Search the Community

I thought I'd share this that I read today which I thought was quite amazing:

, inshAllah for the sake of this month of Muharram, I will be sharing lectures I enjoyed watching many many years ago. I am sure there are people looking for lectures to watch on God, Islam, and Faith. I will try my best to post one every single day. Yes I love old lectures of Hassanain Rajabali. They are timeless and will always renergize and resonate with me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJyoJjpm1UY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8H-ZjbnC4U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mO4zF0PNdTo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRtpPOpHwDU

All four Gospels record Jesus as saying, "Blessed are the peace-makers; they will be called sons of God." Bible says that God is not man ‘God is not a man’ (Numbers 23:19) ‘For I am God, and not man’ (Hosea 11:9) Jesus is called a man many times in the Bible ‘a man who has told you the truth’ (John 8:40) ‘Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know.’ (Acts 2:22) ‘He will judge the world in righteousness through a man whom He has appointed’ (Acts 17:31) ‘the man Christ Jesus’ (Tim. 2:5) The Bible says that God is not a son of man ‘God is not a man nor a son of man’ (Numbers 23:19) The Bible often calls Jesus ‘a son of man’ or ‘the son of man.’ ‘so will the son of man be’ (Matthew 12:40) ‘For the son of man is going to come’ (Matthew 16:27) ‘until they see the son of man coming in His kingdom.’ (Matthew 28) ‘But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority’ (Mark 2:10) ‘because he is the son of man’ (John 5:27) In the Hebrew scriptures, the ‘son of man’ is also used many times speaking of people (Job 25:6; Psalm 80:17; 144:3; Ezekiel 2:1; 2:3; 2:6-8; 3:1-3).

Salam I am very confused regarding the concept of grasping the vision of God in Islam. There are two contradictory verses in the Quran that gives me a cognitive disambiguance. 6:103 No vision can grasp Him, but His Grasp is over all vision. He is the Most Subtle and Courteous, Well-Acquainted with all things. 2:115 And to Allah belongs the east and the west. So wherever you [might] turn, there is the Face of Allah . Indeed, Allah is all-Encompassing and Knowing. I am confused. Can we see Allah or not? 6:103 says we cannot see him but 2:115 says God is everywhere as in He is the Universe itself?

Salam Alaikum Brother and Sisters My name is Hussain Makki and I've been studying our magnificent religion for over a decade. I started a YouTube channel to breakdown and discuss our ideologies and other important topics. here's a link to the first video i posted https://youtu.be/p8V-EsNjVVA I plan to answer a range of questions such as: is religion a cult? why bother investigating if there is a God? who created the Creator? and many more topics let me know if you have any topics that are relevant and if the channel is helpful at all. many thanks

First some Introductory points: The Bab was a man who claimed he is the gate to Imam Mahdi (a.t.f.s), then claimed he is the Mahdi Himself, then he is a new Prophet and then he claimed he is God. This happened about 150 years ago in Persia. He appointed a man called Mirza Yahya Subh-i Azal as his successor and executor of his will. Mirza Yahya was the leader of the Babis until his half-brother Baha'u'llah (creator of the Baha'i cult) succeeded in sending him to the sidelines. Mirza Yahaya is greatly hated by Baha’is and regarded as one their greatest enemies. To put it in a nutshell, this is how he is viewed by Baha'is: “Mírzá Yaḥyá is scarcely spoken of, but when he is mentioned he is called Satan.” (E.G. Browne, Materials for the Study of the Babi Religion, p. 117)​What most Baha’is don’t know or will not tell you is that according to the Bab, Mirza Yahya Subh-i Azal, was God. This is how the Bab’s will to Subh-i Azal starts: “Name of Azal, testify that there is no God but I, the dearest beloved. Then testify that there is no God but you, the victorious and permanent.”​First the Bab states very explicitly that he is God (not a messenger from God or a manifestation of God, but God himself), then he tells Subh-i Azal that he too is God and should testify to this (seriously what the hell)! These statements being illogical and meaningless aside, according to the Bab Mirza Yahya Subh-i Azal is God and according to Baha’ullah he is the Satan and devil! Why should anyone takes the claims of Baha'u'llah seriously when he claims he is the one that the Bab had prophesied about when he doesn't have faith in the Bab's God and calls him Satan?And why should we take the Bab's claims seriously who claims he is God then Passes his Godhood to Mirza Yahya who is then deprived of his Godhood by Baha'u'llah and changed into satan?!Why do these people claim they are monotheists while the core of their beliefs is polytheism and belief in multiple human Gods (Baha'u'llah also claims he is God)?Where is the logic in any of these claims? Sources, scans and some other quotes here: http://www.bahaibahai.com/eng/index.php/articles?id=91

