Philosphy vs. Islam...

[Ammunti]

Salam..i hope every1 is well

I am currently in my last yr of highschool and i took a philosphy course not knowing what i wud get my self into...
the atmosphere of my philosophy class is that of faith being looked down upon and anything else which cannot be proven with science.
Even though I and any other muslim know very well that Islam and science go hand in hand and there are countless amounts of miracles in the quran which very well go in accordance with science, i dunt kno how to handle myself in this class. in the beggining of the year i was alot more defensive and passionate about proving Islam right. but now that the end of the year is proceeding, my attitute and enthusiasm has gone down and i realized that my attitude should not be to prove Islam right, but to convey the message of Islam. my teacher has been trying to give me philosophers to do on our monthly research papers that completely contradict Islam and any other faiths. He said that his purpose is to 'open my mind' to whats out there and look at faith at a critical point of view and that if i am a person of strong faith, this course will only strengthen my faith in Islam and God. He somewhat has a point because i feel like i have come across some very challenging questions raised in philosophy which Islam has provided and efficient answer too and this infact has broadened my knowledge on Islam vs. philosophy. But the concept of believing without seeing is still loooked down upon and i dunt kno how to win in this battle...how can i represent Islam in my philisophy class in a well manner?
In the last month of this school year, we will have a final seminar where each student in the class will be given a chance to speak about their personal beliefs and we will have a formal discussion or debate using the methods of debating that we were tought in the beggining of the year.
I am somewhat nervous about this seminar being in a form of a debate becuase i kno that Islam should not be debated into someone and the Prophet(pbuh) never liked arguments or heated debates about faiths. I feel like this could be a perfect oppurtunity for da'wa. i want to do the best that i can but this is a pretty tough crowd that i will be facing where most people in my class are not religious and many are athiests.

Please advice me.
Salam

 

[saqlawi]

:salam2:

Atheists are the toughest to deal with.

To be honest I don't know how to deal with them, they are usually arrogant people who consider themselves "intellectuals." And they consider religion to be a barbaric practice man had long overcome.

I usually respond only by looking back down upon them as materialists who are stuck in their own realm of perception- thinking they can see everything. The reality is that every human being is limited to the five senses, anything else is derived through the "thinking" process- which can only use information gained from the senses. It doesn't matter how "intellectual" you think you are... you are still just another human being limited by space and time, connected to the universe only by the five senses.

I tell them to consider this:
Can you teach a monkey algebra? If you were given a million years you would not be able to teach the monkey algebra- because the monkey's mind is limited. But the monkey does not realize that there is something called "algebra," and it doesn't care to know it. The monkey does not look at the human and the algebra thinking "man i wish I was that smart." The limitations of the monkey's mind prevent it from realizing its own limitation- yet it has what it needs in terms of thought in order to survive.
The same goes for human beings. We are indeed limited- and we must never think that we can answer every question we pose.

That is philosophy. It is a series of questions. Empty questions that haven't been answered (not to be confused with true science).

The same way the monkey has what it needs in terms of perception, we still have what we need. Allah has given us enough of a mental capacity to fathom his existence. But many of us have yet to realize how limited this mental capacity really is.



That is my attempt at an answer, but to be honest I still have problems with atheists. I would appreciate anyone else's opinions.

 

[Aapa]

Salam,

The greatest philosophers in the world were Muslims. Western philosophy reached its heights with Muslim thought. Please research Ibn Rashid and the great Iman Ghazali. Ibn Rashid was Spanish. His works influenced none other than Kant, Spinzoa, Nitze (sp), and a host of others.
A beauty of Islam is the need to find rational and logical reasons for existence. Islam breaks the edge of the enevelope.
The athestic arugment stops short because they are limited to the visible. Even the Greeks went beyond that. Plato and Socrates believed in the power of God.
There are some wonderful Islamic Philsophy websites. Please read Ibn Rashid and educate your class. Methaphysics is beyond the relm of the physical..if you are an atheist you can not conceptualize beyond the physical because you are suggesting there is something greater than you.
Most university libraries have islamic collections. If not contact via e-mail the reference librarians and they will give you ideas. Google scholar is a easy starting point.
Inshalla, you will venture on a journey that will leave your classmates in wonder.

