Qasim_Husayn

Asalmulaikum,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxheJas1hGM&t=327s A Christian is trying to say that Muhammad(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) simply copied contents from the testament of the Solomon.I first told him that similarity does equal sameness, but he then told me, that the mention of Demons being in shackles,having controls over winds, demons diving into the sea to find pearls for Sulayman, Sulayman havinng a division of Jinn, Sulayman binding a jinn to a gate, similar to how Muhamamd(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) binded a jinn to a pillar of the mosque. He says that while one or two of these details can be dismissed, the entire list cannot be dismissed as a coincidence. I then told him that maybe the pseudographia, while being fabricated, could have some nuggets of truth still preserved, and he said that using Ockham razors, we can deduced whether the biblical or Qu'ranic account is fabricated. Historians notice a trend, that accounts that are written long after the death of an induvidual to be exaggerated. We see in Greek authors the trend of romanticizing accounts of ancient induviduals, such as alexander the great, cyrus, julius ceaser to fantastical legends. If we notice this general trend, since the testament of Solomon is written 1000 years later and seems to be more fantastical than realistic, and we then see a biblical account of Solomon which is more consistent with modern archaelogy, ockham razors tells us that we should take the latter explanation not the former. Hence according to the Christian, the Jewish account of Solomon is more sensible. How would you respond to this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6CD3dgNYp0&t=07m45s At 7:45, Shabir Ally says that the entire quran exhibits a ring structure, with there being 19 clusters or "groups of surahs". I know what a ring structure is, but I can't see the ring structure in the entire quran. Can someone explain that part? And also list some examples of these clusters or groups

I'm in grade 12, and in canada.

The laws of mathematics can only be grasped by our intellect. 2 + 2 = 4 does not exist in the physical realm. Since they can only be grasped by an intellect, and these laws existed for eternity, (2 + 2 always has, will and equals 4), then they must be grounded in an eternal intellect. They must hence exist in an eternal mind (which is god). Do you know an indepth explanation of this

Salam using scholastic realism, it is claimed that one can prove the existence of god. Can someone expand on this?

Can you give me an example of all of these, most people would argue that religion fails economically/ethically. That ethics from the 7th century are quite barbaric, and so is the economcis

What can religious people do that atheists can't, like whats the point of it

Brother I don`t get the argument myself. Can someone explain it to me

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

Salam I originally though that the soul was an immaterial substance, that was given to humans in specific. But according to some people, everything that exists has a soul. The soul is essential for physical existence of everything. The soul is defined as " Existent's esoteric dimension". Can someone explain what this means

1. Reality consists of some things whose existence at any given time depends upon (or is contingent upon) other things. For example, the existence of a cat is dependent, at all times, upon the existence of its cells and the arrangement (form) of its cells. The existence of its cells similarly depend upon molecules and their molecular structure. The existence of the molecules likewise depend upon atoms and the structure of the atoms, and so on. Each of these cases – the cat, the cells, the molecules, etc. are examples of conditioned realities – whose existence is dependent on other things or conditions. [Everything up to this point has been confirmed by empirical investigation]. 2. Reality as a whole either contains a) conditioned realities only, or b) conditioned realities and at least one Unconditioned Reality (i.e. a reality whose existence depends on nothing else). Option a) is false because it entails the non-existence of all realities in reality – since conditioned realities lack the power to exist in and of themselves and must be grounded in existence by other things. (Read the full argument below for the exact details – including the infinite regress possibility). Therefore, Option b) is the necessary conclusion – there at least one unconditioned reality in all of reality. 3. An Unconditioned Reality, being uncaused and independent in its existence, has no parts and is absolutely simple by virtue of being uncaused and not dependent upon any combination of parts or properties. It then follows that there is only one Unconditioned Reality. This is because the existence of more than one Unconditioned Reality would necessitate that each Unconditioned Reality be composed of one common property and one differential property (to distinguish it from the rest) – but this would entail each of them being composed and therefore not actually Unconditioned Reality. Therefore, there is only one Unconditioned Reality. 4. It follows that all other realities in existence are conditioned realities whose existence depends on the Unconditioned Reality at all times. Therefore, Unconditioned Reality is the continuous Creator and Sustainer of all realities in existence. Unconditioned Reality, due to its simplicity, transcends space, time, and matter. Unconditioned Reality is also changeless and unlimited due to transcending time, space, and duality of any kind. 5. Finally, Unconditioned Reality – as the Creator and Sustainer of all realities – is the source or ground for all of the powers or qualities found in conditioned realities – such as existence, power, life, will, knowledge, beauty, compassion etc. This Unconditioned Reality – the Creator and Sustainer of all existing things at all times – is what we call “God” or “He who is above all else”. So I was wondering, that when talking about conditional realites. I always realized that it would be conditional on things that compose it. (E.g cells compose us). But what about things which aren't composed of anything furthure. For instance, energy is not composed of anything, energy is everything that exists. What is energy conditional upon. Also energy cannot be created or destroyed. So it could easily replace the eternal unconditonal reality that is constantly sustaining the comos https://ismailignosis.com/2014/03/27/he-who-is-above-all-else-the-strongest-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/

Salam can you explain the following quote from allamah tabatabai: "The universe is temporal (in constant change and movement) and each particular part of it can become nonexistent. Therefore, it (the particulars) are not the existence that cannot be made nonexistent. This world depends on a reality which cannot be made nonexistent and it is in the light of that reality that the world becomes existent. If that reality did not existent, this world and whatever in it would not have existed. Of course, it does not mean that the reality unites with the thing in a way such that they become one thing. It does not permeate or indwell in them either or that a part of the reality separates and joins things; in fact, it is like light with which dark objects become bright and without which they remain dark." How does cosntant change and movmenet mean that things become non-existence, if I throw a ball, how does the change of ball make stuff go from existence to non-existence. "Therefore, it (the particulars) are not the existence that cannot be made nonexistent." If they can't become non-existant then why did you say particular parts of it become non-existent "This world depends on a reality which cannot be made nonexistent and it is in the light of that reality that the world becomes existent. If that reality did not existent, this world and whatever in it would not have existed." How did he reach that conclusion

Quisant how would you like it if I said the following? Exactly since the universe is beyond logic. God must be beyond logic too. Logic cannot dedcue the existence of God, because logic has no effect on God. That statment kinda seems illogical.

How do we know that. How can we prove that the existence of objects is neutral. Again we don't know this, just because I can concieve an apple in a different way doesn't necessarily mean it can exist in another way. Just because things can logically failed to exist doesn't mean they could have physically failed to exist. I'm sorry I don't see the contardiction. The apple exists. I don't see why it has to non-exist and exist at the same time.

Amoli, Ay. Jawadi - A Commentary on Theistic Arguments.pdf Argument from contingency Something that existence and nonexistence are not parts of its essence, and has equidistance towards the two, cannot become existent or nonexistent by virtue of its essence. That is, if not for an external causal efficacy (al-‛illiyya al- fā‛iliyya), which would necessitate either existence or nonexistence for it and characterize it with one of the two qualities, its essence can be neither existent nor nonexistent. Otherwise, it will mean that while a thing is equidistant towards existence and nonexistence, it has existence or nonexistence, and therefore, it is devoid of equidistance towards the two. The concurrence of equidistance and non-equidistance is conjunction of contradictories (ijtemā‛ al-naqīdhain), which is impossible. Can someone explain this to me in a simple way. I don't seem to get it.