Search the Community

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?

Atheism is the disbelief in any theistic deity or deities, primarily Allah (what you would call God). The definition in itself is quite contradictory, as it proves the existence of Allah. If Allah was not present, there would be no reason to disbelieve and certainty about there being no creator is not even a discussion (just as every human being in their right mind knows for certain Naruto does not exist in the real world). Moreover, to believe that every thing* is created and ultimately will reach it's demise (the universe included) and to state that the universe came to be out of nothing is... well, to take a word out of an atheist's book to someone who believes in Allah, it is mere fairy tale and imagination. This is not reasonably deduced nor induced. This is not a logical conclusion. Even if the Law of Matter is in place, this still does not change the fact that without the universe, matter does not exist. It is a fact that the universe was created. However, that is for another day. To disbelieve in Allah due to this fault in the faculty of reason is not enough a reason to reject The Creator. You could argue a second point - the people following these religions. Again, this is problematic. No human being is absolutely perfect. This quality belongs to Allah (God) alone. You can have perfect guidance, but man will still find ways around it. You would have to point fingers at what the religion teaches, not those who practice it. If you have not created yourself, nor the earth itself, nor the moon itself, nor the sun itself nor anything in creation, then any human being with a sound mind can deduce that something must have created it. To state otherwise would have to entail evidence behind it - in which there is not an iota of such. Nothing just comes into creation (yes, not even the energy balls in space that appear and reappear out of observation in space). Nothing. Therefore, if you disbelieve in The Creator, then chances are that you are not properly utilizing your intellect and knowledge given to you. * According to the physics definition of the word "thing", it applies to the context within the universe.

Read the Reddit comments to understand what the thread was about, since the post has since been deleted. ....................................................................................... I'm so tired of the utterly nonsensical and VERY COMMON Sunni notion of 'I am happy to seek unity with Shias as long as they don't curse/insult/abuse any Sahaba, and especially NOT Aisha, Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman. Firstly, any Shia claim regarding the sahabi that happens to go against the Sunni narrative is considered insulting. Secondly, and more importantly, is that the same notion is true for Shias... You are insulting the Ahlul Bayt by not accepting them as divinely appointed leaders of Allah, and infallible individuals, and perfect preservers of the religion of Islam, and a high means of seeking closeness to Allah (intercession). Not only are you insulting revered Shia figures by not following them, you are commiting MAJOR shirk by giving a false attribute to Allah, by saying that Allah has not always appointed an infallible leader on this Earth, and that there currently isn't an infallible leader. Furthermore, the real kicker is that plenty of revered Shia figures, such as Abu Talib (رضي الله عنه), are considered kuffar by Sunnis. Is this not insulting? So, how can we Shias unite with Sunnis based on their own fallacious logic? Shias are the minority, and Sunnis are the majority. It makes Sunnis think that they are Orthodox and that they have to unite with Heterodox for political and humanitarian reasons, and that Shias must make [ridiculous] compromises. Shias are far more receptive to the unity message, because we actually understand Sunni Islam, and can see the commonalities. We understand that we can't make Sunnis compromise on their beliefs. Simply by being the minority within Islam, by nature we Shias already understand Sunni beliefs, whereas Sunnis have a basic strawman understanding of Shia beliefs... which is natural, considering that they are the majority. Anyways, the point of my post is the following: Let's compile a list of revered Shia figures that are not given their proper status by Sunnis, according to Shia Islam... with an explanation given. ...This is to show that we Shias and Sunnis can unite, but we cannot unite upon revered figures and imamah. ...This will also serve as a way of showing Sunnis that this argument of theirs makes no sense. Another important question we may ask is "What about commonly revered figures like Imam Ali (عليه السلام) who is given different status in both sects? Can we unite upon Imam Ali (عليه السلام)?" ...a common Sunni criticism of political unity is that "Ali ibn Abi Talib (رضي الله عنه) is given an improper status in Shia religion because they call upon him... tawassul (intercession) of the 'dead' is Shirk! So there is absolutely no room for unity since we can't even agree on the status of the sahabi" [yes, I am aware that the Imams (عليه السلام) are still alive, but Sunnis don't believe this...] I would love to hear your thoughts. Wassalam. JazakAllah Khair. Fi sabilillah.

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.

