/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Logic in Religion



j4763
08-01-2006, 04:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Mazed
Doesnt a cult normally involve all weird kind of rituals and sacrifices etc,




:?
Funny you should say that, to me a lot of established religions do just that. :rollseyes
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
IbnAbdulHakim
08-01-2006, 09:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by j4763
Funny you should say that, to me a lot of established religions do just that. :rollseyes
lol shows how little you understand religion :p
Reply

mlsh27
08-01-2006, 09:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by j4763
Funny you should say that, to me a lot of established religions do just that. :rollseyes
I can understand how you think that. There are mnay times I question Islam for some random stuff..like shaving a baby's head when it is born and not being allowed to have dogs in the house...I pretty much always get the answer "Just trust Allah. He probably does this just to see if you will follow." But to me I generally follow logic, and question things that are illogical.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
08-01-2006, 09:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by mlsh27
I can understand how you think that. There are mnay times I question Islam for some random stuff..like shaving a baby's head when it is born and not being allowed to have dogs in the house...I pretty much always get the answer "Just trust Allah. He probably does this just to see if you will follow." But to me I generally follow logic, and question things that are illogical.
i tend to do the same, and i must say everything about Islam makes perfect sence to me Alhamdullilah.

If there is anything a person doesnt understand or finds illogical about islam its most probably due to his lack of understanding.
Btw sis i always understood why we should have Dogs in the house, its cause cleanliness is half our deen and dogs are just dirty right. Also dont we shave a baby's head so that we can measure the weight of gold we should give in charity? because thats what i've heard, subhanAllah im not sure u kno, neva saw hadith about it now that i think about it. im researching!!!
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
mlsh27
08-01-2006, 09:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Mazed
i tend to do the same, and i must say everything about Islam makes perfect sence to me Alhamdullilah.

If there is anything a person doesnt understand or finds illogical about islam its most probably due to his lack of understanding.
Btw sis i always understood why we should have Dogs in the house, its cause cleanliness is half our deen and dogs are just dirty right. Also dont we shave a baby's head so that we can measure the weight of gold we should give in charity? because thats what i've heard, subhanAllah im not sure u kno, neva saw hadith about it now that i think about it. im researching!!!
I think it is hilarious when people say dogs are dirty, when they are just as dirty as cats. Thus that argument is very illogical. Also, I have heard about the weight in gold, but if you think about it A. who has gold anymore and B. babies hardly have any hair when they are born;thus one would donate like less than a gram.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
08-01-2006, 09:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by mlsh27
I think it is hilarious when people say dogs are dirty, when they are just as dirty as cats. Thus that argument is very illogical. Also, I have heard about the weight in gold, but if you think about it A. who has gold anymore and B. babies hardly have any hair when they are born;thus one would donate like less than a gram.
no sis the WEIGHT in gold, think about it hair doesnt weight very much and dont take the word "gold" literally, it just means money i think.

sis you seem to know a lot about the hygiene system of cats n dogs, now personally i always thought of dogs as the dirty ones, however i heard islamically cats have been allowed as pets due o there cleanliness. what do you base your statement of cats being dirty on? what do they do thats so dirty?
Reply

mlsh27
08-01-2006, 10:03 PM
Speaking as someone who has had several dogs and cats throughout my life, cats are dirtier than dogs. I was even a pet bather and noticed the same. Dogs go to the bathroom outside. Cats go in a litterbox and get litter all over the house. Both eat feces. Both groom themselves regularly. Both step in their own excrement. Both are loving. Dogs are more like friends, while cats are more like children. Both throw up on occasion. Both lick you. Anythingn else you need to know?
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
08-01-2006, 10:05 PM
i see, and all this time i thought cats are clean :X
Reply

mlsh27
08-01-2006, 10:07 PM
It's funny because I have heard people say part of the reason Muslims aren't allowed to eat pigs is because they are so dirty, but they are just as dirty as any other farm animal. Also, I have heard it is because pigs eat feces-pretty much every species of animal eats feces of some sort.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
08-01-2006, 10:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by mlsh27
It's funny because I have heard people say part of the reason Muslims aren't allowed to eat pigs is because they are so dirty, but they are just as dirty as any other farm animal. Also, I have heard it is because pigs eat feces-pretty much every species of animal eats feces of some sort.
hmm... you have quite a lot of doubts, im 100% pigs are extremely dirty compared to other animals, zakir naik cleared that one up. Even eating a well cooked piece of pork doesnt completely eliminate chances of catching a disease. Zakir naik gave a lot of good points sis, but i saw it a long time ago :X
Reply

mlsh27
08-01-2006, 10:16 PM
A fully cooked cow doesn't kill all of the disease either so what is your point? Pigs are more intelligent than other farm animals. In terms of dirtiness, there is no difference- I have lived on a ranch with cows, pigs, goats, horses, chickens, etc.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
08-01-2006, 10:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by mlsh27
A fully cooked cow doesn't kill all of the disease either so what is your point? Pigs are more intelligent than other farm animals. In terms of dirtiness, there is no difference- I have lived on a ranch with cows, pigs, goats, horses, chickens, etc.
like i sed, zakir naik, chek out his lectures inshaAllah :thumbs_up

honestly sis, he nicely proves in scientific terms what makes pigs more dirty then most animals!
Reply

mlsh27
08-01-2006, 10:22 PM
Science can be used both ways...anyways back to the topic at hand...
Reply

azim
08-01-2006, 10:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by mlsh27
A fully cooked cow doesn't kill all of the disease either so what is your point? Pigs are more intelligent than other farm animals. In terms of dirtiness, there is no difference- I have lived on a ranch with cows, pigs, goats, horses, chickens, etc.
The point the brother was making earlier is that pigs have substanially higher amount of toxins and a much higher level of dangerous trans fat than any other commonly eaten animal.

Anyway, we shouldn't presume that the above reason is the reason we're not allowed to eat pig meat. The deen is proven to us by other methods.
Reply

mlsh27
08-01-2006, 10:32 PM
Azim, I can scientifically prove that cats are just as dirty as dogs. Science is constantly twisted to prove the point one wants to make...
Reply

czgibson
08-01-2006, 10:40 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by azim
Philosophers have all pretty much unanimously agreed that our logic is very limited, and is very restricted, a single piece of information can upset the logical conclusions we have come to. That isn't to say that we shouldnt use logic, but we shouldnt assume that our logic is the greatest and most fail proof method by which to life.
Hey! Don't diss logic - without it you wouldn't be conversing on the internet!

I'm not sure what you're talking about here, so just to be clear, perhaps you could name some of the philosophers you have in mind and what exactly they've said about logic and its efficacy.

Peace
Reply

MuslimCONVERT
08-01-2006, 11:00 PM
The issue is what does it entail to use logic. For example, is a Muslim saying, "Just trust Allah" illogical? If you ask why a Muslim can't eat pork or have a dog in the house, and you talk to him/her about it for a while, and finally they just say "trust Allah" -there is nothing illogical about this. The reason is because The Qu'ran is meticulously preserved, and is the complete word of God. Now a Muslim does not accept the Qu'ran on blind faith, and neither do we accept the Messenger Muhammad (saas) on blind faith. In fact, the root word for Iman, the Arabic word for faith, is Eminah, which means, "Confirmation." -So a Muslim has faith, but that's only because he/she has thought about al Qu'ran and the personality of Muhammad (saas), deduced that the Qu'ran is the word of God and Muhammad (saas) is His final Messenger. This has been proven to the Muslim by logic and reasoning. So then, when a Muslim finds something in Al-Qu'ran that may not have a suitable answer immediatley, and says simple, "Trust Allah." -This is not illogical or unreasonable. After all, the Qu'ran is from God and very logical evidences and proofs can be shown to deduce that. So if the Qu'ran is undoubtedly from God, as it is, then one need not question it's dictates when an individual comes to a question they can't find an answer to immediatley.

It is not the same as a Christian saying, "Trust Jesus." -Because the next logical question qould be, "where do I find what he said? and they say, "The Bible" and then the next question is, "How do I know he said that?" and then one goes on to relate the endless discoveries and proofs that question the Bibles authenticity.

The real issue comes down to whether or not one is logical enough and rational enough, and uses their reason enough to "trust Allah" -and not whether or not Allah (swt) was right. Once you trust Him you know He's right, and you trust Him because you used reason in the first place!

Salaamz!
Reply

azim
08-01-2006, 11:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,


Hey! Don't diss logic - without it you wouldn't be conversing on the internet!

I'm not sure what you're talking about here, so just to be clear, perhaps you could name some of the philosophers you have in mind and what exactly they've said about logic and its efficacy.

Peace
The source is a series called Greek, Indian and Arabic Logic, I'll look up the page number and get back to you.

As a whole, I'm not saying that logic should not be used or relied upon. It's just important to keep in mind that logic is quite often based upon the knowledge we have open to us, and our knowledge is always limited and restricted - so logic too will have its limits and restrictions.
As for the Islamic practices of dog-banishment and baby-shaving, I can't see any logical worldly reason why those would be good things for people to do.
As far as shaving the babies head - a logical reason could be that it strengthens the tips of the hair and hair often grows thicker and stronger. As for not keeping dogs as pets, you could argue that maintaining a dog is a waste of money when that money could be going elsewhere (i.e. human beings who are starving).
Reply

mlsh27
08-01-2006, 11:07 PM
However, anyone can still question Islam easily...it all comes down to trust. Do you trust that the people wrote the qu'ran down as it was told? Do you trust what Muhammad pbuh said he experienced? And to be honest, I do have some doubt because people shouldn't be trusted and people are well-known liars. Only Allah swt knows the truth, but we will never 100% know. For me I take the out look "better safe than sorry"
Reply

mlsh27
08-01-2006, 11:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by azim

As far as shaving the babies head - a logical reason could be that it strengthens the tips of the hair and hair often grows thicker and stronger. As for not keeping dogs as pets, you could argue that maintaining a dog is a waste of money when that money could be going elsewhere (i.e. human beings who are starving).
On the opposite side of your logic, but if you do not bring this stray dog into your house, it will die on the streets or be euthanized. I view animals and people on the same level, so I don't buy your argument.
Reply

czgibson
08-01-2006, 11:23 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by MuslimCONVERT
The real issue comes down to whether or not one is logical enough and rational enough, and uses their reason enough to "trust Allah" -and not whether or not Allah (swt) was right. Once you trust Him you know He's right, and you trust Him because you used reason in the first place!
Right - a classic example of circular logic. You believe because you believe.

format_quote Originally Posted by azim
The source is a series called Greek, Indian and Arabic Logic, I'll look up the page number and get back to you.
Great. So do you actually have any particular philosophers in mind?

As a whole, I'm not saying that logic should not be used or relied upon. It's just important to keep in mind that logic is quite often based upon the knowledge we have open to us, and our knowledge is always limited and restricted - so logic too will have its limits and restrictions.
Of course - you've pretty much given a definition of logic there. It can't tell us what's true; it can only evaluate arguments, and tell us whether conclusions follow from given premises. For instance, this argument:

All chickens are rabbits

All rabbits are blue

Therefore all chickens are blue

is logically valid, but its premises are not. We need to use our own judgement to decide whether any particular premises are true or not. For that we need evidence.

As far as shaving the babies head - a logical reason could be that it strengthens the tips of the hair and hair often grows thicker and stronger. As for not keeping dogs as pets, you could argue that maintaining a dog is a waste of money when that money could be going elsewhere (i.e. human beings who are starving).
You could argue these things, but you could just as well argue that chickens are blue - the point is that many people abide by these rulings when there is no real reason for doing so. Something that often happens in cults (as a tenuous relation to the supposed topic of this thread...).

Baldness is hereditary, so babies are powerless in its wake, and neo-natal shaving will make no difference; and keeping almost any other animal is also costly, so the specific prohibition against dogs seems odd to say the least.

Why make straw-clutching justifications for something that you only believe because of the argument from authority anyway?

