Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'philosophy' in content updated in the last year.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • ShiaChat.com News & Events
    • What's New @ ShiaChat.com
  • Main Forums
    • Guest Lounge
    • General Discussions
    • The Thinker's Discourse
    • Quran, Hadeeth & Du'a Forum
    • Prophets and Ahlulbayt Forum
    • Imam Mahdi (af) Forum
    • Islamic Laws & Jurisprudence
    • Social, Family and Marriage Issues
    • Ethics and Self Development
    • Multilingual Forums
  • Religious Debates & Dialogues
    • Shia/Sunni Dialogue
    • Islam/Christianity/Judaism Dialogue
    • Philosophy, Atheism/Theism & Other Interfaith Dialogue
    • Research into Other Sects
  • Politics, Current and Regional Issues
    • General Politics and Current Issues
    • Syria & Lebanon Crisis
    • Iran Politics and Analysis
    • Iraq and the Post-war Conflicts
    • Occupied Palestine and the Uprising
    • Bahrain Uprising
    • South Asian Affairs Focus
    • Yemen War and Conflict
  • Local Community Forums
    • North/Central/South America
    • Europe
    • Asia and the Middle East
    • Australia & Others
  • Off-Topic Forums
    • General Off-Topic Discussion
    • Community Helpdesk
    • Economics, Business, Science and Technology
    • Education Forum
    • Sports, Health, Food and Fitness
  • User Specific forums
    • Sisters Forum
    • Brothers Forum
    • Reverts (Converts) to Islam
  • Islamic Resources and Material
    • Poetry, Lyrics and Songs
    • Articles, Graphics, Multimedia, etc.
    • Books and Video Reviews
    • Links
  • Discussion Forum Support & Feedback
    • ShiaChat.com's Frequently Asked Questions
    • Technical Support, Suggestions and Feedback

Calendars

  • Community Calendar

Blogs

  • ShiaChat.com Blog
  • Insiyah Abidi
  • Misam Ali
  • Contemporania
  • Volcano Republic
  • Reflections
  • Al Moqawemat
  • Just Another Muslim Blogger
  • Amir Al-Mu'minin
  • Imamology
  • Musings
  • The Adventures of Wavey Bear
  • Religion
  • Ask Wise
  • Think Positive
  • Reflections
  • A Whole Heart of Hollow
  • Blogging at ShiaChat
  • Shian e Ali's Blog
  • From the cradle to the grave
  • repenters Beast mode 90kg - 100kg journey
  • My journey into a "White hat" Hacking career
  • The Sun Will Rise From The West
  • Muslim Coloring Book
  • Ramblings of a young Musulman
  • Qom
  • ANSAR-AL-MAHDI (AFS)
  • My Feelings and Emotions About Myself
  • Unity, the New iPhone and Other Suppressed Issues
  • Mohamed Shivji
  • The People's Democratic Republic of Khafanestan
  • Crossing the Rubicon
  • The 5 Schools
  • My Conversion Story; from Roman Catholic - to Agnostic - to Islam Shia
  • Inspire
  • With Divine Assistance You Can Confront a Pharoah, Even Empty Handed
  • Banu Musa
  • Erik Cartman Podcast
  • My Quora Digest
  • Transcriber's Blog
  • blog competition 2017
  • Quranology
  • Who/What is the Dajjal (Anti-Christ)?
  • ZIKR-E-MEHBOOB
  • A Marginalia to Mu'jam
  • Random Thoughts of ShiaMan14
  • All the Perfumes of Arabia
  • Notepad
  • Pensées
  • My Spiritual Journey
  • Reflections

Found 10 results

  1. I like to solicit your constructive comments on the following Idea. Science has penetrated our lives and how important it has become. To the extent that some are using as a the only tool to understand the Higher realities and shunning philosophy/religion. Are we been misled here, by the glamour and newnes of something that we have just started to discover. Are we worshiping Science as new god. When man discovered fire, it was a new discovery, probably started worshiping it. Creation of the Universe(as we know of it), is been described as something out of nothing, our out of a singularity, or a single dot that contained all that we see today, and the process is described as a random process which took place over billions of years and different processed Evolved and formed new elements and stars and galaxies and basically, environment based evolution. Random, with no DNA/Map that it followed. How is it different from these processes> Potential or every thing/building blocks on everything/ existed in the following processes. Process: A fertilized human egg to full grown Human. Process: A seed to full grown giant Sequoia tree Process: Singularity to Current Universe What Science describes with much fanfare and dramatization (if you watch any Bigbang Video) Imagine a video describing the the initial stages of a fertilized human egg and all stages/periods with the development it goes(all subsystems and processes) through till it reach adulthood(full complete body). Or a growth of a Sequoia Tree seed, all steps till its a Giant Tree. We know that all the different stages of development, have a guide and its the DNA, same is true for a Sequoia Tree, it follows a map. Similarly, if you substitute the scientific terminology and fanfare with simple periods of stages and describe each stages from Singularity to what we know of the universe. Its has followed a map, its systems are growing according to a pre defined system(at a Macro level).