Logical reasoning Intellectual arguments Rational recognitions Eternal reflections Purity of spirit Eternal soulfulness

(bismillah) (salam) In the name of Allah, The most beneficent the most merciful, Assalamu aleykum. I would like to ask the people of this forum if they could please help me out, By giving me a list of marajas from their knowledge that do not allow tatbir. Jazakallah. (P.S. I know Sayed Fudlullah is against Tatbir [May Allah increase his blessings])

Below is a technical refutation of determinism by Alvin Plantinga taken from his recent book Science, Religion, & Naturalism. Where the Conflict Really Lies. He shows that determinism is necessarily false. He starts with a premise about the laws of nature which states that the laws of nature are as they are provided God doesn't act to change them. Of course you do not need to believe in God in order to believe this because it is a conditional statement that doesn't presuppose the existence of God. He then goes on to assume the truth of determinism, and then deduce a falsehood. Given that determinism entails a falsehood, determinism must be false. ==== (LN) When the universe is causally closed (when God is not acting specially in the world), P. For example, Newton's law of gravity would go as follows: (G) When the universe is causally closed, any two material objects attract each other with a force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Note that on (LN), the currently canonical account of determinism implies that determinism is false. According to that account, determinism holds just if the natural laws conjoined with the state of the universe at any one time entails the state of the universe at any other time. A bit more exactly: let ''L'' be the conjunction of the natural laws, and S(t) and S(t*) be the states of the universe at any times t and t* : then, Necessarily, for any t and t*, if L & S(t), then S(t*). It is worth noting that if the above account of natural laws is correct, determinism so understood is false and indeed necessarily false. For suppose determinism is true. According to (LN), a natural law is of the form If the universe (U) is causally closed, the P. Take the conjunction of the natural laws to be If U is causally closed, then P, where now P is the conjunction of the consequents of all the laws. Let ''PAST'' denote a specific past state of the universe. Now suppose determinism is true. Then (1) (If U is causally closed, then P) and PAST entails F (the actual future) that is, (using 'N' to mean 'Necessarily'), (2) N (If (1) then F). (2) is equivalent to (3) N [if (if U is causally closed, then P) and PAST, then F], that is, (4) N [if (either U is not causally closed or P) and PAST, then F], that is, (5) N {if [(PAST and P) or (PAST and U is not causally closed)] then F} (5) is of the form N if (p or q) then r; but then each of p and q entail r; hence (6) N [if (PAST and P) then F] and N [if (PAST and U is not causally closed) then F]. But the right hand conjunct of (6) is obviously false: clearly there is a possible world that (i) shares its past with the actual world, (ii) is not causally closed (because, perhaps, God acts specially in it) and (iii) does not share its future with the actual world. Therefore determinism, which entails (6), is false. Indeed, given the usual view that propositions of the form necessarily p are non-contingent, either necessarily true or necessarily false, (6) is necessarily false; hence determinism, which entails it, is also necessarily false.

Salam, I see on this forum, especially General Discussions, Hadeeth and other Main Forums far more brothers engaging in discussions on religion, Qur'an, Ahadeeth, Aimmah etc., so I wanted to ask the sisters to engage more into political and religious etc. discussions, if they don't mind. Don't get intimidated by the brothers on here. So a motivation from me. Or am I wrong?

