Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Unity of acts (tawhid al-afʿal)

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
On 8/13/2020 at 2:38 AM, Cherub786 said:

I believe Allah has two Hands, two Eyes, Face, and these are His Personal/Essential attributes. I also believe in Allah's attributes of action, like arriving, coming, happiness, love, fury, speaking, and so on and so forth. But of course, none of these Divine Attributes are comparable to created things.

Lol, the fact that He has these physical things shows that He is not unique. Other creations have these features. 

so you believe the attributes that are given to Allah due to His actions are part of His essence ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

We orthodox Sunni Muslims believe Allah Azza wa Jalla is the Creator of our actions, but that we earn them. This is known as the doctrine of Kasb. So the action itself is created by Allah, but the res

Now as for our orthodox Sunni Islamic doctrine that I have described above, that Allah Most High is the Creator of our deeds, it is 100% substantiated by the Holy Quran: وَاللَّـهُ خَلَقَكُمْ وَم

Salaam Aleikum,  From wikishia: Twelver Shiite theologians do not see any contradiction between the attribution of human actions to themselves and to God at the same time. They maintain that

Posted Images

  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
56 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

: You believe in the Ghaybat al Kubra, the supernatural occultation of the Twelfth Imam, a human being, for over a millennia. You believe human Imams are incapable of even being tempted in their thoughts to commit wrong. You believe the Twelve Imams, human beings, possess control and mastery over all the atoms of the universe. You even believe rabbits were transformed human females who were careless about not purifying themselves from menstrual blood! You believe the Imams were not born from the wombs of their mothers but from their thighs. You believe Abu Talib suckled the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. You believe in Raj'ah (return of certain deceased individuals before the end of this world). You believe the martyrs and Imams are literally alive, and able to hear and grant prayers. Need I go on?

You really misunderstood whole of it every muslim wether Sunni or Shia belives  that prophet Khidr (عليه السلام) was alive at time of prophet Musa (عليه السلام) that although his name not mentioned in holy Quran but majority of sunni interpretations said it was prophet Khidr (عليه السلام) that they believe that he is still alive although nobody sees him so being alive  & being in occultation for over a millennia is not supernatural in comparison with story of occultation & long life of prophet Khidr (عليه السلام) & 12 Imams are human beings in appearance but they are divine figures with lower status than Allah & prophet Muhammad (pbu) that sunnis believe that prophet Muhammad (pbu) splitted moon to two half & moved two parts that shows his mastery over all atoms of universe & story of rabbits is a baseless propgand & false accusation of wahabi hate preachers against shia muslims & we belive that Imams are born from wombs of their mothers like other humans that your are lying based on wrong information that you received from anti shia people & mind your language about Abu Talib (رضي الله عنه) , your statement about him is very disrespectful anyway it recorded that  after birth of Imam Ali(عليه السلام) prophet Muhammad (pbu) put his thumb inside mouth of new born baby that as a miracle by prophet Muhammad (pbu) he suckled milk from his sacred thumb .there is no contradiction in idea of Raj'ah with Islamic belief & you rejected concept of martyrs & Imam based teachings of some random guys that even does not represent Sunni muslims anyway if you really want to  learn about Twelver beliefs instead of repeating wahabi & Salfi lies about us read about it in creditable sites like  https://www.al-islam.org or http://www.al-shia.org instead of taking wrong information from some hateful wahabi preacher that their job is spreading lies about twelvers that you mentioned in your nonsense post.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
1 hour ago, Cherub786 said:

You believe the Imams were not born from the wombs of their mothers but from their thighs. You believe Abu Talib suckled the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم.

What did you mean here? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Just the truth
1 hour ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

You really misunderstood whole of it every muslim wether Sunni or Shia belives  that prophet Khidr (عليه السلام) was alive at time of prophet Musa (عليه السلام) that although his name not mentioned in holy Quran but majority of sunni interpretations said it was prophet Khidr (عليه السلام) that they believe that he is still alive although nobody sees him so being alive  & being in occultation for over a millennia is not supernatural in comparison with story of occultation & long life of prophet Khidr (عليه السلام) & 12 Imams are human beings in appearance but they are divine figures with lower status than Allah & prophet Muhammad (pbu) that sunnis believe that prophet Muhammad (pbu) splitted moon to two half & moved two parts that shows his mastery over all atoms of universe & story of rabbits is a baseless propgand & false accusation of wahabi hate preachers against shia muslims & we belive that Imams are born from wombs of their mothers like other humans that your are lying based on wrong information that you received from anti shia people & mind your language about Abu Talib (رضي الله عنه) , your statement about him is very disrespectful anyway it recorded that  after birth of Imam Ali(عليه السلام) prophet Muhammad (pbu) put his thumb inside mouth of new born baby that as a miracle by prophet Muhammad (pbu) he suckled milk from his sacred thumb .there is no contradiction in idea of Raj'ah with Islamic belief & you rejected concept of martyrs & Imam based teachings of some random guys that even does not represent Sunni muslims anyway if you really want to  learn about Twelver beliefs instead of repeating wahabi & Salfi lies about us read about it in creditable sites like  https://www.al-islam.org or http://www.al-shia.org instead of taking wrong information from some hateful wahabi preacher that their job is spreading lies about twelvers that you mentioned in your nonsense post.

So prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) put His finger in the mouth of Ali ra and milk came out?

Honestly?

As for rajah lol that’s just reincarnation in a different form of which there is NO evidence in the Quran.

