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

user5000

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    449
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

Profile Information

  • Location
    Pangaea
  • Religion
    Islam

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2,965 profile views

user5000's Achievements

  1. Well, that answers that. I always kinda figured, it would only make sense that the holy prophet was highly educated.
  2. So, I was having a discussion a few days ago with a family friend regarding the Palestine Israel issue to which the conversation then diverted into religion (shocker, right?) As such, a few arguments were made in regards to the Quran and its revelation. From what I understand, the Quran is the literal word of god and was revealed to the holy prophet through means of inspiration (The Angel) My friend argued the absurdity of people, some of whom are college-educated as he liked to point out, that still believe the Holy Quran literally came down from the sky (or even metaphorically) whether it be through means of inspiration or some other way. He stated that there is a creator, but all religions and holy texts are most likely man-made. Now, it's quite evident that this not the case, as the Quran describes everything from relativity, quantum mechanics, Big Bang theory, black holes and pulsars, genetics, embryology, modern geology, thermodynamics ext. ext., such things that have only recently been discovered by scientists. It's fine, that his opinion to which he is entitled to, and not one for me to change.... but following that statement, he then asked the following question. If the holy prophet was taken in as a child by Abi-Talib, a man who was known in his tribe as a gifted poet with high intellect, and his son Ali, who was also known for his high intellect, why then was the holy prophet illiterate, as it is said? I had to pause and think....... and I came up with nothing. Surely, Abi-Taleb would have at least tought him how to read/write? It then got me thinking, was the prophet really unlettered? This led to me going down a rabbit hole on a bunch of different Islamic sites with different answers/opinions. Whats you're take Shiachat?
  3. I may have said that wrong, apologies. I was referring to "Ulum Al-Ghaib (The Invisible-Unknowable)", or the "unseen"
  4. Also, a beautiful sermon I found from Imam Ali in Nahjul-Balagha I thought I'd share regarding tawhid and understanding God almighty. Long but worth the read. “The foremost in religion ( deen) is to know Him. The literal meaning of deen is obedience and its popular sense is a code. Whether the literal sense is taken or the popular one, in either case, if the mind is devoid of any conception of Divinity, there would be neither a question of obedience, nor the following of any code. This is so because when there is no aim, there is no point in advancing towards it. Where there is no object in view, there is no sense in making efforts to achieve it. Nevertheless, when the nature and guiding faculty of man bring him in contact with a superior Authority and his taste for obedience and impulse of submission subjugates him before a Deity, he finds himself bound by certain limitations as against abject freedom of activity. These very limitations are deen (religion) whose point of commencement is knowledge of All h and acknowledgment of His Being. “After pointing out the essentials of the Divine knowledge, Am r alMu’min n has described its important components and conditions. He holds those stages of such knowledge which people generally regard as the point of highest approach to be insufficient. He says that its first stage is that with the natural sense of search for the unknown and the guidance of conscience, or on hearing from the followers of religions an image of the Unseen Being known as All h is formed in the mind. This image, in fact, is the forerunner of the obligation to thinking and reflecting and seeking His knowledge. But those who love idleness, or are under pressure of the environment, do not undertake this search despite the creation of such an image, and the image fails to get testified. In this case, they remain deprived of the Divine knowledge. Since access to the stage of testifying after the formation of image is by volition, they deserve to be questioned about it. But one who is moved by the power of this image goes further and considers thinking and reflecting as being necessary. In this way, one reaches the next stage in the attainment of the Divine knowledge, namely to search for the Creator through observing the diversity of the creation and the species of beings. This is so because every picture is a solid and inflexible guide to the existence of its painter, and every effect is to the deed of its cause. When he casts his glance around him, he does not find a single thing which might have come into existence without the act of a maker, so much so that he does not find the sign of a footstep without a walker nor a building without a builder. How can he comprehend that this blue sky with the sun and the moon in its expanse and the earth with the exuberance of its grass and flowers could have come into existence without the deed of a Creator? Therefore, after observing all that exists in the world and the regulated system of the entire creation, no one can help but conclude that there is a Creator for this world of diversities because existence cannot come out of non-existence, nor can existence sprout forth from nothingness. “The Holy Qur’ n has pointed out to this reasoning thus: What?! Is there