| Author | Topic |
surgeonakhlaq
PAKISTAN
|
 Posted - Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 10:38 PM 
Assalaamu’alaikum,
I have already completed discussing my views with no more to explain further except some reply but at this time I would like to give some basic hints to all the participants.
1. “Arguments” and “Proof” are two entirely different entities.
2. Anything that exists comes under the definition of “Matter” with two more properties, which can be explained, but I avoid for someone who may have the incompetent valve to retch out again the easier and slippery word, blasphemous (God knows better about interior of hearts). The matter is found in three forms, solid, liquid and gas.
3. What are the principles, rules or laws, which will you apply to reach the” Proof”? It must be remembered that surprisingly, by application of these laws, weight of the earth can easily be found and even a common man sitting on the earth, can also find exact length of the rope with its upper end invisible and tied with the sky.
If “Proof” is reached by some illogical method, which is inevitable, it is then never a” Proof”. On the other hand it will be the proof of believing without proof (I know about the agreement of existence of God first).
Now keeping in view the above points, proceed further.
May Allah help and forgive us, Aameen!
Dr. Akhlaq |
|
Naina
KUWAIT
|
Posted - Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 9:09 AM
Assalamu Alaikum,
Dear Akhalaq,
Thank you for your post regarding my comments.I am sorry, if I had hurt you by my post.I didn't say that you intentionally blaspheme about God, but what I meant was that certain words[even as a data for research] shouldn't be used for God, These words that comes unintentionally or due to incorrect understanding may sometime amount to blasphemy.That is the mistake, I wanted to point out.We are told in the Quran that we shouldn't speak about God without divine knowledge.Allah says:
Say (O Muhammad SAW): "(But) the things that my Lord has indeed forbidden are AlFawâhish (great evil sins, every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse, etc.) whether committed openly or secretly, sins (of all kinds), unrighteous oppression, joining partners (in worship) with Allâh for which He has given no authority, and saying things about Allâh of which you have no knowledge."[7:33].
According to the above verse,we shouldn't speak about God of which we have no knowledge.We are also told in the Quran that God is not like any creature[42:11].Therefore it is absolutely forbidden to think[even in the form of data] about God with human features.
If you really mean that these words must never be used even in the data as a way of regards to God then I do admit, “ I am wrong”(but still no blasphemous) and apology to God
Yes this is what I mean.I mean that words we use for God should be befitting His majesty.How can we imagine God to be just like a man?.This is completely wrong.Early scholars of Islam have condemned such anthropomorphic imagination of God and regarded it as totally unislamic.Please understand the gravity of the matter.I am not saying that you said intentionally, but it is very unfortunate you cannot admit your mistake.
In the end it is summarized as “I have expressed God in the imagination only but you have taken the powers of God in your own hands, Naubbillah”.
I have not taken the powers of God in my hand, but rather I have said that the words you have used about God, is against the commandment of Quran, in which the liking of our Creator is mentioned.
Wassalam. |
|
shetayo
NIGERIA
|
Posted - Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 5:58 PM
You should not be relieved that I accept the existence of God.My accepting and defining the nature of God's existence is independent of your yet UNPROVEN asertion.The point regarding your claim is that the idea of thing is PROOF of its existence.The question of what you mean by existence still remains unanswered.The ball is still in your Court. Else we'll just be going round in circles.Define your terms and then we can proceed. And remember, YOu ASERT and he who aserts must prove.My acceptance of the existence of God I repeat has nothing to do with you claim.As surgeonakhlaq post makes clear, there is a BIG difference between an "arguement" and a "proof".I still waiting.And do please stop trying to pass one off as the other.
regards. |
|
aijaz47
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Monday, October 18, 2004 - 3:34 PM
I give you the proof of existence of God:
"The idea of God is PROOF of His existence".
