Search the Community

Religion defines “science,” knowledge, differently from secularism. A religious concept of knowledge does not regard empiricism as primary, or central to faith. The senses’ observation(s) is at best an aid to faith, not the basis thereof. Nor is natural law or common sense, both of which are derived from the senses, the foundation of faith. Faith in tradition, on the other hand, is central to the acceptance of creeds, dogmas, and rituals. Whether or not these contradict human experience is immaterial to one’s faith in them: for religion is based on that which is largely imperceptible to mere created beings—the spiritual realm. To illustrate: even if, say, homosexuality were to produce absolutely no measurable, demonstrable, visible harm(s) in this world, a religious believer would still pronounce anathema on its being practiced, solely on the basis of received tradition that regards sodomy as a grave spiritual sin. In Islam the heart, not the mind, is the pivot of faith. The heart is regarded as primary: if the heart is sealed, nothing changes/happens; all else is futile. The Qur’ān does stress reflection, of course, but a reflection that takes place in the heart, from which all else flows. All else is secondary. In other words, one “knows” the Truth through the heart, not the mind, and therefore one needs no evidence. That is why the Qur’ān chides people who base their faith on miracles or signs; many of those who saw the Prophet’s miracle(s) and sign(s) did not believe in their hearts. If this is the case, then how can Islam be proven to be truer than another faith? How does one prove that a certain Islamic practice is truer than, say, a Christian or Hindu one? How can one prove that an Islamic belief is truer than a Jewish or Buddhist one?

How have we reconciled our faith in the miracles of the Prophets (a) with reasoning and rationality? And how does that play out with the miraculous claims from other religions - such as the existence of a tripartite God or a five-headed God or a God who can manifest into a monkey-human and fly across a country? Why are those 'unreasonable' but ours are totally reasonable?

I was having a discussion with an individual over the credibility of the Qur'an and he went on to quote 71:16 and sent me two videos as well as saying no Muslim exegete says the moon is a reflected light. I would highly appreciate a more knowledgeable brother/sister to clarify These are the videos he shared ^ He said that there shouldn’t be any differing between the exegetes since the Qur'an is a clear book and it should be evident when it comes to the moon being a source or reflection of light, would highly appreciate clarification

Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the museum’s Hayden Planetarium, put the odds at 50-50 that our entire existence is a program on someone else’s hard drive. “I think the likelihood may be very high http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/ There's a billion to one chance we're living in base reality," Elon Musk http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/2/11837874/elon-musk-says-odds-living-in-simulation The Holy Quran in many places refers to this world being deceiving and nothing but a play and amusement. Talks about the things we eat here we shall eat there only that it will taste better, like something we have never tasted. So could we be living in a simulation?

(salam) A christian has asked me that Why Quran has mentioned that male sperms originate from between the back and the ribs. I could not answer him because of my little knowledge. Any one can help? (bismillah) خُلِقَ مِنْ مَاءٍ دَافِقٍ {6} يَخْرُجُ مِنْ بَيْنِ الصُّلْبِ وَالتَّرَائِبِ {7} [Shakir 86:6] He is created of water pouring forth, [Shakir 86:7] Coming from between the back and the ribs.

You can share who and why you choose them as your favorite.

This recent virus got me reading about soap as a disinfectant. The process seems simple, through chemical reaction between two elements (fat + potassium or sodium hydroxide) but its use is of utmost importance and is a central element of cleanliness and purity, which always played a great role in all faiths. This, combined to the historical proofs than soap may have emerged in holy lands (Sumer or Syria) lead me to wondering : could it be that the process of making soap was a holy science inspired by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) to His saints ? Also on the same pattern, Qur'an tells us how Allah taught Dawud (عليه السلام) to make the iron soft... So looking at the big picture, are there holy sciences that were taught by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) to prophets or appointed ones in our sources, or even in other religious texts ?

A discussion on reason, consciousness, and free will through the lense of evolution. I am putting this in the atheism section as the discussion is hosted by non believers (though miller of course is catholic).