If you do have evidence please do provide so we can take it at face value.

Thankyou

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Let me ask you something, does God Almighty have the power to create something that has a real, true existence? Yes or no?

Let me ask you something, does God Almighty have the ability to destroy or limit Himself?

Another question: 

When you say God is real, and creation is real, what do you mean?  Are they equal in reality (realness)?  Yes or No?  If no, then in what way is the reality of the creation different from the reality of God?  

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

Let me ask you something, does God Almighty have the ability to destroy or limit Himself?

Another question: 

When you say God is real, and creation is real, what do you mean?  Are they equal in reality (realness)?  Yes or No?  If no, then in what way is the reality of the creation different from the reality of God?  

According to the principles of etiquette and debate, shouldn't you answer my question first, since I posed my question first? Once you've answered my question I will gladly answer yours ان شاء الله

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, THREE1THREE said:

Lol, the fact that He has these physical things shows that He is not unique. Other creations have these features. 
 
so you believe the attributes that are given to Allah due to His actions are part of His essence ? 
 

This is your limited comprehension that Hand, Eyes and Face have to be physical things. We have a broader understanding of language and metaphysics to realize the words do not always refer to "physical things".

You claim that Allah having Hands, Eyes and Face compromises His uniqueness. Let me ask you a question: Does Allah hear, does He see, does He speak? According to you, creation have these features too. So what happened to God's uniqueness (according to you)?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
40 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

You claim that Allah having Hands, Eyes and Face compromises His uniqueness. Let me ask you a question: Does Allah hear, does He see, does He speak? According to you, creation have these features too. So what happened to God's uniqueness (according to you)?

Does He have a mouth to speak or does He create sound waves to convey His message like He did to Musa ? 
 

does He have organs to have sight or is He All-seeing ? 

does He hear with an organ or is He all-hearing ? 

organs are limited. 

you are in kaffur by giving Allah a form.

no only his not unique by give him a body but also giving Him an abode.

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

What did you mean here? 

I mean that according to Twelver Shi'i doctrine, the 12 Imams are born from the right thighs of their mothers, not from their wombs:

  انا معاشر الاوصياء لسنا نحمل في البطون وانما نحمل في الجنوب ولا نخرج من الارحام وانما نخرج من الفخذ الايمن من امهاتنا لأننا نور الله الذي لا تناله الدانسات

 

al-Hasan al-Askari said: "We the Awsiya are not carried in the bellies but in the sides, and we don't come out from the wombs but we come out from the right thigh of our mothers"

(Bihar al-Anwar v.51 p.26 of Mulla Baqir Majlisi):

 

title.png.2ed1d42aa4ca08c6a0703a81538c505a.png769498536_ImamHasanAskariquotedImamsarebornfromRightThighofMother(BiharalAnwarv_51p.26).png.2dcfd0acb4766fc7876534c4c7442c72.png

This is also confirmed in Abbas al-Qummi in al-Muntaha al-Amal and al-Bahraini in Madinat ul Maja'iz (v.8 p.22)

Edited by Cherub786
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

prophet Khidr (عليه السلام) that they believe that he is still alive although nobody sees him

I don't believe this. He عليه السلام is deceased.

Quote

12 Imams are human beings in appearance but they are divine figures

لا اله الا الله

There is no divine figure except Allah

Your belief is the same as many Christians, who believe Jesus of Nazareth is a human in appearance, but a divine figure in reality

Quote

sunnis believe that prophet Muhammad (pbu) splitted moon to two half & moved two parts that shows his mastery over all atoms of universe

I don't believe this.

Quote

 story of rabbits is a baseless propgand & false accusation of wahabi hate preachers against shia muslims

I will ان شاء الله cite the reference for this from your own literature

Quote

false accusation of wahabi hate preachers against shia muslims & we belive that Imams are born from wombs of their mothers like other humans that your are lying based on wrong information that you received from anti shia people

It is not a false accusation. Read my previous post where I visually quoted the reference and even scanned page from the actual book Bihar al-Anwar. Is Bihar al-Anwar a Wahhabi book?

Quote

mind your language about Abu Talib (رضي الله عنه) , your statement about him is very disrespectful

I don't know why you are offended, I am only quoting your own belief. Are you saying quoting your belief is disrespectful? Please use your common sense before shooting yourself in the foot.

Please keep in mind I am not necessarily objecting to these beliefs when I quoted them, my intention was to demonstrate the double standard of Follower of Ahlulbayt

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2020 at 7:41 AM, Follower of Ahlulbayt said:

This is a straw man. I never said that any verse independent of a cosmological argument is speculative. I said verses with more than one possible meaning are speculative. So yes, your interpretation (and my interpretation) of the Qur'an with respect to the verses which are relevant to this discussion are speculative. Why? Because any verse you bring will be open multiple possible interpretations. The Mu'tazila, the Asha'irah, the Maturidiyya, the Shi'a, the Ibadhis and many other sects from Islam including the great grammarians and scholars of the arabic language from these sects interpreted these verses differently. Again, it is not me putting reason over revelation or anything like that. It is me considering the epistemic value of reason and revelation, and seeing which one is certain or which one is more probable.

The fact that various sects like the ones you listed differ in interpretation of the Quranic verses relating to the Divine Attributes is not a proof that those Verses are genuinely open to multiple possible interpretations. On the contrary, it is my contention that such misguided sects are unfaithful to the clear and manifest meaning of the Quranic Verses and have distorted the meaning of those Verses unjustly. Now the only way for me to demonstrate this is to engage in an actual discussion with you regarding those Verses, but regrettably you are not prepared to do that.

