Search the Community

In the name of Allāh, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. This is a thread in which I, and @matrix will be debating the existence of Allāh ﷻ. Going through some threads I stumbled on the valuable remarks of our former Muslim sister, and I couldn’t help but see someone who was driven by sincerity and a desire for truth. Indeed, had it not been so, had our dear sister not valued truth she would not have taken such a grand leap and for that I must commend her bravery and would also like to show - through this thread - that we as a community, as Muslims before all else - before any sect - will all stand as one in support of our brothers and sisters who perhaps saw that their questions were left unanswered. Or, felt that their communities had betrayed them. I pray that this can be a cordial, and beneficial debate and I ask that Allāh guides us and our noble sister in our mutual pursuit of truth. That being said, seeing that I am the one who is making the positive argument which is the affirmative claim that there is objective evidence that God exists, the onus is on me to substantiate said position. So, without further ado, I’ll go ahead and begin the discussion by the grace of our Lord. @matrix are you familiar with classical logic and S5 modal logic (if so, we can advance the discussion without having to cover any ground which I will be more than happy to touch on if need be)? Furthermore, are you familiar with arguments from contingency and if so, do you accept stage 1 from the argument of contingency (if you do, it doesn’t lead to theism, don’t worry I’ll seek to bridge that gap ʾInshāʾAllāh).

Hi there. I know I haven't been posting in a while, but I finally thought of a good topic. So, Atheists why are you in your religion??? PS: I'm not trying to trigger anyone so please don't attack me for making this topic

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

original discussion: My review:

Salaamun alaykum, Here is a debate review I did after watching DH vs Apostate Ridwan's 4.5 hour livestream debate on the Shariah vs Liberalism as a moral system. Let me know what you think inshaAllah. Also, I wrote up the first part of this in a blog post, more to come inshaAllah: http://themuslimtheist.com/daniel-haqiqatjou-vs-apostate-ridwaan-debate-review-part-1/

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).

Respected brothers and sisters I was wondering if you can aid me by sharing significant threads that have been opened in regards to debating any form of creed it would be highly appreciated, may Allah bless you all. @Mahdavist @Hameedeh @Gaius I. Caesar @AbdulKarim313_Austin/Nola @Haji 2003 @hasanhh @Ibn al-Hussain @Ibn Al-Shahid @Ibn Al-Ja'abi @Moalfas @Abu Nur @Muhammed Ali @notme@ali_fatheroforphans @King @The Green Knight @Ibn Al-Ja'abi @AkhiraisReal

The International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), which promotes a culture of atheism and which takes a strong stance against Islam and religion in general, has published a condemnation of the treatment of atheists and the non-religious mainly in Muslim countries: https://freethoughtreport.com/download-the-report/ Predictably,the IHEU displays complete ignorance of Islam in its hate-filled and ignorant attack on "freedom of thought" and human rights in these Muslims countries, notably Iran. A list of just some of the misleading false statements that the report makes, including about Shariah, is attached. Please complain to Bob Churchill who "edited" the report: bob.churchill@iheu.org There is a Persian saying, "sokoot alamate rezaast" (staying silent is agreeing with). Complaint to IHEU.pdf

Say, Ya Ali(as) یا علی To protect yourself and your family and to counter any (internal or external) Ideology, that guides you away, from the Truth. Your Thoughts?