Edited by: aijaz47 on Monday, October 18, 2004 3:47 PM
Edited by: aijaz47 on Monday, October 18, 2004 3:49 PM
Edited by: aijaz47 on Monday, October 18, 2004 3:52 PM |
|
surgeonakhlaq
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Monday, October 18, 2004 - 10:58 PM
Assalaamu’alaikum,
Dear Naina,
I am very much thankful to you for reading my post. We are brothers and sisters on the basis of which we are gathered here. This is the only effective way to learn Islam and during this process some sort of involuntary and unintentionally bitterness, I think, is within the norms.
It is important to note that you had still not passed even a single word of comments on the nature of the topic of discussion as I have already asked for not thinking upon this. You must be first to condemn this topic. This attitude favours your one sided deviation to me.
No doubt Quran is first and I have already confessed my mistake but there are many other commandments of Quran, which seem to be the same as are disobeyed unintentionally by every one of us and may also amount to blasphemy as you mentioned. These are as follows (I do not know their exact numbers in Holy Quran).
1. As in Holy Quran, “ No body can know about the unseen or hidden things but Allah” We are knowing and seeing through different media (like radio, TV, telephone, internet etc), almost every thing (audio, video live or recorded) from all over the world that is hidden and unseen. These media are much more powerful and their accuracy rate is as high as the reality and we can see as low as in the bottom of the oceans and as high as inside the moon, and also exactly about the future e.g. about the weather and changes in the solar system.
2. As in Holy Quran, “ No body can know the time of death but Allah”. Most of the times the doctors assess the time of death of the patient and that is often true.
3. As in Holy Quran, “Only God knows in the womb of the mother” We, not only know exactly about the sex of the foetus before delivery but also can produce the sex of choice also.
4. As in Holy Quran “ The earth is fixed – static (not revolving) but almost all of us believe still in the revolving.
5. As in Holy Quran, “God gives everything” but in our daily life we do not always take the name of God primarily e.g. Abdullah gave me employment in his office. The use of name Abdullah instead of God is same as I used the words in the data.
Have you not read these important issues in Quran?
Are you using Quran only for the selected purpose?
Are all above points blasphemous?
What do you mean by blasphemy? Do not take it please as a common dictionary word but a term according to Quran and Sunnah and correct your understanding before someone be victimised again by you.
You must not forget that regarding thinking about God there is absolutely no difference among us and almost all Non-muslims. More over it must not be forgotten too that “Haquq-ul-Ibad” (Human rights) are more score making to hell than “Haququllah”(Allah’s rights) and this is very important to escape from this negative balance at the “The Day of Judgement”.
Regarding matter and gravity, there definitions are not the final but may be changeable with the passage of time. If we accept these as final then it is very clear that we feel absolutely no difference between the definitions of “matter and gravity” and verses of Holy Quran and this is a true evidence of indirect unintentional false belief in Holy Quran.
You must know that human Embryology after all the researches, in the medical books is described same as mentioned in Holy Quran and similarly many others in medicine have been proved as said 1500 years ago. If the theories of Aristotle and others are being nullified subsequently, why not those of Newton, Einstein or Archimedes, and only Holy Quran will remain unchanged as promised by God. So after some years all the concepts may change and people will know a static earth with all new meanings of “matter and gravity”. These changes are present but we do not know.
On the other hand, In Quran God has been called a big source of light - Nur (I do not know in what context) If light, “How can it be explained?”
CONCLUSION
**************
1. Regarding thinking about God (as yours) there is absolutely no difference among us and almost all the Non-muslims. May be a Non-muslim has a more firm belief than you and you are giving the reference of Salafi scholars.
2. “Haquq-ul-Ibad” are more difficult to compensate than “Haququllah” and this is very important to escape from this negative balance at the “The Day of Judgement”. We must seek those people first if we want God’s pleasure, as they have the ticket for us to paradise. So “Haququllah” may not much affect the way to paradise.
3. Thinking in wide field, even in the commandments of Quran is very important otherwise many innocent people might have been hanged in the courts.