  2. Logic is the assessment of fallacy in thoughts concerning subjects. Then, who wants to be knowledgeable at the school of human thought, first of all should learn logic. Comprehend what Aristotle and other philosophers specified as a logic, after that enter in a scientific/philosophical issues. It is the false way produced by humans and it won’t work on religious topics. Because the source of each way is different from each other. The method of knowing/worshiping must be defined by God for it to be approved and accepted by him. Is it even possible that our creator would not guide us on how to know/worship him? He has sent prophets and ahlulbayt to teach us how to recognize facts. This all suggests that we can’t move as we please and by our false thoughts. We don’t need to learn philosophy or mysticism to understand the true way because it was not the way prophets taught. They have not come to be just for educated people. God has certainly defined the path. This path is engraved in knowing the chosen ones and to surrender to them. One that claims to be a worshipper of God but does not accept the path defined by Him is, in essence, denying God.
  3. Hope you are all well. Hopefully someone can shed light on this topic that I have found elsewhere which I myself would like an answer on too, using Hadith or Quranic verses. My questions are: Why create us to worship him if he doesn't need our worship Why create us to worship him if he doesn't want our worship Why create us to give us him mercy, if he doesn't want to give us your mercy Why create us to give us him mercy, if he doesn't need to give us your mercy That looks like 4 questions, doesn't it? But they all boil down to a single question which is this: Why do anything if you have no wants or needs. According to quran.com/35/15, Allah has no wants or needs, so that means that Allah did not want to give us his mercy and Allah did not have the need to give us his mercy, i.e. if you don't want to do something, why do it? Please note that many who have attempted to answer this question have focused on the "need" part but have neglected the issue of "wanting". Any input would be appreciated. Thank you in advance.
  4. Another version of the Proof of the Sincere given by Sadr al-Muta’alihin occurs in his commentary on the passage from the Qur’an: “Allah witnesses that there is no god but He” (3:17). Mulla Sadra writes: Know that the greatest of proofs and firmest of ways, the brightest path, the most noble and most secure is reasoning to the essence (dhat) of a thing by its essence (dhat). And that which is the most manifest of things is the nature of absolute existence (al-wujud al-mutlaq) in so far as it is absolute, and it is the Truth (haqiqah) of the Necessary Itself, the Exalted, and there is nothing except the First Truth (al-Haqq al-Awwal) which is the Truth (haqiqah) of existence itself, for whatever is other than It is either a whatness (mahiyyah), or an imperfect existence mixed with imperfection, or impotence and nothingness. There is nothing among them to be an instance of the meaning of existence by its essence (dhat). The Necessary Existent is pure existence than which nothing is more complete [more properly an instance of existence]. It has no limit [or definition] and has no end and it is not mixed with any other thing, whether a universality or specificity, nor [is It mixed with] one attribute in contrast to another besides existence. So we say: If there were not a Truth of Existence in existence, there would not be anything in existence, for whatever is other than the Truth of Existence is either a whatness (mahiyyah), and it is obvious that in respect to its essence (dhat) it would be other than existent, or it is an imperfect and incomplete existence, so there would be no alternative but to require composition and specification at a determined level and specific limit of all existence. Then a cause would be needed to complete its existence, and that which limits by a specific limit and brings it from potentiality to actuality and from contingency to necessity, for everything whose truth is not the truth of existence will not in its essence require existence, and neither will its ipseity require a specific limit of existence. So it will need something to dominate and limit it to benefit it with a determinate level. And that is the preponderant that is prior in existence to all, with a priority in simplicity over the composed, over the imperfect, the rich over the poor, and the gracious over the graced. So the Truth of the First Truth is the proof of its essence (dhat) and is the proof of all things. As is said by God: “Is it not sufficient for your Lord that He is a witness over all things?” (41:53) So this is the way of the Sincere, those who rely upon Him by Himself and who reason from Him to Him and who witness by His existence to other things, not by the existence of things to Him.[1] Here again, we find elements drawn from the Muslim peripatetics and from the ‘urafa. The passage begins with an affirmation of the Sufi claim that the sole reality is God, identified with absolute existence: “there is nothing except the First Truth (al-Haqq al-awwal) which is the Truth (haqiqah) of existence itself”. In order to prove that absolute existence must be God, i.e., the Necessary Existent, it is argued that no other candidate is independent, not whatness, not existence mixed with imperfection, and certainly not impotence and nothingness. So, if there is a God, it must be pure absolute existence, and if it can be shown that this Truth of Existence itself exists, is instantiated, this will amount to a proof of the existence of God. The next move is typical of the ‘urafa. It is claimed that if there were no Necessary Existent, no Truth of Existence, then there would be nothing at all. At this point, however, Sadra ceases to follow the line of the Sufis and takes a more peripatetic form of reasoning, claiming that the Truth of Existence is needed by all other existents as a cause. Whatness by itself cannot be responsible for existence, for if we consider merely the properties exhibited by reality, it will be a contingent fact that they are instantiated. If someone claims that there is no pure existence but only mixed imperfect existences, Sadra replies