Salam, I was wondering if you respected brothers and sisters could enlighten me when it comes to answering such claims pertaining to the eye and how atheists use such an argument as a means against intelligent design. And if the Islamic consensus can be provided in regards to certain statements made. The eye began as a simple organ and evolved with time gradually. The eye evolved through an evolutionary means of unguided process. There should be no blind spot in the vertebrate eye if it were intelligently designed. The eye is not wired to meet the highest degree of visual quality. Further reading and the source in which these points were extrapolated from: https://evolutionnews.org/2018/04/is-the-human-eye-really-evidence-against-intelligent-design/

I wish to share my thoughts on the concept of Unity. To do that, I have a perspective which is a cumulation of all the experiences of my life put together. My perspective may have a bias since it is a combination of the realities that I have lived and observed at different points in time. In order to explain my thoughts, I am compelled to make the best use of my language skills. I believe the English Language is one of the most, if not THE most spoken languages in contemporary times. I start off by introducing myself to the reader. I like to think of myself as a being that is subject to constant evolution. Evolution in the form of mind, body, brain, soul, spirit, etc. So in order to understand me, the reader should have a basic understanding of the concept of Unity, Duality, Multiplicity, and Infinity. Since only certain things can be explained at any one point in time (because time is relative), my goal here is to explain the concept of Unity. In Arabic (the language of the Arab people), Unity is analogous to the concept of 'Tawhid'. But in order to continue in English, I will have to proceed and due to my limitations to explain this concept, and the readers' limitations to understand this concept, I will have to improvise. Understanding Unity via Duality can be done in countless ways. The way I wish to do so is through the relativity of time. Basically, in order to explain Unity to you, I will keep time as a constant for a short period of time. It is at my discretion (at present) to pick a point in time to explain to you the concept as I am the speaker and you are the listener (presumably). The point of time that I pick is one from history. I have picked it because of its significance in countless ways, depending on the observer of time. The date I've picked is the 10th of October 680 C.E (Common Era). Since I am explaining Unity through Duality, I would now like to divide the recording of time in history via two methods already used. The Gregorian Calendar (the 12 months commonly used today, supposed to have marked the beginning of the Common Era, following the birth of Jesus Christ) and The Hijri Calendar (the 12 months commonly used by the Muslim population of the world, following the migration of Muhammad to Mecca). 10th of October in the Gregorian Calendar coincides with the 10th of Muharram in the Hijri Calendar. More specifically, 10th October 680 C.E = 10th Muharram 61 A.H. Since we are now keeping 'time' a 'constant', we have limited 'space' to keep making progress. So, in a few words, Unity explained via Duality means that at it's most basic, yet Absolute, Unity means two things (keeping in mind that time is NOT a constant). As we understand, Unity exists via space relative to time. I repeat, Duality of Unity is known in contemporary times as the Space-Time continuum. Do we understand the Space-Time continuum? Maybe, maybe not. I'd prefer to think that we do understand this continuum. You, me, we, all of us understand it in a different way. Coming back to time. To conclude this, on the 10th of October 680 C.E. (10th of Muharram 61 A.H.), an event took place. ONE event, best explained to be a combination of Infinite events, held at the same point in time for Existence to comprehend the Infinite potential of mankind in the form of Duality. The Duality of Right vs. Wrong. The Duality of Truth vs. Falsehood. The Duality of Being a Creation Vs. The Creator. As long as we can compel ourselves to observe all of history via the concept of Unity and applying Duality at it constantly, it will only be by a miracle that we don't/can't SEE the truth, HEAR the truth, FEEL the truth. Anything and Everything else is just pure coincidence. The End.

Pernkopf's Atlas was a book of anatomy written by a Nazi during the third Reich and is renowned for its detailed diagrams of the anatomy of man, showing muscle and nerve illustrations unrivalled by any other book. Aside from being written by a Nazi, the diagrams and information were obtained from people dissected by Nazis during the Shoah (Holocaust). In a BBC article, a surgeon used the book to save a man's leg when she was unable to locate a nerve by conventional means. So, in your view, do you agree with the use of unethical methods to get to ethical results?

Scientism https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/scientism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientism ***** Scientism is the belief System that propagates that the Scientific method(s) has No limits/Constraints and Scientific methods can be be applied to almost All aspects of life. Something that governs all aspects of human life. Is called a Religion (A way of Life). Science provides an Explanation for Everything. Is it essentially a man made religion- where Science is the deity(0nly Source of everything), its followers ( the Scientists and the followers(ummah) of these Scientists/prophets) worship Science its rituals(methods), and its results.?

