Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Follower of Ahlulbayt

Advanced Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Follower of Ahlulbayt

  1. I find it funny how after you realized you couldn't defend your creed rationally and respond to my arguments, you had to divert and as is normally the case with Salafis, appeal to the Qur'an when they have not considered the fact that their understanding of the Qur'an is not necessarily the intended meaning of the Qur'an. Right, the Qur'an gives arguments for the existence of God. Therefore, you are not using revelation itself to prove this existence of God. You are using the rational arguments which revelation is providing to prove the existence of God. Now you say the Qur'an proves that Rasulullah (s) is a true Prophet of God. But, as I said before, this is circular reasoning. How do you know the Qur'an is telling the truth in those verses? Even if it is granted that yes the Qur'an proves Prophet Muhammad is a true Prophet from God, how do you know he is infallible when delivering his message, or that he isn't being influenced by Satan when delivering the message? You need rational arguments and the intellect in order to not fall into circular reasoning when answering these questions. The veracity of revelation is not reached except through rational arguments. This is a straw man. I never said that any verse independent of a cosmological argument is speculative. I said verses with more than one possible meaning are speculative. So yes, your interpretation (and my interpretation) of the Qur'an with respect to the verses which are relevant to this discussion are speculative. Why? Because any verse you bring will be open multiple possible interpretations. The Mu'tazila, the Asha'irah, the Maturidiyya, the Shi'a, the Ibadhis and many other sects from Islam including the great grammarians and scholars of the arabic language from these sects interpreted these verses differently. Again, it is not me putting reason over revelation or anything like that. It is me considering the epistemic value of reason and revelation, and seeing which one is certain or which one is more probable. Because, the verses which you think prove that Allah has multiple distinct uncreated attributes are open to more than one interpretation, making them speculative. But, as I told you previously, the cosmological arguments which I believe successfully demonstrate the existence of God and the conclusion of these arguments prove that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has certain attributes with certainty. And certainty triumphs speculation. This is not preconceived notions or biases. This is considering the epistemic weight of reason and revelation, something you have not considered. These are demonstrations that are true, not merely subjective feelings. I don't think you have any basis for believing in divine revelation. Your rejection of the intellect/rational arguments make it impossible to prove the veracity of revelation. I do not believe the Qur'an is the only authority or source to arrive at truth. I believe the intellect can arrive at truth, independent of revelation. Again if you don't accept this, then you cannot prove the veracity of revelation. Given that the intellect can arrive at truths independent of revelation, we can see from the cosmological arguments, they prove with certainty that God exists and that He has certain attributes. Therefore, if we come across a verse in revelation that seemingly contradicts the certain conclusions arrived at through the cosmological arguments, we must investigate whether the verse has more than one possible meaning. If it does and it has a meaning which does not contradict the intellect, then we go with that. Cool, if you think the cosmological argument is flawed, then allow me to present the argument and you tell me the flawed and incorrect premises. I do not want to impose any interpretation on the Qur'an which is far-feteched/inconsistent/not possible. I only choose an interpretation which is possible. Yes, this interpretation may not be the apparent meaning, but just because it is not the apparent meaning, does not mean it is not the intended meaning. So no, I do not think my position on divine attributes opposes the Qur'an. It opposes your speculative understanding of the Qur'an. Again, try to represent my position fairly. Be charitable. My position is not that the cosmological arguments are in judgement over the Qur'an. Rather, a better characterisation of my view is that the intellect is in judgment over those verses in the Qur'an which are unclear, or have multiple possible interpretations. My position is that certainty triumphs speculation. Any reasonable person will agree with this basic principle. If you object and say that the ccnsological argument do not reach certain conclusions, then allow me to present the argument and show me why it is false. No, I do not want you to do that. I do not want to move on in the discussion until you admit that the intellect is an authority that can arrive at true conclusions independent of revelation. I do not want to move on until we establish that you even have a basis for believing in the veracity of revelation. In any case, this is not what you were supposed to show. You were supposed to show why the Quran says Allah has *multiple/distinct* necessary, uncaused, eternal attributes that inhere within Him. I have already told you what my approach is. One more time- certainty triumphs speculation. If you present a verse which can be interpreted differently, and one of those interpretations happens to contradict certain conclusions arrived at through reason, then this interpretation must be reject. Ok then if you think the arguments are speculative show me why. And who said Merriam-Webster is an appropriate authority to decide whether the arguments are speculative or not lol? Add appealing to authority as another fallacy you have used in this discussion.
