To disbelieve in god is irrational

[Brother_Mujahid]

just some notes i wrote from a talk i attended yesterday.........
To disbelieve in god is irrational – by Shaykh Shabbir Ally

It is irrational to disbelieve in god and rational to believe in god.

There are 3 main principles which are used to explain the above.

The Belief conservation – You have a belief but it is not proven, neither do you have to approve it. For example I have a mind and I have the belief that everyone around me has a mind. I don’t have to prove it that others have a mind regardless that I have one myself.

The logical positivism – You prove everything before believing it. The principle itself would have to be proven in order for you to accept it! As is stated in the principle.

Modern day science has overturned many beliefs of the past. Example of the Christians would say the earth is the centre of the universe where jesus the son of god came to. Although science has disproves this.

There is no proof or evidence that god does not exist.

Cosmological idea – From nothing something comes. Nothing has zero potential and can do nothing. But we have something which comes from something.

Whatever exists has a purpose eg the universe, humans are created to obey Allah. When things don’t add up there needs to be an explanation.

Evolution is based on assumptions. When there is a design there is a creator, evolutionists call this mother nature as apposed to accepting the fact that Allah exists.

Theological principle – we are lucky to be alive on earth. There were laws of physics right from the beginning of time in the universe, the gravity was just perfect, if it was too strong or too weak it would have had drastic consequences.


The fact that we have life on earth is a miracle and can not be due to chance, so evolutionists say there is an infinite number of parallel universes.

Humans are moral they have a sense of what is right and what is wrong. Animals do not have this sense of right and wrong. Without god there is no right or wrong, everything would be permissible like murdering and stealing etc. example of a thief he will steal but when you steal from him he will see something wrong with it. If there is no god then somethings would not be wronger than others.

Athiesm in todays society want freedom to their desires. It is trying to make people think that religion is backward. It also tries to promote that you can do as you like as long as you don’t harm others - utilitarianism.

If you exclude god then you have no morals which have a dependable base.Moral argument – If things are wrong then there must be a god.



From the Islamic perspective

Overtime Allah has communicated with prophets and sent revelation through them. The prophets the revelation and messages were sent to were remembered as dependable and respected, and not as madmen. Some pretence must be given to these historical events.


Our prophet left behind the Quran the word of Allah. If the prophet had made it up and sought to seek status and fame then he would have given up his message in the makkan phase. This is looking at it from a human perspective, as he would at that time have nothing to gain. But the prophet was sincere with the true message and carried on preaching it.


The prophet was illiterate, the fact that the Quran was written in perfect Arabic and was also grammatically correct.


The Quran commands and rebukes the prophet. It does not make sense if that if the prophet wrote it that he speaks to himself and rebukes himself.

The prophet was not mad as he knew what he was sane, neither was he a forger as he knew what he was saying.

The Quran mentioned things in the past which at that time were unknown. It also mentions what will come in the future. After the muslims had defeated the romans. The Quran said that the romans would be victorious, and they were. They defeated the Persians. So the Quran mentioned things of the past and future which were known.

The Quran also has accurate description as it does with the human embryo which at the time the microscope had not been discovered and the detail was in the Quran.


The Quran like no other book challenges people to find errors within it.


It calls people to produce something like it.


The teachings are reasonable. It also creates faith within its believers as it addresses them.

 

[Sahabiyaat]

The Quran mentioned things in the past which at that time were unknown. It also mentions what will come in the future. After the muslims had defeated the romans. The Quran said that the romans would be victorious, and they were. They defeated the Persians. So the Quran mentioned things of the past and future which were known.

The Quran also has accurate description as it does with the human embryo which at the time the microscope had not been discovered and the detail was in the Quran.


The Quran like no other book challenges people to find errors within it.


It calls people to produce something like it

eace: very good

similar stuff comes on on Islam about proving the existance of god through the miracles in the quran ...its fascinating to watch ...it strengthens and confirms the imaan of a believer who listens to it and makes a disbeliever think twice about his baseless beliefs and principles.