Only once did I have the feeling that [God] existed. I had been playing with matches and burned a small rug. I was in the process of covering up my crime when suddenly God saw me. I felt His gaze inside my head and on my hands. I whirled about in the bathroom, horribly visible, a live target. Indignation saved me. I flew into a rage against so crude an indiscretion, I blasphemed... He never looked at me again. Jean-Paul Sartre

So I just checked out Reza Aslan's latest book called God A Human History. I'm only in the first third, but it appears Aslan purports a pantheistic view of divinity and advocates regressing from humankind's tendency to humanize God by attributing emotion to him. How does our school approach this? Is it acceptable to essentially believe God is everything - even us.

"I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice." - Charles Darwin (1860) If God is benevolent, why did he deliberately create a natural system in which animals have no option but to cause other animals suffering? Why did he deliberately allow birth defected children to be born (both animal and human)? Why did he deliberately create all these viruses and bacteria that cause both human and animal suffering? And from a religious perspective, will the suffering of such animals be compensated? And regarding natural disasters like hurricanes, it is difficult to believe that they are sent to remind people or warn them of sins because many victims of these disasters are children and people who have lived relatively good lives. I would prefer that you guys don't cluster these questions into one question and rather answer each one specifically, unless you believe your clustered response is sufficient to address all these problems.

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم As we stated earlier, before we can answer the question “how can I know that God exists?” we must first ask the question “how do I know anything at all.” There are multiple ways that the intellect comes to know, and these modalities (or ways) of knowing are arranged hierarchically. I will go from the lowest form of knowledge to the highest – though this may seem unintuitive to the modern mind, which has been conditioned to see certainty as ordered in precisely the opposite direction. I will sort out these modern confusions as we proceed upon each level, inshaAllah. The lowest form of knowing, and the least certain is that of sense perception. “Huh? But I thought you had to see it to believe it?” you may ask. Ah, but you see sense perception deceives us all the time. We readily admit that. Sometimes we see things that aren’t really there, and sometimes what we see does not reflect reality. For instance, we perceive the earth as being flat, the sun as setting upon the horizon, the stars as being small, and if I were to put my finger in a glass of water it would appear to break due to the refraction of light. Your eyes deceive you Take a look at this clip around 12:30 where Dawkins himself says that if he were to see a direct sign of God – the heavens opening up and seeing the angels – he would still disbelieve in God. Instead, he would find it more probable that he were hallucinating, that David Blaine or some magician were playing a trick on him, or that aliens with some advanced technology could manipulate reality to make him think he were seeing what he were seeing. You can hear his own words here.... This article was originally published on themuslimtheist.com. Click here to continue reading.

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم A friend of mine sent my third post in the proof for the existence of God series to a mutual friend who is a PhD student in physics. Let’s call him Muhammad. He made a comment in response: Muhammad: I decided to send him a full length reply because I intended on posting it here, as this objection is no doubt common amongst the scientifically minded.... Click here to continue reading.

