Should I get ADHD meds

[Guest Usuli]

Asalam O Alaykum dear members,

I have been diagnosed with ADHD after visiting my psychiatrist and psychologist. I really feel it had been affecting me and my potential to excel in my areas of my life especially my academic and social life. It even impacted my spirituality as struggling to focus during salah and being consistent. I have both hyperactivity and attention deficit and have had symptoms for most my life as far as I can remember. I'm in my 20s and only recently started looking more into it as I have been paying more attention to the symptoms such as always losing things, not being able to focus especially with stuff I'm not interested in, very impulsive and hyperactive etc. The list goes on. 

My doctor has prescribed Vyvanse medication and just seeing the side effects kinda scares me like it increases risk of cardiac arrest (sudden death) and heart attack with those patients of structural cardiac abnormalities. I just don't want to get myself into something that could impact me long-term although I have no heart issues or any other underlying mental issues. 

At the same time I feel I shouldn't back out because it could be life-changing as the success rate of these medicines are pretty high. Maybe I can excel at a lot of areas in my life if I start taking medication. 

Islamically what would be the wise thing to do? Would it be allowed for me to take these prescribed drugs?

[3wliya_maryam]

On 6/1/2023 at 1:57 AM, Guest Usuli said:

Asalam O Alaykum dear members,

I have been diagnosed with ADHD after visiting my psychiatrist and psychologist. I really feel it had been affecting me and my potential to excel in my areas of my life especially my academic and social life. It even impacted my spirituality as struggling to focus during salah and being consistent. I have both hyperactivity and attention deficit and have had symptoms for most my life as far as I can remember. I'm in my 20s and only recently started looking more into it as I have been paying more attention to the symptoms such as always losing things, not being able to focus especially with stuff I'm not interested in, very impulsive and hyperactive etc. The list goes on. 

My doctor has prescribed Vyvanse medication and just seeing the side effects kinda scares me like it increases risk of cardiac arrest (sudden death) and heart attack with those patients of structural cardiac abnormalities. I just don't want to get myself into something that could impact me long-term although I have no heart issues or any other underlying mental issues. 

At the same time I feel I shouldn't back out because it could be life-changing as the success rate of these medicines are pretty high. Maybe I can excel at a lot of areas in my life if I start taking medication. 

Islamically what would be the wise thing to do? Would it be allowed for me to take these prescribed drugs?

Wa alaikum salam,

I understand what you are going through. Although I haven't been diagnosed for anything yet I can relate to a lot of what you said and it can definitely be a huge struggle.

Maybe try and see if there are alternative medications? I highly doubt there is any notion against it Islamic wise, but if you feel like it could impact your health, maybe the psychiatrist can offer you different drugs. I heard that cognitive behavioural therapy can help deal with some symptoms.

Insha Allah everything works out well for you.

[Sabrejet]

Take it from someone who is diagnosed and is on Ritalin.

First of all, it's absolutely not haram. Don't take my word for it, ask those who know.

Get the meds. Follow your psychiatrists guidelines to the t. Don't tell people you are using it. Don't tell people you have ADHD.

If you want to discuss it with trusted friends and family, be prepared for unsolicited advice and opinions. Be prepared for discouraging or harsh comments.

These comments may include the following: "ADHD is not real. Neurological and personality disorders are not real. You are just lazy and stupid. You are making excuses. Don't try to take addictive stimulant drugs." etc etc

It's very real, and it's very treatable with a combination of meds and therapy. I had suffered from this all my life. I have watched childhood friends get degrees, build careers, and start families while I was stuck.

I was diagnosed a few years ago, but I didn't get the proper treatment. I finally got it treated a few months ago, and my life has gotten exponentially better. I wouldn't have had to suffer so much if I received treatment sooner. I wish I was diagnosed and on meds 15 years ago.

To cut this advice/rant/pity party short, I would say this again: it's real. It's not curable unless there is a miracle. It's also very easily treatable.  Don't hesitate to take meds like I hesitated a few years ago.

[notme]

You can take the medication for a while and see if it helps and if the side effects are intolerable.

It helps a lot of people. In general doctors will only prescribe what they think will help.

