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


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    InfiniteAscension got a reaction from HezbiTruth in Does God Love Goodness Because It Is Good, Or   
    (salam)
    The dichotomy is false. There is a third option; namely that God is goodness. Hence God loves goodness because it is His very Essence.
  2. Like
    InfiniteAscension got a reaction from shia farm girl in The Fifth Way By St Aquinas   
    (salam)
    Philosophically, chance does not exist and it is merely a subjective construct of our minds. What appears to us a chance such as random things acting for ends and conflicting leading to something new is not in actuality chance. The "random" conflict will NECESSARILY result in that thing. This is not chance, given that those presenting conditions will always give the same result. Chance does not exist in reality.
    To quote from Allameh about chance once again:
    "The truth is that there is no chance in the world of existence. Here it will be beneficial to give a brief introduction for the sake of explanation. We can conceive phenomena as falling into four classes. A group of them occurs invariably. Another group of them consists of those that occur most of the time. Some are those that occur half of the time (like someone's standing or sitting), while there are others that that occur only rarely (like the possession of a sixth finger on one's hand).
    Those which occur most of the time differ from those which occur always due to the occasional existence of a conflicting factor, as in the case of the number of fingers on the hand, which is five most of the time. However, occasionally, the fashioning principle of the fingers (in the foetus) comes upon a surplus matter possessing the capacity to assume the form of a finger and it shapes that into a finger. From this it is known that the fingers' being five is conditional upon the non-existence of surplus matter, and this phenomenon with this condition occurs invariably, not most of the time. That which occurs rarely will also occur invariably and always on condition of presence of the conflicting factor. Hence if the phenomena that occur mostly or rarely in fact occur invariably on the presence of the requistite conditions, the case of the phenomena that occur half of the time is quite obvious. Hence all phenomena involve invariability and follow a fixed system that neither changes nor is violated.
    Such being the case, if we suppose a certain perfection to be unalterably and inexorably consequential to the action of an agent, the natural and self-evident judgement of the intellect is that there exists an existential relationship implying a kind of existential union between the agent and that perfection. That perfection is what the agent aims at by its action, and this is what 'the end' means.
    If we may entertain a doubt concerning the existence of relationship between ends of actions and their agents despite what has been said concerning the invariability of this relationship, we may as well doubt concerning the relationship of actions to their agents and the dependence of events and phenomena upon efficient causes, for here too there is nothing exccept invariable associations and a mutual existential necessity between the agent and its action. It is for this reason that many of those who believe in chance have denied the existence of the efficient cause in the same way as they have rejected the final cause, confining causality exclusively to material causes, as will be pointed out in the next section.
    From the above discussion it becomes clear that the rare outcomes that are reckoned as instances of chance are invariable and essential ends of their causes, which are only accidentally ascribed to something else. Hence one who digs the ground under which a treasure lies invariably finds the treasure, and that is an essential end of his action, though it is accidentally ascribed to one digging for water. Similarly, a roof that possess all the prerequisites for collapsing collapses invariably over someone under it, and that is the essential end of his action, though it is accidentally reckoned as the end of one seeking shelter from the sun. On the basis of this, the belief in chance arises from ignorance of causes."
  3. Like
    InfiniteAscension got a reaction from shia farm girl in The Fifth Way By St Aquinas   
    (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
  4. Like
    InfiniteAscension got a reaction from shia farm girl in The Fifth Way By St Aquinas   
    (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.
  5. Like
    InfiniteAscension got a reaction from shia farm girl in The Fifth Way By St Aquinas   
    It is a very detailed and intricate work, and I am certainly not capable of understanding a lot of it!
    Though, the example you present is extremely far-fetched, I understand what you are trying to say. Certainly, if we know that under the exact same usual conditions, an acorn - as we know it and not a mutated or changed version - produced something other than an oak tree, it would of course put some the notion of final causality under some sort of pressure. But this is merely speculative at best. Therein lies the beauty of this notion; countless years seems to have always produced an oak tree from an acorn, and it almost seems crazy to suggest than an acorn could produce anything else! This is perhaps one of the few philosophical principles that can be justified empirically to the blind who only believes in what he sees [though in reality he does not really see!] Even in processes of genetic mutations and microevolution, often believed to be random acts chance and devoid of design, we see each individual subset or component acts for its own final end, but in the presence of various factors, all of influence each other, a new outcome is produced which appears to be completely random and devoid of any design!
    There are some beautiful passages I would love to quote from the book Aquinas by Edward Feser - which is a marvellous book that I highly recommend you read (seeing as you have recommended so many wonderful books to all of us over the years), but it is very late here so perhaps another time insha'Allah.
  6. Like
    InfiniteAscension got a reaction from shia farm girl in The Anger Of Fatimah A.s. Explained By A Sunni   
    (salam)

    To suggest that the dispute between Lady Fatimah and Abu Bakr was one where both sides were defending their version of the truth, with both being correct acccording to their view is highly inaccurate. We cannot approach history with preconceived beliefs and thus interpret any historical incidence in light of such beliefs. So we cannot assume that they must be both be true - given a preconceived notion that both are highly righteous characters - and therefore any dispute between them must be well-intentioned. This is quite a dogmatic position and does not really fit into a highly complex historical picture after the Prophet, which saw the disputes arise at an alarming rate which suggests desires, whims, hypocrisy and other spiritual deficiencies all played a role in such conflicts, as is natural in human history.
     
    We have several issues with the reasoning that Abu Bakr provided regarding the taking of the land of Fadak from Lady Fatimah.

