Posted on 17th October 2018 13:15
I think the issue arises when you confine and limit word حيوان to just what we commonly call as animal. One can ask what is the proof from quran and hadeeth to limit this word حيوان to animals?If you look into the dictionary, animals is just one usage of the word, the broader usage of that word is for life/living. تعريف و معنى حيوان في معجم المعاني الجامع - معجم عربي عربيحَيَوان ( اسم ):الحَيوانُ : الحياةالحيوان المَنَوِيّ : ( التشريح ) الخليّة التَّناسليّة الذَّكريّة التي تتَّحد بالبويضة أي بالخليّة التَّناسليّة الأنثويّة لتكوّن الزّيجوتحَيَوانِ ( اسم ):حَيَوانِ : جمع دَواجِنحيوان ( اسم ):حيوان : فاعل من حَييَحَيِىَ ( فعل ):The above is from Al maany dictionary and also attached a snap shot for you from hens wher dictionary.
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Soulaimani's avatar
Offline
Unspecified
19
Brother
6
Soulaimani's avatar
#7 [Permalink] Posted on 17th October 2018 15:00
Brother As-Saif, with all due respect, this is not a thread of discussion.

I repeat, I want something like these:


Nothing less to answer this question. I did not post it elsewhere in the forum, because I do not want any debates.

So, this is my last answer.

I do not think that this "issue arises when you confine and limit word حيوان to just what we commonly call as animal".

I only did a demonstration based, among others, on the argument of the fatwa and your previous answer, to show that it is not logical to limit the reasoning to "human == life == animal".

Rather I wrote:
Quote:
For حيو characterize Animals, like نسي characterize Human, حيو does not necessarily imply that human == life == animal.

If I did limit حيو/ حيوان to animals, I would not have written "characterize", but "is". Now, what does means "characterize Animals"?

When you observe animals, they live in a very basic manner:
  • They do not seek comfort like human;
  • They do not try to build tours;
  • They do not try to cook sophisticate meal;
  • They do not try to wear hype clothes;
  • They do not try to do Maths, do programs, go on the Moon;

etc…

They simply live. They live basically. Or, put another way, they "live". In one word, what characterize them? "LIVE". Hence the words حيوان/حيو that characterize/designate them. There is no trick, nothing illogical.

This is not from the Shariah, this is from common sense, as this reasoning is basic and natural. This is not problematic in anyway. While this is not the case with the reasoning of Ahl al Mantiq. I mention Prophets, but this is not the sole problem for me. Think about the origin of Adam عليه سلم, etc…

As Ahl al Mantiq claim something, not common, not natural, not logical, at least until now as I have no proof, they have to bring proofs. If this is so obvious, they have to bring proofs, as without proof, anybody can claim anything.

Now, to all readers, PLEASE, this is not a thread of discussion. Give me a clear fatwa with real proofs, not just chatting. This is not a debate, feel free to open elsewhere a topic, but please only proofs.
جزاكم ألله خيرا
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Offline
Unspecified
61
Brother
30
#8 [Permalink] Posted on 17th October 2018 18:37
وَمَا هَٰذِهِ الْحَيَاةُ الدُّنْيَا إِلَّا لَهْوٌ وَلَعِبٌ ۚ وَإِنَّ الدَّارَ الْآخِرَةَ لَهِيَ الْحَيَوَانُ ۚ لَوْ كَانُوا يَعْلَمُونَ (64
Surah ankaboot

يقول تعالى ذكره: ( وَمَا هَذِهِ الْحَيَاةُ الدُّنْيَا ) التي يتمتع منها هؤلاء المشركون ( إِلا لَهْوٌ وَلَعِبٌ ) يقول: إلا تعليل النفوس بما تلتذّ به، ثم هو مُنْقَضٍ عن قريب، لا بقاء له ولا دوام ( وَإِنَّ الدَّارَ الآخِرَةَ لَهِيَ الْحَيَوَانُ ) يقول: وإن الدار الآخرة لفيها الحياة الدائمة التي لا زوال لها ولا انقطاع ولا موت معها.
كما حدثنا بشر، قال: ثنا يزيد، قال: ثنا سعيد، عن قَتادة، قوله: ( وَإِنَّ الدَّارَ الآخِرَةَ لَهِيَ الْحَيَوَانُ لَوْ كَانُوا يَعْلَمُونَ ) حياة لا موت فيها.
حدثني محمد بن عمرو، قال: ثنا أبو عاصم، قال: ثنا عيسى، وحدثني الحارث، قالا ثنا الحسن، قال: ثنا ورقاء، جميعا عن ابن أبي نحيح، عن مجاهد، قوله: (لَهِيَ الحَيَوانُ) قال: لا موتَ فيها.
حدثني عليّ، قال: ثنا أبو صالح، قال: ثني معاوية، عن عليّ، عن ابن عباس، في قوله: ( وَإِنَّ الدَّارَ الآخِرَةَ لَهِيَ الْحَيَوَانُ ) يقول: باقية.
وقوله: (لَوْ كانُوا يَعْلَمُونَ) يقول: لو كان هؤلاء المشركون يعلمون أن ذلك كذلك، لقَصَّروا عن تكذيبهم بالله، وإشراكهم غيره في عبادته، ولكنهم لا يعلمون ذلك.

Clearly you can see in quran حيوان is again being used in the context of life.

Man is called حيوان ناطق، because he is a living being whose نطق is far superior and advance than other مخلوق of this Aalam, that’s why from a lugha/ language stand point, he is called حيوان ناطق. There is no other secret conspiracy going on behind this title:)

This is man designating a term to define man from a language perspective. The definition since doesn’t go against quran and sunnah, hence that is sufficient for it to be used. You don’t need a direct quran and sunnah legislation to come up with terminolgies or make up new ones, especially when they have nothing to do anything in deen and ahkam.

A lot of issues get resolved when we understand how the language ( اللغة) is used. The issue you seek is related to nuance of language. And nothing more, wasalam.
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top