  2. Wow, you basically deflected and didn't respond to anything I said. You did not address my points at all about how you have no foundations for your beliefs, and how you keep misrepresenting my arguments etc. I don't know what you mean by "cosmological arguments stand in judgment over the divine Revelation". This is misrepresentation of what I said. I said in order to even believe in divine revelation, you have to first have evidence that God exists, or at the very least, that Prophet Muhammad is a true Prophet. And you just completely dodged this issue. My position is not that cosmological arguments are superior to revelation. My claim is that arguments which have certain conclusions are superior to one's speculative understanding of a verse. And I never said my faith is not based on revelation. This is just you strawmanning my views again. Many of my beliefs are derived from revelation, like the fact that Prophet X existed in the past or whatever else which cannot be derived solely on reason. You said that revelation is proof of God's existence. Circular reasoning at its finest lol. Unless, you meant that the Qur'an is a miracle and this is proof of God's existence. But, then you are not using revelation, you are using an intellectual argument which incorporates revelation. And, how do you know revelation is infallible? You need reason/intellect/a rational argument. I am not dodging a discussion on the Qur'an. I am informing you that you have not taken into account the epistemic value of revelation or of reason. You talk about whose interpretation is warranted and justified, but my whole point was that my position is warranted and justified position, because I have certain rational arguments that agree with my speculative interpretation. Whereas your speculative interpretation contradicts certain rational arguments. I do believe the Qur'an is inerrant, but one's understanding of it can be false. You just have not been able to understand this nuance.
  3. Ok if you have objective argument then that is fine. But don't expect to convert others or convince others that Islam is the truth based on such subjective arguments.
  4. While I do believe in the Qur'an, I didn't just presuppose that the Qur'an was true. I first, proved God exists. Then I derived certain divine attributes. Then I went on to prove the Qur'an must be from God. Divine revelation presupposes God's existence. Prior to believing in revelation, you must prove that God exists and derive certain attributes. Otherwise, you have no foundation for your beliefs. So no, I don't agree that we must discuss whether my position is more in line with the Qur'an or your position is more in line with the Qur'an, because we first need to establish if you even have a foundation for your belief in the Qur'an. Even if you reject this and say God's existence is a natural predisposition (or something like that), I still don't think you can just move on and make the Qur'an a source of authority. No, you have to prove why the Qur'an is a source of authority. If someone was left on an island, would they naturally come to the conclusion that there was a man in Arabia called Muhammad (s), born in the sixth century and he preached Islam etc.? No, they wouldn't know any of this. You must prove that the Prophet (s) existed and that he is a Prophet of God. So prior to even discussing revelation, we need to have the intellect as a source of authority that can come to true conclusions. So your dismissal of rational proofs like the cosmological arguments is unjustified, unless you show why they are false and give reasons for why they are wrong. If you dismiss them purely on the basis that they are intellectual proofs, and you don't see intellectual proofs as authoritative, then you have no foundation for your belief in Islam. Again, you have misunderstood my argument (this time you have badly straw-manned it). My argument was never "God cannot have multiple distinct necessary attributes, because that would imply that He is not immaterial". My argument was that God cannot have distinct necessary attributes, because then there will be multiple necessary beings, which is false. God being immaterial had nothing to do with whether He can have multiple distinct necessary attributes. Of course, I accept the Qur'an as a source of authority. But, that doesn't mean I accept your understanding of the verses. As I said, through the cosmological arguments, I have already proven God exists and have derived certain divine attributes. So any verse which has multiple possible meanings, and one meaning ends up contradicting the divine attributes I have derived, I will not of course not accept that meaning. The issue is one of speculation vs. certainty. I have certainty that God exists and has certain attributes. If a verse which has multiple different possible meanings is presented, I will not accept a speculative meaning which contradicts the certainty I have from the cosmological arguments. See here for more.
  5. This argument just doesn't seem strong at all. I am not saying I believe anyone is comparable to the Prophet. But, literally anyone can use your argument to justify their worldview. The sikhs will say that their Gurus were such good people, that this has to be evidence for Sikhism. The atheists can say that this particular atheist personality was so perfect in his character that atheism must be true. I as a Shi'a can just say that the personality of the Imam's was so great that they must be Imams appointed by Allah. You see the slippery slope your argument leads to? Also, 1) The Prophet (s) was a good person 2) God exists is simply a non-sequitur. Maybe you would want to argue that his manners and life was so morally upright that he couldn't have been a liar. The non-Muslim will just respond by saying that he (s) was just pretending, and he doing all of it for fame or whatever.
