Search the Community

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.

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

Why doesn't God tell us directly which religion is the right one? In response to the above-mentioned question, the following humble piece of writing is put forth to you. He has already told everyone what to do and what not to do. But most of the people seem to be essentially careless in this respect. Some of His explicit words that have directly stated which religion has to be chosen are as following: 1: إِنَّ الدِّينَ عِندَ اللَّهِ الْإِسْلَامُ ۗ وَمَا اخْتَلَفَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ إِلَّا مِن بَعْدِ مَا جَاءَهُمُ الْعِلْمُ بَغْيًا بَيْنَهُمْ ۗ وَمَن يَكْفُرْ بِآيَاتِ اللَّهِ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ سَرِيعُ الْحِسَاب Indeed, the religion in the sight of Allah is Islam. And those who were given the Scripture did not differ except after knowledge had come to them - out of jealous animosity between themselves. And whoever disbelieves in the verses of Allah, then indeed, Allah is swift in [taking] account. Holy Quran 3:19. 2: وَمَن يَبْتَغِ غَيْرَ الْإِسْلَامِ دِينًا فَلَن يُقْبَلَ مِنْهُ وَهُوَ فِي الْآخِرَةِ مِنَ الْخَاسِرِينَ And whoever desires other than Islam as religion - never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers. Holy Quran 3:85. 3: الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الْإِسْلَامَ دِينًا ۚ فَمَنِ اضْطُرَّ فِي مَخْمَصَةٍ غَيْرَ مُتَجَانِفٍ لِّإِثْمٍ ۙ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion. But whoever is forced by severe hunger with no inclination to sin - then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. Most of the people obey their conjectures and surmises, as the Glorious Quran has predicted and depicted this bitter reality in the verse below: وَمَا يَتَّبِعُ أَكْثَرُهُمْ إِلَّا ظَنًّا ۚ إِنَّ الظَّنَّ لَا يُغْنِي مِنَ الْحَقِّ شَيْئًا ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلِيمٌ بِمَا يَفْعَلُونَ And most of them follow not except assumption. Indeed, assumption avails not against the truth at all. Indeed, Allah is Knowing of what they do. Holy Quran 10:36. Moreover, don't think I have put forth these verses due to a sympathetic argument rather the Quran is a book beautifully written in accordance with everyone’s innate nature. None would ever get tired of reading and reciting its glorious verses; because Allah, it is wrapped up with a beauty of a miraculous nature. وَمَا كَانَ هَٰذَا الْقُرْآنُ أَن يُفْتَرَىٰ مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ وَلَٰكِن تَصْدِيقَ الَّذِي بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ وَتَفْصِيلَ الْكِتَابِ لَا رَيْبَ فِيهِ مِن رَّبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ And it was not [possible] for this Qur'an to be produced by other than Allah, but [it is] a confirmation of what was before it and a detailed explanation of the [former] Scripture, about which there is no doubt, from the Lord of the worlds. Holy Quran 10:37. Thanks May God Bless Us All realize the truth of the matter on His religions.