    The first issue:

    This narration which he claims to have heard from the Prophet (s) is only narrated by him. How can it be possible that something quite important and significant such as this can only be heard by one companion and no body else. This is notwithstanding the fact that the Quran and other narrations from the sunnah indicate the exact opposite of what Abu Bakr had claimed to have heard. In light of this, such reasoning does seem quite hollow with deeper reasons for refusing to return the land a more likely option.

    The second issue:

    How is it possible that Lady Fatimah and Imam Ali were not aware of this?! Surely as they are some of the closest people to the Prophet, and the land is directly related to them, the issue of ownership after this would have been clarified to them. Is it possible they were ignorant of such an important ruling!? Or is it possible they were aware of such a ruling and decided to be greedy and still seek ownership of what rightfully belonged to muslims?!

    The third issue:

    If it was the case that both were well-intentioned, this does not explain the reason why Lady Fatimah refuses to speak to them until she passes away. Where are the traits of forgiveness and mercy to those who do wrong, never mind those who intend to do good but may be mistaken!? 

    The fourth issue:

    Why is it, that as per authentic narrations, the first two caliphs intended to attack the house of Lady Fatimah, if the inhabitants did not pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr and give him ba'yah. These are all indicators that the dispute over Fadak was symbolic of a far greater dispute, one that was to split to the muslim ummah for centuries to come. It was not merely over a piece of land, but over the legitimacy of he who claimed successor-ship of the Prophet. How is it possible that Lady Fatimah disputes with the legitimate successor of the Prophet (s) when he has provided his ruling over such an issue?! Is it not the trait of true believer to submit to such truth!?

    The fifth issue:

    It is obvious to anyone who has read the story of Fadak throughout the Islamic Period that later Caliphs, in the Ummayad dynasty and Abbasid Dynasty endeavoured to return the land of Fadak to descendants of Lady Fatimah, only for others to later retake it. This clearly shows that the ruling powers did not view this land as belonging to the muslims, but rather a private ownership that belonged to the holy family and should have been never been taken from them.


    We cannot interpret history so naively just to to save people we hold dearly. Rather we must look at a holistic picture of events and grant them the most logical and reasonable explanations in light of a number of indicators, far from our emotion and desires. And God knows best. 
  7. Like
    InfiniteAscension got a reaction from shia farm girl in The Fifth Way By St Aquinas   
    (salam)
    It is said almost always but not necessarily because there are certain conditions whereby the thing is prevented from achieving its final end. If the necessary conditions are provided - in the case of the acorn it would be a suitable environment such as sufficient sunlight, water and nutrients - the existent will always seek and invariably accomplish its final purpose. However, the fact that it is not always the case due to conflicting factors does not undermine the notion of final causality that we see in virtually all things. Allameh Tabatabaie says in bidayat al hikmah that the prevention of a thing from achieving its final end is a batil and is associated with this material world where so many conflicting factors co exist. This bold assertion - final causality inhering in all things - can be supported by the vast system of causal regularities that we observe throughout the our world and the cosmos, like the regular and methodical orbiting of the Earth and the moon, the water cycles, the pumping of the heart to name but a mere few. This is very intuitive in the study of the world precisely because we see something doing the same thing almost always or always, like the constant rotation of the Earth, even if we do not admit to a designer.
    Your question is very interesting. To a sceptic like Hume, who denied or at least doubted the relationship between cause and effect - namely efficient causality - proving something even more abstract like final causality may be more difficult. Hence, it is proper to first prove efficient causality to such a sceptic before moving on, but that would be a topic for another time!
    However, what is great about understanding final causality is that it can help us understand other causes (efficient,material and formal) because as St Aquinas says, it is the cause of the causes. You see, for example, one can only understand the material and formal cause of the heart in light of its purpose and final end! Precisely because the heart has the purpose and end of pumping blood constantly and consistently, it needs a material that can support that. Hence, unlike any other muscle in the body, the heart is made of cardiac muscle which is characterised by the ability to not fatigue and it is shaped in a certain way to allow efficient entry and egress of blood. It is precisely in light of final causality that you understand material and formal causes which is so oft studied in science.
    As an interesting aside, I study in the field of science, and throughout my life, whenever discussing any matter, be it an organism, an organ, a tissue, a cell etc the two most common phrases we hear are structure and function. The idea of attributing function to an unconscious object seems absurd and quite amusing to me that scientists do not ever ponder on this. This object's job is to do this or that for example! In reality, what they are speaking of here is final causality! A teleology that pervades through all things though only a few realise.
    I am not sure someone would be that sceptical, because the above lends itself almost to sophistry. Based on the above, we cannot ever confirm any property for any object. We can never be sure that water has the ability to quench thirst unless we test it every organism that drinks when thirsty.
    What you seem to also be referring to is the problem of induction. Can induction (inference) ever yield certainty(yaqeen)? It has often been a matter of discussion that inference can never yield complete certainity, but something of extremely high probability (zann) that one can accept and feel at peace with. This has been a huge topic amongst logicians, and Al Shaheed Al Sadr produced his famous work, whereby he set up his principles and foundations for logical induction that he believed led to certainty much like deductive analysis.
    I have very basic understandings on the matter, but I think inference plays a huge role in the knowledge man can obtain. If we are to suspend induction as a method of obtaining knowledge, much of what we know today is destroyed. I think however, for the case of final causality, it is so apparent in an uncountable number of things, the regularities that we observe, that as you say it would be silly to deny it. It does seem as you say, that there feels as if there is an eternal nature to this knowledge. Maybe that is closer to the truth. Man is never the creator of new knowledge, he is merely the seeker. He discovers and he finds what has always been true and apparent, except that we do not see.
  8. Like
    InfiniteAscension got a reaction from shia farm girl in The Fifth Way By St Aquinas   
    (salam)
    Yes the second premise seems acceptable without extensive reasoning but I did mention how it can be justified in my post, and I will expand on it slightly.
    For something lacking conciousness to always or nearly always act in the same way means it has a final cause. For example, for the acorn to always produce an oak tree means the oak tree is the final cause of the the acorn.
    Now the oak tree as a causal efficacy must exist somehow, for it is absurd to attribute causation to something that does not exist. The oak tree as a causal efficacy must exist in some way. It must either exist in the external reality or in an intellect. To suggest the oak tree exists in the external reality is absurd because it suggests the existence of the oak tree before the acorn has even formed it. Thus the oak tree must exist in an intellect, similar to how the builder has an image of the house before he has built it which acts as the final cause for his actions.
    Now the acorn, like virtually all causes in our vast universe, acts unconsciously and for it to act designedly in the way it does, the final cause - the oak tree in this instance - must exist in an intellect which guides this system of causation.
  9. Like
    InfiniteAscension got a reaction from shia farm girl in The Fifth Way By St Aquinas   
    (bismillah)
    The Fifth Way, also known as the proof from finality, is a highly interesting argument presented St. Thomas Aquinas as evidence for God. The Fifth Way, though often considered to be a variation of the Teleological argument, is markedly different from the famous ‘design argument’ presented by William Paley, and avoids many of the objections that the design argument faces.
    The ‘design argument’ by William Paley roughly says that the universe is extremely complex and orderly, and whilst it may be theoretically possible it is as a result of natural processes, it is far more likely that it is the work of an intelligent designer. This is now supported by the “Intelligent Design” movement who have aided their position by adding greater mathematical evidence for what they call ‘irreducible complexity.’
    However, there are several key weaknesses to this argument. Firstly, this argument is often labelled by critics as the “God of the gaps” argument, whereby what at first may seem to be irreducibly complex, can later be accounted for by new scientific research as simple and natural processes.
    Secondly, the design argument at most can establish the existence of a designer at some point in the past responsible then for the world, but who does not need have any involvement in the world now. In contrast, the Fifth way seeks to show that in the here and now the existence of a supreme intelligence is necessary.
    Thirdly, whilst Paley’s design argument claims that the existence of a designer is highly probable, the Fifth way intends to conclusively establish this.
    The argument can be summarised as follows and this will be elucidated further on:
    Things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for a particular end and this is demonstrated by them acting always or nearly always in the same way. Therefore they act designedly and not fortuitously. (ST I.2.3)
    Things which lack intelligence can only act for an end if directed by something which has an end, like the arrow shot to its mark by the archer. (ST I.2.3)

