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

Ayuoobi

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    262
  • Joined

  • Last visited

6 Followers

About Ayuoobi

  • Rank
    Level 2 Member

Contact Methods

  • Facebook
    https://www.facebook.com/themuslimtheist/
  • Website URL
    themuslimtheist.com

Profile Information

  • Religion
    Shia Muslim

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2,587 profile views
  1. That said you are likely to do poorly in this class if you openly challenge your mushrik professor's views. She sounds like an intolerant, radical, extremist feminist that is the leftist version of takfeeri wahhabis. She is a takfeeri. She will make takfeer of you for not adhering to her liberal mushrik religion. What you should do is pick a topic that doesn't fully clash with her worldview, such as talking about hijab as empowerment or something. Maybe try Edward Said's book Orientalism to get some leftist talking points that don't necessarily conflict with Islam.
  2. @AStruggler the general answer to this is the following: Human being is a species under the genus "animal." Other species include cows, horses, etc. In as far as a human being is an animal, he shares characteristics with all other species that fall under the genus; for example, he exists in space-time, eats, drinks, moves around in 3 dimensional space, and has a will. In as far as he is a separate species from other species under the genus "animal" he has different characteristics: for example, he thinks, has conversations, laughs, etc. If you understand this genus/species distinction (
  3. What you are talking about here is ontology. What we were talking about earlier is epistemology. Can you sense of beauty lead to Absolute Beauty i.e. Allah or not? You say no, because beauty is "subjective." I say yes. As for the arguments you presented about subjectivity, I already responded to them in the first post - the line of reasoning you offered would lead us to believe that because some people are colourblind, therefore colour is subjective as well. If you accept that, then you've more or less accepted the scientific worldview's epistemology and you've accepted a radical skepticism
  4. @eThErEaL if you look on the whole, what humanity finds beautiful is more often in agreement and disagreement. If beauty was really just a function of social upbringing, then what we'd find is that on the whole different societies would disagree about what is beautiful and would find the opposite things beautiful and disgusting. This is not the case. Almost the entirety of humanity would agree that michelangelo's sisteen chapel is beautiful, that the temples on Angkor are beautiful, and even when it comes to physical beauty standards, at least as far as body composition are concerned, are fair
  5. I encountered this meme on facebook and decided to give it a full response See full response here: http://themuslimtheist.com/how-to-respond-to-the-muslims-are-obsessed-with-sex-argument/
  6. @Mohammad313Ali read this book for a full answer: https://www.al-islam.org/islamic-political-theory-legislation-volume-1-muhammad-taqi-misbah-yazdi
  7. No, because you could use this reasoning to justify anything. I declare that you must avoid snapping your fingers because there's no evidence this *doesn't* cause cars in China to crash when you do it. What would be sensible is to conduct an investigation to find out which causes contributed and which didn't. At any rate, if the data were indeterminate, at best we could tell people to avoid all 5 factors as a precautionary measure - a matter of practical wisdom. What we could not do is declare that it is the eternal wisdom of God to avoid all 5 causes because they cause a fire. Wh
  8. You guys are taking western definitions of prostitution and applying it to Islam. In Islam, a prostitute is a woman who commits zina for money. Not marriage for money. Even if I conceded your point (which I am sympathetic to, actually, because I do think that there is something inherently wrong with the distinction between fiqh and akhlaq), this doesn't get us to saying something is haraam. You cannot get around the fact that evidence is required to make universal declarations about the Will of the Lord of the Universe. Your or my personal anecdotal evidence, your or my feelings and t
  9. I did, but it was a while ago. I think my debate reviews have to be fresh for me to really get into it. I'm not sure it would be worth it to watch Feser vs Oppy all over again. I will say, the host from Capturing Christianity seriously ruined both debates by imposing a time limit that was too short and trying to move the conversation in directions it wouldn't take place naturally. Had the livestream simply been like 3 hours straight with no interruptions, I think they would have bottomed out somewhere and Feser would have pinned Oppy at least on one or two points.
  10. The neoplatonic proof I do not think successfully prooves that the perfectly simple being must be an intellect, at least using Feser's arguments. I think you could modify the proof to make it successful. The Aristotelian proof and the Rationalist proof were particularly strong, and i think both of those are successful. The Augustinian and Thomistic proofs I will have to revist again at a later date.
  11. I haven't looked into what the fuqahaa' have said on this. Something's being disgusting does not mean it's morally wrong or that it causes long term harm. For example, I can go into the bathroom and smear feces all over my face and body, then proceed to take a shower. This is utterly disgusting, it does not mean harm has been inflicted or that there needs to be a legal prohibition on me doing so, or even that I've sinned against Allah. Consider another thing: it is perfectly permissible and legal for you to garggle your own urine. This, again, is utterly disgusting. I can give a millio
  12. If you can demonstrate there is even a significant risk of harm, then this argument makes sense. I am proposing that the very idea that non-penetrative acts are harmful really has no basis and is rooted in modern biases which come with extremely loaded metaphysical assumptions about the nature of sexuality, sexual autonomy, the atomized individual, family, and a whole other host of ideas. Do you or do you not want less control?
  13. I will admit, I was slightly trolling. It was not meant to be vicious. I suspected you wanted "less control in most other areas." What are those areas?
  14. I mean I looked it up in the dictionary. That's what it means. At any rate, this is a semantical difference. Usually children who go through this in our society are involved in situations where violence, penetration, verbal abuse, unstable households, incest, secrecy, and other factors are involved. Our perception of the harm comes because it is correlated with these other demonstrable harms. I am asking if it is something like thighing itself which is causing the harm, or these other factors. Correlation is not causation. I do know it's difficult to find that, wh
×
×
  • Create New...