Do good non-Muslims get sent to hell? First. We must clarify who do we mean by the word 'non-Muslims'? The term 'non-Muslims' includes many groups of people such as 'the people of the book' i.e. the Jews, the Christians, the other adherents of the pre-Islamic heavenly-sent religions, pagans, atheists, disbelievers and etc. Second. To have a methodical and systematic treatment of the issue, the question must be addressed from two different angles: A) 'confessional' and B) 'non-confessional'. By the word confessional I mean from religious [Islamic] point of view and by the word 'non-confessional' a purely 'rational' perspective. Third. Non-Muslims cannot be called ‘good’ if they abide by their own hereditary dogmas and show no flexibility towards the truth. Good non-Muslims should be beautified with the actual qualities. Fourth. To tackle the very question from a non-confessional perspective, we can argue that a wise man has always the will and intention to live a prosperous life, even if he restricts the realm of life to the earthly one. To win a prosperous life, all necessary means and measures must be taken. Theoretically talking, an important part of his worldly prosperity rests on intellectual harmony he should enjoy while explaining the world, the purpose of his life and his status after death. He who -committed to no monotheistic values- lacks a coherent system of beliefs on the purpose of his life in this world and his status in the hereafter, will not be able to experience the sweet taste of success and joyful moments; because the darkness of doubt, sheer ambiguity and pure uncertainty about the aftermath can cause him aggravating pain. To avoid such disturbing thoughts, everyone is expected to conduct reliable researches on the validity or invalidity of propositions pertaining to the afterlife. Finall, a rational agent can never remain indifferent to his destiny particularly if he gives the probability that his destiny might be of a fatal kind. Fifth. To treat the issue from a confessional perspective, to a Muslim it is clear that since Allah is the Creator, Benefactor and Possessor of all, and All-Aware of everyone's intentions and actions, He has the existential power and legitimate authority to put conditions for every one's salvation. According to His final say sent to the prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him and his progeny), only those who meet the two conditions of observing sincere 'faith' and carrying out 'virtuous deeds' will win eternal paradise. Indeed, Allah, the All-Wise, has not meant by the word ‘Muslims’ those who are nominal Muslims. Only the real Muslims whose actions translate their thoughts in the concrete world, will be granted salvation. Those who hold Muslim names and identities but their true interior beliefs are not reflected in the exterior world, will be deprived of a happy life in the hereafter. The true practicing Muslims who absolutely surrender their intentions and actions to Allah, will be awarded or granted eternal paradise. Non-Muslims can follow the suit. The conclusion: What Allah, the Almighty, hates most is his creatures' blatant ingratitude (Chapter al-Isra/ 67,89; Chapter al-Furqan/ 50) and their stubbornness and obstinacy in abiding by sheer falsehood (Chapter Yonus/ 33). Those non-Muslims who find the truth and again defy their Lords' commands obstinately, should wait the grave consequences of their actions and the choices they make. Those non-Muslims who have not found the truth altogether, or are deeply involved in polemic doubts or are in their ways to find the truth in coming days, will not be sent to hell; because Allah, the All-Wise, will act in accordance with the implications of His attributes of absolute justice and mercy. As such, the people of the book will win eternal salvation on condition that they remain committed to their true religious worldview and act upon their religious-moral principles. May Allah, the Compassionate, bless us all a happy life in this world and a happier life in the hereafter. References: 1. The Quran.

https://www.al-islam.org/discursive-theology-volume-1-dr-ali-rabbani-gulpaygani/lesson-6-argument-contingency Can someone explain this to me in a laymen fashion. How does the second law of thermodynamics prove god

The fine tuning argument calls our attention to the fact that the laws, initial conditions and constants of physics are precisely set to allow the existence of conscious life in this universe, and had they been even slightly different then no life would be possible. It is argued that this is evidence of theism, or that theism is the best explanation for this data, as we wouldn't expect it if atheism was true. I want to call your attention to a new development of the fine tuning argument advanced by philosopher Robin Collins (who has a postgrad physics background). This is the fine tuning of the universe for discoverability Not only is the universe fine tuned for conscious life, but it is also additionally fine tuned to allow this conscious life to develop civilisations and to discover the inner workings of the universe. The Fine-Tuning for Discoverability Robin Collins http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Fine-tuning/Greer-Heard%20Forum%20paper%20draft%20for%20posting.pdf One example he gives is the fine structure constant. He points out that if it had been slightly larger then all fires would have gone out, and had it been slightly smaller, then light microscopes allowing us to see the smallest cells wouldn't have been possible.

Salam 'Alaykum. Hi, guys. I was wondering if any of you have read Karen Armstrong's "The Case for God". I really admire Ms.Armstrong's work and think this book is a good defense of theism in the traditional sense. However, there are a couple of points I can't seem to agree with her on. For the sake of a productive discussion I'd like to limit this conversation to those who've read the book. She says that the physical world cannot tell us anything about God. While I don't have a problem with this per se, I do think this type of doctrine can become a problem. If this is the case, then how can we conclusively say that the good tings that happen to us in life are actually the product of God's mercy. How can someone cultivate an attitude of gratitude towards their creator if concrete reality can tell us nothing about Him. Problem number two arises when she gets to discussing the divinity of Christ. Throughout her book, she makes it clear that religious doctrines cannot be taken literally for that would be anthropomorphic. Ergo, Christian doctrine cannot be taken literally. She illustrates the teachings of Eastern mystics like Denys and the Cappadocians to show that this has generally been the educated Christian's stance. To paraphrase Ms.Armstrong: The trinity was not a rationale doctrine--that was the whole point behind it. By realizing the futility of reason to apprehend the Divine, we would enter a state of transcendence. But Allah(swt) clearly condemns the Trinity in the Holy Qur'an. Therefore, the logical conclusion that us Muslims must draw from this in relation to Armstrong's explanation is that the Trinity DID NOT lead to transcendence. The Qur'an condemns the Trinity on rational grounds, and yet Armstrong says that an irrational doctrine can lead to transcendence. It is quite clear that Armstrong's case is made very weak by the Qur'anic attack on the Trinity since it implies that reason must be present in the contemplation of any doctrine. What do you think? Are these points problematic for Karen Armstrong's polemic? Is there a way around it?