    Therefore, there exists an intelligence by whom all natural things are guided towards their ends and this intelligence we call God. (ST I.2.3)
    The first premise hinges on the Aristotelian understanding of final causality. In such view, it is believed that efficient causation, such A causing B, cannot be understand except in light of final causation i.e. there being a natural end in A that causes it produce B. For if in A there was no inherent end towards or goal-directedness towards B, it would be impossible to account for why A is always or nearly always the efficient cause for B, rather than C or D for example. Thus B acts as a final cause for A. It is thus on the understanding of causal regularities that exist in nature that St. Thomas Aquinas formulates his proof.
    Edward Feser, in his book Aqunias cites some examples to elucidate this point. “A struck match generates fire and heat rather than frost and cold; an acorn grows into an oak rather than a rosebush or a dog; the moon goes around the earth in a smooth elliptical orbit rather than zigzagging erratically; the heart pumps blood continuously and doesn’t stop and start several times a day; condensation results in precipitation which results in collection which results in evaporation which in turn results in condensation and so forth. In each of these cases and in countless others we have regularities that point to ends or goals usually totally unconscious, which are built into nature and can be known through observation to be there whether or not it ever occurs to anyone to ask how they got there.” Aquinas is therefore saying “it is impossible that every apparent causal regularity can be attributed to chance, for chance itself presuppose causal regularity.” Thus “everything that serves an efficient cause “points to” or is “directed at” some specific effect or range of effects as its natural end.
    However, a common objection to the principle causality is that it suggests a thing can have an effect even before it exists. “To say the oak tree is the final cause of the acorn seems to entail that the oak tree – which does not exist yet – in some sense causes the acorn to pass through every stage it must reach on the way to becoming an oak since the oak is the “goal” or natural end of the acorn.” And this frankly seems absurd because a cause must exist in some sense for it to have any efficacy.
    This can be explained by citing an example where goal-directedness is associated with a conscious being. A builder builds a house and thus he is the efficient cause of the house. However, the house exists in his intellect as an idea before it exists in reality. As such this serves as the final cause for the actions of the builder, and these actions are the efficient cause of the house. Thus for something to have any causal efficacy, it must exist either in the natural world or in the intellect.
    Now, most of the causal systems we observe in the universe seem to be directed inherently towards a certain end as a final cause. However, almost all of these causes are unconscious, and given the second premise, it is impossible for something which lacks intelligence to be directed towards a final end.
    Therefore, it follows that there exists a Supreme Intelligence or Intellect that directs all the causes towards their ends. Moreover, this Supreme Intelligence must exist in the here and now to direct the causes that are present in the here and now and at any point in which they existed.
    Now given that St. Thomas Aquinas believed final causality to be “the cause of causes” as it determines other causes, for a thing to have a certain final end it must also have a certain formal and material cause. It must have a certain nature or essence; otherwise its final cause could not be inherent in it. Moreover, he believed that for a contingent to be real, its essence must be conjoined to existence which is given to it by something outside of it, it follows that whatever orders things to their ends must also be the cause of those things, and thus something for whom essence and existence are identical. Thus this Supreme Intelligence must be someone who is Pure Act or Being itself.
  10. Like
    InfiniteAscension got a reaction from Mahdavist in Muhammad B. Sinan   
    (salam)
    Thanks for the interesting post.
    Maybe the boundaries that once determined ghuluw need to be redefined (I do think they are nowadays). Certainly if a belief which seems like ghuluw can now be proven both quranically and from the narrations themselves, then it quite absurd to claim such a person is a ghaali. Rather he has reached - often - fairly obvious conclusions from the akhbaar.
    In any case, this also highlights a major pitfall of adopting a solely Rijali approach when authenticating hadith. It is often extremely difficult to determine the exact trustworthiness of a man, and one's personal desires and beliefs can affect the matter of tawtheeq or tadh'eef. Rather the authenticity of the sanad should serve only as a valuable qarina for authentication of the khabar, not the sole red line. And of course, most depressingly, we see this method neglect the one source that perhaps mutawatir (or near tawwatur) narrations have ordered us to return to when examining the akhbaar. It is the Holy Quran, which guides to that which most upright. The Book which is tibyaan to all things. The narrations in this regard say "كل ما جائكم عنا فاعرضوه على كتاب ربنا" - All that comes to you from us, then display it to our Lord's book..to the end of the narration. Of course this 'arth against the Quran has its rules and principles, but it should be the first and foremost Qarina that indicates the authenticity of a khabar regardless of the sanad and how many ghaalis are present or otherwise.
  11. Like
    InfiniteAscension got a reaction from Haimi in Your Own Captured Photos   
    A few pictures taken from a recent trip to Barcelona.

