Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Can Islam empirically be proven to be truer than other faiths?

Rate this topic


Northwest

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Religion defines “science,” knowledge, differently from secularism. A religious concept of knowledge does not regard empiricism as primary, or central to faith. The senses’ observation(s) is at best an aid to faith, not the basis thereof. Nor is natural law or common sense, both of which are derived from the senses, the foundation of faith.

Faith in tradition, on the other hand, is central to the acceptance of creeds, dogmas, and rituals. Whether or not these contradict human experience is immaterial to one’s faith in them: for religion is based on that which is largely imperceptible to mere created beings—the spiritual realm.

To illustrate: even if, say, homosexuality were to produce absolutely no measurable, demonstrable, visible harm(s) in this world, a religious believer would still pronounce anathema on its being practiced, solely on the basis of received tradition that regards sodomy as a grave spiritual sin.

In Islam the heart, not the mind, is the pivot of faith. The heart is regarded as primary: if the heart is sealed, nothing changes/happens; all else is futile. The Qur’ān does stress reflection, of course, but a reflection that takes place in the heart, from which all else flows. All else is secondary.

In other words, one “knows” the Truth through the heart, not the mind, and therefore one needs no evidence. That is why the Qur’ān chides people who base their faith on miracles or signs; many of those who saw the Prophet’s miracle(s) and sign(s) did not believe in their hearts.

If this is the case, then how can Islam be proven to be truer than another faith? How does one prove that a certain Islamic practice is truer than, say, a Christian or Hindu one? How can one prove that an Islamic belief is truer than a Jewish or Buddhist one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, Northwest said:

Religion defines “science,” knowledge, differently from secularism. A religious concept of knowledge does not regard empiricism as primary, or central to faith. The senses’ observation(s) is at best an aid to faith, not the basis thereof. Nor is natural law or common sense, both of which are derived from the senses, the foundation of faith.

Faith in tradition, on the other hand, is central to the acceptance of creeds, dogmas, and rituals. Whether or not these contradict human experience is immaterial to one’s faith in them: for religion is based on that which is largely imperceptible to mere created beings—the spiritual realm.

To illustrate: even if, say, homosexuality were to produce absolutely no measurable, demonstrable, visible harm(s) in this world, a religious believer would still pronounce anathema on its being practiced, solely on the basis of received tradition that regards sodomy as a grave spiritual sin.

In Islam the heart, not the mind, is the pivot of faith. The heart is regarded as primary: if the heart is sealed, nothing changes/happens; all else is futile. The Qur’ān does stress reflection, of course, but a reflection that takes place in the heart, from which all else flows. All else is secondary.

In other words, one “knows” the Truth through the heart, not the mind, and therefore one needs no evidence. That is why the Qur’ān chides people who base their faith on miracles or signs; many of those who saw the Prophet’s miracle(s) and sign(s) did not believe in their hearts.

If this is the case, then how can Islam be proven to be truer than another faith? How does one prove that a certain Islamic practice is truer than, say, a Christian or Hindu one? How can one prove that an Islamic belief is truer than a Jewish or Buddhist one?

Islam does not disregard science as a tool to prove beliefs what Islam denounces is the obstinacy of an observer who wants proof of certain thing as he wishes. For example:- There are people who want that in order to proof a being, he must be perceivable. However, science also suggest that evidence of certain thing at a place is also proof of a doer which cannot be seen by the eye at that moment. Thus, to those who say that God must be perceivable, Islam answers by saying that it is not necessary that presence of everything be perceivable by the eye but there are other faculties which imply towards presence of such thing such as feeling or intellect.

In response to the second part of your paragraph, it can be said that a true religion is based on such practices which are perceivable like the practices of Islam which have introduced various practices to discipline and bring about good qualities among human which are not against human experiences. 

The effect of homosexuality may not be visible to you because you have chosen to ignore its effects otherwise it is very visible and immense. It is sin which if allowed to propagate will effect the process of procreation which will be followed by destruction of a family system without which the gains of human civilization will be lost. I do not know why you failed to see such effects.

In Islam, the pivot of faith is Qalb which is translated as heart but it is not heart rather self or conscience. The word for heart is "Afidah". The usage of word Qalb implies to its meaning which tells that it is used in the sense of self or conscience. Thus, when Quran says to reflect, its takes place in self or conscience.

In other words, the truth is known through self or conscience which include all sources of knowledge such as five senses plus mind and its understanding improves through more observations of evidence. Well, Islam does not criticizes belief due to miracles rather what it says is that demands of human beings for miracles would not end as they will always want something which would feed them as spectators. Islam says that if a man has to determine if anything is good, he must look at what it propagates and whether it propagates towards good or not and that is where your opinion fails where you said knowing the truth through heart requires no evidence. Evidence is part of Islam. 

Islam is proved through the law which it gave that is to say that if you want to determine anything look into it what it propagates whether it propagates good or evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 11/21/2022 at 11:51 AM, Borntowitnesstruth said:

Islam does not disregard science as a tool to prove beliefs what Islam denounces is the obstinacy of an observer who wants proof of certain thing as he wishes. For example:- There are people who want that in order to proof a being, he must be perceivable. However, science also suggest that evidence of certain thing at a place is also proof of a doer which cannot be seen by the eye at that moment. Thus, to those who say that God must be perceivable, Islam answers by saying that it is not necessary that presence of everything be perceivable by the eye but there are other faculties which imply towards presence of such thing such as feeling or intellect.

@Borntowitnesstruth

So you are saying that the real problem is not the use of science, but the expectation that a proof must always be visible and/or tangible? If this is the case, it still does not completely address my point: that science isn’t the primary basis of belief in Islam. In other words, science in Islam, as in other religions, becomes a tool to confirm that which one already believes to be true, not the end-all measure. It becomes a party to circular reasoning. I do agree that science, like this-worldly existence, does point to the existence of a Creator or First Cause, but says little beyond that and is not central to—that is, the basis of—religious faith. You said it is a tool; I also made the same point:

On 11/20/2022 at 11:23 PM, Northwest said:

The senses’ observation(s) is at best an aid to faith, not the basis thereof.

An aid is a type of method or tool. The problem with religion is that it relies on extrasensory foundations to disprove rival faiths. How can one rely on faith to disprove another faith, e.g., Islam vs. Christianity? Since science is not the central basis of faith, what means does one have to claim that another faith is misguided and one’s own is true?

On 11/21/2022 at 11:51 AM, Borntowitnesstruth said:

In response to the second part of your paragraph, it can be said that a true religion is based on such practices which are perceivable like the practices of Islam which have introduced various practices to discipline and bring about good qualities among human which are not against human experiences.

Your statement is very general and doesn’t really address the points that I raised in this thread. Of course Islam, like every religion, prescribes certain practices to reform human beings. However, every religion uses different rituals and forms to accomplish this. For example, why should a Muslim not fold hands while praying, or only pray in Arabic? What makes the Muslim way of praying superior to the Christian, in terms of measurable, visible human experience? Also, please note that nowhere in this thread do I address atheism; I am merely comparing Islam to other religions and attempting to probe how one demonstrates that an Islamic way of praying is superior to that of another religion.

On 11/21/2022 at 11:51 AM, Borntowitnesstruth said:

The effect of homosexuality may not be visible to you because you have chosen to ignore its effects otherwise it is very visible and immense. It is sin which if allowed to propagate will effect the process of procreation which will be followed by destruction of a family system without which the gains of human civilization will be lost. I do not know why you failed to see such effects.

With all due respect, may I ask, Did you allow your emotions to get the better of you? I don’t think that you read my post very closely:

On 11/20/2022 at 11:23 PM, Northwest said:

To illustrate: even if, say, homosexuality were to produce absolutely no measurable, demonstrable, visible harm(s) in this world, a religious believer would still pronounce anathema on its being practiced, solely on the basis of received tradition that regards sodomy as a grave spiritual sin.

In the above, nowhere am I denying that homosexuality does produce negative, visible effects in this world. I merely posit a scenario in which homosexuality, hypothetically, were to produce no negative, visible effects in this world. Even if homosexuality were not to produce negative, visible effects, a religious believer would still treat it as a grave sin, solely because his religious tradition says so. If one believes in a religion, if the religion claims that something is a sin, no evidence is needed: the oral or written tradition/command is sufficient. I do agree that homosexuality is a cancer because it is unnatural biologically and becomes a substitute for actual procreation: however, my basis for opposing homosexuality is a scientific one, whereas a religious person would oppose homosexuality first and foremost because “God says.” The fact that males are biologically designed to impregnate females would at best be secondary and used to prove that which he already believes in, but is not the central basis of his faith.

On 11/21/2022 at 11:51 AM, Borntowitnesstruth said:

In Islam, the pivot of faith is Qalb which is translated as heart but it is not heart rather self or conscience. The word for heart is "Afidah". The usage of word Qalb implies to its meaning which tells that it is used in the sense of self or conscience. Thus, when Quran says to reflect, it takes place in self or conscience.

I do have a question about this: Is Qalb based on Afidah? Does qalb flow from afidah, or vice versa? Isn’t self/conscience in Islam based on the heart?

On 11/21/2022 at 11:51 AM, Borntowitnesstruth said:

In other words, the truth is known through self or conscience which include all sources of knowledge such as five senses plus mind and its understanding improves through more observations of evidence. Well, Islam does not criticizes belief due to miracles rather what it says is that demands of human beings for miracles would not end as they will always want something which would feed them as spectators. Islam says that if a man has to determine if anything is good, he must look at what it propagates and whether it propagates towards good or not and that is where your opinion fails where you said knowing the truth through heart requires no evidence. Evidence is part of Islam

It is a little strange, then, that belief due to miracles can be accepted but not a demand for miracles. If it is acceptable to believe due to miracles, then why would it be wrong to ask for or even demand a miracle as proof? Additionally, if a Christian or Hindu experiences a miracle that is regarded as proof that his faith is correct, how can one use a miracle in Islam to prove that the Christian or Hindu belief is false? Furthermore, one must also define “evidence” and “the Good.” Religious tradition (“God says”) defines the Good and evil alike.

On 11/21/2022 at 11:51 AM, Borntowitnesstruth said:

Islam is proved through the law which it gave that is to say that if you want to determine anything look into it what it propagates whether it propagates good or evil.

Islam, like other religions, defines good and evil based on faith rather than science. Science is used secondarily to confirm that which one already believes in, that is, faith. For example, one defines good and evil not on the basis of science, natural law, or common sense, but on what the religious tradition (God) says, be it oral or textual, which needs no other proof, given that the claim/command is sufficient proof in and of itself. The place of science in Islam is therefore different, in that religion is not centred on science, but on a claim/command. Science in religion thus revolves around the claim/command and is used to confirm rather than prove/disprove it.

Edited by Northwest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Northwest said:
On 11/21/2022 at 10:51 AM, Borntowitnesstruth said:

 

It is a little strange, then, that belief due to miracles can be accepted but not a demand for miracles. If it is acceptable to believe due to miracles, then why would it be wrong to ask for or even demand a miracle as proof? Additionally, if a Christian or Hindu experiences a miracle that is regarded as proof that his faith is correct, how can one use a miracle in Islam to prove that the Christian or Hindu belief is false? Furthermore, one must also define “evidence” and “the Good.” Religious tradition (“God says”) defines the Good and evil alike.

anyone can perform miracles(actually the word "karamat" is more fitting)(under certain conditions), including buddhists and hindus. 

In the time of Imam Sadiq there was an atheist who could perform karamat, the reason was because of his constant fighting his ego. After he converted to Islam, he lost those powers because his reward was Islam. What I mean by this is before he was muslim, his reward as a disbeliever for fighting his nafs was a reward in this world, which were special powers, however his reward after became a reward of the hereafter because he converted. 