[rkazmi33]

I watched a video by Andrew Huberman and he said 35% of people under the age of 30 are using ADHD medicine. They all are not diagnosed and they are getting medicine through internet and other means. How can you get ADHD medicine without a prescription? I always knew there is some secret pill which is making everyone smarter. My sisters, cousins had the same intelligence as me. In fact, I always felt like they were less intelligent than me. Then, suddenly, everyone became so intelligent. All this propaganda against drugs also started because people, who were taking drugs, wanted to have advantage over other people. So they started this war on drugs to stop other people from taking drugs. I am feeling so betrayed. My sisters and cousins all use this medicine. They have seen me struggling, they abused me because of my failures but they never had the moral courage to even tell the truth that their success was not due to their "hard work". 

[Guest Window]

Only get the ADHD meds if they are effecting your personal life. For instance, if you can't finish school or hold down a job, then you should probably go on the medicine. If you are doing okay in school, are holding down a job all right, then you could probably get away with not being on the medication. 

Overall, I suggest listening to your psychologist and if they say you need it, then take it. 

[root]

Honestly, there are so many doctors nowadays that say there is no such thing as ADHD, it's just bad diet, no exercise, too much phone and social media etc. I don't know what to believe anymore. But i tend to try and resolve things without medication first if possible. That's my non professional advice on the issue. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2577814/The-eminent-doctor-convinced-ad-hd-doesnt-exist-In-fact-says-Dr-RICHARD-SAUL-symptoms-routine-causes-drugs-harm-good.html

[Guest Window]

On 6/21/2023 at 5:01 PM, root said:

Honestly, there are so many doctors nowadays that say there is no such thing as ADHD, it's just bad diet, no exercise, too much phone and social media etc. I don't know what to believe anymore

I agree with this.

Too much technology is damaging to one’s brain. Scientists know this. A psychiatrist even wrote once in an article there is no real thing as depression—just a bad environment and no social life/lack of sunlight, etc. That if more adults worked-out outside, had a good social life, and went on vacations more, there would be less need for therapy and medication. 

During Covid, I was locked-in for three years. No vacation, no sunlight, no nothing. I was so stressed and depressed from going to school, writing a literary novel, and being stressed with my failing marriage, that I had to go back on medication again.

Imagine three years no vacation! On top of that, I had an abscess in my tooth and endometriosis. These lock-downs were seriously damaging to one’s brain. They caused a worldwide uptick in divorces and the need for increased psychotherapy and medication worldwide.

When the entire world goes on lockdown for three years, you’re going to deal with a lot of angry and emotionally-scarred people. 

[notme]

4 hours ago, Guest Window said:

Imagine three years no vacation!

 Oh, the horror! 

[Guest Window]

3 hours ago, notme said:

 Oh, the horror! 

It was terrible. My ex-husband wanted me to go on metal disability and my university wanted me to teach Special Ed. To the eyes of everyone, I was a useless, disabled person. Never mind that I wrote an entire literary novel while dealing with rude professors. 

[Northwest]

@root

The debate concerning the appropriateness of modern medicine, including pharmacy, touches on a broader issue. To what extent is man’s scientific experimentation a boon or a detriment to his wellbeing? Does allelopathy, e.g., prescription-based medication, complement homeopathy, or is it inherently more harmful than beneficial? Do we fabricate needs, desires, and even illnesses to serve as a pretext for endless technological innovation and experimentation? If so, should we put a halt to technological development by abandoning the notions of progress and empiricism? Where should lines be drawn? Does “progressive revelation” apply to scientific inventions, developments, and discoveries that ostensibly improve our wellbeing, including in the sphere of mental health? Can medical advances be used for good or evil, or is there something about an advance itself that is not ideologically neutral?

According to Caroline Fourest’s Brother Tariq (New York: Encounter Books, 2008, p. 202), in a discussion with Tariq Ramadan his friend Serge Latouche debated the merits of using modern technology in service of God or the Good in general. Tariq Ramadan argued that modern inventions such as social media and television could be used for religious—in his case Islamic—purposes, but Latouche countered with an interesting claim: that even technology in and of itself is not ideologically neutral. Even as a tool it is marked by an underlying ideological spirit, so one cannot simply say that the tool can be used for good or evil. By this logic, whether one uses modern inventions to serve Divine aims is irrelevant, if the means themselves are founded on a hostile spiritual undercurrent, which is supposedly embedded in the very means themselves, regardless of they uses to which they are adapted.