Quote

I do not believe the Qur'an is the only authority or source to arrive at truth. I believe the intellect can arrive at truth, independent of revelation. 

How can the intellect arrive at Truth with regard to those matters that are beyond the intellect's limitations?

And it is itself a rational argument that the subject of the Divine Essence and Attributes is ultimately beyond the human intellect's limitations. This is something you repeatedly fail to understand. I am not rejecting the value of rational inquiry, but as a Muslim, it is necessary to believe that Revelation takes precedence over rational arguments if the two are evidently at odds with each other in any affair

Quote

I do not want to move on in the discussion until you admit that the intellect is an authority that can arrive at true conclusions independent of revelation.

I will never admit that the intellect can arrive at any true conclusion, with a degree of absolute certainty, regarding abstract matters of theology. This itself is based on a rational argument, for it is established that the human intellect is limited.

On the other hand, you are escaping a discussion on the Revelation itself, though you acknowledge it as the supreme authority in matters of theology. This is very strange

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Follower of Ahlulbayt said:

I did not just assume your interpretation is not the intended meaning. This again is you not being able to represent my arguments accurately. I said your interpretation of whatever verse you bring in this discussion will be speculative, as will mine. But, since your speculative understanding of a verse contradicts certain conclusions reached through reason, I know it is not what Allah intended.

Arguments will demonstrate whether any given interpretation of a Verse is speculative or not. According to me, your cosmological arguments are very speculative.

Another thing you seem to be missing, and I believe you are using it as a tactic to avoid discussion of the Quran, is that our purpose is to present arguments and let the readers decide which one is weightier, which one is more sensible, and which one is likelier to be true. You seem to think we should arrive at a 100% perfect conclusion, but only God is perfect. I feel you are using this tactic as an excuse to avoid discussion of Quranic Verses that you know deep down establish my orthodox Sunni belief that Allah has a multiplicity of necessary, uncaused and uncreated attributes.

Quote

First, let me be clear. The cosmological arguments do not prove all of God's attributes like you implied. Secondly, these arguments mainly prove what God is not. When we look into the world we see that we have certain attributes that demand us to be caused beings. All the arguments are doing is saying that God cannot have those things in creatures which are the reasons why creatures are caused to exist. 

So yes, God is beyond our comprehension in a certain sense. But we know that God cannot have those properties that make creatures finite, limited, imperfect and caused to exist. In this sense, we can comprehend God. We can prove why God cannot be a man, He cannot be a tree, or a stone or a planet and He cannot lie etc.

I don't agree that your cosmological arguments can prove decisively what properties God must or must not have. I don't believe it can be proven decisively that God is not a man, a tree, a stone or a planet purely from your cosmological arguments. But you are welcome to prove me wrong. Go ahead and explain your cosmological arguments and explain why certain attributes or properties cannot be ascribed to God.

Quote

I consider your paragraph here as evidence that you have been struggling in this dialogue (and you know it) so in order to compensate for your lack of competence in this discussion, you had to divert to completely unrelated issues. 

First, you accuse me of not being critical with respect to other Twelver doctrines, which is simply ad hominem and a completely unsubstantiated accusation.

Second, you accused me of believing of things which I just don't believe in. You just assumed I believed in them. 

These are all signs that you are desperately trying to gain some points in a discussion where you have lacked any real considerable arguments. 

I don't agree that this is a diversion or unrelated. I am demonstrating your double standard in that you are so intent on the certainty derived from cosmological arguments regarding the Divine Attributes such that you dismiss the apparent meaning of the Divine Revelation, but at the same time, you are unwilling to re-examine your other points of creed that are more concrete and falsifiable using the same standard of rational inquiry.

But before we proceed further, I will have to know whether you are a Twelver Shi'i? So please kindly confirm whether you are an Ithna Ashari or not? Do you believe in the ghaybat al-kubra of the Twelfth Imam or not?

It is possible that I've been discussing with a non-Twelver all along, in which case I apologize for misrepresenting your beliefs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

This will be my last response to you. It is clear that we are not moving forward, and I believe you just have not been able to understand my arguments. Additionally, I have noticed that you also have completely just ignored and not engaged with some of my points.

3 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

The fact that various sects like the ones you listed differ in interpretation of the Quranic verses relating to the Divine Attributes is not a proof that those Verses are genuinely open to multiple possible interpretations. On the contrary, it is my contention that such misguided sects are unfaithful to the clear and manifest meaning of the Quranic Verses and have distorted the meaning of those Verses unjustly. Now the only way for me to demonstrate this is to engage in an actual discussion with you regarding those Verses, but regrettably you are not prepared to do that.

It is quite disingenuous and selfish for you to claim that all those sects, including the scholars of the Arabic language from these sects interpreted the Qur'an or a particular verses according to a meaning which was impossible, and not within the scope of the language. Yes, you can claim they interpreted the Qur'an according to a meaning other than the apparent meaning, which you believe is the correct meaning. But to claim that they interpreted the Qur'an according to meanings which were not possible at all is silly. 

Now, you say such scholars distorted the meaning of the verses unjustly. This is not true at all. These sects realized that the Qur'anic verses are open to many possible interpretations, so such verses are speculative. Yes, the apparent meaning may be the more likely meaning, but other meanings are still possible. So, the apparent meaning is still speculative. And they also realized that through rational arguments, they have proven that Allah has certain attributes with certainty. So, they did what every rational person on the planet would do and gave precedence to their certainty over speculation. 