 

[Bluegazer]

Assalamu Alaikum,


The following is a religious opinion on the website supervised by Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid. It's an answer to question no. 88184 [Ruling on studying philosophy]:

Question:
What is the ruling on studying philosophy? Please note that studying it is compulsory for us in Algeria.

Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.

Firstly:

It should be understood what philosophy is and what its principles are, before stating what the ruling on studying it is, because passing a ruling on something is usually based on the way it is viewed.

Al-Ghazaali said in al-Ihya’ (1/22): Philosophy is not one branch of knowledge, it is actually four:

1 – Geometry and mathematics: these are permissible as stated above, and there is no reason why they should not be studied unless there is the fear that one may overstep the mark and indulge in forbidden branches of knowledge, because most of those who study them overstep the mark and go on to innovations, thus the weak should be protected from them.

2 – Logic, which deals with the way in which evidence is to be used, the conditions of evidence being valid, the definition of what constitutes evidence and guidelines on the use of evidence. These come under the heading of ‘ilm al-kalaam.

3 – Theology, which is discussion of the essence and attributes of Allaah, which also comes under the heading of ‘ilm al-kalaam. The philosophers did not have any other kind of knowledge that was unique to them, rather they had some views and ideas which were unique to them, some of which constitute kufr and some bid’ah (innovation).

4 – Natural sciences, some of which go against sharee’ah, Islam and truth, so it is ignorance, not knowledge that may be mentioned alongside the other branches of knowledge. Some of it involves the discussion of the attributes of different elements and how one can be changed to another. This is similar to the way in which doctors examine the human body in particular, from the point of view of what makes it sick and what makes it healthy. They look at all the elements to see how they change and move. But medicine has an edge over the physical body in that it is needed, but there is no need for the study of nature. End quote.

In al-Mawsoo’ah al-Muyassarah fi’l-Adyaan wa’l-Madhaahib al-Mu’aasirah (2/1118-1121) it says:

Philosophy is a Greek word composed of two words. Philo originally meant selflessness, but Pythagoras turned it to mean love; and sophia which means wisdom. The word philosopher is derived from philosophy and means the lover of wisdom. But the meaning changed and came to mean wisdom.

Then the philosopher came to be called a wise man (hakeem). In the past the word philosophy referred to study of the basic principles, viewing knowledge as something based on rationality, the goal of which was the search for truth. For its supporters, philosophy is, as Dr. Tawfeeq al-Taweel described it: Rational examination, free from any restrictions and authority imposed on it from outside, and with the ability to go all the way on the basis of logic, propagating his view regardless of the difference between these (philosophical) views and what is customarily known, religious beliefs and the dictates of tradition, without being confronted or resisted or punished by any authority. In Aristotle’s view, the philosopher is of a higher status than a prophet, because the prophet understands things by means of imagination whereas the philosopher understands things by means of reason and contemplation. In their view, imagination is of a lower status than contemplation. Al-Faraabi agreed with Aristotle in viewing the philosopher as being of higher status than a prophet.

In this sense philosophy is opposed to wisdom, which in Islamic terminology refers to the Sunnah as defined by the majority of muhadditheen and fuqaha’, and in the sense of judgement, knowledge and proficiency, alongside moral guidelines which control the whims and desires of the self and keep it from doing haraam things. The wise man is the one who has these characteristics, hence philosophy, as defined by the philosophers, is one of the most dangerous falsehoods and most vicious in fighting faith and religion on the basis of logic, which it is very easy to use to confuse people in the name of reason, interpretation and metaphor that distort the religious texts.

Imam al-Shaafa’i said: The people did not become ignorant and begin to differ until they abandoned Arabic terminology and adopted the terminology of Aristotle. Even though philosophy existed in the ancient civilizations of Egypt, India and Persia, it became most famous in Greece and became synonymous with that land, the reason being that the Greek philosophers were interested in transmitting it from the legacy of idolatrous peoples and the remnants of the divinely-revealed religions, benefiting from the scriptures of Ibraaheem and Moosa (peace be upon them) after the Greek victory over the Hebrews after the captivity in Babylon, and benefiting from the religion of Luqmaan the Wise. So there was a mixture of views that confirmed the divinity and Lordship of the Creator that was contaminated with idolatry. Therefore the Greek philosophy was in some ways a revival more than an innovation.

