Democratization of Islam

[Inquisitor]

Responding Joubin

In the modern world especially the western ideologies, LOGIC has been taken as the foundation of their belief system. As we discussed logic is the tool to find the truth or that which exists. Logic itself is not the truth. In the Godless secular beliefs there is no where to begin establishing our arguments other than Logic itself. We start from ourselves and our minds. On the other hand in God fearing Islamic belief system, human mind is not the base for establishing arguments rather existence as a whole is seen as the truth. So arguments start from existence, because existence existed even before us and that human can deal with existent but not existence. Therefore for Moslems singularity of existence is the base of their philosophy.


Alpha and the Omega! The beginning and the end; now we must see whether the universe started from unity and singularity and oneness or did it start from multiplications and distinctions!

Is the Supreme Leader and Expert assembly absolute or can it ever be temporary? That was my question.

Well there are two different things but somehow connected, people vote to expert assembly and they pick supreme leader.

It can be temporary under some circumstances.

[zubin]

One of the most common versions of naturalism is the position that everything that exists is natural. The naturalist is one who affirms that only nature exists and by implication that the supernatural does not exist... The [natural] world is all of reality; it is all there is; there is no 'other world' "

Above is in contradiction with Islam.

Yeah, but that was not the question. The question was whether the other type of naturalism contradicts with Islam. I defined it as reaction to human nature, human nature being something supernatural.

It can be temporary under some circumstances.

Like if people are enlightened on their own?

[Inquisitor]

Yeah, but that was not the question. The question was whether the other type of naturalism contradicts with Islam. I defined it as reaction to human nature, human nature being something supernatural.

The supernatural means above + nature which refers to entities or phenomena that are not subject to natural laws, and also beyond verifiable measurement.
If a phenomenon can be scientifically demonstrated, it is typically no longer considered to be supernatural.

Before I go into details, tell me if Measurement can be absolute in that system or not ?

Like if people are enlightened on their own?

Simple example; is when Supreme leader is very ill and can no longer make desicions, then someone else will be elected ( you could consider that as "Temporary" )

[zubin]

The supernatural means above + nature which refers to entities or phenomena that are not subject to natural laws, and also beyond verifiable measurement.
If a phenomenon can be scientifically demonstrated, it is typically no longer considered to be supernatural.

Before I go into details, tell me if Measurement can be absolute in that system or not ?

In this system, which one can call "spiritual naturalism", it is conceded that there is an element that can't be measured beforehand as if it is a science. However, there is some scope for measurement based on an accurate understanding of human nature at that time. The near future can be predicted but not the far future. For example, I know before my child is born that a certain type of environment will make him/her start off healthy, but at this point I won't be able to predict what job he will take. Perhaps when he is about 20, however, I will be able to know what conditions will bring about which of his occupational interests. I will have known his interests and will be able to encourage/discourage according to his own freedom. But I will not know/measure that freedom before hand.

So human nature is followed as a supernatural entity. We respect a person because of his/her God-given, supernatural freedom. But we also facilitate that person's supernatural freedom where we can...

Simple example; is when Supreme leader is very ill and can no longer make desicions, then someone else will be elected ( you could consider that as "Temporary" )

So is the Supreme leader concept absolute or can you envision a proper society where such a post is dissolved completely? (as when people are properly trained to be independent and trustworthy, not needing the guidance which the Supreme leader previously provided)

[mike435]

all i know every scince every experiance tells me there has to be more to this world than just what we see

imagin those people who have near death experiances and when they wake up again they were able to say what was going on not only in there room but room next door even thogh the brain was dead

or the perfect way the world works
biology

infact latly the more i learn the more i learn how much else is out there and that i dont know and that amazes me
infact the more you study scince and the more you see how much you doint know is yet another sighn there has to be somthing else out there

[Inquisitor]

So is the Supreme leader concept absolute or can you envision a proper society where such a post is dissolved completely?

I do not call it absolute, otherwise you would say it is despotism.

(as when people are properly trained to be independent and trustworthy, not needing the guidance which the Supreme leader previously provided)

That is a wishful thinking and impossible.

[Inquisitor]

In this system, which one can call "spiritual naturalism", it is conceded that there is an element that can't be measured beforehand as if it is a science. However, there is some scope for measurement based on an accurate understanding of human nature at that time. The near future can be predicted but not the far future. For example, I know before my child is born that a certain type of environment will make him/her start off healthy, but at this point I won't be able to predict what job he will take. Perhaps when he is about 20, however, I will be able to know what conditions will bring about which of his occupational interests. I will have known his interests and will be able to encourage/discourage according to his own freedom. But I will not know/measure that freedom before hand.

So human nature is followed as a supernatural entity. We respect a person because of his/her God-given, supernatural freedom. But we also facilitate that person's supernatural freedom where we can...

[Inquisitor]

Check this example:

Kilometer = 1
Meter = 1000
Decimeter = 10000
Centimeter = 100000
Millimeter = 1000000
Micrometer (micron) = 1000000000
Nanometer = 1000000000000
Angstrom = 10000000000000

And that is just a very small list of the units out there! Forget about heat, pressure and the rest…

But at any moment you can ask what is the smallest unit?

Shia philosophy does not need to know what that smallest unit is or how it may look like! All it needs is to use logic and discover what qualities should the smallest unit have!