 

[Mohsin]

Mashaallah an excellent post, sounds like a great talk i missed out on

 

[Umm Yoosuf]

Masha Allah good stuff. Jazakallhu Khayr for sharing

 

[Halima]

Jazakahllah Khairun for this beneficial article.

 

[pious_hijabi]

MashAllah Brother, JazakAllahkhair for sharing.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Since I do not believe in god, and am apparently irrational, I'd like to step in here if I may, just to address some points raised in the following notes.

To disbelieve in god is irrational – by Shaykh Shabbir Ally

It is irrational to disbelieve in god and rational to believe in god.

There are 3 main principles which are used to explain the above.

The Belief conservation – You have a belief but it is not proven, neither do you have to approve it. For example I have a mind and I have the belief that everyone around me has a mind. I don’t have to prove it that others have a mind regardless that I have one myself.

True. Atheism is a belief, just as theism is. Neither the theist nor the atheist can be expected to prove their respective positions beyond all doubt, but many people enjoy discussing the reasons for their belief.

The logical positivism – You prove everything before believing it. The principle itself would have to be proven in order for you to accept it! As is stated in the principle.

This is certainly true, and it's the reason no philosophers (to my knowledge) subscribe to logical positivism today. It was popular in the 1920s but has long been out of fashion.

Modern day science has overturned many beliefs of the past. Example of the Christians would say the earth is the centre of the universe where jesus the son of god came to. Although science has disproves this.

True, but this point from later on in the notes:

Theological principle – we are lucky to be alive on earth. There were laws of physics right from the beginning of time in the universe, the gravity was just perfect, if it was too strong or too weak it would have had drastic consequences.

comes very close to saying that the Earth is the centre of the universe.

There is no proof or evidence that does not exist.

Is the word 'god' missing from this sentence? If so, I agree, there is no proof that god does not exist.

Evolution is based on assumptions. When there is a design there is a creator, evolutionists call this mother nature as apposed to accepting the fact that Allah exists.

Is evolution based on unreasonable assumptions though? What could they be?

The fact that we have life on earth is a miracle and can not be due to chance, so evolutionists say there is an infinite number of parallel universes.

Not all evolutionists believe this. The 'parallel universes' idea derives from the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics, not evolution.

Humans are moral they have a sense of what is right and what is wrong. Animals do not have this sense of right and wrong. Without god there is no right or wrong, everything would be permissible like murdering and stealing etc. example of a thief he will steal but when you steal from him he will see something wrong with it. If there is no god then somethings would not be wronger than others.

If what is said here is true, then why do animals not have this moral sense?

Athiesm in todays society want freedom to their desires. It is trying to make people think that religion is backward. It also tries to promote that you can do as you like as long as you don’t harm others - utilitarianism.

That is not a definition of utilitarianism - it sounds more like hedonism.

If you exclude god then you have no morals which have a dependable base.

What about basing morality on the principle of being nice to people? Atheists are not necessarily evil, are they?

The prophets the revelation and messages were sent to were remembered as dependable and respected, and not as madmen.

They were seen as "dependable and respected" by some people, but not by all.

The Quran commands and rebukes the prophet. It does not make sense if that if the prophet wrote it that he speaks to himself and rebukes himself.

Why does that not make sense? People with a strong sense of morality rebuke themselves all the time.

It also mentions what will come in the future. After the muslims had defeated the romans. The Quran said that the romans would be victorious, and they were. They defeated the Persians. So the Quran mentioned things of the past and future which were known.

I think that, bearing in mind the situation of the Romans at that time, it was a pretty safe bet.

The Quran also has accurate description as it does with the human embryo which at the time the microscope had not been discovered and the detail was in the Quran.

This is simply untrue. The Qur'an's descriptions of the human embryo are vague at best, and do not conform to a modern understanding of embryology. In fact, they are similar to the descriptions of Galen, who lived 400 years before the Qur'an was written, yet I do not hear any claims for his divine inspiration.