Salam un Alaikum, Ya Ali a.s madad I want to ask about the status of genetically modified food in the Islamic Shariah and opinions of all sects of Islam about GM food... Is it halal or what?

Why is belief in God so widespread? The Islamic answer is that it's because mankind has a God-given fitra, or innate tendency to believe in God. This wasn't the answer atheists typically gave. For Marx, religion was something propagated by the oppressive ruling class, to control the masses, 'the opium of the people'. The 19th century anthropologist Tyler explained religion as a primitive attempt to explain life and death. For Freud, religion was a means to control the Oedipal complex, wish fulfillment, and means to control the outside world. For sociologist Rodney Stark, religious beliefs act as 'compensators' for failures to attain certain goals. Add to this list all other possible secular sociological explanations and anthropological explanations. Any one of these theories could have been proven to be the true and complete explanation, and refuted the Islamic explanation of fitra. And yet, according to the findings of contemporary Science, in the words of atheist Professor of Psychology Alison Gopnik: Islam is right: we do have an innate tendency or fitra to believe in God. It's not because of class struggle, or compensation, or brain-washing. Does this prove that God gave us this innate tendency? No, I'm not claiming that. For psychologists who aren't keen on religion, it's a mistaken innate tendency to attribute teleology and intentionality to everything - of course they aren't going to say that it's God-given. What I am claiming is that Science has confirmed a claim of religion, specifically Islam and some versions of Christianity, that we have an innate tendency to believe in God. Science has proven the existence of the fitra, in a very basic sense. This is just one of many other instances in which Science has confirmed the religious worldview in some way or another, e.g. Big Bang cosmology showing the Universe had a beginning, fine tuning in its various forms pointing to design, falsity of determinism undermining classical materialism, psi research and NDEs showing that we aren't our brains etc. The list isn't exhaustive.

Salam aleikoum, "Then eat from all the fruits and follow the ways of your Lord laid down [for you]." There emerges from their bellies a drink, varying in colors, in which there is healing for people. Indeed in that is a sign for a people who give thought." In Surah Nahl, verse 69 (16:69), Allah swt says that a healing liquid comes from the bellieS of the female bee (butuniha). If you check this link (http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=16&verse=69#(16:69:1)) you will see that butuniha means several stomachs for one single female bee. The translator should have written 'its bellies'. Science says that a female bee has indeed two stomachs, one called the honey stomach and the other being a 'normal' stomach for her own digestion. The content of the honey stomach is regurgitated into other bees mouth and then placed into a cell, this is how honey is made. According to the first link I posted below, there is a valve between the two stomachs and only the content of the honey stomach is transferred to other bees. https://honeybeesuite.com/honey-is-not-bee-vomit/ ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZlEjDLJCmg&t=98s But the Holy Quran says that the healing liquid comes from its bellies, not from its belly. I know that butuniha has several meanings but I am confused. How do you interpret this verse? Jazakh Allah khair.

Islamic studies professor refutes famous Neil degrasse Tyson video on islam and science

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.

The truth is that science has a bad reputation when it comes to accepting new ideas. As scientists, we like to think we are calm, objective, unbiased champions of the evidence. But if the evidence changes the paradigm, it often squanders the life's work of many proud people. This is just as true today as it was back in 1906 ... Scientists are not the paragons of mutual camaraderie we might imagine them to be – all hell-bent on uniting under one banner to seek the truth. They are human. Big intellects bring big egos. In Pursuit of Memory by Joseph Jebelli