Peace
Reply

Woodrow
08-01-2006, 11:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Mazed
no sis the WEIGHT in gold, think about it hair doesnt weight very much and dont take the word "gold" literally, it just means money i think.

sis you seem to know a lot about the hygiene system of cats n dogs, now personally i always thought of dogs as the dirty ones, however i heard islamically cats have been allowed as pets due o there cleanliness. what do you base your statement of cats being dirty on? what do they do thats so dirty?
Having had many cats, I beleive I can speak from experience. Now, it is true a cat will appear to be licking itself clean often. But, the reality is it is merely trying to get the last bit of splattered blood from it's last kill. It is true that a cat can be trained to use a litter box, but when it don't feel like using it, you will have a very unpleasent surpise in either your pillow or your slippers. A hungry cat is also a notorious garbage can digger, if you don't feed it on demand or what it wants.

Another pleasure of a cat is the frequent "gifts" of partialy eaten, decaying birds and mice you will find in very strange places. Now, if you ever want a truly odiferous house, get a nice tom cat who will gladly "perfume" any soft furniture you value.

Last but not least. Give a cat a bath. It is advisable to have the EMT's standing by, before trying that.
Reply

mlsh27
08-01-2006, 11:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
Having had many cats, I beleive I can speak from experience. Now, it is true a cat will appear to be licking itself clean often. But, the reality is it is merely trying to get the last bit of splattered blood from it's last kill. It is true that a cat can be trained to use a litter box, but when it don't feel like using it, you will have a very unpleasent surpise in either your pillow or your slippers. A hungry cat is also a notorious garbage can digger, if you don't feed it on demand or what it wants.

Another pleasure of a cat is the frequent "gifts" of partialy eaten, decaying birds and mice you will find in very strange places. Now, if you ever want a truly odiferous house, get a nice tom cat who will gladly "perfume" any soft furniture you value.

Last but not least. Give a cat a bath. It is advisable to have the EMT's standing by, before trying that.
LOL..so true! As a former pet bather, I always dreaded cats over dogs. One good brush of one of my cats produces more hair than my dog over her 12 years of brushing.
Reply

azim
08-01-2006, 11:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by mlsh27
On the opposite side of your logic, but if you do not bring this stray dog into your house, it will die on the streets or be euthanized. I view animals and people on the same level, so I don't buy your argument.
I agree its important to take care of animals, as shown in the hadith: -

Narrated Ibn 'Umar: The Prophet said, "A woman entered the (Hell) Fire because of a cat which she had tied, neither giving it food nor setting it free to eat from the vermin of the earth." (Book #54, Hadith #535)

Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "A man saw a dog eating mud from (the severity of) thirst. So, that man took a shoe (and filled it) with water and kept on pouring the water for the dog till it quenched its thirst. So Allah approved of his deed and made him to enter Paradise." And narrated Hamza bin 'Abdullah: My father said. "During the lifetime of Allah's Apostle, the dogs used to urinate, and pass through the mosques (come and go), nevertheless they never used to sprinkle water on it (urine of the dog.)" (Book #4, Hadith #174)

Although do you really place animals and humans as equal?

Great. So do you actually have any particular philosophers in mind?
There were quotes from the early Greek philosophers, Aristotle included. Just bare with me and I'll post all relevant sections.

Why make straw-clutching justifications for something that you only believe because of the argument from authority anyway?
I just showing that if you wanted to you logic in terms of worldy benefits - you could justify it 'logically' in those ways.

My own personal justification would be that as a religious follower, you either accept a religion is true or false. You use your logic, your availiable knowledge, and all the tools open to you to reach these ends. If you accept a religion as true, then you will accept the vague areas that have no clear benefit or drawback and (here follows the line all atheists and agnostics seem to hate) you 'trust in God'. Since you have already come to the conclusion that God exists, and that his revelation is true, you don't need to find any clear reasons to follow things such as eating pigs meat or not keeping dogs.
Reply

mlsh27
08-01-2006, 11:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by azim
Although do you really place animals and humans as equal?


Yes, I do. Why would I have said it if I didn't? Besides, we are animals too.
Reply

azim
08-01-2006, 11:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by mlsh27
Yes, I do. Why would I have said it if I didn't? Besides, we are animals too.
So if you had a bottle of water, and in front of you was a kitten about to die of thirst and a baby about to die with thirst - and you only had enough water for one - you would be stumped as to which you would save?
Reply

mlsh27
08-01-2006, 11:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by azim
So if you had a bottle of water, and in front of you was a kitten about to die of thirst and a baby about to die with thirst - and you only had enough water for one - you would be stumped as to which you would save?
Yes. I know you won't get it- very few do.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
08-01-2006, 11:58 PM
One needs to distinguish between a practice that is illogical and a practice whose underlying wisdoms are unknown. Just because one does not understand the wisdoms behind a practice does not constitute sufficient grounds for a logical objection to the practice.

As far as Islam is concerned, there are many practices which we simply do because we have been commanded to live according to this code of life. There are many practices in Islam whice are implemented solely for religious reasons. You can't convince a non-muslim that there is some inherent benefit in entering the washroom with your left foot, making tawaaf, or eating with your right hand, or not keeping a dog as a pet, or not shaving half your head and leaving the other half, etc. These are regulations that are part of the complete way of life Islam has brought. They may not necessarily have individual or distinct reasons behind them.

Allah prohibited Adam from eating from 1 tree as a test for him, not that there was anything special about that 1 tree. That test in paradise was a foreshadowing of the tests he would endure on earth. God has prescribed for us simple laws to follow and submit ourselves to. Islam means submission. We submit ourselves to the system of life ordained by God and implement it in our lives.

A non-muslim came to Salmân Al-Farisî and tried to make fun of Islam saying, "Has your prophet really taught you every petty detail of life, even how to wash yourself after you defecate?!" Salmân Al-Farisi responded without hesitation, "Yes! He taught us." And he went on to explain the etiquettes. (Sunan Ibn Mâjah, Sunan At-Tirmidhî, Musnad Ahmad). He didn't try to rationalize and present medical reasons to justify the practices. The fact that they come from the Messenger of God is sufficient justification. Salmân's open and frank manner confounded his opponent.

So for the Muslim who has no doubts that such practices were ordained by God, then the only logical response is, "We hear and we obey" (Qur'an 24:51). For the one who has doubts, they need to first confirm their belief in the Qur'an and the Sunnah through logical investigation. A well-researched and scholarly book on the veracity of Islam is Dr. Laurence Brown's The First and Final Commandment:
http://www.leveltruth.com/ffcommain.asp

Regards
Reply

azim
08-01-2006, 11:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by mlsh27
Yes. I know you won't get it- very few do.
As a Muslim sis, I would I really recommend saving the child's life based on the following ayah of the Quran: -

So we ordained that if anyone killed a person unjustly, it would be as if they had slaughted mankind completely and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if they had saved the entire human race. 5:32
Reply

mlsh27
08-02-2006, 12:01 AM
Like I said Azim, I equate animals and humans. That ayah doesn't change my mind one bit because there are also several about animals. Also, in your example, water can always be split up.
Reply

MuslimCONVERT
08-02-2006, 12:56 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,


Right - a classic example of circular logic. You believe because you believe.

That is not what I said (that one believes because they believe). I think it's preposterous to believe because you believe. I think this is one of the biggest fallacies of some of our Christian brethren. In fact I said the exact opposite. What I said was, the first step is using reason to determine whether or not Al Qu'ran is from God and whether or not Muhammad (saas) is a Messenger from God. Once you have used reason to determine this, then and only then is the "just trust Allah" arguement applicable.
Reply

czgibson
08-02-2006, 01:08 AM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by MuslimCONVERT
That is not what I said (that one believes because they believe). I think it's preposterous to believe because you believe. I think this is one of the biggest fallacies of some of our Christian brethren. In fact I said the exact opposite. What I said was, the first step is using reason to determine whether or not Al Qu'ran is from God and whether or not Muhammad (saas) is a Messenger from God. Once you have used reason to determine this, then and only then is the "just trust Allah" arguement applicable.
You believe that abiding by the prohibition on dogs (for example) is rational because you believe you have used reason to establish that the authority on which you base that judgement is trustworthy. In what way is that reasoning not circular?

Peace
Reply

MuslimCONVERT
08-02-2006, 01:08 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by mlsh27
However, anyone can still question Islam easily...it all comes down to trust. Do you trust that the people wrote the qu'ran down as it was told? Do you trust what Muhammad pbuh said he experienced? And to be honest, I do have some doubt because people shouldn't be trusted and people are well-known liars. Only Allah swt knows the truth, but we will never 100% know. For me I take the out look "better safe than sorry"
Well, there is no need to trust whether or not Muhammad (saas) was telling the truth about the revelation he recieved. Most modern scholars, even among the non-Muslims finally admit that he experienced something I.E. that he wasn't simply lying about recieving some sort of experience.

This has come to be generally accepted because of incidents in Muhammads life that have no logical answer as to what made Muhammad (saas) respond or think in certain ways at certain times.

For example, When Muhammad (Saas) and Abu Bakr (raa) were hiding in the cave, from the Meccans, Abu Bakr (raa) was sure that they were about to be killed as the Meccans approached the cave. So what did Muhammad (saas) do? If he were lying I would suggest he would say "grab your sword Abu Bakr, and prepare to fight our way out of this..." -or maybe a liar in his position would say, "Lets move deeper into the cave..." -or even, "Let's find a back way out.." -But what was Muhammad's response? He said, "We are three...Allah (swt) is with us..."

Because of this and equally convincing episodes in Muhammad's (saas) life, it becomes more difficult to call him a liar, and much easier to believe He was recieving messages from God.

This is why non-Muslim Montgomery Watt has written, "To suppose Muhammad an impostor raises more problems than it solves..." And many agree with him.

Due to this realization, non-Muslim orientalists attempt to come up with all sorts of preposterous suppositions as to where Muhammad (saas) recieved his visions from. For example, Atheist Maxime Rodinson attributes it to some sort of split personality disorder, in which there is Muhammad (saas) and his alter ego Allah (swt) -Astagfur Allah... which is beyond the realm of silly verging on the edge of impossible when other facts of Muhammad's life are taken into consideration...

This is why the Qu'ran condemns those so strongly who do not use their reason... because reason leads to Islam...
Reply

MuslimCONVERT
08-02-2006, 01:14 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,


You believe that abiding by the prohibition on dogs (for example) is rational because you believe you have used reason to establish that the authority on which you base that judgement is trustworthy. In what way is that reasoning not circular?

Peace
In the same way that it is not circular logic to trust a renown mathematician who I personally know to be trustworthy to solve a math problem for me that I cannot solve. If he was known and renowned in his field, and I knew him personally to be trustworthy, then I would not need to know how he solved my problem. I would use reason to establish that he is not a liar based off of common knowledge, that he is an expert in the field based on the commendation of other knowledgeable men in his field, and that he has a degree in mathematics certifying him.

When he solves my math problem I'm not going to worry about whether or not I want to turn it into my teacher the next day thinking maybe he got it wrong. This is not circular logic, but logic, plain and simple.

The more appropriate question is, how is this circular logic?
Reply

mlsh27
08-02-2006, 01:16 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by MuslimCONVERT
Well, there is no need to trust whether or not Muhammad (saas) was telling the truth about the revelation he recieved. Most modern scholars, even among the non-Muslims finally admit that he experienced something I.E. that he wasn't simply lying about recieving some sort of experience.

This has come to be generally accepted because of incidents in Muhammads life that have no logical answer as to what made Muhammad (saas) respond or think in certain ways at certain times.

For example, When Muhammad (Saas) and Abu Bakr (raa) were hiding in the cave, from the Meccans, Abu Bakr (raa) was sure that they were about to be killed as the Meccans approached the cave. So what did Muhammad (saas) do? If he were lying I would suggest he would say "grab your sword Abu Bakr, and prepare to fight our way out of this..." -or maybe a liar in his position would say, "Lets move deeper into the cave..." -or even, "Let's find a back way out.." -But what was Muhammad's response? He said, "We are three...Allah (swt) is with us..."