In recent times, one of our great scholars talked to a (I think hindu yogi) who could tell you the exact location of any individual and whether they were alive or dead as long as you told them their name. 

this however doesn't validate their traditions, but its only a reward for them in this world. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
4 hours ago, VoidVortex said:

In recent times, one of our great scholars talked to a (I think hindu yogi) who could tell you the exact location of any individual and whether they were alive or dead as long as you told them their name. 

Tell him the name of imam zaman and let's see his answer............................

We should stop giving demi-god status to human beings. I believe in miracles, but I also believe that they are performed within the bounds of the laws of our universe, and that there is a rational explanation for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
13 minutes ago, EiE said:

 

We should stop giving demi-god status to human beings. I believe in miracles, but I also believe that they are performed within the bounds of the laws of our universe, and that there is a rational explanation for them.

its not a demi god status though, something which would implicate ghuluw. Those who have powers were given it because of working against their nafs, whether muslim or non-muslim. There is no doubt that non-muslims exist that can do things that are outside the common bounds of the laws of the universe, but they can only do it with Allah's permission. The same applies to muslims that have this power, it is only with the permission of Allah. This in no way is against our aqeedah, nor does it constitute shirk in any manner. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 11/20/2022 at 5:23 PM, Northwest said:

To illustrate: even if, say, homosexuality were to produce absolutely no measurable, demonstrable, visible harm(s) in this world, a religious believer would still pronounce anathema on its being practiced, solely on the basis of received tradition that regards sodomy as a grave spiritual sin.

So I understand you’re using a hypothetical here and just picking a random example, so I’m responding here with that in mind. I’m replying to your abstract point, not the specific example. 

So that established, this is a dangerous way to think about this. It dances on the edge of heretical notions of God. 

Our school of thought, sins are forbidden for practical reasons. There is some at least theoretically rationally understandable harm to either the person or others or both. This idea of a “spiritual sin” for something that causes no observable harm is problematic. Why would any particular thing that harms no one in the dunya harm the soul? Why would God produce that cause and effect? If you say, it’s because God commanded against the thing, and you distance yourself from God by disobeying, then, congratulations, you become an Asharite, saying God sometimes gives what are ultimately arbitrary commands simply as tests of obedience. It paints a picture of God as punishing people simply for disobeying, rather than because they did something that harmed His creation. 

And then if we’re talking about specifically a sin that has some sort of traditional punishment in the world, then it’s doubling the injustice and problematic aspect of it, because the laws of the world are meant to regulate good and harm in the world, and because people are being asked to harm other people for ultimately no good reason. 

It’s one thing to say, “I have faith there’s a reason, even if I don’t know what that reason is.” I tend to think this is also problematic, especially if you’re talking about punishing someone in the world for it. But it’s a defensible position. But inviting the possibility of there actually being no reason is walking past the boundaries of fundamental theories of law and Justice in our school. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
16 hours ago, Northwest said:

An aid is a type of method or tool. The problem with religion is that it relies on extrasensory foundations to disprove rival faiths. How can one rely on faith to disprove another faith, e.g., Islam vs. Christianity? Since science is not the central basis of faith, what means does one have to claim that another faith is misguided and one’s own is true?

When I used the word "tool" for science, I meant it to be the "integral part of Islam" which helps one in building belief and is central part of it. However, in order to go further into it, I would like to delve into the meanings of science and belief. Science is not limited to one aspect of life such as biology or botany, rather it includes everything that obeys a certain law. Thus, there can be science of law, science of psychology and so on so forth. Belief on other hand, is based on trust that is to say that if a person is proved honest and truthful throughout his life and he says that there is a God, then he can be believed to be true even if one has not seen God himself. The thing which proves him honest and truthful is science and the act to trust his words for unseen things is called belief. Thus, it is because of science that belief is there. It is thus central part of a true religion.

 

16 hours ago, Northwest said:

Your statement is very general and doesn’t really address the points that I raised in this thread. Of course Islam, like every religion, prescribes certain practices to reform human beings. However, every religion uses different rituals and forms to accomplish this. For example, why should a Muslim not fold hands while praying, or only pray in Arabic? What makes the Muslim way of praying superior to the Christian, in terms of measurable, visible human experience? Also, please note that nowhere in this thread do I address atheism; I am merely comparing Islam to other religions and attempting to probe how one demonstrates that an Islamic way of praying is superior to that of another religion.

There are two things to be addressed here one is correct way of worship and second is supplication. As for supplication, It is an individual act whose only conditions are that it must made sincerely and through respect only then it will have chances of being granted. As for worship, its method is changed  or depraved with the time due to depravation in religion that is why a new prophet is sent and this is the reason the Islamic way of worship is superior to Christianity because Christianity has failed to maintain its pure way of worship and includes words which are not liked God and for it God has provided plenty of evidence in Quran as to why Christians are wrong. As far why should a Muslim not pray with fold hands is because it is written in Surah Aaraf verse 29 that Muslims should pray as they were created. Every human being is born open handed and is not created as bounded but free so worship should be like a free person.

 

16 hours ago, Northwest said:

With all due respect, may I ask, Did you allow your emotions to get the better of you? I don’t think that you read my post very closely:

O yes, I read your post again, I missed the part in which you made an assumption. It was my mistake, I thought you made an statement but you made an assumption. Sorry.

 

17 hours ago, Northwest said:

If one believes in a religion, if the religion claims that something is a sin, no evidence is needed: the oral or written tradition/command is sufficient.

In order to deal with this issue, it is the duty of a follower to search for religion that does not lie to him because the thing from which it will stop him will surely be found true if evidence of it is not given at that moment because you have to sometime trust a source because it is not possible that every evidence be ready for you in all situations. Thus, only remedy available to a follower is to choose a religion which is logical and welcomes questioning.

 

17 hours ago, Northwest said:

I do have a question about this: Is Qalb based on Afidah? Does qalb flow from afidah, or vice versa? Isn’t self/conscience in Islam based on the heart?

The meanings which are apparent from the use of the word "Qalb" is that it makes a person's personality. Thus, if a person does good, his Qalb improves and if he person does bad, it Qalb is affected badly. So, it appears from its usage that it is actually self or conscience that changes whole personality.

 

17 hours ago, Northwest said:

It is a little strange, then, that belief due to miracles can be accepted but not a demand for miracles. If it is acceptable to believe due to miracles, then why would it be wrong to ask for or even demand a miracle as proof? Additionally, if a Christian or Hindu experiences a miracle that is regarded as proof that his faith is correct, how can one use a miracle in Islam to prove that the Christian or Hindu belief is false? Furthermore, one must also define “evidence” and “the Good.” Religious tradition (“God says”) defines the Good and evil alike.

Not every demand for a miracle can be accepted because if humans are always allowed to have miracles then value of trust and position is lost which defines status of a believer. Islam says that this world is a test where sometimes we be shown miracles and sometime we would witness difficulties in which we have to keep trust in Islam and be patient which will finally result in goodness. Thus, through this way, our status is defined for heaven where we be shown every kind of miracle which we wish for. As far as happening of miracles is concerned, its happening is not limited to anyone and such happening is not the proof that such person is on truth for example miracle may happen for an atheist too, who may not believe in religion and the cause of Miracle may be to warn him regarding existence of a creator. Similarly, is the case for Christians and Hindus that they should find the teachings of true God. Mere happening of miracle does not provide that it is true religion rather it is the belief and teachings which clearly defines whether such religion is true or not. This is what is explained in Surah Baqarah that when people worshiped calf, Allah (عزّ وجلّ) said that why did they fall for the golden calf rather than seeing what it propagates, it propagates nothing but mooing

 

17 hours ago, Northwest said:

Islam, like other religions, defines good and evil based on faith rather than science. Science is used secondarily to confirm that which one already believes in, that is, faith. For example, one defines good and evil not on the basis of science, natural law, or common sense, but on what the religious tradition (God) says, be it oral or textual, which needs no other proof, given that the claim/command is sufficient proof in and of itself. The place of science in Islam is therefore different, in that religion is not centred on science, but on a claim/command. Science in religion thus revolves around the claim/command and is used to confirm rather than prove/disprove it.

This can be your belief about Islam but our understanding is different. Our understanding is that Islam came with truth and earned our trust. It commanded and forbade us for many things and explained almost all of them and there might be something which are commanded or forbidden by Islam for which we lack clear evidence as to why it is allowed or forbidden at this moment but we trust its such commands based on its earned status. It is same as you believe your doctor who has earned your trust and you do not question every action of him because of your lack of understanding his certain procedure or practice or medication. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
17 hours ago, Northwest said:

It is a little strange, then, that belief due to miracles can be accepted but not a demand for miracles. If it is acceptable to believe due to miracles, then why would it be wrong to ask for or even demand a miracle as proof? Additionally, if a Christian or Hindu experiences a miracle that is regarded as proof that his faith is correct, how can one use a miracle in Islam to prove that the Christian or Hindu belief is false? Furthermore, one must also define “evidence” and “the Good.” Religious tradition (“God says”) defines the Good and evil alike.

Hi alway disbleivers have asked for happening a miracle from prophets to prove that they have a connection with god through divinity to show them a great sign in opposition to illusion which have been created by them although they knew that creating  illusions by them  are not real miracles which it has used for fooling people while their monks & elders knew that their so called miracles are void illusions but on the other hand after happening miracles by prophets theyy would understood that it has done by god not by an ordinary man likewise themselves which high ranking Christian priests & Hindu  monks can realize that Islamic miracle are true miracles which in similar fashion of previous ubbleivers they deny it in public to not let their followers to follow last true religion.

17 hours ago, Northwest said:

So you are saying that the real problem is not the use of science, but the expectation that a proof must always be visible and/or tangible? If this is the case, it still does not completely address my point: that science isn’t the primary basis of belief in Islam. In other words, science in Islam, as in other religions, becomes a tool to confirm that which one already believes to be true, not the end-all measure. It becomes a party to circular reasoning. I do agree that science, like this-worldly existence, does point to the existence of a Creator or First Cause, but says little beyond that and is not central to—that is, the basis of—religious faith. You said it is a tool; I also made the same point:

Science is not goal which every religion or anything likewise Atheism for approving or disapproving uses it as a tool not goal anyway Islam is more compatile with science than any other religion or foundation which Islam brings morality & code of morality 7 honor into science in order to use it infavor of humanity & becoming more near to god in opposition science in other religions which it's scientists have use science for  creating nukes & other mass killing weapons for spreading corruption & alienation from god.

18 hours ago, Northwest said:

For example, why should a Muslim not fold hands while praying, or only pray in Arabic? What makes the Muslim way of praying superior to the Christian, in terms of measurable, visible human experience? Also, please note that nowhere in this thread do I address atheism; I am merely comparing Islam to other religions and attempting to probe how one demonstrates that an Islamic way of praying is superior to that of another religion.

Islam has came for making everything likewise praying easy for humans & removing any borden of previous religions due to alternation & deviations in previous religion which folding hands has taken from other religions specially Zoroastrianism which Christians have inherited their rituals from Jews & Mithraism which alo Jews have affected with zoroastrianism likewise folding hands which in similar fashion dividing praying  to pray in language of each nation has caused more & more deviation in understanding of true meanings of  prayer so therefore turning it into just into void rituals  because in every transltion people lose true meaning of words of worshiping .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
On 11/20/2022 at 5:23 PM, Northwest said:

Religion defines “science,” knowledge, differently from secularism. A religious concept of knowledge does not regard empiricism as primary, or central to faith. The senses’ observation(s) is at best an aid to faith, not the basis thereof. Nor is natural law or common sense, both of which are derived from the senses, the foundation of faith.

