.InshAllah.

انا لله وانا اليه راجعون Sorry for your loss

https://www.iqraonline.net/familiarity-with-the-tradition-a-prerequisite-for-reform/

This argument rests on the premise that: if 2 attributes have the same reality in Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), then their scope is the same. I'm not sure that that's true (at least there is a lot of ambiguity here that needs clarifying), but even if it is true you haven't shown that power and knowledge have different scopes. Allah's (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) power does 'connect' to His essence - He can 'make' Himself (his essence) act, which is just to say He can act freely. Compare: do you have any control over yourself? You said that Allah can't destroy Himself which is true, but neither does He have the knowledge to destroy Himself.

Salam, One of the criticisms of the death penalty is that allegedly it doesn't work as a deterrent. I watched this fascinating interview with a former successful drug trafficker in which he says traffickers generally avoided trafficking into countries that have the death penalty. In other words if these countries didn't have the death penalty, they would have a bigger drug problem, which means that the death penalty is a deterrent. It starts from around 6 minutes

Salam sister, Sorry you're going through this. Allamah Tabatabai (r) says that doubt can be a positive driving force, as it forces us to work through it and seek greater knowledge & understanding, and inshallah greater proximity to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). Inshallah this is a stepping stone that will take you closer to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). I want to say a few of things. The first is that much of what you write has no bearing on the truth of Islam, eg people's attitudes and islamophobia. You shouldn't doubt that the Earth is round if people hated you for it, and nor should people's hate of Muslims make you doubt Islam. Also I think that if people think rationally rather than emotionally about evil and injustice in the world they wouldn't consider it much of a challenge to religion. The second thing is there are texts that imply women's inferiority, and there are texts that imply their superiority, eg we have ahadith that say most people in heaven are women. Take a look at the thread linked below. Ultimately Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is clear that taqwa is the yardstick (not gender).

Salamu alaykum, Jazakallah @Qa'im I love reading narrations that show the love and loyalty the companions of Amirul Mu'mineen had for him. I have a question about this beautiful narration, specifically this bit إنك لتتجلد؟ قال: على أعدائك يا أمير المؤمنين. على أعدائك means 'on your enemies', but that doesn't make sense if تتجلد means limp. Does this work because the companion is taking تتجلد to mean other than limp whilst knowing the Imam meant 'limp' by it - exploiting a dual-meaning to emphasise his loyalty to the Imam? If so whats the best translation? Maybr it's difficult to get this across in translation without affecting the eloquence in english.

Thanks for resurrecting this thread. This is also relevant:

Just reading through the chapter in Wasa'il the basic message is that we trust women and not assume or worry that they are unchaste. This seems an instance of the ethical principle of حسن الظن - assuming the best of people. Having said that, there are ahadith that say we should investigate when it comes to mut'ah as quoted above. Perhaps when the stakes are high حسن الظن becomes unacceptable.

https://www.al-islam.org/nikah-al-mutah-zina-or-sunnah-toyib-olawuyi/7-shii-ahadith-misused-about-mutah#hadith-ten Hadith Ten Al-Ṭusi records: Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Yahya – ‘Ali b. al-Sindi – ‘Uthman b. ‘Isa – Ishaq b. ‘Ammar – Faḍl, freed slave of Muhammad b. Rashid: I said, “I married a woman in mut’ah. But, it occurred in my mind that she had a husband. So, I investigated that and discovered that she had a husband.” Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him, said, “Why did you investigate?!”45 Al-Jawahiri says about one of the narrators: ‘Ali b. al-Sindi: he narrated 84 reports, and he also narrated under the name ‘Ali b. al-Sanadi al-Qummi: his trustworthiness is NOT established.46 This makes him majhul and ḍa’if. Al-Jawahiri also states about another narrator: Al-Faḍl, freed slave of Muhammad b. Rashid: Majhul.47 Apparently, the report has a ḍa’if chain. It also contradicts this authentic hadith of al-Kulayni: Muhammad b. Yahya – Ahmad b. Muhammad – Ibn Mahbub – Aban – Abu Maryam: Abu Ja’far, peace be upon him, was asked about mut’ah. So, he said, “Verily, mut’ah today is not as it used to be in the past. They (i.e. the women) used to be faithful. But, today, they are not faithful. Therefore, investigate about them (i.e. the women).48 Al-Majlisi says: Muwaththaq ka al-Sahih49 Therefore, the man must thoroughly investigate about the woman – including concerning her marital status – before contracting mut’ah with her. Besides, even during their marriage, he must still carry out fresh investigations if he has any suspicions. The Imam, ‘alaihi al-salam, has not placed any time limitations on the obligation to investigate. Hadith Eleven Al-Ṭusi reports: And from him (Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Yahya) – Ayyub b. Nuh – Mihran b. Muhammad – one of our companions: It was said to Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him, “So-and-so married a woman in mut’ah. Then, he was informed that she had a husband. Therefore, he asked her.” So, Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him, said, “And why did he ask her?”50 Al-Jawahiri says about one of the narrators: Mihran b. Muhammad: Majhul.51 As such, the hadith is ḍa’if. But, it is also mursal, as our esteemed reader can see. Al-Majlisi too confirms this when he declares concerning it: Mursal.52 Therefore, its suffers from compounded unreliability. Hadith Twelve Al-Ṭusi documents: And from him (i.e. Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Yahya) – al-Haytham b. Abi Masruq al-Hindi – Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Abi Nasr AND Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Ash’ari – Muhammad b. ‘Abd Allah al-Ash’ari: I said to al-Riḍa, peace be upon him, “The man marries the woman. Then, it occurs in his mind that she has a husband.” He said, “It is not upon him. Have you seen: if he asks her for proof, there will be someone who will testify that she has no husband?”53 Al-Majlisi states about the hadith: Majhul.54 Al-Jawahiri also submits about one of the narrators: Muhammad b. ‘Abd Allah al-Ash’ari: Majhul.55 Therefore, the hadith is ḍa’if.

