Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Afzali

Why was Akhbarism rejected?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Afzali said:

The acceptance of miracle does not contradict the acceptance of the authority of reason

Reason is a different thing miracle is a different thing in all aspects. Because you can have reasons to accept the authority of miracle.

 I have purposely used the term "authority of miracle" instead of what you mentioned "authority of reason". 

A true miracle would, by definition, be a non-natural phenomenon, leading many rational and scientific thinkers to dismiss them as physically impossible (that is, requiring violation of established laws of physics within their domain of validity) or impossible to confirm by their nature (because all possible physical mechanisms can never be ruled out). 

If you see the history, reasons were provided to many nations where warners came but almost every nation demanded from them to brought what they are warning with, neglected & rejected their reasons. 

2 hours ago, Afzali said:

A sound understanding of the virgin birth of Jesus, being a miracle, does not contradict reason in general and the principle of causality in particular.

Why not you accept the fact that the origin of all those reasons & understanding are divine.

You cannot present any reason other than what is mentioned in scripture. And you cannot understand that phenomenon untill or unless explained to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ۱۳۹۵/۱۰/۱۹ ه‍.ش. at 5:46 PM, Engineer73 said:

Reason is a different thing miracle is a different thing in all aspects. Because you can have reasons to accept the authority of miracle.

No doubt they are different, but let me know whether or not they are consistent. When you time and again say that they are different (a simple and self-evident truth), you seem to suggest that they are logically inconsistent. As I mentioned before, as far as their literal meanings are concerned I agree that they are different, but as far as their inconsistency is concerned I do not agree with it. I am of the view that the acceptance miracle is in consistency with the acceptance of reason. As the advocacy of reason does not harm the advocacy of miracle the advocacy of miracle does not harm the advocacy of reason. This is because of the following: Reason says that every effect has a cause, but it never says that every effect has a material cause. If reason supposedly says that every effect has a material cause and since miracle does not have a material cause, therefore it is a violation of the law of causality, then you are absolutely right, but the thing is that the reason never says this. The most the reason says is that every effect has a cause: be it natural or supernatural, material or immaterial. Based on this law, miracle is not an instance of violation, for miracle has a cause and its cause is God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ۱۳۹۵/۱۰/۱۴ ه‍.ش. at 11:46 AM, For The Love of The Emir said:

Akhbarism and usoolism were much of a phase rather than a stand alone schools. Many of the disputed points between the early scholars from that era had been resolved. Some akhbarism points are uphold by current usoolis and some ancient usolism points are rejected by current usooli.

I agree with you that Akhbarism is dead today, but I cannot see eye to eye with you when you say that usulis have adopted parts of the theories presented by Akhbarites. You have made a general claim. I wish you were more particular. Anyway, as far as I know the basic components of the ideology of Akhbarites are rejected today. They were opposed to reason, but today reason is highly valued. They were opposed to consensus, but today we observe that this tool is not utterly outdated. Above all, they were of the view that it is lawful to order people to do what they practically cannot (taklif be ma layutaq), but today nobody subscribes to such tough, irrational and inhuman principles. Let me know which scholar today abides by this principle of Akhbarites? If we endorse this inhuman principle then nothing will be unjust. If you are told to fast day and night at a stretch then you will not be able to criticize saying that it is beyond my ability to do so. If you are ordered to fly without using modern equipment then again you will not have the right to question. You have the right to question as long as such orders are baseless and logically unacceptable. If they are however logically justifiable standing on a firm footing, then questioning will be irrelevant.  It is because of all this, that we believe that Akhbarism is dead.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Afzali said:

Reason says that every effect has a cause,

I would say that with divine guidance and our ability to reason, we can understand anything. If reason alone is sufficient, Allah would not send so many Prophet to guide us. Hence, my reason always put Allah in the first place by accepting the fact that I am "Mohtaaj" of His guidance.

Yes, there has to be an Ever-Living Creator, Designer, Originator at the first place which you can understand as Al-Awwal or the only uncaused-cause.

 

Edited by Engineer73

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Engineer73 said:

I would say that with divine guidance and our ability to reason, we can understand anything. If reason alone is sufficient, Allah would not send so many Prophet to guide us. Hence, my reason always put Allah in the first place by accepting the fact that I am "Mohtaaj" of His guidance.