Faith in tradition, on the other hand, is central to the acceptance of creeds, dogmas, and rituals. Whether or not these contradict human experience is immaterial to one’s faith in them: for religion is based on that which is largely imperceptible to mere created beings—the spiritual realm.

To illustrate: even if, say, homosexuality were to produce absolutely no measurable, demonstrable, visible harm(s) in this world, a religious believer would still pronounce anathema on its being practiced, solely on the basis of received tradition that regards sodomy as a grave spiritual sin.

In Islam the heart, not the mind, is the pivot of faith. The heart is regarded as primary: if the heart is sealed, nothing changes/happens; all else is futile. The Qur’ān does stress reflection, of course, but a reflection that takes place in the heart, from which all else flows. All else is secondary.

In other words, one “knows” the Truth through the heart, not the mind, and therefore one needs no evidence. That is why the Qur’ān chides people who base their faith on miracles or signs; many of those who saw the Prophet’s miracle(s) and sign(s) did not believe in their hearts.

If this is the case, then how can Islam be proven to be truer than another faith? How does one prove that a certain Islamic practice is truer than, say, a Christian or Hindu one? How can one prove that an Islamic belief is truer than a Jewish or Buddhist one?

When you say 'Religion', what religion are you talking about. It is really incorrect to start out with a false premise. Most all religions, and even most sects within a particular religion define this differently. You would probably consider Islam and Christianity to both be 'religion' and yet they both take very different approaches to this. 

Faith is important and central because we cannot see God with our own eyes and cannot experience God directly with our 5 senses. If we could walk down the street, open a door, and say 'Oh, there's God. Hi God, good morning' and every single person on earth recognized that this was God, then faith wouldn't be necessary. Due to the nature of God, this is impossible to ever happen, not because of God, but because of our own limitations as human beings. So that's why we need faith. It has nothing to do with dogma. Dogma, and the acceptance of it is something else

When you say no 'measurable,demostratable,visible harm', I believe you are saying no harm that can be demonstrated thru current scientific methods, such as a laboratory experiment, double blind study, an equation, or a single deductive proof. These are tools, they are useful for certain things, not useful for others. Like a hammer, good for hammering a nail into wood, bad for chopping lettuce for a salad. If that is the criteria, then there are many other things that are illegal and abhorrent that could also not pass this test of 'measurable,demostratable, visible harm'. We can take incest between say a father and daughter who are both adults, or necrophilia, beastiality. The corpse is already dead so how could it be 'demonstrably' harmed ? The animal cannot be given a survey or interview to see if it 'consented' to the sexual act. These, and many other things, are illegal, immoral, and considered 'grotesque' by the vast majority of people (and they definitely are that, IMHO) because everyone has an intuitive sense of morality. There are harms that cannot be quantified using scientific tools, which are limited. 

The main reason they can't be measured is because there are things which we muslims (and also many other people) believe to exist which science denies the existence of, or at least says there is no evidence that they exist. One is the soul. Another is the hereafter (heaven and hell). Another is the Day of Judgement. So if you take these things out of the 'equation' (pardon the pun), then this will open the door to many behaviours which will then become common which will harm the soul and make someone's position in the hereafter very bad and unpleasant. 

In Islam, we believe there are two worlds, or two dimensions (as you like) that exist side by side with each other. One is the Dhahir (the seen or apparent world of existence), the other in the Batin or Ghaib (the inner, unseen world). It says in the Holy Quran that God has only given to us human beings a little knowledge of the Dhahir (the seen or apparent world). There are many dimensions to the seen world that we are unaware of. For example, the microscopic world. The world of cells, molecules and atoms. This is now part of the seen world because of modern scientific equipment, but for the vast majority of human history, although this was in the Dhahir, people were unaware of it. There were many diseases which spread thru viruses, and we didn't know that viruses existed. It was only when we figured out what a virus was that we were able to cure some diseases. There are many dimensions of the seen world which we are still unaware of, thus why scientists still continue to make new discoveries on a daily and sometimes hourly basis about things which were unknown before. So what about the unseen world, the Ghaib ?  This world is much more complex and vast compared to the seen world. Things in the seen world affect the unseen world, and things in the unseen world affect the seen world. 

Islam and Science existed peacefully side by side for over 1000 years. As Muslims, we have no objection to science or scientific methodology and we believe it is one of the fruitful and productive ways to gain knowledge and to make the world a better place. This has been happening now for over 500 years with things like modern medical sciences, engineering, etc. What Islam objects to is when someone who has some scientific knowledge then believe that they also have comprehensive knowledge of existence, and then starts to make recommendations or force recommendations regarding society and how it should work onto other people who don't share their world view. That is the only problem we have. 

Christianity and modern science have a different relationship. There were many scientific discoveries that were made, like the age of the Earth, the age of the Universe,  that contradict the Bible. There were also many scientific discoveries, like a heliocentric rather than earth centric solar system, that was made by Galileo, which contradicted well established Church teachings. These scientific discoveries disproved that the Bible was the word of God in it's entirety (because God doesn't make mistakes, otherwise He's not God) and disproved also that the Catholic Church was the sole spokesperson for God on Earth, which undermined many people's faith in Christianity. There are sects of modern Christianity that have accepted this and moved on, others have not and still hold onto that old grudge against science. Muslims never believed and Islam never taught that the Bible was the word of God in it's entirety or that the Catholic Church was the sole spokesperson for God on earth. So 'religion' is not all in one category regarding modern science, as many believe

No legitimate, well established scientific theory contradicts the Quran or the authentic teachings of Prophet Muhammad(p.b.u.h) despite the fact that the Quran talks much more about scientific topics and the natural world vs. the Bible. Also, the students of the sixth Imam, Imam Jaafar Sadiq((عليه السلام)) were the first people on earth to found a modern university, as we know it today, and the first to do modern scientific research using the scientific method. This is well known to most educated people. So we as Muslims have no such issues with modern science. 

This is why we need faith and religion. If you want to think of the entirety of existence as an equation, we can only solve the equation for a very few of the variables. Even now, with all our scientific knowledge. Most of those variables are unknown. So it is only Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), or God who has the comprehensive knowledge of existence and can fill in enough of those variables for us so that we will be 'ok' in the Dunya (this world) and the Akhira(next world) if we follow the guidance which Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has given us thru the Prophets and Holy Books. The Quran and the Prophet Muhammad(p.b.u.h) are the inheritors of all this previous knowledge so this is why Islam is the final Message and Prophet Muhammad(p.b.u.h) is the final Prophet to mankind. 

Islam can be proven, thru inductive arguments, to be superior to all other religions. This probably would need it's own thread and other threads have been made in the past regarding this. We can start another one if requested. 

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators

Going by the title of the OP:

Quote

Can Islam empirically be proven to be truer than other faiths?

 

And using, for example, the following definition of empiricism:

Quote

 

The term empiricism comes from the Greek word for experience: empeiria. The theory of empiricism attempts to explain how human beings acquire knowledge and improve their conceptual understanding of the world.

In science, empiricism heavily emphasizes the use of experiments and observation to collect evidence and draw conclusions. The goal of such experimentation is to apply theories to real-world observations, record the findings in the form of empirical data and present them to the relevant audience.

 

https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/empiricism

 

Within this constraint, I'll start with two things (amongst many) that distinguish Islam from other faiths:

  1. In Islam the ban on alcohol and gambling is explicit and not negotiable
  2. In other religions while there may be disapproval or abstract injunctions against the ban is not as explicit as in Islam
  3. Moreover the behaviour of people in all other religions is such that drinking alcohol is not considered unusual. Amongst Muslims it still is.

 

Now going onto the empirical angle, there is now enough of a body of evidence showing that:

  1. Alcohol is beneficial - but this also plays into Qur'anic injunctions which recognise that there are benefits
  2. Alcohol is harmful and the Qur'an says that the harms outweigh the benefits - which is also in line with current medical opinion
  3. Gambling is also harmful
  4. The way gambling and alcohol lead to addiction is similar thus reinforcing their juxtaposition in the Qur'an

 

See this for more:

Quote

Despite obvious differences, primarily one being that gambling is a behavioral addiction whereas drugs and alcohol are substance addictions, there are more commonalities between the two than one might think.

https://www.familyaddictionspecialist.com/blog/the-similarities-between-alcoholism-and-gambling-addiction

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
4 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

When you say no 'measurable,demostratable,visible harm', I believe you are saying no harm that can be demonstrated thru current scientific methods, such as a laboratory experiment, like double blind study, or an equation, or a single deductive proof. If that is the criteria, then there are many other things that are illegal and abborant that could also not pass this test of 'measurable,demostratable, visible harm'. We can take incest between say a father and daughter who are both adults, or necrophilia, beastiality. The corpse is already dead so how could it be 'demonstrably' harmed ? The animal cannot be given a survey or interview to see if it 'consented' to the sexual act.

These are honestly not good examples. 

The father-adult daughter example fails because you can’t just magically separate out whatever preceded that before the daughter was an adult. No one is naturally attracted sexually to their parents. That doesn’t organically appear in a normal healthy parent-child relationship. If such a thing ever appears, it is a result of years or decades of low and medium grade sexual abuse and grooming. (By the way, for some of the knuckleheads on this site, if you want to know how to use the word “grooming” correctly in a sentence not involving hairbrushes, shampoo, and beard trimmers, there ya go). Something harmful necessarily preceded it. Harmfulness is implicitly baked into the equation. 

The necro example is just being a bit horseblindered for the sake of rhetoric. No, the departed dead person is not measurably impacted by being imposed upon so. But I have to think you would be rather perturbed and possibly scarred for life if you found out someone was — heaven forbid! — molesting one of your dead relatives. I think it’s safe to say you would experience substantial psychological harm.

As for bestiality, it’s a little thornier since animals can’t talk, but I kind of doubt they really appreciate being imposed upon by humans. And hell, even if there were some kinky “humaniality”-loving freaks amongst animal kind, there’s no way to really know whether an individual animal is so constituted, so safe to assume in general it’s raping an animal.

Fundamentally, religiously, all prohibitions on behavior need to be grounded in tangible reasons of physical or psychological harm or else God’s commands become arbitrary. It’s possible we may not in all cases know exactly what those reasons are, but it is necessary to believe that the reasons exist and are potentially observable and knowable. Otherwise the whole concept becomes incoherent and produces an image of God unworthy of Him. 

4 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

These, and many other things, are illegal, immoral, and considered 'grotesque' by the vast majority of people (and they definitely are that, IMHO) because everyone has an intuitive sense of morality. There are harms that cannot be quantified using scientific tools, which are limited. 

Even that intuition, realistically that’s coming from one of two places. Either, one, some sub-conscious, sub-perceptual elements of your mind are running the calculations and “understand” the tangible harm of something in a way that can’t yet be put into words. Or, two, it’s some sort of evolutionary psychology thing, that the people who survived and thrived were the ones who were averse to this tangibly harmful thing. 

This notion that things could be religiously “wrong” for inherently unknowable reasons—I would argue this is fundamentally alien to the Islamic worldview. The religion never claims to be this on the plane of practical morality at least. It doesn’t claim to bring us moral guidance we could never ever hope to figure out for ourselves. It calls itself a “reminder.” It’s not “here’s this moral principle you never knew about and never could have ever known about.” It’s, “here’s this moral principle you already knew about but you’ve been conveniently ignoring or forgetting.” Or “here’s how you resolve this specific situation where two moral principles you already knew about seem to clash.” Our scholars will tend to say that if you take an intelligent, observant, reflective person, even in an isolated place where no one’s heard of revealed religion and scripture, they should be able to figure most of this out. It’s the idea of fitrah, right? Religion and scripture and prophethood is just an aid to help make this happen in a more organized way among the people. 