A suckling who touches his mother's breasts by his hands, sucks the breasts to get milk. In fact, he wants milk, and if he takes something by his hands, in order to eat it, he will direct it to his mouth. His main objective is eating and if he finds that he has made a mistake, because what he has taken is not edible, he discards it. In like manner, man seeks truth in whatever course of action he takes. Whenever he finds that he has erred and has done wrong, he suffers and regrets the futile hardship he endured for an erroneous action. Finally, man always abstains from mistake and error and tries to get to the reality as much as he can. This sheds light on the fact that man is by nature and instinct a realist, i.e., willingly or unwillingly, he always seeks the reality and follows truth. Man has not learned this instinctive disposition from anyone and anywhere. If at times, man shows obstinacy and refuses to accept the truth, it is because he has been entangled with mistake and error without finding truth and piety. If he had found them, he would not have followed the path of error. Sometimes, too, man suffers from a psychological ailment due to carnal desires. This converts the sweet taste of truth into bitterness. Then although he is acquainted with the truth he does not follow it. Even though he admits the rightfulness of truth and confesses the necessity of abiding by it, he refrains from submission. This is similar to recurrent events in which due to addiction to harmful things, man suppresses his human instinct (which is removal of danger and an escape from loss) and embarks on an action that is detrimental (like those addicted to tobacco, alcohol, narcotics). The Holy Qur'an invites man towards realism and adherence of truth. Qur'an insists on this matter and, in various ways, asks different people to keep their realistic instinct and adherence with truth alive. Allah the Almighty states: "...And what is thereafter the truth but error...(10:32)." "Most surely man is in loss, except those who believe and do good and enjoin on each other truth and enjoin on each other patience (103:2-3)." Clearly, all these enjoinments by Allah show that if man does not keep his realistic instinct alive and if he does not strive to follow truth and reality, he would not be satisfied with his prosperity and happiness and would follow any lustful and pleasant expressions and endeavors. Consequently, he would be tied down by absurd thoughts and superstitions. Then, like a quadruped animal that has lost its way (which is man's asset), he will be the victim of his carnal desires and unrestrainedness due to his ignorance. The Almighty Allah states: "Have you seen him who takes his low desires for his god? Will you then be a protector over him? Or do you think that most of them do hear or understand? They are nothing but as cattle. nay, they are straying farther off from the path (25:43-44)." In brief the Almighty Allah says: How do you feel about people who worship their carnal desires? Do you think you can improve and educate these people? Do you think they listen and understand? They are more deviated than cattle. However, once their real human instinct revives and the spirit of following the truth starts functioning, the facts would be illuminating for them one after the other and whatever truth and fact become clear for them, they would accept readily. Every day, they would take a fresh step in the path of bliss and prosperity. Taken from 'Islamic Teachings in Brief' by Allama Tabatabai; http://www.al-islam.org/islamic-teachings-in-brief-allamah-tabatabai/

http://philosophynow.org/issues/99/Does_God_Exist

Belief in God Can Improve Mental Health Outcomes A new study suggests belief in God may significantly improve the outcome of those receiving short-term treatment for psychiatric illness. Researchers followed patients receiving care from a hospital-based behavioral health program to investigate the relationship between patients’ level of belief in God, expectations for treatment and actual treatment outcomes. In the study, published in the current issue of Journal of Affective Disorders, researchers comment that people with a moderate to high level of belief in a higher power do significantly better in short-term psychiatric treatment than those without. Continues: http://psychcentral.com/news/2013/04/26/belief-in-god-improves-mental-health-outcomes/54121.html

http://godandphilosophy.wordpress.com/ Collects useful papers on the philosophy of religion arguing for the rationality of belief and the existence of God, refuting atheistic arguments and materialism, and exposing the shallowness of many of the anti-God brigade

(bismillah) In the name of Allah, the beneficent, the most merciful. May He ward misconceptions from our souls and help us attain certainty. ßóÊóÈó Úóáóì äóÝúÓöåö ÇáÑóøÍúãóÉó He has decreed upon Himself Mercy. (6-12) The question is based upon the attribute of Mercy. It is commonly known that Allah has created humanity out of His Mercy. Therefore, Since we say Allah has created everything out of His Mercy, I raise two questions: 1) Is the attribute of Mercy created by Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì? 2) If it is a creation, why did Allah allow it to partake in His actions? i.e. Does Mercy govern Allah or does Allah govern Mercy? If Allah governs Mercy, then Allah does not need to create because of "His Mercy." If Mercy governs Allah, then there is a flaw in our understanding, which needs immediate attention, of the Most High, Most Merciful. Please, any opinions or elaborations are greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. (wasalam)