The Quran like no other book challenges people to find errors within it.

There are many books which make precisely this challenge. In fact, it's an unspoken challenge that is assumed to be implicit in every single scientific paper.

The person whose views are represented here has overlooked obvious errors in order to justify his prior beliefs. For someone who claims to be presenting the "rational" position, he has been careless.

(Please let me know if there are any errors in what I've said here.)

Peace

 

[servent]

sopanallah this is true to dibelive in GOD is just not write it is so easy to comprihend honestly just think for one minet who created the univers the earth the humans the plaints the trees the animals all these things didnt just go bang and they came together that is comen sence there with no question or dought that is a god and only one i i hope you belive in a GOD cause than you will never get no were if you are serching for the truth i really hope you are guded truely from my heart i hope you were not ofended but that is the only way i could write what i felt may ALLAH guide you.hew

 

[Brother_Mujahid]

Greetings czgibson

Greetings,

I'd like to step in here if I may, just to address some points raised in the following notes.

feel free to

True. Atheism is a belief, just as theism is. Neither the theist nor the atheist can be expected to prove their respective positions beyond all doubt, but many people enjoy discussing the reasons for their belief.

it also puts your own beliefs under scrutiny and can make you a more believer in what you actually believe.

Is the word 'god' missing from this sentence? If so, I agree, there is no proof that god does not exist.

yes it was missing, i realised after posting it up the notes.

If what is said here is true, then why do animals not have this moral sense?

because it was the way we were created by Allah, i had this ayah i wanted to share but cannot find it at this time.

What about basing morality on the principle of being nice to people? Atheists are not necessarily evil, are they?

thats utilitarianism, i agree athiests are not bad evil people. if humans are to make rules which make us free to do as we wish im certain there would be more evil in this world as a direct concequence.

They were seen as "dependable and respected" by some people, but not by all.

take our prophet for example before his prophethood he was seen as trustworthy and as a well trusted man. even after he began to receive revelation he was seen the same way as he was before, it was only the fact that he bought something new to the people that would better the people that he was hated for this untill slowly he was accepted.

Why does that not make sense? People with a strong sense of morality rebuke themselves all the time.

the point was that the prophet did not write the quran

they are similar to the descriptions of Galen, who lived 400 years before the Qur'an was written, yet I do not hear any claims for his divine inspiration.

that is because he did not have any divine revelation, niether did he claim he did. whereas the other prophets which came did.

There are many books which make precisely this challenge. In fact, it's an unspoken challenge that is assumed to be implicit in every single scientific paper.

The quran states the following:
Do they not ponder on the Qur'an? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy. surah 4 ayah 82

People will accept scientific findings without really scrutinising it in great deal, as most scientific findings have reasonable evidence to suggest or backup whatever is being said. But as we learn from the past these can with time be overturned, as were the beliefs of the world being flat or the earth being the centre of the universe.

The person whose views are represented here has overlooked obvious errors in order to justify his prior beliefs. For someone who claims to be presenting the "rational" position, he has been careless.

this is your opinion

peace

p.s i commented on some of the points and comments you raised if theres others i missed and you'll like an explaination or answer to, just repost it and im sure other members may be able to answer and comment on them.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Brother Mujahid,

thats utilitarianism, i agree athiests are not bad evil people.

"Being nice to people" hardly constitutes a definition of utilitarianism. In case anyone's curious, you can find out what utilitariansim actually is here:

Utilitarianism - Wikipedia entry

if humans are to make rules which make us free to do as we wish im certain there would be more evil in this world as a direct concequence.

I'm sure you're right, but who is suggesting that people do that?

that is because he did not have any divine revelation, niether did he claim he did. whereas the other prophets which came did.

You're right, of course. The point is that the supposedly amazing "foreknowledge" that the Qur'an is often described as containing is often given as evidence of its divine authorship. I'm simply pointing out that Galen gave similar descriptions of embryos as the Qur'an, yet people do not make the same claim for him.