    Inside the Sagrada Familia, a famous church built by Antoni Gaudi. It is incredibly beautiful and one feels completely at peace there.
     

     



  12. Like
    InfiniteAscension got a reaction from Ibn Al-Ja'abi in Top-Down Causation   
    (salam)
    I will try summarise one or two of the arguments as best as I can. There are many and usually they need quite a lot of introductory points. The topic is very fascinating and I wish to read about it more.
    When we think of cat or triangle for example, it is the form of a cat or triangle that we think of. The form of catness that exists in our intellect is precisely the form that exists in an actual cat. If this weren't the case, we wouldn't actually be thinking of a cat, because to think about some thing, means to grasp its form, because what a thing is, is determined by its form.
    If the intellect were something material, say brain activity, then for the forms to exist in our intellect, it would mean they exist in a material thing. But "for a form to exist in a material thing is just for that material thing to be the kind of thing the form is a form of." So for the form of catness to exist in a material thing, is just for that material thing to be a cat, or to be a triangle for example. Therefore, if your intellect were really a material thing, every time you thought about an object it would mean a part of your brain becomes that object and this entails many absurdities such that we must conclude it is immaterial. It would also mean you cannot grasp two objects at the same time.
    The second argument, and one I find to be most convincing, is the ability of the intellect to grasp universals. Precisely by being universal, the objects of the intellect must not be material, because all material things are particular and not universal. This or that cat; this or that triangle are particular, but the ability to know the concept of catness or triangularity is not particular, rather a universal that applies to all cats and to all triangles. If the minds processes were all material and physical, it would mean we cannot grasp universals, because no physical representation can account for universal concepts like triangularity, because as mentioned before, all material and physical things are particular.
    Secondly, the universal concepts you grasp in the intellect are entirely exact and determinate. Your mental image of a triangle may be fuzzy or not exact, but mental images are not what it means to grasp a universal. For example, the concept of a 1000 sided triangle is completely distinct from the concept of a 997 sided triangle, but if you were to form mental images of either you would not be able to differentiate between them in your mind. Anyhow, material things are never exact or determinate. Any material thing, like a triangle is only ever an approximation of perfect triangularity. Material symbols "are inherently always to some extent vague, ambiguous or otherwise inexact, susceptible of various intepretations." But your concept of this universal, is always determinate and exact, like when you use the concept of triangularity to prove a geometric theorem, you are thinking about a perfect concept, not some approximation of it.
    Thus the ability of the intellect to abstract universal concepts from particular things, the ability to know incorporeal things like truth and wisdom, prove the immateriality of the intellect.
    If you wish to pursue further arguments, Mortimer Adler has a book titled Intellect: Mind over Matter, Edward Feser also has a book called Philosophy of Mind and another book Aquinas where he discusses these.
  13. Like
    InfiniteAscension got a reaction from Ibn Al-Ja'abi in The Fifth Way By St Aquinas   
    (bismillah)
    The Fifth Way, also known as the proof from finality, is a highly interesting argument presented St. Thomas Aquinas as evidence for God. The Fifth Way, though often considered to be a variation of the Teleological argument, is markedly different from the famous ‘design argument’ presented by William Paley, and avoids many of the objections that the design argument faces.
    The ‘design argument’ by William Paley roughly says that the universe is extremely complex and orderly, and whilst it may be theoretically possible it is as a result of natural processes, it is far more likely that it is the work of an intelligent designer. This is now supported by the “Intelligent Design” movement who have aided their position by adding greater mathematical evidence for what they call ‘irreducible complexity.’
    However, there are several key weaknesses to this argument. Firstly, this argument is often labelled by critics as the “God of the gaps” argument, whereby what at first may seem to be irreducibly complex, can later be accounted for by new scientific research as simple and natural processes.
    Secondly, the design argument at most can establish the existence of a designer at some point in the past responsible then for the world, but who does not need have any involvement in the world now. In contrast, the Fifth way seeks to show that in the here and now the existence of a supreme intelligence is necessary.
    Thirdly, whilst Paley’s design argument claims that the existence of a designer is highly probable, the Fifth way intends to conclusively establish this.
    The argument can be summarised as follows and this will be elucidated further on:
    Things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for a particular end and this is demonstrated by them acting always or nearly always in the same way. Therefore they act designedly and not fortuitously. (ST I.2.3)
    Things which lack intelligence can only act for an end if directed by something which has an end, like the arrow shot to its mark by the archer. (ST I.2.3)