  6. No, I was not referring to the Kalam cosmological argument. I don't actually find that argument convincing at all. I was referring to other cosmological arguments, like the contingency argument or argument from motion. Yes, while I never presented these arguments in this discussion, I do believe that they are successful demonstrations and their conclusions lead to God having certain attributes like immaterially. If you want me to present an argument, I can. I don't know why the term being makes you confused. I just explained why they must be beings. Once again, if they are not beings at all, then they are non-being i.e. nothing. But you don't want to deny the existence of the attributes right? So they are beings. Of course, they may not be separately existing beings. But they are still beings, insofar as they exist within something. Again, you have misunderstood my argument. My issue with your creed is not because of believing in multiple eternal beings. I explicitly already told you that my argument has nothing to do with eternality. It is to do with the fact that we have multiple necessary/uncaused/uncreated beings. I don't mind if you define polytheism like that. It doesn't really make a difference. As long as the attributes are beings, then you have multiple necessary beings. Now, the same arguments used to show why there cannot be more than one necessary being, refute both polytheism as you have defined it, and your creed in multiple distinct necessary attributes. So whether you want to term your belief as polytheism or not is irrelevant. As long as you admit there is more than one necessary being, you're in trouble as there cannot be more than one necessary being.
  7. This doesn't seem like a good argument at all. Maybe you can clarify what you mean by the Prophet's persona. Do you mean that he (s) showed very moral manners? If that is the case, I see atheists regularly who have fantastic manners and are very charitable people.
  8. I may have a discussion with you on that topic, but let us finish this one first.
  9. I don't see how it is a logical fallacy, and merely asserting that it is does not mean it is. A material being is essentially a being that is limited to a time and space. Also, material beings change. Accepting the apparent meaning of the Qur'an will force you to say that Allah's hand is not grabbing the earth now, but will later on the day of judgement. In any case, what is your third option? The reason why such terms are imperfect when applied to God, is because we only come to understand these terms from finite creatures. And we have comprehension of these terms when applied to creatures. But when applied to God, these terms cannot be fully comprehended. If those attributes are not beings, then they are non-being i.e. they are nothing. So you have had to succumb to apophatic theology and deny God has attributes. I think what you mean to say though, is that the attributes are not separate beings. But they are beings, insofar as they inhere within God. But, they are still beings. And again, belief in multiple necessary beings is polytheism. If you want me to present an argument which proves why there cannot be more than one necessary being, I can.
  10. Who is wrong? All Shias are wrong or Cherub786 is wrong?
  11. He believes Allah is mutable and is composed of parts. This is not affirmed (or at least, should not be affirmed) by any Shia in any circles. The Imams of Ahl al-Bayt condemned such beliefs.
  12. The fact Allah is immaterial is not speculation. It is a necessary implication of valid arguments that prove His existence. My point was if you accept the Qur'an by the apparent meaning, there are two options. But if you don't accept the Qur'an by the apparent meaning, then you are allowed to have another option which is that Allah is immaterial. But, you accept the Quran by the apparent meaning, so from my understanding you have two options. And you agreed that you don't say Allah is immaterial. So tell me, what is your third option? Allah's hand is bigger than our hand in terms of size, or smaller or ....? Even if you still want to insist that you don't believe Allah has a size and Allah is not material (or you don't know), you have already admitted that Allah's hand is changeable. This is problematic, as it introduces potency in God. But God is purely actual. Depends on what you mean by apophatic theology. Yes, I do believe that a lot of God's attributes are negations. But, I believe that we still can make positive (albeit, imperfect) descriptions of God. Ok so you essentially believe in multiple necessary/uncaused beings. You believe in multiple uncreated things. This is polytheism. But polytheism is false and there cannot be more than one necessary being.
  13. Ok so you do not know if Allah's hand is bigger than mine in terms of size. That seems very strange if you want to accept the apparent meaning of the Qur'an. I believe Allah is immaterial, and so I do not accept the apparent meaning of the verses which mention Allah's yad. Because Allah is immaterial, Allah does not have a size. If you agree with this, then I don't see how you can accept the apparent meaning of scripture. You won't find evidence which says Allah is immaterial in the Qu'ran or your hadith corpus, so I don't see how you can agree with this position. Ok so we cause Allah to change according to your creed (even if you do not verbally admit this, I gave examples of where you essentially accept this). But Allah cannot change, since He is purely actual. I agree Allah is incomprehensible in a certain sense. But, some things we can comprehend about Allah. For example, we know Allah is not a man. We know Allah is not a stone or tree. We know Allah is not finite or limited. We know Allah does not change, He does not have parts, and He is not in a direction. We negate such limitations that are found in creation from Allah. You contradict yourself in your last sentence. You say they are necessary, but then say that they are caused to exist. I literally just defined something being necessary as being uncaused. If you say they are caused to exist, then they must be contingent.
  14. Do you believe Allah will grab the earth with His hand? How is this possible if Allah's hand is not bigger than ours in terms of size. There are two options- either Allah's hand is bigger than ours in terms of size, or it is smaller. Do you think there is a third option? If so, what is that option? Ok, let me use another example besides descending. You believe Allah becomes pleased right? Do you believe we cause Allah to become pleased? As in if I do a righteous action, Allah becomes pleased at the action? Before I did the action, Allah cannot be pleased of that action. Once I do the action, then Allah becomes pleased of that action. Another example- Do you believe Allah laughs? Again, do we cause Allah to laugh? That would mean, before I do an action that makes Allah laughs, Allah does not laugh. Only once I do the action, Allah will laugh. All of this is change. Do you believe Allah will grab the earth on the day of judgement? If so, clearly Allah is not doing that now (it is not the day of judgement). So, Allah will start doing the action when the day of judgement occurs, which again is Allah changing. No, I am not asking if they are eternal. I am asking if they are caused or uncaused. Something can be eternal, but still be caused to exist.
  15. I agree, Allah can be large in the sense of rank. But, I do think that if you were to accept the apparent meaning of the text, then the necessary implication is that Allah has a size and it is larger than ours. Let me make my question more explicit. Do you think Allah's hand is larger than ours in terms of size, or is Allah's hand smaller than our hand in terms of size? I do not think you would want to say God is infinitely large in size. If that were the case, then his hand would be in every space. So if you say Allah has a size, Allah's size would have a measurement that is not infinite. I was not asking how Allah descends. You agree Allah descends on Thursday right? Does he start descending on Thursday night or Thursday morning? By necessary I mean uncaused, and by contingent I mean caused.
  16. That link doesn't work either. It says "islamsalvationfromhell.blogspot.com didn’t send any data." You do not explain the modality, but do you think there is one? Yes, while the revealed texts do not use the term size, this is the apparent/literal implication of the text. For example, do you believe Allah's hand is bigger than our hand, or smaller than our hand? The apparent meaning of the text implies that His hand is bigger than ours. But, this would then mean Allah's hand has a size. Even if we do not know "how much" bigger Allah's hand is, it will still have a measurement. When Allah descends on Thursday night for example, does Allah go from not descending before the night, and then he starts to descend when night time happens? This would be an example of change. Ok, so you believe attributes like power and knowledge are distinct. Are they necessary or contingent?
  17. Oh ok very interesting. For some reason the link isn't working. I hope you don't mind if we have a discussion on your beliefs? You say you are not Salafi, but what you say in the sentence sounds very Salafi. What aspects of Salafi aqeedah do you disagree with? When you say Allah has two hands, eyes, and a face, do you accept this by the apparent meaning? Also, you say they are not comparable to created things. My question would be, do you think Allah's two hands for example, have a size? Even if this size is different/bigger than any other hand in creation, and even if we do not know the size, do you still affirm that Allah's hand has some size? Also, with regards to the attributes of action you mentioned, do you think Allah changes? As in He goes through intrinsic change? In other words he is not speaking/loving/coming at one point, but then at some later point he starts the action? Also, what do you say about attributes like power and knowledge? Are they identical to God? Or distinct?
  18. Oh my bad then, I thought you were Ash'ari because you mentioned "orthodox Sunni", which I generally consider to be the Asha'irah. Also, you mentioned kasb which I think was invented by the Asha'irah, not the Hanabila. What is your view regarding causality? Is the action caused by both the creature and Allah? Also, are you Hanbali as in, Salafi? How do you interpret verses which mention yad, 'ayn, wajh etc.?
  19. I think you have misrepresent the ashari doctrine of kasb. The will (ikhtiyar/Irada) is created by God as well according to ashari doctrine. Humans literally have no genuine causal power at all. The whole act is created solely by God. It is hard to see how this view is going to reconcile moral responsibility. See here: https://mobile.twitter.com/TTwelvers/status/1277114409253351425 Also read post to see why occasionalism leads to pantheism: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/01/metaphysical-middle-man.html?m=1
  20. Salam, I made this thread which I think could be beneficial for you https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235064187-saduq-vs-mufid-–-human-actions/ I disagree with shaykh al mufid’s opinion, and it seems to me like he just basically agreed with the mutazili position of tafwid.
  21. Didn't the mu'tazilah believe in tafwid, that God delegated power to humans and thus God does not cause the actions of humans? Isn't this explicitly condemned by the Imams when they said "not jabr (compulsion), nor tafweed, but a matter between these two matters". Yes, I do think there were Shi'a scholars however, like Shaykh al-Mufid and Allamah Hilli, who basically agreed with this mutazilah position on tafwid. I have done a thread related to this:
  22. What does Zaydi Tawheed look like? Do you guys believe that Allah is a body? Do you believe Allah has parts? What about causality - do Zaydis believe in occasionalism? What Zayd creed books discusses these issues?
  • Create New...