Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

InfiniteAscension

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    255
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by InfiniteAscension

  1. (salam) 1) I think is often translated as اعتقد, because it is often an expression of your belief. 2) انا افكر 3) انا فكرت 4) There is no difference between 3 and 4. I was thinking is the same as saying I thought Ish Feek is a colloquial phrase meaning what is wrong with you. Allah barak feek means Allah bless you.
  2. (salam) The changes both parties should make are none other than the adoption of respect and tolerance. It is not right for anyone to insult another person's beliefs, no matter how absurd one may think them to be. Rather, as the Quran tells us, "Bring forth your evidence if ye truthful!". If you have something to say, express your points by bringing firm evidence, all the whilst respecting your adversaries' rights to oppose and disagree. We cannot expect everyone to believe what we believe, nor should we feel hatred and anger towards others for a difference in opinion. The irony is that the majority have inherited these sectarian prejudices and had it been decreed for them to be born on the other side, they would be similarly disparaging of the other sect.
  3. Hi Andres, Though I do not quite agree with OP's style of communication and discussion, I must chirp in here and respond to this claim. Omnipotence is not linked to something contradictory. Hence your claim that God could kill himself and wake up again seems slightly absurd given the theistic belief that God is existence and that existence is not something added to Him. If you thus mean by kill himself, not existing, and then by waking up, re-existing, then this is simply absurd. God being Divinely Simple and then dividing Himself into three parts is a similarly contradictory state of affairs that cannot be enacted and is not linked to omnipotence. To quote a useful passage from the Christian philosopher Edward Feser regarding omnipotence: "Note first that for almost all theists, “omnipotence” does not entail the power to bring into being a self-contradictory state of affairs (e.g. creating a round square or a stone that is too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift). The reason is that there is no such power; the very notion of such a power is incoherent, precisely because the notion of a self-contradictory state of affairs is incoherent. God’s power would be limited only if there was some power He lacked. Since there is no such thing as a power to make contradictions true, His inability to do so is no limitation on His power."
  4. (salam) I am not quite sure I understand completely. Could you please explain, particular the minor premise if possible? Many thanks.
  5. (wasalam) There is a book which is a translation of Volumes 8 and 9 of Al asfar. It is titled Spiritual Psychology by Latimah-Parvin Peerwani. As far as I am aware though, the other volumes have not been translated, but I may be incorrect.
  6. (salam) This is really a great question and Mulla Sadra and Allameh offered a great answer to this. Though I think we should perhaps discuss it on a separate topic to not divert this topic, especially as a poster has raised some objections which I will reply to in due time insha'Allah. However, just to briefly answer your question, it is important to first break this down to two preliminary questions. These are: 1) Does God know things in a DETAILED way? 2) Is the Divine Essence simple or composite? As it has been proven and perhaps we can prove it on a different thread, God knows things in a detailed way, and His Essence is simple. His Knowledge is His Essence and thus this knowledge of detailed things must be in a simple way. Now how is this possible? This is a question that we cannot know, because it is asking about the how and the "how" of the Essence cannot ever be comprehended by man. This is something that is impossible for us to know. All we can know is that God knows things in a detailed way in a manner that does not contradict His Divine Simplicity. This was famously called by Mulla Sadra as: علم اجمالي في عين الكشف التفصيلي
  7. (wasalam) I am not sure I understand your objection. The premises should rather be all unintelligent things which exhibit final causality act teleologically. This is because it can be argued that some things don't display any final causality or act towards to an end - at least to us - so it may be difficult to generalise the premise to include all unintelligent things. (This I dispute, but it is not essential to the argument.) It is not crucial that we include ALL unintelligent things to the argument. It is sufficient for there to exist some unintelligent things which act for a purpose to prove their guidance by an intelligence. This of course would raise other objections to the argument. It is pertinent to mention, which will clarify further, that when we say all things act for a purpose, it is important to note that this purpose may not be something outside of itself. The purpose or the act may simply be just to exist! Also, and probably more crucial to the argument, the purpose may never ever materialize which will mistakenly lead us to believe that a certain unintelligent thing does not have any final purpose inherent within it or that it does not act for an end.
