P
petra22
Guest
I want to give two thumbs up…
- Status
P
petra22
Guest
And remember the woman they brought to Jesus accused of adultery? He forgave her sin by not stoning her, but then he told her, “Go and sin no more!” He didn’t let her go and tell her she was ok doing what she was accused of… He corrected people!
S
Saxum
Guest
The Incarnation is the central belief of Christianity and refers to the fact that God became man by taking on human nature. As it is written in John 1: And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. The Virgin birth is necessarily connected to this because Jesus had only God as his Father.
L
Lovinglight
Guest
1st Corinthians is not supporting that surat.
A person cant believe in the bible which is a testament to the Divinity of Jesus Christ and defend islam. Its an oxymoron.
A person cant believe in the bible which is a testament to the Divinity of Jesus Christ and defend islam. Its an oxymoron.
S
SalamKhan
Guest
Islam, its teachings are compatible with what can be known by reason alone, such as the existence of God and His general attributes, it solves the dilemma of whether revelation is even necessary for humanity, and it solves the dilemma of the existence of evil and an omnipotent God who punishes evil. Furthermore, its leader (Prophet Muhammad) is of the most sublime character and of great wisdom, it has produced many admirable men of knowledge, it has produced many sages and mystics, and God is the primary focus of the entire religion.
Last edited:
S
SalamKhan
Guest
You may or may not know by now, a few years ago I had left Islam and wanted to become a Catholic. Yet, February of this year, I had returned to Islam. One of the reasons why was due to how the Muslim theologians answered this question. See what I wrote here:
D
De_Maria
Guest
Please copy and paste it here. Searching for it in that thread is a tedious task.
D
De_Maria
Guest
No, they’re not. As discussed with the other Muslim, Islam says that God can’t enter creation. Whereas, if that were true, were to mean that God is not omnipresent. That is one of God’s attributes.
We don’t have that dilemma. So, maybe it solves it for you. But we already had the answer.
I gives an answer. But the answer is not satisfactory and is one of the reasons that I am not a Muslim today.
On the contrary, Muhammad can be proven to be a liar and a cheat and a person who taught others to lie. That is one the maxims of Islam.
Not because of Islamic teaching. But despite it.
What form of Islam do you follow? Sufism?
L
Lovinglight
Guest
Islam has the general attributes of God all wrong if u read the Beattitudes. Muhammad followed none of them in person or his theology and contradicted the ones he professed to follow in the 99 names of God. Our God the true God is of mercy not vengeance.
Islam is entirely built upon revelation of muhammad. In islam there is no knowing God without going thru muhammad. Its a correctionist/revelationist religion.
Islam can not differentiate good from evil because it lacks authority from God and that is sadly apparent from its inception to today.
Muhammad was not a “sublime character of great wisdom” producing docile peaceful followers. It was conversion by the sword and jizya for the “ppl of the book.”
S
SalamKhan
Guest
It should have taken you directly to the post(s). Look towards the end of the thread.
Last edited:
D
De_Maria
Guest
It didn’t. It must not take you there either. Because you could have easily cut and pasted by now.
S
SalamKhan
Guest
God is the same as He was prior to creating His creation. Besides, not even in your own religion, is omnipresence the same as the Incarnation (if that’s what you’re referring to). Already, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Pray tell, what is the answer?
And Christianity’s answer is that God permits evil to bring out of it a greater good. I haven’t seen any Christian theologian attempt to explain what that means, at least not yet.
Now I definitely know, that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
So you’re telling me that Ibn Sina (one of history’s greatest philosophers) despised Islam, even though he wrote in defense God’s existence and in defense of Prophethood? What of Abu Rayhan Biruni (one of history’s greatest astronomers), who was very much inclined to the Asha
ri school? Also, many Sufis were without a doubt Muslims, Bayazid Bistami for example once refused to believe someone was a saint because that someone didn't have respect for the Sunnah of the Prophet (S). I follow the Shaafi school of jurisprudence and Asha`ri school of theology, I have an interest in joining either the Naqshbandi or Qadiri Sufi orders.