Yes, there has to be an Ever-Living Creator, Designer, Originator at the first place which you can understand as Al-Awwal or the only uncaused-cause.

 

Reason is the way to recognise the truth that the Prophets AS bring. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, iraqi_shia said:

Reason is the way to recognise the truth that the Prophets AS bring. 

And to recognize Prophet? Prophet is at first place, truth that he bring is at second place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2017 at 8:22 PM, Engineer73 said:

I would say that with divine guidance and our ability to reason, we can understand anything. If reason alone is sufficient, Allah would not send so many Prophet to guide us.

I should make it clear once again that when we lay stress on the authority of reason we do not intend to say that reason is an independent entity having nothing to do with God. We believe that all contingent beings including human reason owe their existence to God. As God has made the universe so has he made the reason. How can human reason be independent when it owes its utter existence to God, depending on Him for each and every minute functioning? Similarly when we talk of the authority of reason we do not intend to say that reason is everything implying that when there is reason there is no need for revelation. This is because we need both reason and revelation. Reason and revelation are not in conflict with each other. Instead they are complementary for each other. Reason is supportive of revelation and revelation is supportive of reason. When reason declares that there has to be a necessary being called God, it lays the foundation of revelation and when revelation says that God has two authorities one whom is visible and the other invisible (human reason), it backs up reason. So there is reciprocal support between reason and revelation. But let’s not forget that the authority of reason is more fundamental than that of revelation. This is because revelation is based on reason but as far is reason is concerned it is not based on revelation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Afzali said:

Similarly when we talk of the authority of reason we do not intend to say that reason is everything implying that when there is reason there is no need for revelation. This is because we need both reason and revelation. Reason and revelation are not in conflict with each other. Instead they are complementary for each other.

That is totally acceptable statement brother. Agreed 

19 minutes ago, Afzali said:

Reason is supportive of revelation and revelation is supportive of reason

They're same... revelation contains factual statements, commands, followed by reasons e.g

Surah Al-Waqia, Verse 57-59:

نَحْنُ خَلَقْنَاكُمْ فَلَوْلَا تُصَدِّقُونَ

أَفَرَأَيْتُم مَّا تُمْنُونَ

أَأَنتُمْ تَخْلُقُونَهُ أَمْ نَحْنُ الْخَالِقُونَ

We have created you, why do you not then assent? (this is statement of fact and we have reasons afterwards in the 58th, 59th ..... verses) 

43 minutes ago, Afzali said:

But let’s not forget that the authority of reason is more fundamental than that of revelation. This is because revelation is based on reason but as far is reason is concerned it is not based on revelation.

Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information.

We need to see whether revalation is "based" on reason. I think it is not based on reason, rather it "contain" reason. Revalation are the words of Allah and are based on FACTS. 

We need "facts" for reason & understanding means we need revalation for reason.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, iraqi_shia said:

How could you recognise the Prophet SAW?

 

 

ـ الإمامُ عليٌ (عَلَيهِ الّسَلامُ): اِعرِفوا اللّه‏َ بِاللّه‏ِ ، والرَّسولَ بِالرِّسالَةِ ، واُولي الأمرِ بِالأمرِ بِالمَعروفِ والعَدلِ والإحسانِ . 

Imam Ali (AS) said, ‘Get to know Allah through Allah, and the Prophet through the message he brought, and those vested with authority through their command to do good, their justice and righteousness.’[al-Kafi, v. 1, p. 85, no. 1]

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If by reason you mean aql this is straightforward hadith:

H 6, Ch. 1, h 6 - Al-Kafi

Ahmad ibn Idris has narrated from Muhammad ibn Hassa’n from abu Muhammad al-Razi from Sayf ibn ‘Umayra from Ishaq ibn ‘Ammar from abu ‘Abdallah (a.s) who has said the following.

" One who has Intelligence (aql), has religion, and one who has religion, he enters Paradise."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ۱۳۹۵/۱۰/۲۱ ه‍.ش. at 11:06 PM, Engineer73 said:

We need to see whether revalation is "based" on reason. I think it is not based on reason, rather it "contain" reason.