    Therefore, there exists an intelligence by whom all natural things are guided towards their ends and this intelligence we call God. (ST I.2.3)
    The first premise hinges on the Aristotelian understanding of final causality. In such view, it is believed that efficient causation, such A causing B, cannot be understand except in light of final causation i.e. there being a natural end in A that causes it produce B. For if in A there was no inherent end towards or goal-directedness towards B, it would be impossible to account for why A is always or nearly always the efficient cause for B, rather than C or D for example. Thus B acts as a final cause for A. It is thus on the understanding of causal regularities that exist in nature that St. Thomas Aquinas formulates his proof.
    Edward Feser, in his book Aqunias cites some examples to elucidate this point. “A struck match generates fire and heat rather than frost and cold; an acorn grows into an oak rather than a rosebush or a dog; the moon goes around the earth in a smooth elliptical orbit rather than zigzagging erratically; the heart pumps blood continuously and doesn’t stop and start several times a day; condensation results in precipitation which results in collection which results in evaporation which in turn results in condensation and so forth. In each of these cases and in countless others we have regularities that point to ends or goals usually totally unconscious, which are built into nature and can be known through observation to be there whether or not it ever occurs to anyone to ask how they got there.” Aquinas is therefore saying “it is impossible that every apparent causal regularity can be attributed to chance, for chance itself presuppose causal regularity.” Thus “everything that serves an efficient cause “points to” or is “directed at” some specific effect or range of effects as its natural end.
    However, a common objection to the principle causality is that it suggests a thing can have an effect even before it exists. “To say the oak tree is the final cause of the acorn seems to entail that the oak tree – which does not exist yet – in some sense causes the acorn to pass through every stage it must reach on the way to becoming an oak since the oak is the “goal” or natural end of the acorn.” And this frankly seems absurd because a cause must exist in some sense for it to have any efficacy.
    This can be explained by citing an example where goal-directedness is associated with a conscious being. A builder builds a house and thus he is the efficient cause of the house. However, the house exists in his intellect as an idea before it exists in reality. As such this serves as the final cause for the actions of the builder, and these actions are the efficient cause of the house. Thus for something to have any causal efficacy, it must exist either in the natural world or in the intellect.
    Now, most of the causal systems we observe in the universe seem to be directed inherently towards a certain end as a final cause. However, almost all of these causes are unconscious, and given the second premise, it is impossible for something which lacks intelligence to be directed towards a final end.
    Therefore, it follows that there exists a Supreme Intelligence or Intellect that directs all the causes towards their ends. Moreover, this Supreme Intelligence must exist in the here and now to direct the causes that are present in the here and now and at any point in which they existed.
    Now given that St. Thomas Aquinas believed final causality to be “the cause of causes” as it determines other causes, for a thing to have a certain final end it must also have a certain formal and material cause. It must have a certain nature or essence; otherwise its final cause could not be inherent in it. Moreover, he believed that for a contingent to be real, its essence must be conjoined to existence which is given to it by something outside of it, it follows that whatever orders things to their ends must also be the cause of those things, and thus something for whom essence and existence are identical. Thus this Supreme Intelligence must be someone who is Pure Act or Being itself.
  14. Like
    InfiniteAscension got a reaction from Ali Musaaa :) in What Is A Soul Really?   
    السلام عليكم

    According to the Aristotelian tradition, the human soul is the principle of life for the human body, without which it would be just a material entity that is lifeless, like a rock. The fact that this material entity possesses certain faculties and capacities, namely that of self-nourishment, locomotion and intellection means that it possesses something beyond just the material makeup. Aristotle actually designated a vegetative soul for all plants, which grants it the ability for self-nourishment and growth, an animal soul for animals which alongside self-nourishment and growth, grants them the ability to have sensory perception and locomotion. These souls are what grant life to plants and animals. The soul is not to be understand here as some sort of ghostly creature or like a cartesian entity that exists in a material entity, but rather these souls are the formal parts of the material entity.

    In a human however, the soul is also capable of one more capacity, and that is the capacity to be rational and to think etc. This grants it a unique distinction compared to the former aforementioned souls in that the ability to think is not something material, because the act of thinking cannot be material. This means that unlike the former souls, the human soul cannot be accounted for in material terms, for there is a faculty that acts wholly immaterially. This also means that the human soul can survive the death of the material body.