Ibn Abi’l-‘Izz, the commentator on al-Tahhaawiyyah, summed up the schools of philosophical thought about the five basic principles of religion in their view, as follows:

That God does exist but He has no reality or essence, and He does not know the details of His creation, but He does know about its general terms, thus they denied that He creates the deeds of His slaves. They also did not believe in His Books, as in their view God does not speak or talk, and the Qur’aan is just something that shines from active reasons into purified human hearts. Exalted be Allaah far above what they ascribe to Him. There is no separate entity that ascends or descends, rather in their view it is all ideas in the mind that do not exist in reality. The philosophers are the one who most deny the Last Day and its events. In their view Paradise and Hell are no more than parables for the masses to understand, but they have no reality beyond people’s minds.

The Greek philosophers still have an impact on all western philosophies and ideologies, ancient and modern. Indeed, most of the Islamic kalaami groups were influenced by them. The terminology of Islamic philosophy did not emerge as a branch of knowledge that is taught in the curriculum of Islamic studies until it was introduced by Shaykh Mustafa ‘Abd al-Razzaaq – the Shaykh of al-Azhar – as a reaction to western attacks on Islam based on the idea that Islam has no philosophy. But the fact of the matter is that philosophy is an alien entity in the body of Islam. There is no philosophy in Islam and there are no philosophers among Muslims in this deviant sense. Rather in Islam there is certain knowledge and prominent scholars who examine matters. Among the most famous philosophers who were nominally Muslims were al-Kindi, al-Faraabi, Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Ibn Rushd (Averroes). End quote.

Secondly:

The majority of fuqaha’ have stated that it is haraam to study philosophy. Among their comments on that are the following:

1 – Ibn Nujaym (Hanafi) said in al-Ashbaah wa’l-Nazaa’im: Acquiring knowledge may be an individual obligation, which is as much as one needs for religious commitment to be sound; or it may be a communal obligation, which is in addition to the previous and is done for the benefit of others; or it may be recommended, which is studying fiqh and ‘ilm al-qalb (purification of the heart) in depth; or it may be haraam, which is learning philosophy, magic (sleight of hand), astrology, geomancy, natural science and witchcraft. End quote from al-Ashbaah wa’l-Nazaa’ir ma’a Sharhiha: Ghamaz ‘Ayoon al-Basaa’ir by al-Hamawi (4/125).

2 – al-Dardeer (Maaliki) said in al-Sharh al-Kabeer, discussing the kind of knowledge which is a communal obligation: Such as studying sharee’ah, which is not an individual obligation, and which includes fiqh, tafseer, hadeeth and ‘aqeedah, and things that help with that such as (Arabic) grammar and literature, tafseer, mathematics and usool al-fiqh – not philosophy, astrology or ‘ilm al-kalaam, according to the most sound opinion.

Al-Dasooqi said in his Haashiyah (2/174): His phrase “according to the most sound opinion” means that it is forbidden to read the books of al-Baaji, Ibn al-‘Arabi and ‘Iyaad, unlike the one who says that it is essential to learn it in order to understand ‘aqeedah and basic religious issues. But al-Ghazaali said that the one who has knowledge of ‘ilm al-kalaam knows nothing of religious beliefs except the beliefs that the common people share, but they are distinguished by their ability to argue and debate.

3 – Zakariya al-Ansaari (Shaafa’i) said in Asna al-Mataalib (4/182): As for learning philosophy, magic (sleight of hand), astrology, geomancy, natural science and witchcraft, it is haraam. End quote.