Because of this and equally convincing episodes in Muhammad's (saas) life, it becomes more difficult to call him a liar, and much easier to believe He was recieving messages from God.

This is why non-Muslim Montgomery Watt has written, "To suppose Muhammad an impostor raises more problems than it solves..." And many agree with him.

Due to this realization, non-Muslim orientalists attempt to come up with all sorts of preposterous suppositions as to where Muhammad (saas) recieved his visions from. For example, Atheist Maxime Rodinson attributes it to some sort of split personality disorder, in which there is Muhammad (saas) and his alter ego Allah (swt) -Astagfur Allah... which is beyond the realm of silly verging on the edge of impossible when other facts of Muhammad's life are taken into consideration...

This is why the Qu'ran condemns those so strongly who do not use their reason... because reason leads to Islam...
Just because many people agree doesn't make them right. Ex: the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, etc.
Reply

MuslimCONVERT
08-02-2006, 01:22 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by mlsh27
Just because many people agree doesn't make them right. Ex: the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, etc.
Indeed I agree. one of my favorite quotes is "Universal truth is not measured in mass appeal."

However, I was not saying that "these guys say it is true and so it's true." What I was saying was "These guys say it's true, and this is why they say it, and I have yet to find a reasonable objection to their claims."
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
08-02-2006, 10:56 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by MuslimCONVERT
The issue is what does it entail to use logic. For example, is a Muslim saying, "Just trust Allah" illogical? If you ask why a Muslim can't eat pork or have a dog in the house, and you talk to him/her about it for a while, and finally they just say "trust Allah" -there is nothing illogical about this. The reason is because The Qu'ran is meticulously preserved, and is the complete word of God. Now a Muslim does not accept the Qu'ran on blind faith, and neither do we accept the Messenger Muhammad (saas) on blind faith. In fact, the root word for Iman, the Arabic word for faith, is Eminah, which means, "Confirmation." -So a Muslim has faith, but that's only because he/she has thought about al Qu'ran and the personality of Muhammad (saas), deduced that the Qu'ran is the word of God and Muhammad (saas) is His final Messenger. This has been proven to the Muslim by logic and reasoning. So then, when a Muslim finds something in Al-Qu'ran that may not have a suitable answer immediatley, and says simple, "Trust Allah." -This is not illogical or unreasonable. After all, the Qu'ran is from God and very logical evidences and proofs can be shown to deduce that. So if the Qu'ran is undoubtedly from God, as it is, then one need not question it's dictates when an individual comes to a question they can't find an answer to immediatley.

It is not the same as a Christian saying, "Trust Jesus." -Because the next logical question qould be, "where do I find what he said? and they say, "The Bible" and then the next question is, "How do I know he said that?" and then one goes on to relate the endless discoveries and proofs that question the Bibles authenticity.

The real issue comes down to whether or not one is logical enough and rational enough, and uses their reason enough to "trust Allah" -and not whether or not Allah (swt) was right. Once you trust Him you know He's right, and you trust Him because you used reason in the first place!

Salaamz!

subhanAllah, reps for you brother, wat a brilliant explenation !
JazakAllah khair wa barakAllah feekum!
Reply

j4763
08-02-2006, 12:23 PM
Umm... right so... What’s the difference between a cult and a religion? :X
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
08-02-2006, 01:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by j4763
Umm... right so... What’s the difference between a cult and a religion? :X
wrong thread:

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...lt+religion%3F



In this thread we are discussing if religion agrees with logic. And we gather that Islam does while the others do not ! :p



PS: Ye i know you wont agree to that :rollseyes
Reply

Abdul Fattah
08-02-2006, 01:45 PM
To get back on the cat vs. dog issue.
What you see is not what you get, there's a good reason why a dog is considered more dirty. When you put a dog's saliva next to a cat one's you 'll find the dog has much higher bacteria cultures.
Cat do not eat there own faeces. That is simply not true, had cats all my life they were afraid of even touching their own faeces. It' even their natural habit to bury that stuff so it gets out of the way. A cat washes itself. Ok I admit, with its own saliva, that doesn't sound tastefull. But it's better then a dog who just doesn't care how dirty he is.

Oh beside I got a technique to wash a cat without problems. Just put them in an empty bath, and if you have a good relationship with your cat it will alow you to hold her when it's calm. Position the cat so that if you let the tab run gently, it's feet won't get wet. Next put one hand over it's head covering up the eyes so it doesn't see what you're doing. Then open up the watertab and gently poor water over the cat by petting here with a hand full of water. As long as the cat doesn't realise you're pooriong water, and as long as you don't use to much, it won't be a problem, oh you might want to use water at body-temperature. It takes some practise, but once you got the technique, works like a charm.

Gotta :love: cats
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
08-02-2006, 03:31 PM
^ JazakAllah khair steve :), i knew it :p
Reply

czgibson
08-02-2006, 04:01 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by MuslimCONVERT
In the same way that it is not circular logic to trust a renown mathematician who I personally know to be trustworthy to solve a math problem for me that I cannot solve.
That reasoning is circular in exactly the same way, as the argument from authority often is. However, trusting a mathematician to perform a calculation for you is very different from the dog-banishing ruling that we've been discussing.

There are a number of differences: firstly, using Allah as an authority is questionable, because his existence is not certain. Secondly, the mathematician's work can be independendently verified, whereas the reasons for Allah's ruling cannot.

When he solves my math problem I'm not going to worry about whether or not I want to turn it into my teacher the next day thinking maybe he got it wrong. This is not circular logic, but logic, plain and simple.
If you don't mind me asking: how much do you actually know about logic?
The more appropriate question is, how is this circular logic?
I can't think of a way of expressing it more concisely than I did before:

You believe that abiding by the prohibition on dogs (for example) is rational because you believe you have used reason to establish that the authority on which you base that judgement is trustworthy.

At each point where I've written "you believe", there is a judgement call being made, which may or may not be correct.

1. The prohibition on dogs may or may not be rational. At the moment, that is unknown.

2. Whether or not you used reason in assessing the claims of the Qur'an is highly debatable.

In spite of these unknowns, you have used claim #2 to support claim #1, and called it logical. See here: begging the question.

Peace
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
08-02-2006, 05:18 PM
Saying that one belief falls about as the logical conclusion of another is not circular reasoning at all. Saying that the one who accepts Islam to be true must abide by its practices is logical reasoning.

Premise/Supposition: Islam is true.
We must abide by the rules and regulations of Islam.
The Prophet's teachings are a source for regulations in Islam.
The Prophet forbade keeping dogs as pets.
Conclusion: One may not keep dogs as pets.

This is by no means circular reasoning because the conclusion is not assumed in the original premise (the supposition). This is sound deductive reasoning.

It would be fallacious only if one tried to prove to a non-muslim that they must abide by the Islamic prohibition on dogs, because the non-muslim does not accept the premise that Islam is true. Thus, one must first establish the premise that Islam is true before moving on to establish the prohibition of dogs as pets in Islam.

Regards
Reply

czgibson
08-02-2006, 05:48 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Saying that one belief falls about as the logical conclusion of another is not circular reasoning at all. Saying that the one who accepts Islam to be true must abide by its practices is logical reasoning.
True, but this is not quite the example we're discussing (unless I've got the wrong end of the stick).

Premise/Supposition: Islam is true.
We must abide by the rules and regulations of Islam.
The Prophet's teachings are a source for regulations in Islam.
The Prophet forbade keeping dogs as pets.
Conclusion: One may not keep dogs as pets.
What we've actually been discussing is an argument that would look more like this:

Premise #1: It is rational to accept Islam as being true.
Premise #2: Muslims should follow the teachings set out by the Prophet (pbuh).
Premise #3: These teachings are rational.
Conclusion: The prohibition on dogs is rational.

So, in other words, the prohibition on dogs is only rational if one accepts that believing Islam is rational, and its teachings are also. Doesn't this look like a circular argument to you?

This is by no means circular reasoning because the conclusion is not assumed in the original premise (the supposition). This is sound deductive reasoning.
Your example would be sound if you made a slight adjustment in the conclusion (viz.: Muslims may not keep dogs as pets) otherwise you're committing the same fallacy you mention below!

It would be fallacious only if one tried to prove to a non-muslim that they must abide by the Islamic prohibition on dogs, because the non-muslim does not accept the premise that Islam is true.
True - but surely claiming that a particular teaching is rational is to do just that? If something is rational, then it should have universal validity, no?

Peace
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
08-02-2006, 07:00 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
What we've actually been discussing is an argument that would look more like this:

Premise #1: It is rational to accept Islam as being true.
Premise #2: Muslims should follow the teachings set out by the Prophet (pbuh).
Premise #3: These teachings are rational.
Conclusion: The prohibition on dogs is rational.
Iff one accepts Islam to be true, then the prohibition concerning dogs logically follows as a result of that.
So, in other words, the prohibition on dogs is only rational if one accepts that believing Islam is rational, and its teachings are also. Doesn't this look like a circular argument to you?
No because it is a conditional statement. If someone accepts Islam to be true, then the prohibition is logical. Whether Islam is true of not is a totally seperate argument.
Your example would be sound if you made a slight adjustment in the conclusion (viz.: Muslims may not keep dogs as pets) otherwise you're committing the same fallacy you mention below!
Since my original supposition was 'Islam is true' I meant that anyone who accepts this premise would have to follow the prohibition. So it means that Muslims do not keep dogs as pets as a logical consequence of their acceptance of Islam as the truth.
True - but surely claiming that a particular teaching is rational is to do just that? If something is rational, then it should have universal validity, no?
It doesn't make sense to me to talk exclusively about one specific teaching as being either universally rational or not because it comes after one's acceptance of Islam.

Regards
Reply

czgibson
08-02-2006, 07:34 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
No because it is a conditional statement. If someone accepts Islam to be true, then the prohibition is logical. Whether Islam is true of not is a totally seperate argument.
This point has been missed so many times that I'm only going to repeat it once more.

I'm not disputing as to whether Islam is true or not.

What I am disputing is the claim that a specific ruling, prohibiting dogs, is rational. To see this being defended on the grounds that "it is rational to accept Islam" only begs the question, since it is by no means clear that reason guides people to Islam. If that were the case, then every sane person would be a Muslim, since something that is rational will be universally valid.

Peace
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
08-02-2006, 07:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
What I am disputing is the claim that a specific ruling, prohibiting dogs, is rational.
Are you saying that it is irrational?

I'm trying to understand your argument.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
08-02-2006, 08:37 PM
Edit
Reply

Joe98
08-02-2006, 11:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by j4763
Logic in religion
The church taught that the sun revolves around the earth when there was scientific proof otherwise.

It will take a while but we will soon debunk all the other superstitions as well :giggling:
Reply

czgibson
08-03-2006, 12:26 AM
Greetings Ansar,
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Are you saying that it is irrational?

I'm trying to understand your argument.
I'm saying it's not necessarily rational. After all, is there any rational, worldly reason why people should not keep dogs as pets if they want to?

Peace
Reply

Zionazi_Dissent
08-03-2006, 12:49 AM
Can evolution really prove God does not exist?
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
08-03-2006, 01:44 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
I'm saying it's not necessarily rational.
But are you saying the prohibition on dogs is irrational? Sorry for insisting on this but the phrase 'not necessarily rational' has some ambiguity and could carry different meanings.
After all, is there any rational, worldly reason why people should not keep dogs as pets if they want to?
The reasons are religious not worldly. Doesn't mean they are any less valid.
But let's pretend that there was a worldly reason - let's pretend that a kid was forbidden to keep a dog as a pet by his mother. Is the prohibition rational or 'not necessarily rational' ?
Reply

Abdul Fattah
08-03-2006, 01:57 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98
The church taught that the sun revolves around the earth when there was scientific proof otherwise.