    This is a rough summary to the understanding of the soul Islamic Philosophers have, following on from the Aristotelian tradition. The second question that is raised is the relationship between the soul and the body. The typical answer is that it is an extremely close relationship, not like a dualism whereby we cannot understand why a soul and a body would randomly join each other, but rather that the soul and the body form one substance together. Because of that reason, the body has a direct impact on the soul, and even provides it the sensory experiences which are later abstracted and used in a rational process. The soul however, can survive the death of the body, because it is not strictly material as mentioned before. There are of course discussions on these details, but this is a rough outline of the philosophical approach towards the soul in Islamic philosophy.
  15. Like
    InfiniteAscension reacted to Islamic Salvation in Rijal Al-Kashi   
    حدثني محمد بن مسعود، قال حدثني علي بن قيس القومسي، قال حدثني أحكم بن يسار، عن أبي الحسن صاحب العسكر (عليه السلام) : أن قنبرا مولى أمير المؤمنين (عليه السلام) أدخل على الحجاج بن يوسف، فقال له ما الذي كنت تلي من علي بن أبي طالب ؟ فقال : كنت أوضئه. فقال له : ما كان يقول إذا فرغ من وضوئه ؟ فقال : كان يتلو هذه الآية فَلَمَّا نَسُوا ما ذُكِّرُوا بِهِ فَتَحْنا عَلَيْهِمْ أَبْوابَ كُلِّ شَيْ‏ءٍ حَتَّى إِذا فَرِحُوا بِما أُوتُوا أَخَذْناهُمْ بَغْتَةً فَإِذا هُمْ مُبْلِسُونَ فَقُطِعَ دابِرُ الْقَوْمِ الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا وَ الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعالَمِينَ . فقال الحجاج : أظنه كان يتأولها علينا. قال : نعم. فقال : ما أنت صانع إذا ضربت علاوتك ؟ قال : إذا أسعد و تشقى . فأمر به
     
    130. Muhammad b. Masud narrated to me saying: Ali b. Qays al-Qamusi narrated to me saying: Ahkam b. Yasar narrated to me on the authority of Abi al-Hasan the man of the Askar (Imam al-Askari) عليه السلام that: Qanbar the Mawla of the commander of the faithful عليه السلام was made to enter upon al-Hajjaj b. Yusuf, so he (al-Hajjaj) said to him: what service did you use to undertake for Ali b. Abi Talib عليه السلام? he said: I used to aid him in making the ablution, so he said to him: what did he usually say when he completed the ablution? He said: he used to recite this verse: “So when they had forgotten what they were reminded of – We opened upon them the doors of aplenty – until when they were delighted by that which they were given – We would seize them all of a sudden and and at once they would fall into despair – and thus were the roots of the unjust uprooted – and all praise belongs to Allah the lord of the worlds” (6:45-46), so al-Hajjaj said: I presume that he used to interpret this as being about us (Banu Umayya)? He said: Indeed, so he said: what are you going to do if I were to strike your head off? He said: then I would prosper and you would be wretched! So he (al-Hajjaj) ordered that he be done with.
  16. Like
    InfiniteAscension reacted to Islamic Salvation in Rijal Al-Kashi   
    و أخبرني بعض رواة العامة، عن محمد بن إسحاق، قال حدثني رجل من أهل الشام، قال : كان محمد بن أبي حذيفة عن ابن عتبة بن ربيعة مع علي بن أبي طالب (عليه السلام) و من أنصاره و أشياعه، و كان ابن خال معاوية، و كان رجلا من خيار المسلمين، فلما توفي علي (عليه السلام) أخذه معاوية و أراد قتله فحبسه في السجن دهرا، ثم قال معاوية ذات يوم أ لا نرسل إلى هذا السفيه محمد بن أبي حذيفة فنبكته و نخبره بضلالة و نأمره أن يقوم فيسب عليا قالوا نعم. فبعث إليه معاوية فأخرجه من السجن، فقال له معاوية يا محمد بن أبي حذيفة أ لم يأن لك أن تبصر ما كنت عليه من الضلالة بنصرتك علي بن أبي طالب الكذاب، أ لم تعلم أن عثمان قتل مظلوما و أن عائشة و طلحة و الزبير خرجوا يطلبون بدمه، و أن عليا هو الذي دس في قتله، و نحن اليوم نطلب بدمه قال محمد بن أبي حذيفة إنك لتعلم أني أمس القوم بك رحما و أعرفهم بك، قال أجل، قال فو الله الذي لا إله غيره ما أعلم أحدا أشرك في دم عثمان و ألب عليه غيرك، لما استعملك و من كان مثلك، فسأله المهاجرون و الأنصار أن يعزلك فأبى، ففعلوا به ما بلغك، و و الله ما أحد اشترك في قتله بدئيا و أخيرا إلا طلحة و الزبير و عائشة، فهم الذين شهدوا عليه بالعظيمة و ألبوا عليه الناس، و شركهم في ذلك عبد الرحمن بن عوف و ابن مسعود و عمار و الأنصار جميعا، قال قد كان ذاك قال و الله إني لأشهد أنك منذ عرفتك في الجاهلية و الإسلام لعلى خلق واحد ما زاد الإسلام فيك قليلا و لا كثيرا، و أن علامة ذلك فيك لبينة، تلومني على حبي عليا خرج مع علي كل صوام قوام مهاجري و أنصاري، و خرج معك أبناء المنافقين و الطلقاء و العتقاء خدعتهم عن دينهم و خدعوك عن دنياك، و الله يا معاوية ما خفي عليك ما صنعت و ما خفي عليهم ما صنعوا إذ أحلوا أنفسهم بسخط الله في طاعتك، و الله لا أزال أحب عليا لله و أبغضك في الله و في رسوله أبدا ما بقيت، قال معاوية و إني أراك على ضلالك بعد ردوه فردوه و هو يقرأ في السجن رَبِّ السِّجْنُ أَحَبُّ إِلَيَّ مِمَّا يَدْعُونَنِي إِلَيْهِ فمات في السجن
     