  8. (wasalam) 1) نوم 2) انا نائم 3) كنت نائما 4) سأكون نائما
  9. (salam) The quote you cited from Paley is most certainly a cause of weakness and criticism of his argument, though of course I do not disagree with it. Because they are so perfectly made, and for a specific purpose, it is thus unlikely the work of chance but rather that of a designer. This is an essentially reductionist claim which philosophically may not hold any value. With regards to the the moon's orbiting being explained by the natural laws of physics, it is clear that you have not completely grasped the Fifth way - (perhaps my fault).. That it can be explained by the laws of physics does not undermine the argument! Those same forces governing the moon's orbiting exhibit final causality in that they always act for the same end will just be proof for the argument itself! I am not sure you quite understood the nature of the argument, as evidenced by the focus on examples rather than the concepts. The acorn turning into a tree is not used as evidence for God in of itself, the final causality manifest is what can be used to proof. Natural selection and evolution can perhaps explain certain phenomena, but that does not undermine the fact that acorn will always inherently act for a specific final end and purpose. Now, how an unconscious being act for a final end is what is intriguing and useful as evidence for God. How final causality exists in unconscious beings is precisely what is used to prove an intelligent designer. If you say, well this can be explained by a cause, we say how does the cause itself - another unconscious being - always act for a final end because the acorn - which is the effect - always acts for a final end, its cause must also! Good question. Precisely because for final causality to be manifest, it must exist in the here and now! Precisely because the tree is the final cause of the acorn, it must exist in some way. We say it exists in God's intellect and thus without God, no existent could ever act for a final end. Thus the whole perfect system of creation exists in God's intellect and were it not the case, the fine-tune properties could never be exist. That is how the fifth way shows God is at the forefront of all the world of creation. Essentially even if you attempt to reduce something to the natural causes, those same natural causes exhibit final causality which leads to that something acting in the exact way! Explaining the natural causes does not undermine the exact argument. Though, I am not sure how you can explain the natural causes which then manifest the final causality in all things. I would dispute that, but it nevertheless does not hurt the argument.
  10. (salam) While this may be true of a number of Shias, I feel it completely unfair to blanket all of them under indoctrination and training. What if many after extensive reading and searching reached an unfavourable conclusion of certain personalities? In any case, I don't think threads like these achieve anything other than increasing hatred and promoting sectarian differences. If people have honest discussions to bring forward about certain incidents, then do so, but asking questions about personal hatreds is quite pointless
  11. This poem was mentioned by a dear friend, who is no longer on Shiachat. "A little learning is a dang'rous thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, And drinking largely sobers us again. Fir'd at first sight with what the Muse imparts, In fearless youth we tempt the heights of Arts, While from the bounded level of our mind Short views we take, nor see the lengths behind; But more advanc'd, behold with strange surprise New distant scenes of endless science rise! So pleas'd at first the towering Alps we try, Mount o'er the vales, and seem to tread the sky, Th' eternal snows appear already past, And the first clouds and mountains seem the last; But, those attain'd, we tremble to survey The growing labours of the lengthen'd way, Th' increasing prospects tire our wand'ring eyes, Hills peep o'er hills, and Alps on Alps arise!" Alexander Pope
  12. (salam) The narrations presented by Ali ibn Ibrahim Al qummi are considered authentic as per his own declaration that he narrates only from the truthful. However, as mentioned above, it is almost certain that not all of the tafsir is produced by him, but rather his student added to the tafsir. Fortunately, it is not difficult to distinguish between what is his own work, and what is his student, precisely because of the clear distinct way of writing and the use of different pronouns which indicate the difference. As the poster above mentioned, from a particular point, appears to be where his work ended and where the students work begins. This is not to say what his student narrates is false, but what we can be sure is authentic - per rijal standards atleast - is what is directly written by Al Qummi himself.