The Industrial Revolution—an outgrowth its spiritual counterpart, the Protestant Reformation, and the latter’s antecedent, the Renaissance—was founded on the basis of interchangeable parts and subjective utility. The underlying ideology can be extrapolated: the form of a Godly life does not matter. One can serve the Good by communicating online or via television just as well as by old-fashioned pen and quill. Mass production can serve God just as well as handmade craft. By this metric, this mentality could feasibly be extended to the very form of worship itself, so that one may as well pray in English or Arabic.* (It is interesting to note that the Protestant Reformation, which promoted vernacular languages at the expense of ecclesiastical Latin, was furthered in its democratic, levelling aim by the invention of the printing press, which also catered to a newfound public opinion, or mass audience.)

*I am not agreeing with this conclusion, but merely outlining a possible end-result of this logic.

So, based on the above, are prescription drugs bad, like alcohol, or can they be used under certain circumstances? What about television and social media? Telephones? Automobiles and airplanes? Various appliances? Modern lighting? Toothpaste? What are the underlying spiritual concepts that these inventions convey? Is a factory-based way of life consonant with true spirituality, or does it reduce man to a soulless machine? I can’t help but notice that a lot of our present maladies have roots in the same forces that produced the Reformation and the Industrial Revolution. The underlying conception is one of mass opposed to individuality, so collectivistic and democratic, promoting efficiency and ease over spiritual authenticity. Maybe I’ve fallen prey to a Neo-Luddite heresy, but I think about the agricultural cycle and whether man is meant to live according to natural rather than artificial rhythms.★

★These rhythms could be easily embedded in forms of worship such as those that Islam prescribes, given that the Creator established the life-way(s) of this world.

[Haji 2003]

On 7/13/2023 at 4:07 PM, Northwest said:

Latouche countered with an interesting claim: that even technology in and of itself is not ideologically neutral. Even as a tool it is marked by an underlying ideological spirit, so one cannot simply say that the tool can be used for good or evil.

Technology often enhances the ability to exercise free will. The corollary is that it provides a broader platform to exercise moral and ethical judgement.

 

On 7/13/2023 at 4:07 PM, Northwest said:

By this metric, this mentality could feasibly be extended to the very form of worship itself, so that one may as well pray in English or Arabic.* (It is interesting to note that the Protestant Reformation, which promoted vernacular languages at the expense of ecclesiastical Latin, was furthered in its democratic, levelling aim by the invention of the printing press, which also catered to a newfound public opinion, or mass audience.)

The difference, of course, is that the Bible was not revealed in Latin. But the Qur'an was revealed in Arabic.

 

On 7/13/2023 at 4:07 PM, Northwest said:

but I think about the agricultural cycle and whether man is meant to live according to natural rather than artificial rhythms

As we develop and evolve, I think we will steadily leave the natural behind. We'll have to as the population rises and we embark on interplanetary travel.

Artificial gets a bad press at the moment, e.g. processed foods, but that's because we are on an evolutionary curve where we are not at present very good at mimicking nature, e.g. aspartame. But give it time.

[Northwest]

On 8/21/2023 at 3:09 PM, Haji 2003 said:

Technology often enhances the ability to exercise free will. The corollary is that it provides a broader platform to exercise moral and ethical judgement.

@Haji 2003 True, but one must be prudent and take human nature into account. Mankind has largely failed to compose itself according to high ethical standards even in the most rudimentary of societies, so logically its moral capacity cannot be expected to keep pace with scientific advances. Absurdly, we are already talking about interplanetary travel when our own planet and society is going to pieces. (This does not mention the fact that “advances” such as space-travel disproportionately benefit the very elite that to no small degree is responsible for our current predicament, though the masses are also to blame.) A policy based on prudence would likely limit technological development to a degree that comports with man’s state of moral evolution at a given time and place.