Like I acknowledged earlier, I think it’s possible to say, we don’t necessarily need to know the tangible reasons behind every commandment coming from revealed knowledge. But deep down, I think it’s essential to have the belief that in all cases such reasons exist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Proven? No, absolutely not.  

Islam is more logically consistent - at least more than the religions that I'm familiar with.  I don't know every religion.  If another belief made more sense,  any sensible person would change their views. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
1 hour ago, kadhim said:

These are honestly not good examples. 

The father-adult daughter example fails because you can’t just magically separate out whatever preceded that before the daughter was an adult. No one is naturally attracted sexually to their parents. That doesn’t organically appear in a normal healthy parent-child relationship. If such a thing ever appears, it is a result of years or decades of low and medium grade sexual abuse and grooming. (By the way, for some of the knuckleheads on this site, if you want to know how to use the word “grooming” correctly in a sentence not involving hairbrushes, shampoo, and beard trimmers, there ya go). Something harmful necessarily preceded it. Harmfulness is implicitly baked into the equation. 

The necro example is just being a bit horseblindered for the sake of rhetoric. No, the departed dead person is not measurably impacted by being imposed upon so. But I have to think you would be rather perturbed and possibly scarred for life if you found out someone was — heaven forbid! — molesting one of your dead relatives. I think it’s safe to say you would experience substantial psychological harm.

As for bestiality, it’s a little thornier since animals can’t talk, but I kind of doubt they really appreciate being imposed upon by humans. And hell, even if there were some kinky “humaniality”-loving freaks amongst animal kind, there’s no way to really know whether an individual animal is so constituted, so safe to assume in general it’s raping an animal.

Fundamentally, religiously, all prohibitions on behavior need to be grounded in tangible reasons of physical or psychological harm or else God’s commands become arbitrary. It’s possible we may not in all cases know exactly what those reasons are, but it is necessary to believe that the reasons exist and are potentially observable and knowable. Otherwise the whole concept becomes incoherent and produces an image of God unworthy of Him. 

Even that intuition, realistically that’s coming from one of two places. Either, one, some sub-conscious, sub-perceptual elements of your mind are running the calculations and “understand” the tangible harm of something in a way that can’t yet be put into words. Or, two, it’s some sort of evolutionary psychology thing, that the people who survived and thrived were the ones who were averse to this tangibly harmful thing. 

This notion that things could be religiously “wrong” for inherently unknowable reasons—I would argue this is fundamentally alien to the Islamic worldview. The religion never claims to be this on the plane of practical morality at least. It doesn’t claim to bring us moral guidance we could never ever hope to figure out for ourselves. It calls itself a “reminder.” It’s not “here’s this moral principle you never knew about and never could have ever known about.” It’s, “here’s this moral principle you already knew about but you’ve been conveniently ignoring or forgetting.” Or “here’s how you resolve this specific situation where two moral principles you already knew about seem to clash.” Our scholars will tend to say that if you take an intelligent, observant, reflective person, even in an isolated place where no one’s heard of revealed religion and scripture, they should be able to figure most of this out. It’s the idea of fitrah, right? Religion and scripture and prophethood is just an aid to help make this happen in a more organized way among the people. 

Like I acknowledged earlier, I think it’s possible to say, we don’t necessarily need to know the tangible reasons behind every commandment coming from revealed knowledge. But deep down, I think it’s essential to have the belief that in all cases such reasons exist. 

Your position on this is interesting, given your past posts. For the father/daughter thing, I can't tell you anything from personal experience (whethere there is natural attraction or not). I don't have a daughter, only 3 sons. It is interesting you say that 'No one is naturally attracted sexually to their parents. That doesn’t organically appear in a normal healthy parent-child relationship. If such a thing ever appears, it is a result of years or decades of low and medium grade sexual abuse and grooming'

That is your position regarding incest. It actually makes sense and that is what most people believe. You don't believe people are 'born that way'. Yet when it comes to the LGBTQ issue, your position is different, and you accept that people are 'born that way' and it's not the result of years or decades of low and medium grade sexual abuse and grooming, even though there is no demonstrable, hard scientific evidence for either position (that people are 'born gay' or they are born with attraction to family members). So now would be a good time to admit that your position regarding LGBTQ is a faith based stance, not a scientific stance. Just sayin'

As for the necro, you are dodging the question by bringing in tertiary and tangendental issues. I didn't say that a relative wouldn't be traumatized by seeing this act, they obviously would be. I said from a materialistic scientific point of view, if the act took place with only two parties, the doer and the corpse, where is the demostrable, quantifiable harm (using scientific tools) ? You still need to answer that. 

From an Islamic perspective, there is harm because we believe the soul, or the nafs, is still attached to the body immediately after death. So this is actually rape, because the soul is still present, though not attached to the body in the same way it was when the person was alive. The soul of the person is still aware what is happening to their body immediately after death before the soul moves on to its place in the barzakh (the intermediate world). This is not measurable and quantifiable using scientific tools, because present day scientific tools have no way to deal with issues of the soul. 

You basically admitted that the beastiality topic is an appropriate example. Without being able to read the thoughts of the animal, we couldn't really say one way or the other whether the animal consents or not. So the harm is not quantifiable using scientific tools. 

I didn't say the reasons were unknowable. Some are knowable, and some are unknowable. The ones that are knowable are not knowable using only modern scientific tools, which were mentioned, but they are still knowable by using other tools. There are some that are unknowable. 

A great deal of how we judge something, whether it is right or wrong, moral or immoral, depends on our perspective and upbringing. We are all a product of our environment, to a degree. A kid raised in San Francisco by hippies or LGBTQ parents will have a much different perspective on the issue vs a kid who was raised on a farm in Eastern Kentucky. That perspective is not truth. Truth is truth, regardless of how we feel about it. That is why God has given us an objective standard that we can use to judge whether something is right or wrong, regardless of our background and upbringing, how we feel about the situation, the current fashions of out time, etc. These all change but the truth doesn't change. That is why we need religion, IMHO. 

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Empiricism (vide Hume, Russell et alia) itself cannot be 'empirically' proven truer than other epistemologies, let alone it being made the yardstick to judge the truth of other belief-systems. 

Let's settle the terms of the discussion first. Then we can move on to the preliminaries. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
51 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

Your position on this is interesting, given your past posts.

If you paid close attention to any of those posts, not really. But whatevs. Let’s take this apart.

53 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

It is interesting you say that 'No one is naturally attracted sexually to their parents. That doesn’t organically appear in a normal healthy parent-child relationship. If such a thing ever appears, it is a result of years or decades of low and medium grade sexual abuse and grooming'

That is your position regarding incest. It actually makes sense and that is what most people believe. You don't believe people are 'born that way'. Yet when it comes to the LGBTQ issue, your position is different, and you accept that people are 'born that way' and it's not the result of years or decades of low and medium grade sexual abuse and grooming, even though there is no demonstrable, hard scientific evidence for either position (that people are 'born gay' or they are born with attraction to family members). So now would be a good time to admit that your position regarding LGBTQ is a faith based stance, not a scientific stance. Just sayin'

Not really. Let’s set aside the strawman aspect here that I’ve never once here argued a simplistic “born that way” characterization. But, fact is I can go out there and find a million examples of gay people telling the same basic story. “I am a man/woman, I hit puberty, and unlike my friends and classmates who started getting turned on by women/men, I got turned on by men/women.” And the vast majority of these people report no history of being molested or groomed whatsoever. 

You bring me even a single example of some woman telling a life story of coming into puberty and suddenly getting the hots for Daddy out of the blue, we can talk. Otherwise, you cede the point. 
 

1 hour ago, Abu Hadi said:

As for the necro, you are dodging the question by bringing in tertiary and tangendental issues. I didn't say that a relative wouldn't be traumatized by seeing this act, they obviously would be. I said from a materialistic scientific point of view, if the act took place with only two parties, the doer and the corpse, where is the demostrable, quantifiable harm (using scientific tools) ? You still need to answer that. 

From an Islamic perspective, there is harm because we believe the soul, or the nafs, is still attached to the body immediately after death. So this is actually rape, because the soul is still present, though not attached to the body in the same way it was when the person was alive. The soul of the person is still aware what is happening to their body immediately after death before the soul moves on to its place in the barzakh (the intermediate world). This is not measurable and quantifiable using scientific tools, because present day scientific tools have no way to deal with issues of the soul. 

Because it’s not a distinction with any meaning. We judge by the global picture of what harms an act does, whether to himself, the one he does it to, or anyone else around. 

Our belief that the dead are still aware of their body for awhile, that’s another thing to consider. But the harm this can do to relatives is in itself sufficient as a reason why it’s wrong. 

1 hour ago, Abu Hadi said:

You basically admitted that the beastiality topic is an appropriate example. Without being able to read the thoughts of the animal, we couldn't really say one way or the other whether the animal consents or not. So the harm is not quantifiable using scientific tools. 

No, not really. We know from observation that as a general rule, assuming consent to sexual activity without clear and explicit voicing of that consent has a clear tendency to produce harms in the world, and therefore you’re obligated to seek that consent. Since you can never possibly know for sure with an animal, the rational ethical choice is to default to assuming it’s not there. 

 

1 hour ago, Abu Hadi said:

I didn't say the reasons were unknowable. Some are knowable, and some are unknowable. The ones that are knowable are not knowable using only modern scientific tools, which were mentioned, but they are still knowable by using other tools. There are some that are unknowable. 

I think you need to take another run at that paragraph. I’m not making out what you’re trying to say. 

For a behavior to be banned, there has to be a reason.

That reason has to be some sort of harm that it does to someone. Or at least a clear potential for harm. 

Whether the nature of those harms are in actuality known or not, in principle, they need to be potentially knowable, whether now or at some future time, through observation and study. Because otherwise, it would imply that the thing is harmful, but there is no possible observable trace whatsoever of its harmfulness in the world. And that’s a contradiction in terms. 

Beyond the logical contradiction aspect, there is a divine justice and ethics aspect to it. If someone has no access to revelation, then there is this harmful thing they have no possibility whatsoever to ever even hope to be aware of. Even if they were intelligent and paid attention and reflected. No chance. Unknowable. We can say that God is just and will simply ignore such a person doing the thing. But then it becomes a cheap cop out, God plugging a hole He Himself created by making the harmfulness unknowable without supernatural intervention. You’re laying a moral and epistemological landmine here. 

This is not a conceptualization that is consistent with Islam. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

First, I wish to state that I greatly appreciate the responses that have been given to date. They are detailed, in-depth, and mostly pertinent.

20 hours ago, kadhim said:

So that established, this is a dangerous way to think about this. It dances on the edge of heretical notions of God. 

Our school of thought, sins are forbidden for practical reasons. There is some at least theoretically rationally understandable harm to either the person or others or both. This idea of a “spiritual sin” for something that causes no observable harm is problematic. Why would any particular thing that harms no one in the dunya harm the soul? Why would God produce that cause and effect? If you say, it’s because God commanded against the thing, and you distance yourself from God by disobeying, then, congratulations, you become an Asharite, saying God sometimes gives what are ultimately arbitrary commands simply as tests of obedience. It paints a picture of God as punishing people simply for disobeying, rather than because they did something that harmed His creation.

@kadhim

Let me clarify. My point is that a hypothetical Divine command(s) may appear arbitrary to creation, because the (ultimate) rationale for the command may not be apparent, either now or in the future, at least in this world. So from a created being’s perspective the specific command may as well have been arbitrary, because empirical proof was/is lacking at the time of the being’s existence in this world. In this case I am not necessarily referring to something that, on the balance of evidence, can be logically inferred even without immediate visual confirmation, e.g., the existence of a Creator, but to validation of a more specific claim about, say, the proper way to worship, e.g., that prayer must be done in Arabic rather than another language. Some of these claims are not necessarily self-evident.

