Jump to content
Maniac Muslim Forums
Sign in to follow this  
superman

Cosmological Argument

Recommended Posts

But all my tedious mental gymnastics aside, I appreciate your level-headed and honest replies on this subject. It was thought-provoking at least.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone show Spud a real Jinn video like the one where this woman calls in talking about a brother who didn't want her going to court.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ At 5:35 he succinctly states what the real problem is:

 

"The answers to the shubuhaat (doubts) are not necessarily 'aqli. Here is I think a big issue of our times. We assume every single answer has to be 'aqli or rational. In the end of the day, there are answers that are fitri. And science does not recognize the fitrah."

 

Unsurprisingly, this idea corresponds with the statements of some of the greatest thinkers, writers, philosophers, and even logicians (who are specialists on Godel's theorems, one of the most ground-breaking insights in mathematics). They taught people not to try to approach truth with the intellect alone, but rather to approach it with one's entire being, with one's despairs, anxieties, and the myriad of human emotions along with the intellect. And this is why they never gave priority to technical intelligence over intelligence, or rationality over reason. 

 

But nowadays Western education forces people to develop an over-rational worldview, as opposed to a reasonable worldview.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, superman said:

He essentially said if you put Islam in a historic context then you have a massive problem. Umm... ok

 

He said that you shouldn't historicize the Quran, and that has a different meaning from saying that you can't look at Islam or the Quran from a historical context.

 

Some people historicize the Quran so much as if nothing in it is relevant anymore. That's when it becomes a problem.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Spider said:

He said that you shouldn't historicize the Quran, and that has a different meaning from saying that you can't look at Islam or the Quran from a historical context.

 

Some people historicize the Quran so much as if nothing in it is relevant anymore. That's when it becomes a problem.

 

 

Nah I think he meant that you can't contextualise the Quran in history otherwise you will start to doubt things. For instance it's compilation etc... major red flag imo

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, superman said:

Nah I think he meant that you can't contextualise the Quran in history otherwise you will start to doubt things. For instance it's compilation etc... major red flag imo

 

 

He wrote an entire book titled An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qu'ran, and in it there are plenty of things discussed about the usefulness of history in relation to the sciences of the Quran (tafseers, interpretations, etc.), so he can't possibly be saying that you shouldn't contextualize the Quran in light of it's history.

 

Again, I think what he meant is that the Quran should not be studied as if it is just a historical text, thereby ignoring the universal and timeless nature of it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎14‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 8:31 AM, Spider said:

 

He wrote an entire book titled An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qu'ran, and in it there are plenty of things discussed about the usefulness of history in relation to the sciences of the Quran (tafseers, interpretations, etc.), so he can't possibly be saying that you shouldn't contextualize the Quran in light of it's history.

 

Again, I think what he meant is that the Quran should not be studied as if it is just a historical text, thereby ignoring the universal and timeless nature of it.

 

nah if you listen to what he says about Yale taking your picture of Islam and deconstructing each block (by looking at it in context etc) then you have a real crisis of faith afterwards.

 

Problem is that in Western education you are taught to analyse things with evidence and context whereas sometimes in Eastern cultures acceptance and memorisation is encouraged. YQ says applying the Western style analysis will break your faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/18/2017 at 8:09 AM, superman said:

nah if you listen to what he says about Yale taking your picture of Islam and deconstructing each block (by looking at it in context etc) then you have a real crisis of faith afterwards.

 

Problem is that in Western education you are taught to analyse things with evidence and context whereas sometimes in Eastern cultures acceptance and memorisation is encouraged. YQ says applying the Western style analysis will break your faith.

 

What he said about Yale doesn't support your previous comment about what he meant by historicizing the Quran, so it's irrelevant. And yeah Western style analysis can break your faith, but only if you stop using your own intelligence, that is. I mean, it's pretty sad if we trained our intelligence to operate only within the realms of science and evidence like in the Western style.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Spider said:

What he said about Yale doesn't support your previous comment about what he meant by historicizing the Quran, so it's irrelevant. And yeah Western style analysis can break your faith, but only if you stop using your own intelligence, that is. I mean, it's pretty sad if we trained our intelligence to operate only within the realms of science and evidence like in the Western style.

 

 

yes it does, its totally relevant. Yale historicizes the Quran, ie looks at it in a historical context, which breaks your faith.

 

Id be worried then, you don't have much intelligence to use.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, superman said:

 

yes it does, its totally relevant. Yale historicizes the Quran, ie looks at it in a historical context, which breaks your faith.

 

Id be worried then, you don't have much intelligence to use.

 

 

We were discussing what he meant by "historicizing the Quran," so you sort of sidestepped that point by mentioning that Yale historicizes the Quran (which I don't disagree with).

 

So do you agree with this:

 

"Again, I think what he meant is that the Quran should not be studied as if it is just a historical text, thereby ignoring the universal and timeless nature of it."

 

If so, then I'm not sure why you wrote "nah" (twice) to my responses.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To share another insight of mine, I think that people's faith becomes weaker in part because they are not appreciative or grateful enough of the countless blessings that they've been given. And no one can "educate" you about these things.

 

One might be very cognizant of his intellect as being one of the favors of Allah, but there are so many other things which most of the time we don't even think about. I think that when some people get very ill or they lose something valuable that they had, that is when they realize the greatness of what they had, and then they might even make dua or start calling Allah to help them recover what they lost. But we seldom appreciate things when we already have them. The fact that I am breathing right now without effort, that my fingers are typing these words, that my brain is functioning, that my heart is beating, and so on and so forth, these are all things to be grateful about. But if we start losing this feeling of appreciation and gratitude towards Allah, then, gradually, our entire faith will also leave us. And then we will just try to rationalize and logicize everything, because we've forgotten the essence of what it means to be a human.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be grateful to God you must assume his existence. Its a circle.

 

Unless you mean being grateful in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Spider said:

 

We were discussing what he meant by "historicizing the Quran," so you sort of sidestepped that point by mentioning that Yale historicizes the Quran (which I don't disagree with).

 

So do you agree with this:

 

"Again, I think what he meant is that the Quran should not be studied as if it is just a historical text, thereby ignoring the universal and timeless nature of it."

 

If so, then I'm not sure why you wrote "nah" (twice) to my responses.

 

 

he was talking about yale, I thought that's what he meant - that yale caused him to think of the Quran as a historical source.

 

I don't know - that statement is so subjective. If I was to say that about the Quran, I would also say it about the Torah or the Bible or any other great relic that shaped human civilisation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×