On 8/21/2023 at 3:09 PM, Haji 2003 said:

Artificial gets a bad press at the moment, e.g. processed foods, but that's because we are on an evolutionary curve where we are not at present very good at mimicking nature, e.g. aspartame. But give it time.

Most spiritual people these days seem to be quite skeptical of the mentality that predominately drives “progress,” and I tend to agree with them. I think that your optimism is a bit misplaced.

[Northwest]

@Haji 2003 You speak of an “evolutionary curve.” Doesn’t an evolutionary paradigm clash with religion? I have noticed that there seems to be a fear among many religious modernists of appearing “reactionary.” In other words, they maintain that one can still be religious and adopt new technologies—as though the technologies themselves do not transmit an ideology that may be at odds with the religion itself. After all, there are prescribed rules for ritual, prayer, and so on, as well as prescribed formats (external forms), so why would technology somehow be exempt?

I know that the Islamic Republic of Iran has been open to new technologies and has averred that Islam is not opposed to technological progress, but what are the fruits of this progress? Are modern medicines and treatments better than old? Has access to television and social media increased people’s virtue? Hasn’t instantaneous communication cheapened speech? Would a religious society really be in need of trains, automobiles, etc. instead of more rudimentary arrangements? After all, why do Marxists praise capitalistic development for undermining so-called “feudal” society?

Quote

A conventional, inflexible person hates everything that is new and accept nothing but the old…considers every new thing to be a corruption and a deviation…

An inflexible person does not distinguish between the kernel and the shell, the means and the end. To him, religion has the responsibility of protecting ancient traditions. In his view, the Qur’an was revealed for the purpose of stopping the flow of time and nailing down the situation of the world exactly as it is. In his view, the recitation of the last part of the Qur’an, writing with a red pen, using a traditional box, taking one’s bath in a traditional bath house, eating with the hand, using oil-lamps for lighting, staying unlettered and uneducated should all be preserved as religious observances.

The conservatives, the inflexibly minded, and those who like to show that every old thing belongs to Islam, when, in fact, it may have no connection with the pure religion of Islam, have given the naive progressivists an excuse to count Islam against development...

The attitude of the conservatives gives good cause for the assaults and attacks of the progressivists…

^ Isn’t this an odd thing for a religious person or institution to say? To claim that religion is somehow not solely about protecting received, sacred, revealed tradition? The notion that the shell itself “sheds” and regrows over time has much in common with the Masonic veneration of the serpent, whose skin is shed and reborn anew over aeons. Also, what about this apologetic attitude, which demands that religion make some accommodation to “progress,” lest it be accused by others of “reactionary” tendencies? Isn’t following the Truth more important than what others may think?

Why wouldn’t technology exert a spiritual influence as much as any other form?

[Haji 2003]

On 9/9/2023 at 7:45 AM, Northwest said:

they maintain that one can still be religious and adopt new technologies—as though the technologies themselves do not transmit an ideology that may be at odds with the religion itself.

Perhaps I am not picking up the full meaning of what you are trying to say, but my layperson understanding of the following ayat is that technological innovation is not problematic at all:

Quote

Surah Saba (34:10-11):

• Arabic: "وَلَقَدْ آتَيْنَا دَاوُودَ مِنَّا فَضْلًا ۖ يَا جِبَالُ أَوِّبِي مَعَهُ وَالطَّيْرَ ۖ وَأَلَنَّا لَهُ الْحَدِيدَ أَنِ اعْمَلْ سَابِغَاتٍ وَقَدِّرْ فِي السَّرْدِ ۖ وَاعْمَلُوا صَالِحًا ۖ إِنِّي بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ بَصِيرٌ"
• Translation: "And We certainly gave David from Us [the gift of] excellence. [We said], "O mountains, repeat [Our] praises with him, and the birds [as well]." And We made pliable for him iron, [commanding him], "Make full coats of mail and calculate [precisely] the links, and work [all of you] righteousness. Indeed I, of what you do, am Seeing."

•  

The above is from GPT4 and there is a full commentary here:

https://www.al-islam.org/enlightening-commentary-light-holy-quran-vol-15/section-2-destruction-saba

 

On 9/9/2023 at 7:45 AM, Northwest said:

as though the technologies themselves do not transmit an ideology that may be at odds with the religion itself.