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم Despite the repeated use of the phrase “there is no proof or evidence for the existence of God,” I would imagine most atheists, and indeed most people, are unaware that there is in fact a technical difference between evidence and proof. Fittingly, the distinction between proof and evidence was initially taught to me in an introductory evolutionary biology course by an ardent atheist professor during my first year of university. My professor used this distinction to justify why she would not be receiving objections to evolution in her class. (Literally, she said that we were not allowed to question evolution or present counter evidence during the lecture, and that she would not entertain it during her office hours.) It was the most bizarre and dogmatic moment I had in my entire education, and I say this as someone who was blessed to study theology in a seminary environment for a year. Contrary to popular opinion, the seminaries are far less dogmatic when it comes to foundational beliefs, as they permit questioning the existence of God and raising objections to the proofs offered. She argued that evolution was based upon good evidence, but could never attain the status of complete certainty. It was a probabilistic argument, like virtually all of science, rather than a demonstration, as in the case of mathematical proofs (and, as we shall see, metaphysical arguments.) I still vividly remember the slide used to showcase an example of rational certainty – it was that of a triangle with some lines and an accompanying trigonometric proof. Because evolution (along with all empirical science) could never attain 100% rational certainty, she argued that it was always possible to be a skeptic, to raise objections about inductive inferences which are probabilistic at best, or to posit alternative explanations that could explain the data, no matter how improbable. Oh the irony. If scientific atheists only applied their standards consistently, they would either deny science or accept God. We will see why more clearly later on when we explore the evidence for the existence of God. But there is neither here nor there. For now, what I want to do is just go over some basic concepts in reason in order to set the table for the coming arguments... This article was originally published on themuslimtheist.com. Click here to continue reading.

Salam and hello everyone, I apologize from the get go if this sounds like a Tumblr post but I genuinely want to hear from other Shiachat lurkers regarding the titular question. Over the past few years I've had the opportunity to meet people from a multitude of backgrounds and diverse schools of thought and I was shocked by how fragile the structural integrity of my beliefs was. Everything that I've ever known was challenged, and I started to question the very nature of my existence. Now of course one could blame it on my upbringing, maybe I didn't attend enough lectures or didn't pray hard enough. It's possible, but I urge you to approach this topic pragmatically and with an open mind. Have you ever considered that there is no God and we're really the consequence of...coincidence? A magnificent one on a celestial scale, but a coincidence nonetheless? There way as well may be infinite multiverse a out there, is it really that special to have life spring up on the tiniest of planets in the tiniest of solar systems in some so and so galaxy? And if we're to put aside the sheer awesomeness of the world for a minute, what really is there to compel a belief in a God? Many of us claim that God has a destiny for us, and there's a grand plan. Things have a way of working out in the end, don't they? But what if that's all just the human mind trying to rationalize the unexplainable, or attempting to live with the fact that ultimately nothing is under its control? Haven't there been countless events in history where powerful folk used religion for political agendas such as conquer and control? Hell, some religions were born from purely those motives. Gods all around the world have similar attributes and godly stories similar themes, and I feel like the differences in belief systems only reflect the differences in circumstances, geography, history etc. The Sumerians in ancient Mesopotamia believed in Gilgamesh's Epic (origins of Noah's Ark story, some say) because their livelihood depends so deeply on the rise and recede of the Tigris and Euphrates. The Roman Empire eventually adopted Christianity because it was better suited for its imperialistic needs. The point is, each society in history had molded the concepts of a higher deity(ies) as was needed by the people of its time. Too many times I've seen Muslims poking fun at say, Hindus, for having one too many gods, but I'm a little tired of my brethren walking around like it's their birthright to walk straight into Heaven. Why should you be any more proud to be a Muslim than if you're proud to be tall or have ten fingers? The only reason I haven't completely abandoned the idea of a God is because I don't understand death. It certainly makes it easier to fathom my inevitable doom by thinking that we have a purpose. I want to, nay, I need to believe in a grand scheme if I'm to live my life not in a state of a constant existential crisis. Who's to say anyone of us is right?