Last edited:
S
SalamKhan
Guest
No, it took me there. But if you insist…
S
SalamKhan
Guest
PART 1
In Islamic theology, we say that there are three judgements: legal judgements, empirical judgements, and intellectual judgements.
Science is related to empirical judgments, whilst the question of whether God exists is related to intellectual judgements.
Read the following carefully, and multiple times if need be.
There are three types of intellectual judgements:
Necessary- the non-existence of which cannot be conceived of in the mind.
Impossible- the existence of which cannot be conceived of in the mind.
Possible- the existence and non-existence of which can both be equally conceived of in the mind.
We can observe that things which come into being had the possibility of not coming into being, and we can conceive that things which have not come into being had the possibility of coming into being. This is called contingency. We can observe this of all things which exist in this cosmos, thus the question must be posed- Did the totality of contingent things come into being without an external cause, a cause other than itself?
Prior to coming into being, the contingent thing was merely a possibility which was non-existent, and being non-existent, it could not have bought itself into being, therefore an internal cause is impossible. Prior to coming into being, the possibility of the existence and non-existence of the contingency are equal and therefore neither would be preponderant over the other without an external cause. Imagine a balance with two scales in which the existence of the contingency is weighed on one side, and the non-existence of the contingency on the other, both would be equal, and nothing would come into being, unless something external were to place pressure on the existence of the contingency for it to outweigh the non-existence of the contingency. Therefore, an external cause is necessary to bring something contingent into being.
In Islamic theology, we say that there are three judgements: legal judgements, empirical judgements, and intellectual judgements.
Science is related to empirical judgments, whilst the question of whether God exists is related to intellectual judgements.
Read the following carefully, and multiple times if need be.
There are three types of intellectual judgements:
Necessary- the non-existence of which cannot be conceived of in the mind.
Impossible- the existence of which cannot be conceived of in the mind.
Possible- the existence and non-existence of which can both be equally conceived of in the mind.
We can observe that things which come into being had the possibility of not coming into being, and we can conceive that things which have not come into being had the possibility of coming into being. This is called contingency. We can observe this of all things which exist in this cosmos, thus the question must be posed- Did the totality of contingent things come into being without an external cause, a cause other than itself?
Prior to coming into being, the contingent thing was merely a possibility which was non-existent, and being non-existent, it could not have bought itself into being, therefore an internal cause is impossible. Prior to coming into being, the possibility of the existence and non-existence of the contingency are equal and therefore neither would be preponderant over the other without an external cause. Imagine a balance with two scales in which the existence of the contingency is weighed on one side, and the non-existence of the contingency on the other, both would be equal, and nothing would come into being, unless something external were to place pressure on the existence of the contingency for it to outweigh the non-existence of the contingency. Therefore, an external cause is necessary to bring something contingent into being.
Last edited:
S
SalamKhan
Guest
PART 2
If the source of the external cause is merely possible, then it is included among the totality of contingent things, and is not the source of the external cause, therefore the source of the external cause must be intrinsically necessary. It therefore follows that the necessary existent is:
Without beginning and without end- for that which is intrinsically necessary, cannot be non-existent, otherwise it would merely be possible.
Self-subsistent and unlike contingent things- what can be observed of contingent things, such as being conditioned/influenced by something external, substance (that is, being a locus for accidents), accident (that is, being in need of a locus in which to subsist), matter, form, body, limbs, composition of parts, being confined to space, movement, etc. can never be attributed (literally) to the necessary existent.
One- there can be no multiplicity whatsoever in the essence of the necessary existent, nor can other entities possess the same attributes; this shall soon be further expounded upon (In Sha Allah).
Living- this is the attribute of cognisance, which is linked to all qualitative attributes such as knowledge, power, and will; without which the necessary existent could not act.
Knowing- this is linked to all things necessary, impossible and possible, seen and unseen, existent and non-existent, in general and in detail; without which the necessary existent could not bring anything into being.
Powerful and willing- these are linked only to all things possible, for bringing the necessary into existence would be accomplishing what has already been accomplished, for something intrinsically necessary cannot be non-existent, otherwise it would be possible, likewise removing the impossible from existence would be accomplishing what has already been accomplished, for something intrinsically impossible cannot be existent, otherwise it would be possible; without these attributes the necessary existent could not bring anything into being.