I think the subsequent text in the Qur'an directly addresses your point:

Quote

At the end of the verse, Allah addresses David and his family and says:

“…and do righteousness, verily I see what you do’.”

This is from the al-Islam link that I gave above. I believe it recognises that the military superiority that chain mail gives the owner can be used for both good or evil.

If my understanding of these verses is correct, I am quite comfortable with how they relate to my worldview. The knowledge for technological advancement comes from God and it can have good or bad uses and we need to bear in mind that we are being observed as to the uses to which we put it.

On 9/9/2023 at 7:45 AM, Northwest said:

Are modern medicines and treatments better than old? Has access to television and social media increased people’s virtue? Hasn’t instantaneous communication cheapened speech? Would a religious society really be in need of trains, automobiles, etc. instead of more rudimentary arrangements?

My starting point here is that if one of the objectives of our being created is to worship God, the 'quality' of that worship is related to the degree of freewill that we have.

From a starting point where we were fully dependent on our environment to one where we are increasingly able to shape that environment - I believe that the nature and extent of our free will is increasing and as a result the degree to which our faith is being tested.

To put it another way, if you are living constantly from one meal to the next the extent to which you are able to do bad things is limited and whatever you do can be blamed on extenuating circumstances. But as societies have developed more and more of what we are able to do is the result of our exercising choices and making moral judgements.

Also, I have now added to my blog post about measurement in the Qur'an with reflections on the notion of precision, which I believe is intertwined with technological advancement.

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 9/9/2023 at 7:45 AM, Northwest said:

I know that the Islamic Republic of Iran has been open to new technologies and has averred that Islam is not opposed to technological progress, but what are the fruits of this progress? Are modern medicines and treatments better than old? Has access to television and social media increased people’s virtue? Hasn’t instantaneous communication cheapened speech? Would a religious society really be in need of trains, automobiles, etc. instead of more rudimentary arrangements?

Hi , It's a controversial argument in Iran although both sides are trying to reach a way between these two which modern progress benefits from traditional things which in similar fashion traditional matters will be refined through modern progress which since of Qajar era until end of Pahlavi era common policy of governments has been total relying on modern progress of westerners in exchange of destroying all of traditional achievements which for example their policy about medicine has been about promotion of westerner medicine so then total destruction of old medicine by calling old medicine as obsolete matter & just a stereotypical practice but on the other hand after success of Islamic Revolution of Iran (IRI) a new approach has been started about reviving old medicine by purifying it from distortions so then refining it by using some good parts of modern medicine which in similar fashion modern medicine gradually has started accepting some drugs & experiences of old medicine as optional part likewise using advices of recovery in old medicine after dong a modern surgery or decreasing side effects of chemotherapy of cancer in modern medicine by using old medicine drugs. 

About having access to television & social media it's still controversial matter because it can be used in evil & good way which enemies of IRI  are trying to use it for DeIslamization  & total  focusing on wordly matters instead  of spirituality &  spreading immorality & decreasing virtue in society but on the other hand pro IRI groups have tried to spread true version of Islam without distortion & stereotypes & increasing  spirituality besides of benefiting from acceptable level of wordly life which is required for increasing virtues in society also focusing on morality  anyway all  pro IRI groups have agreement that their work has been good enough & their tactics have been weak against enemies of IRI which pro IRI groups are trying to refine their tactics & make themselves stronger in opposition of enemies of IRI  in unfair hybrid war which enemies of IRI  have total support of great thin tanks of America & zionists which they have no limit & shortage in any aspects while pro IRI groups sometimes don't have enough access to think tanks also they must find a way for bypassing some censorships & blockades by some useless governmental institutes which just waste budget without having any outcome .

Instantaneous communication has cheapened speech ut on the other hand has cause increasing emotional rift between people .

Quote

Would a religious society really be in need of trains, automobiles, etc. instead of more rudimentary arrangements?

In shia viewpoint  a religious society needs both of these two for preparing people & world for reappearing of Imam Mahdi (aj) which using anything in moderate way for wellbeing of muslims & helping & increasing quality of life of people is highly recommended which leads to preparing & education of society for reappearance of Imam Mahdi (aj) is highly recommended . 