Salam using scholastic realism, it is claimed that one can prove the existence of god. Can someone expand on this?

If it is past experiences that shape a person, (and those past experiences or things that happen to him, he would not be able to control, i would say that God controls what happens to a person) then if it is past experiences that make someone bad, then are his bad actions blameworthy? EDIT: i meant to say would it be his fault

I recently did an article on the existence of god on one of the threads which I think would benefit everyone: In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds, and peace and greetings be upon our Master and Prophet, Ab-al-Qassem al-Mustafa Muhammad and upon his immaculate, pure and chosen household, especially the one remaining with Allah on earth. So the topic here is about Atheism, which as an Ex-Atheist myself can say is like relying on elephants to walk on a spiders web, but unfortunately nowadays "Atheism" or how I label it as "Lack of common logic" has been equalled with being enlightened or somehow intelligent. Leaving out of course the great Muslim and Christians Scientists and Philosophers like Isaac Newton, Mullah Sadra, Ibn al-Haytham etc. out of the picture completely but nevertheless let us dive into this. First Question: Is the universe Eternal? Well there are many reasons why the universe cannot have existed forever: The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: The Second Law of Thermodynamics is about the quality of energy. It states that as energy is transferred or transformed, more and more of it is wasted. (https://www.livescience.com/50941-second-law-thermodynamics.html) So if the universe was eternal how come we still find ourselves with energy? Why has it not been wasted already if our universe had existed for ever? The Theory of relativity: Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity means that the universe had a beginning and was not eternal as he had previously believed (Einstein was originally a pantheist). His theory proved that the universe is not a cause, but instead one big effect—something brought it into existence. Einstein disliked his end result so much that he introduced a “fudge factor” into his theory that allowed for an eternal universe. But there was only one problem. His fudge factor required a division by zero in his calculations—a mathematical error any good math student knows not to make. When discovered by other mathematicians, Einstein admitted his error calling it “the greatest blunder of my life.” After his acknowledgment, and upon confirming further research that showed the universe expanding just as his theory of relativity predicted, Einstein bowed to the fact that the universe is not eternal. Galaxy seeds: Scientists believe that, if the Big Bang is true (first, there was nothing, then, BANG, something came into being), then temperature “ripples” should exist in space, and it would be these ripples that enabled matter to collect into galaxies. To discover whether these ripples exist, the Cosmic Background Explorer – COBE – was launched in 1989 to find them, with the findings being released in 1992. What COBE found was perfect/precise ripples that, sure enough, enable galaxies to form. The radiation echo: Bell Labs scientists in 1965. What is it? It is the heat afterglow from the Big Bang. Its discovery dealt a death blow to any theory of the universe being in a steady state because it shows instead that the universe exploded. Hydrogen turning into helium: In the basic Hydrogen fusion cycle, four Hydrogen nuclei (protons) come together to make a Helium nucleus. If the universe is eternal then how come we still have hydrogen? Why has it not already turn into helium? This is as far science can go with my argument, since now on it is based on Mathematics, Logic and Philosophy. Some Atheists insist that energy could have exited at a quantum level, however there are 3 major flaws in this: 1) How can the laws of the universe apply before the universe even existing? 2) How can this simple quantum energy create such precision in the universe we reside in? There is something interesting they point out by saying ' This energy could've needed some time to heat up and BOOM! Flaws: 1) Time is an aspect that governs this universe. 2) This is implies an impossible infinity. For example, if someone tells you he has been counting down since infinity for ever and has recently reached the number 2,1,0,-1 etc. How come he has reached these numbers now? Has he not had a infinite amount of time to reach this level? There are many Mathematical and logical aspects to this, I do not have the knowledge to further delve into this matter therefore I move on. Could the universe have come out of nothing? This is as absurd as saying that my glass of water came into existence out of nothing, but let us look at the law of non-contradiction: In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (or the law of contradiction (PM) or the principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) is the second of the three classic laws of thought. It states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction) So how can there be nothing but then out of absolute nothingness get something like mass or laws etc? Could the universe have been merely by simple chance? The word renowned math mathematician Roger Penrose who is a friend of Stephen Hawkings delved into this and found out this was the number: 1/10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123. Let me point out that mathematically a number is 1/10 to the power of 50 it is regarded as 0 probablity. As Penrose puts it, that is a “number which it would be impossible to write out in the usual decimal way, because even if you were able to put a zero on every particle in the universe, there would not even be enough particles to do the job.” A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” –Cambridge University astrophysicist and mathematician Fred Hoyle . “Fred Hoyle and I differ on lots of questions, but on this we agree: a common sense and satisfying interpretation of our world suggests the designing hand of a superintelligence.” –Former Harvard University Research Professor of Astronomy and the History of Science Owen Gingerich, who is now the senior astronomer at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. Gingerich is here reflecting on Fred Hoyle’s above comment. For those in search of truth I recommend this website: http://godevidence.com If you want me to continue with these kind of posts on this thread please leave a reply saying yes or no.