Finally, it is impossible for there to be multiple entities which are intrinsically necessary, for one entity would limit the other(s) and vice versa. Two (or more) entities sharing necessary existence would each require something to distinguish them.
This cannot be in matter, form, body, limbs, composition of parts, etc. for these are contingent traits which can never be attributed to the necessary existent.
This cannot be in knowledge, because it would necessitate that one entity know of something unknown to the other(s), and vice versa.
This cannot be in will, because if one entity were to will something, the other(s) would be compelled to agree, if not, then this entity would be compelled to agree with the will of the other(s), and all of this vice versa.
This cannot be in power, because if one entity could bring something contingent into being without the need of the other(s), then the other(s) are not necessary existents but possible, and therefore included among the totality of contingent things, for if one entity is in need of the other(s), then this entity is incapable, and all of this vice versa.
If the source of the external cause is merely possible, then it is included among the totality of contingent things, and is not the source of the external cause, therefore the source of the external cause must be intrinsically necessary. It therefore follows that the necessary existent is:
Without beginning and without end- for that which is intrinsically necessary, cannot be non-existent, otherwise it would merely be possible.
Self-subsistent and unlike contingent things- what can be observed of contingent things, such as being conditioned/influenced by something external, substance (that is, being a locus for accidents), accident (that is, being in need of a locus in which to subsist), matter, form, body, limbs, composition of parts, being confined to space, movement, etc. can never be attributed (literally) to the necessary existent.
One- there can be no multiplicity whatsoever in the essence of the necessary existent, nor can other entities possess the same attributes; this shall soon be further expounded upon (In Sha Allah).
Living- this is the attribute of cognisance, which is linked to all qualitative attributes such as knowledge, power, and will; without which the necessary existent could not act.
Knowing- this is linked to all things necessary, impossible and possible, seen and unseen, existent and non-existent, in general and in detail; without which the necessary existent could not bring anything into being.
Powerful and willing- these are linked only to all things possible, for bringing the necessary into existence would be accomplishing what has already been accomplished, for something intrinsically necessary cannot be non-existent, otherwise it would be possible, likewise removing the impossible from existence would be accomplishing what has already been accomplished, for something intrinsically impossible cannot be existent, otherwise it would be possible; without these attributes the necessary existent could not bring anything into being.
Finally, it is impossible for there to be multiple entities which are intrinsically necessary, for one entity would limit the other(s) and vice versa. Two (or more) entities sharing necessary existence would each require something to distinguish them.
This cannot be in matter, form, body, limbs, composition of parts, etc. for these are contingent traits which can never be attributed to the necessary existent.
This cannot be in knowledge, because it would necessitate that one entity know of something unknown to the other(s), and vice versa.
This cannot be in will, because if one entity were to will something, the other(s) would be compelled to agree, if not, then this entity would be compelled to agree with the will of the other(s), and all of this vice versa.
This cannot be in power, because if one entity could bring something contingent into being without the need of the other(s), then the other(s) are not necessary existents but possible, and therefore included among the totality of contingent things, for if one entity is in need of the other(s), then this entity is incapable, and all of this vice versa.
S
SalamKhan
Guest
PART 3
One can know of God’s existence and His general attributes from reason alone. This is a major part of why the human intellect is reliable, however it is limited. Firstly, most people are slow to employ their reason. Secondly, one cannot attain detailed knowledge about God from reason alone. Thirdly, one cannot define good and evil from reason alone.
In all other fundamental matters as well, such as in law and order, commerce, healthcare, education, etc. when left to ourselves, we can only use trial and error without ever arriving at the best solution, and therefore we are in perpetual error when left to ourselves. However, God, being the creator of all things, has knowledge of all these things, which would include the best solution we are in need of. As God is under no obligation, it is not necessary for Him to solve our problems, for our actions neither harm nor benefit Him. However, it is necessary for us that God would commission a lawgiver/teacher who could impart divine knowledge rapidly and in a simple and concise manner.