20 hours ago, kadhim said:

And then if we’re talking about specifically a sin that has some sort of traditional punishment in the world, then it’s doubling the injustice and problematic aspect of it, because the laws of the world are meant to regulate good and harm in the world, and because people are being asked to harm other people for ultimately no good reason. 

It’s one thing to say, “I have faith there’s a reason, even if I don’t know what that reason is.” I tend to think this is also problematic, especially if you’re talking about punishing someone in the world for it. But it’s a defensible position. But inviting the possibility of there actually being no reason is walking past the boundaries of fundamental theories of law and Justice in our school.

^ In addition to the aforementioned, I was also referring to the bolded, underlined mentality that I sometimes perceive here, perhaps incorrectly. I am referring to a situation in which a believer refrains from inadvisable and/or proscribed activities without necessarily knowing the reason behind the recommendation/command.

10 hours ago, Borntowitnesstruth said:

As for worship, its method is changed  or depraved with the time due to depravation in religion that is why a new prophet is sent and this is the reason the Islamic way of worship is superior to Christianity because Christianity has failed to maintain its pure way of worship and includes words which are not liked God and for it God has provided plenty of evidence in Quran as to why Christians are wrong. As far why should a Muslim not pray with fold hands is because it is written in Surah Aaraf verse 29 that Muslims should pray as they were created. Every human being is born open handed and is not created as bounded but free so worship should be like a free person.

@Borntowitnesstruth

Yes, I was referring to supplication rather than worship per se. My point is that the inner meaning of a particular supplication, including the bolded example, is often not self-evident or accessible to empiricism.

10 hours ago, Borntowitnesstruth said:

In order to deal with this issue, it is the duty of a follower to search for religion that does not lie to him because the thing from which it will stop him will surely be found true if evidence of it is not given at that moment because you have to sometime trust a source because it is not possible that every evidence be ready for you in all situations. Thus, only remedy available to a follower is to choose a religion which is logical and welcomes questioning.

This makes sense. Perhaps this wasn’t stated as clearly elsewhere on this forum.

10 hours ago, Borntowitnesstruth said:

Not every demand for a miracle can be accepted because if humans are always allowed to have miracles then value of trust and position is lost which defines status of a believer. Islam says that this world is a test where sometimes we be shown miracles and sometime we would witness difficulties in which we have to keep trust in Islam and be patient which will finally result in goodness. Thus, through this way, our status is defined for heaven where we be shown every kind of miracle which we wish for. As far as happening of miracles is concerned, its happening is not limited to anyone and such happening is not the proof that such person is on truth for example miracle may happen for an atheist too, who may not believe in religion and the cause of Miracle may be to warn him regarding existence of a creator. Similarly, is the case for Christians and Hindus that they should find the teachings of true God. Mere happening of miracle does not provide that it is true religion rather it is the belief and teachings which clearly defines whether such religion is true or not. This is what is explained in Surah Baqarah that when people worshiped calf, Allah (عزّ وجلّ) said that why did they fall for the golden calf rather than seeing what it propagates, it propagates nothing but mooing

I can understand this, especially if it is based on a firm intellectual foundation, but one must also define the conditions under which one may continue to trust in the face of absence of evidence, which of course is not evidence of absence. In other words, the trust must already have been earned by that point and be based on a sufficiently firm evidentiary foundation.

10 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Science is not goal which every religion or anything likewise Atheism for approving or disapproving uses it as a tool not goal anyway Islam is more compatile with science than any other religion or foundation which Islam brings morality & code of morality 7 honor into science in order to use it infavor of humanity & becoming more near to god in opposition science in other religions which it's scientists have use science for  creating nukes & other mass killing weapons for spreading corruption & alienation from god.

@Ashvazdanghe

Is there any reason as to why science cannot be the goal of religion and be synonymous with virtue? After all, doesn’t one need science in order to be virtuous, even if science does not always result in virtue?

10 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Islam has came for making everything likewise praying easy for humans & removing any borden of previous religions due to alternation & deviations in previous religion which folding hands has taken from other religions specially Zoroastrianism which Christians have inherited their rituals from Jews & Mithraism which alo Jews have affected with zoroastrianism likewise folding hands which in similar fashion dividing praying  to pray in language of each nation has caused more & more deviation in understanding of true meanings of  prayer so therefore turning it into just into void rituals  because in every transltion people lose true meaning of words of worshiping .

I understand your logic, but then one would need to prove that classical Arabic is the truest, most proper format in which to supplicate, as well as prove that folding hands while praying is a corrupted means of prayer. For example, how can one argue for a specific mode and language of supplication, without coming across as seeming ethnocentric and/or racist? I am not arguing that Islam is racist, but that the aforementioned can be taken for “Arabisation,” in that other means of praying, e.g., with folded hands or in languages other than classical Arabic, are deemed un-Islamic.

9 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

When you say no 'measurable,demostratable,visible harm', I believe you are saying no harm that can be demonstrated thru current scientific methods, such as a laboratory experiment, double blind study, an equation, or a single deductive proof. These are tools, they are useful for certain things, not useful for others. Like a hammer, good for hammering a nail into wood, bad for chopping lettuce for a salad. If that is the criteria, then there are many other things that are illegal and abhorrent that could also not pass this test of 'measurable,demostratable, visible harm'. We can take incest between say a father and daughter who are both adults, or necrophilia, beastiality. The corpse is already dead so how could it be 'demonstrably' harmed ? The animal cannot be given a survey or interview to see if it 'consented' to the sexual act. These, and many other things, are illegal, immoral, and considered 'grotesque' by the vast majority of people (and they definitely are that, IMHO) because everyone has an intuitive sense of morality. There are harms that cannot be quantified using scientific tools, which are limited.

@Abu Hadi

Yes, my (hypothetical) examples were relying on the current scientific method(s). As far as an intuitive sense of morality is concerned, that can be problematic if people’s environment/upbringing and/or hereditary constitution have predisposed them to a corrupted moral sense, or rendered them vulnerable. I think people need to tie intuition and science more closely together, so that one does not outpace the other, while working within the framework of religion, or a rational Deen (way of life).

9 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

What Islam objects to is when someone who has some scientific knowledge then believe that they also have comprehensive knowledge of existence, and then starts to make recommendations or force recommendations regarding society and how it should work onto other people who don't share their world view. That is the only problem we have.

Of course, but science in and of itself does not and should not claim to have the final say, given that the scientific method is used to build upon existing findings. New evidence always comes to light that results in the perennial revision of knowledge. The fact that man may/will never understand everything does not mean that science shouldn’t be a key foundation or basis of understanding, even in religion. My main point is that religion should not be at odds with the scientific method, so long as the latter is properly applied.

2 hours ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

Empiricism (vide Hume, Russell et alia) itself cannot be 'empirically' proven truer than other epistemologies, let alone it being made the yardstick to judge the truth of other belief-systems. 

Let's settle the terms of the discussion first. Then we can move on to the preliminaries. 

@AbdusSibtayn

Okay, this goes back to the title of this thread. Is there a particular reason as to why empiricism cannot be more valid than other epistemologies? After all, even if empiricism fails to prove or disprove something at present, it may well succeed in the future. Nor does its present state render it ineffective or discredited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

We can take incest between say a father and daughter

I know this has little to do with the post, but this is a bad example. 
 

The question of being able to love, marry, or have sex with a person of the opposite gender or a person of the same gender are both identical and symmetrical as far as the idea of "consenting relationship between two adults that doesn't affect other people" goes. Once you add on a dynamic, like a father and his daughter, or a teacher and their student, you are changing the entire question and there is an obvious and uneven power structure - so these examples therefore cannot be used as an argument against homosexuality. It's like comparing two different classes of society. You can, right now, imagine all of the things that a heterosexual couple does and even if you flipped one of the genders, you can still imagine them doing all of the same things. You can't possibly conjure up the same imagination if you flipped "normal couple" to "doctor and patient" or "father and daughter" or "policeman and victim" because one side has a clear authority over the other. Speaking of a doctor and patient, if a male doctor were to sexually approach his male patient, the issue would lie in his advancement on his patient whilst he held the moral authority as a doctor. The problem isn't in them having the same sex.

This is why this is not a good comparison to make. At all.

Edited by khizarr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members

I've skimmed through this thread and found it quite interesting, thank you for raising this Northwest. I'm keen to share my thoughts but apologise in advance if I repeat any points already raised.

One could take this or a similar line of reasoning to argue that if there is a prevailing form of knowledge in the world which is producing results then the truth of Islam should be demonstrable by this method.

Theological texts often state that when magic was prevalent at the time of Musa (عليه السلام) the miracles shown were similar but beyond human capability. The wisdom behind this may have been to enable experts to recognise this was from God. Similarly with Isa (عليه السلام) and medicine, and Rasoolullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and eloquence.  However, Islam's claim that it is the eternal and complete religion should mean it can be easily recognised by future generations even if their prevailing science or best form of knowledge is different to that at the time of Rasoolullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)

I agree miracles are not sufficient.  The content of the message must make intellectual and rational sense under scrutiny too.  The miracle is a stamp on the rational belief system for extra verification. This is important due to our limited and flawed reasoning, evidenced by endless disagreements on the most fundamental concepts.  

One might define miracle as something done beyond human capability.

I believe one can start with self-evident truths like the principle of non-contradiction and existence to deductively arrive at the general beliefs in one God and the possibility of this God communicating with us. Then we can observe the world to see if this is the case.

If there is a methodology such as empiricism which produces results in the world then I believe it is fair to argue that Islam should be demonstrable by the same methodology. I believe it is.

Empiricism or anything based on observation can only ever arrive at inductive truth.  I believe it is possible to arrive at the truth of Islam inductively as I will outline below but deductively for the more general truths too.

The Hypethetico-Deductive (H-D) method is a well-known specific methodology of science and perhaps empiricism.  There are others. It is important to note all evidence must be interpreted by the heart, self, intellect etc to make sense of it.

Broadly, by this method you hypothesise a belief, make a measurable prediction based on this belief and observe if it is true. If it isn't, the belief is likely wrong. If it is, it gives some confidence in the belief but the prediction and observation is still open to other valid interpretations. 

Believing the earth pulls objects with the force of gravity is consistent with objects falling to the ground. However, the observation might also be consistent with the object pulling the earth to it or space-time being curved or an angel pushing the object to the earth etc. 

Even though deductive is in the name, it doesn't lead to deductive truth in my opinion.

As for taking this approach to Islam, assume Islam is true as the hypothesis. What observable predictions does this hypothesis make? What is required to observe if there is a miracle? Does the message also make deductive or rational sense? 

Here are some of my thoughts on this.

The word of God should be beyond human capability to produce and we should be able to recognise it as such.

Humans can't predict the future with 100% accuracy on numerous occasions, but the Quran has done for events which have already passed.  There are no other recorded and independently verifiable examples of humans doing this repeatedly I believe.

The Quran seems to indicate no ignorance of things which have been discovered by science after the fact and reviewing the Arabic wording under scientific findings. Humans were ignorant of these things before science discovered them.

The literary aspects of the Quran are unmatched. For example the intensity of the count of beautiful rhetorical devices has not been matched in other literature. The simple language with profound concepts is quite unique.  The inability of linguists to categorise the quran into any pre-existing subcategory of poetry or prose.  It is outside the realm of 'normal' for an untaught person to produce such a work.

Another aspect is that it is beyond human capability to cause themselves to be prophecised by people who lived before them. Islam claims with evidence in the texts of other religions (open to interpretation) that this is the case for Rasoolullah (saww).

Islam claims prophets were sent to every nation. One can observe many common themes in most religions predating Islam.