(a discussion following commentary on verse 15 of Surah Al Ma'ida) No doubt, man's is a life of reflection that requires perception and discernment; we call it faculty of thought. So the life is built on thought. It follows that the more correct and comprehensive the thought is, the more appropriate and sound the life will be. Whatever system a man follows and whichever path he treads upon, his good life is linked to, and bound with, proper thought; as much share it takes from that thought, that much uprightness it enjoys. Allah has repeatedly described it in His Great Book in different ways and various styles: Is he who was dead then We raised him to life and made for him a light by which he walks among the people, like him whose likeness is that of one in utter darkness whence he cannot come forth? (6:122). Say: "Are those who know and those who do not know alike?" (39:9). Allah will exalt those of you who believe, and those who are given knowledge, in high degrees (58:11)....therefore give good news to My servants, those who listen to the word, then follow the best of it, those are they whom Allah has guided and those it is who are the men of understanding (39:17-18). There are many such verses, which there is no need to quote here. Nobody has any doubt how Qur'an invites people to the correct thinking and exhorts them to proceed on the path of knowledge. Also the Qur'an reminds the readers that what it guides to is n way from among the ways of thinking. Allah says: Surely this Qur’an guides to that which is most upright (17:9); i.e. the religion, custom, or path that is most upright. In any case, it is the path of life and its uprightness depends on the uprightness of the way of thinking, as Allah has said: indeed, there has come to you a light and a clear Book from Allah; with it Allah guides him who follows His pleasure into the ways of peace and brings them out of utter darkness into light by His permission and guides them to the straight path (5:15-16). The straight path is that clear path which is free from contradiction and conflicts, i.e. neither it goes against the truth which one seeks nor its various sections point to different directions. Allah, in His Mighty Book, has not pin-pointed the correct and upright thought to which He calls His servants; He has left it to the common sense of the people, expecting them to use their natural reasoning power and the perception engrained in their minds. If you minutely study the Divine Book and meditate upon its verses, you will probably find over three hundred verses which invite people to contemplate, remember or ponder; or they teach the Prophet (s.a.w.) an argument to prove a truth or negate a falsity; as for example: Say: 'Who then could control anything as against Allah if He wished to destroy the Messiah son of Mary and his mother..." (5:17). Of the same genre are those verses which describe the arguments and proofs used by His prophets and beloved ones like Nuh, Ibrahim, Musa and other great prophets, in addition to Luqman (Lokman) and the believer from the family of Fir'awn (Pharaoh) and others, peace of Allah be on them all. For example: Their Messengers said: "Is there (any) doubt about Allah, the Maker of the heavens and the earth?" (14:10). And when Luqman said to his son while he admonished him: "O my son! Do not associate aught with Allah; most surely polytheism is a grievous iniquity" (31:13). And a believing man of Fir'awn's people who hid his faith said: 'What! Will you slay a man because he says: 'My Lord is Allah,' and indeed he has brought to you clear arguments from your Lord?" (40:28). Also, He quotes the magicians of Pharaoh as saying: They said: "We do not prefer you to what has come to us of clear arguments and to He Who made us, therefore decide what you are going to decide; you can only decide about this world's life; surely we believe in our Lord..." (20:72-73). Allah has not ordered His servants even in a single verse of His Book that they should blindly believe in Him, or in things sent by Him; or that they should tread on a path without thinking. He has often hinted to the reasons because of which He has laid down certain regulations and commandments (where a man has no way of knowing their detailed causes) describing some things which could be used as arguments; as He says: …surely prayer keeps (one) away from indecency and evil, and certainly the remembrance of Allah is the greatest... (29:45). O you who believe! Fasting has been prescribed for you, as it was prescribed for those before you, so that you may guard yourselves (against evil) (2:183). Allah does not desire to put on you any difficulty, but He wishes to purify you so that He may complete His favor on you, that you may be grateful (5:6). There are many other verses of similar nature. This thoughtful perception, i.e. the way of correct thinking which the Qur'an exhorts the human beings to use, on which it has based its call to truth, good or benefit or restrains from falsity, evil or harm - it is that perception which we know and recognize with our nature, which doesn't change or alter, and about which no man disputes with others. If there appears some dispute or discord about it then it is like a dispute in self-evident principles; it happens only when one or the both parties do not understand the true meaning of I lit* subject matter because of some miscomprehension. You may ask what is this path, which we are supposed to know by our nature. There is no doubt that there are some solid realities which independently exist and do not depend on our actions, like the realities of the genesis of the world and its end or mathematical, physical or other such principles. When we want to understand these matters we refer to basic principles, which are self-evident and are not subject to any doubt. Also, we take help from other principles, which are intrinsically attached to those self-evident principles. Then we arrange them in a particular way until we get the desired result. For example we say: A is B, and every B is C; therefore A is C. Or, as we say: If A is B, then C is D; and if C is D, then G is H. Therefore if A is B then G is H. Or, as we say: If A is B, then C is D; and if C is D, then G is H. But A is not H. Therefore G is not H. These patterns of logic and the principle matters described above are self-evident truths and no man of normal wisdom can have any doubt about them. If anybody doubts them, then it indicates some defect in his power of understanding, because of which it has failed to grasp these clear matters, as is generally seen about those who express doubts about self-evident truths. If we look at the doubts or uncertainties expressed against this logical way of thinking, we will see that when they want to reach at a result in their claims and objectives they too use the same principles laid down in the logic in its form, pattern and material; if we analyze their speech to the elementary premises used in them, they will turn into logical forms and principles. If somebody changes those premises or the forms in a way that according to logical principles would not lead to any result, the whole speech would become devoid of meaning and you will see that they would not like it. This is a clear proof that these people according to their human nature do accept the correctness of these logical principles, they submit to it and use it; they refute it with their tongues but in their inner selves they believe in it.