4 – al-Bahooti (Hanbali) said in Kashshaaf al-Qinaa’ (3/34): The opposite of shar’i knowledge is knowledge that is haraam or makrooh. Haraam knowledge is like ‘ilm al-kalaam in which they argue on the basis of pure reason or speak in a manner that contradicts sound, unambiguous reports. If they speak on the basis of reports only or on the basis of texts and rational thought that is in accordance with them, then this is the basis of religion and the way of ahl al-sunnah. This is what is meant by the words of Shaykh Taqiy al-Deen. In his commentary he explains that even better. [Haraam knowledge also includes] philosophy, magic (sleight of hand), astrology and geomancy, as well as alchemy and natural sciences. End quote.

It should be noted that an exception from this prohibition is made for those who study it as a speciality in order to explain its deviations and refute the falsehoods that they stir up.

Thirdly:

If studying philosophy is compulsory, then you must beware of believing in any of its falsehoods or admiring its people. You should strive hard to acquire shar’i knowledge, especially that which has to do with ‘aqeedah (belief), so that you will develop immunity and resistance to specious arguments.

We ask Allaah to help and guide you.

And Allaah knows best.

Islam Q&A

Source: http://islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=88184&ln=eng


Regards,

Bluegazer

Wassalamu Alaikum

 

[virtualeye]

AssalaamuAlaikum,,

Here are some very very .... good resouces and arguments for Atheists:

For Atheists' Pondering:
http://www.watchislam.com/videos/video.php?vid=19
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-811321280634119479


And following short story is a slap at the face of those rude over-rational wackos:



God and the Professor of Philosophy



"LET ME EXPLAIN THE problem science has with God."
The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and
then asks one of his new students to stand.

"You're a Muslim, aren't you, son?"

"Yes, sir."

"So you believe in God?"

"Absolutely."

"Is God good?"

"Sure! God's good."

"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"

"Yes."

The professor grins knowingly and considers for a moment.
"Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you
can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?"

"Yes sir, I would."

"So you're good...!"

"I always do my best to be a good human being , Sir."

" You would help a sick and maimed person if you
could ...in fact most of us would if we could... God doesn't."

[No answer.]

"He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Muslim who died of cancer
even though he prayed to God to heal him. How is this God good? Hmmm?
Can you answer that one?"

[No answer]

The elderly man is sympathetic. "No, you can't, can you?"
He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student
time to relax. In philosophy, you have to go easy with the new ones.

"Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?"

"Er... Yes."

"Is Satan good?"

"No."

"Where does Satan come from?"

The student falters. "From... God..."

"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he?"

The elderly man runs his bony fingers through his thinning hair and
| turns to the smirking, student audience.

"I think we're going to have a lot of fun this semester, ladies and gentlemen."

He turns back to the Muslim. "Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"

"Yes, sir."

"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? Did God make everything?"

"Yes."

"Who created evil?"

[No answer]

"Is there sickness in this world? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All
the terrible things - do they exist in this world?"

The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."

"Who created them?"

[No answer]

The professor suddenly shouts at his student.

"WHO CREATED THEM? TELL ME, PLEASE!"

The professor closes in for the kill and climbs into the Muslim's face.

In a still small voice: "God created all evil, didn't He, son?"

[No answer]

The student tries to hold the steady, experienced gaze and fails.
Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom
like an aging panther. The class is mesmerised.

"Tell me," he continues, "How is it that this God is good if He
created all evil throughout all time?"

The professor swishes his arms around to encompass the wickedness of
the world.

"All the hatred, the brutality, all the pain, all the torture, all the
death and ugliness and all the suffering created by this good God
is all over the world, isn't it, young man?"

[No answer]

"Don't you see it all over the place? Huh?" [Pause].

"Don't you?" The professor leans into the student's face again and whispers,

"Is God good?"

[No answer]

"Do you believe in God, son?"

The student's voice betrays him and cracks.

"Yes, professor. I do."

The old man shakes his head sadly. "Science says you have five
senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. You have
never seen God, Have you? "

"No, sir. I've never seen Him."

"Then tell us if you've ever heard you God?"


"No, sir. I have not."

"Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God or smelt your
God...in fact, do you have any sensory perception of your God whatsoever?"

[No answer]

"Answer me, please."

"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."

"You're AFRAID... you haven't?"

"No, sir."

"Yet you still believe in him?"

"...yes..."

"That takes FAITH!" The professor smiles sagely at the underling.