Revelation is Based on Reason

It is a matter of two plus two is equal to four that revelation is based on reason. God is no doubt the axis of all religions and prophecy and resurrection are next to it in terms of importance, but let me know: can we prove the existence of God without relying on reason? Can we prove the necessity of prophecy without heavily relying on reason? Can we prove the urgency of resurrection without making use of intellect? The answer to all these questions is in the negative. That is why if you carefully read the Holy Quran you find out that Quran takes the existence of God for granted. It never tries to prove the existence of God. Of course, the Quran does deal with polytheism rejecting it using different arguments but it never attempts to prove the existence of God. This is because God knows that it human reason that must prove the existence of God and if God supposedly tries to prove His existence through His words, this kind of reasoning will end up in vicious circle. Similarly the Quran does not attempt to prove principles such as the necessity of prophecy knowing that it is the duty of human reason to do it. It is because of all these that we are of the view that reason is more fundamental than revelation, for the latter is based on the former and not conversely. In addition, reason is your faculty of understanding. If it is totally invalidated then how can we understand anything? And if we reach any understanding of something how can we claim that our understanding of that thing is valid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ۱۳۹۵/۱۰/۲۲ ه‍.ش. at 4:03 AM, Engineer73 said:

mam Ali (AS) said, ‘Get to know Allah through Allah, and the Prophet through the message he brought, and those vested with authority through their command to do good, their justice and righteousness.’

Further Clarification

Let me make it clear once more that when we talk of priority of reason we talk of its priority over revelation in certain areas such as existence of God, necessity of prophecy and the likes. As far as the details of divine qualities are concerned we can somehow rely on revelation. Even here we have to be very cautious, not looking at things at their surface values. If you go through the Holy Quran you will find many verses that attribute to God human qualities. These qualities are called revealed qualities. According to such verses, God has hands as we humans do; God seats Himself on the throne just as we are do and so on and so forth. But can we say, based on the available verses, that God has physical organs just as we humans do? Can we say that God has a body for some verses have got such an implication? Some Islamic schools of thought, like Ahl Hadith, have made such an error; they are anthropomorphists. They describe God in a manner we describe ourselves. But we, as Shias, believing in the supremacy of reason, cannot make such assumptions. That is the reason why Shia scholars have not accepted the revealed qualities with their literal meanings. Instead, they have interpreted the said verses in a manner that does not contradict with philosophical rules and logical laws. That is why "hand" or "throne" mean nothing but "power", according to Shia scholars.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Afzali said:

That is why if you carefully read the Holy Quran you find out that Quran takes the existence of God for granted. It never tries to prove the existence of God. Of course, the Quran does deal with polytheism rejecting it using different arguments but it never attempts to prove the existence of God.

Nearly all the strongest arguments of Muslims in favor of existence of God are deducted from revelation. Whether you take first uncaused cause or any other. Quran discusses that matter in a different style, by asking questions from our intellect, providing us reasons for opening the mind. Example: 52:35-36, 65:12, 31:11, 22:73, 67:2-3, 41:9-13, & much more. The whole Quran describes in detail the creation of all things. How can you say that Quran does not proves existence of God? Every creation points towards its creator, our selves are pointing towards Him. Does such a Creator really need to prove His existence?

 

1 hour ago, Afzali said:

This is because God knows that it human reason that must prove the existence of God and if God supposedly tries to prove His existence through His words, this kind of reasoning will end up in vicious circle


Very Strange sentence, I am wondering why we need to prove the existence of a thing, like which there is nothing. Who has created us & so many things around us for our observations. If you think, it is the duty of human intellect to prove His existence, then everyone believe in any sort of deity, some worship star(s), some worship idols, some even divide that One God into several parts. These were the blunders of human reason and we humans are still doing these non-senses and many insist on their ignorance.

2 hours ago, Afzali said:

It is because of all these that we are of the view that reason is more fundamental than revelation, for the latter is based on the former and not conversely.

Ok, imagine what Christians did with the Oneness of God. If Prophet Muhammad would not arrived among us & there is no Quran. Where our reason would have taken us in such case?  Either you & I were worshipping idols or were believing on triune nature of God or were saying what atheists say, spontaneously created & evolved.

2 hours ago, Afzali said:

If it is totally invalidated then how can we understand anything?

Who is invalidating the reason? You're stressing on authority of reason over revelation while I am stressing on authority of revelation which contains the reason. Reason is our ability, our action, who we are & how we are? See the Quran, what words Allah has used for majority of Humans. 