[ali_fatheroforphans]

Our maraja would allow medication/drugs if prescribed by a doctor provided it doesn't cause serious harm. 

Anyway, aren't we supposed to look after our health, which extends to mental health. If a doctor prescribed medication for our physical body, no one would have an issue, but people are a bit touchy with regards to medication for mental illnesses. 

[Northwest]

18 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

Perhaps I am not picking up the full meaning of what you are trying to say, but my layperson understanding of the following ayat is that technological innovation is not problematic at all:

I think the subsequent text in the Qur'an directly addresses your point:

This is from the al-Islam link that I gave above. I believe it recognises that the military superiority that chain mail gives the owner can be used for both good or evil.

@Haji 2003 That is but a single ayat. Can one really conclude that a single ayat justifies a general principle? Maybe certain, limited kinds of technological innovation are permissible, insofar as they are necessary for our survival as a race. For example, because humans lack natural defences (unlike, say, certain species of animal), they need to build armour and weaponry. But does this mean that any kind of weaponry is permitted? Even if Islam allows one to manufacture certain products, does this mean that it allows interchangeable parts or modern factories? If there is such a thing as sacred geometry—and therefore design transmits spiritual values, if not energies—wouldn’t a similar principle apply to technology? For example, what kind of worldview informs the creation of interchangeable parts? Social media? Who created these things and what was their spiritual outlook, which influenced their intention?

Another thing to consider is history:

Quote

Overall I think the comparisons you make lend support to my hypothesis that wealth and power make it harder for people to adhere to Islamic laws.

^ A society that is wealthier is able to develop technologically and thus increase its power. Even if all this is a double-edged sword—allowing for greater good as well as greater evil—does this mean that infinite, indiscriminate growth and development is a good thing? If people have shown that they can handle the responsibilities that come with this growth, that would be one thing. But we see that mankind in general has handled new developments very poorly, in the moral and spiritual sense, throughout history. Even if God has given man the ability to create and innovate on a vast scale, does prudence dictate that he should? Why talk of space-travel and aspartame if a good portion of the population has no use for these things, and even abuses them if given the opportunity?

You speak of the irrelevance of form when it comes to technology. But then why does religious observance, e.g., prayer, have to follow a specific form? Wouldn’t being indiscriminate in regard to technological forms but selective in regard to religious forms be a bit inconsistent, especially if a religion is meant to be all-encompassing and consistent? If one has to follow a specific form while praying, why not a specific form in relation to daily tasks, i.e., communication? I am thinking of many traditional religious communities that, while not completely rejecting technological innovation, attempt as much as possible to restrict its accessibility, e.g., the Orthodox Jews and Amish who do not use social media, modern transportation, and so on.

18 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

If my understanding of these verses is correct, I am quite comfortable with how they relate to my worldview. The knowledge for technological advancement comes from God and it can have good or bad uses and we need to bear in mind that we are being observed as to the uses to which we put it.

My starting point here is that if one of the objectives of our being created is to worship God, the 'quality' of that worship is related to the degree of freewill that we have.

From a starting point where we were fully dependent on our environment to one where we are increasingly able to shape that environment - I believe that the nature and extent of our free will is increasing and as a result the degree to which our faith is being tested.

To put it another way, if you are living constantly from one meal to the next the extent to which you are able to do bad things is limited and whatever you do can be blamed on extenuating circumstances. But as societies have developed more and more of what we are able to do is the result of our exercising choices and making moral judgements.

My question is, Given history, is this increase in the nature and extent of free will, on balance, a good thing or a bad thing? Have the costs outweighed the benefits? Is an increase in the nature and extent of free will commensurate with human nature? At some point does innovation outstrip man’s capacity to use his innovations wisely? Are there ancient alternatives to modern innovation that, if applied, would render a lot of innovation unnecessary? (I.e., if traditional medicine could largely or entirely cure the underlying causes of illness and disease, what would become of the the need for modern medicine and/or surgery? If being religiously observant and pure could allow the body to teleport from place to place, communicate telepathically, etc., what of the need for planes, trains, and automobiles?)

[Haji 2003]

5 hours ago, Northwest said:

 That is but a single ayat. Can one really conclude that a single ayat justifies a general principle?

