Islamic Existentialism

[Sophist]

"1) Philosophy: History and Problems by Samuel E. Stumpf

2) Sophies World by Josten Gaarder ( a fictional novel of the history of philosophy)" Masterpieces indeed

 

A good university friend once said in regards to the second book, every girl who fancies herself to be philosopher can not go without her bible on the subject.

 

Matkey, you would be far suited with Problems of Philosophy by Mr B Russell. It is a good introduction to western Philosophy.

[Matkey]

Mutakalim

 

Your advice is well appreciated. But mind you that I was being unpretentious in previous post when I referred my sources to philosophy book for dummies. Though I invested time in different realm, it was mandatory to take at least two or three philosophy courses for my major (I.R) with hope that student may become familiar with the concepts or history of philosophy, and as well as theoretical framework put forward by different philosophers. The central aims of these courses were to provide general view or knowledge of political philosophy. During my undergrad, I was exposed to the writing of not many, but well received and respected by present day international actors, western governments being by far the one that attribute their system of governance to J. J. Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes and N. Machiavelli.

 

In term of the branch that investigates metaphysical world, I am yet to take that journey. On serious note, I will take look at History and Problem of Philosophy.

 

 

Sophist Says:

 

"you would be far suited with Problems of Philosophy by Mr B Russell. It is a good introduction to western Philosophy."

 

 

Sxb, waxaan iska rabay in mararka qaarkood an iska dhigo qof Qatar ah. Sababtoo ah adiga iyo Mutakalim baa nagufuray jabtaro aan wax ka aqoon. Sidaas darateed baa qiiro iqqdey, oon is iri Ally ilehe bal raga wax laqaybso. Sophist, ma maqashey qisadii dhexmartey labada nin ee shaqada udoontey warshada? Midka mid ah labada nin baa wax lagawaraystey biraha ay warshadu ku shaqayso. Waxa uu ku jawaabey: wax kast waan daadshey, meaning he know everything that is to it. Ninkii labad ee shaqada doonayey ayaa lawaraystet su'aal lamid ah. Waxuu ku jawaabay: Lankun wala usu deediyey anina aruuriyee. Marka widaayow aruuriye walaagi ha deediseen inkastoo cilmishee ani inkasanin. :cool:

 

Widaay mahatanta for the book!

[Alle-ubaahne]

I think the very perplexing problems inherited from the unprincipled western thinkers are preserved solely to mislead those who happen to be weak in terms of intellectual capacity to reason, or utilize reason for constructive rational means. I am suprised when I see the like of a growing number of people who question the existance of Allah, but can't deliberately consider their crooked philosophical arguments which have no sound and legitimate bases whatsoever!

 

Following are question for the initiator who conducted or set the topic at hand, but let me start with my questions first:why do you think denial for the existance of god is an answer enough when you witness the present vivid reality of the universe that stand nothing but as for major evidances and proofs to His existance? Isn't funny that you believe in what they say (the West) and dispute the realities of God that are not open to questions?

 

For now, Allah's questions to you:

 

(1)We created you, then why do you believe not?

 

(2)Then tell Me (about) the human semen that you emit. Is it you who create it (i.e., make this semen into a perfect human being), or are We the Creator?

 

(3)Tell Me! The water that you drink,

Is it you who cause it from the rainclouds to come down, or are We the Causer of it to come down?

 

(4)If We willed, We verily could make it salt (and undrinkable). Why then do you not give thanks (to Allaah)?

 

(5)Tell Me! The seed that you sow in the ground.

Is it you that make it grow, or are We the Grower?

 

I can go on and on in relating the thought-provoking questions from Allah, but the point comes diametrically to you for not properly and constructively using the faculty of reasoning as it should be make use of it. In refference to the above questions, check the quranic verses, 56:57-77.

 

I think if the truth of the questions become clear to you, you'll have no choice but to follow the truth. And finally as an ethnic (somali) brother, I would honestly urge you to filter the philosophical intakes that you sometimes digest out of obliviousness. Because the greatest decievers are the ones in line of the idealogies of the Shaydaan. Again, please take far distances from those thinkers who think against the truth.