Salaam Alaykum, Hope you all enjoy this new piece of work I have written and recorded. God and Family Over Everything https://soundcloud.com/thesoulfulpoet/ties

Salamualaykum It has come to my attention that neither Atheists nor Theists believe that there was ever "nothing" to begin with, and that there was always "something". A strong argument of mine has always been the absurdity of something coming from nothing. However, Atheists do believe that something had to have existed. My question is, how do we narrow that "something" down to the God of Islam? What qualities must that "something" have and why? Just to give you an example, one quality I am sure of is that this "something" can exist without an environment. Something that doesn't need air, food or water to exist. That disqualifies every current living thing on this earth. Your input will be very much appreciated. By the way, do not forget about the quantum realm. WS

It is a paper and you won't find it in English anywhere. Adab of Dua(Methods of Dua) or how you supplicate so that is accepted by God Almighty. Here is the list: 1)search for the right time, there are very important times for supplication(Dua), like the night of Thursday, Friday, Day of Arafah, Month of Ramadhan, in the morning(after morning prayer), Nights of Qadr, etc. 2)search for holy and pure sites and places, like holy mosques, Masjid al-Haram(the Holy Mosque), Holy Shrines of Imam Ma'someen, especially Haram/Shrine of the Holy Prophet(s) and the Shrine of Aba Abdillah al-Hussain; the acceptance of Dua in Holy Shrine of Imam Hussain is guaranteed in traditions, Haram of the sons and daughters of Imams, etc. 3)during Nuzul of Rahmah, while God's mercy is bestowed upon us, like during rain and snow and ... between Adhan and Iqama, after Wajib Salaat(five obligatory prayers) and ... are states in which responding(Istijabat) of Dua is very close 4)wearing pure clothes during supplication, tahir, good smell etc. 5)having Wudhu(ritual purity) 6)facing the Qibla is one of Adab(etiquette) of Dua 7)begging like beggars towards God, keeping up the hands to the sky, while supplicating 8)praying with humbleness and piety following part two, God willing...