The question then must be asked: Have we been abandoned to perpetual trial and error, or has God sent this lawgiver/teacher(s)? To answer this, we must be able to recognise who this lawgiver/teacher(s) is. Prior to being commissioned as lawgiver/teacher, this man must have a reputation among his people as having a truthful and upright character, otherwise how can we verify the claim to Prophecy of a treacherous liar as being true? This man must also be of high intelligence, to the point that He could grasp what is being revealed to him by God at once, otherwise how can we trust that an imbecile is correctly imparting to us the divine knowledge that was revealed to him, when he himself cannot grasp it? This man cannot teach what is contrary to what can be known in general by reason alone, namely the existence of God and His general attributes , otherwise how can we trust he is imparting the details of essential or fundamental knowledge, when he contradicts what is necessarily known in general? Finally, following all the aforementioned, he must affirm his Prophethood via an inimitable miracle. That is, an extraordinary break in nature, this would prove his Prophethood beyond doubt; for example, a king may send a man to some people, and after the people doubt that this man has been sent by the king, the man asks his king to stand up for him, which he does, proving that the man was indeed sent by the king.
We know from mutawatir (mass transmitted) evidence, that Muhammad (S) meets all of these criteria. Mutawatir evidence leaves no doubt in a narrated report. If 60 witnesses for example, heard one man saying “my favourite colour is black” and everyone without exception heard him make this statement, it is absurd to assert that not only did all of them mishear what the man actually said, but even more absurd to assert that they each heard the exact same thing from the moment they misheard the statement. The same would apply if a mass number of people witnessed one man doing something, and their testimonies of this man’s action are in agreement.
One can know of God’s existence and His general attributes from reason alone. This is a major part of why the human intellect is reliable, however it is limited. Firstly, most people are slow to employ their reason. Secondly, one cannot attain detailed knowledge about God from reason alone. Thirdly, one cannot define good and evil from reason alone.
In all other fundamental matters as well, such as in law and order, commerce, healthcare, education, etc. when left to ourselves, we can only use trial and error without ever arriving at the best solution, and therefore we are in perpetual error when left to ourselves. However, God, being the creator of all things, has knowledge of all these things, which would include the best solution we are in need of. As God is under no obligation, it is not necessary for Him to solve our problems, for our actions neither harm nor benefit Him. However, it is necessary for us that God would commission a lawgiver/teacher who could impart divine knowledge rapidly and in a simple and concise manner.
The question then must be asked: Have we been abandoned to perpetual trial and error, or has God sent this lawgiver/teacher(s)? To answer this, we must be able to recognise who this lawgiver/teacher(s) is. Prior to being commissioned as lawgiver/teacher, this man must have a reputation among his people as having a truthful and upright character, otherwise how can we verify the claim to Prophecy of a treacherous liar as being true? This man must also be of high intelligence, to the point that He could grasp what is being revealed to him by God at once, otherwise how can we trust that an imbecile is correctly imparting to us the divine knowledge that was revealed to him, when he himself cannot grasp it? This man cannot teach what is contrary to what can be known in general by reason alone, namely the existence of God and His general attributes , otherwise how can we trust he is imparting the details of essential or fundamental knowledge, when he contradicts what is necessarily known in general? Finally, following all the aforementioned, he must affirm his Prophethood via an inimitable miracle. That is, an extraordinary break in nature, this would prove his Prophethood beyond doubt; for example, a king may send a man to some people, and after the people doubt that this man has been sent by the king, the man asks his king to stand up for him, which he does, proving that the man was indeed sent by the king.
We know from mutawatir (mass transmitted) evidence, that Muhammad (S) meets all of these criteria. Mutawatir evidence leaves no doubt in a narrated report. If 60 witnesses for example, heard one man saying “my favourite colour is black” and everyone without exception heard him make this statement, it is absurd to assert that not only did all of them mishear what the man actually said, but even more absurd to assert that they each heard the exact same thing from the moment they misheard the statement. The same would apply if a mass number of people witnessed one man doing something, and their testimonies of this man’s action are in agreement.