 

Moving away from the Quran and beliefs to practices such as praying, fasting etc which are widely accepted.  I don't think we are yet (if ever) capable of distinguishing between details of prayer or fasting like folding hands or not.  This is taken from those we trust for many reasons.

However, we are capable of assessing the general benefits to individuals and society of many of these practices with psychology, sociology, wellbeing, economics, common sense etc. For example mindfulness meditation has only recently become scientifically recognised but Islam and other faiths have been propagating similar things for thousands of years.

Fasting in all sorts of ways is increasingly recommended by doctors and scientists but Islam and other faiths were already doing so.

In simple terms one could make a prediction that someone practicing Islam's basics as they should be with true belief is increasing their wellbeing.  Many of Islam's recommended acts taken in isolation are empirically and probabilistically recognised to do so.

Once enough of this type of evidence is recognised by an individual, they are justifiably more willing to submit to a command even if they do not understand it. This makes inductive sense. 

The angels asked Allah about why He created Adam (عليه السلام) and Allah responded because they had the right attitude (In surah Baqarah). It is fine to question and not submit unless someone is convinced. If someone is convinced but does not submit then there is a problem.

As for the deductive side, there are many theological works which present strong arguments for the general beliefs such as existence, oneness and attributes of God etc.

I hope my ramble is helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, Northwest said:

Is there any reason as to why science cannot be the goal of religion and be synonymous with virtue? After all, doesn’t one need science in order to be virtuous, even if science does not always result in virtue?

18 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Islam has came for making everything likewise praying easy for humans & removing any borden of previous religions due to alternation & deviations in previous religion which folding hands has taken from other religions specially Zoroastrianism which Christians have inherited their rituals from Jews & Mithraism which alo Jews have affected with zoroastrianism likewise folding hands which in similar fashion dividing praying  to pray in language of each nation has caused more & more deviation in understanding of true meanings of  prayer so therefore turning it into just into void rituals  because in every transltion people lose true meaning of words of worshiping .

 

Hi , Important matter is refienement not just being virtuous which science without the refinemet is most dangerous matter  which scientists & scholars even if be virtuous but on the other hand they have not refienement so then they will be most corrupt people in this worls & hereafter .

Quote

If there is no refinement, then the science of monotheism is useless. "Knowledge is al-Hijab al-Akbar" The more knowledge accumulates, even monotheism, which is the highest knowledge, accumulates in the brain and heart of a person, if he is not refined, he will be further away from God, the Blessed and Exalted. Efforts should be made in these seminaries, both now and in the future, to make them refined. Beside the science of jurisprudence and philosophy and the like, there should be ethical areas, areas of refinement, and areas of conduct "to Allah the Exalted". Do you know who trialed the late Sheikh Fazlullah Noori? A Zanjani Scholar; A  tried Zanjani mullah has trialed and he issued the death sentence; When Turbanhead, Molla; If he is not refined, he is more corrupt than anyone else. There are some hadiths that in hell, some people - the people of hell - are in torment because of the pollution of some clerics, and the world is also in torment because of the pollution of some of them.

Read more: https://emam.com/posts/view/20811/اگر-تهذیب -%D8%AF%D8%B1-%DA%A9%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D9%86%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B4%D8%AF%D8%8C-%D8 %B9%D9%84%D9%85-%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%AD%DB%8C%D8%AF-%D9%87%D9%85-%D8%A8%D9%87- %D8%AF%D8%B1%D8%AF-%D9%86%D9%85%DB%8C%E2%80%8C%D8%AE%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%AF

 

Quote

Emphasizing the need to pay attention to refinement, the member of leadership experts added: If we reach the highest scientific position, but neglect refinement and cultivation, it will cause harm to Islam and Muslims.

A member of the leadership experts stated: He who learns for the sake of God, certainly cares about self-refinement. Because British Shiism does not benefit from ethics and refinement, it harms Islam and Muslims with its knowledge.

In the end, referring to the importance of self-improvement in life, he advised the students: Start seeking self-improvement from the beginning of your life and prevent mental illnesses.

https://www.hawzahnews.com/news/415495/علم-بدون-تهذیب-خطرناک-است

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, Northwest said:

I understand your logic, but then one would need to prove that classical Arabic is the truest, most proper format in which to supplicate, as well as prove that folding hands while praying is a corrupted means of prayer. For example, how can one argue for a specific mode and language of supplication, without coming across as seeming ethnocentric and/or racist? I am not arguing that Islam is racist, but that the aforementioned can be taken for “Arabisation,” in that other means of praying, e.g., with folded hands or in languages other than classical Arabic, are deemed un-Islamic.

Hi supplication can be done in any language which you prefer to talk with God/Allah but on the other hand obligatoray prayers liewise Namaz/Salah must be done in truest framework & procedure as has been oredered by Allah/God which it has been practiced by prophet Muhammad (pbu) which according to it divine procedure before his demise  which prophet Muhammad (pbu) has received procedure of praying by open hands which according to all of Muslim sources even sunni sources Umar has ordered people to pray with folded hands after demise of prophet Muhamad (pbu) which he has been a pan Arab which has had clear enmity with Iranians but he adopted praying with folded hands from Iranian proisoner so therefore it's not Arabisation but on the other hand preserving from alternation & innovation & deviation.

Why do we have to perform prayers in Arabic?

Quote

1- The main reason behind performing prayers only in Arabic after the fact that it is part of the prophet’s ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) sunnah and that in general, all forms of worship need to be dictated to us by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) the way He wants them to be performed, is to avoid the alteration of the form of prayers

2- Islam is a global religion that aims to unite all Muslims and without a language that they can understand each other through, such a goal is unachievable. Arabic, which according to the experts, is one of the most comprehensive languages that has the potential to be an international language, one which Muslims can be united by and will remain as a sign of Muslim unity, just like in other aspects of Islam, like praying towards one qibla and so forth.

3- Some may think that forcing people who aren’t good at Arabic to pray in this language is not fair because of the trouble they need to go through to learn it. In this regard one must say that learning a total of 20 words (without counting the words repeated more than once) that are used in the prayer isn’t considered difficult for those who can easily learn and use tens and hundreds of words and phrases of other languages!

 

 

Quote

4- According to language experts, Arabic is one of the world’s most comprehensive languages that has the capability of conveying deep meanings in short and beautiful phrases.[1]

 

Quote

5- It is not obligatory to perform all acts of worship in Arabic. For example, some Islamic scholars’ fatwas do not say that it is wajib[2] for the marriage contract to be pronounced in Arabic; some great scholars like Imam Khomeini say that if a person isn't capable of pronouncing the marriage contract in Arabic and is able to get an agent (wakil) to do it in Arabic for them, it isn't necessary and he/she can do it his/herself in his/her own language.[3]

https://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/fa423

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 11/22/2022 at 8:28 PM, Northwest said:

I do have a question about this: Is Qalb based on Afidah? Does qalb flow from afidah, or vice versa? Isn’t self/conscience in Islam based on the heart?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members
16 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

Going by the title of the OP:

 

And using, for example, the following definition of empiricism:

https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/empiricism

 

Within this constraint, I'll start with two things (amongst many) that distinguish Islam from other faiths:

  1. In Islam the ban on alcohol and gambling is explicit and not negotiable
  2. In other religions while there may be disapproval or abstract injunctions against the ban is not as explicit as in Islam
  3. Moreover the behaviour of people in all other religions is such that drinking alcohol is not considered unusual. Amongst Muslims it still is.

 

Now going onto the empirical angle, there is now enough of a body of evidence showing that:

  1. Alcohol is beneficial - but this also plays into Qur'anic injunctions which recognise that there are benefits
  2. Alcohol is harmful and the Qur'an says that the harms outweigh the benefits - which is also in line with current medical opinion
  3. Gambling is also harmful
  4. The way gambling and alcohol lead to addiction is similar thus reinforcing their juxtaposition in the Qur'an

 

See this for more:

https://www.familyaddictionspecialist.com/blog/the-similarities-between-alcoholism-and-gambling-addiction

I agree with Haji 2003's well described approach here completely. 

There are certain unverifiable injunctions or statements in Islam such as details of how to pray exactly, najasat and its transfer, details of Hajj etc but, 

many other injunctions like gambling or alcohol agree with science often discovered after Islam, other schools of thought do not discourage or forbid them like Islam has from its start, and many of the things we submit to are inconsequential from our limited perspectives. 

To go against our lower desires and inclinations we need a very strong motivator, otherwise we are more likely to keep doing things we know are wrong/ in line with our base interests. I don't think anything provides this as well as Religion, in the form of Islam today. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
16 hours ago, kadhim said:

If you paid close attention to any of those posts, not really. But whatevs. Let’s take this apart.

Not really. Let’s set aside the strawman aspect here that I’ve never once here argued a simplistic “born that way” characterization. But, fact is I can go out there and find a million examples of gay people telling the same basic story. “I am a man/woman, I hit puberty, and unlike my friends and classmates who started getting turned on by women/men, I got turned on by men/women.” And the vast majority of these people report no history of being molested or groomed whatsoever. 

You bring me even a single example of some woman telling a life story of coming into puberty and suddenly getting the hots for Daddy out of the blue, we can talk. Otherwise, you cede the point. 
 

Because it’s not a distinction with any meaning. We judge by the global picture of what harms an act does, whether to himself, the one he does it to, or anyone else around. 

Our belief that the dead are still aware of their body for awhile, that’s another thing to consider. But the harm this can do to relatives is in itself sufficient as a reason why it’s wrong. 

No, not really. We know from observation that as a general rule, assuming consent to sexual activity without clear and explicit voicing of that consent has a clear tendency to produce harms in the world, and therefore you’re obligated to seek that consent. Since you can never possibly know for sure with an animal, the rational ethical choice is to default to assuming it’s not there. 

 

I think you need to take another run at that paragraph. I’m not making out what you’re trying to say. 

For a behavior to be banned, there has to be a reason.

That reason has to be some sort of harm that it does to someone. Or at least a clear potential for harm. 

Whether the nature of those harms are in actuality known or not, in principle, they need to be potentially knowable, whether now or at some future time, through observation and study. Because otherwise, it would imply that the thing is harmful, but there is no possible observable trace whatsoever of its harmfulness in the world. And that’s a contradiction in terms. 

Beyond the logical contradiction aspect, there is a divine justice and ethics aspect to it. If someone has no access to revelation, then there is this harmful thing they have no possibility whatsoever to ever even hope to be aware of. Even if they were intelligent and paid attention and reflected. No chance. Unknowable. We can say that God is just and will simply ignore such a person doing the thing. But then it becomes a cheap cop out, God plugging a hole He Himself created by making the harmfulness unknowable without supernatural intervention. You’re laying a moral and epistemological landmine here. 

This is not a conceptualization that is consistent with Islam. 

First point. I'm not going to post links to your old posts to prove this. I could, but I want to leave your dignity intact on this one, since we are brothers in Islam. You know what you said. 

Second point (incest). You are setting the bar impossibly high on this one. Can I find an example of a girl/women who wasn't attracted to her dad when she was 17 years, 11 month, 29 days (depending on the month) and 24 hours and 59 seconds old and then was attracted to her father 1 second later and then I had to prove that she wasn't abused (mildly or severely) and / or groomed beforehand ? That's too much research for me to do for this one. There are cases, you have probably heard of them, where a mother wants to marry her son or a daughter wants to marry her father, or a brother wants to marry his sister. You will see these creeping to the surface from time to time. Im sure you've heard of some of them. My point is, that in at least some of those cases  (you have to suppose that for argument's sake) there was no abuse / grooming. In those cases, even if it is one, can you prove with current scientific tools that there is harm taking place (assuming the daughter doesn't become pregnant) ? That was the question. 