May Allah help improving our higher cognitive functions and forgive us, Aameen!
Dr. Akhlaq |
|
student1
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 9:00 AM
Asalam Aalaikum
Dear Brother Aijaz,
How could an idea just be an enough prove of the existance of God?
Idea is something, such as a thought or conception, that potentially or actually exists in the mind as a product of mental activity.
If suppose an idea comes in my mind regarding a thing, will that prove the real and actual existance of that thing?
Regards, |
|
student1
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 9:00 AM
Asalam Aalaikum
Dear Brother Aijaz,
How could an idea just be an enough prove of the existance of God?
Idea is something, such as a thought or conception, that potentially or actually exists in the mind as a product of mental activity.
If suppose an idea comes in my mind regarding a thing, will that prove the real and actual existance of that thing?
Regards, |
|
aijaz47
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 7:51 PM
quote:
Asalam Aalaikum
Dear Brother Aijaz,
How could an idea just be an enough prove of the existance of God?
Idea is something, such as a thought or conception, that potentially or actually exists in the mind as a product of mental activity.
If suppose an idea comes in my mind regarding a thing, will that prove the real and actual existance of that thing?
Regards,
If you can conceive (apprehend by reason and imagination) it why can't you believe it?
Edited by: aijaz47 on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 7:59 PM |
|
aijaz47
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 8:09 PM
"Idea is something, such as a thought or conception, that potentially or actually exists in the mind as a product of mental activity".
Have not you proved my point? |
|
student1
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 8:30 AM
quote:
"Idea is something, such as a thought or conception, that potentially or actually exists in the mind as a product of mental activity".
Have not you proved my point?
Brother how can you convince an atheist about the existance of God from this definition of idea?
Regards,
|
|
aijaz47
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 6:34 PM
The atheist has to refute my proof with logic to prove that he is not convinced. If he is unable to refute then my point stands proven.
Our aim is to prove and not to extract a confession.
By the way how do you define an atheist?
Edited by: aijaz47 on Thursday, October 21, 2004 6:39 PM
Edited by: aijaz47 on Thursday, October 21, 2004 7:14 PM |
|
surgeonakhlaq
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Friday, October 22, 2004 - 9:32 PM
Assalaamu’alaikum,
According to the principles on which every one agrees, the proof in general is reached by the following methods.
1. “Ilmul-yaqueen” (Belief on the knowledge present, a part from that of that person)
2. “Ainul-yaqueen” (Belief after seeing with one’ own eyes)
3. “Haqqul-yaqueen” (complete and firm belief on the basis of both or any one of the above- 1, 2)
For example most of the times, the proof of Ramdhan or Eid moon is on basis of “Ilmul-yaqueen” and the further proof of this “Ilmul-yaqueen” is “Ainul- yaqueen” with nothing in between.
Regarding proof of God, if the proof by the Ilmul-yaqueen followed by Haqqul-yaqueen is already present as in Quran and Ahadith then what we have proven uptill now???
If we want to prove the “Ilmul-yaqueen” regarding God it will then require “Ainul-yaqueen” which requires an absolute logic that is impossible to safeguard the Quranic claim (Baqra-2). Why impossible? The creator has made our brains in such a way that we are disabled to know because we have only five special senses, sometimes the sixth but not the seventh one and beyond (La Tashaoroon)
According to me this topic has a least potential of some message of Islam or correcting someone but a lot of potential of throwing someone into the darkness as we have a reverse gear from “Haqqul-yaqueen” (The final goal) to the backwards and the possibility of straying in the back way can not be excluded.
I think, the problem is over but a mature, comprehensive and expert approach may be entertained.
I request the worthy authorities at studying Islam to interact and solve this problem,
May Allah help and forgive us, Aameen!