Hello brothers and sisters, I have come to this forum in order to make myself feel at ease, as I don't know how to make things better any other way. My sister is an athiest. We grew up in a very loving home, although we had trouble with an abusive father (a father who grew up in a war torn country with a horrible upbringing) my mother is loving and is the most kind and caring person on this planet. She poured her life and soul into me and my siblings growing up. She has always been a very religious Muslim mother and she tried her very best to make us all pray and read the Quran. My father has changed a lot in the years and is not the violent person towards us as he was years ago, so I don't quite understand why my sister is the way she is now (if she says the reason is because of how my father used to be). I have not grown up to be the most religious person in the world, but I still know I have a very special relationship with Allah in my own special way. I know he is looking down at me and guiding me on the right path. I don't know why my sister turned out to not believe in God, but it makes me feel uneasy. My mother worked hard all her life to teach us how to pray and read the Quran, and I know it would break her heart to know one of her children turned out like this. Everytime I speak about our religion, she seems to dislike it more and more and I know theres nothing I can do to change her mind myself (she doesn't listen to me out of spite). I would like to ask a couple of questions, brothers and sisters please be kind. How do I make myself feel better about this? How can I help her, if that is possible? How do I deal with her doing and saying things out of spite? Does Allah show people the right path? Will Allah hate her for turning her back? As someone who isn't that religious I've come here with a lot of hope in my heart. Thank you.

"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.

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

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.

The following excerpt is from The Muslim Theist Blog. Click here for the full original article. بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم 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.” Or perhaps more appropriately, since God is not a “thing,” we should ask “how do I come to know?” As we shall see, all knowledge is ultimately grounded in what is unfortunately called “intuition” in English, but which is more appropriately called “immediate knowledge” or “knowledge by presence” in Islamic philosophy. I will nevertheless sometimes use the word intuition, but it should not be mistaken for the ordinary usage of simply having a “hunch” about something or the vain, amorphous imaginings of artists and poets. From intuition, in its proper sense, descends pure reason, with its capacity to give completely certainty based on deductive proofs. After that descends inductive reason, which allows us to make probabilistic arguments that reach a different kind of certainty. Lastly, we have sense perception, which contrary to popular belief is actually the lowest and least reliable form of knowledge. Sense perception, quite obviously, cannot on its own lead one to belief in God, since God is immaterial. It must be combined with either reasoning or intuition in order to yield fruit, at least as far as we’re interested in the question of God and meaning. Now the question for you, my dear reader, is what are you looking for? Are you looking to know God directly, unmitigated by any long-winded, tedious discourse involving minute reasoning? Are you looking for absolute proof of the existence of God, one that considers all objections and involves very precise reasoning? Would you be satisfied with a very compelling probabilistic argument, based on solid evidence, for the existence of God? Or perhaps, more darkly, you are here simply to “refute” any attempts to show that God is, in fact, Reality. Perhaps you have already made up your mind and are here simply to edify your ego, without the slightest intention to actually listen to what is being said and to make a genuine attempt at understanding. Perhaps if you were to hear something that might otherwise change your perspective, you would miss it simply because you are subconsciously committed to an uncharitable reading and fault finding rather than sincerity. If so, realize there is nothing to be gained in this world by proving that you are right, other than the momentary satisfaction of having domination over another soul, but everything to be gained through sincerity. With that reminder at hand, I shall assume going forwards that you are entirely sincere in seeking to know the truth, whatever it might be, and that you are entirely prepared to hear this humble author’s perspective. As to the previous concern, what will ultimately satisfy all human beings is the direct knowledge of God, which is acquired intuitively. When a person experiences God, by definition certainty is attained – light fills the heart and one’s phenomenological experience of Being radically alters. It might be wise then, to simply prescribe steps for how one might achieve this meeting with the Divine, so that one might see the Truth for themselves rather than merely hear of it second hand. Indeed within each religion, there is a mystical path that is aimed at precisely that, and if one wishes they are entirely free to embark upon such a path. However, a problem arises in that a person who is not already on this path wants to know with certainty that the object of the journey, namely God, does in fact exist and so such efforts would not be in vain. It seems to be asking a little much to tell a person they must completely change their lifestyle, values, and temporarily suspend their established beliefs about the nature of reality simply to experiment and see, perhaps, if God is indeed Real and as Glorious as He is made out to be – a highly dubious supposition to begin with if one is already entrenched in the atheist camp. Continue...