It will take a while but we will soon debunk all the other superstitions as well :giggling:
Well yes the church did say that.
But Jesus (pbuh) never said anything about that. The church just made a lot of assumptions which turned wrong afterwards. In Islam, we don't have those assumptions, and what do we see? That there is absolutely no part of our religion that has been debunked by science. On teh contrary, we are constantly discovering new things that confirm our religion. Discoveries that transform these apearently illogical rules, into logical ones. For example Islam says the best way to sleep is on your right side in semi-fetus pose. Research has shown that that is indeed shown tha that is the most healty position, and that we recover best in our sleep when lying liek that. So why right side and not left? So the weight of your liver does not make it harder for your heart to beat. This is just one insignificant example. But it goes to show, there is a completely difrent thing going on in Islam. Rather then science debunking it, as it did with the wrongfull asumptions of the church, science is actually re-enforcing Islam.
Reply

Woodrow
08-03-2006, 01:59 AM
Just poking my 2 cents in. I am a very avid dog lover. I have had dogs most of my life. I can justify many reasons why having a dog makes sense and is logical.

I no longer have dogs, because I now accept the fact I am Muslim. I desire to be Muslim, I am Muslim by choice. A Muslim is not permitted to have a dog in the house, so if I truly accept Islam, it was perfectly logical for me to give up my dogs.

I need no other reason or understanding as to why dog's are not permitted in a Muslim home. The logic is, it is a fact, if I am to be Muslim.

BTW if I desired to have a dog, I could still have one as an out-door dog and if it served a purpose such as for farming, hunting or protection. However since I can not justify having a dog, I do not have one.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
08-03-2006, 02:17 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings Ansar,
I'm saying it's not necessarily rational. After all, is there any rational, worldly reason why people should not keep dogs as pets if they want to?
Peace
Yes, their is a rational reason.
Their saliva is really unhealthy. Dog's saliva is less acidic with a Ph=9 compared to human who have Ph of around 6.5 to 7.5 (Ph- scales work like this: 1 is very acidic; Ghastric acid is Ph=2; 7 is neutral like water, and 14 is very basic; bleech is Ph=12.5)
That makes their saliva very suscebtible to virusses and bacteria. For example e.coli and streptococcus. So their saliva is potentially harmfull for human beings.
Source: http://madsci.org/posts/archives/200...8450.Bc.r.html

Edit: Also note that if you'd look up the fatwa regarding keeping dogs at home, they will tell you the reason for this is because in Islam the saliva of dog is considered great impurity.
Reply

Les_Nubian
08-03-2006, 02:32 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by mlsh27
I can understand how you think that. There are mnay times I question Islam for some random stuff..like shaving a baby's head when it is born and not being allowed to have dogs in the house...I pretty much always get the answer "Just trust Allah. He probably does this just to see if you will follow." But to me I generally follow logic, and question things that are illogical.
Well I'm Muslim and I have a dog, so damn me to hell, lol.

Seriously though, I do understand about the cleanliness, though with having a dog in the house. I talked to an Imam once about this, and he told me that it's OK to have a dog or a pet as long it has a seperate place to be while you pray, or that it has a seperate room. I was also told before that you should not just have a dog "for fun". There are plenty of other reasons to have a dog (hunting, blind people, protection), but that a good reason is not to have it only "for fun". I mean, afterall we are the ones who domesticated these poor animals and now we're keeping them in our jail cells to torture them for the rest of their poor lives! :giggling:
Reply

Abdul Fattah
08-03-2006, 02:35 AM
Sister you should watch out,
Not only should you not alow the dog in the room you pray. But if the dog drewls on your clothing, then you cannot pray in those clothes since they impure.
Reply

Les_Nubian
08-03-2006, 02:46 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings Ansar,


I'm saying it's not necessarily rational. After all, is there any rational, worldly reason why people should not keep dogs as pets if they want to?

Peace
Having small children, the dog could bite them.

The dog could bring in all kinds of fleas and mites (that might infect your children and your whole house). And cleanliness is very important, especially with Muslims.

The dog (if not potty trained, or even if potty trained!) could poop and piss all over your house on the floors and on the carpets, causing everything to be unclean even when you wash it, somehow the dog still smells it and pisses in the same spot.

You are not to have a dog around, or have dog saliva on your hands during prayer. This wouldn't be an issue if you didn't have a dog in the first place.
=====================================

After saying all of this, I do have a dog, and I am a Muslim. Go figure!

I'm just listing off some of the reasons (that make perfect sense to me) that people, particularly Muslims, might choose not to have a dog...these aren't the "justifications" in any way officially of the Qur'an, or the general beliefs of Muslims...that's just my opinion.
Reply

Les_Nubian
08-03-2006, 02:47 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by steve
Sister you should watch out,
Not only should you not alow the dog in the room you pray. But if the dog drewls on your clothing, then you cannot pray in those clothes since they impure.
I know, but I love my baby.

Not saying that I wouldn't be willing to give him up for the sake of Allah, and my religion...but for right now, things are going well...and I haven't gotten saliva on my clothing just yet! :P

I keep a safe distance during prayer times. :)
Reply

Abdul Fattah
08-03-2006, 02:53 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Les_Nubian
I know, but I love my baby.

Not saying that I wouldn't be willing to give him up for the sake of Allah, and my religion...but for right now, things are going well...and I haven't gotten saliva on my clothing just yet! :P

I keep a safe distance during prayer times. :)
Guess a lot also depend on which type of dogs. St-bernards, danish dogs, boxers are all terrible drewlers. But golden retrievers for example drewl a lot less. And also important is does the dog have the habbit of pushing it's chin on ones lab. Some dogs do this all the time, making it hard to avoid their saliva.
Reply

Les_Nubian
08-03-2006, 03:17 AM
Yeah, I just have a relitavely small beagle. :D

But in regards to "logic in religion", I like how www.myislamweb.com puts it:

We can put any religion or system of beliefs to test by examining whether it is rational, universal, applicable at all times, in all places, and by people of all colors and languages, and whether the religion's Scripture is free of alteration, internal and external inconsistencies. A scripture is internally inconsistent if it contains discrepancies and contradictions within its text, and externally inconsistent if it contradicts facts (not theories) from science and nature as we know them. For it is impossible that God does not know His creation or that which He creates.

And I love how the Qur'an puts it:

"Do they not then consider the Qur’an carefully? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much contradiction." [4:82]"
Reply

Les_Nubian
08-03-2006, 03:17 AM
*relatively, sorry :P
Reply

mlsh27
08-03-2006, 04:18 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Les_Nubian
Having small children, the dog could bite them.

The dog could bring in all kinds of fleas and mites (that might infect your children and your whole house). And cleanliness is very important, especially with Muslims.

The dog (if not potty trained, or even if potty trained!) could poop and piss all over your house on the floors and on the carpets, causing everything to be unclean even when you wash it, somehow the dog still smells it and pisses in the same spot.

You are not to have a dog around, or have dog saliva on your hands during prayer. This wouldn't be an issue if you didn't have a dog in the first place.
=====================================

After saying all of this, I do have a dog, and I am a Muslim. Go figure!

I'm just listing off some of the reasons (that make perfect sense to me) that people, particularly Muslims, might choose not to have a dog...these aren't the "justifications" in any way officially of the Qur'an, or the general beliefs of Muslims...that's just my opinion.
I find these arguments pointless because all can be applied to cats as well. Also cats are less likely to listen than dogs.
Reply

Joe98
08-03-2006, 05:05 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zionazi_Dissent
Can evolution really prove God does not exist?

Of course is does not.


But religious people are scared that is exactly what it will lead to and that is the one and only reason they don't like evolution.

To me evolution says things like: "The tigers with short claws died out because they could not catch their pray. And so tigers have long claws"

To religious people god made tigers with short claws then killed them off then made tigers with long claws. Which is silly.
Reply

Joe98
08-03-2006, 05:15 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
A Muslim is not permitted to have a dog in the house, so if I truly accept Islam, it was perfectly logical for me to give up my dogs.

As a Muslim it sounds like it would be correct to do so. You can't say it's "logical" to do so as thats bad grammar.
Reply

Les_Nubian
08-03-2006, 05:26 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by mlsh27
I find these arguments pointless because all can be applied to cats as well. Also cats are less likely to listen than dogs.
Wait, where did I say anything about cats? I didn't know we were talking about cats here, sorry.

Anyways, I don't believe in the least bit that these arguments are pointless. For cats OR for dogs, in my opinion! The only difference between cats and dogs is that cats are arrogant. :giggling:

But at the same time, I think that dogs are generally more useful, and cats are basically couch potatoes who think that they own the house.
Reply

mlsh27
08-03-2006, 06:10 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Les_Nubian
Wait, where did I say anything about cats? I didn't know we were talking about cats here, sorry.

Anyways, I don't believe in the least bit that these arguments are pointless. For cats OR for dogs, in my opinion! The only difference between cats and dogs is that cats are arrogant. :giggling:

But at the same time, I think that dogs are generally more useful, and cats are basically couch potatoes who think that they own the house.
I feel it is pointless to bring up those arguments against dogs, because it brings no point of comparison. It would be different it one said, dogs are dirtier than cats. Because there was no point of comparison, it breeds the question, "Dirty compared to what?" When another domestic indoor pet is used as a comparison, one finds they are pretty much equal in terms of cleanliness. Thus to say a dog is dirty, so it makes sense would also mean that cats are dirty, so we should not have them either.
Reply

czgibson
08-03-2006, 11:28 AM
Greetings Ansar,
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
But are you saying the prohibition on dogs is irrational? Sorry for insisting on this but the phrase 'not necessarily rational' has some ambiguity and could carry different meanings.
I'm saying it could be irrational. I don't understand what ambiguity the phrase "not necessarily rational" contains. It's a standard structure in modal logic, so it should be pretty clear!
The reasons are religious not worldly. Doesn't mean they are any less valid.
Yes, but if they are religious then they don't have anything to do with logic, do they? Religion is concerned with faith; it's not something logical like mathematics.

But let's pretend that there was a worldly reason - let's pretend that a kid was forbidden to keep a dog as a pet by his mother. Is the prohibition rational or 'not necessarily rational' ?
There could be sensible reasons for doing it, but in terms of pure logic it would be "not necessarily rational", since we don't know what reasons the mother has given for the prohibition, and some of them could be silly ones.

Peace
Reply

Les_Nubian
08-03-2006, 04:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by mlsh27
I feel it is pointless to bring up those arguments against dogs, because it brings no point of comparison. It would be different it one said, dogs are dirtier than cats. Because there was no point of comparison, it breeds the question, "Dirty compared to what?" When another domestic indoor pet is used as a comparison, one finds they are pretty much equal in terms of cleanliness. Thus to say a dog is dirty, so it makes sense would also mean that cats are dirty, so we should not have them either.
Look, I live with a dog. Dogs are dirty.

As are cats.

As are humans.

But what is the sense in having unecessary added filth in your home unless it's for a good purpose? Like a seeing dog for the blind, a hunting dog, a guard dog, etcetera?

And even then, it should have a place in the back yard, in a good fenced in area, so not to have your home being dirty all the time.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
08-03-2006, 05:02 PM
Joe,
format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98
Of course is does not.


But religious people are scared that is exactly what it will lead to and that is the one and only reason they don't like evolution.

To me evolution says things like: "The tigers with short claws died out because they could not catch their pray. And so tigers have long claws"

To religious people god made tigers with short claws then killed them off then made tigers with long claws. Which is silly.
That's a big generalisation. Religion has absolutely no problem with teh theory that tigers could have developed a difrent set of claws through the proces of evolution. Religion has a problem with other concepts like fish evolving into birds or mamels evolving into birds or apes evolving into humans.
thoes are really two difrent things we're talking about here.

