The logical difference between correlations and definitions
Translating “لم يزل ولا يزال بأسمائه وصفاته لم يحدث له اسم ولا صف” from Al Fiqh al Akbar
If 1 = 0 is absurd, then is not bringing something out of nothing also absurd?
Ibn Rushd’s belief about the eternality of the cosmos?
Is denying well known things, such as the hijab, kufr?
Which beliefs are kufr and which are bid`ah?
Is denying well known things, such as the hijab, kufr? – Part II
Were Ash`arism and Sufism separate movements?
Someone asked, “Islam is Falsifiable?”
How do random things relate to the existence of God?
Someone asked, “Is it kufr to say that Allah sees and hears literally?”
If the proof for Allah’s existence is so simple, then why doesn’t the world convert to Islam?
Someone asked, “Is there place for human accountability in Islam?”
A Few Questions Related to Tasawwuf
Christians say that Muslims limit the Creator
How do we respond to those who say that Allah “changed” when He created the creation
Someone asked, “If God is perfect, then why are certain things, for example the eye, imperfect?”
Someone asked, “Were the Salaf literalists?”
Someone asked, “How can we be sure that the awliya hear our calls?”
May 16, 2008 at 2:27 pm |
The ‘Ashari denial of the principle of causation (قانون العلية والسببية) is in conflict with one of the proofs for the existence of God (دليل الحدوث). How can one say anything that comes into existence (hadith) necessarily needs a muhdith, murajjih, and the like, if causation itself is not assumed to be true. The version of the cosmological argument, the so-called kalam cosmological argument, which the Mutakallimun have employed, states:-
P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause (major premise)
P2. The Universe began to exist
C. Therefore, the Universe has a cause for its existence.
The whole arguments turns on the major premise, namely, that everything that begins to exist, or comes into existence, has a cause or a determinant thereof. However, this premise assumes that causation is real and true. Otherwise, as Hume argued, if there is no necessary connection between a cause and its effect, how could one argue for the soundness of the first premise?
Finally, to say that the cause of something cannot be nothing (فاقد الشيء لا يعطيه) , or that two equally possible states for a thing (i)X(/i) will not change unless there is a determinant which changes it (لا يترجح أحد طرفي الممكن بغير مرجح) and similiar theological and philosopical prinicples presuppose the necessity and truth of caustion. If this were not the case, then one can assume the Universe is temporal and uncaused.
May 17, 2008 at 3:57 pm |
The reply is here:
http://sunnianswers.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/response-to-a-comment-calling-allah-a-cause-is-kufr/
August 2, 2008 at 12:16 pm |
Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,
As salamu ‘alikum wr wb, First off AWESOME! Finally a site Al hamdulillah that is is simple in it’s design refreshing easy to read and gives clarity to allot of issues regarding Islamic Aqidah. Al hamdulillah! As a convert to Islam, I found allot of things unsettling about the so called ‘Salafi’ concept of Aqidah. Many of the Arabs who came to Islam came into it from Christian backgrounds. Colossians 2:9 “For in him dwells the fullness of the Godhead BODILY” Abu Hassan Al Ashari raheemullah is an genius without peer in seeing this as being problematic for our future if we do not explain some of these ambiguities.
My question is on Tawassul, since coming from a Christian background as well. Since the othrodox position is that Jesus is raised up alive to Allah in heaven, can we call upon Jesus to intercede for us in the same way we can ask Imam Nawawi?
Jazak’Allahu khayran for your time thoughtfulness and excellent replies.
As salamu ‘alikum wr wb