And again, how can we move on to a discussion about the Qur'an when I am saying that you have no basis for even believing in the Qur'an in the first place. I am willing to engage in the discussion of whether the Qur'an supports my view or your view, but such a discussion cannot be had if you don't even have a foundation for believing in the Qur'an in the first place. 

4 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

How can the intellect arrive at Truth with regard to those matters that are beyond the intellect's limitations?

And it is itself a rational argument that the subject of the Divine Essence and Attributes is ultimately beyond the human intellect's limitations. This is something you repeatedly fail to understand. I am not rejecting the value of rational inquiry, but as a Muslim, it is necessary to believe that Revelation takes precedence over rational arguments if the two are evidently at odds with each other in any affair

This is just begging the question. Proving the existence of God is something the intellect is capable of doing. Deriving some of His attributes from the conclusions of those arguments which prove His existence is something the intellect is capable of doing. For you to disagree with this prior to me even presenting any argument, shows that you are not willing to sincerely change your mind. 

Again, your position is circular. You say that the subject of the divine attributes is beyond the human intellect. Ok, so the human intellect cannot prove that God cannot lie then. So you have to appeal to revelation in order to prove God cannot lie. Guess what? This is circular reasoning. 

Again, the divine essence is beyond the human intellect in a certain sense. But, the human intellect is able to look into creation, and see we have certain attributes that demand us to be caused beings. So, in this sense the human intellect is able to comprehend in God, since we negate those creaturely properties of God that would make Him imperfect, limited, and caused to exist like creatures. The whole reason God is incompressible to our finite intellects is precisely because He does not have the finite attributes which we creatures have. 

It is not necessary for a Muslim to believe that revelation takes precedence over the intellect. This is a simplistic understanding. Rather, a Muslim must consider the epistemic weight of both reason and revelation, and see which one is certain and which one is speculative, or if both speculative which one is more likely.  So revelation could take precedence over reason, or reason could take precedence over revelation (one's understanding of revelation, rather). 

4 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

I will never admit that the intellect can arrive at any true conclusion, with a degree of absolute certainty, regarding abstract matters of theology. This itself is based on a rational argument, for it is established that the human intellect is limited.

On the other hand, you are escaping a discussion on the Revelation itself, though you acknowledge it as the supreme authority in matters of theology. This is very strange

Once again, you position is circular. And once again, you have straw-manned my position. This is the reason I no longer want to discuss with you. "I will never admit" well if you will never change your mind, then why should I consider continuing any discussion? You will never leave you position which is circular and inconsistent. 

If the intellect cannot attain certainty in any matter in matters of theology, then you cannot prove that God cannot lie with certainty without falling into circular reasoning. 

Also, you ignored my previous arguments. The Qur'an itself gives rational arguments for God's existence. I asked you if these arguments are true in virtue of being in the Qur'an, or in virtue of the arguments themselves being sound. If the former, it is circular. If the latter, then you concede my position. 

And again, how do you know the Prophet cannot make mistakes while delivering the message? All these questions you have not been able to answer.  

I never said revelation is supreme in matters of theology. Are you that slow that I yet again have to repeat to you what my argument is? My argument is that reason is an authority that can reach true conclusions, and revelation is an authority that can reach true conclusions. If reason concludes something that revelation doesn't speak on, then I can accept that conclusion. If revelation concludes something that reason has nothing to offer, than I can accept that conclusions. If there is a conflict between them, then we must consider the epistemic weight of reason and revelation. 

4 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

I feel you are using this tactic as an excuse to avoid discussion of Quranic Verses that you know deep down establish my orthodox Sunni belief that Allah has a multiplicity of necessary, uncaused and uncreated attributes.

No, the Qur'an doesn't establish your belief. Your understanding of the Qur'an, yes of course that agrees with your belief. But I disagree with your understanding, and I think you don't even have a basis to believe in the Qur'an in the first place. 

Also, Sunni belief is not that Allah has a multiplicity of necessary attributes. It is that Allah has a multiplicity of really distinct attributes. This means that Sunni belief is that there is more than one necessary being. Remember when I made this argument? You had to divert to the Qu'ran when you couldn't respond to it.

4 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

I don't agree that this is a diversion or unrelated. I am demonstrating your double standard in that you are so intent on the certainty derived from cosmological arguments regarding the Divine Attributes such that you dismiss the apparent meaning of the Divine Revelation, but at the same time, you are unwilling to re-examine your other points of creed that are more concrete and falsifiable using the same standard of rational inquiry.

But before we proceed further, I will have to know whether you are a Twelver Shi'i? So please kindly confirm whether you are an Ithna Ashari or not? Do you believe in the ghaybat al-kubra of the Twelfth Imam or not?

It is possible that I've been discussing with a non-Twelver all along, in which case I apologize for misrepresenting your beliefs.

Yes, I am a Twelver.

Just to let you know, there is nothing rationally impossible about the Ghaybat al-kubra or most of the other beliefs you ascribed to Twelver creed. These are just beliefs you find strange.

I could easily do the same thing. I could say that you believe that trees can cry, and that Adam (a) was around 30 m tall and human beings shrunk generation after generation. An atheist could argue that Nuh (a) living for 900 years is irrational, or the Prophet splitting the moon is irrational. The fact is that there is nothing irrational about any of this. Just because one finds these things strange, does not mean they are rationally falsifiable.