1 hour ago, Afzali said:

As far as the details of divine qualities are concerned we can somehow rely on revelation. Even here we have to be very cautious, not looking at things at their surface values. If you go through the Holy Quran you will find many verses that attribute to God human qualities. These qualities are called revealed qualities. According to such verses, God has hands as we humans do; God seats Himself on the throne just as we are do and so on and so forth. But can we say, based on the available verses, that God has physical organs just as we humans do? Can we say that God has a body for some verses have got such an implication?

I think we need to understand that the Prophets are also part of revelation. You can see the word "Arsalna" for them in Quran & the word "Tanzeel" for scriptures (57:25). What "Arsalna" really means? Prophets were born here, in this world. Why then Quran has used the word "Arsalna" for them? Arsalna means "to send".  

If Quran saying that God has hands, Quran also provide the literal meaning of His hands e.g., the hand of Prophet has been mentioned as the hand of God, Imam Ali is famous as "Yadullah". So there is no confusion in Quran neither its verses are colliding with each other. 
4:82

أَفَلاَ يَتَدَبَّرُونَ الْقُرْآنَ وَلَوْ كَانَ مِنْ عِندِ غَيْرِ اللّهِ لَوَجَدُواْ فِيهِ اخْتِلاَفًا كَثِيرًا

This verse itself is a command to evaluate The Book, the word "yatadabbaroon" inviting human intellect to ponder and the invitation is associated with reason that "if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy."

1 hour ago, Afzali said:

But we, as Shias, believing in the supremacy of reason, cannot make such assumptions. That is the reason why Shia scholars have not accepted the revealed qualities with their literal meanings. Instead, they have interpreted the said verses in a manner that does not contradict with philosophical rules and logical laws. That is why "hand" or "throne" mean nothing but "power", according to Shia scholars.    

All I need to refer here is a famous Hadith of Prophet Muhammad known as "Hadith Al-thaqalain". What two weighty things prophet left among us? He promised that if we cling ourselves to them, we will not be misguided. If reason has such supremacy, Prophet would have not mentioned that most valued things. By the way, we have not invented anything from ourselves rather we have accepted the explanation given by Aimma-e-Tahireen (a.s) which also contain "reason". e.g., Read Touheed-e-Mufassil, read Nehjul Balagha, read the ahadith of Aimma-e-Tahireen (a.s) describing the revealed qualities. 

These are the "Noori" creation, our Hadi & Leaders, the owners of the divine knowledge, peace & blessings of Allah be on them. 

  
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Few questions here are that what you call a reason which is coliding with Quran or Sunnah?

Secondly, there are approx. 8 billion humans living on Earth at the moment, everyone of them has the ability to reason. If this ability to reason left unbounded or unguided, what would happen to humanity? Every human would have invented false gods, similar to what humans did in past. 

Revelation is based on facts which are supported by reasons, hence it is said that revelation guides us towards truth, and it is not possible for reason to deny the fact.

Surah Yunus, Verse 35:

قُلْ هَلْ مِن شُرَكَائِكُم مَّن يَهْدِي إِلَى الْحَقِّ قُلِ اللَّهُ يَهْدِي لِلْحَقِّ أَفَمَن يَهْدِي إِلَى الْحَقِّ أَحَقُّ أَن يُتَّبَعَ أَمَّن لَّا يَهِدِّي إِلَّا أَن يُهْدَىٰ فَمَا لَكُمْ كَيْفَ تَحْكُمُونَ

Say: Is there any of your associates who guides to the truth? Say: Allah guides to the truth. Is He then Who guides to the truth more worthy to be followed, or he who himself does not go aright unless he is guided? What then is the matter with you; how do you judge?

Surah Yunus, Verse 36:

وَمَا يَتَّبِعُ أَكْثَرُهُمْ إِلَّا ظَنًّا إِنَّ الظَّنَّ لَا يُغْنِي مِنَ الْحَقِّ شَيْئًا إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلِيمٌ بِمَا يَفْعَلُونَ

And most of them do not follow (anything) but conjecture; surely conjecture will not avail aught against the truth; surely Allah is cognizant of what they do.