any doubt about All h originating the heavens and the earth? (Qur’ n, 14:10). “But this phase would also be insufficient if this testimony in favor of All h is tarnished by belief in the divinity of some other deity. “The third stage is that His existence should be acknowledged along with believing in His Unity and Oneness. Without this, the testimony to All h’s existence cannot be complete because if more gods are believed in, He would not be One, whereas it is necessary that He should be One. The reason is that in case of more than one god, the question would arise about whether one of them created all this creation or all of them did so together. If one of them created it, there should be some difference that distinguishes him; otherwise, he would be accorded preferential status without reason, which is unacceptable to the mind. If all have created it collectively, then the status has only two forms: Either he cannot perform his functions without the assistance of others, or he is above the need of their assistance. The first case means he is incapable and in need of others, while the other case means that there are several regular performers of a single act, and the fallacy of both has already been shown. If we assume that all the gods performed the act of creation by dividing it among themselves, all the creation would not bear the same relationship towards the creator. This is so because each creature will bear relationship only to its own creator, whereas every creature should have one and the same relationship to all creators. This is so because all the creation should have one and the same relationship to all the creators as all the created in their capacity to accept effect, and all the creators, in their capacity to produce effect, should be similar. In short, there is no way but to acknowledge Him as One because to believe in numerous creators permits no possibility of the existence of any other thing and destruction proves implicit of the earth, sky and everything in creation. All h, the most Glorified One, has expressed His argument in the following words: Had there been in them (the heavens and the earth) gods other than All h, they both would have been in disarray (Qur’ n, 21:22). “The fourth stage is that All h should be regarded as being free of all defects and deficiencies, devoid of a physical body, form, image, similarity, status of place or time, motion, stillness, incapability and ignorance. This is so because there can be neither deficiency nor defect in the perfect Being, nor can anyone be deemed like Him because all these attributes bring down a being from the high status of the Creator to the low status of the created. That is why along with Unity, All h has held purity from deficiency to be of an equal importance: Say: He (All h) is the One (and only God). All h is self-Sufficient. He does not beget, nor is He begotten. And there is none like Him (Qur’ n, 112:1-4). Vision does not perceive Him, whereas He perceives (all) visions; He is the Subtle, the all-Aware (Qur’ n, 6:104). So do not coin any similitudes to All h; verily All h knows (everything) while you do not (Qur’ n, 16:74). Nothing whatever is like Him, and He is the One Who hears and Who sees (all things) (Qur’ n, 42:11). “The fifth phase of completing His Knowledge is that attributes should not be put on Him from outside lest there should be duality in His Oneness. Deviating from its proper connotation, Unity may fall into the labyrinth of one-in-three and three-in-one because His Being is not a combination of essence and form so that attributes may cling to Him like the smell of the flowers or brightness of the stars. Rather, He is the fountainhead of all attributes and needs no medium for manifesting His perfect Attributes. If He is named Omniscient, it is because the signs of his knowledge are manifest. If He is called Omnipotent, it is because every particle points to His Omnipotence and Activity. If the power to listen or to see is attributed to Him, it is because the cohesion of the entire creation and its administration cannot be done without hearing or seeing. But the existence of these attributes in Him cannot be held in the same way as in His creation. One should be capable of knowing only after he acquires knowledge, or he should be powerful and strong only after energy runs into his limbs because taking attributes as separate from his being would connote duality: Where there is duality, unity disappears. “This is how Am r al-Mu’min n has rejected the idea of attributes being added to His Being, presenting Unity in its true significance and did not allow Unity to be tainted with stains of multiplicity. This does not mean that adjectives cannot at all be attributed to Him. This will be giving support to those who are groping in the dark abyss of negativism, although every nook and corner in the entire existence is brimming with His attributes, and every particle of creation stands to testify that He has knowledge, He is powerful, He hears and He sees. He nurtures under His care and allows growth under His mercy. The intention is that for Him, nothing can be suggested to serve as an adjunct to Him because His Self includes attributes and His attributes connote His Self. Let us learn this very theme in the words of Im m Ab Abdull h Ja`far ibn Muhammed as-S diq , comparing it with the belief in Unity adopted by other religions, then appreciating who the exponent of the true concept of Unity truly is!” Talib (Martyred in 8th Century A.D.), Imam Ali ibn Abu. Nahjul-Balagha: Path of Eloquence (Volume One) (p. 74-79). AuthorHouse. Kindle Edition.