A few months a go, I started dating with a man of my dreams. He impressed me and won my heart and we started planning the future together. The only thing I didn't like is that his parents didn't raise him like a muslim. He has the name but not the knowledge. He decided to let go of islam and become an atheist and he knows that is breaking my heart. Yesterday we had a fight and I asked him does he plan to stay an atheist forever and he said yes. I left him because I have a fear of my future children becomming atheists. Now my heart is broken and I only want to see him, but Im afraid of my wishes too. Please tell me, if a person doesnt know anything about islam, if he chose to be an atheist because he had no knowledge about his faith but still he is a good person with a good heart, can Allah forgive him? May he somehow go to Jannet? And can Allah forgive me for if I was married to him? I honestly always had a hope that he will start to love islam one day.

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.

I start this in the Name of Allah the most beneficent the most Merciful all praise is due to Him Master of all the worlds. I was listening through a lecture about atheism and etc, and i came about this accusation from one atheist who explained why God is not beneficent nor merciful (naudhubillaah) by stating that for example bone cancer in children is something that is ruthless and kills without the fault of the person, and is not in our control... How do we Muslims reply to this crooked accusation and how do we debunk it? How can we prove Allah's goodness even with the existence of cancer's etc... Jazakallah... By the way this is the video

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

Salam everyone, So a (shia) friend of mine has been recently watching videos about atheism and is now asking me question like why is shia islam right.. stuff like that. He is now asking me why Shia islam is right out of the thousand religions in the world and what about everyone else who was born as Christian, Hindu etc. I do not have enough knowledge, and I hope you guys can help this person.

Salaamu alaykum everyone, Please check out this new series that absolutely destroys all these anti-Islam YouTube atheists who think true Muslims are ISIS terrorists. If you like the video, please upvote it on YouTube + share on social media because the atheists are rushing to downvote them without watching them because they know they are getting exposed. Please also share your thoughts below in the thread:

Salam, My brother has left Islam, he is now an atheist. For some time he was questioning things and questioning Quranic verses and used to say he is searching, now he says he is not a muslim anymore. My family still had hope and all of us were trying hard to bring him back to the right path... we would argue logically with him but he replies and acts like a typical atheist and is not willing to accept anything. Still... because he is young and immature we still hoped that he will eventually realize - up until now we took it as a theoretical problem, we were so confident of him that he wouldn't be practically living the life like an atheist, we thought atheism was only in his mind we didn't know it had make it to his life and his ways. We just learnt that he's been committing great sins. He lives on his own, my parents live in a different country with my brother and his family, I live in a different country and my sister lives close to him but he doesn't listen to anyone. He is independent and rich and alone. . . though he's only 24. We're religious and when we learnt of how sinful life he's living ..it was like a majlis on skype, my mom cried so much, my sister in law, my siblings and me... we have been crying for him for what irreversible sins he's done and how he has broken our trust.. but what I need advice for now, is that what should we do now ? Should we confront him of what we've come to know.. should we break ties with him ? Should we stop talking ? Should we let him know that we know ? Or should we, like my mom says, be silent for the time being... My mom plans to go to him and compel him to live with her in a Muslim country so that he will be in front of her eyes. And my father keeps saying we should force him to marry and things will get better.... but obviously if he isn't Muslim we can't marry him to a muslim girl, it would be something if we get him to marry anyone.. as obviously marriage is now unnecessary and uninteresting to him. It's that if we all take a stand against him he will (most probably) not pay much heed to it and can even go without talking to us for months.. what we fear is that deserting him would only cause him to sink even deeper into the sinful lifestyle... such as taking drugs and other substances. But on the other hand I think that if we keep silent we would ourselves be committing a sin... I really want sincere advice on what we all should do... I know that only Allah can guide him now but if there's anything WE can do...

hello, I'd like to know if most of iranians are atheists or believers, and if young people believe in iran, someone knows? some people here have said that most of people that live in iran do believe in islam. thank you.