Surah Al-Isra, Verse 9:

إِنَّ هَٰذَا الْقُرْآنَ يَهْدِي لِلَّتِي هِيَ أَقْوَمُ وَيُبَشِّرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ الَّذِينَ يَعْمَلُونَ الصَّالِحَاتِ أَنَّ لَهُمْ أَجْرًا كَبِيرًا

Surely this Quran guides to that which is most upright and gives good news to the believers who do good that they shall have a great reward.

(English - Shakir)

 

Even if one denies the truth consciously, his nafs would be aware that he is declining the truth & Quran mentions that as:

"Surah Al-Qiyama, Verse 14:

بَلِ الْإِنسَانُ عَلَىٰ نَفْسِهِ بَصِيرَةٌ

Nay! man is evidence against himself,"

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In reference to the topic title, akhbarism is still thriving in the middle east with large numbers of followers adhering to this school of thought, our akhbari scholars/shaikhs are scattered throughout the middle east (iraq, kuwait, east saudi, and bahrain), and we also have our own mosques. Yes, today akhbaris are the minority. In the past (appx 250 years ago), they had a huge presence in iraq during Yusuf Al Bahrani and Al Bahbahini's time, there was a lot of debates and discussions that happened during that time between akhbari and usooli scholars, sadly this lead to accusations and takfir between both groups, the dispute between akhbaris and usoolis reached a point where usooli scholars issued fatwas to kill akhbari scholars!! This resulted in the murder of the akhbari scholar mohammed mirza al akhbari....i know this might shock a lot of shias, but this is the dark history of the dispute between the two schools of thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Khaled J. said:

In reference to the topic title, akhbarism is still thriving in the middle east with large numbers of followers adhering to this school of thought, our akhbari scholars/shaikhs are scattered throughout the middle east (iraq, kuwait, east saudi, and bahrain), and we also have our own mosques.

So you're Akhbari!

What is meant by "akhbar" in the term Akhbari?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Engineer73 said:

So you're Akhbari!

What is meant by "akhbar" in the term Akhbari?

Akhbari is derived from the arabic word "Akhbar اخبار" which means "news or reports", and since they reject ijtihad and reasoning, they rely in Akhbar Ahlulbayt (reports of ahlulbayt) and thus they got the name Akhbaris.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Khaled J. said:

Akhbari is derived from the arabic word "Akhbar اخبار" which means "news or reports", and since they reject ijtihad and reasoning, they rely in Akhbar Ahlulbayt (reports of ahlulbayt) and thus they got the name Akhbaris.

"Ijtihad (Arabic اجتهاد) is a technical term of Islamic law that describes the process of making a legal decision by independent interpretation of the legal sources, the Qur'an and the Sunnah."

Having said that, I would like to know as to why you reject ijtihad & reasoning? What is the purpose of human intellect? And what are the meanings of these Arabic words used in Quran "yatafakkaroon" & "yatadabbaroon"?

And most important is that how we take guidance from Quran & Sunnah on matters which never discussed in the times of Ahlul-bait a.s? Example, using tooth brush for cleaning teeths, using modern equipments & means for transportation & journey, Blood transfusion, organ transplant, going to outer space or moon etc.

Edited by Engineer73

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Engineer73 said:

"Ijtihad (Arabic اجتهاد) is a technical term of Islamic law that describes the process of making a legal decision by independent interpretation of the legal sources, the Qur'an and the Sunnah."

 

Salam

Actually the term ijtihad comes from the words Jahd which refers to deep struggle in the path of religion.

But the definition you gave came into islam later.The Imams as far as I am aware have not given the definition above.

When you read the Quran or hadiths as far as I know ijtihad/jahd has not been termed as above, it is mainly indicating to people who strive in the path of religion, it did not entail the meaning of going to a particular institute to acquire a particular certificate to be known as a mujtahid.

Back then their was no hawza, to be given a qualification of being a mujtahid.It was either a divinely appointed Imam you follow, or follow the scholars who derived their own opinions from religion, such as Abu Hanifa vs Imam Jafar al Sadiq.

For example you can say Salman Farsi was considered a true mujtahid from God's view because he truly strived hard that he managed to achieve the same knowledge the prophet and Imam Ali had, by the grace of God according to reliable hadiths.

Wasalam

 

Edited by certainclarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, certainclarity said:

Salam

Actually the term ijtihad comes from the words Jahd which refers to deep struggle in the path of religion.