  5. Well, it's been a minute since I've created this thread. Nonetheless, I'd like to briefly check back in. I've come to the conclusion: It is clear, God exists, and Islam is a beautiful religion, for those who truly reflect and seek to understand it. I found that one must go beyond the mind and it’s binary way of thinking. Knowledge and judgment cannot be based solely on sensory experience. You must accept that there will be things that will be unknown, or better yet "hidden" knowledge, beyond our comprehension and understanding. Seeking an answer to any and every little thing will only have you running around a theological loop with no end, and no answer. Though not the case for everyone, It takes time and effort to truly understand God and the beauty of the religion of Islam. On your journey of perfecting this "tawhid" -- all else falls into place. Everything makes sense and you take on a new perspective on the meaning of life. It is truly a beautiful thing. Hope you all have a blessed Ramadan. Thanks again to everyone who contributed to this thread! @hasanhh @notme @eThErEaL @dragonxx @Reza @A_A (and everyone else in this thread)
  6. Found this video absolutely fascinating. What else it out there? What kind of lifeforms are possible when equipped with different biochemistries than our own. What are your thoughts on this video?
  7. Adding to this thread, I created a separate post but thought it'd be better I contribute to this one as well ________________ I've been having a discussion with another forum member on here regarding a video I came across by Dr. Robert Sapolsky. So far this seems to be the most rational explanation put forth explaining the creation/role of religion and a higher power within humans, from a biological/evolutionary perspective. As the saying goes "its all in your head" ..... maybe it actually is? I think disputing this worldview is a necessary aspect of any effective rebuttal against agnosticism/atheism. What are your thoughts? Quick 3 minute clip:
  8. Hello, I've been having a discussion with another forum member on here regarding a video I came across by Dr. Robert Sapolsky. So far this seems to be the most rational explanation put forth explaining the creation/role of religion and a higher power within humans, from a biological/evolutionary perspective. As the saying goes "its all in your head" ..... maybe it actually is? I think disputing this worldview is a necessary aspect of any effective rebuttal against agnosticism/atheism. What are your thoughts? Quick 3 minute clip:
  9. Yea.... I dont know about that...not to offend anyone, and not to derail this thread as this is a whole conversation in itself. This is not exclusive to the imam you speak of...... any type of messiah like figure. More likely to be meant in a metaphorical sense maybe....... but an actual guy, be it jesus or any type of other messiah coming down to earth with superpowers and what not.... Not very rational.
  10. Impossible......people talk, no matter how much they are sworn to secrecy with “NDAs”, especially with something like “interstellar technology” Government is very leaky, even private corporations/companies have proven to better at retaining secrecy than the government.
  11. When it comes to the moon landings, I simply reference the answer from quora below Quote’ Unfortunately for conspiracy theorists, there are three unshakable types of proof that NASA did go to the moon: 1. The surface of the moon is currently being 3D mapped by satellites, and the surface mapping data exactly matches the photos the astronauts took. See the surface contours in this photo, the hills and craters? The 3D data being gathered by LRO satellites exactly matches these contours. For example - Shown below on the left is a 3D computer reconstruction from 3D data stereo images taken by the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE terrain camera and 3D projected to the same vantage point as the Apollo mission surface photo. The background terrain in the 3D model is an exact match with the Apollo 15 photograph shown below on the right. This can be done for all of the thousands of photos that the astronauts took from hundreds of different locations as they walked and drove around the landing sites. 2. The dirt flying off of the Lunar Rover wheels flies in a pattern that can only be done on the moon. Suppose you shoot an artillery shell on earth. It will follow a path dictated by air resistance and Earth gravity, which can be precisely calculated. The shape of the path (trajectory) will be sort of lopsided, because of the air resistance slowing the projectile down. But if you shoot the artillery shell on the moon, it will follow a differently shaped trajectory due to the lack of air resistance and lower (1/6th of earth) gravity, which can also be precisely calculated. The trajectory shape will be a perfect parabola because of the lack of air resistance. And the projectile will fly way farther than it would on earth due to the lower gravity. In films of the lunar landings, the lunar soil flies off of the buggy wheels in a trajectory that can only happen in a vacuum and at 1/6 G gravity. Any physicist in any country can make a plot of the moon dust and mathematically prove that the rover is driving on the moon. This calculation has been done many times already. 3. We have thousands of lunar rocks that have been lent out to scientists all over the world. NASA has lent out thousands of moon rock and soil samples to the world’s scientific community. There is virtually no doubt among the scientific community that the Apollo lunar samples are genuine moon rocks and not lunar meteorites. These three things PROVE without any question that the USA did land men on the moon.