that they rely upon pure existence in two respects. First, the imperfect existent will require a cause, since no imperfect being in and of itself can be responsible for its own existence; and second, a cause is needed for the imperfect to determine its level of limited actuality, for the imperfect will not be able to determine a specific level or grade of being for itself on its own, but needs to be dominated from above, as it were. As in the statement in the Asfar, we find reference to the Sufi theme of the unity of existence, but this comes to be explicated in terms of the major principles of Sadra’s own transcendental philosophy: the fundamentality of existence and the gradedness of existence. Necessary and contingent are defined in terms of causal dependence, as in Ibn Sina, and the ultimate cause is then shown to be the Truth of existence. There is also a discussion of the Proof of the Sincere in the Epilogue to his Kitab al-masha’ir.[2] Here it is first admitted that there are many paths toward God, but that the strongest and most noble is that in which He alone can be the middle term of the argument, and that this direct route is that of the Prophets and of the Sincere. The discussion is punctuated with passages from the Qur’an, including those mentioned regarding the Proof of the Sincere by Ibn Sina. Those who take the route of the Sincere first consider the reality or Truth of existence, haqiqat al-wujud, and understand that this is the principle or origin (‘asl) of each thing, and that this is the Necessary Existent. Contingency, need and privation do not attach to existence because of its haqiqah, but because of flaws and privations external to this original haqiqah. This realization is said to give rise to an understanding of the unity of the Divine Attributes, and then from the Attributes to the qualities of His states and their effects. Then it is confessed that the sun of haqiqah arises from ‘irfan (gnosis), by which it is known that existence is a simple haqiqah, without genus, difference, definition, description or proof. The differences among the particular instances of reality are attributed to differences in grade of perfection, causal priority and independence. Pure existence is identified with infinite intensity of being, ultimate perfection. All other existences are of various degrees of imperfect existence. It is denied that deficiency in existence is implied by the Truth of Existence itself, because deficiency is a privation lacking positive ontological status. Rather, limitation and imperfection are a by-product of creation, since the effect is necessarily inferior to its cause. In his al-Hikmat al-arshiyah we find yet another statement of the Proof of the Sincere by Sadr al-Muta’alihin.[3] This work opens with the definition of the Truth of Existence as pure being without the admixture of generality or particularity, limits, whatness, imperfection or privation. This pure being is identified with God, the Necessary Existent, and it is argued that if the Truth of existence did not exist, nothing would exist. This is taken to establish the existence of the Truth of existence. In order to show that the Truth of Existence possesses necessary existence, it is argued that everything which exists imperfectly depends on being while pure being itself depends on nothing. The imperfect is that which results from the mixture or composition of being with some whatness or particularity. That which is mixed is posterior to and dependent on its simple elements. The element of whatness is really a privation or limitation of being without any independent reality of its own, so the imperfect is totally dependent on the perfect. Mixed being is dependent on the Truth of existence which itself is without need of anything. This statement is followed by another argument which is similar to that given by such ‘urafa as Ibn Turkah and al-Jami, to the effect that true predication presumes being: For to affirm any concept of something and to predicate it of that thing—whether (the concept be) a whatness or some other attribute, and whether it be affirmed or denied of something—always presupposes the being of that thing. Our discussion always comes back to Being: either there is an infinite regression (of predications and subjects) or one arrives in the end at an Absolute Being, unmixed with anything else.[4] The philosophical theology which finds expression here is far from any sort of pantheistic identification of the world or nature with God, but rather is an attempt to strike a balance between extreme immanence and extreme transcendence while retaining both. The pantheistic tendency sacrifices transcendence for the sake of immanence while more traditional theologies do the reverse. In Sadr al-Muta’alihin, divine immanence is maintained by identifying the deity with existence, while transcendence is maintained by insisting that what is meant here is not the imperfect world, but absolutely pure existence. The synthesis discovered by Mulla Sadra has inspired and continues to inspire numerous commentaries and elaborations on the themes of his philosophy. [1]Sadr al-Din Shirazi, Asrar al-ayat, ed. Muhammad Khajavi (Tehran: Iranian Academy of Philosophy, 1981), pp. 25-26. [2]Translated by Parviz Morewedge as The Metaphysics of Mulla Sadra (New York: The Society for the Study of Islamic Philosophy and Science, 1992). [3]Translated as The Wisdom of the Throne by James Winston Morris (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981). [4]Ibid., p. 96. Can someone explain this argument to me in simpler words. It seems really hard to grasp
  5. I would like to know what is definition of morality in Islam. Instead of pure personal views, I would like that everyone shares those Ahadis from Imams a.s which deal specifically with this topic so that one can develop a definition of morality after going through (understanding, analyzing, reflecting upon) those Ahadis. I would also like that the contributors while sharing Ahadis, quote references of those Ahadis. One can also quote sayings of our great scholars but only with reference please. My purpose is to understand how the understanding of 'morality' in Islam is different (if so) from that of what western thinkers have developed over the course of centuries.