Another version of the Proof of the Sincere given by Sadr al-Muta’alihin occurs in his commentary on the passage from the Qur’an: “Allah witnesses that there is no god but He” (3:17). Mulla Sadra writes: Know that the greatest of proofs and firmest of ways, the brightest path, the most noble and most secure is reasoning to the essence (dhat) of a thing by its essence (dhat). And that which is the most manifest of things is the nature of absolute existence (al-wujud al-mutlaq) in so far as it is absolute, and it is the Truth (haqiqah) of the Necessary Itself, the Exalted, and there is nothing except the First Truth (al-Haqq al-Awwal) which is the Truth (haqiqah) of existence itself, for whatever is other than It is either a whatness (mahiyyah), or an imperfect existence mixed with imperfection, or impotence and nothingness. There is nothing among them to be an instance of the meaning of existence by its essence (dhat). The Necessary Existent is pure existence than which nothing is more complete [more properly an instance of existence]. It has no limit [or definition] and has no end and it is not mixed with any other thing, whether a universality or specificity, nor [is It mixed with] one attribute in contrast to another besides existence. So we say: If there were not a Truth of Existence in existence, there would not be anything in existence, for whatever is other than the Truth of Existence is either a whatness (mahiyyah), and it is obvious that in respect to its essence (dhat) it would be other than existent, or it is an imperfect and incomplete existence, so there would be no alternative but to require composition and specification at a determined level and specific limit of all existence. Then a cause would be needed to complete its existence, and that which limits by a specific limit and brings it from potentiality to actuality and from contingency to necessity, for everything whose truth is not the truth of existence will not in its essence require existence, and neither will its ipseity require a specific limit of existence. So it will need something to dominate and limit it to benefit it with a determinate level. And that is the preponderant that is prior in existence to all, with a priority in simplicity over the composed, over the imperfect, the rich over the poor, and the gracious over the graced. So the Truth of the First Truth is the proof of its essence (dhat) and is the proof of all things. As is said by God: “Is it not sufficient for your Lord that He is a witness over all things?” (41:53) So this is the way of the Sincere, those who rely upon Him by Himself and who reason from Him to Him and who witness by His existence to other things, not by the existence of things to Him.[1] Here again, we find elements drawn from the Muslim peripatetics and from the ‘urafa. The passage begins with an affirmation of the Sufi claim that the sole reality is God, identified with absolute existence: “there is nothing except the First Truth (al-Haqq al-awwal) which is the Truth (haqiqah) of existence itself”. In order to prove that absolute existence must be God, i.e., the Necessary Existent, it is argued that no other candidate is independent, not whatness, not existence mixed with imperfection, and certainly not impotence and nothingness. So, if there is a God, it must be pure absolute existence, and if it can be shown that this Truth of Existence itself exists, is instantiated, this will amount to a proof of the existence of God. The next move is typical of the ‘urafa. It is claimed that if there were no Necessary Existent, no Truth of Existence, then there would be nothing at all. At this point, however, Sadra ceases to follow the line of the Sufis and takes a more peripatetic form of reasoning, claiming that the Truth of Existence is needed by all other existents as a cause. Whatness by itself cannot be responsible for existence, for if we consider merely the properties exhibited by reality, it will be a contingent fact that they are instantiated. If someone claims that there is no pure existence but only mixed imperfect existences, Sadra replies that they rely upon pure existence in two respects. First, the imperfect existent will require a cause, since no imperfect being in and of itself can be responsible for its own existence; and second, a cause is needed for the imperfect to determine its level of limited actuality, for the imperfect will not be able to determine a specific level or grade of being for itself on its own, but needs to be dominated from above, as it were. As in the statement in the Asfar, we find reference to the Sufi theme of the unity of existence, but this comes to be explicated in terms of the major principles of Sadra’s own transcendental philosophy: the fundamentality of existence and the gradedness of existence. Necessary and contingent are defined in terms of causal dependence, as in Ibn Sina, and the ultimate cause is then shown to be the Truth of existence. There is also a discussion of the Proof of the Sincere in the Epilogue to his Kitab al-masha’ir.