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170920182116.htm Coral bleaching. Credit: © Richard Carey / Fotolia In the past 540 million years, the Earth has endured five mass extinction events, each involving processes that upended the normal cycling of carbon through the atmosphere and oceans. These globally fatal perturbations in carbon each unfolded over thousands to millions of years, and are coincident with the widespread extermination of marine species around the world. The question for many scientists is whether the carbon cycle is now experiencing a significant jolt that could tip the planet toward a sixth mass extinction. In the modern era, carbon dioxide emissions have risen steadily since the 19th century, but deciphering whether this recent spike in carbon could lead to mass extinction has been challenging. That's mainly because it's difficult to relate ancient carbon anomalies, occurring over thousands to millions of years, to today's disruptions, which have taken place over just a little more than a century. Now Daniel Rothman, professor of geophysics in the MIT Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences and co-director of MIT's Lorenz Center, has analyzed significant changes in the carbon cycle over the last 540 million years, including the five mass extinction events. He has identified "thresholds of catastrophe" in the carbon cycle that, if exceeded, would lead to an unstable environment, and ultimately, mass extinction. In a paper published in Science Advances, he proposes that mass extinction occurs if one of two thresholds are crossed: For changes in the carbon cycle that occur over long timescales, extinctions will follow if those changes occur at rates faster than global ecosystems can adapt. For carbon perturbations that take place over shorter timescales, the pace of carbon-cycle changes will not matter; instead, the size or magnitude of the change will determine the likelihood of an extinction event. Taking this reasoning forward in time, Rothman predicts that, given the recent rise in carbon dioxide emissions over a relatively short timescale, a sixth extinction will depend on whether a critical amount of carbon is added to the oceans. That amount, he calculates, is about 310 gigatons, which he estimates to be roughly equivalent to the amount of carbon that human activities will have added to the world's oceans by the year 2100. Does this mean that mass extinction will soon follow at the turn of the century? Rothman says it would take some time -- about 10,000 years -- for such ecological disasters to play out. However, he says that by 2100 the world may have tipped into "unknown territory." "This is not saying that disaster occurs the next day," Rothman says. "It's saying that, if left unchecked, the carbon cycle would move into a realm which would be no longer stable, and would behave in a way that would be difficult to predict. In the geologic past, this type of behavior is associated with mass extinction." History follows theory Rothman had previously done work on the end-Permian extinction, the most severe extinction in Earth's history, in which a massive pulse of carbon through the Earth's system was involved in wiping out more than 95 percent of marine species worldwide. Since then, conversations with colleagues spurred him to consider the likelihood of a sixth extinction, raising an essential question: "How can you really compare these great events in the geologic past, which occur over such vast timescales, to what's going on today, which is centuries at the longest?" Rothman says. "So I sat down one summer day and tried to think about how one might go about this systematically." He eventually derived a simple mathematical formula based on basic physical principles that relates the critical rate and magnitude of change in the carbon cycle to the timescale that separates fast from slow change. He hypothesized that this formula should predict whether mass extinction, or some other sort of global catastrophe, should occur. Rothman then asked whether history followed his hypothesis. By searching through hundreds of published geochemistry papers, he identified 31 events in the last 542 million years in which a significant change occurred in Earth's carbon cycle. For each event, including the five mass extinctions, Rothman noted the change in carbon, expressed in the geochemical record as a change in the relative abundance of two isotopes, carbon-12 and carbon-13. He also noted the duration of time over which the changes occurred. He then devised a mathematical transformation to convert these quantities into the total mass of carbon that was added to the oceans during each event. Finally, he plotted both the mass and timescale of each event. "It became evident that there was a characteristic rate of change that the system basically didn't like to go past," Rothman says. In other words, he observed a common threshold that most of the 31 events appeared to stay under. While these events involved significant changes in carbon, they were relatively benign -- not enough to destabilize the system toward catastrophe. In contrast, four of the five mass extinction events lay over the threshold, with the most severe end-Permian extinction being the farthest over the line. "Then it became a question of figuring out what it meant," Rothman says. A hidden leak Upon further analysis, Rothman found that the critical rate for catastrophe is related to a hidden process within the Earth's natural carbon cycle. The cycle is essentially a loop between photosynthesis and respiration. Normally, there is a "leak" in the cycle, in which a small amount of organic carbon sinks to the ocean bottom and, over time, is buried as sediment and sequestered from the rest of the carbon cycle. Rothman found that the critical rate was equivalent to the rate of excess production of carbon dioxide that would result from plugging the leak. Any additional carbon dioxide injected into the cycle could not be described by the loop itself. One or more other processes would instead have taken the carbon cycle into unstable territory. He then determined that the critical rate applies only beyond the timescale at which the marine carbon cycle can re-establish its equilibrium after it is disturbed. Today, this timescale is about 10,000 years. For much shorter events, the critical threshold is no longer tied to the rate at which carbon is added to the oceans but instead to the carbon's total mass. Both scenarios would leave an excess of carbon circulating through the oceans and atmosphere, likely resulting in global warming and ocean acidification. The century's the limit From the critical rate and the equilibrium timescale, Rothman calculated the critical mass of carbon for the modern day to be about 310 gigatons. He then compared his prediction to the total amount of carbon added to the Earth's oceans by the year 2100, as projected in the most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC projections consider four possible pathways for carbon dioxide emissions, ranging from one associated with stringent policies to limit carbon dioxide emissions, to another related to the high range of scenarios with no limitations. The best-case scenario projects that humans will add 300 gigatons of carbon to the oceans by 2100, while more than 500 gigatons will be added under the worst-case scenario, far exceeding the critical threshold. In all scenarios, Rothman shows that by 2100, the carbon cycle will either be close to or well beyond the threshold for catastrophe. "There should be ways of pulling back [emissions of carbon dioxide]," Rothman says. "But this work points out reasons why we need to be careful, and it gives more reasons for studying the past to inform the present."