Czgibson,
Yes, but if they are religious then they don't have anything to do with logic, do they? Religion is concerned with faith; it's not something logical like mathematics.
On the contrary Islam is very logical. You are right when you say that we do not follow the rules because they are logical. We follow them out of faith. And were they illogical, we would inshallah follow them anyway. But they actually are logical. Allah (swt) has made it easy for us to follow these rules by putting the rules in such a maner that they hold greater benefit then downsides.
You might have missed my post on dog saliva, so alow me to repeat it.
If you'd look up the fatwa regarding keeping dogs at home, they will tell you the reason for this is because in Islam the saliva of dog is considered great impurity.
Their saliva is really unhealthy. Dog's saliva is less acidic with a Ph=9 compared to human who have Ph of around 6.5 to 7.5 (Ph- scales work like this: 1 is very acidic; Ghastric acid is Ph=2; 7 is neutral like water, and 14 is very basic; bleech is Ph=12.5)
That makes their saliva very suscebtible to virusses and bacteria. For example e.coli and streptococcus. So their saliva is potentially harmfull for human beings.
Source: http://madsci.org/posts/archives/200...8450.Bc.r.html
Reply

Les_Nubian
08-03-2006, 05:05 PM
We can put any religion or system of beliefs to test by examining whether it is rational, universal, applicable at all times, in all places, and by people of all colors and languages, and whether the religion's Scripture is free of alteration, internal and external inconsistencies. A scripture is internally inconsistent if it contains discrepancies and contradictions within its text, and externally inconsistent if it contradicts facts (not theories) from science and nature as we know them. For it is impossible that God does not know His creation or that which He creates.

I'll say it again, preach! :P
Reply

czgibson
08-03-2006, 05:13 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by steve
On the contrary Islam is very logical.
Muslims often like to claim this, but it's highly debatable, and, in any case, it's not the issue at hand.

You are right when you say that we do not follow the rules because they are logical. We follow them out of faith.
This is the point. It wouldn't matter if they were logical or not; you would still follow them.

You might have missed my post on dog saliva, so alow me to repeat it.
No, I didn't miss it. I'm also already familiar with the pH scale, but thanks for your explanation of it anyway.

That makes their saliva very suscebtible to virusses and bacteria. For example e.coli and streptococcus. So their saliva is potentially harmfull for human beings.
Walking across the road is potentially harmful for human beings - probably much more so than keeping a dog. Is that prohibited in Islam too?

Peace
Reply

Zionazi_Dissent
08-03-2006, 05:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Muslims often like to claim this, but it's highly debatable, and, in any case, it's not the issue at hand.
Islam is compatible with science. The Quran comprises of many scientific facts which have been proven hundreds of years later by science.

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
This is the point. It wouldn't matter if they were logical or not; you would still follow them.
There is logic behind every practice in Islam.

format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98
Of course is does not.


But religious people are scared that is exactly what it will lead to and that is the one and only reason they don't like evolution.

To me evolution says things like: "The tigers with short claws died out because they could not catch their pray. And so tigers have long claws"

To religious people god made tigers with short claws then killed them off then made tigers with long claws. Which is silly.
Fair enough.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
08-03-2006, 05:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
I'm saying it could be irrational.
In other words, it depends on whether the doctrines of Islam are logical or not? So it is really more of a red-herring to argue over whether a subsidiary law is rational or not, one should instead argue over whether the religion is rational or not.
I don't understand what ambiguity the phrase "not necessarily rational" contains. It's a standard structure in modal logic, so it should be pretty clear!
'rational' can mean 'involving the use of thinking/reason' or it could mean 'in accordance with logic'. Your favorite color is a matter of personal preference so it does not involve reasoning, but it is not illogical either!
Yes, but if they are religious then they don't have anything to do with logic, do they?
On the contrary Islam has everything to do with logic. Faith should not be placed in illogical doctrines passed down by one's ancestors. Islam provides the most coherent, comprehensive and parsimonious explanation for our existence. It is analogous to how scientists accept the theory that provides the most parsimonious explanation for a specific observable phenomenon.
Religion is concerned with faith; it's not something logical like mathematics.
It is more comparable to science rather than math.
http://www.islamicboard.com/416060-post165.html
Accepting the subsidiary laws that logically follow from accepting the religious doctrine is much like accepting that which logically follows on from accepting the scientific theory. So accepting the prohibiton on dogs follows logically from accepting the fundamentals of Islam just as accepting the law of definite proportions follows logically from accepting atomic theory.
There could be sensible reasons for doing it, but in terms of pure logic it would be "not necessarily rational", since we don't know what reasons the mother has given for the prohibition, and some of them could be silly ones.
So it all depends. Instead of arguing over whether the prohibition on dogs is rational, one should first determine whether accepting Islamic fundamentals is rational.

Regards
Reply

mlsh27
08-03-2006, 06:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Les_Nubian
Look, I live with a dog. Dogs are dirty.

As are cats.

As are humans.

But what is the sense in having unecessary added filth in your home unless it's for a good purpose? Like a seeing dog for the blind, a hunting dog, a guard dog, etcetera?

And even then, it should have a place in the back yard, in a good fenced in area, so not to have your home being dirty all the time.
By your reasoning, we should not have pets that live indoors. However, it is not haram to have certain ones, so why pick dogs out above the rest to be haram?
Reply

- Qatada -
08-03-2006, 07:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by mlsh27
By your reasoning, we should not have pets that live indoors. However, it is not haram to have certain ones, so why pick dogs out above the rest to be haram?

Because the Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him) said so sister.


And we know that Allaah Almighty told us to obey His messenger (peace be upon him):

And obey Allah and the Messenger; that ye may obtain mercy. (Qur'aan 3:132)



:salamext:
Reply

mlsh27
08-03-2006, 07:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
Because the Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him) said so sister.


And we know that Allaah Almighty told us to obey His messenger (peace be upon him):

And obey Allah and the Messenger; that ye may obtain mercy. (Qur'aan 3:132)



:salamext:
No offense, but I need more than that to follow certain aspects. For me it needs to make sense....thus the idea is illogical.
Reply

sameer
08-03-2006, 07:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by mlsh27
By your reasoning, we should not have pets that live indoors. However, it is not haram to have certain ones, so why pick dogs out above the rest to be haram?
simply beacuse Muhammad (saw) said so. and as muslims we following his teachings and examples. After all he got revelation from Allah who created both cats and dogs. So unlike other religions, we hold the Quran and the sayings of our prophets to be truth and its a part of our faith. I dont need a reason b4 i accept something from him...the reason comes after.
Reply

mlsh27
08-03-2006, 07:20 PM
Not for me....I grew up in a house where I was taught to question everything, and I do. I don't follow things just because it is said to do so- I need reasoning and logic.
Reply

Idris
08-03-2006, 07:31 PM
The Prophet said, “Purifying a container that a dog has licked (in order for human’s to use it) is done by washing it seven times, the first washing being with dirt.”2 However, according to some scholars, a dog’s fur is considered pure3. Nonetheless, Muslims are discouraged from keeping dogs inside their homes, as the Prophet has been reported as saying that angels do not enter into a house that has a dog4.


Creating that barrier between humans (Muslims) and dogs was part of the self-control approach in Islam, and because dogs are such fine animals. So it was a mean to prevent humans from getting too attached to dogs possibly replacing human companionship in the process.
Reply

sameer
08-03-2006, 07:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by mlsh27
Not for me....I grew up in a house where I was taught to question everything, and I do. I don't follow things just because it is said to do so- I need reasoning and logic.
ok.. thats where faith comes in. We dont need a reason right away... if there isnt an explanation..Allah would reveal it when the time is right.

Example.....there is a hadith where the prophet (saw) reccomends us not to eat and drink at the same time. Today doctors will tell u the same thing..beacause the liquids breaks down the digestry acids in the stomach and makes it more differcult to digest the food.

Example... the prophet (saw) recoomended that we should sleep on our right side of our body and not on our belly of left side. Today doctors can tell u that sleeping on ure belly of left side puts the heart under pressure.
Reply

mlsh27
08-03-2006, 07:37 PM
I don't do the whole blind faith thing, sorry. Also, the idea of dogs replacing humans as companions is hilarious...
Reply

Idris
08-03-2006, 07:47 PM
well they even have beauty competition for dogs...They have advz for dog food on the T.V,dog grooming,Shampoos,Bedding,Books,Feeding Bowls , Gifts, Jewelry,Toys .....ect
Reply

Mohsin
08-03-2006, 08:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by mlsh27
format_quote Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
Because the Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him) said so sister.


And we know that Allaah Almighty told us to obey His messenger (peace be upon him):

And obey Allah and the Messenger; that ye may obtain mercy. (Qur'aan 3:132)



:salamext:
No offense, but I need more than that to follow certain aspects. For me it needs to make sense....thus the idea is illogical.
No offence either, but i would like to say reading your above post, you yourself have come accross a bit illogical, and in a way, also a bit arrogant sorry

With all due respect, who are any of us to question what allah has willed. Did you know that one of the signs of a hypocrite are one who questions the deecree of Allah

Now sister, take a minute out and think to yourself. When Allah SWT has said obey him, and his messenger, are we really in a position to question him and still say I need a reason for such and such an issue.
Look at the example of Ali RA. He was talking about logic, and he said if our shariah was based on the logic of us mere human beings, then we would wash the bottom of our feet during wudhu, as logically, this is where our feet get dirty, but rather Allah SWT has decreed according to his infinite and divine wisdom that during wudhu we are to wash the top of our feet.

Look also at the example of Umar Bin Khattab RA when he was expalining why we kiss the black stone by the Ka'bah during tawaf of it

According to Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, book of Hajj, chapter 56, H.No. 675. Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said, "I know that you are a stone and can neither benefit nor harm. Had I not seen the Prophet (pbuh) touching (and kissing) you, I would never have touched (and kissed) you".

Think again before questioning the will of Allah SWT. He created you, along with this whole earth and all of the creation that dwell inside of it. Ask yourself what have you created.
God has full memory of what has occurred in the past, and knows what will happen in the future, and never errs. Ask yourself how well do you remmeber what has happened in your life, and do you knwo anything of the future
God is All-Knowing, All-Sufficient, he doesn't need sleep, nor does he eat, again ask yourself can you even go a few hours without eating

Yet, despite being nowhere near the intellectual capacity of Allah SWTs infinite wisdom, you consider yourself wise enough to understand why he has implemented certain rulings and instructed us to do certain things.

NOTE please don't misunderstand what I am saying. I am by no means trying to say we should blindly follow something. There is always wisdom behind issues in shariah, and we should ask the scholars of islam if there is any clear wisdom behind certain issues, but if there isn't any clear reason, it shouldn't prevent us from still following those rules. As Brother Ansar 'Al Adl said earlier, just because we don't see or understand a certain ruling, it doesn't mean there isn't any wisdom behind it, or any benefit to it. remeber Allah SWT has not created us perfect and all-knowing, we are weak and dependant, thus we eat and drink to keep going.

remember the story of Ibrahim AS when he was instructed to slaughter his son. He didn't think to himself "This doesn't make sense to me, so i won't do it" and nor did he ask Allah why he is to do it, but instead he simply followed what he was told, as he knew Allah SWT had decreed it and we should obey Allah SWT. Similarly, if there is proof for something from the Qur'an and Sunnah to do something, without reason we should do it, as upon examining the source, we know it is from Allah.

Please don't be offended by anything I have said, forgive me if it has come out harsh, but i feel you were in need of the reminder that we shoudln't question what allah SWT has decreed. The companions of the prophet PBUH would see him do an action, and immediately start imitating him without asking why, look at their example, and we will realise why many of them were guaranteed paradise

:w:
Reply

mlsh27
08-03-2006, 08:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Idris
well they even have beauty competition for dogs...They have advz for dog food on the T.V,dog grooming,Shampoos,Bedding,Books,Feeding Bowls , Gifts, Jewelry,Toys .....ect
This is all down with cats as well...thus the same could be said about cats, so why aren't they haram.
Reply

sameer
08-03-2006, 08:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by mlsh27
This is all down with cats as well...thus the same could be said about cats, so why aren't they haram.
are u not reading the posts?
They are not haram cause the Prophet (saw) allowed them but disalowed keeping dogs as being pets.
I am having this same argument about dogs with someone else on another foroum....but he loves his dogs as childeren and visist the animal shelter etc.....he dosent visit hospitals, orphanages etc..he visists animal shelters...
Reply

czgibson
08-03-2006, 08:36 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by Mohsin
NOTE please don't misunderstand what I am saying. I am by no means trying to say we should blindly follow something.
With respect, that's exactly what you're saying. You're saying Muslims should follow orders without question, even if they can see no logical reason for them.