[Inquisitor]

[zubin]

That is a wishful thinking and impossible.

? How do you know? What is your understanding of human nature that allows you to claim to know that human beings can not be adequately understanding and trustworthy some time in the future, or even hypothetically? In fact, logic says that you can not make such a claim and that it is a possibility. Certainly, the claim that it is "impossible" isn't an argument.


From my readings in Islam, it seems that spiritual naturalism (environments and action based on accurate understandings of human nature which exists a priori) is essentially and fully congruent because it is based on the essential and accurate notion shared in Islam of progressively attaining a supernatural perfection. I asked for your opinion on this because I want to see whether you take an "essential" interpretation of Islam or not. For instance, does Islam in your view recognize a culture that has the essential characteristics of Islam but is called something else? Any more avoidance of this topic and I'll assume that for some reason (whether it be time or something else) we can't progress logically on it.

Enjoy your time

[mike435]

Any more avoidance of this topic and I'll assume that for some reason (whether it be time or something else) we can't progress logically on it.

.........

[mike435]

we are saying the whole existence came to existence from non-existence!!! Which is flawed, because 0 = 0.

this is an intresting thing
i wish i could remeber the articals
but chaeck out what qouantom physiscs has to say regarding this.

[Inquisitor]

Either you misunderstood me or I didn't write enough. "Impossible" as the concept of similarity/distinction ! (since you asked if they contradict one another or not?)

How do you know? What is your understanding of human nature that allows you to claim to know that human beings can not be adequately understanding and trustworthy some time in the future, or even hypothetically? In fact, logic says that you can not make such a claim and that it is a possibility. Certainly, the claim that it is "impossible" isn't an argument.


From my readings in Islam, it seems that spiritual naturalism (environments and action based on accurate understandings of human nature which exists a priori) is essentially and fully congruent because it is based on the essential and accurate notion shared in Islam of progressively attaining a supernatural perfection. I asked for your opinion on this because I want to see whether you take an "essential" interpretation of Islam or not. For instance, does Islam in your view recognize a culture that has the essential characteristics of Islam but is called something else? Any more avoidance of this topic and I'll assume that for some reason (whether it be time or something else) we can't progress logically on it.

Between two or more things, one can find either distinction or similarity!

“Similarity” itself is something that relates two things, therefore similarity is a quality and it is the same between the two things. If two things were absolutely the same then they would be in fact one thing! So similarity by itself is one.

So when we see two apparently identical red balls, they are differentiated from one another by space, if of course there is no other apparent distinction.

“Distinction” or difference itself is something that sets two things apart; it is a quality that is not available in both of the two compared things but is available in one. This clarifies that the notion of two absolutely distinct things is logically invalid. Because if one has nothing to do with the other then one of them actually would not be observed by human mind!!! Furthermore “distinction” itself is by itself one! but as a quality between two or more is not one!

[zubin]

Either you misunderstood me or I didn't write enough. "Impossible" as the concept of similarity/distinction ! (since you asked if they contradict one another or not?)



Between two or more things, one can find either distinction or similarity!

“Similarity” itself is something that relates two things, therefore similarity is a quality and it is the same between the two things. If two things were absolutely the same then they would be in fact one thing! So similarity by itself is one.

So when we see two apparently identical red balls, they are differentiated from one another by space, if of course there is no other apparent distinction.

“Distinction” or difference itself is something that sets two things apart; it is a quality that is not available in both of the two compared things but is available in one. This clarifies that the notion of two absolutely distinct things is logically invalid. Because if one has nothing to do with the other then one of them actually would not be observed by human mind!!! Furthermore “distinction” itself is by itself one! but as a quality between two or more is not one!

Listen. You trail off. You mistake sameness as a token or detailed sameness with that of essential. These are all concepts discussed in Islamic philosophy as well. Something can have the essential characteristic of something else but not be the exact same. Similarity, in any case, does not mean sameness. There can be a degree of similarity and difference. One thing can be more similar to another thing than something else. I'm interested if you have a disagreement with these particular rebuttals.

All you've left me with here is a sort of Wahhabism. I understand Islam is virtous but I see the neglect of the same or similar virtue elsewhere as naive and pretentious. I'm sorry.

What I do understand is the defense of Islam against misunderstandings, as well as an attack on colonialism. But I'm not someone who deserves that type of propaganda because I'm past that and myself have read much in Islam and am interested in philosophical debate within Islam, and in relation to serious discussion about the relation of Islamic mores with the future and the rest of the world. So if your purpose on this forum is solely to defend Islamic logic, but not necessarily to engage in logic, that's fine with me. At least I'll know your purpose here and won't waste my time.

Vassalam.

[Inquisitor]

You trail off. You mistake sameness as a token or detailed sameness with that of essential. These are all concepts discussed in Islamic philosophy as well.

All those concepts are discussed in Islamic Philosophy. We cannot adopt or recognize them because they contradict Islam. For example, "Tathlith" is discussed too but we strongly reject it, because it contradicts "Towhid".

All you've left me with here is a sort of Wahhabism.

I didn't know Shia Islam is this much close to Wahhabi Islam (according to you)

So if your purpose on this forum is solely to defend Islamic logic, but not necessarily to engage in logic, that's fine with me.

Logic itself is not the truth.

The ultimate battle and conflict can be nothing other than the battle between Islam and everything else!