I like to solicit your constructive comments on the following Idea. Science has penetrated our lives and how important it has become. To the extent that some are using as a the only tool to understand the Higher realities and shunning philosophy/religion. Are we been misled here, by the glamour and newnes of something that we have just started to discover. Are we worshiping Science as new God. When man discovered fire, it was a new discovery, probably started worshiping it. Creation of the Universe(as we know of it), is been described as something out of nothing, our out of a singularity, or a single dot that contained all that we see today, and the process is described as a random process which took place over billions of years and different processed Evolved and formed new elements and stars and galaxies and basically, environment based evolution. Random, with no DNA/Map that it followed. How is it different from these processes> Potential or every thing/building blocks on everything/ existed in the following processes. Process: A fertilized human egg to full grown Human. Process: A seed to full grown giant Sequoia tree Process: Singularity to Current Universe What Science describes with much fanfare and dramatization (if you watch any Bigbang Video) Imagine a video describing the the initial stages of a fertilized human egg and all stages/periods with the development it goes(all subsystems and processes) through till it reach adulthood(full complete body). Or a growth of a Sequoia Tree seed, all steps till its a Giant Tree. We know that all the different stages of development, have a guide and its the DNA, same is true for a Sequoia Tree, it follows a map. Similarly, if you substitute the scientific terminology and fanfare with simple periods of stages and describe each stages from Singularity to what we know of the universe. Its has followed a map, its systems are growing according to a pre defined system(at a Macro level).

Salamun Alaykum. We should all feel guilty of what has been done to our Islam (Shia Islam). We have heard so many breath taking ahadeeth from Ahlulbayt(a.s) on "Knowledge" and how it is better even than the blood of martyrs. But if we see our situation in the Globe "Where are WE??" Are we even close? On one hand where our Ulema e Ekraam have established a Legacy of being THE BEST intellectually in the field of Islamic Science but on the other hand the people who are responsible to grow the community in other fields such as Tech, Medicine, Astronomy, Physics, Chemical Science etc etc and the list goes on. Why so? What has caused us be far behind those who don't deserve to be there. Holy Prophet(saws) said "Knowledge is the lost entity of a believer." And I don't remember the exact hadeeth but it goes like this - (narrated from 5th and 5th Imam(a.s)) - "Those who are not on the top among the peers and claim to be our shia have false claims, They are not our Shia." What are some root causes we are lagging behind so much? Where world is growing day by day the gap between us and them is going even even more wider. Also after the advent of Social Media the "Wonderful" has taken place. More than half of us have lost our interest + time from studies. Rather I should say We have been largely deviated. Lets draw a line of comparison between the lives of Ulema who are pursuing Islamic science as their knowledge sphere and on the contrary We who are into the Worldly Sciences. Our Greater Ulemas are so much immersed into their studies (Allamah Tabatabai (r.a) is one of the greatest examples) that they don't even have the time to talk unnecessarily. Their life is filled with knowledge and they don't show any sign of arrogance. They are the real embodiment of the lives of Prophets of Allah. But we as the follower of Wordly Science are neither immersed into it nor we are creating a legacy out of it. The families of Ulemas have a chain of Ulemas in their Lineage. But we don't have such chains. If we do have this just Imagine - "How many levels can we grow from our status quo!" I see Iran as a Global Example of how they have established a greater Legacy in Both the Spheres of lives - Religious studies and Worldly Sciences. Please if you all have any solutions of how a global student community can be setup to bring a revolution in this sphere of life then please drop your ideas. And Tag people in this post so that they do notice where are we heading!