Peace
Reply

Abdul Fattah
08-03-2006, 08:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,
Muslims often like to claim this, but it's highly debatable, and, in any case, it's not the issue at hand.

This is the point. It wouldn't matter if they were logical or not; you would still follow them.

No, I didn't miss it. I'm also already familiar with the pH scale, but thanks for your explanation of it anyway.

Walking across the road is potentially harmful for human beings - probably much more so than keeping a dog. Is that prohibited in Islam too?

Peace
So basically what you're saying is: I agree with all what you said, but there's other things in life that are dangerous, even more dangerous, so Islam is wrong for advising us against this?
Reply

czgibson
08-03-2006, 08:56 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by steve
So basically what you're saying is: I agree with all what you said, but there's other things in life that are dangerous, even more dangerous, so Islam is wrong for advising us against this?
I'm not quite saying that, but I do think that if danger to human beings was a general criterion to be considered, then a sensible lawgiver would prohibit things that are more dangerous before prohibiting things that aren't hugely dangerous at all.

Peace
Reply

Woodrow
08-03-2006, 09:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by mlsh27
This is all down with cats as well...thus the same could be said about cats, so why aren't they haram.
I would not even begin to attempt to say I know everything the Prophet(pbuh) meant. But, looking at it in a logical manner I would say that the way some people treat cats would be Haraam.

Our fascination with pets just may be a bit extreme. In the USA alone more money is spent on dog and cat food then on Baby Food. Most people do not treat their pets properly and out of misguided affection, have actualy damaged cats and dogs as species.

Our compassion for fur babies, does distract us from providing for our own fellow human beings.

Perhaps Allah(swt) was pleased with his creation of wolves and it is wrong for us to have turned them into rat-sized apartment barkers.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
08-03-2006, 10:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,


I'm not quite saying that, but I do think that if danger to human beings was a general criterion to be considered, then a sensible lawgiver would prohibit things that are more dangerous before prohibiting things that aren't hugely dangerous at all.

Peace
Well define "more dangerous".

First of all you have to consider the time frame. Dogs have always and will always be unhygyenic throughout time as they carry these harmfull virusses. But we might not always be aware where a certain virus origenated from when a person gets sick, so it's not always clear that it is related with his dog. Whereas Crossing road have only become dangerous now since there's just so many and so fast methods of transportation.

Now let's consider the nature of their danger. The posibility of danger with dogs is by default. The danger lies in the virusses that are frequesntly found in their saliva. Even if you watch out for it there's still a risk.
Whereas crossing the roads is only dangerous when people do not follow the rules. There are stict trafic rules, and in an uthopia were everybody follows these rules there wouldn't be a problem. So they are not dangerous by default, they are dangerous because people make mistakes.

And finally let's consider necesity. Up untill recently people were unaware of this danger of dog's saliva. The ruling came to warn us about a danger we did not realise. Whereas the danger of trafic, is pretty obvious. And in a way, it is also covered by Islam, as Islamdictates that we should follow the rules of the country we are at (unless they contradict our religion).
Reply

Mohsin
08-04-2006, 10:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,


With respect, that's exactly what you're saying. You're saying Muslims should follow orders without question, even if they can see no logical reason for them.

Peace

Maybe i wasn't clear.

Firstly we shouldn't blindly be muslims simply because we are born muslims. We should be muslims because we actually have faith in the religion having analysed it to see whether it is true or not.
Secondly what i meant to say in my last post was that although we should follow the commands of Allah whether we understand the logic behind it or not, we should still seek the wisdom behind it, not question it, just know why it is that way. If there is no evident reason, then knowing it is from Allah should be enough to know it should still be obeyed and followed
Reply

DigitalStorm82
08-05-2006, 06:25 AM
Science always takes turns... its unreliable... Perhaps, in the future, science will discover why some animals are dirtier than others...

All we need to know is.. Angels don't enter houses with dogs and pictures....

Doubts in the commands of allah is from shataan, its best if you don't dwell too much on it without proper understanding of nature of science AND religion.

W'salaamz,
Hamid
Reply

Abdul Fattah
08-05-2006, 01:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by steve
Well define "more dangerous".

First of all you have to consider the time frame. Dogs have always and will always be unhygyenic throughout time as they carry these harmfull virusses. But we might not always be aware where a certain virus origenated from when a person gets sick, so it's not always clear that it is related with his dog. Whereas Crossing road have only become dangerous now since there's just so many and so fast methods of transportation.

Now let's consider the nature of their danger. The posibility of danger with dogs is by default. The danger lies in the virusses that are frequesntly found in their saliva. Even if you watch out for it there's still a risk.
Whereas crossing the roads is only dangerous when people do not follow the rules. There are stict trafic rules, and in an uthopia were everybody follows these rules there wouldn't be a problem. So they are not dangerous by default, they are dangerous because people make mistakes.

And finally let's consider necesity. Up untill recently people were unaware of this danger of dog's saliva. The ruling came to warn us about a danger we did not realise. Whereas the danger of trafic, is pretty obvious. And in a way, it is also covered by Islam, as Islamdictates that we should follow the rules of the country we are at (unless they contradict our religion).
The other day I was thinking and actually found a fourth difrence. One danger is easely avoided where the other is not. You could have just as well commented, well breathing in poluted air is dangerous to, why isn't there a ruling about that? Well we need to breath 24-7, so we'll just have to deal with our own polution (or the polution of others!). Whereas keeping a dog in the house is something that is easely avoided.
Reply

czgibson
08-06-2006, 12:11 AM
Greetings Steve,

Thanks for your copious analysis of the example I gave in comparison to the danger posed by dogs' saliva. Sadly, it was a general argument that I was looking for a response to - I could have used any example of a dangerous activity not (as far as I know) explicitly forbidden by Allah. How about playing rugby, or skydiving?

Greetings Mohsin,

format_quote Originally Posted by Mohsin
Maybe i wasn't clear.
You seemed clear enough to me! :)

Firstly we shouldn't blindly be muslims simply because we are born muslims. We should be muslims because we actually have faith in the religion having analysed it to see whether it is true or not.
That's not the way it happens though, is it? If you're born into a Muslim family, the chances of you being Muslim in adulthood are so much greater than if you're not.

Secondly what i meant to say in my last post was that although we should follow the commands of Allah whether we understand the logic behind it or not, we should still seek the wisdom behind it, not question it, just know why it is that way. If there is no evident reason, then knowing it is from Allah should be enough to know it should still be obeyed and followed
Precisely my point:
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
You're saying Muslims should follow orders without question, even if they can see no logical reason for them.
Peace
Reply

Abdul Fattah
08-06-2006, 03:55 AM
Greetings Steve,

Thanks for your copious analysis of the example I gave in comparison to the danger posed by dogs' saliva. Sadly, it was a general argument that I was looking for a response to - I could have used any example of a dangerous activity not (as far as I know) explicitly forbidden by Allah. How about playing rugby, or skydiving?
Well the 4 logical criteria I came up with might not all be apply to the same extend in these cases as they did to the crossing of roads; but I think you 'll see some of them do still apply, and perhaps there's some other things to say about this as well. I'm not going to claim that sky-diving is forbidden, but I do think we're not supposed to expose ourself to high risk situations. I don't think there's a fatwa out on this, and I don't really think there aught to be. But honestly, can you claim Islam is wrong for guiding us away from danger on the base that some thrillseekers jump out of planes?

You can question wheter or not it is required for religion to schield it's believers from danger. But to me it does seem quite obvious. I think the real underlying issue here is the following. In the free west, one of the most important values in life is freedom. And almost everything is measured according to it. In Islam, we consider ourself slaves of Allah (swt). And it's not just our consideration, because in reality we are really the property of our creator wheter we accept that or not. Now since you don't believe you obviously don't think that is true. However if in the debate you wish to prove Islam wrong based on the rules it has, then you can only argue from a pov where islam is right. Because if you start of by assuming Islam is false, then any attempt to refute Islam is circular. Now to get back on the freedom issue. Freedom is of lesser importance in Islam. The real central value is wellbeing. And I find that to be more logical to. So in the west a rule is measered by the limitations and freedoms. A trafficlight robs freedom to drive when red, but the reason we accept the rule as beneficial is because of the counterpart; the green light sets us free to drive by without obstruction. Now if you ask me, the real central standard for measuring rules should not be the limitation and freedom a rule gives; but rather the amount of welbeing it offers against the hardships it creates. Is that not the best startingpoint to get as close to utopia as possible (No it's not a paradox :) )

You're saying Muslims should follow orders without question, even if they can see no logical reason for them.
Tricky statement if you ask me. We can question rules, if seeking knowledge is the intention. But we are supposed to follow, regardless of the answers we might find, or not find. This might seem contradictory, but here again, the contradiction in that only exists when you assume Islam is false. Because IF Islam is false there is a posibility of finding an order with no logical reason. But on the other hand if Islam is true, then there are already a couple reasons by default derived from faith: "reward in the afterlife and a test for the believers". This default reason is why everybody here is telling you that we would inshallah (godwilling) follow rules even if they seem illogical. Next to this there's a second logical reason derived from faith: "Even though I do not see a reason for this rule , I trust in Allah (swt) and believe that this rule is set for good reasons.". I agree, these two counter-arguments are equally circular as your argument was. So in the end both of us are mostly relying on faith not logic. But I said mostly, not completely. There is a third factor. And that is that when looking into these matters, we constantly find logical reasons that are not derived from faith to! Like the Ph scale in dog's saliva. There might be some rulings were we fail to realise any wordly advantage in, but most rules make perfect sense (to me at least). Of course if we wish to continue this discussion I feel we are forced to look at every single rule in detail. Now if you ar willing to do that, well inshallah we will be able to answer you. But obviously this will be quite a lot of work; so I can't force this upon you, and I can't quite ask you to take my word on it either, since afterall, I am but an anounimous poster on the internet to you. So my suggestion would be, just keep an open mind to it, and look around. There will probably be other topics like this in the future discussing the logic behind certain rules (inshallah).
Reply

MuslimCONVERT
08-09-2006, 02:18 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Mazed
subhanAllah, reps for you brother, wat a brilliant explenation !
JazakAllah khair wa barakAllah feekum!
Hey thanks. May Allah (Swt) reward you, me, and all believers in this life and the next insha Allah. Salaamz.
Reply

scentsofjannah
08-09-2006, 04:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by j4763
Funny you should say that, to me a lot of established religions do just that. :rollseyes

i dont know what your original post was..but do read this article

Intellect and Reason in the Islamic Worldview
Babak Ayazifar


In an oratory resplendent with colorful imagery and metaphor, Prophet Muhammad defined the noble station of the intellect and reason in Islamic cosmology. It is reported that he said: “Verily, Allah (God) created the intellect from a treasured light, a light concealed within His primordial knowledge -- one that neither a commissioned prophet nor an angel of proximity [to the Divine Throne] was aware of. He then ascribed to the intellect knowledge as its essence, cognition as its soul, abstemiousness as its head, modesty as its eye, wisdom as its tongue, kindliness as its purpose, and mercy as its heart. Allah then bestowed upon, and strengthened, the intellect with ten qualities: certainty, faith, truthfulness, tranquility, sincerity, gentleness, benevolence, contentment, submission, and gratitude. Then Allah (Exalted and Majestic) said to it: ‘Retreat!’ Thereupon the intellect retreated. Then He said to it: ‘Come nigh!’ Thereupon the intellect drew near. Then Allah said to it: ‘Speak!’ Thereupon the intellect said: ‘Praise belongs to Allah, the one who has neither a foe nor a rival, neither a likeness nor an equal, neither a tantamount nor a similitude -- the one before whose splendor every creature is submissive, humbled.’”

“Then the Lord (Praised and Exalted) said: ‘By My grandeur and majesty, no creature have I originated more splendid than you, more obedient to Me than you, loftier in station than you, more eminent than you, or more exalted than you. It is through you that My oneness is acknowledged; it is through you that I am worshiped; it is through you that I am supplicated; it is through you that I am implored [by My yearning servant]; it is through you that I am desired; it is through you that I am feared; it is through you that My bondsman exercises reverent discretion toward Me; it is through you that I bestow reward; and it is through you that I apportion punishment.’”

“Upon hearing this the intellect sank to the ground prostrate, remaining in that state for a thousand years. Then Allah (Praised and Exalted) said: ‘Raise your head! And ask, so it shall be granted. Seek intercession, so it shall be accorded.’ Thereupon the intellect raised its head and said: ‘O my Lord, I beseech you to appoint me as an intercessor for whomsoever you have created me in.’ Then Allah (Majestic in His might) said to His angels: ‘I summon you forth to bear witness that I have indeed appointed the intellect as an intercessor for whomsoever I have created it in.’”

Prophet Muhammad’s narrative exemplifies the primacy that Islam accords the intellect; it constitutes a recognition of the high station of reason in the Islamic worldview. His oratory, which I have translated from the original Arabic, is found in a multi-volume compilation of his sayings, Mustadrak al-Wasa’il, under a chapter whose title is equally telling: “The Obligation to Follow the Intellect and Reason, and to Oppose Ignorance.”

Islam as a worldview is rooted in knowledge, intellectual exertion, and reason. The Qur’an repeatedly invites us to believe in Allah, the one true fashioner of the universe, by imploring us to ponder over the creation of the cosmos. In beckoning us to reflection, the Qur’an points us to two wellsprings of knowledge: the macrocosmic order of the physical universe (the “horizons” or ÂfÂq) and the microcosm of the inner reality of our selves (anfus).

We are instructed to “travel through the earth and see how Allah originated creation,” and we are given the tiding that “He will similarly produce a later creation [the Hereafter], for Allah has power over all things” (29:20). The Qur’an challenges us to probe and to reflect, asserting, “whichever way you turn, there is the Countenance of Allah” (2:115). Our inner self constitutes no less vital a facet of reality, reflecting upon which unlocks some of the esoteric marvels of the creative order. “We will show them Our signs in the universe and in their own souls as well, until it becomes manifest to them that it is the truth” (41:53). This being the case, the Qur’an then rhetorically asks: “Do they not reflect within themselves?” (30:8).

Knowledge, therefore, is sourced not only in the physical universe that envelops us, but also -- and even more important -- within our inner spiritual being. Both these fountains of knowledge contain signs pointing to the creative force that originated everything. Note how in none of the passages does the Qur’an ask us to blindly accept its message. To the contrary, only upon investigation and mental exertion are we to affirm what the Qur’an invites us to: belief in God and His oneness, and submission to His will. It is only as a corollary to this submission that we have been expected to obey Allah’s commissioned prophets and messengers throughout time.

Complementing the explicit Qur’anic statements about the importance of reflection and seeking knowledge are umpteen narratives from the Prophet of Islam and those who were heirs to his wisdom and gnosis. When asked how one arrives at the knowledge of The Real (Allah), the Prophet replied: “By knowing one’s self.” Ali ibn Abi Talib, the cousin and son-in-law of Prophet Muhammad, in a vividly metaphoric narration with colorful imagery, reports that the Prophet described how Angel Gabriel came to Adam and said: “O Adam, I have been instructed to have you choose among three things; select one and leave the other two.” When Adam inquired about his three options, Gabriel offered “intellect, modesty, and religion.” “I choose intellect,” replied Adam. Thereupon Gabriel told modesty and religion to depart. However, the two stood their ground, saying that they were under instruction to remain with the intellect wheresoever it may be. “So be it,” Gabriel replied, as he ascended to the Heavens.

Islam is a religion of balance. Physical, sensory perception is not our sole endowment. Self-reflection, looking internally at our own spirit and soul, is another integral means of acquiring knowledge and arriving at The Real. In his “Critique of Pure Reason,” Immanuel Kant evidently agrees with this view. He says: “Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and the more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above and the moral law within.” Indeed, we must be cognizant of both the macrocosmic and the microcosmic wellsprings of knowledge, for they complement each other in guiding us in our spiritual wayfaring toward Allah, the Ultimate Reality.

Islam originale is not a religion that breeds the miser, the cruel, the coward, the intellectually indigent, or the depraved; it is the religion that nurtures the benevolent, the compassionate, the brave, the enlightened, and the pious. In short, it is the religion of the emancipated spiritual elite.

Babak Ayazifar is a PhD candidate in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Reply

root
08-09-2006, 04:32 PM
Where is logic with the supernatural anyway!
Reply

Abdul Fattah
08-09-2006, 05:12 PM
Why would supernatural be considered illogical?
The whole view that supernatural is illogical is flawed by the assumption that logic does not exceed the bounderies of teh current natural processes.
I mean supernational does contradict the natural. So if you assuem that natural is logic and everything else isn't well I guess tthen you would conclude that the supernatural is illogical since it contradicts the natural. But as our knowledge grows larger we find more and more events that would have been described under supernatural in the earlyer days being today described as actually being natural, albeit rarely. Like I said. The whole view that supernatural is illogical is flawed by the assumption that logic does not exceed the bounderies of teh current natural processes.
Reply

root
08-09-2006, 08:02 PM
Why would supernatural be considered illogical?
Firstly, here is my working definition of "Logic".

The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.

The whole view that supernatural is illogical is flawed by the assumption that logic does not exceed the bounderies of teh current natural processes.
Do you not mean that supernatural is flawed in logic because it cannot be subjected to a method of validity and thus it's accuracy and or reliability remains questionable and unsound.

I mean supernational does contradict the natural. So if you assuem that natural is logic and everything else isn't well I guess tthen you would conclude that the supernatural is illogical since it contradicts the natural
.

Not illogical, just not logical. Unsound without any nature of reliability and or predictive qualities. When I drop a stone logic will tell me it falls. In a supernatural world it may suspend in the air then shoot up a mile high and explode. Which is the more logical proposition here and why, not which is "illogical"!

would have been described under supernatural in the earlyer days being today described as actually being natural, albeit rarely. Like I said. The whole view that supernatural is illogical is flawed by the assumption that logic does not exceed the bounderies of teh current natural processes.
Again, I think your exploiting "illogical" for your own gain. Logic, uses a probability based on validity, something being illogical is better placed as being less probable than other alternatives.

Crop circles occur by alien ships landing on earth is not an illogical statement. This does not mean it is the logical answer though!!!!!!!!!!
Reply

Abdul Fattah
08-11-2006, 04:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by root
Firstly, here is my working definition of "Logic".
The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.
I'm terrible sorry but "your" defenition is off.
Here's what wikipedia says:
Logic, from Classical Greek λόγος (logos), originally meaning the word, or what is spoken, (but coming to mean thought or reason) is most often said to be the study of criteria for the evaluation of arguments, although the exact definition of logic is a matter of controversy among philosophers. However the subject is grounded, the task of the logician is the same: to advance an account of valid and fallacious inference to allow one to distinguish logical from flawed arguments.
So you see logic is independent of content and even independent of reality.

Do you not mean that supernatural is flawed in logic because it cannot be subjected to a method of validity and thus it's accuracy and or reliability remains questionable and unsound.
There's so many things wrong in that sentence I don't know where to begin.
*First of al, don't confuse theory with logic. A theory is logical when it's arguments are logical. The first criteria when judging a theory is to look at wheter or not the arguments are build logically. If that checks up, the second criteria could be accurace or reliability. However the accurace and reliability has nothing to do with logic. Those last two are charesteristics of a theory, not of an argument. So a theory can be accurate and reliable yet completely illogical, while yet another theory could be logical but at the same time unreliable and unaccurate. Wheter or not the supernatural is reliable and accurate is a whole discussion altoghether, but that doesn't mean that it is by nature illogical.
*Apart from that your reasoning is flawed when you conclude that something is illogical based on it being questionable. Just because we don't have the answer, doesn't mean there isn't a possible answer. There are philosophers (and scientists) who believe that chaos is nothing more then an order we fail to understand. This failure in understanding might lead us to the false conclusion that somthing is illogical.
*Thirdly, wheter or not something can be subjected to validity is also not a criteria for logic. If I were to state that: "The sum 1+1=2 is true even if there's no existance (wheter cognitive, material, or any other given other thing) with the ability to (keep) count." then I think you'll agree that's a logical statement, yet we are unable to verify it's validity. Even if we were capable of producing a closed enviroment where there is no such an existance, we wouldn't be able to actually check if 1+1=2 in that closed enviroment since by defenition our closed enviroment does not alow us to actually check that.
*Fourth: As I already mentioned when discussing the defenition, if an argument wouldn't refer to reality, that still wouldn't make it illogical. If I make the statement: If Bush Jr. dies before having a child he will not have grandchildren. The statement is logical, nevertheless it obviously does not refer to reality as Bush already has two daughters.

So I don't know wheter you think that:
A) Religion is illogical since it doesn't refer to reality
B) Religion doesn't refer to reality because it is illogical.
But as you can see either one of those two were flawed. And even more then that, you will not be able to support either base. Religion in teh end of the day relies on belief, just as much as atheism relies on (dis)belief. There is no way to establish one as more likely then the other based only on logical arguments, unless a religion is logically flawed. However as far as I know, there is no such logical flaw in Islam, bringing us back to the root of this very discussion.

Not illogical, just not logical. Unsound without any nature of reliability and or predictive qualities. When I drop a stone logic will tell me it falls. In a supernatural world it may suspend in the air then shoot up a mile high and explode. Which is the more logical proposition here and why, not which is "illogical"!
What you refer to as "logical" is actually nothing more then habitual nature. A dropping stone is logical only because we are used to stones dropping. If stones would always behave in teh way you suggested here, then after a while people would consider that logical to. This isn't "logics" but just this is just recognizability. Which brings me again to religion, in religion we believe that the natural laws of this world are the habitual conduct of Allah. In that frame of thinking any other given behavior of nature is just as much logical as the one we are used to. Now, you might object since you do not believe in that frame-work. However -as I told Czgibson- if in a debate you wish to prove Islam wrong based on it's concepts, then you can only argue from a point of vieuw where islam is right. Because if you start of by assuming Islam is false, then any attempt to refute Islam is circular.

Again, I think your exploiting "illogical" for your own gain. Logic, uses a probability based on validity, something being illogical is better placed as being less probable than other alternatives.
That's plainly wrong, even improbable alternatives might be actually logical, and in fact they can even be refering to reality. Let me give an example. If only one out of 1000 people has green eyes and only one out 1000 people have a third nipple, that would mean it's very improbable that there is someone with both green eyes and a third niple, yet it is still posible and logical. More importantly you needn't forget that probability is often suggested based on personal preferance. You're personal preferance tells you religion is illogical because you do not like to believe in the supernatural, but that preferance doesn't make an argument involving the supernatural any less logical.

Crop circles occur by alien ships landing on earth is not an illogical statement. This does not mean it is the logical answer though!!!!!!!!!!
Again, the question here is not wether or not it is logical. It might not be "the answer" but it is "a" logical answer based on the assuptions that given aliens have spaceships with shapes simular to the markings left on fields. The real question here is wheter it refers to reality or not. And again it is our lack of knowledge that keeps us from answering the question!
Reply

scentsofjannah
08-12-2006, 10:25 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by mlsh27
Not for me....I grew up in a house where I was taught to question everything, and I do. I don't follow things just because it is said to do so- I need reasoning and logic.

good sis keep up that attitude.

