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


Veteran Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


.InshAllah. last won the day on June 17 2014

.InshAllah. had the most liked content!

About .InshAllah.

  • Rank
    Level 6 Member
  • Birthday 05/02/2005

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

9,772 profile views
  1. You concluded that 'most believers have faulty logic'. Logic is used to reason about everything not just religion. You cant restrict your conclusion to religion only. That would be completely arbitrary and unjustified.
  2. This argument undermines itself. If you can't trust yourself then you can't trust this argument.
  3. Salaam - 

    I'd like to ask a favor. I'm the writer of this blog which you had posted. We're in the process of re-publishing these, and your assistance would be appreciated.


  4. 1. There is no blind spot in our vision. Each eye has a blind spot, but the two eyes together don’t. This is why you can only detect a blind spot if one eye is closed. 2. Intelligent Design says some features of the world are best explained by design. It doesnt say all features are best explained by design. So even if the blind spot was best explained by evolution, it wouldnt refute Intelligent Design. 3. The blind spot is due to the optic disc. The optic disc is great. Ophthalmologists and neurologists love it as they can diagnose all sorts of different medical disease just by examining it, including MS, glaucoma and brain tumours. It is incredibly useful. The blind spot has saved countless lives. Alhamdulillah for the blind spot.
  5. I remember watching one of his videos a year or so ago in which he said that he was on 2 antidepressants, and had been for years. I respected his honesty, but found it ironic that someone who wrote self help books about how to live a meaningful life, and is taken as a role model and idolised by many, needed drugs to control his mood.
  6. Here is one answer inspired by a popular idea in contemporary political philosophy. The idea is from Rawls who argued that inequalities in society are just only if they benefit the least well off. For example its only okay to allow the existence of billionaires if their existence ultimately helps the poorest in society. We could apply this to the case of Prophethood and say inequality in elevating certain individuals is just only if it benefits the least well off, and it does in fact benefit everyone as it provides everyone with an immaculate role model to follow. Eventhough I like this answer, I personally I believe there is more to it and some brothers have touched on possible answers above.
  7. There are exeptions of course. I have heard Sayid Kamal alhaydery refer/quote both richard dawkins and michael behe, and explain the concept of irreducible complexity in Arabic! I think its only a matter of time before others take a more active interest. Hopefully it won't be too late
  8. This should be surprising because of the huge importance philosophy is given in the seminaries. One problem is the idea that once you've studied mulla sadra you've basically studied all there is worth knowing. Everything else is minor details. A second problem is that most contemporary philosophy aswell as most critiques of religion are in English. If the scholars arent exposed to whats out there because of a language barrier then they wont be making an effort to respond to it.
  9. Murder resembles lawful killing in many ways. Intention is important and can mean the difference between good and evil , eventhough outwardly things look similar. If we think there isnt much difference between zina and muta its because we underestimate and undervalue the importance of remembering Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and/or following His commandments when performing actions.
  10. As Muslims we recognise that there is nothing worse than being morally corrupted. We recognise that being morally and spiritually harmed is worse than being physically harmed. And actually this belief isnt just limited to Muslims - most morally decent people will acknowledge this. For example, they will say that it is better to be a good person who is disabled, than a bad person who is in perfect health. This is because moral health is more important that physical health. Now you would think that if moral & spiritual harms are worse than physical harms, then society should punish those people who cause moral & spiritual harms more severely than those who cause physical harms. If someone attacks you without a good reason, they get locked up behind bars. If they physically harm you, society punishes them. But on the other hand if they morally harm you by spreading corrupt ideas and promoting depraved behavior, nothing happens. The problem isn't merely that they aren't punished by society, but it's that society - including probably most Muslims - don't acknowledge the amount of harm they are causing. If murdering 1000 people is bad because of the physical harm it causes, then misguiding 1000 is surely worse? Doesnt this mean that Islamophobes like Katie Hopkins, Hirsi, Dawkins, Tommy Robinson are worse than mass murderers? This might sound extreme, but why is it extreme? The moral and spiritual harm they have caused is huge, and there is nothing worse than moral and spiritual harm. The problem is that we have all been affected by liberalism, which champions freedom at the expense of morality. JS Mills 'harm principle' says you can't harm other people, but explicitly rules out moral harms from this. The most influential political theory of the day ignores the most important harms.
  11. The Prophets marriage with Aysha is used by non-Muslims to attack Islam. Lets assume that the famous opinion that she was 9 years old is correct. I want to consider whether its morally problematic for us. ( yes its another Aysha marriage thread!!) I can think of 2 possible reasons, one concerns the child in the relationship, and the second concerns the adult. First the child: Child marriages are problematic because they harm the child. Whilst this is true today, I see no reason to think it was always true a thousand years ago. Society was just too different. There were no state funded schools with afterschool clubs, no university degrees, and no real job prospects for females. I can see how marrying young could actually improve their lives rather than harm them - guarateed shelter and food, and the opportunity to raise a family early. The second reason concerns the adult: in order to want to marry a child you must be a pedophile. You must be sexually attracted to children. And thats wrong. This is false. People married for many reasons including bringing tribes together and forging new relationships. Furthermore, you can have sexual relations with someone without being sexually attracted to them. An example is countless homosexual men who married women and raised a family as it was socially unacceptable to be gay or remain single. These gay men were mot sexually attracted to their wives. As the above 2 reasons are the only ones I know of, I can happily conclude that the Prophets marriage with Aysha poses no moral problem whatsoever.
  12. ‘Idea Laundering’ in Academia How nonsensical jargon like ‘intersectionality’ and ‘cisgender’ is imbued with an air of false authority You’ve almost certainly heard some of the following terms: cisgender, fat shaming, heteronormativity, intersectionality, patriarchy, rape culture and whiteness. The reason you’ve heard them is that politically engaged academicians have been developing concepts like these for more than 30 years, and all that time they’ve been percolating. Only recently have they begun to emerge in mainstream culture. These academicians accomplish this by passing off their ideas as knowledge; that is, as if these terms describe facts about the world and social reality. And while some of these ideas may contain bits of truth, they aren’t scientific. By and large, they’re the musings of ideologues. How did this happen? How have those working in what’s come to be called “grievance studies” managed to extend their ideas far beyond the academy, while convincing people that their jargon adds something meaningful to public discourse? Biologist Bret Weinstein, who was run out of Evergreen State College by a leftist mob in 2017, calls the process “idea laundering.” ... https://www.wsj.com/articles/idea-laundering-in-academia-11574634492?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/L0jwUTBNmB
  13. Youre more likely to be traumatised if you don’t get a circumcision than if you do. For example, HIV diagnosis can be traumatic, and you're much more likely to gey HIV is you're not circumcised
  14. @Ibn al-Hussain a very sobering analysis of the challenges we are facing. You have studied this from a fiqhi perspective - what do you think is the solution or correct approach ?
  • Create New...