By the way, while I am Twelver Shi'i, that does not mean that those beliefs you mentioned are part of Twelver creed and that I must believe in them. Quoting a weak hadith from Bihar al-Anwar and showing that some scholars believed in such a hadith does not mean that the belief is dogma or necessary to believe in order to be Twelver. I have explicitly denied even here on ShiaChat some of the beliefs you mentioned.

 In any case this was a diversion tactic from you in order to gain some points.

In summary:

You have repeatedly not been able to understand my arguments and you keep straw-manning them.

You have completely ignored some of my arguments.

You had to divert to unrelated issues.

You are not open to being wrong.

You have no basis for your belief in Islam.

With all this I conclude that you are not a worthy person to continue to have a dialogue with. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Follower of Ahlulbayt said:

This will be my last response to you.

As you wish

Quote

But, the human intellect is able to look into creation, and see we have certain attributes that demand us to be caused beings. So, in this sense the human intellect is able to comprehend in God, since we negate those creaturely properties of God that would make Him imperfect, limited, and caused to exist like creatures. The whole reason God is incompressible to our finite intellects is precisely because He does not have the finite attributes which we creatures have. 

Let's cut to the chase. Show me from your cosmological arguments how it is impossible for God to have multiple, necessary, uncaused, uncreated Attributes

Quote

If the intellect cannot attain certainty in any matter in matters of theology, then you cannot prove that God cannot lie with certainty without falling into circular reasoning. 

I have no problem in using intellect and proving matters of theology from rational arguments. But I do have a problem with using rational arguments to prove something about theology that manifestly contravenes the Revelation. In the scenario you are describing, our belief that it is impossible for God to lie, I have no problem with rational arguments being employed to prove that, because it does not oppose the Revelation.

Quote

Yes, I am a Twelver.

Just to let you know, there is nothing rationally impossible about the Ghaybat al-kubra or most of the other beliefs you ascribed to Twelver creed. These are just beliefs you find strange.

I believe the Ghaybat al-Kubra is rationally impossible. Of course that is a different discussion and it is not my intention to divert. However, if you were honest and sincere, you would at the very least admit that though a possibility, the Ghaybat al-Kubra is rationally improbable and more than likely a myth.

Do you believe in something just because it is possible? Based on your standard, it is possible there is some old man with a curly, white beard and funny red clothes living in Ghaybat occultation in the North Pole. People call him Santa Claus. Is it rational to believe this doctrine? Or is it merely something strange but legitimate to believe?

How ironic it is that you accuse me of being disingenuous!

Quote

I could easily do the same thing. I could say that you believe that trees can cry, and that Adam (a) was around 30 m tall and human beings shrunk generation after generation.

No you can't because we have different standards to accept doctrines. I give precedence to Revelation, even in the scenario in which Revelation says something different to that which is a supposed result of rational arguments. But as you have emphatically made clear, this is not your standard. I am arguing against you using your own epistemological principles

And as a secondary point, just as you don't believe some of the points of Twelver doctrine I listed (despite you being a Twelver), likewise I don't believe the statement that Adam was 30 m tall in this Earthly realm, or that human beings shrunk considerably generation after generation. Again, no point in digressing into these issues.

Quote

the Prophet splitting the moon is irrational.

Indeed, it is irrational. I don't believe it. Neither does the Quran and Hadith teach that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم split the moon. If anyone split the moon literally it was Allah, Creator of Heaven and Earth, and not the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, a mortal human.

Furthermore, the splitting of the moon refers to a lunar eclipse that Allah displayed as a Heavenly Sign in favor of the veracity of the Prophesy of Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم, as sayyidina Ibn Abbas and sayyidina Ibn Mas'ud رضى الله عنهما have explained.

Quote

Quoting a weak hadith from Bihar al-Anwar

How is it weak, if I may ask?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, Follower of Ahlulbayt said:

You have repeatedly not been able to understand my arguments and you keep straw-manning them.

You have completely ignored some of my arguments.

You had to divert to unrelated issues.

You are not open to being wrong.

You have no basis for your belief in Islam.

With all this I conclude that you are not a worthy person to continue to have a dialogue with. 

Just like Leslie P I figured that would happen especially when he said he is “hanbali” lol more like wahabie. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, THREE1THREE said:

Then disbelieve In Christ’s ghaybah

Incidentally, I believe Jesus of Nazareth is deceased like all other Prophets.

But you have misunderstood my purpose. Follower of Ahlulbayt is unwilling to believe in anything that is rationally impossible, even if it is based on Revelation. I, however, am willing to believe in something rationally impossible (though I am hard pressed to find an example) as long as it is based in Divine Revelation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 8/12/2020 at 12:46 PM, Cherub786 said:

We orthodox Sunni Muslims believe Allah Azza wa Jalla is the Creator of our actions, but that we earn them. This is known as the doctrine of Kasb. So the action itself is created by Allah, but the responsibility of their goodness or evil is upon the human, because he or she earned the committing of that act due to the condition of the heart and soul. Another way to understand it is that the act is done by the human of their own volition and intention, but that the act has to be created by Allah and humans don't have the power to create acts independently, in fact nothing can be created independent of Allah's power and authority. This solves the dilemma of responsibility for deeds while also maintaining the Lordship and Sovereignty of Allah. Our doctrine is opposed by two groups: 1. Mujbirah and 2. Qadariyah

Mujbirah believe that humans do not commit deeds in reality, but that Allah is the true doer of all things or فاعل الحقيقي and that it only appears or seems that human is doing the act, so he is the actor metaphorically فاعل المجازي. This false doctrine absolves humans of responsibility for their deeds, and even worse, it indicates that Allah is the actual doer of evil deeds, including adultery معاذ الله

Qadariyah believe that humans are the creators of their own deeds absolutely and independent of Allah. This doctrine is false because it impugns the sovereignty of Allah, and it is an example of dualism, because it indicates that there are independent creators that are outside the Power of Allah, namely, humans.