REGARDING DOGS

in the Sunni Maliki School of law

Dog's saliva is totally pure

Dog's skin is totally pure

Pigs saliva is totally clean

Pigs skin is totally clean.

In the other Schools of thought(including the Shia) Dogs skin is clean but saliva is najis ie unclean
Reply

scentsofjannah
08-12-2006, 10:35 AM
Faith and Reason
Maulana Wahiduddin Khan


In its issue no. 134 (1992), the journal, Faith and Reason, published from Manchester College, Oxford (England), brought out an article titled, ‘The Relationship between Faith and Reason’, by Dr Paul Badham. Paul Badham is a Professor of Theology and Religious Studies at St. David’s College, Lampeter, in the University of Wales. His paper in this issue had been presented at a Conference of the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Science in Moscow in November 1991.

Professor Badham’s paper can indeed be called thought-provoking, and as such, is worth reading, but he has made certain points with which I do not agree. He states that philosophical certainty should not be confused with religious certitude. He writes: As a philosopher of religion I feel compelled to acknowledge that faith could never be placed on the same level of certainty as scientific knowledge’ (p. 6). On the contrary, I feel that faith and belief can be placed on the same level of certainty as scientific theory. At least, in the twentieth century there is no real difference between the two.

Knowledge is composed of two kinds of things, Bertrand Russell puts it, knowledge of things and knowledge of truths. This dichotomy exists in religion as well as in science. For instance, to the scientist who regards biological evolution as a scientific fact, there are two aspects to be considered. One is related to the organic part of species and the other relates to the law of evolution which is inherently and covertly operative in the continuing process of change among the species.

When an evolutionist studies the outward physical appearance of species, he may be said to be studying ‘things’. Whereas when he studies the law of evolution, he deals with that aspect of the subject which is termed the study or knowledge of truths.’

Every evolutionist knows that a basic difference between the two aspects. As far as the study of things or the phenomena of evolution is concerned, direct evidence is available. For instance, because the study of fossils found in various layers of the earth’s crust is possible at the level of observation, working hypothesis may be based thereon.

On the contrary, as far as facts about the law of evolution are concerned, due to the impossibility of objective observation, direct argument world’s strength, skill, beauty is not possible. For instance, the concept of sudden mutations in the organs is entirely based on assumptions rather than on direct observation. In the case of mutations, external changes are observable, but the cause, that is, the law of nature, is totally unobservable. That is why all the evolutionists make use of indirect argument, which in logic is known as inferential argument.

The concept of mutation forms the basis of the theory of evolution. However there are two aspects to the matter. One comes under observation, but the second part is totally unobservable. It is only by making use of the principle of inference that this second part of evolution may be included in the theory of evolution.

It is a commonplace that all the offspring of men or animals are not uniform. Differences of one kind or another are to be found. In modern times this biological phenomenon has been scientifically studied. These studies have revealed spontaneous changes suddenly produced in the fetus in the mother’s womb. It is these changes that are responsible for the differences between children of the same parents.

These differences between offsprings are observable. But the philosophy of evolution subsequently formed on the basis of this observation is totally unobservable and is based only on inferential argument. That is to say that the ‘things’ of evolution are observable, while the ‘truths’ inferred from observation are unobservable.

Now, what the evolutionist does is put a goat at one end and a giraffe at the other. Then taking some middle specimens of the fossils he forms a theory that the neck of one of the offspring of the earlier generation of the goat was somewhat taller. Then when this particular offspring with the taller neck gave birth, this tallness for generations over millions of years ultimately converted the initial goat with a taller neck into a species like the giraffe in its advanced stage. Charles Darwin writes of this change in his book The Origin of Species: "…it seems to me almost certain that an ordinary hoofed quadruped might be converted into a giraffe" (p. 169).

In this case, the existence of differences between the various offspring of a goat is itself a known fact. But the accumulation of this difference, generation after generation, over millions of years resulting in a new species known as ‘giraffe’ is wholly unobservable and unrepeatable. This conclusion has been inferred from observation only; the whole process of mutation developing into a new species has never come under our direct observation.

Exactly the same is true of the subject of religion. One aspect of the study of religion is the study of its history, its personalities, its injunctions, its rites and its rituals. The above division (knowledge of things and knowledge of truths) amounts to a study of the ‘things’ of religion. In respect of religion, objective information is likewise available. As such, the study of religion too can be done on the basis of direct observations exactly as is done in the study of biological evolution.

The second aspect of the study of religion is what is termed, in general, beliefs pertaining to the unseen world. These are the beliefs that are beyond our known sensory world. That is, the existence of God and the angels, revelation, hell and heaven, etc. In this other aspect of religion direct observations do not exist. The study of religion must, therefore, be done in the light of that logical principle called inference on the basis of observation, that is, the same logical principle which the evolutionists employ in the second aspect of their theory.

Looked at in the light of this principle, both religion and science are at a par. Both have two equally different parts. One part is based on such scientific certainty as permits direct argument. The other part is based on scientific inference, to prove which only the principle of indirect argument may be used. Keeping this logical division before us, we can find no actual difference between the two.

The unnecessary apologia for religious uncertainty made by Professor Badham is occasioned by his inability to consider this difference, and his confusing one area of study with another. Making the error of false analogy, he is comparing the first part of science to the second part of religion and looking at the second part of religion in the light of the first part of science. This meaningless comparison is responsible for the ill-considered conclusions he has arrived at in his article.

Had the worthy Professor compared the first part of science to the first part of religion and the second part of science to the second part of the religion, his inferiority complex (as a man of religion) would have ceased to exist. He would have felt that, purely as a matter of principle the wrong parallels had been drawn. The argument used in the first part of science is equally applicable to the first part of religion. Similarly the argument applied to the second part of science is equally applicable to the second part of religion.

This is a truth which has been acknowledged even by a staunch and leading atheist like Bertrand Russell. At the beginning of his book Why I am not a Christian he has set forth what he considers a valid argument. He points out that in his view all the great religions of the world—Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam and Communism—were all untrue and harmful, and that it is not possible to prove their validity from the logical point of view. Those who have opted for one religion or the other have done so, according to Russell, under the influence of their traditions and environment, rather than on the strength of argument.

However, Bertrand Russell has admitted this fact when he says, "there is one of these arguments which is not purely logical. I mean the argument from design. This argument, however, was destroyed by Darwin."

He intends here to say that the existence of God is proved by the argument that in his world where there is design, there should be a designer. He admits that this method of argument in its nature is the same as that used to prove scientific concepts. However, even after this admission, he rejects this argument by saying that it has been destroyed by Darwinism.

This is, however, a wholly baseless point, as Darwin’s theory is related to the Creator’s process of creation rather than to the existence of Creator. To put it briefly, Darwinism state that the various species found in the world were not separate creations but had changed from one species into separate species over a prolonged period of evolution by a process of natural selection.

It is obvious that this theory is not related to the existence or non-existence of God. It deals with the process of Creation instead of the Creator. That is to say, if it was hitherto believed that God created each species separately, now after accepting the theory of evolution it has to be believed that God originally created an initial species which was invested with the capability of multiplying into numerous species. And then He set in motion a natural process in the universe favorable to such multiplication. In this way, over a long period of time this primary species fulfilled its potential by changing into innumerable species. To put it another way, the theory of evolution is not a study of the existence of God, but simply of how God has displayed in the universe his power of creation. That is why Darwin himself has concluded his famous book The Origin of Species with these words:

There is grandeur in this view of life, which its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved (p. 408).

It is true that the new facts regarding the universe discovered in the twentieth century have revolutionized the world of logic. Now the difference between religious argument and scientific argument which had been erroneously conceived prior to the twentieth century, has been eliminated. Now in respect of argument, the case of science too has reached exactly the same point as religion.

Newton (1642-1727) made a special study of the solar system, discovering laws governing the revolution of planets around the sun. His study was, however, confined to astronomical bodies, which can be called the macro-world. It is possible in the macro world to weigh and measure things. As a result of the immediate impact of these discoveries, many began to think along the lines that reality was observable, and that proper and valid argument was one based on observation. It was under the influence of this concept that the philosophy generally known as positivism came into being.

However the discoveries made in the first quarter of the century shook the very foundation of their preliminary theories. These later discoveries revealed that beyond this world of appearance, a whole world was hidden, which does not come under observation. It is only indirectly possible to understand this hidden world and present arguments in its favor. That is, by observing the effects of something, we arrive at an understanding of its existence.

This discovery altered the whole picture. When the access of human knowledge was limited to the macro-cosmic world, man was a prey to this misapprehension. But when human knowledge penetrated the micro-world, the academic situation changed on its own.

Now it was revealed that the field of direct argument was extremely limited. New facts which came to the knowledge of man were so abstruse that indirect or inferential argument alone was applicable. For instance, The German scientist, Wilhelm Konrad Roentgen found in 1895 during an experiment that on a glass before him some effects were observable, despite the fact that there was no known link between his experiment and the glass. He concluded that there was an invisible radiation which was travelling at the speed of 186,000 miles per second. Due to the unknown nature of this radiation, Reontgen named it X-rays (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 19/1058).

The twentieth century has seen the discoveries of a number of things like X-rays, which do not come under direct human observation. However due, to their effects having come to knowledge of man, it was not possible to deny their existence. As a result of modern research, not only were different departments of science revolutionized but the science of logic too saw basic changes.

Now inferential reasoning was also accepted as a valid method of reasoning, for, without this discoveries like X-rays, the scientific structure of the atom, the existence of Dark Matter, etc., could not have been explained.

After the extension of this method of reasoning in modern times, argument on religious faith has become as valid as reasoning on scientific concepts. Exactly the same inferential logic which was employed to prove the newly discovered concepts of science, was applicable to religious faiths to prove their veracity. Now differences in the criterion of logic have vanished.



Answer to a Question:

At the end of his article Professor Badham writes: And I have to acknowledge that the existence of so much evil and suffering in the world counts against any vision of an all-powerful and loving God (p. 7).

Here I have to say that evil is a relative world. An evil is an evil so long as it cannot be explained. A doctor performs surgery on the patient’s body, a judge sentences a criminal to be hanged. All this appears to be injustice, cruelty. But we do not call it so, simply because we have a proper explanation to give for the acts of the judge and the doctor. The same is true of the evil pointed out by the article writer.

The first point is that the evil existing in human society is not spread over the entire universe. Leaving aside the limited human world, the vast universe is perfect, par excellence. It is entirely free of any defect or evil.

Now the question arises as to why there is evil in the human world. To arrive at an understanding of this we shall have to understand the creation plan of the Creator. The certain plan of God provides the only criterion by which to judge the nature of the matter.

The creation plan of God as revealed to His Prophet is that this world is a testing ground, where man’s virtue is placed on trial. It is in accordance with the records of this trial period that man’s eternal fate will be decreed. It is for the purpose of this test that he has been granted freedom. In the absence of freedom, the question of life being a test would not arise.

The present evil is, in fact, a concomitant of this freedom. God desires to select those individuals who, in spite of being granted freedom, lead a disciplined and principled life. For individuals to prove their worth an atmosphere of freedom must be provided. Undoubtedly, due to such an atmosphere, some people will surely misuse this freedom and perpetrate injustice. But this is the inevitable price to be paid for such a creation plan to be brought to completion. No better creation plan can be envisaged for this world.

The present world appears meaningless when seen independently, that is, without joining the Hereafter with it. But when we take this world and the Hereafter together, the entire matter takes a new turn. Now this world becomes extremely meaningful and extremely valuable

For details regarding the method of argument refer to the book ‘Religion and Science’ by the author. (pp. 9-21)

Source:
http://www.alrisala.org/intro_page_l...categories.htm

Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-29-2014, 08:05 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-12-2013, 06:19 PM
  3. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-03-2008, 09:43 AM
  4. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-11-2006, 05:10 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!