"According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable
protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son? Where is
your God now?"

[The student doesn't answer]

"Sit down, please."

The Muslim sits...Defeated.


Another Muslim raises his hand. "Professor, may I address the class?"

The professor turns and smiles. "Ah, another Muslim in the vanguard!

Come, come, young man. Speak some proper wisdom to the gathering."

The Muslim looks around the room. "Some interesting points you are
making, sir. Now I've got a question for you. Is there such thing as heat?"

"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."

"Is there such a thing as cold?"

"Yes, son, there's cold too."

"No, sir, there isn't."

The professor's grin freezes. The room suddenly goes very cold.

The second Muslim continues.

"You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat,
white heat, a little heat or no heat but we don't have anything
called 'cold'. We can hit 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we
can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold,
otherwise we would be able to go colder than 458 - - You see, sir,
cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We
cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is
energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."

Silence. A pin drops somewhere in the classroom.

"Is there such a thing as darkness, professor?"

"That's a dumb question, son. What is night if it isn't darkness?
What are you getting at...?"

"So you say there is such a thing as darkness?"

"Yes..."

"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something, it is the
absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light,
flashing light but if you have no light constantly you have nothing
and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to
define the word. In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would
be able to make darkness darker and give me a jar of it. Can
you...give me a jar of darker darkness, professor?"

Despite himself, the professor smiles at the young effrontery
before him. This will indeed be a good semester...

"Would you mind telling us what your point is, young man?"

"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed
to start with and so your conclusion must be in error...."

The professor goes toxic. "Flawed...? How dare you...!""

"Sir, may I explain what I mean?"

The class is all ears.

"Explain... oh, explain..." The professor makes an admirable effort
to regain control. Suddenly he is affability itself. He waves his hand
to silence the class, for the student to continue.

"You are working on the premise of duality," the student explains.

"That for example there is life and then there's death; a good God
and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite,
something we can measure. Sir, science cannot even explain a thought.
It uses electricity and magnetism but has never seen, much less
fully understand them. To view death as the opposite of life is to be
ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing.
Death is not the opposite of life, merely the absence of it."

The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from the desk of a
neighbour who has been reading it.

"Here is one of the most disgusting tabloids this country hosts,
professor. Is there such a thing as immorality?"

"Of course there is, now look..."

"Wrong again, sir. You see, immorality is merely the absence of
morality. Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the
absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?"

The Muslim student pauses.

"Isn't evil the absence of good?"

The professor's face has turned an alarming color. He is so angry
he is temporarily speechless.

The student continues. "If there is evil in the world, professor,
and we all agree there is, then God, if he exists, must be
accomplishing a work through the agency of evil. What is that work God is
accomplishing? Islam which means Submission to the will of God , tells us it is to
see if each one of us will, choose good over evil."

The professor bridles. "As a philosophical scientist, I don't vie this
matter as having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I
absolutely do not recognize the concept of God or any other
theological factor as being part of the world equation because God
is not observable."

"I would have thought that the absence of God's moral code in this
world is probably one of the most observable phenomena going,"
the student replies.

"Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week! Tell
me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"

"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man,
yes, of course I do."

"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"

The professor makes a sucking sound with his teeth and gives his
student a silent, stony stare.

"Professor. Since no-one has ever observed the process of evolution
at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going
endeavour, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a
scientist, but a priest?"

"I will overlook your impudence in the light of our philosophical debate."

"So you don't accept God's moral code to do ... what is righteous?"

"I believe in what is - that's science!"

"Ahh! SCIENCE!" the student's face splits into a grin.

"Sir, you rightly state that science is the study of observed
phenomena. Science too is a premise which is flawed..."

"SCIENCE IS FLAWED..?" the professor splutters. The class is in
uproar.

The student remains standing until the commotion has subsided.

"To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student,
may I give you an example of what I mean?"

The professor wisely keeps silent. The student looks around the room.

"Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen air, Oxygen,
molecules, atoms, the professor's brain?"

The class breaks out in laughter. The Muslim points towards his
elderly, crumbling tutor.

"Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain...
felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain?"