This doctrine of the Qadariyah is inherited and held to be true by the Mu'tazilah and the Shi'ah.

Sunni belief in predestination (Qadar) eventually leads to denial of Hell (Jahannam) because logically one can’t be punished over his life that was predestined for him at birth. This is a trap that Ibn Sina (“Avicenna”) fell in where after much thought, he rejected the existence of afterlife punishment. Therefore, for example Sunnis reject mourning over Imam Hussein (عليه السلام) martyrdom staring that it was predestined for him at birth. It’s a famous argument used by many Sunnis, including Wahhabis, against (Shia) Muslims.

In contrast, orthodox (Shia) Muslims believe in bada’, alternation of divine will. Although we acknowledge that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) knows the destiny of each person, it can be altered at any time through the use of person’s free will that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) bestowed upon us all. People are not born or predisposed to be good or evil, it’s their choices that cause them to choose their behavioural patterns.

Logically, if one is predestined to be evil, then he can’t be ever punished for his actions that he had no influence over. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, OrthodoxTruth said:

Sunni belief in predestination (Qadar) eventually leads to denial of Hell (Jahannam) because logically one can’t be punished over his life that was predestined for him at birth.

Only if one understands pre-determination of the course of a person's life as necessarily taking away his freedom of choice and voluntary intention to commit the deeds he will commit throughout his life. But as I explained, the doctrine of Kasb reconciles Qadar and free will.

Furthermore, the doctrine of Qadar is not simply a "Sunni belief", it is taught by the Quran itself. The Quran teaches that Allah is the Creator of human deeds, and that He determined everything:

وَخَلَقَ كُلَّ شَىْءٍ فَقَدَّرَهُۥ تَقْدِيرًا

"He created each thing and determined it with precise determination"

Quote

Therefore, for example Sunnis reject mourning over Imam Hussein (عليه السلام) martyrdom staring that it was predestined for him at birth. It’s a famous argument used by many Sunnis, including Wahhabis, against (Shia) Muslims.

Incorrect. We do not enact rituals of mourning that the Shi'ah do over the martyrdom of sayyidina Imam Husain عليه السلام because such mourning rituals are forbidden in our Shari'ah, not because of the doctrine of Qadar.

I don't know how this argument is "famous" I never heard of it till today, could you please cite some evidence for the existence of this argument?

Quote

In contrast, orthodox (Shia) Muslims believe in bada’, alternation of divine will. Although we acknowledge that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) knows the destiny of each person, it can be altered at any time through the use of person’s free will that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) bestowed upon us all.

Okay, this is interesting. Can you please explain this doctrine a bit more? Does bada' mean the knowledge of Allah regarding the destiny of each person can be altered, just as you admitted the divine will can be altered? [*Let those people participating in this thread take note, according to this gentleman, change occurs within God Himself, which they claim is a rational impossibility according to their cosmological arguments!]

Quote

People are not born or predisposed to be good or evil,

We orthodox Sunni Muslims believe every human is born with an innate predisposition to be good

Quote

Logically, if one is predestined to be evil, then he can’t be ever punished for his actions that he had no influence over. 

That is a distortion of our belief, it is a straw man argument. I've already explained our belief and the doctrine of Kasb.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
32 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

Follower of Ahlulbayt is unwilling to believe in anything that is rationally impossible

Your absolutely stupid not gonna go deep into that. It’s you are irrational and trying to prove it through logical fallacies. Some aren’t even logical in the first place and plus you are stupid regarding basic arabic grammar on context. This exposed you from the very start in short it playing to win. And you rejected the imamat concept after I have shown it to you regarding younus ((عليه السلام)) being succeeded by another prophet sooner then later.
 

@ShiaChat Mod @Mahdavist it is fair to Say this person is undercover nasabi who has no aqil like his Trinitarian brethrens. Do what you gotta thanks. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Do you believe in something just because it is possible? Based on your standard, it is possible there is some old man with a curly, white beard and funny red clothes living in Ghaybat occultation in the North Pole. People call him Santa Claus. Is it rational to believe this doctrine? Or is it merely something strange but legitimate to believe?

You are a comedian. And an expert at straw-manning. 

I never said that just because something is possible, it is to be believed in. 

I think this sums up my whole discussion with you. 

Don't waste my time. If you are sincere, you should go over and study my replies to you. Then, you will realize how I have already refuted all your arguments, and you had to concede to my points eventually. 

As a recommendation, since you did ask for the cosmological arguments to be presented, I reccomend you read Ed Feser's Five Proofs of the Existence of God. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
19 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

Only if one understands pre-determination of the course of a person's life as necessarily taking away his freedom of choice and voluntary intention to commit the deeds he will commit throughout his life. But as I explained, the doctrine of Kasb reconciles Qadar and free will.

Kasb as a theological thought was developed by al-Ashari because Sunni Qadar couldn’t withstand logical criticism. Kasb was meant to be something “in between” predestination and free will, while it ended up being criticised as predetermination. It’s a fringe belief among Sunnis, while nearly all subscribed, and still do, to Qadar. Kasb is nothing more than nicely wrapped in confusion Qadar

Quote

Furthermore, the doctrine of Qadar is not simply a "Sunni belief", it is taught by the Quran itself. The Quran teaches that Allah is the Creator of human deeds, and that He determined everything:

وَخَلَقَ كُلَّ شَىْءٍ فَقَدَّرَهُۥ تَقْدِيرًا

"He created each thing and determined it with precise determination"

It is solely a Sunni belief and cherry picking from the Holy Quran doesn’t change anything. Every surah and ayat has a tafsir, they are not to be interpreted literally in support of particular belief at any given time. Textual literalism leads astray and causes injustices.

Quote

Incorrect. We do not enact rituals of mourning that the Shi'ah do over the martyrdom of sayyidina Imam Husain عليه السلام because such mourning rituals are forbidden in our Shari'ah, not because of the doctrine of Qadar.

Qadar is used as one of the arguments against commemorating such events. It is “forbidden” because everything is predestined at birth. Ibn Taymiyyah used it in one of his famous works in polemics with orthodox Muslims. It was refuted in turn in multiple answers to him. 

Quote

I don't know how this argument is "famous" I never heard of it till today, could you please cite some evidence for the existence of this argument?

Ibn Taymiyyah is one of them and after him numerous Wahhabis use it. That’s because you’ve never heard of something, doesn’t render it not common. 

Quote

Okay, this is interesting. Can you please explain this doctrine a bit more? Does bada' mean the knowledge of Allah regarding the destiny of each person can be altered, just as you admitted the divine will can be altered? [*Let those people participating in this thread take note, according to this gentleman, change occurs within God Himself, which they claim is a rational impossibility according to their cosmological arguments!]

You are debating me, so why drag other people into it? Shia Chat is full of differing individuals with multitude of views on things. I’m writing things from the orthodox, non-Sufi Usuli Jafari Ithna’Asaiyah position. There’s an entire chapter dedicated solely to Bada’ in Usul al-Kafi. You can look there for a starter. Building up on the rest, Sunni belief in Qadar denies omnipotence of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), because everything is predetermined at birth and “can’t” be altered. It became so unsettling and problematic that al-Ashari came up with Kasb, which despite the efforts of his students was absorbed into the Qadar belief anyways. The two are nearly indistinguishable to anyone who studies Sunni theology.

Quote

We orthodox Sunni Muslims believe every human is born with an innate predisposition to be good

This is where we come to conclusion why entire Sunni theology should be rejected. The “people of tradition” that can’t be agreed upon at all. You sound to some degree like Athari, then Maturidi but you try to use Ash’arite arguments in this particular subject. 
 

Quote

That is a distortion of our belief, it is a straw man argument. I've already explained our belief and the doctrine of Kasb.

Thanks for explaining nothing to me. I know the Sunni theology because I study it since years. It’s contradictory and this is where the major problem arises on how one can attain any chance of salvation when, allegedly within the same religion, there’s SO MANY differing theological beliefs in Sunnism, and no, historically they weren’t at peace and couldn’t be reconciled. Maturidi, Ash’ari, Athari, Muʿtazila, Qadariyah, Jahmis, Murji'ah, Bishriyyah and others, add to it madahib Hanafi, Hanbali, Shafi’i, Maliki, Zahiri, Jariri, Laythi, Awza'i, Thawri, Qurtubi. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Follower of Ahlulbayt is unwilling to believe in anything that is rationally impossible, even if it is based on Revelation.

For instance you believe that God is sitting on the thrown which is carried by angels. So the rational impossibility of God being carried is a possibility for you just because it is written in scripture. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Cool said:

So the rational impossibility of God being carried is a possibility for you just because it is written in scripture. 

The guy is stupid if he criticises trinitarians

cos his God is confined somewhere thus He has a form which makes him limited in everyway possible. 
 

 

Edited by THREE1THREE
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
Quote

أَلَمْ يَرَوْا أَنَّهُ لَا يُكَلِّمُهُمْ وَلَا يَهْدِيهِمْ سَبِيلً

کیا بت پرستوں نے یہ نہی دیکھا کہ انکے بت نہ ان سے بات کرسکتا ہے اور نہ ان کو راستہ دکھا سکتا ہے۔