[2] Here it is first admitted that there are many paths toward God, but that the strongest and most noble is that in which He alone can be the middle term of the argument, and that this direct route is that of the Prophets and of the Sincere. The discussion is punctuated with passages from the Qur’an, including those mentioned regarding the Proof of the Sincere by Ibn Sina. Those who take the route of the Sincere first consider the reality or Truth of existence, haqiqat al-wujud, and understand that this is the principle or origin (‘asl) of each thing, and that this is the Necessary Existent. Contingency, need and privation do not attach to existence because of its haqiqah, but because of flaws and privations external to this original haqiqah. This realization is said to give rise to an understanding of the unity of the Divine Attributes, and then from the Attributes to the qualities of His states and their effects. Then it is confessed that the sun of haqiqah arises from ‘irfan (gnosis), by which it is known that existence is a simple haqiqah, without genus, difference, definition, description or proof. The differences among the particular instances of reality are attributed to differences in grade of perfection, causal priority and independence. Pure existence is identified with infinite intensity of being, ultimate perfection. All other existences are of various degrees of imperfect existence. It is denied that deficiency in existence is implied by the Truth of Existence itself, because deficiency is a privation lacking positive ontological status. Rather, limitation and imperfection are a by-product of creation, since the effect is necessarily inferior to its cause. In his al-Hikmat al-arshiyah we find yet another statement of the Proof of the Sincere by Sadr al-Muta’alihin.[3] This work opens with the definition of the Truth of Existence as pure being without the admixture of generality or particularity, limits, whatness, imperfection or privation. This pure being is identified with God, the Necessary Existent, and it is argued that if the Truth of existence did not exist, nothing would exist. This is taken to establish the existence of the Truth of existence. In order to show that the Truth of Existence possesses necessary existence, it is argued that everything which exists imperfectly depends on being while pure being itself depends on nothing. The imperfect is that which results from the mixture or composition of being with some whatness or particularity. That which is mixed is posterior to and dependent on its simple elements. The element of whatness is really a privation or limitation of being without any independent reality of its own, so the imperfect is totally dependent on the perfect. Mixed being is dependent on the Truth of existence which itself is without need of anything. This statement is followed by another argument which is similar to that given by such ‘urafa as Ibn Turkah and al-Jami, to the effect that true predication presumes being: For to affirm any concept of something and to predicate it of that thing—whether (the concept be) a whatness or some other attribute, and whether it be affirmed or denied of something—always presupposes the being of that thing. Our discussion always comes back to Being: either there is an infinite regression (of predications and subjects) or one arrives in the end at an Absolute Being, unmixed with anything else.[4] The philosophical theology which finds expression here is far from any sort of pantheistic identification of the world or nature with God, but rather is an attempt to strike a balance between extreme immanence and extreme transcendence while retaining both. The pantheistic tendency sacrifices transcendence for the sake of immanence while more traditional theologies do the reverse. In Sadr al-Muta’alihin, divine immanence is maintained by identifying the deity with existence, while transcendence is maintained by insisting that what is meant here is not the imperfect world, but absolutely pure existence. The synthesis discovered by Mulla Sadra has inspired and continues to inspire numerous commentaries and elaborations on the themes of his philosophy. [1]Sadr al-Din Shirazi, Asrar al-ayat, ed. Muhammad Khajavi (Tehran: Iranian Academy of Philosophy, 1981), pp. 25-26. [2]Translated by Parviz Morewedge as The Metaphysics of Mulla Sadra (New York: The Society for the Study of Islamic Philosophy and Science, 1992). [3]Translated as The Wisdom of the Throne by James Winston Morris (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981). [4]Ibid., p. 96. Can someone explain this argument to me in simpler words. It seems really hard to grasp

I'll keep it brief. Firstly, why do we need a God? Secondly, why does God need to be one? Lastly, why does this God have to the Muslim's God? Looking for detailed answers with one principal reason, not too interested in anecdotal evidence, rather objective evidence if it is necessary.

Salam I was wondering what our fellow brothers/sisters thought of about this video below if you care to watch: it is an explanation of the trinity that does sound nice but I have no clue as to what the point was... a little lost and wondering if someone could help me understand what RZ was trying to say here?

[ jr7 alhussain ] present Artitst - Ahmed qurban latmeya - لقاء الله place - manama horra graveyard mosque new - 1438

If our Prophet Muhammad (P.b.u.H) had been sent in this era, would you even consider His teachings? If yes.... Have you been open-minded enough to consider other religions or ideas that are against the teachings of your forefathers? :ideas-worth-pondering: