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

Follower of Ahlulbayt

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Follower of Ahlulbayt

  • Rank
    Level 2 Member

Profile Information

  • Religion

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

3,795 profile views
  1. Salam, Mohammed Hijab isn't good at all. I've seen him make numerous mistakes when arguing for the existence of God. Recently he has been using the contingency argument (although I have yet to see him actually present a formalized version) to prove the existence of God, but he really struggled to find answers on how to justify this argument with Sunni creed, which stipulates that God has parts. Now, Hijab replied just admitting to multiple necessary existents (God+ multiple attributes), something which is extremely problematic. Lol and Craig isn't even that good. I mean maybe he knows the Kalam cosmological argument well, but that is such a bad argument. I can see why Sunnis (especially Asharis) would admire Craig though. They are theistic personalist who reject divine simplicity (that God has no parts). These guys reject classical theism and tend to reject 'unmoved mover' arguments for the existence of God. If you want to see a serious scholar arguing for the existence of God, check Edward Feser. Here is a debate between him and Graham Oppy (who btw, is one of the biggest players in the philosophy of religion): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoVDutpB4Cw
  2. Do you have a reference or the Arabic for this hadith? Bit hard to find the authenticity without a reference
  3. Salam, For laws regarding slavery, you can check the brother's blog: https://www.iqraonline.net/the-issue-of-slavery-in-contemporary-Islam/ You need to be a member in order to read the article. If you do end up registering and reading the article, I can assure you that it is not for the faint of heart.
  4. Salam everyone, Recently, brother @Ibn al-Hussain has announced that he is leaving ShiaChat. Most of us here know that this brother is a veteran on this site, and without a doubt has been one of the most knowledgable people on this site. I really do hope that the brother reconsiders this decision, and at the very least I hope he does come and visit the site even if it is only once or twice a month. I have personally benefited from many of his posts, and I am truly grateful for many of his insights and his takes on many topics. I thought that as a tribute to the brother I would link to some of his posts that I have come across that I consider to be among the best on ShiaChat (and maybe even the english language). One thing you may notice in a lot of these discussions is that the brother isn't even saying his own opinion, but is simply asking questions and getting you to start critically thinking. That is something that I have taken away from his posts and I am sure many of you have as well. Don't be sheep that just listens to and accepts whatever is said on the pulpits. Be critical thinkers. To the brother: Thank you for giving up your valuable time for all these years and blessing us with your vast knowledge. May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) keep you steadfast on your journey in seeking knowledge, and reward you for all of your efforts. Khuda Hafiz! Slavery: Ashura Fabrications: https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235059582-popular-unreliable-accounts-related-to-ashura/ Aql vs Naql: https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235055673-using-philosophy-in-religion/?do=findComment&comment=3116466 Ghaybah in light of the principle of lutf: https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235061659-does-the-ghaybah-of-Imam-Mahdi-negate/?do=findComment&comment=3207630 Apostasy: https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235045402-punishment-for-apostates/?do=findComment&comment=2996036 Tahreef: https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235043000-noori-tabarsi-and-his-book/?do=findComment&comment=2966003 Kitab Sulaym and the role of 'ilm al-Rijal: https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235026685-the-book-of-sulaym-ibn-qays-al-hilali/?do=findComment&comment=2964507 On attaining certainty in the existence of God: https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235030657-on-debating-the-existence-of-God/?do=findComment&comment=2821912 Taqleed: https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235022829-give-me-1-aya-from-Qur'an-in-favor-of-taqleed/?do=findComment&comment=2705740 On the extent of infallibility: https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235014721-shaykh-saduq-on-Imams-mistakes/?do=findComment&comment=2598642
  5. Salam, So what I understood was basically that we cannot lie about Islam. But if a non-Muslim was to come up to us and ask us about our views on slavery, wouldn't it be beneficial to "lie" in this situation? I recall when we had a discussion on taqiyyah mudarati, and you posted a video where Mohammed Hijab was debating an atheist and from memory he was basically saying things like "Islam came to abolish slavery". Now, to be honest, I'm not sure what Mohammed Hijab's views are, but lets assume that he knows that Islam didn't come to abolish slavery. Wouldn't lying in this situation be better when trying to convince a non-Muslim to convert to Islam? And what about if a Sunni asks us about our opinion about Abu Bakr and Umar? Isn't it allowed in this scenario to lie and say something like we admire them?