 

Ibros

 

 

"Pure Rational Thinking and Higher Reasoning do require deeper comprehensions for the reality of the world" Anigaa Iri

[Mutakalim]

I think the very perplexing problems inherited from the unprincipled western thinkers are preserved solely to mislead those who happen to be weak in terms of intellectual capacity to reason, or utilize reason for constructive rational means

 

This is mere assertion. No argument. What are examples of "perplexing problems" that are "preserved" to decieve persons of feeble intellect.

 

I am suprised when I see the like of a growing number of people who question the existance of Allah, but can't deliberately consider their crooked philosophical arguments which have no sound and legitimate bases whatsoever!

 

Again, either present your arguments or do not post. Do you know what it means to say an argument is "sound" as opposed to "valid"; know you the nuances thereof. What mean you by crooked?

 

In the "vistas" of epistimology nothing is taken for granted. That I see physical objects, that I exist, and that God exists is not epistimologically "self-evident". Hence, the conception of the "method of doubt". If one starts with doubt one will end in certainty , however, if one starts with certainties one will, ineluctably, end in doubt. Foundationalism has its inherent problems but that is a topic for another thread.

 

As to the Quranic references I will say this once more: this is a philosophical enquiry not a theological cofabulation! It is illogical to talk of grammer and syntax when one is discussing the aseisthetics of culinary arts.

 

[quote And finally as an ethnic (somali) brother, I would honestly urge you to filter the philosophical intakes that you sometimes digest out of obliviousness. Because the greatest decievers are the ones in line of the idealogies of the Shaydaan. Again, please take far distances from those thinkers who think against the truth.

 

Another "nay-sayer" I have to enlighten. Sighs!

:rolleyes:

 

P.S. Some muslims (many islamic philosophers disagree) believe it is outright heretical to question the existence of God; they employ the verse "Abillaahi shakkun fadira as-samaawaati wa al-ardi". However, there is an abundance of other quranic verses that invite the "intellectually soverign" to apply their "reason" in order to ascertain the truth or falsity of their beliefs.

[Alle-ubaahne]

This is mere assertion. No argument. What are examples of "perplexing problems" that are "preserved" to decieve persons of feeble intellect.

 

The psuedo-scholarships of the western thinkers is nothing but a deception to further mislead and confuse their subjects with gross hallucinations. A classic example is the evolution theory of Charles Darwin. I can understand how dearly you incline to their hallucinations, but it has never brought any meaninful sense to the unfortunate followers.

 

Again, either present your arguments or do not post. Do you know what it means to say an argument is "sound" as opposed to "valid"; know you the nuances thereof. What mean you by crooked? !

 

Now, I asked you not only my legitimate questions to your incomplete and less-than-arguments but the ultimate questions of Allah, the creator of everything, and yet I read no response from your Western-wanna-be, and fading philosophy. Your tricks to deviate the questions before you remind me of a book I read about the principles of defensive arguments. Remember we're talking about the existance of God, not the literal meaning for certain english words.

 

 

In the "vistas" of epistimology nothing is taken for granted. That I see physical objects, that I exist, and that God exists is not epistimologically "self-evident". Hence, the conception of the "method of doubt". If one starts with doubt one will end in certainty , however, if one starts with certainties one will, ineluctably, end in doubt. Foundationalism has its inherent problems but that is a topic for another thread.

 

It is epistemology, not epistimology, which is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge. You are exactly saying God doesn't exist becuase, on the bases of your philosophical grounds of knowledge, He is not "self-evident". Now, if your knowledge is only related to the tangible objects, then it's the so-called psuedo-scholarship I was suspeciously pinpointing to. And therefore, it is a faulty reasoning to merely call something knowledge that don't fit the strict definition of knowledge. I recognize your purpose is to try to create an ambiguity so as to promote the altra-secularim irreligiousity among our people. But I think many of your likes had attempted and failed to sell the appeal of ignorance.

 

As to the Quranic references I will say this once more: this is a philosophical enquiry not a theological cofabulation! It is illogical to talk of grammer and syntax when one is discussing the aseisthetics of culinary arts..

 

It's funny to see how full of discrepancies you are by sticking to some tactical denials in terms of downgrading the superior Islamic knowledge over your disorderly psychopath-generated philosophy. I believe your unreliable sources don't have the slightest right to question Islam as concrete knowledge. By the way, why can't you consider the Quranic questions to find for an answers from your know-everything-philosophy? Isn't it funny that some of your dearly atheists believe that philosophy, and in particular, the logical reasoning are not an absulate law that governs the universe! But unfortunately you are using the wrong law as an absulate law to measure the true existance of Allah.