No one appears to have done so. The Muslim student shakes his head sadly.

"It appears no-one here has had any sensory perception of the
professor's brain whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of
empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science, I DECLARE that
the professor has no brain."


Wassalaam,
VE

 

[Mohsin]

Assalamu-alaikum

:salam2:

Here is a debate, a freind once e-mailed me, i never thought about it seriously but i think it will help u to give some good arguments PHILOSOPHICALLY, insha-Allah. Its a Word Doc File but i have to zip it cuz the size was exceeding the permissible limit for .doc type.
Ma'assalaam

 

[PaxVobiscum]

Dear Sis, Assalamo Alaiukum wa Rahmatullah

Glad to hear about your zeal for da'wah Masha Allah. Let me first warn you that philosophy is a bottomless pit, and most philosophers are making up issues rather than solving them (in fact, if you ask a philosopher for solid answer he/she would probably say "I am looking for answers with an open mind", I usually tell them to keep looking ).

Now to the real matter, how to deal with these pseudo-geneiouses in your class? (remember, just because they are able to read and repeat the thoughts of countless, mostly crazy, philosophers in history, doesn't make them intellectually better than you).

1. I hope you have looked into the detailed concepts that exist in philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy) .

2. The prinicple belief behind works of philosophy is that human intellect (rationale, logic, thought, observation) is the ultimate source of knowledge.

3. You, however, do not need to buy this idea, and you can present your own philosophy, one that challenges this belief in the supremacy and absoluteness of human logic. Show them, philosophically, that the ultimate questions of life cannot be answered by science or logic. Tell them that we Muslims believe that man is not the one in full control in this universe and that the ONE who is in full control sends down revelations to answer the ultimate questions of life (purpose of creation, etc.)

4. Then show them the practicality of this belief, how it gives meaning and direction to life to all those who choose to follow it in any stage of human history. Show them how it brings one in peace with oneself and with the forces/actors of nature around him/her. And then leave with them with the question that why should we believe in your philosophy (i.e. supremacy of human Reason) when our own philosophy (Revelation + Reason) works so well in our lives?

Now to elaborate on point 3, I am appending below an email I wrote to some of my atheistic friends sometime last month about Science, Logic (as the main tool of philosophy) and Faith (as a result of Revelations). Sorry if you find it rather lengthy, but as I said, philosophy is a bottomless pit. Also let me stress here that remember to be on the offensive (challenging the very domain of philosophic thought) rather than being defensive, and that there is no clear win or loose in philosophic discussions

This is how I look at the matter. When it comes to the ultimate questions, e.g. the "why" of creation, there are three things that we need to look into: science, logic and faith.

Before going into the main issue, it is important to understand that we are limited in our capabilities, that there are things that we cannot do and that we are not the ones in full control (and that there is no need to react arrogantly to this realization). For instance, we have only five senses, we cannot move faster than the speed of light, and none of us could have chosen the parameters (time, gene pool, gender etc.) of his own birth. Now, the main issue:

1) Science is limited to sensory data. It covers the "how" but not the "why". Science only attempts to understand the mechanism of the universe and the underlying laws. To understand why science cannot be used to answer the "why" consider a rather amusing example. Suppose that one day while taking a walk through a park, you find a CD lying under a tree and pick it up. You bring it home and find that it has a C code in it. You spend time understanding the code and after having completely understood all the subfunctions and commands in the code you conclude "what" the code does ( e.g., its a video compression code) and "how" it does it (the algorithm behind it). But can you, by only studying this work alone, conclude "why" was it created? did the coder make it for money? or was it for a developers' competition? or was it just some geek trying to impress his girlfriend? Now see the problem of the universe again. All we are doing and all we can do using science is to completely understand the universe as it is. Can all the knowlege that we are gathering be used to answer that "why" was it created?

Now comes the question that by only studying the universe, can we prove or disprove the existence of god? The cosmologists are trying to understand the creation of the universe with the help of the laws that exist merely as a result of this creation. There is no proof that these laws existed independent of this universe. This means, essentially, that whatever they conclude, will only be applicable to this universe alone and not beyound that (so concluding that, for instance, the universe came into existence from nothing, cannot be used as a proof that there is no god, for there might exist a god who created the universe out of nothing). My conclusion therefore is that these things do not fall in the domain of science.