Answering that is beyond my pay-grade, I’m afraid. 

You asked about innovation and I gave an example moreover one that came with health warnings i.e. recognition that military goods that are ostensibly defensive - nevertheless need to be used in an ethical way.

There are of course other examples, both covered in recent blog entries to do with the flood and Egyptian famine.

5 hours ago, Northwest said:

I am thinking of many traditional religious communities that, while not completely rejecting technological innovation, attempt as much as possible to restrict its accessibility, e.g., the Orthodox Jews and Amish who do not use social media, modern transportation, and so on.

Small minority groups can get away with behaviour that would kill a nation state. 

 

5 hours ago, Northwest said:

Are there ancient alternatives to modern innovation that, if applied, would render a lot of innovation unnecessary? (I.e.

Surely they themselves would have been innovative in their own time?

For example, no doubt a lot of people died in the process of ancient doctors working out which plants worked and at what doses.

It’s worth remembering that Old Med had weaknesses too.

Hakims would typically guard recipes jealously and pass onto their sons - for whom the craft would be an important source of income.

I see similarities with the use of patents by big pharma…

[Haji 2003]

On 9/10/2023 at 7:39 AM, Northwest said:

That is but a single ayat. Can one really conclude that a single ayat justifies a general principle? Maybe certain, limited kinds of technological innovation are permissible, insofar as they are necessary for our survival as a race.

You've stimulated me to bring together something which I had noticed but never addressed or thought to bring together - the numerous but disparate references to ships in the Qur'an. As per my usual format of showing conversations with chatGPT, my prompts are in bold red and its answers are in regular black text.

I think it's reasonable to argue that ships per se are not the kind of innovation that Prophet's Yusuf and Nuh ((عليه السلام).) brought i.e. to avert calamity and nor are they innovations for use at a specific point in time which applies to those two Prophets' innovations and that of Prophet Daoud ((عليه السلام).)

Rather the creation of ships is not tied to a specific time or situation and nor indeed is is specifically tried to human survival in an acute sense.

More than this of all the innovations we could be talking about ships are actually quite profound in terms of the social and economic impact they have e.g. in terms of migratory flows of people, encouragement of specialisation in terms of means of production and so on. Obviously they also present challenges in terms of movements of goods that have cultural baggage attached and the obvious impact of international competition and so on.

My inference here is as a layperson and not a theologian, but if there is one innovation that points to Divine encouragement of human societal sophistication and complexity, this is it.

What are all references in the Qur'an to ships?

In a material sense ships are the product of human innovation, but clearly that human inspiration is God given and as the Qur'an says it's a sign of His mercy and something which enables us to prevail over nature.

1. **Surah Al-Baqarah (2:164)**: 
    - "Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth, the alternation of the night and the day, the [great] ships which sail through the sea with that which benefits people, and what Allah has sent down from the heavens of rain, giving life thereby to the earth after its lifelessness and dispersing therein every [kind of] moving creature, and [His] directing of the winds and the clouds controlled between the heaven and the earth are signs for a people who use reason."

2. **Surah Ya-Sin (36:41-42)**:
    - "And a sign for them is that We carried their forefathers in a laden ship. And We created for them from the likes of it that which they ride."

3. **Surah Az-Zukhruf (43:12-14)**:
    - "And who created the species, all of them, and has made for you of ships and animals those which you mount. That you may settle yourselves upon their backs and then remember the favor of your Lord when you have settled upon them and say. 'Exalted is He who has subjected this to us, and we could not have [otherwise] subdued it.'"

4. **Surah Al-Jathiya (45:12)**:
    - "Allah is the one who subjected the sea for you so that ships may sail through it by His command and that you may seek of His bounty, and perhaps you will be grateful."

5. **Surah Al-Isra (17:66)**:
    - "Your Lord is the One who drives for you the ship in the sea so that you may seek of His bounty. He is indeed Most Merciful to you."

6. **Surah An-Nahl (16:14)**:
    - "And it is He who subjected the sea for you to eat from it tender meat and to extract from it ornaments which you wear. And you see the ships plowing through it, and [He subjected it] that you may seek of His bounty, and perhaps you will be grateful."