  13. (salam) This argument is almost very similar to the argument Shaheed al Sadr offers in his book the Revealer, the message and the messenger. If it is expanded and underlined by firm premises like the Shaheed offers, it can be a powerful argument. I will, God willing, post the premises offered by Shaheed al Sadr in due time.
  14. No he does not allow you to follow any marja'. This is not true and I am unsure why it keeps being repeated on the forums.
  15. (salam) There are no convincing proofs that anyone has seen the Imam (ajtfs) in his prolonged ghayba; stories and reports are plagued with pitfalls - the individual person interpreting or confusing a person for the Imam and so on and so forth - and all ahadith explicitly point to the exact opposite; namely that whoever claims to have seen him is untruthful. We need not rely on any accounts like these to prove any point we wish to make.
  16. Indeed, everything is God's emanation. However, some manifest this reality more strongly than others. Nothing manifests the reality and the greatest name of God more than the prophet (s), who is the first vicegerent (khalifa) and the closest creation to God.
  17. (salam) When was this said and by who? Is there any official documentation regarding this?
  18. (salam) Actually he is more right than you think. Al umoor al hesbiah mean things that the common sense dictates - i.e common sense dictates the Marja' is more suited to performing certain roles than others. It differs completely from Wilaya that someone like Imam Khomeini believes in that the latter states there is Nass that proves Wilayah for the faqih and that disobedience of the faqih is like disobeying the Imam. There is night and day between wilayah as nass from the Imam and wilayah over umoor al hesbiah which all countries and non muslims employ in so far as the most suited to a role should perform it.
  19. Hence why the Imams (as) have explicitly said He is other than everything you imagine and that the imagination grasps Him not :) By the way, I understand the point you are making; the famous huwa/la huwa of Ibn Arabi.
  20. The manifestation is not the same as the manifest. There is marked distinction between saying bodies are a manifestation of God, and between saying God is a body. The former is line with the Imams (as) and the latter has been condemned severely by the Imams (as) and described as the most repugnant speech.
  21. Immanence does not need a body, neither does being with the creation. The main contention with believing God has a body are the necessities that go with it. These are the following, and those who grant tajseem admit to it: 1) He occupies a particular space - and they say sitting on the throne above the skies. 2) He has a limit, for to have a body you must be limited in a certain way; namely the form you have. 3) God has a weight; now not all would grant this but certainly the salafi school do and they have [shady] narrations to back this. Compare that to the Tawheed of the Imams [as]: 'Thus whoever attaches attributes to Allah recognises His like, and who recognises His like regards Him two; and who regards Him two recognises parts for Him; and who recognises parts for Him mistook Him; and who mistook Him pointed at Him; and who pointed at Him admitted limitations for Him; and who admitted limitations for Him numbered Him. Whoever said in what is He, held that He is contained; and whoever said on what is He held He is not on something else. He is a Being but not through phenomenon of coming into being. He exists but not from non-existence. He is with everything but not in physical nearness. He is different from everything but not in physical separation. He acts but without connotation of movements and instruments. He sees even when there is none to be looked at from among His creation. He is only One, such that there is none with whom He may keep company or whom He may miss in his absence.' - Imam Ali, Sermon 1. The two views are so contrasting and so incredible. Where is the view of tajseem and God having a body, from the Quranic principles of None is like Him and the narrations which say: "Whatever you imagine, He is other than it!"
  22. If I had the effort to translate all the quotes for you, I would, for there are hundreds, from Ibn Taymiyyah, his student ibn Qayyim, scholars like al darimi etc. This is no secret to anyone in the Muslim world, and they would not deny it themselves. They will say He is a body unlike other bodies to escape any accusations. However, you wish for an even clearer quote, I will provide it. Sheikh Mohammed bin Saleh Al Uthaymeen, who is a very famous Salafi scholar says in his book sharh al aqeeda al wasitiyyah: "If seeing Allah [swt] means He is a body, then so be it; Except we know that His body is unlike the bodies of the creation." This was said in volume one page 458. How much clearer do you want!?
×
×
  • Create New...