2) Logical things are those that we expect to see on the basis of things we have already seen (for example, it is illogical to assume that all humans have ten fingures because we have "seen" mutations, if we had never ever seen mutation of any kind it would be logical to say that all humans have ten fingures). Our logic is constrained by our sensory data and by science. For example, suppose that cosmologists conclude that the universe came from nothing. Then we will adjust our "logic" to include that "somethings can come from nothing at all". Now, our logic is constrained by science, and science cannot answer the "why" of creation and cannot prove or disprove the existence of god, then how can something that is constrained by science solve these problems?

3) Once we realize that science and logic cannot help, we turn to something that answers the "why" without using science or logic. This answer would be "unscientific" and "illogical" if the original question fell in the domain of these two. But when the question does not fall in the domain of science and logic, how can the answer be labelled unscientific or illogical? It would be like the US charging a Pakistani for mutiny against the US. Here it might seem that I am suggesting that faith is the last resort (kind of a looser's "what else can I do?"), but in fact I am saying that when it comes to the ultimate questions, faith is the only resort. Does this sound too powerless? too defeated? try this "I was born on the 5th of September, 1979, what else could I have done?" So I feel no shame or problem in saying that I consider the existence of god a matter of "faith" and that I have faith in the quran because of the way it explains to me the purpose and dynamics of my life (it must be noted here that even though the quran has signs that increase our faith in it, e.g., the accurate description of human embroy, it does not answer the ultimate questions using science or logic, rahter, it invites us to believe in the unseen and the sublime and clearly tells us that both our knowledge and perception are limited). Furthermore, if 1& 2 are correct, then the atheist can never have a proof for the inexistence of god either and it will always be an atheist's "faith" that a god does not exist and that life has no purpose. I have no obligation to share the atheist's faith and the atheist has no right to tell me that his faith is scientific or logical. The atheist either thinks that the "why" can be answered by science and logic, or does not feel the need to find a purpose in existence. In the first case, he would have to prove to us that the "why" can be answered by science and logic, and in the second case we will have to let him be (since he is not interested in the issue).​

Hope you find this somewhat useful Insha Allah

:salam2:
Naveed

A nice stanza about philosophers for those who understand Urdu:

Fulsafee ko fulsafay main phir khuda milta naheen
Doar ko suljha raha hay per sira milta naheen

 

[Wulf]

A'Salaam Alaikum

Brother Virtualeye.

Thank you from the innermost depths of my heart for this story.
Until I read this I was feeling a bit down. When I read this I could not stop myself from laughing until tears blocked my vision.

You have brightened my day.

W'Asalaam

Ibrahim

 

[ShyHijabi]

Mashallah Virtual Eye,

Truly that was a wonderful post. I couldn't stop the grin from spreading across my face and by the time I was finished reading that I was literally laughing out loud. I nicked and posted it on another board right now where the atheists are going a bit nuts. This was an eloquently and well constructed argument.

~Sarah

 

[Ammunti]

Wow....MashaAllah....thank u guy so much 4 this great great info. i appreciate it from the bottom of my heart and i pray that Allah grants all of u with Jannah InshAllah..I will definetly study the info posted above and base my arguments on proving that the basis of philosophy is flawed and start with that instead of being defensive about my own ideology or beliefs.

My philosophy class 2day was dreadful. My teacher showed us a video on evolution and hardcore evolutionists and he clearly stated that evolution is a 'Fact' and it should not be considered a theory anymore because there is so much overwhelming proof to support it. his very biased statement and method of presenting this subject is misleading many people.
The theory of evolution willl also be a subject that will certainly be brought up in our siminar/debate in the near future. If u guys have any useful info against evolution, feel free to post it up InshAllah...I wud greatly appreciate it..thank U and Allah Bless

 

[Mohsin]

Assalamu-alaikum

:salam2:

Sister here is good source for studying the evolution theory

http://www.harunyahya.com

I hope it will help, inshaAllah
Ma'assalaam