But the definition you gave came into islam later.The Imams as far as I am aware have not given the definition above.

When you read the Quran or hadiths as far as I know ijtihad/jahd has not been termed as above, it is mainly indicating to people who strive in the path of religion, it did not entail the meaning of going to a particular institute to acquire a particular certificate to be known as a mujtahid.

Back then their was no hawza, to be given a qualification of being a mujtahid.It was either a divinely appointed Imam you follow, or follow the scholars who derived their own opinions from religion, such as Abu Hanifa vs Imam Jafar al Sadiq.

For example you can say Salman Farsi was considered a true mujtahid from God's view because he truly strived hard that he managed to achieve the same knowledge the prophet and Imam Ali had, by the grace of God according to reliable hadiths.

Wasalam

 

*juhud.

The definition of ijtihad has changed, or rather the perception of the word has changed.

In early times it was a synonym with qiyas and guesswork by sunni Imams such as Abu Hanifa.

It is not essentially linked to that, and as Shia scholars started deriving fiqh from sound sources they too called their work ijtihad. 

So the ijtihad of the early sunni imams is not the same as ours, and that is why there is some confusion on this term. Our sound sources, or usul al fiqh being quran, sunnah, ijma and aql.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ۱۳۹۵/۱۰/۲۲ ه‍.ش. at 2:09 PM, Engineer73 said:

Nearly all the strongest arguments of Muslims in favor of existence of God are deducted from revelation. Whether you take first uncaused cause or any other. Quran discusses that matter in a different style, by asking questions from our intellect, providing us reasons for opening the mind. Example: 52:35-36, 65:12, 31:11, 22:73, 67:2-3, 41:9-13, & much more.

Let's be fair

It is good to defend a right cause, but one should make sure that one is not allowed to make use of every means –right or wrong – to defend that cause. In moral philosophy it has been proven that ends cannot justify the means. We cannot further discuss about this issue here. Our objective is to tell you that being a Shia we cannot use every means for reaching our goals. In other words, ethics tells us to be fair even when we encounter our enemies. You claim that all the arguments for the existence of God are based on revelation!! Very strange a claim!! Do you think the claim you have made is fair? Are you really sure that all such arguments are based on divine revelation or are you presenting your rough estimations as sound statements? There are several arguments for the existence of God and there are numerous versions of each one of these arguments? Have you really seen all these arguments plus with their different versions? If so, then offer a revelation-based explanation for some of the arguments if not for all. If not, then why do you make such a big claim that all arguments for the existence of God are based on divine revelations? The verses you have alluded to are mere questions that encourage human beings (in an irshadi mode) to refer to their reason and listen to its calls. If human reason was not authoritative then God would not order man to refer to it and put into practice its directives. The revelation you are talking about includes as you have said elsewhere only the Islamic scripture. If you equate revelation with Islamic scripture and at the same time claim that arguments for God are based on revelation you knowingly or unknowingly imply that arguments for the existence of God are based on Islamic scripture. But it is wrong to make such a claim for we know that many of the arguments for the existence of God are shared not only by Muslims but also by non Muslims. The argument from the unmoved mover was put forth by Aristotle while he was not a monotheist (according to some accounts) not to speak of being a Muslim. The main problem with basing the arguments for the existence of God, on revelation is that this leads us to a 'vicious circle', a thing scholars cannot accept by any measure.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Afzali said:

You claim that all the arguments for the existence of God are based on revelation!! Very strange a claim!! Do you think the claim you have made is fair? Are you really sure that all such arguments are based on divine revelation or are you presenting your rough estimations as sound statements?

Yes, it is quite fair.

What is revelation? I hope you will say revelation is a sort of guidance. Let me add one more sentence here, there is a system of guidance in place & revelation is part of that system. 

Guidance for whom? I hope you will say for human beings.

What in human beings needs that guidance? I hope you will say our consciousness, our intellect & our capacity to reason.

Now here is the measure to weigh my & your claim:

Surah Yunus, Verse 35:

 أَفَمَن يَهْدِي إِلَى الْحَقِّ أَحَقُّ أَن يُتَّبَعَ أَمَّن لَّا يَهِدِّي إِلَّا أَن يُهْدَىٰ فَمَا لَكُمْ كَيْفَ تَحْكُمُونَ

So what guides our capacity to produce & test reasons, is revelation. That is why we are commanded to "follow" (yuttaba'a).