Dr. Akhlaq |
|
surgeonakhlaq
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Saturday, October 23, 2004 - 9:30 PM
Assalaamu’alaikum
With reference to “Convincing an atheist about the existence of God from this definition of the idea so proved” Please go back 1425 years ago and have a look on the method of convincing an atheist about the existence of God. This method (1425 years ago) is a standard one from which all other methods can be compared to calculate their values. So value of the present method requires a comparative study (a research) to know its exact value. If it meets the standard upto the required limit then it will be proved to be true otherwise it is a hit and trial method, having No absolute value.
CONCLUSION
*************
The value of any thing is always relative to the standard otherwise it is an autonomy and deviation to the standard.
May Allah help and forgive us, Aameen!
Dr. Akhlaq |
|
surgeonakhlaq
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Sunday, October 24, 2004 - 9:39 PM
Assalaamu’alaikum
With reference to “Convincing an atheist about the existence of God from this definition of the idea so proved” Please go back 1425 years ago and have a look on the method of convincing an atheist about the existence of God. This method (1425 years ago) is a standard one from which all other methods can be compared to calculate their values. So value of the present method requires a comparative study (a research) to know its exact value. If it meets the standard upto the required limit then it will be proved to be true otherwise it is a hit and trial method, having No absolute value.
CONCLUSION
*************
The value of any thing is always relative to the standard otherwise it is an autonomy and deviation from the standard.
May Allah help and forgive us, Aameen!
Dr. Akhlaq |
|
aijaz47
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 7:57 PM
|
ubaid
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 7:18 PM
salam
This discussion is stuck........
The idea of a thing cannot prove the existence of a thing. I dont know why Mr. Aijaz is stressing on such a hypothesis.
There are three types of arguments to prove the existence of God, Cosmological, Teleological and Ontological. Each of the three is proved to have logical fallacies in them. Allama Iqbal stressed on their flaws in his famous “Reconstruction of religious thought in Islam”. So it can be said with certainty that there can be no logical and philosophical argument to prove the existence of God.
But God does exist.
First of all, we only know things which have identical examples. For example we know there is a city named as Tokyo; we can comprehend that because we have seen another city. But God has nothing like Him. So as long as we don’t see God, or something like Him, we cannot comprehend Him by ourselves.
Hence, answer this question. Is it possible for a thing to exist, which has no example like itself, for us to comprehend it?
If you say no, what are your reasons?
If you ask me, I can’t deny the existence of such a thing, simply because I don’t know any reason to deny it at all.
Secondly, if such a thing does exist, let’s say it is God, and He wants the human beings to be aware of his existence, what would be the method for this?
He can show Himself to all human beings to appreciate his existence, or he can show Himself to the first man and communicate with His selected men afterwards to clear things up.
Now we don’t know about seeing the God, neither we have any proof that anyone else has seen Him. But we have all known history and also the pre-history of how He communicated with the first man and then His selected men afterwards.
Even this does not prove His existence, but all I am stressing here is the “possibility” of His existence.
Now we know that the idea of God is always present in all human communities and civilizations throughout the known history and pre-history. There never was a society of Atheists in all human history. Hence he who asserts that there is no God, must bring his arguments.
If I say that God exists, I don’t have to give you proof for it, because I am not stating a philosophical idea. I am stating a historical fact, something that has been done. Historical facts cannot be proven with philosophical arguments. For example who can prove philosophically that Karl Marx wrote “Das Kapital”? Ask yourself why you believe that he wrote it?
You believe he wrote that book because every human being conveyed this knowledge to you, generation after generation, from the era when Marx was alive till your age. This is a historical fact, not an idea which can be proved philosophically. To prove this historical fact (by negating its nature as an incident) only by philosophical means, is wrong. Historical facts cannot be proved philosophically.
Precisely is the case about the existence of God. I am presenting it as a historical fact, not as an idea. Therefore now anyone who denies the existence of God must bring his arguments.
Regards. |
|
 Reply to Topic 
Printer Friendly |
| Jump To: |
|
|
|