  12. No, NASA didn't find evidence of a parallel universe where time runs backwards https://www.cnet.com/news/nasa-did-not-find-evidence-of-a-parallel-universe-where-time-runs-backwards/ Link to the full article above ^^^ I'm here to spoil the parallel universe party. Scientists haven't actually discovered a parallel universe, but you might think they have, based on multiple reports from across the web. In the last few days a number of publications have suggested scientists "found evidence" for a parallel universe where time runs backward. These mind-bending articles posit that an experiment in Antarctica detected particles that break the laws of physics. All the reports pull from the same source of information: A pay-walled report by New Scientist on April 8 titled "We may have spotted a parallel universe going backwards in time." At the center of the report are findings from the Antarctic Impulsive Transient Antenna or ANITA, an experiment maintained by researchers at NASA. It involves an array of radio antennas attached to a helium balloon which flies over the Antarctic ice sheet at 37,000 meters, almost four times as high as a commercial flight. At such a height, the antennas can "listen" to the cosmos and detect high-energy particles, known as neutrinos, which constantly bombard the planet. These particles pose no threat to us and pass through most solid objects without anyone even noticing -- some estimates suggest 100 trillion neutrinos pass through your body every second! Rarely do they interact with matter. But if they do smash into an atom, they produce a shower of secondary particles we can detect, which allows us to probe where they came from in the universe. ANITA detects neutrinos pinging in from space and colliding with matter in the Antarctic ice sheet. Over the years, ANITA has detected a handful of "anomalous" events. Instead of the high-energy neutrinos streaming in from space, they seem to have come from a strange angle, through the Earth's interior, before hitting the detector. These findings can't be explained by our current understanding of physics -- that much is true. "The unusual ANITA events have been known and discussed since 2016," says Ron Ekers, an honorary fellow at CSIRO, Australia's national science agency. "After four years there has been no satisfactory explanation of the anomalous events seen by ANITA so this is very frustrating, especially to those involved." Although the New Scientist report was filed on April 8 -- and the ANITA results are almost two years old -- the theory has only recently caught fire. Ever more urgent headlines have spurred its spread across social media. "NASA uncovers evidence of bizarre parallel universe where physics, time operate in reverse" reads one. Another says "Scientists may have just found evidence of a parallel universe." Because the New Scientist piece is behind a pay wall, many of the subsequent reports on the parallel universe are cribbed from the opening paragraphs and don't explain the full details behind the find, in which one of the scientists admits "there are one or two loose ends" for the parallel universe theory. There's another neutrino observatory at the South Pole, known as IceCube, which has been following up on the ANITA observations and suggests the standard model of physics cannot explain these strange events. "In such a situation you start exploring even more extreme possibilities," says Ekers. There is a really interesting science story here, but it's not the one you're being sold. The ANITA experiment is mind-boggling in its own right. It looks for "ghostly" particles that pass through most matter. It has definitely detected something unusual and unexpected. There are plenty of competing theories that aren't explored in the quick news hits, like the idea the Antarctic ice may itself be giving rise to these anomalous events. But there's so much we don't know about neutrinos that astrophysicists and scientists are still trying to unravel. "We are absolutely sure that there is new physics out there to be found," says Clancy James, a radio astronomer at Curtin University in Australia. Jumping straight to "parallel universes" is a little over-the-top, and there are less extreme theories that could explain what ANITA has detected. More than that, reports regurgitating this theory without thorough examination complicate the public's relationship with science, which is already on shaky ground thanks to misinformation campaigns around climate change and the coronavirus pandemic. When you see stories like these its good to remember "the Sagan Standard", an adage uttered by the famed astronomer Carl Sagan. It goes "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." At present, we've got a great theory but we lack the extraordinary evidence to back it up. What we do have, Ekers says, is "a somewhat cheeky explanation ... born out of the frustration of having nothing else that worked." He says this is "good out-of-the-box thinking" and a "fascinating" idea but not one that should be taken very seriously. So, I'm sorry. We didn't find evidence for a parallel universe. Fortunately, if there is one, then over there this article doesn't spoil the theory at all! It supports it! So please, direct all your email toward the parallel universe Jackson Ryan. No, I won't be taking questions.