S
SalamKhan
Guest
PART 4
Free will vs. Predestination is an ancient debate. Proponents of absolute free will were so, because they believed that God is absolutely just, and predestination would compromise His justice. However, proponents of absolute free will have to deal with the dilemma of God’s knowledge, which is necessary, and the fact that we do not possess autonomous power and will, nor do we possess unrestricted choice in everything. Clearly, if God foreknew what He would create (which is necessary, otherwise without this foreknowledge He could not create anything), then He foreknew all the actions of His creatures, yet created them anyway, meaning He willed to do so. Secondly, we do not possess autonomous power and will, our actions are indeed contingent, meaning for example, if I were to shoot someone with a gun, it was possible that I didn’t shoot that someone at all, yet I cannot undo my action, nor could I simultaneously not pull the trigger at the time of pulling the trigger, not only that, for anything to occur outside of God’s autonomous will, would have to be equal to or greater than His autonomous will, which is impossible; therefore, our power and will are only derivative and not autonomous. Finally, we have choice, but it’s not unrestricted, for we do not choose for example when, where or how we are born, nor do we choose when, where or how we die; even when it comes to suicide, if I attempted to hang myself, I would not be certain that the rope would not snap and leave me to survive.
According to the orthodox Muslim theologians, who denied both absolute free will and absolute fatalism, the heretics made some mistaken assumptions:
Free will vs. Predestination is an ancient debate. Proponents of absolute free will were so, because they believed that God is absolutely just, and predestination would compromise His justice. However, proponents of absolute free will have to deal with the dilemma of God’s knowledge, which is necessary, and the fact that we do not possess autonomous power and will, nor do we possess unrestricted choice in everything. Clearly, if God foreknew what He would create (which is necessary, otherwise without this foreknowledge He could not create anything), then He foreknew all the actions of His creatures, yet created them anyway, meaning He willed to do so. Secondly, we do not possess autonomous power and will, our actions are indeed contingent, meaning for example, if I were to shoot someone with a gun, it was possible that I didn’t shoot that someone at all, yet I cannot undo my action, nor could I simultaneously not pull the trigger at the time of pulling the trigger, not only that, for anything to occur outside of God’s autonomous will, would have to be equal to or greater than His autonomous will, which is impossible; therefore, our power and will are only derivative and not autonomous. Finally, we have choice, but it’s not unrestricted, for we do not choose for example when, where or how we are born, nor do we choose when, where or how we die; even when it comes to suicide, if I attempted to hang myself, I would not be certain that the rope would not snap and leave me to survive.
According to the orthodox Muslim theologians, who denied both absolute free will and absolute fatalism, the heretics made some mistaken assumptions:
- That God is under any obligation- this is false for two reasons, (i) because an obligation makes one accountable to a higher authority, and there is no higher authority than God, and (ii) God is perfect in His entity, therefore He does not need to attain perfection by His actions.
- That God’s will is identical to His command- nothing occurs except by God’s will, and without God’s will it would not occur. The assertion that will and command are identical is false in general, for a human judge may order a criminal to be punished but will for him not to be punished (due to empathy for example), of course due to humans not having autonomous power and will like God, this human judge’s will would not be fulfilled.
Last edited:
S
SalamKhan
Guest
PART 5
I will now cover the positions of the two orthodox schools of theology in Islam, that of the Asha`ris and the Maturidis, on the subjects of predestination, reward, punishment, etc.
The Asha`ris place emphasis on the autonomy of God’s power and will, for when exercising His power and will, bringing something into being, He could simultaneously, not bring that something into being, and therefore His ordainment and decree (collectively known as predestination) are both contingent. The very definition of tyranny or opression, is infringing on the rights and property of others, but it is impossible for God to encounter any property other than His own, and therefore injustice cannot be attributed to Him who has absolute dominion and ownership over everything. Lastly, the actions of His creatures do not in any way harm Him nor do they benefit Him, therefore it is His prerogative to reward the obedient and punish the disobedient, not His obligation.
The Maturidis place emphasis on God’s foreknowledge and wisdom, and do not believe His ordainment and decree can be changed. The creature is granted a contingent power, which in itself inclines towards neither good nor evil. The universe and everything in it therefore, is like that of a river flowing towards its already existing destination; and any change in the universe is like a pebble being dropped into the river, creating no impediment to the river’s destination, and God knows all this. The Maturidis do not believe in the possibility of God punishing the obedient and rewarding the disobedient, because they believe everything God does is according to His wisdom, and cannot contravene His wisdom.