Third point (beasteality). Oh touche ! My fine young lad. This is where your avatar might have taken some damage. Does a cow consent to having it's throat cut when it is butchered ? or a sheep ? Does a donkey consent to carrying a small refrigerator on it's back ? Asking an animal for consent may be very problematic. I won't belabour this point, as not to bore anyone. Yes, you could take the position of a vegan, or actually more extreme than that because even vegans say it is not inhumane for animals to be used to carry packages.Unless this is your position, then I think this point is conceded. I will add +50 damage and end the match. 

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
13 hours ago, Northwest said:

Of course, but science in and of itself does not and should not claim to have the final say, given that the scientific method is used to build upon existing findings. New evidence always comes to light that results in the perennial revision of knowledge. The fact that man may/will never understand everything does not mean that science shouldn’t be a key foundation or basis of understanding, even in religion. My main point is that religion should not be at odds with the scientific method, so long as the latter is properly applied.

That is not entirely correct. I can give some recent examples. 

The LGBTQ flags, symbols, clothing at the World Cup that is currently going on, that is being done by government officials of some Western Countries. By putting up these symbols in a Muslim country where the vast majority of the people of that country do not want to see such things, they are imposing this on them. This is extremely disrespectful and rude. Their message is that 'We (the people of Denmark, Germany, etc) most agree between ourselves that men having sex with men and women having sex with women is something very good and helpful for society. We know this because of science ? (what science). If you don't allow this and celebrate it, we will impose it on you by force. By sanctioning you, 'calling you out' , canceling you, imposing economic and political sanctions on you, or maybe invading you (as we have done in the past), etc.' Is this not using force to impose an alien (alien to Islam) set of values ? 

This is the message that is received by practicing Muslims by actions like this. Obviously I do not support terrorism and terrorist organizations, but this is the main reason they have any support. It is a backlash from actions like this. If there was no attempt to impose by force these alien values on Muslims , ISIS, Qaeda, etc, wouldn't exist. They only exist because of this. This is what I am against. 

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Abu Hadi said:

First point. I'm not going to post links to your old posts to prove this. I could, but I want to leave your dignity intact on this one, since we are brothers in Islam. You know what you said. 

Yeah, I know exactly what I said. So you best run along, son. 

1 hour ago, Abu Hadi said:

Second point (incest). You are setting the bar impossibly high on this one.

No. I’m not. I’m giving you a ridiculously low bar to cross. Roll eyes at your obtuse 17 years, 11 months …  strawman. As if that’s what I’m asking you. Show me an example of one woman who tells a story of entering puberty and just naturally finding herself getting sexually attracted to her father the same way you and I went into puberty and started naturally getting attracted to girls. Or same with a man with his mother. One example. 

1 hour ago, Abu Hadi said:

Third point (beasteality). Oh touche ! My fine young lad. This is where your avatar might have taken some damage. Does a cow consent to having it's throat cut when it is butchered ? or a sheep ? Does a donkey consent to carrying a small refrigerator on it's back ? Asking an animal for consent may be very problematic. I won't belabour this point, as not to bore anyone. Yes, you could take the position of a vegan, or actually more extreme than that because even vegans say it is not inhumane for animals to be used to carry packages.Unless this is your position, then I think this point is conceded. I will add +50 damage and end the match. 

Alright. No, I’m not a vegan. I do think they have a legit case that deserves to be heard both in general society and in the Muslim community. But no, as a fallible human schmuck, I’m not ready to be that radically logically consistent in the practice of my own life. Guilty. Still doesn’t mean this secular point about why bestiality is wrong is incorrect. Just means I’m inconsistent logically. As we all are. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
2 hours ago, kadhim said:

Yeah, I know exactly what I said. So you best run along, son. 

 

Apprently not. 

I don’t see where it alters the ethical calculation. The person is that way through no doing or choice of his own, because of factors that happened mostly or entirely before he was even aware of what sex and sexuality were. And he can’t change it. How do the specifics of the causes change that basic reality of the situation and the ethical problems it poses? 

 

 

That's all you. I was going to be nice about this but I changed my mind after your comment. I can hang with you bro. If you continue to be a jerk, I'll post more. Salam. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
15 hours ago, khizarr said:

 

The question of being able to love, marry, or have sex with a person of the opposite gender or a person of the same gender are both identical and symmetrical as far as the idea of "consenting relationship between two adults that doesn't affect other people" goes. Once you add on a dynamic, like a father and his daughter, or a teacher and their student, you are changing the entire question and there is an obvious and uneven power structure - so these examples therefore cannot be used as an argument against homosexuality. It's like comparing two different classes of society. You can, right now, imagine all of the things that a heterosexual couple does and even if you flipped one of the genders, you can still imagine them doing all of the same things. You can't possibly conjure up the same imagination if you flipped "normal couple" to "doctor and patient" or "father and daughter" or "policeman and victim" because one side has a clear authority over the other. Speaking of a doctor and patient, if a male doctor were to sexually approach his male patient, the issue would lie in his advancement on his patient whilst he held the moral authority as a doctor. The problem isn't in them having the same sex.

then what about two twin brothers or two twin sisters? a dynamic is not added here. So where would the difference between this and homosexuality be? twin sisters would be two consenting adults of equal authority. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
58 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

Apprently not. 

I don’t see where it alters the ethical calculation. The person is that way through no doing or choice of his own, because of factors that happened mostly or entirely before he was even aware of what sex and sexuality were. And he can’t change it. How do the specifics of the causes change that basic reality of the situation and the ethical problems it poses? 

 

 

That's all you. I was going to be nice about this but I changed my mind after your comment. I can hang with you bro. If you continue to be a jerk, I'll post more. Salam. 

Yes…and…?

None of that translates to the simplicity of “born that way.” It acknowledges that it’s a little more complex than that, though still ultimately beyond the person’s control.

If that’s a little too subtle for you to parse, maybe that’s something for you to take responsibility for and work on, akhi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
13 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Hi , Important matter is refienement not just being virtuous which science without the refinemet is most dangerous matter  which scientists & scholars even if be virtuous but on the other hand they have not refienement so then they will be most corrupt people in this worls & hereafter .

@Ashvazdanghe

But doesn’t virtue involve the cultivation of refinement? One acquires knowledge, an aspect of refinement, in part via empiricism. So how does this disprove my point(s)?

7 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

The LGBTQ flags, symbols, clothing at the World Cup that is currently going on, that is being done by government officials of some Western Countries. By putting up these symbols in a Muslim country where the vast majority of the people of that country do not want to see such things, they are imposing this on them. This is extremely disrespectful and rude. Their message is that 'We (the people of Denmark, Germany, etc) most agree between ourselves that men having sex with men and women having sex with women is something very good and helpful for society. We know this because of science ? (what science). If you don't allow this and celebrate it, we will impose it on you by force. By sanctioning you, 'calling you out' , canceling you, imposing economic and political sanctions on you, or maybe invading you (as we have done in the past), etc.' Is this not using force to impose an alien (alien to Islam) set of values ?

@Abu Hadi

I do not like to stray too far from the topic at hand, but I wish to address some matters.

1) While I agree that the collective West, or rather its elite rulership, is using LBGTQ+I as a tool of imperialism vs. religious, including Muslim, societies, I would hasten to add that the collective West spends far more of its efforts on propagating “Sunni” Islamist (Wahhabi–Salafi) extremism/sectarianism than supporting LBGTQ+I propaganda among Muslims. LBGTQ+I as a whole has largely only affected the uppermost strata of the relatively small middle classes in the MENA and its environs, that is, the educated intelligentsia. Among the masses the lavishly financed Wahhabi–Salafi propaganda is much more pervasive, thanks to Western and Israeli support for powers such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey. I am not implying that LBGTQ+I is not a real and growing problem in the Muslim world, but that it is by far not the biggest issue at hand among the global ummah, especially outside the West, and that it is certainly less of an issue than, say, Wahhabi–Salafi terrorism and violence. The biggest problem in, for instance, Afghanistan/Pakistan (and elsewhere) right now is GCC-backed, Western-supported Wahhabi–Salafi extremism via groups such as the Taliban, Daesh/ISIS, al-Qaida, et al.

2) I don’t think that you can use political propaganda such as LBGTQ+I to discredit empiricism. Firstly, biological sex is based on empiricism. Man is obviously divided into two biological sexes, based on factors such as reproductive organs, whereas LBGTQ+I is ideologically idealist and decidedly opposed to empiricism, given that its proponents only pretend to rely on “science” for political aims. To claim that LBGTQ+I advocates are somehow employing science or empiricism is to insult actual scientists and empiricists. LBGTQ+I proponents, like the people who advocate sex reassignment, euthanasia, suicide, contraception, and so on, are merely advancing wealthy financiers’ aim to reduce global population by undermining reproduction and the family. One cannot claim that all this has anything to do with real science or empiricism, unless one is implying that neither science nor empiricism can be properly delineated or defined. Honestly, the LBGTQ+I propagandists’ claim to “scientific” backing caricatures science more than anything else. It’s like a man who claims that he can “scientifically” prove that he is a mosquito, an alligator, Bigfoot, etc. People should not give these LBGTQ+I propagandists credibility by even remotely conceding that their ideas are somehow rooted in science and/or empiricism.

7 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

This is the message that is received by practicing Muslims by actions like this. Obviously I do not support terrorism and terrorist organizations, but this is the main reason they have any support. It is a backlash from actions like this. If there was no attempt to impose by force these alien values on Muslims , ISIS, Qaeda, etc, wouldn't exist. They only exist because of this. This is what I am against. 

The bolded portion denigrates Muslims by implying that they respond to LBGTQ+I by bombing, beheading, and otherwise terrorising innocent people. Un-Islamic, indeed non-Islamic, terrorist groups such as ISIS and al-Qaida do not exist due to LBGTQ+I, but rather due to Western/Zionist imperialism and its efforts to control Muslim societies by deliberately creating, financing, and arming sects such as the Wahhabi–Salafi groups that promote deviated interpretations of Islam. ISIS and al-Qaida have arguably never attacked Western/Israeli targets, dubious incidents or false flags such as 9/11 notwithstanding. They have only gone after rival Muslims and societies/states that the West wants to destabilise and/or overthrow. I wouldn’t give these Wahhabi–Salafi terrorist groups unneeded legitimacy by implying that they are only reacting to Western imperialism such as LBGTQ+I propaganda. No, these groups actively, consistently work for and on behalf of Western imperialism, as has been seen in Syria and elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 11/24/2022 at 3:15 AM, Northwest said:

Yes, I was referring to supplication rather than worship per se. My point is that the inner meaning of a particular supplication, including the bolded example, is often not self-evident or accessible to empiricism.

On 11/23/2022 at 4:07 PM, Borntowitnesstruth said:

I cannot understand what you mean by empiricism. Do you mean that it is not evident that such and such type of supplication is works for every kind of person, is that what you mean by empiricism. If you mean what I have written then I would say that for a prayer to be granted, it is not only method of praying that matters but there is also what is better for the one who is asking. It may happen that a person is praying in the best way and with pure intention but his prayer is not granted because it will cause problem for him in future or because it was better for him not to be granted. And, it may happen that a person lacks the proper way of praying but his prayer is granted so that his or her belief could be insure one's belief in God. So, it is also the consequence which matters if the prayer is granted.

 

On 11/24/2022 at 3:15 AM, Northwest said:

I can understand this, especially if it is based on a firm intellectual foundation, but one must also define the conditions under which one may continue to trust in the face of absence of evidence, which of course is not evidence of absence. In other words, the trust must already have been earned by that point and be based on a sufficiently firm evidentiary foundation.