  6. If by 'anything' you mean having intercourse without consent, then yes. From the article on IqraOnline: One way I have seen people such as Imam Omar Suleiman and Dr.. Jonathan Brown justify this and argue how this doesn't allow rape is by appealing to harm and how Islam prohibits one from harming other people. They say how forcing yourself on to a slave would harm the slave, so it is not allowed.
  7. Salam, So, there are mainly two ways this argument is presented by Sunnis to prove the 'adalah of the companions. Before I present them, I am going to assume a few things (note: this is not a discussion on the preservation of the Qur'an, but on 'adalah al-Sahabah): The mushaf we have today has no missing or additional verses in it That the mushaf we have today was compiled under the rule of Uthman And that the first three khulafa were all hypocrites 1) You Shi'a believe that all the companions except three were kuffar. But, then this puts the integrity of the Qur'an at risk. How are lying kuffar going to preserve and accurately orally transmit the Qur'an? Three people is not enough to ensure the reliability of the Qur'an. Response: This is not our belief, and is based on a partial reading of our narrations. See here for more. No, we don't believe that all the companions became disbelievers except three. 2) You Shi'a believe that the first three khulafa were all hypocrites, but they are the ones that compiled the Qur'an into the mushaf we have today. First of all, it is a virtue that they were able to complete this task. Secondly, calling them hypocrites would put the preservation of the Qur'an at risk, because they are the ones who compiled it into a written codex. Response: It would only be a virtue for them if they did it sincerely. But our whole position which we can back up with evidences is that they did not do things sincerely for Islam. As for the second claim, then the first three khulafa were not the ones who themselves actually did any compiling. All they did was command that the Qur'an be collected and compiled into a codex, but they did none of the collecting and compiling themselves. They were only the rulers who commanded that this task be taken. Let us say for the sake of argument that they themselves did compile the Qur'an. This is not a problem, since the qur'an was already memorised by many of the companions. If the first three khulafa did try and add or get rid of a verse, then the companions who memorised the Qur'an would have caught them out on it. What do you guys think of these responses? Do you have any other responses which could be made?
  8. Salam, So here, I was reading this report: Which seems to indicate that the Imams only came to know of their successors at the end of their lives when they are about to die. But this seems problematic for two reasons: 1: We have narrations where all 12 of the Imam's names are listed out. Of course, if the Imams only come to know of their successor when they are about to die, then these narrations which lists out all twelve Imam's names have to be fabricated, 2: Even if we disregard the narrations which have all 12 names, we also have another problem with all the other narrations where an Imam reveals who the next Imam will be, and he is not nearing his death. What is the explanation for this hadith
  9. This should be of benefit https://twitter.com/TTwelvers/status/1193339066361663489 Check out his series on Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i54qsRsblgE&list=PLLf7rT9fJdoB34f1OcFUO1uOdD07KSPva
  10. Look, answer this question. Will I ever shoot, if I need to get permission from an infinite chain of people? The answer of course is no. Likewise, if there was an infinite chain of actualizers, then there wouldn't be change. But, there is change, so the chain of changers must terminate in an unchanging changer. Its simple, and you are honestly just carrying on the discussion and its getting annoying. The sun is real, and the sun rays are real. Yes, the rays have less intensity of existence, but they are still real. Likewise, our existence was caused by Allah, but how does that mean we are not real? No, you haven't understood the argument properly. Imagine me holding a stick, and with the stick I move a rock. Is it true that only the stick caused the rock to move? Or did my hand also cause the rock to move? Of course, the hand also caused the rock to move. The stick derived its causal power from my hand, so thus it is correct to say that the hand also caused the rock to move. What you have done is conflated a hierarchical causal series with a temporal/linear causal series. In the latter case, members have independent causal powers. For instance, John begets Bob, and Bob begets Bill. But, in order for Bob to beget Bill, John is no longer needed. However, in a hierarchical causal series, all members are continually dependent and derive their causal power from the most fundamental member. He is the source from which all other members derive from. So, its not true to say that God causes A, and A causes B independent of God. Another example- Suppose a cup