Ultimately, both schools believe that God does not punish the obedient and reward the disobedient, the Asha`ris may believe in its possibility according to God’s will, but they do not believe there can be any falsehood in God’s knowledge and speech (otherwise His knowledge and speech would be contingent and not necessary) i.e. lying is an impossibility for God. Predestination also, is a deep ocean, and even the most knowledgeable of theologians can drown if they go too deep. For having detailed knowledge of predestination would require having detailed knowledge of God’s specific operations, and we cannot know of these things except what God has disclosed to us. The issue in Islam, is therefore summarised as free will being zahir (apparent), for we are responsible for our actions, and predestination being batin (a hidden reality).
I will now cover the positions of the two orthodox schools of theology in Islam, that of the Asha`ris and the Maturidis, on the subjects of predestination, reward, punishment, etc.
The Asha`ris place emphasis on the autonomy of God’s power and will, for when exercising His power and will, bringing something into being, He could simultaneously, not bring that something into being, and therefore His ordainment and decree (collectively known as predestination) are both contingent. The very definition of tyranny or opression, is infringing on the rights and property of others, but it is impossible for God to encounter any property other than His own, and therefore injustice cannot be attributed to Him who has absolute dominion and ownership over everything. Lastly, the actions of His creatures do not in any way harm Him nor do they benefit Him, therefore it is His prerogative to reward the obedient and punish the disobedient, not His obligation.
The Maturidis place emphasis on God’s foreknowledge and wisdom, and do not believe His ordainment and decree can be changed. The creature is granted a contingent power, which in itself inclines towards neither good nor evil. The universe and everything in it therefore, is like that of a river flowing towards its already existing destination; and any change in the universe is like a pebble being dropped into the river, creating no impediment to the river’s destination, and God knows all this. The Maturidis do not believe in the possibility of God punishing the obedient and rewarding the disobedient, because they believe everything God does is according to His wisdom, and cannot contravene His wisdom.
Ultimately, both schools believe that God does not punish the obedient and reward the disobedient, the Asha`ris may believe in its possibility according to God’s will, but they do not believe there can be any falsehood in God’s knowledge and speech (otherwise His knowledge and speech would be contingent and not necessary) i.e. lying is an impossibility for God. Predestination also, is a deep ocean, and even the most knowledgeable of theologians can drown if they go too deep. For having detailed knowledge of predestination would require having detailed knowledge of God’s specific operations, and we cannot know of these things except what God has disclosed to us. The issue in Islam, is therefore summarised as free will being zahir (apparent), for we are responsible for our actions, and predestination being batin (a hidden reality).
D
De_Maria
Guest
Who said He wasn’t? But your God does not enter creation. Right or wrong?
I know precisely what I’m saying. We’ll find out what you know, soon enough.
That suffering is expiatory and unites us with God. While Islam teaches that Allah causes men to suffer for his own arbitrary reasons. Right or wrong?
You either have not asked a Catholic theologian, or if you did, you did not understand the answer.
And the answer is easily understood by looking at the Crucifixion. Christ laid down His life for the one’s He loves. We are all called to do the same.
Ever heard of Taqiyya?
[/QUOTE]
I merely asked you whether you follow Sufism. Do you? Yes or no will suffice.
S
SalamKhan
Guest
The question does not apply to God, who is transcendent above His creation.
My goodness, I asked you to tell me the answer to the necessity of revelation.
I merely quoted Augustine and Thomas Aquinas on what the Catholic position is, as reiterated by Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange. So, you believe the Crucifixion is the answer as to why God allows so much suffering in the world? But then it may be asked, if God is omnipotent, and all good, shouldn’t He have prevented evil and suffering from the beginning?
Yeah, you definitely don’t know what you’re talking about. Even when I was an ex Muslim, I didn’t bring up Taqiyya against Muslims, because I knew what it actually was.
That depends on what you even know about Sufism. Besides, I already stated “I follow the Shaafi school of jurisprudence and Asha`ri school of theology, I have an interest in joining either the Naqshbandi or Qadiri Sufi orders.”
Do you actually read my posts?
Last edited:
- Status