Salam, Here's a fantastic article/manifesto for a post-materialist sciences. http://www.explorejournal.com/article/S1550-8307(14)00116-5/fulltext Read it carefully. Some of the scientific findings do not easily fit with Shia ideology or Islam. Let me know what you think. Thanks!

Can anyone here give me some channels/sites where I can learn more about the beliefs of Shia, Sunni, Salafi, science etc. Because Ramadan is about learning too! Now I am a Shia, and I have the proof for the Shia are right, but I want to know what my brothers believe in (But I do not think Salafi see me as a brother...)

Bismillah, Allahumma salli ali Muhammad wa aali Muhammad. Assalamu aleikum wa rahmatullah. Fakhr Razi, a well known ash'ari muhadeeth writes in his "Asas Taqdees": (I do not speak english good enough to present you a decent translation so please someone correct it!) اشْتهر فِيمَا بَين الْأمة أَن جمَاعَة من الْمَلَاحِدَة وضعُوا أَخْبَارًا مُنكرَة واحتالوا فِي ترويجها على الْمُحدثين والمحدثون لِسَلَامَةِ قُلُوبهم مَا عرفوها بل قبلوها وَأي مُنكر فَوق وصف الله تَعَالَى بِمَا يقْدَح فِي الإلهية وَيبْطل الربوبية فَوَجَبَ الْقطع فِي أَمْثَال هَذِه الْأَخْبَار بِأَنَّهَا مَوْضُوعَة أما البُخَارِيّ والقشيري فهما مَا كَانَا عَالمين بالغيوب بل اجتهدا واحتاطا بِمِقْدَار طاقتهما فَأَما اعْتِقَاد أَنَّهُمَا علما جَمِيع الْأَحْوَال الْوَاقِعَة فِي زمَان الرَّسُول صلى الله عَلَيْهِ وَسلم إِلَى زَمَاننَا فَذَلِك لَا يَقُوله عَاقل غَايَة مَا فِي الْبَاب أَنا نحسن الظَّن بهما وبالذين رويا عَنْهُم إِلَّا أَنا إِذا شاهدنا خَبرا مُشْتَمِلًا على مُنكر لَا يُمكن إِسْنَاده إِلَى الرَّسُول صلى الله عَلَيْهِ وَسلم قَطعنَا بِأَنَّهُ من أوضاع الْمَلَاحِدَة وَمن ترويجاتهم على أُولَئِكَ الْمُحدثين الرَّابِع أَن هَؤُلَاءِ الْمُحدثين يخرجُون الرِّوَايَات بِأَقَلّ الْعِلَل أَنه كَانَ مائلا إِلَى حب عَليّ فَكَانَ رَافِضِيًّا فَلَا تقبل رِوَايَته وَكَانَ معبد الْجُهَنِيّ قَائِلا بِالْقدرِ فَلَا تقبل رِوَايَته فَمَا كَانَ فيهم عَاقل يَقُول إِنَّه وصف الله تَعَالَى بِمَا يبطل إلهيته "And it is known that a group of disbelievers have fabricated some munkar reports and made efforts in planting them among the hadeeth schoolars. And the schoolars due to the naivety of their hearts have not rejected them but accepeted them. And what munkar is worse than reports destroying rububiya of Allah and His uluhiya? So that we must call these reports fabricated! As for Bukhari and Qusheiri (muslim) - they didn't posses the knowledge of unseen... ...And these muhadeethes reject hadeeth due to weakest reasons such as "ones loves Ali so he's rafidhi and his reports aren't accepted" or "Magad bin Juhani is a Qadaree so his hadeeth are not to be accepted". So why there was none with 'Aql among them to say that "the narrator narrates what destroys Rububiya and Uluhiya so this is not accepted"? This is really wierd!" (Asas Taqdees, 218-219)

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