Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله


Advanced Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Zaydism last won the day on March 10 2021

Zaydism had the most liked content!

Contact Methods

  • Facebook

Profile Information

  • Religion
  • Mood
    سُبْحَانَ اللهِ، وَالحَمْدُ لِلهِ، وَلَا إِلهَ إِلَّا اللهُ، وَاللهُ أَكْبَرُ
  • Favorite Subjects
    كتَابَ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ وَ أَهْلَ البَيتِ

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

14,837 profile views

Zaydism's Achievements

  1. I proposed to begin with the simple and uncontroversial 'Fido exists' I will attempt to show the following: 1. When we assert 'Fido' exists we are committed to two elements of discourse which are irreducible. A tensed and a tenseless one. 2. Both these elements belong to the content of the assertion, neither being purely formal. 3. The relationship between the elements is such that it is correctly expressed not by 'exists Fido-ly' nor by any of its cognates, but by 'Fido exists'. 4. From these three points it will follow that to assert 'Fido exists' is to be committed to saying that Fido is an existentially dependent entity. 5. But, it is logically incorrect to say both that Fido is such an entity and that it is dependent solely on entities that are themselves similarly dependent. Even an infinite series of these entities would be no remedy. 6. Fido must therefore depend ultimately on an independent entity, of which there can be only one. ~ Barry Miller
  2. Premise 1: Things either exist by virtue of themselves or by virtue of another. Premise 2: If something exists by virtue of another, it must terminate at one fundamental cause/reality. Premise 3: The fundamental cause/reality exists by virtue of itself and not by virtue of another. Conclusion: Therefore, there exists a fundamental cause/reality that exists by virtue of itself and is not dependent on anything else for its existence.
  3. وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته، حياكم الله ابو نور God exists, then necessarily God knows all possible things. Now, since God knows all possible things, He knows all things in need of act to their potency. By knowing this, and by knowing what He will choose to create in eternity, He imparts act to potency in as much as His knowledge is identical to His power such that His knowing a thing to exist in the future is His choosing to actualize a thing to exist in the future without undergoing change. Since He - necessarily - knows all possible existents before existing, then He creates ex-Nihilo in as much as He imparts existence to the essence of what may possibly exist. Since every composite of essence, and existence, of act and potency doesn’t exist by virtue of the thing that it is, and since they exist by virtue of another. Then, in as much as they receive act to their potency they’re created ex-Nihilo. Our Master al-Imām ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib عليه السلام beautifully states: He initiated creation most initially and commenced it originally, without undergoing reflection, without making use of any experiment, without innovating any movement, and without experiencing any aspiration of mind. He allotted all things their times, put together their variations gave them their properties, and determined their features knowing them before creating them, realising fully their limits and confines and appreciating their propensities and intricacies. His knowing is identical to His power, so everything relates to the divine essence. This is the beauty of the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity.
  4. 1. Whatever is contingent at one time did not exist. This is because that which is contingent is an existent that can logically exist, and also logically fail to exist without contradiction occurring. Moreover, anything that undergoes change, or can undergo change requires an external source of actuality to actualize that change. This ordered series of imparting act cannot go back infinitely - even if the universe is eternal - because the universe (if it was eternal) is a composite of act, and potency and therefore not possessing actuality by virtue of itself. 2. If everything is contingent, then at one time nothing existed. This is because a contingent thing exists in as much as it depends on an external source for its existence, but we cannot - logically - have only dependency explaining existence because then we would have dependent things without an independent thing that imparts to them their existence. 3. If at one time nothing existed, then nothing would exist now. This is because to exist there needs to be actuality imparted to potency, but if all things are possible in themselves. Then, there would be nothing to actualize said potency. 4. Something does exist now. So, simply arguing from existence itself we are able to reach Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) as demonstrated. Therefore, not every being is contingent. Because for every existent to be a dependent existent is incoherent, since dependency is explained by virtue of another and not by virtue of its own nature by definition. Therefore, there is a necessary being. Either the necessary being gets its necessity from another, or exists necessarily of itself. The series (ordered per se) of necessary beings that get their necessity from another does not regress infinitely. C. Therefore, there is a necessary being that exists necessarily of itself. @matrix, do you still doubt the existence of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)?
  5. 1. There are contingent things. (P) 2. The aggregate of all wholly contingent things is a wholly contingent thing.ⓘ The universe is the aggregate of all wholly contingent things. (Def.) C. Therefore, the universe is a wholly contingent thing. (2, 3) (def). Every wholly contingent thing has a cause. (P)ⓘ Therefore, the universe has a cause that is not a contingent thing.
  6. I think that you're not justified in your conclusions, and I believe that they are a result of misunderstanding coupled with haste. If you would like, kindly share the justifications for your conclusions and we'll see if they withstand scrutiny. Your initial post itself, with all due respect, is indecisive. You say: You then say: So, which is it? You then mention that there are mistakes, what are the mistakes?
  7. An Argument for Classical Theism, Jacob Power: P1. Contingent beings exist. P2. A contingent being is contingent insofar as it does not exist in virtue of the kind of being it is (definition). C1. Therefore, there exist beings who do not exist in virtue of the kind of beings they are. (P1, P2) P3. If there exist beings who do not exist in virtue of the kind of beings they are, their existences must be caused by something external to them (Defense: if it was internal, it would be viciously circular. If they were uncaused then they simply wouldn't exist). C2. Therefore, contingent beings have their existences in virtue of an external cause. (C1, P3) P4. If contingent beings have their existences in virtue of an external cause, then if the external cause of a contingent being is contingent, it will require an external cause. (P3, C2) P5. The external cause of a contingent being is contingent (ex hypothesi). C3. Therefore, this being will itself require an external cause. (P4, P5) P6. If this causal series is comprised entirely of contingent beings, then it will continue ad infinitum (true given the above conclusions). P7. If this causal series continues ad infinitum, then it will entail a vicious regress. (Defense: Existential causal series are fundamentally causal series ordered per se, and per se ordered causal series must have a primary member who has the causality of the series originally, since derivative causality is necessarily derived from something underived. This is why the regress would be vicious, since a vicious regress by definition is a regress that is not completed at any stage). P8. This causal series does not entail a vicious regress. (Defense: Vicious regresses don't obtain, woe to those who think they do) C4. Therefore, this causal series does not continue ad infinitum. (P7, P8) C5. Therefore, it is not the case that this causal series is comprised entirely of contingent beings. (P6, C4) P9. If it is not the case that this causal series is comprised entirely of contingent beings, then there is at least one necessary being in the causal chain. (Defense: the only other option between contingent and necessary is an impossible being, but an impossible being is not really a being as any true being is at least possibly existent.) C6. Therefore, there is at least one necessary being in the causal chain. (C5, P9). P10. Since a contingent being is contingent insofar as it does not exist in virtue of the kind of being it is, a necessary being is such that it does exist in virtue of the kind of being it is. (P2) P11. If a necessary being is such that it does exist in virtue of the kind of being it is, then there is no real distinction between a necessary being’s existence and the kind of being it is. (Defense: If there is a real distinction between a thing’s existence and the kind of being it is, then the thing in question cannot exist simply in virtue of the kind of being it is and is thus contingent.) C7. Therefore, there is no real distinction between a necessary being’s existence and the kind of being it is. (P10, P11) P12. If there is no real distinction between a necessary being’s existence and the kind of being it is, then a necessary being is not composed of act and potency but is just Pure Actuality. (Defense: A thing’s causal powers are a kind of actuality in the thing, and the type of causal powers the thing has and the extent to which that thing can use them are determined by the kind of thing it is, so the kind of being a thing is serves as a principle of limitation in the exercising of its causal powers. So, this thing would be a composite of act and potency insofar as it is a composite of a “kind” and an act of existence since this thing’s causal powers stand in potency to its kind (nature/essence). But, if a thing’s existing is no different from the kind of being it is, then it is not a composite of a kind and an act of existence, so it does not have any principle of limitation regarding the type and extent of its causal powers, and so its causal powers do not stand in potency to a distinct kind, and since a thing’s causal powers are a type of actuality in the thing, then a being whose existence is not really distinct from the kind of thing it is and so possesses no principle of limitation is thus devoid of potentiality and so is Pure Actuality.) C8. A necessary being is not composed of act and potency but is just Pure Actuality. (C7, P12) P13. Pure Actuality is metaphysically simple precisely because it is not composed of act and potency but is just Pure Actuality. (Defense: to be metaphysically composed is just to be composed of act and potency in some way.) C9. Therefore, a necessary being is simple. (C8, P13) P14. If contingent beings exist, require an external cause for their existences, where such a causal series does not continue ad infinitum and includes at least one necessary being, where such a necessary being is Pure Actuality, then Classical Theism is true. C10. Classical theism is true. (P1, C2, C4, C6, C8, P14).
  8. My point is that regardless of whether you adhere to religion, or are a-religious in your politics you cannot escape such laws. I gave an example of how the most vocal nations about said sovereignty are in fact going above and beyond with their apostasy laws. You can't have a government that functions without it imposing its laws on its citizens, to apostate (openly) is to say that you will no longer adhere to the laws of the state. Note, there are Islamic thinkers who don't necessarily accept apostasy laws. For instance, Shaykh Hassan Farhan al-Maliki, so even this is just an intra-Islamic discussion. Do watch this video on his contention with apostasy laws (again I don't agree with him, but please don't use this as a reason to leave Islam when you have other options and perspectives) Outdated systems? Stoning adulterers, amputating thieves, and lashing fornicators is as effective as one can get in stopping these crimes. There are caveats that apply, for instance did the thief steal out of hunger, etc. I understand that you disagree with these punishments, but have you read the literature on their effectiveness? To be frank most of the latter portion of our conversation has been exclusively appealing to emotions, and feelings. We need to focus on logic, and on the data behind these punishments. Are you aware that non-Muslim academics are in fact attesting to the superiority of these punishments, take flogging for instance, Peter Moskos published a book titled in defense of flogging wherein he highlights how the punishment of flogging is far more effective and less cruel than the modern-day prison systems. These systems are anything but outdated, in the same way that arguments for the existence of God are universal. Sure, time will change, however, human nature will always remain the same and some gadgets won't cause you to evolve into some superhuman, in fact we have regressed far behind the great civilization of antiquity. It is strange you mention red-herrings when you completely shifted the goalpost from discussing the existence of God to the typical ex-Muslim tropes. The whole purpose of this thread was to discuss whether the Islamic God exists but seeing that the arguments presented were air-tight (with all due respect) you completely changed the subject. I assure you, I have no problem discussing with reason and data the other matters which you may find troubling, that is absolutely within your pejorative. However, I must admit that I was expecting something along the lines of you stating that you do find belief in the existence of Allah to be substantiated and that this is a matter which has been reconciled for you and that you'd like to discuss other matters that are troubling you as you make the way back to your Lord. That would be fairer, and more sincere - in my eyes - as opposed to just shifting the conversation and then going on the offensive as well, then insinuating that the Laws of God are 'outdated'. This is referred to as bait and switch. You found that the metaphysical end was doing no good in disproving God, so you're now seeking to undertake the route of internal critique and with quite nuanced matters at that. However, all that withstanding, I am willing to meet you wherever you'd like, but first we ought to settle fundamental matters and then we branch out to questions of governance, evil, creation, etc. I don't see the problem with what you mention, I think that it is inevitable to suppress religious freedom and when it comes to secular societies, I have already indicated how not only do communists, and capitalists see each other as sworn enemies wherein each society seeks to purge the views of the other from its nation. You seem to also have disregarded my contention to this unjustified presupposition which is that there is religious freedom today and that somehow western nations support it? Aren't the sanctions which have killed hundreds of thousands, as well as the drone strikes against Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc all due to religious practice. The freedom you speak of is non-existent in the real world. For, you may say you're against both. However, the fact of the matter is that every nation needs limits and the limit is drawn at hitting the core of a government. Again, you can completely disagree with me, our purpose for now is to just get you back to Islam. You can disagree with apostasy laws, favor democracy (in its earlier forms), and you'd be one of the most righteous Muslims in my eyes like Shaykh Hassan Farhan who I deeply revere and admire, yet don't agree with on all his views. The mistake here is to view religion through a utilitarian lens, the purpose of religion isn't mere 'utility' and if it was, then you yourself must profess belief because it is of greater utility to believe than to disbelieve. Furthermore, to claim that both systems work equally well is a cop-out, the Islamic system of governance is fundamentally different to that of the Hindus. It is also fundamentally different to that of any other religion, so even if we take the utility argument it is peculiar, and unjustified. Also, I will also add another unique point which is that if you recall, I mentioned how under an Islamic state Jews and Christians can implement their law amongst themselves. So, even if you are able to substantiate that they both work, it is not a contention against Islam because Islam itself accommodates this. Therefore, the argument is null. Also it goes without saying that Hindus believe in contingent gods. Right, what is causing you uncertainty. When I asked this, you said certain emotions and desiring a sign. To be a good human is to obey Allah in what He has obligated, and in what He has prohibited. To be lacking in either entails that a person is not good, it is incredibly consistent. In fact, if someone even has any regard with respect to goodness, then Islam once again follows. Why? Because, under a non-theistic view you have hundreds of theories of good, and bad. As an unbeliever, one cannot with all seriousness say that what they view to be the standard of good is in fact the standard of good. It is not complicated, if someone hasn't been informed of the message, then of course they will be judged differently. Also, I would like to highlight that there are other views within the Islamic discourse - which I don't necessarily agree with - that hold that salvation can even be for the Atheist, as long as they are serious and sincere. So, this in itself isn't really a contention against Islam as much as it is a contention against a theological view which is held by some sect(s) of Islam - which can be discussed after establishing more fundamentals matters. \ Here I will appeal to Shaykh Hasaan to highlight this: My sister, the reason you get mixed responses is because there are different views among sects and there are even different views among a single sect. You can enjoy traversing these grounds, and choosing what you find to be the most consistent view that you seek to adopt and you can do so while being deeply within the fold of Islam! My dear sister, we're here for you and I completely understand where you're coming from. Playing devil's advocate is an effective learning tool, and I pray that Allah guides us all to what is best. I admire your sincerity.
  9. I understand that it can be disturbing, because in reality we - those who live in the post-modern era, especially in the west - have been duped. It has been made to appear to the modern man that we all have this sense of sovereignty. However, this cannot be farther than the truth, especially with respect to those who are at the forefront in defending these notions. For instance, I am sure you're aware that apostasy laws are not exclusive to Islam. Rather, they are explicitly found in the Old Testament itself. So, the critique isn't really one that is exclusive to Muslims, instead it is one that stems from a secularist worldview. That being said, there really is no nation that doesn't have apostasy laws, in fact the west itself goes beyond what Muslims say in that these laws only apply to their respective nations. Rather, we find that the global human rights police not only seek to implement their understanding of human rights - which is constantly evolving - in their own nations, rather they go a further step in attacking, invading, and starving other sovereign nations because they simply don't agree with their views! If you want to speak about disturbing, this is disturbing. You have the freedom to implement the laws you deem fit in your land, but how do you have the audacity to go and police others who have their own sovereignty and rights to implement what they deem fit, and what their people wish. Muslims are the last people to be criticized for their laws, Muslims don't strike the innocent citizens of other nations because they don't believe in their 'human rights,' Muslims don't starve 500,000 Iraqi children in the name of democracy, in fact they don't impose their laws on second class citizens such as the Christians, and Jews who are free to judge by their own scriptures and are given their own court rooms. Again, there is a difference between having doubts, and between simply wanting to actively sway the citizens against their religion. For, if one has doubts the scholars are present, and I assure you no doubt with respect to the existence of Allah will be left. If a citizen doesn't want to be a Muslim, why persist in living in a Muslim state? They are to migrate, and if they cannot migrate, then why would they seek to cause unnecessary disruption? One won't be deemed an apostate because they stopped praying or fasting. So, I don't see where the issue is, the nation is an Islamic one after all and above all that they are given ample chances to repent (under Zaydi law) if they are trialed as apostates. With all due respect, I completely disagree, not every religion has an objectively consistent answer. For instance, the Christians themselves believe in a contingent God and any attempt to rationalize the trinity by appealing to partialism, or modalism (i) results in heresy, and (ii) is also internally contradictory. What other religions, Hinduism? I assure you; this is not a fair reading, and you are welcome to highlight how other religions are at par with Islam. In fact, the LPT is a serious matter of discussion within academia, and the only way to solve it is to appeal to mystery. However, that is equal to appealing to contradictions. Can we have feelings that are misplaced? Can we have feelings that are mistaken? Can we have feelings that are misguided? Of course, so do feelings matter in discerning truth? Certainty not. Was not your initial objection against belief in God that those who profess such belief do so on the basis of feelings, and on the basis that it makes them happier. Since that has been shown to not be the case, it seems that you're now appealing to faith instead of reason, faith in uncertain feelings in face of decisive reason. Would it not be easier for your intellect, and heart to just submit to Allah? Why work so hard to disbelieve? Of course it is not sufficient for your salvation, and the mistake is presuming that other Muslims who don't act upon the obedience of Allah will too receive salvation. This is why they don't have a response, because to them it is simply believing. However, the beginning of faith is utterance in the tongue and the reality of faith is actualizing it through action. He who has no action has no faith, so it isn't exclusive to you, it is even binding upon all Muslims, and non-Muslims. If one does not adhere to what Allah has specifically obligated of them, and specifically prohibited them from. Then, they will not receive salvation. Be they a Muslim, or otherwise. However, I must emphasize that what you have brought up can be discussed at great length, but the time for it is only after your conviction in the existence of Allah is reinstated. Are you willing to reconsider your unbelief and come back home? I invite you to experience Islam in its actual form, not in the cultural form which we have all inherited when being brought up, of superstition, lack of justification, and inconsistency.
  10. To be considered a Murtad one is to renounce their Islāmic faith, but of course there is always a way back - Zaydis don’t have a concept of Murtad fitri, and mili. I believe the severe stance of Islām against apostasy is quite wise. First, it nurtures great carefulness within the individual with respect to their decision, second it makes sense because if one was living under Islāmic rule to be vocal about leaving the faith = being vocal about not paying Zakat, not honoring the moral code, etc. Otherwise, to voice doubts is not only completely fine, but encouraged because we cannot believe unless we are certain with what we believe. Simply believing without justification is unacceptable in Islām. I value your honesty greatly, with respect to what you mention, it is true that prima facie we don’t operate in such a manner. However, it is also true we take many of our positions/views without unpacking them. For instance, we take science but don’t actively realize that to accept science is to accept a PSR, and classical logic, etc. From what I understand, you no longer have a contention with the existence of Allāh (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), so where do your concerns reside? If you cannot pinpoint it, in terms of it being a moral, or rational concern. Then, it is a personal one. If it is personal, I cannot probe at your psyche as it would be unfair for me to draw inferences that are known only by your innermost self. However, I can say that Allāh does ensure in the Qurʾān that moving away from Him results in hardship of the form which takes away the inner certainty that brings us solace. When it comes to signs, the Qurʾānic discourse is quite clear on this. We find that Allāh is constantly telling us to reflect, to traverse this world, and to contemplate over His creation and our purpose in life. The signs you seek surround you, but it is only when we rise in pursuit of them do we find them. God values effort, and those who exert effort will be rewarded with guidance which is concordant with the heart and reason. Otherwise, what signs do you seek? Are they angels that descend from the sky? You know that the matter is immediate, so we must know what we need, and how to achieve it. You value goodness, but what even is goodness to someone who has no moral code and I want you to seriously deliberate on this. What calls to good other than Allāh, truly. For, you can say that you want to do good work, but what even is good work. There is no such thing as good under a worldview that has no divine instruction, consider this a sign for the lovers of what is good - only by God do we know what good is: إِنَّا هَدَيْنَاهُ السَّبِيلَ إِمَّا شَاكِرًا وَإِمَّا كَفُورًا
  11. Even if we go by this strange sentence, the purpose of a debate is to have someone adopt your views. So, what are you trying to say exactly? Also, since all premises were accepted the conclusion follows necessarily. This is because the arguments given were deductive, and if all premises are established in a deductive argument. Then, the conclusion follows necessarily. Firstly, there is. Secondly, have you seen the millions of people who believe in God, yet commit major sins like murder, fornication, etc? Secondly, did not Pharaoh see the great signs from Moses. Yet, he still disbelieved? We give clear proofs in the same way Prophets gave clear proofs, be it in the form of rational argumentation: أَمْ خُلِقُوا مِنْ غَيْرِ شَيْءٍ أَمْ هُمُ الْخَالِقُونَ, or in the form of miracles and signs - which are not supernatural, they just go against induction. Nobody believes a logical impossibility can obtain. The reality of faith is certainty. Imam Ali has said in an established report in Zaydi, and Twelver (authentic chains) as well as reported in Nahj al-Balagha: ((The beginning of faith is knowledge of Him)). According to you, we just have a circus of belief where people just pick at what fancies them, how irrational is that proposition?
  12. I believe there can be objective certainty, especially when it comes to Allah. To accept logic and reasoning necessitates it, everywhere we look we see contingent things and we deduce - by necessity - that therefore there is something which is non-contingent and to be non-contingent is to not be arbitrarily limited. Therefore, owning all metaphysical properties. The comment of the guest individual is truly an anomaly it's as if they only read that particular post and disregarded two pages worth of argumentation, and explanation. وَبِالآخِرَةِ هُمْ يُوقِنُونَ
  13. Did you read the thread? To not believe in God is incoherent.
  14. You shouldn't be hanging out with people like that, and if your friend proclaims that such is not a sin. Then, they are outside of the fold of Islam if they knew that this is what Allah and his Messenger taught yet decided to oppose it anyway. If they believe it is a sin, but act upon it and die without repenting. Then, they will face eternal chastisement in the hellfire. Why would you care about what she thinks when she doesn't care about what Allah has decreed? Since when do the views of hypocrites, or perhaps even apostates matter? Also, you mention 'conservative' and 'progressive' Muslim as if whatever deviance she is on is legitimate. There are only Muslims, and they are those who submit to what Allah and His Messenger have decreed. We aren't afraid of homosexuals; we are afraid of Allah, and we are afraid of sin. Moreover, we should never be afraid to voice our beliefs which are guidance from the most high. Again, why does it matter what implicit kuffar, and non-believers think/say? Why do you have such an inferiority complex? This is what you need to do, surround yourself with actual Muslims. Don't allow the opinions of those who have no regard for your Lord carry any meaning for you and surround yourself with Muslims who are serious about their faith. Your interactions with non-Muslims should only be formal or done for the sake of guiding them to Islam - not appeasing them.
  15. @matrix, I am yet to see justification for your agnosticism. The metaphysical arguments which have been provided to establish - unequivocally - the existence of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) have not been shown to be contradictory and have been established to be consistent, logical, and in fact necessary entailments of reason itself. So, I ask with all due respect, why do you find it reasonable to doubt the existence of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)? I sincerely advise that you renounce your apostasy and revert to the worship and obedience of our Lord. Disbelief is unreasonable, the gain from it is nothing and the loss due to it is tremendous. Moreover, the gain from belief is tremendous, and the loss from it is nothing. That is another luminary above the clear proofs for the existence of Allah to take into deep consideration. فَبِأَيِّ آلاءِ رَبِّكُمَا تُكَذِّبَانِ
  • Create New...