 

 

P.S. Some muslims (many islamic philosophers disagree) believe it is outright heretical to question the existence of God; they employ the verse "Abillaahi shakkun fadira as-samaawaati wa al-ardi". However, there is an abundance of other quranic verses that invite the "intellectually soverign" to apply their "reason" in order to ascertain the truth or falsity of their beliefs.

Another major and gross contradictions! Remember that you placed Islam in the catagory theology by saying "this is a philosophical enquiry not a theological cofabulation!" And now you are admittingly insisting that Islamic philosophers were historicly existed! I don't think you literally understand what you are willing to present here, because you are simply inserting fallicious assumptions as an absulate truth.

 

Your only hope to restore the losted rationale intellect is to reexamine your current philosophical intakes that has blind-folded you to accept the truth from the other side: the side you choosed to distanced once after you arrived in the so-called world of pseudo thinkers who make every conceivable proposition a real truth.

 

For now, start on your way to finding out who is your creator. Take a pause, and think of it for a minute. Do you think you were created to entertain your instincts with mere hallucinations? Now, set aside what they previously thought you against Allah, and concentrate the reality with an unbaised open heart. .... Tell me, do you see anything, even a glimpse of the reality?

[Mutakalim]

Baahane

 

Another well known, and much used, device is to misrepresent my position and attack things I have never said-.

 

Straw man is a old and fallacious technique of debating; caricature your opponent's argument, then knock down the straw man you created. It is memorable because it vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.

 

A classic example is the evolution theory of Charles Darwin. I can understand how dearly you incline to their hallucinations, but it has never brought any meaninful sense to the unfortunate followers.

 

First, Charles Darwin was not a philosopher but a scientist. Need I delineate this common-sense conception. Philosophers do not restrict themselves to the method of induction which the natural sciences apply as a yard-stick.

 

On a different note, I do not accept Darwin's Theory of Evolution via the mechanism of "Natural Selection" because his theory is fatally flawed. I have rejected his theory on the basis of a research I have conducted eight years ago. Perhaps I shall post excrepts of my paper in the Debate section of the fora. I find your mentioning of him to be completly irrelevant to the matter at hand.

 

Now, I asked you not only my legitimate questions to your incomplete and less-than-arguments but the ultimate questions of Allah, the creator of everything, and yet I read no response from your Western-wanna-be, and fading philosophy

 

I must say my annoyance has blossomed into alarm! Think you the theory of evolution via natural selection is a "philosophical" theory. Is that your example of "fading" philosophy. :rolleyes:

 

It's funny to see how full of discrepancies you are by sticking to some tactical denials in terms of downgrading the superior Islamic knowledge over your disorderly psychopath-generated philosophy. I believe your unreliable sources don't have the slightest right to question Islam as concrete knowledge. By the way, why can't you consider the Quranic questions to find for an answers from your know-everything-philosophy? Isn't it funny that some of your dearly atheists believe that philosophy, and in particular, the logical reasoning are not an absulate law that governs the universe! But unfortunately you are using the wrong law as an absulate law to measure the true existance of Allah.

 

This is quite literally the twentieth time I have to address this misapprehension. I am not "downgrading" the "narrational sciences" aught. This is a "rational" enquiry and as such any allusion to the "revealed" is gratitiously unwarranted. This does not mean that the truths lying in the religious texts are not the aim, but they are not mentioned, otherwise it would not be a philosophical, or purely rational, demonstration.

 

I do believe in God, exalted be He, however my belief is not a ramification and/or reprecussion of a priori or a posteriori evidence. It is "faith".

 

At any rate, I formed, prima facie, a favourable impression of you. Unfortunately, you are a dogmatist "muqallid" par excellence.

 

And therefore, it is a faulty reasoning to merely call something knowledge that don't fit the strict definition of knowledge.

 

Was the "dont" a typographical error or is your grammer "greiving"?

 

[quote

And now you are admittingly insisting that Islamic philosophers were historicly existed!