    126. And one of the non-Imami narrators narrated to me from Muhammad b. Ishaq who said: a man from the people of Sham narrated to me saying: Muhammad b. Abi Hudhayfa b. Utba b. Rabia was with Ali b. Abi Talib, and from among his supporters and followers, and he was the son of the maternal uncle of Muawiya, and he was a man from among the best of the Muslims, so when Ali died Muawiya took him and wanted to kill him and he imprisoned him in the prison for a time, then Muawiya said one day – should we not send for this idiot Muhammad b. Abi Hudhayfa and reproach him and inform him of his misguidance and order him to stand up and abuse Ali? They said: yes.

    So Muawiya sent for him and took him out of the prison and said to him: O Muhammad b. Abi Hudhayfa is it not time that you acknowledged your errors in aiding Ali b. Abi Talib - the Liar, do you not accept that Uthman was killed unjustly and that Aisha and Talha and Zubayr came out seeking just retribution for his blood, and that Ali was the one who conspired in killing him, and we today similarly seek retribution for his blood, Muhammad b. Abi Hudhayfa said: you know that I am closest of the people to you in relation and most aware of your true nature, he said: yes, he said: then by Allah apart from whom there is no other God except Him – I do not know of a man who participated in the killing of Uthman and incited against him except yourself, when he gave you authority [made you governor] and those others of your like, due to which the Muhajirun and the Ansar asked him to depose you but he refused, then they did to him what has reached you, and by Allah no one participated in his killing – in the beginning and at the end except Talha and Zubayr and Aisha, for they were the ones who testified against him accusing him of great sins and incited the people against, and the ones who partnered them in that were Abd al-Rahman b. Awf and Ibn Masud and Ammar and the Ansar all of them.

    He said: that had happened, he said: by Allah I bear witness that for as long as I have known you in Jahiliyya and in Islam you have been upon the same character, Islam has not had an effect on you whether less or more, and that the indicators of that are apparent in your person, you blame me for loving Ali, there came out with Ali all those who fast and stand in prayer whether Muhajir or Ansar, and there came out with you the sons of the hypocrites and the freed ones (after Fath Makkah), you deceived them about their religion and they deceived you about your world, by Allah O Muawiya – what you have done is not hidden from you, and what they did is not hidden from them - when they invited upon themselves the anger of Allah by obeying you, by Allah I will not cease loving Ali for the sake of Allah and hating you for the sake of Allah and his messenger as long as I remain, Muawiya said: I see that you still persist upon your misguidance! Take him back, so they returned him to the prison while he was reciting in the prison “my Lord imprisonment is better for me than that which they call me towards” so he died in prison.
  17. Like
    InfiniteAscension reacted to Islamic Salvation in Thoughts (2010-2016) [ARCHIVE]   
    For a detailed analysis of the whole movement and the general picture, I  cannot recommend this book enough:
     
    http://www.narjes-library.com/2014/03/blog-post_2723.html
     
    You get the feel that you were there, and the Imam's decisions are elaborately discussed and minutely scrutinized.
     
    Hopefully, these books can be translated into English soon.
  18. Like
    InfiniteAscension reacted to Islamic Salvation in Thoughts (2010-2016) [ARCHIVE]   
    So many unmentioned names who have been forgotten ...
     
    An absolute masterpiece in this regard, detailing all that we can amass about those who fought and were killed in Karbala is Ibsar al-Ayn by Shaykh al-Samawi, I would recommend it to any researcher, It is factual, and sticks to the primary sources, probably the final word in this subject. 
     
    Unfortunately, I have not found popular speakers in English using it, while it deserves all the attention it can get (including being translated into English).
    Another good work in this vein is Fursan by al-Mahallati.
     
    Links:
    http://www.narjes-library.com/2014/11/blog-post_810.html
    http://alfeker.net/library.php?id=2938
  19. Like
    InfiniteAscension got a reaction from Yasmeena in Thoughts (2010-2016) [ARCHIVE]   
    A classic.. 'يا ليل طول ساعاتك'








     
  20. Like
    InfiniteAscension got a reaction from yusur317 in What Is A Soul Really?   
    السلام عليكم

    According to the Aristotelian tradition, the human soul is the principle of life for the human body, without which it would be just a material entity that is lifeless, like a rock. The fact that this material entity possesses certain faculties and capacities, namely that of self-nourishment, locomotion and intellection means that it possesses something beyond just the material makeup. Aristotle actually designated a vegetative soul for all plants, which grants it the ability for self-nourishment and growth, an animal soul for animals which alongside self-nourishment and growth, grants them the ability to have sensory perception and locomotion. These souls are what grant life to plants and animals. The soul is not to be understand here as some sort of ghostly creature or like a cartesian entity that exists in a material entity, but rather these souls are the formal parts of the material entity.

    In a human however, the soul is also capable of one more capacity, and that is the capacity to be rational and to think etc. This grants it a unique distinction compared to the former aforementioned souls in that the ability to think is not something material, because the act of thinking cannot be material. This means that unlike the former souls, the human soul cannot be accounted for in material terms, for there is a faculty that acts wholly immaterially. This also means that the human soul can survive the death of the material body.