True, Our belief in Islam is because of the trust which it has earned by teaching us causes of its commandments and prohibitions and that is because of such earned trust that we also acknowledge belief in those things which we haven't seen yet but because nature has left signs of which to which Islam imply and asks us to believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 11/24/2022 at 11:35 PM, Northwest said:

But doesn’t virtue involve the cultivation of refinement? One acquires knowledge, an aspect of refinement, in part via empiricism. So how does this disprove my point(s)?

Hi as an example collecting best scientists & intelligent people in one location as Los Alamos with all of morality values & good intentions without refinment  has lead to creation of nukes for bombing Hiroshima & Nagasaki because due to morality values & good intentions of killing inocent peopel in Hiroshiam & Nakazaki people with science  without refinment has cause saving millions lives of other people specially white europeans .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
On 11/24/2022 at 3:05 PM, Northwest said:

2) I don’t think that you can use political propaganda such as LBGTQ+I to discredit empiricism. Firstly, biological sex is based on empiricism. Man is obviously divided into two biological sexes, based on factors such as reproductive organs, whereas LBGTQ+I is ideologically idealist and decidedly opposed to empiricism, given that its proponents only pretend to rely on “science” for political aims. To claim that LBGTQ+I advocates are somehow employing science or empiricism is to insult actual scientists and empiricists. LBGTQ+I proponents, like the people who advocate sex reassignment, euthanasia, suicide, contraception, and so on, are merely advancing wealthy financiers’ aim to reduce global population by undermining reproduction and the family. One cannot claim that all this has anything to do with real science or empiricism, unless one is implying that neither science nor empiricism can be properly delineated or defined. Honestly, the LBGTQ+I propagandists’ claim to “scientific” backing caricatures science more than anything else. It’s like a man who claims that he can “scientifically” prove that he is a mosquito, an alligator, Bigfoot, etc. People should not give these LBGTQ+I propagandists credibility by even remotely conceding that their ideas are somehow rooted in science and/or empiricism.

The bolded portion denigrates Muslims by implying that they respond to LBGTQ+I by bombing, beheading, and otherwise terrorising innocent people. Un-Islamic, indeed non-Islamic, terrorist groups such as ISIS and al-Qaida do not exist due to LBGTQ+I, but rather due to Western/Zionist imperialism and its efforts to control Muslim societies by deliberately creating, financing, and arming sects such as the Wahhabi–Salafi groups that promote deviated interpretations of Islam. ISIS and al-Qaida have arguably never attacked Western/Israeli targets, dubious incidents or false flags such as 9/11 notwithstanding. They have only gone after rival Muslims and societies/states that the West wants to destabilise and/or overthrow. I wouldn’t give these Wahhabi–Salafi terrorist groups unneeded legitimacy by implying that they are only reacting to Western imperialism such as LBGTQ+I propaganda. No, these groups actively, consistently work for and on behalf of Western imperialism, as has been seen in Syria and elsewhere.

The LBGTQ+IP... has affected every single nook and cranny of American and 'Western' society. If you don't believe this, try going into any college classroom anywhere in the US (except maybe the Deep South) and say 'I disagree that gay marriage should be protected by the Constitution' and see what happens. You probably already know what would happen, i.e. it wouldn't be an 'intellectual debate' but it would be an attack (verbal and maybe physical) on the person who made the statement. That should be enough of a proof. Those young adults sitting in those seats are the next generation of leaders in the 'West'. I think that is enough of a proof for that. 

As for Muslim countries, there is no 'magic forcefield' around them. Everything that is happening in the 'West' will eventually happen in Muslim countries, most of it already does. I agree that this situation above is not the same in Muslim countries, as of 2022, but it is moving in that direction. If something is moving in a certain direction, and there is nothing stopping it, it will eventually reach the destination, or the intended target. The 'government' of the ME (the vast majority of them) couldn't care less if everyone in their countries was a form of L or B or T, etc, as long as they could still steal the money from the people and get their bribes. The only thing that will prevent what is now a reality in the West from being a reality in Muslim countries is sincere and brave brothers and sisters who are willing to speak out for the real Islamic values as taught by Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) and Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)). 

As for Qaeda / ISIS, etc, yes I agree and I should have added that. The main reason for their existence is Western Imperialism, military, economic, and cultural. I was speaking about one aspect of it, i.e. the Cultural Imperialism, i.e. the attempt to impose an alien culture and values on Muslims by force. The military and economic Imperialist practices are also a huge reason for their existence. 

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 11/25/2022 at 8:38 AM, Borntowitnesstruth said:

I cannot understand what you mean by empiricism. Do you mean that it is not evident that such and such type of supplication is works for every kind of person, is that what you mean by empiricism.

@Borntowitnesstruth @Ashvazdanghe

By “empiricism,” I mean inductive reasoning that is based on the scientific method and verifiable, testable observation. So the underlined portion certainly applies to the gist of my statement(s). The problem is that every individual and his background—and hence subjective factors—are different, so that determining whether a prayer was or was not answered is difficult from an empirical perspective, and is further complicated by the fact that both Muslims and religious non-Muslims claim to have received answers to their supplications. Also, if a religious non-Muslim believed his supplication were answered, owing to his background there would be nothing obvious, at least superficially, that would lead him to automatically conclude that his religious perspective is wrong.

On 11/25/2022 at 8:38 AM, Borntowitnesstruth said:

If you mean what I have written then I would say that for a prayer to be granted, it is not only method of praying that matters but there is also what is better for the one who is asking. It may happen that a person is praying in the best way and with pure intention but his prayer is not granted because it will cause problem for him in future or because it was better for him not to be granted. And, it may happen that a person lacks the proper way of praying but his prayer is granted so that his or her belief could be insure one's belief in God. So, it is also the consequence which matters if the prayer is granted.

^ This goes back to the point that I mentioned above.

On 11/25/2022 at 8:38 AM, Borntowitnesstruth said:

True, Our belief in Islam is because of the trust which it has earned by teaching us causes of its commandments and prohibitions and that is because of such earned trust that we also acknowledge belief in those things which we haven't seen yet but because nature has left signs of which to which Islam imply and asks us to believe.

I can acknowledge this. The real issue is: where lies the threshold of faith? What degree of evidence is sufficient for certitude? If absolute proof of everything cannot necessarily be provided at every point, then how does one draw the delicate balance between a) blind faith and b) informed/reasonable faith?

On 11/26/2022 at 8:44 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

Hi as an example collecting best scientists & intelligent people in one location as Los Alamos with all of morality values & good intentions without refinment  has lead to creation of nukes for bombing Hiroshima & Nagasaki because due to morality values & good intentions of killing inocent peopel in Hiroshiam & Nakazaki people with science  without refinment has cause saving millions lives of other people specially white europeans .

@Ashvazdanghe

Your example may not be the best. I don’t wish to stray too far from the topic at hand—empirical support for one’s faith—but I would like to draw attention to the fact that you mention the killing of innocents as evidence of a lack of refinement. Firstly, the bombing was justified at the time as a means to defeat to enemy while sparing Allied and even Japanese lives that would otherwise be lost during a protracted invasion of the Japanese Home Islands. Of course, fairly conclusive evidence has since come to light that the bombings were militarily insignificant, Japan’s defeat being inevitable due to naval blockade, and more of a show to intimidate the Soviets (Stalin) than anything else. (I do think that Truman decided to drop the bombs because he wished to deter Soviet influence.) Secondly, if one uses the preservation of innocent lives as a criterion of refinement, then one must also define innocence, as well as account for situations in which one’s own faith may justify offensive wars vs., say, nonbelievers, who may or may not meet the criterion of innocence. Otherwise, one may open oneself to charges of inconsistency.

On 11/26/2022 at 11:45 AM, Abu Hadi said:

The LBGTQ+IP... has affected every single nook and cranny of American and 'Western' society. If you don't believe this, try going into any college classroom anywhere in the US (except maybe the Deep South) and say 'I disagree that gay marriage should be protected by the Constitution' and see what happens. You probably already know what would happen, i.e. it wouldn't be an 'intellectual debate' but it would be an attack (verbal and maybe physical) on the person who made the statement. That should be enough of a proof. Those young adults sitting in those seats are the next generation of leaders in the 'West'. I think that is enough of a proof for that.

@Abu Hadi

Oh, I do believe this. (As I Westerner, I don’t believe this, I know this.) I was referring mainly to the non-Western portions of the Muslim ummah.

On 11/26/2022 at 11:45 AM, Abu Hadi said:

As for Muslim countries, there is no 'magic forcefield' around them. Everything that is happening in the 'West' will eventually happen in Muslim countries, most of it already does. I agree that this situation above is not the same in Muslim countries, as of 2022, but it is moving in that direction. If something is moving in a certain direction, and there is nothing stopping it, it will eventually reach the destination, or the intended target. The 'government' of the ME (the vast majority of them) couldn't care less if everyone in their countries was a form of L or B or T, etc, as long as they could still steal the money from the people and get their bribes. The only thing that will prevent what is now a reality in the West from being a reality in Muslim countries is sincere and brave brothers and sisters who are willing to speak out for the real Islamic values as taught by Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) and Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)).

I do agree with the bolded, but my main point is that this will not occur until the West orders its proxies to switch from the Wahhabi–Salafi ideology to the postmodernist liberal one. So long as the Wahhabi–Salafi ideology remains the West’s preferred choice to control the (Sunni) Muslim world, the spread of the LBGTQ+I perversion will be quite limited in practice, mainly restricted to the elite and the upper middle class. Currently the West prefers to finance the Wahhabi–Salafi ideology among the average Sunnis, the masses, outside the West. Most of the Saudi and Qatari (GCC) petrodollars continue to finance Wahhabi–Salafi instead of postmodernist liberal (including LBGTQ+I) ideology. Otherwise the West would have never allowed the GCC-financed Taliban to regain power in Afghanistan, for instance. Instead the West would have blockaded the Taliban and forced them to install a pro-LBGTQ+I, secular, Western-style regime in Kabul by now. Even the “reformist” Saudis under the supposedly “pro-secular” and “moderate” MbS continue to finance the Wahhabi–Salafi forces in Yemen and elsewhere; after all, the Wahhabi–Salafi militants are the main actors vs. Shia influence. To this end the West needs and uses the Saudi, Turkish, and Pakistani military-intelligence apparatuses.

On 11/26/2022 at 11:45 AM, Abu Hadi said:

As for Qaeda / ISIS, etc, yes I agree and I should have added that. The main reason for their existence is Western Imperialism, military, economic, and cultural. I was speaking about one aspect of it, i.e. the Cultural Imperialism, i.e. the attempt to impose an alien culture and values on Muslims by force. The military and economic Imperialist practices are also a huge reason for their existence. 

Wahhabism was literally created by the (Zionist) Freemasons and British secret services in the eighteenth century. Al-Qaida, ISIS, the Taliban, et al. were/are literally created by the collective West (including Israel) to undermine traditional Sunni ideology. The Deobandi school has always been a Wahhabi subsidiarity since its creation by the British Empire. Western MSM claim that all the Wahhabi–Salafi, pseudo-Islamic groups are anti-Western, but nothing could be farther from the truth. The Wahhabi–Salafi sects were/are entirely dependent on Western finance, arms, publicity, etc. After all, the West created these groups to begin with, using Western-created puppet-states like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and modern, post-Ottoman Turkey, to not mention the State of Israel. Even Hamas is another Western client, as its leaders spend most of their time in Qatar and NATO member Turkey, and receive funding from pro-Western members of the GCC. Once again, I must reiterate: if the West were really invested in prioritising pro-LBGTQ+I liberalism, it would have ordered its GCC/NATO puppets to stop supporting Wahhabi–Salafi extremism and switch to Western-style politics by now. In the Muslim world LBGTQ+I is more of a long-term goal for the West at this stage. In the near to medium term Wahhabi–Salafi ideology continues to be favoured.

Link to comment
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...