 

A sentence fragment? or a purely nonsensical statment. Is "admittingly" a neologism? Or maybe "altra-secularim" is a word; wait a minute I think you meant "ultra-secularism". Shall I continue in this vein; viz., cavilling your writing unnecessarily? Suffice it to say that spelling is a minor obstacle to clarity. Make sure your grammer and your logic are "formidable" before correcting simple spelling mistakes.

 

It is also rather odd for a punctilously fastidous person to suffer from a most "debilitating" strain of obscurity.

 

I guess I will go back to reading the islamic "kalaam" (ilmul al-kalaam) for now; later, I shall come back to indulge, once more, the lesser species of the SOL fora.

 

With Salaams

PK

 

P.S. I have a very low tolerance for nonsense. Also, do minimize the number of ad hominimums (I do not feel like checking the correct spelling of this word, since you are intent on correcting spelling mistakes, do apprise me if I am wrong.) :rolleyes:

[Sophist]

Salaams chaps,

 

Perhaps it would be advicable to do away anything that might smell a sense of pride; with that done away I am sure one can open one's eyes to the ultimate truth--- the proof of the creator of all things. The indulgence of sophistry perse would make one beguile his sense of being.

 

Aloow Qalbiga nuu fur.

[Mutakalim]

Sophist

 

Inshallah I will pay heed to your advice. But I must confess that I have an incorrigible,(perhaps not)weakness, namely, anger. Oftentimes my posts exihibit a aura of superiority when in fact it is not so; it is interesting what one writes as one is livid.

 

Allahayoow Xanaaqa iyo Kibirka ka dhasha ayaan kaa magangalay... Aamiin

[Mutakalim]

I hope I did not scare him away.

[Alle-ubaahne]

This debate must be ceased, at least from my side, for some reasons.

 

Mr. Mutakalim, you clearly wrote,

That I see physical objects, that I exist, and that God exists is not epistimologically "self-evident".

Also, in one of your last posts, you apparently confessed something that contradicts grossly the above statement by putting this way:

I do believe in God

However, according to the first statement, let me paraphrase what you wrote. The existance of God is not self-evident, therefore God doesn't exist. Now, you are proclaiming as a believer, though I can't confirm exactly what denomination you adhere to, but if you were a Muslim at the time, then you had negated the declaration contract. Don't perceive me wrong, am speaking about what negates or nullifies the Islamic declaration, or Shahada.

 

Now, for two reasons, there is no way we can proceed this debate, since you delved into matters with greater consequences. The first reason is that you have no solid position to stay and advocate for, so that we can constructively debate and come to a final conclusions. The second reason is that I detected some critical discrepancies from your writings that indicate your faulty reasoning and mental imbalances.

 

I personally think before anything, that a fair debate should contain in three ingrediants, respect, fairness, and courage to admitt your faults and humanistic weaknesses. None of these three elements are seen in your writings.

 

And finally, let me point out that the unprincipled western philosophers can only mislead individuals with nothing or little prior knowledge of their religion, i.e. Islam. Those unfortunate individuals they brainwashed were lacking sound Islamic knowledge, and today most of their subjects are suffering from severe psychotic disorders, because the context of their teachings (unprincipled philosophy) prompts nothing but psychotic disorders that negatively influences the pure rational reasoning of the humanistic natural dispositions.

[postman]

Do you guys agree with Friedrich Nietzsche's argument:

 

1. Without God, humans are deprived of absolute values or eternal truths.

2. Absolute values and eternal truths rely upon the existence of God.

 

Gay Science

 

 

PS: by the way Mutakalim, you are bit childish.

[Sophist]

The Science of Happiness is a good book. I use to read it as a bedsite reading-- the man shows he wanted to live a care free life; sounded a broken man. But delightful read it was.

 

Post, i think it is a fair statement, one I would not have no qualms with. Without God morality would have no meaning.

[Sophist]

:)these were the days man!.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Mutakalim:

Kant, Hume et al provide a decisive rebuttal and demonstratively remonstrative criticism of these arguemnts.

Ha-ha-ha-ha

 

Kant, Hume et al were metaphysicians. Utterly ill-equipped to have a epistemologically meaningful say on rational rebuttal of any sort. In fact all philosophy from the ancients till perhaps Comte was nothing but metaphysics pretending to be furthering epistemology. Aristotle asked what is justice? 2500 years ago and since then we haven't inched closer to answering it.

[Sophist]

Then Furqaan was revealed.