is on a desk, and the desk is on the ground. Is it only the desk that holds the cup up? Of course not, the ground also holds the cup up. Again, you are attacking a strawman. The point of the analogy was to show that the specific effect of me shooting someone would never happen if there was an infinite chain of people that required permission. This analogy has got nothing to do with change. It is simply showing how with an infinite regress, the effect of me shooting will not occur. Likewise, in the argument of change, it follows that the specific effect of change would not be possible if we had an infinite regress of changers. And by the way, "not shooting" is not an effect, it is the lack of an effect. This is just getting silly now. Anyways, this point is simply irrelevant, because once again you haven't been able to understand the arguments I am making. Some advise, before you reply again with another misinformed objection, try and understand and go over the argument. Pick up a book, read the argument carefully and take this seriously. This is not a change. You started with "potential to shoot", and you still have "potential to shoot". You were "about to shoot" and you infinitely remain in the state of "about to shoot" There is no change.
  11. I showed you the logic when I explained why an infinite regress is incoherent. Yes you have. The whole point of the example was to show that if permission was needed for an infinite number of people, then I will never shoot anyone. But, if I do shoot someone, that is evidence that the chain started at some point. You did not respond to this at all. It seems that you have once again not been able to grasp what the argument being made is, and its getting a bit frustrating now. And what do you understand from "we belong to God"? That we are his reality? Again, makes no sense. Firstly, it seems absurd to me to say that change is only in the mind. Suppose all humans died. Would change still exist? Would leaves fall from trees, water still flow, temperature get warmer or colder etc.? Or will all of this stop because there is no mind? Come on, lets be reasonable here. But, even if we grant that change is only in the mind, what I'm saying is that the thoughts in your mind also change. So there really is no coherent way to deny that change is real.
  12. The chain ends in God. You missed the whole point of this example which was to show the absurdity of an infinite regress and now you are going on about something else which is irrelevant to the point that was being made. What are you even trying to say here? Where is the argument? Your argument does not follow at all. We return to God therefore we are not real? That doesn't make any sense. Your joking right? The whole point of the thread was to show the fallacy in using scripture, when the existence of God still hasn't been proven yet.
  13. I haven't changed one position in this entire discussion.You are the one that keeps changing your objections after I refute all of them. You first said "everything has a cause, so what caused God?" and once I refuted that, you made a different argument "if something doesn't change that means it isn't real". So, I haven't changed, it's just you have been unable to actually understand the argument properly. A hierarchical causal series cannot infinitely regress. The example that is usual given is to think about you moving a rock with a stick. The rock is moved only insofar as the stick moves, and the stick moves only insofar as your hand moves. But, imagine this chain infinitely continued, would the rock ever move? No, since there is no first explanation which starts the chain. Another example- suppose I am about to shoot someone, but I need permission to shoot. I get permission from person A, but person A needs permission from person B, and person B needs permission from person C, and this chain goes on infinitely, will I ever shoot someone? No I wouldn't. Therefore, if we have an infinite regress of changers, then change wouldn't exist. But change does exist. So the chain terminates in a unchanged changer. uhhhhh the very argument I'm presenting is the evidence that there is an unchanging changer. This is what I was talking about when I said you were begging the question against the argument. I've clarified already that this argument does not conclude God is an illusion, this is what you thought based off of a misunderstanding. And yeah, there are real things that are not God. Are you saying everything that is around us is God? How absurd is that...
  14. Again, you've straw-manned the argument. The premise wasn't only things which change are real. No, the premise is simply that change is real, and from this we go on to prove a real unchanging changer. The chain does not terminate in a thing which is not real, it terminates in a thing which does not change. But to not change does not = to not be real. That was never stated in any of the premises. This is a non-sequitur which is simply begging the question against the argument. To cause does not = to change, this is what we literally try to prove in the argument. An uncaused cause/unchanging changer. You and the brother are both using this same line of reasoning which is not clear at all and to me doesn't seem like an objection at all to the argument.
  • Create New...