  13. Adding this to the thread. While surfing the interwebs I came across this article on Aljeezera and found it really helpful. Love when I come across a clear and effective explanation of something. It's like "Yeahhhhhhhhh that makes sense.... I think..." Quote' Is a confrontation between religion (I exclude "dogmatism" here) and science necessary? Having a background in both science and religion, I do not think so. We do not have to battle over things that are dissimilar in terms of reference and remit. Let me say why. Science is about "how": it tries to find natural "facts" through ideas, theory, postulation, experiment and empirical evidence. It is not meant to find "truth". Science is based on statistical probabilities and experimental evidence; during this process of discovery, it is prone to errors. A scientific approach cannot find for sure whether our universe was created or self-made, for example. As our knowledge expands, many "established" scientific theories have been thrown away. Scientific giants understood this and accepted the "new" knowledge with humility. On the other hand, religion is about "why": it gives meaning to our life through a metaphysical approach, searching for ultimate "truth". Religion's emphasis is on morality and behaviour. Believers are asked to keep an open mind, observe, question, reflect, contemplate and then act. A verse from the Quran (chapter 3, verse 190) is intuitive - "Surely in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and in the alternation of night and day, there are signs for people of understanding". Science explores and scientists differ. On the issue of human evolution even Darwin's supporters could not agree, because some thought that "the mental capacities and the moral sensibilities of humans could not be explained by natural selection". This is understandable. Our individual life on Earth is infinitesimal compared to the age of our known universe; our personal sphere is also minuscule compared to the expanse of the universe we are in. To pretend that we would be able to know the "truth" of our life and about the universe would be sheer arrogance. This does not mean we surrender to our "fate" and sit back; not at all. We, as human beings, are not a mere physical entity but have "moral sensitivities" and a spiritual dimension. We are born with an inquisitive, creative mind that is full of imagination and innovation. We see, hear and observe things and ask questions. Do we get all the answers? No. We are not supposed to; if we did all our uniqueness would disappear and we would end up being dull and stagnant. That is the mystery of human life. As an experimental physicist until my mid-30s, asking questions and throwing challenges were part of my research. This did not deter me from getting closer to my (Muslim) faith. I have always been fascinated by the life of many ancient scholars from China, Greece or India, who were religious saints and scientists at the same time. I am enthralled by many pre-Renaissance Muslim scientists and scholars like Al-Khwarizmi and Ibn Sina, who were pioneers in science and at the same time devoutly religious and spiritual. I am still amazed to see this tradition of harmony between science and religion in the personality of scientific giants like Newton and Einstein. Their thirst for knowledge was matched by their humility. Belief in or denial of God is the main issue Monotheistic religion is essentially about primary belief in one Living God; the rest follows from this premise. In Islamic belief God has 99 "attributes" eg His Omniscience or Omnipotence. The Abrahamic religions are adamant on monotheism. Yes, there is no way of experimentally proving God's presence, but there are coherent evidences in support of this belief, such as a) all the Prophets who were known to be extremely honest and trustworthy in their life informing us of God, b) numerous signs (ayat, in Arabic) within and around us and in the cosmos testify His presence. These arguments cannot just be brushed aside as irrational or non-progressive. The benefit of a resolute belief in God has a positive impact on life: it has created a myriad of highly-motivated, spiritually-uplifted and self-regulated selfless individuals who have spent or even sacrificed their life for the good of others. The belief in God and a sense of accountability in the Hereafter is a catalyst to those actions. Then there is the classical argument: imagine there is no God. Believers do not lose anything on Earth. But imagine there is one, what happens to deniers in the Hereafter? It is true that religion was and can be misused to foster division, hatred and cruelty; but history is the evidence that most wars, destruction, ethnic cleansing and killings were the result of manipulative politics or selfish use of religions, rather than the inherent faiths in and of themselves. The complexity of body, mind, soul and spirit There is obviously a common ground between the two approaches, the spiritual and the scientific. All living beings have phases or evolution in their life from birth to death. Without a doubt there is biological evolution in the world of low-level living beings, including many animals. Our "evolution" in a mother's womb, from a zygote into a fully-fledged baby, is mentioned in the Quran - "And certainly We created man of an extract of clay, then We made him a small seed in a firm resting-place, then We made the seed a clot, then We made the clot a lump, then We made the lump bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, then We caused it to grow into another creation, so blessed be Allah, the best of the creators" (chapter 23, verses 12-14). So, religion is not irrational. It asks us to think very seriously about our place on this planet. Just because we are physically similar with some primates, I believe we cannot conclude that humans have evolved from them. Yes, gorillas and chimpanzees are biologically closest to humans and their DNA sequences are very similar, but that does not necessarily "prove" that a highly intelligent and spiritual man evolved from them. Even with very close DNA-similarity between two twin siblings we see incredible differences between their personality, ability and creativity. The human mind may operate faster than light, but it cannot fully understand the mysteries of our universe and our life. It is time we step back and try to comprehend the highly coherent and intelligent universe and the "whole" of our existence. It is also time religious adherents practice their critical autonomy to continuously enhance their knowledge and understanding of our natural world. As for Muslims, I can only say that our belief and reason (aql, in Arabic) are intertwined; we should be the first to use this gift of reasoning. Credit: Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari @MAbdulBari
  14. Well, this may be a stretch, but acceptable to put forth when talking about something like the essence of humanity with little to work with; maybe you were created by some other life form/species? Again, it's just an idea, and one that i'm highly doubtful of.... but still... There is then the more acceptable "Theory of evolution"
×
×
  • Create New...