Spoiler below - Yes it definitely depends on the students. Assume they are all optimally rational and have common knowledge of each others rationality. Then they may reason as follows: if everyone chooses the maximum number then the max. possible average is 100, and 2/3rds of this is 67, so the winning number won't be above 67. They are all optimally rational so won't choose higher than 67. If they chose the new max possible number then the new average will be 67. But 2/3rds of this is 45, so the winning number won't be above 45. They are all optimally rational so won't choose above 45. We have again a new max possiblr average, and 2/3rds of this is 30... Keep on going and you will eventually get to 1. So if they are all optimally rational and have common knowledge of each others rationality they will all choose 1! I think the jargon used to describe choosing any number above 1 is a 'weakly dominated' choice. In practice people aren't optimally rational, so the winning number will be somewhere between 1 and 67. The smarter the group are the closer it will be to 1. Btw the lectures are from here https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/game-theory-audio/id341651861 Ive only listened to 1 & 2.

Salamu alaykum, I listened to a couple of Game Theory lectures online, and the lecturer mentioned the following puzzle. I didn't think enough about the puzzle and found the answer really surprising. Maybe SCers will be better at answering it than I was. Imagine you are in a class of 200 students, and the professor asks you to write down a number between 1 and 100 (inclusive). He tells you that he will take the average of all of these written numbers, and the student who guessed the number that is 2/3rds of this average will win some money. What number would it be most rational to write down?

Asalamu alaykum, I always assumed women prayed fewer wajib prayers than men because they don't pray during their periods, but I realised this isn't the case. I'm not sure it's worth a thread on SC but I'm making one anyway! Women typically have periods 7 days out of 28 for about 40 years. This means they don't have wajib prayers for 10 years of their life. This is why I assumed they pray fewer prayers than men. But I realised that they become baligh before men - 5 to 6 years earlier on the common view, so the 10 year gap drops to around 5 years. In addition, when pregnant they don't have periods, and so depending on the number of pregnancies that will knock off a few months/years from my initial calculation. And when breastfeeding they usually don't have periods (depending on whether its exclusive or not and other factors), and even if they have periods during this time they tend to be fewer on average. Then we have to consider life expectancy. In modern times they tend to outlive men by a few years (in the West at least). I'm not sure about differences in life expectancy 1400 yrs ago though. Taking the above into consideration, on average men and women probably end up doing a similar number of wajib prayers throughout their lifetime. The real difference will be in the concentration of prayers, i.e. number of prayers per unit time, not in the total number.

This is a very clever and excellent paper which proves all Qur'ans go back to a single very early archetype dated to first couple of decades after the death of the Prophet ص or earlier: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bulletin-of-the-school-of-oriental-and-african-studies/article/grace-of-god-as-evidence-for-a-written-uthmanic-archetype-the-importance-of-shared-orthographic-idiosyncrasies/23C45AC7BC649A5228E0DA6F6BA15C06 Also see this for 1st century hijri manuscripts: https://www.islamic-awareness.org/quran/text/mss/

Salam, A long time ago I read a hadith along the lines of 'The tax of knowledge is to spread it'. I cant remember the source. Can anyone confirm if this is a hadith? If you have the original arabic then even better Thanks in advance

Yes scholars have written refutations. I remember readings parts of some of them 10 or so years ago

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.

This argument undermines itself. If you can't trust yourself then you can't trust this argument.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.