افسوس کہ ہمارے جاہل ملاوں نے ختم نبوت کی آر میں اللہ تعالی کا صفت متکلم کو معتل کیا ہے، اور انکے تصور خدا ویسا ہے جیسے کہ بت پرستوں کا ہے، یعنی ایک ایسا خدا جو نہ لوگوں سے بات کرتا ہے اور نہ ان کو ہدایت دے سکتا ہے۔ یہ زمانہ کا بدترین الہاد ہے۔ علماء کے خرابی کا واضح علامت ہے۔ یقین کر، ہمارے علماء کے دلوں ویسے ہیں جیسے یھود کے احبار کے تھے، یعنی ایک دم سخت اور کالے۔ سو اپنا دل کو نرم کر، تا اللہ عز وجل اس میں اپنا روح القدس اس میں نفخ کرے گا۔ اور تم نور الہام سے اپنا سینہ کو منوّر پاو گے۔ اللہ کا پاک نبی صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم نے امت اجابہ کو بشارت دی کہ ہر صدی کا آغاز میں اللہ لاظماً ایک مجدد کو مبعوث فرماے گا۔ مجدد نبی علیہ السلام کا خلیفہ، وصی، وارث، وزیر، نائب، اور وکیل ہوتا ہے۔ اس کے علاوہ، مجدد مامور من اللہ ہے، اور لاظماً صاحب الہام و کشف بھی ہے۔ وہ تجدید دین کے لیے مہنت کرتا ہے، اور لوگوں کے غلط عقائد و افعال کے تصحیح فرماتا ہے۔ اور اودہ تجدید کا ساتھ ساتھ سلسلہ ولایت بھی ہے۔ ولی اللہ وہ ہے جن کا رات عبادت و ذکر الہی میں گزرتا ہے۔ وہ شریعت کا سخت پابند اور سنّت رسول صلی اللہ علیہ کا عکسی تصویر ہوتا ہے۔ اگرچہ اس زمانہ میں اولیاء اللہ کے تعداد نسبتاً قلیل ہے، یہ مبارک افراد انبیاء بنی اسرائیل کے مثل ہیں۔ اور جیسے میں نے آغاز میں اشارہ کیا، خاکسار یونس نبی علیہ السلام کا مثیل تو نہی ہوں، لیکن آپ کا شان کا ایک جھلک مجھ میں نظر آتا ہے۔ سو میں بھی ایک وقت مچھلی کا پیٹ میں تھا، لیکن اللہ سبحانہ نے مجھے وہاں سے نکالا تھا، کیوںکہ میں نے یونس رسول علیہ السلام کی طرح ربّ کو پکارا تھا۔

کوئ ذی شعور آدمی یہ سب کچ پڑھ کر یہ خیال کر سکتا ہے کہ خاکسار وہی باتیں دہرا رہا ہے جو صوفیاء حضرات فرماتے ہیں۔ البتہ میں کوئی صوفی نہی ہوں۔ آج کہ صوفیاء خرفات اور بدعات میں غرق ہیں الّا ما شاء اللہ۔ 

@Cherub786 I cannot believe that!!!!! O Yonus of this time, is it really written by you? :hahaha:

@Muslim2010 , please help us with translation.

Edited by Cool
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, OrthodoxTruth said:

You are debating me, so why drag other people into it? Shia Chat is full of differing individuals with multitude of views on things. I’m writing things from the orthodox, non-Sufi Usuli Jafari Ithna’Asaiyah position.

Brother, I hope you are not saying that my position that change does not occur in Allah is some sort of Sufi non-Shi'a unorthodox view. Rather, this is among the beliefs which were explicitly taught by the Ahl al-Bayt (a). The Imams themselves said that Allah is immutable i.e. not subject to change.

If your understanding of bada' is that Allah's knowledge changes, then I would say that your position is actually the unorthodox one. I know you didn't explicitly affirm that Allah changes, but you did not reject it when the cherub guy accused you of believing in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

@Cherub786 while you disagree, here is what you have mentioned on your website:

Quote

Many misguided Muslims object to this doctrine, imagining it to be anthropotheism. They make ta’wil (figurative interpretation) of these Verses, stating that it refers to the coming of Allah’s command and not Allah Himself in His Person. This is because they imagine the divine attributes of ityān and majī (arriving, coming) require harakah (movement, motion), and according to them, movement is negated for Allah. This, of course, is a wrong approach to theology, as it is built on the outdated model of Aristotelian metaphysics. According to that model, movement is an incidental attribute of a substance or body, and since, according to them, Allah is not a substance or body, motion must be negated for Him. Again, based on Aristotelian metaphysics, these misguided Muslims understand Allah to be the unmoved mover. But Islam itself never describes Allah as “unmoved” nor does it explicitly negate movement or motion for Him. Simultaneously, Islam does not affirm movement or motion to Allah either, therefore we avoid the term harakah (movement, motion) with respect to Allah’s Essence, neither affirming nor negating it. But we affirm the attributes of ityān and majī (arriving, coming) for Allah, without expressing that in the modality of movement and motion. It’s modality is known to Allah alone and we are not permitted to speculate upon it. But as for sukūn I affirm this attribute for Allah upon the meaning of dwelling and not the Aristotelian meaning of stasis (rest, stillness). So I believe that Allah Most High occupies the Throne, it is filled with His Glory, and His Presence dwells there. He is settled upon it, and it may be said that He is sitting upon it. And it says in the Torah:

וְעָ֥שׂוּ לִ֖י מִקְדָּ֑שׁ וְשָׁכַנְתִּ֖י בְּתֹוכָֽם

And let them make Me a Sanctuary that I may dwell among them

(Exodus 25:8)

So Allah is sitting upon thrown. And thrown is carried by angels:

Surah Ghafir, Verse 7:
الَّذِينَ يَحْمِلُونَ الْعَرْشَ وَمَنْ حَوْلَهُ يُسَبِّحُونَ بِحَمْدِ رَبِّهِمْ وَيُؤْمِنُونَ بِهِ وَيَسْتَغْفِرُونَ لِلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا رَبَّنَا وَسِعْتَ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ رَّحْمَةً وَعِلْمًا فَاغْفِرْ لِلَّذِينَ تَابُوا وَاتَّبَعُوا سَبِيلَكَ وَقِهِمْ عَذَابَ الْجَحِيمِ

Surah Al-Haaqqa, Verse 17:
وَالْمَلَكُ عَلَىٰ أَرْجَائِهَا وَيَحْمِلُ عَرْشَ رَبِّكَ فَوْقَهُمْ يَوْمَئِذٍ ثَمَانِيَةٌ

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...