"Is He then Who guides to the truth more worthy to be followed, or he who himself does not go aright unless he is guided? "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ۱۳۹۵/۱۰/۲۲ ه‍.ش. at 2:09 PM, Engineer73 said:

Very Strange sentence, I am wondering why we need to prove the existence of a thing, like which there is nothing. Who has created us & so many things around us for our observations

Existence of God

I agree that God is all-knowing and all present and on account of this, he is the reason for the existence of other things and other things being dependent on Him do not have the capacity to represent Him in full illustrating His absolute power and His tremendous glory. This has been alluded to by Islamic texts as well, but the fact of the matter is that this stage of understanding is not within the reach of all including the layman and those on the street. Being used to sensory and tangible things an ordinary person cannot come to gather what is metaphysical. As there is reluctance in him to follow supernatural issues there is on the contrary a strong tendency and urge in him to tilt towards sensory things. Given all this the existence of God is not that much vivid especially for modern man who has listened to the speeches made by people like Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, the German philosopher who publicly declared that God was dead! It is because of this that atheists are now unfortunately thriving. Keeping all this mind, should we keep quite doing nothing? Or should we stand on our feet and do something to clear the clouds of doubt proving to people the existence of God? Now if we suppose that it is our duty to prove the existence of God as Imam Sadiq (a.s) did when he faced an atheist should we rely on scriptures as our starting point or should we capitalize on things that are understood and accepted by all? I think you will not disagree with in saying that the right decision in this moment is to follow the latter strategy, enlightening thus people on the basis of what they already understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Afzali said:

Given all this the existence of God is not that much vivid especially for modern man who has listened to the speeches made by people like Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, the German philosopher who publicly declared that God was dead! It is because of this that atheists are now unfortunately thriving. Keeping all this mind, should we keep quite doing nothing?

I know very well about atheists & their view points. What alternate they have for the origin of universe & life? Some of them say they dont know, others present  ideas of spontaneous generation.

We should speak what we know about God. It is never said that we should stay quite if anyone asks from us or even challenge the existence of God before us. But we should also remember our limitations & the rights of others as set by Allah (s.w.t):

Surah Al-Insan, Verse 3:

إِنَّا هَدَيْنَاهُ السَّبِيلَ إِمَّا شَاكِرًا وَإِمَّا كَفُورًا

Surely We have shown him the way: he may be thankful or unthankful.

(English - Shakir)

1 hour ago, Afzali said:

Now if we suppose that it is our duty to prove the existence of God as Imam Sadiq (a.s) did when he faced an atheist should we rely on scriptures as our starting point or should we capitalize on things that are understood and accepted by all? I think you will not disagree with in saying that the right decision in this moment is to follow the latter strategy, enlightening thus people on the basis of what they already understand.

It is not OUR duty, we should be very clear on that. It is the duty of our Imams, and they are also Ayaat-e-Ilahi.

We cannot, in anycase put the guidance in second place. We have to hold our dialogs or arguments within the specified criteria mentioned in the scripture & taught by Aimma e Tahireen a.s

Is it not the fact that atheists are still there? How many logical arguments we have to prove the existence of God? We have many, why then there are atheists & why so many muslims & christians are turning into atheists? 

I was asked by an atheists a question, he asked me that why I believe that universe is created by God? He said the he has studied all the arguments and requested me to tell him something new. I said to him that I believe that knowledge (ilm) & power (qudrat) are pre-requsites for the origin of systems like universe and life. These pre-requsites points towards the existence of an Ever-Living, Supreme Being. 

What was the source of my statement?

Surah At-Talaq, Verse 12:

اللَّهُ الَّذِي خَلَقَ سَبْعَ سَمَاوَاتٍ وَمِنَ الْأَرْضِ مِثْلَهُنَّ يَتَنَزَّلُ الْأَمْرُ بَيْنَهُنَّ لِتَعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ وَأَنَّ اللَّهَ قَدْ أَحَاطَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عِلْمًا

Allah is He Who created seven heavens, and of the earth the like of them; the decree continues to descend among them, that you may know that Allah has power over all things and that Allah indeed encompasses all things in (His) knowledge.

(English - Shakir)

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×