7. **Surah Ar-Rum (30:46)**:
    - "And among His Signs is this, that He sends the winds as glad tidings, giving you a taste of His Mercy, and that the ships may sail by His Command and that you may seek of His Bounty, in order that you may be thankful."

8. **Surah Al-Furqan (25:53)**:
    - "And it is He who has released [simultaneously] the two seas, one fresh and sweet and one salty and bitter, and He placed between them a barrier and prohibiting partition."

Are there any roots that commonly appear in association with ships?

In the Qur'an, the primary root associated with ships is {ف-ل-ك} (F-L-K). The derived word "فُلْك" (fulk) specifically means "ship" or "vessel." 

Let's look at the occurrences of this root in the context of ships and check for any other roots that consistently appear in close proximity to it:

1. Surah Al-Baqarah (2:164): The verse mentions ships as "الْفُلْكِ الَّتِي تَجْرِي فِي الْبَحْرِ" (the ships which sail through the sea).

2. Surah Ya-Sin (36:41-42): The term "الْفُلْكِ" (the ships) is used to signify the ships that sail, carrying their passengers.

3. Surah Al-Isra (17:66): The verse mentions "الْفُلْكِ" (the ship) that sails in the sea.

4. Surah An-Nahl (16:14): Here, the ships are referred to as "الْفُلْكَ" (the ships) that move through the sea.

5. Surah Ghafir (40:79-80): The verses mention "الْفُلْكِ" (the ships) as a means of transport on both land (referring to animals) and sea.

6. Surah Ash-Shura (42:32-33): Ships, "الْفُلْكِ", are mentioned in the context of signs of God's power and mercy.

Looking at these verses and their contexts, ships (fulk) are often mentioned in relation to:
- The sea {ب-ح-ر}  - B-H-R
- Sailing or traveling {ج-ر-ي} - J-R-Y
- Signs of God's mercy and creation {آيات} - Ā-Y-T

Thus, while the primary root associated with ships is {ف-ل-ك} (F-L-K), it frequently appears in the context of the sea, travel, and divine signs.

Going back to your preceding answer, for each instance of the occurrence of f-l-k can you tabulate where a-y-t appears please?

 

[Northwest]

On 9/10/2023 at 8:44 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

a new approach has been started about reviving old medicine by purifying it from distortions so then refining it by using some good parts of modern medicine

@Ashvazdanghe What was Imam Khomeini’s viewpoint on this? At one point didn’t he oppose all modern medicine? Will a fully Islamic government end up totally abandoning modern medicine? If so, what does that say about other technologies?

On 9/10/2023 at 8:44 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

About having access to television & social media it's still controversial matter because it can be used in evil & good way

pro IRI groups have agreement that their work has been good enough & their tactics have been weak against enemies of IRI

pro IRI groups sometimes don't have enough access to think tanks also they must find a way for bypassing some censorships & blockades by some useless governmental institutes which just waste budget without having any outcome.

Instantaneous communication has cheapened speech but on the other hand has cause increasing emotional rift between people.

Why, in your view, have the efforts of the “pro-IRI” groups been so ineffective, despite being “good enough”? Why have pro-IRI social media been unable to alter people’s mores and promote a more “Islamic” framework?

[Northwest]

On 9/21/2023 at 6:40 PM, Northwest said:

@Ashvazdanghe What was Imam Khomeini’s viewpoint on this? At one point didn’t he oppose all modern medicine? Will a fully Islamic government end up totally abandoning modern medicine? If so, what does that say about other technologies?

Why, in your view, have the efforts of the “pro-IRI” groups been so ineffective, despite being “good enough”? Why have pro-IRI social media been unable to alter people’s mores and promote a more “Islamic” framework?

@Ashvazdanghe For the record, if Imam Khomeini rejected modern medicine, I by no means am criticising him. I am merely asking some questions. Please feel free to respond.

[Ashvazdanghe]

15 hours ago, Northwest said:

For the record, if Imam Khomeini rejected modern medicine, I by no means am criticising him. I am merely asking some questions. Please feel free to respond.

Salam for rhe record he has not rejected modern medicine also he has had good relation with physicians from both of modern & traditional medicine , I have not understood how you have criticised him .