  6. Salam, Imam Ali says in the first sermon of Nahj al-Balagha that God doesn't have any attributes. Imam Reza reiterates this in Sheikh Saduq's al-Tawhid. Shia Islamic scholars have interpreted this as meaning that all the traditional attributes of God (e.g. omniscience, omnipotence, etc.) are identical with God and are not distinct or "accidental properties" of God. But this creates the problem of mercy and freedom. If mercy is an essential property of God, and not an "accidental property," then that means God must be merciful (or else He wouldn't be God anymore). This seems to contradict with the Shia Islamic traditions which say that God "chose" mercy for Himself (i.e. He could have not been merciful, but He chose to be merciful). This also makes the whole concept of thanking God meaningless, because he had to be merciful to us all the time because reality couldn't have been otherwise (he's a Necessary Being, couldn't have not existed, and couldn't have not been merciful). Why thank God for being merciful to us when things simply could not have been otherwise? It was not possible for God to have not been merciful to us, so why should we thank him for being merciful to us? Unless there is a rational way to solve this problem, this problem demonstrates that the whole concept of a merciful, free, and "worthy of being grateful to" God is incoherent. And hence the Islamic concept of God is logically incoherent and should not be believed in.
  7. https://www.al-islam.org/discursive-theology-volume-1-dr-ali-rabbani-gulpaygani/lesson-6-argument-contingency Can someone explain this to me in a laymen fashion. How does the second law of thermodynamics prove god
  8. Man loves eternal life, this is a basic need of human. anthropological research shows that the any need and desire in human being there is a response to it in reality .For example, human feels hunger and thirst and the need to breathe, in out of the human being food and world and air is prepared to provide his needs.Man loves eternal life and hates death.And this feeling is based on human nature .God created the human desire for survival and eternity,we know Allah never does work in vain because He is generous and ALL-Wise so is far from useless things.So it is necessary eternal life and the Hereafter exist to provide this basic human need. In Islamic theology and philosophy of Kant's philosophy is argued for eternal life after death and its relationship with the desire for immortality and eternity .
  9. how can god transcend time. Time is defined as: The indefinite progress of existence and events in the past, present and whole. Since god exists does that not mean that time exists as well since time is the progress of existence and since God exists, progress of time also takes place. Furthermore, God bringing time into existence require time. It requires the sucession of two events. God existing along with no time and then bringing time into existence again implies the existence of time. God existing in no time and then bringing time into existence implies time existing. Especially the words and then signify that god bought time into existence within the framework of a bigger concept of time. Can you help me understand how God transcends time Finally if God does not transcend time does that not imply that there wete an infinite number of events and hence and infinite regression can happen.
  10. Salam az man! I know I'm not the first Muslim to have these thoughts but in this thread I'd like to explore in depth the reasons why the Islamic world as a whole, whether Sunni, Shia or Wahabi, Sufi or non-Sufi, is so far the Western or developed countries of the world by almost every possible measure of success. When did this rot set in if you consider that at one time the Muslim world were world-leaders in almost every measure of success -- albeit many centuries ago now! So what and when did it all go wrong? Please don't let this become a thread about sectarianism, Sunni vs. Shia etc. unless you feel it is really relevant to the topic! Also can we please avoid the typically bland Muslim answers to this question, "We're not good Muslims anymore -- when we become good Muslims again Allah will grant us victory!" I do think that the fact we've been divided internally for so long is one reason for our lack of success. Isn't it interesting that the most developed Muslim countries with the highest quality of life such as Turkey and Malaysia are also the most secular? Some say it was, in the Sunni world at least, when we closed the doors of ijtihad in the 12th century. Others go back further and say that it was with the rejection of rationalism and the Mutazilites that this problem first started... Also is it a coincidence that almost all of the famous "Muslim" scientists we are so proud of such as Ibn Sina, al Farabi, Ibn Rushd, mathematicians like Khayyam, etc. were considered heretics in their own time by most of the orthodox? I think all this is related. These are just some areas of possible discussion.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.