    This is a rough summary to the understanding of the soul Islamic Philosophers have, following on from the Aristotelian tradition. The second question that is raised is the relationship between the soul and the body. The typical answer is that it is an extremely close relationship, not like a dualism whereby we cannot understand why a soul and a body would randomly join each other, but rather that the soul and the body form one substance together. Because of that reason, the body has a direct impact on the soul, and even provides it the sensory experiences which are later abstracted and used in a rational process. The soul however, can survive the death of the body, because it is not strictly material as mentioned before. There are of course discussions on these details, but this is a rough outline of the philosophical approach towards the soul in Islamic philosophy.
  21. Like
    InfiniteAscension got a reaction from Hameedeh in Thoughts (2010-2016) [ARCHIVE]   
    A classic.. 'يا ليل طول ساعاتك'








     
  22. Like
    InfiniteAscension reacted to Chaotic Muslem in Thoughts (2010-2016) [ARCHIVE]   
    For the martyrs of Mina
     

     
     
    And a poem

  23. Like
    InfiniteAscension reacted to Muhammed Ali in Khums - Inflation And Fluctuating Values   
    (salam)
     
    Does anyone know the answers for the following questions that I sent to a marja's ofice?
     
     
    They didn't answer the question and asked me to meet a representative of the marja.
     
    Does anyone here know anything about this subject?
     
    Haji 2003, do you know?
  24. Like
    InfiniteAscension reacted to EndlessMD in Diwan El-shi3r   
    ابيات حزينة و مؤثره جدا، لقد ابكتني
    I need a tissue!

    بك يا زمان اللهو أشكو غربتي *** إن كانت الشكوى تداوي مهجتي
    قلبي تساوره الهموم توجعـــــاً *** ويزيد همي إن خلوت بظلمتـــي
    يا قلبي إني قد أتيتك ناصحـــــاً *** فاربأ بنفسك أن تقودك محنتــي
    إن الغريب سقته أيام الأســــــى *** كأس المرارة في جحيم الغربــةِ
    قد كان نومي هانئاً فوق الثرى *** من غير شكوى أو عذول شامتِ
    من غيرهم بالزمان وكربــــــه ***من غير تسهــــاد يشتت راحتـــي
    انا في ابتسامتي عرفت ولم أزل ***حتى أتاني ما ينغص راحتـــي
    إن أسعفتني دمعتي في فرحتـي *** أنزلتها طربا لأرسم بهجتــي
    أو أسعفني بالبكاء مـــــــــرارة *** تتسابق العبرات تهجر مقلتــــي
    واليوم أفرغ دمع عيني بالبكـاء *** ندماً على ما كان مني ويلتـــي
    جفت دموعي من فواجع ما أرى *** لكن صبري في الشدائد قوتي
    ( غربتي - مشاري العرادة )

  25. Like
    InfiniteAscension got a reaction from EndlessMD in Diwan El-shi3r   
    المتنبي وهو يرثي صاحبه إِنّي لَأَعلَمُ وَاللَبيبُ خَبيرُ"                    "أَنَّ الحَياةَ وَإِن حَرَصتَ غُرورُ 
    وَرَأَيتُ كُلًّا ما يُعَلِّلُ نَفسَهُ" 
                       "بِتَعِلَّةٍ وَإِلى الفَناءِ يَصيرُ 
    أَمُجاوِرَ الديماسِ رَهنَ قَرارَةٍ" 
                       "فيها الضِياءُ بِوَجهِهِ وَالنورُ 
    ما كُنتُ أَحسَبُ قَبلَ دَفنِكَ في الثَرى" 
                       "أَنَّ الكَواكِبَ في التُرابِ تَغورُ 
    ما كُنتُ آمُلُ قَبلَ نَعشِكَ أَن أَرى" 
                       "رَضوى عَلى أَيدي الرِجالِ تَسيرُ 
    خَرَجوا بِهِ وَلِكُلِّ باكٍ خَلفَهُ" 
                       "صَعَقاتُ موسى يَومَ دُكَّ الطورُ 
    وَالشَمسُ في كَبِدِ السَماءِ مَريضَةٌ" 
                       "وَالأَرضُ واجِفَةٌ تَكادُ تَمورُ 
    وَحَفيفُ أَجنِحَةِ المَلائِكِ حَولَهُ" 
                       "وَعُيونُ أَهلِ اللاذِقِيَّةِ صورُ 
    حَتّى أَتَوا جَدَثًا كَأَنَّ ضَريحَهُ" 
                       "في قَلبِ كُلِّ مُوَحِّدٍ مَحفورُ 
    بِمُزَوَّدٍ كَفَنَ البِلى مِن مُلكِهِ" 
                       "مُغفٍ وَإِثمِدُ عَينِهِ الكافورُ 
    فيهِ الفَصاحَةُ وَالسَماحَةُ وَالتُقى" 
                       "وَالبَأسُ أَجمَعُ وَالحِجى وَالخَيرُ 
    كَفَلَ الثَناءُ لَهُ بِرَدِّ حَياتِهِ" 
                       "لَمّا انطَوى فَكَأَنَّهُ مَنشورُ 
    وَكَأَنَّما عيسى ابنُ مَريَمَ ذِكرُهُ" 
                       "وَكَأَنَّ عازَرَ شَخصُهُ المَقبورُ 


      
×
×
  • Create New...