People will accept scientific findings without really scrutinising it in great deal, as most scientific findings have reasonable evidence to suggest or backup whatever is being said.

Of course, members of the public probably don't ususally scrutinise scientific findings in detail, but if a scientist examined another scientist's findings with that attitude, he would not be doing his job properly.

But as we learn from the past these can with time be overturned, as were the beliefs of the world being flat or the earth being the centre of the universe.

Of course; this is how science progresses.

this is your opinion

I'm sorry, but the originator of the ideas in those notes made clear errors. That is a fact; it is not simply my opinion.

p.s i commented on some of the points and comments you raised if theres others i missed and you'll like an explaination or answer to, just repost it and im sure other members may be able to answer and comment on them.

I'd welcome anyone else's contributions if they'd like to comment on what I've written.

Peace

 

[Syed Hussain]

ASW
brother did you attend the Kingdom of Heaven in LMC. mashallah it was wicked but i missed the last talk by Shabbyr Ally.
ASW
p.s there is a 2 day conference happening in LMC called the book of Allah and alternative for christmas. try an attend everyone. i think its free INshallah.

 

[Brother_Mujahid]

greetings,
Muhammad has kindly answered some the points previosly raised.

if humans are to make rules which make us free to do as we wish im certain there would be more evil in this world as a direct concequence.

I'm sure you're right, but who is suggesting that people do that?

yes i am, it is exactly what our society is heading towards.

recently the uk introduced 'gay marriages' which previously in the same country would have been outragous. infact homosexuality was seen as a mental disorder and now its been accepted through this process that we are free to make our own rules, do as we wish as long as we don't harm others.

what islam says on homosexuality
The closing time of pubs and bars has also increased when before there was some sort of restriction.

regards

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

As it is related to some of the issues raised, I thought I would point out that Shabir Ally's lecture on the proof of Muhammad's prophethood, is available online here.

There are many books which make precisely this challenge.

I'm not aware of any book which challenges readers to prove it false. Most writings acknowledge the possibility of errors withhin them. You mention scientific papers as an example, yet these papers are actually the first to acknowledge their limited scope (often based on statistical analysis which has many inherent limitations) as well as the presence of any error in them.
Of course its always possible for someone to write a book and challenge people to point out some error in it, but it is normally unusual for human beings to do such. Most people say, as you did:

(Please let me know if there are any errors in what I've said here.)

Concerning the claim,

The person whose views are represented here has overlooked obvious errors in order to justify his prior beliefs.

Although there's no need for me to defend Shabir Ally, I must say that I can't see any obvious errors. True, he may have given a defintion of utilitarianism as doing those actions which promote collective good, which you find inaccurate, but this still does not detract from his arguments. The presence of morality, a sense of justice, compassion, mercy, etc. remain unexplained by atheists, and in fact indicate a sense beyond the material universe. If our universe has simply come about through various chemical interactions, then there is no such thing as right or wrong. This doesn't mean that atheists are immoral; an atheist develops a basis for their morals according to whatever is acceptable in their society. The values upon which western society was established were derived from revealed religion, although these values are slowly deteriorating as secularism rises.

As for the prophecy of Surah Rum, although there are some articles written about this event on the internet such as here, I prefer the analysis of Dr. Laurence Brown:

Surah Ar-Rum (The Romans - surah 30) similarly presents and interesting entrée on the banquet of 'food for thought.' Verses 2-4 were revealed at the time of a victory (in battle) of Persia over Rome, prior to news of the battle reaching Makkah by normal channels (i.e., travelers, caravans, etc.). Furthermore, a reversal of fortunes, with Rom visiting victory over Persia within 3 to 9 years, was predicted in the same verses. As history records such events, Persia celebrated victory over Rome at Antioch in 613 CE, and the Byzantines were subsequently defeated in Damascus, driven out of Armenia, and overrun in their cherished city of Jerusalem. [296] Chalcedon was taken by the Persians in 617 CE, and Egypt conquered in 619. [297] [298] The situation was beginning to look pretty bleak for the Roman empire, right up to the time Heraclius launched his historic campaign of 622-627 CE. Decisively pounding the Persian forces, led by the famous general Shahr-Baraz, on Armenian soil in the year 622 CE, the Romans defeated a major Persian force for the first time in three years since losing Egypt, nine years since the defeat at Antioch, and bracketing the remainder of the above mentioned deats within the time period of three to nine years. [299] [300] Surah 30:2-4 reads:

"The Romans have been defeated.
In the nearest land (Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and Palestine),
and they, after their defeat, will be victorious.
Within three to nine years. The decision of the matter,
before and after (these events) is only with Allah.
And on that Day, the believers (i.e. Muslims) will rejoice."
(TMQ - Muhammad Al-Hilali and Muhammad Khan translation - 30:2-4)​

The history is remarkable, for the reason that by the time of Muhammad, Rome was an empire in decay. The period of 395-476 CE is described in scholastic works as the fall of the Western Empire. Alaric, chief of the Visigoths, led the army which sacked Rome in August, 410 CE. Gaiseric, king of the Vandals and the Alani, sacked Rome in the summer of 455 CE. Attila the Hun overran the area in the mid-400's, and the last emperor of the intact and undivided Roman empire was deposed in the late 5th century. So a prediction which surfaced nearly two centruies later, stating that the already disintegrating Roman empire would gain a victory over the huge and seemingly superior Persian army, would have seemed rash on a human level. And so it appears to have been judged by those who denied the revelation - men such as Ubay Ibn Khalf.
The story is narrated in many historical accounts of Arabian history. The Arabs did not percieve the conflict to be limited to one of Persia versus Rome, but rather a contest between paganism and people of a scripture. The pagan Arabs conceived the fire-worshipping Persians to be brothers in paganism whereas the Muslims viewed the Romans to be people of a scripture. hence the interest in one side prevailing, reflecting the superiority of the god of the winner. When the Persians were victorious over Rome, the pagan Arabs celebrated. Following this, the above ayat (verses) were revealed, strengthening the hearts of the believers. When Abu Bakr As-Siddiq (the closest companion and the future first Caliph following the prophet's demise) learned the revelation, he interrupted the pagans from their celebration and told them thst they should not be so happy, because the victory was destined to be overturned with the help of Allah. Upon hearing this, Ubay Ibn Khalf called Abu Bakr a liar, prompting Abu Bakr to return the charge by saying, "You are the liar, O enemy of Allah." Ubay then challenged Abu Bakr by betting 10 camels that Rome would not be victorious in 3 years. When Abu Bakr informed Muhammad of the wager (which was made before the prohibition of gambling was revealed), Muhammad reminded him that the Arabic word 'Bid'i' in the revealed verses means between three and nine years, and so the time period should be extended to that foretold in the revelation. When Abu Bakr returned to Ubay, Ubay asked if Abu BAkr regretted the wager, to which Abu Bakr responded in the negative, following which Abu Bakr stated that he wanted to increase the wager to 100 camels and the time to 9 years. Ubay agreed. 9 years later Abu Bakr gained a herd of camels, and the encyclopedia of Islamic evidences gained yet one more entry. [301]
An odd prediction in completion of the above prophecy is the final line, "And on that Day, the believers (i.e., Muslims) will rejoice." In the absence of microwave and satellite relays, radios, CNN, etc., news of such events took days to weeks, sometimes even months (if weather forbade travel) to achieve transmission. How, then, could the prediction that the Muslims would be rejoicing on the very day the Persians were defeated be made with such confidence? Yet, such was precisely the case, for the predicted defeat of the Persians occurred on the exact same day that the Muslims celebrated their own victory over the disbelievers at the Battle of Badr. Worldly coincidence or divine plan?

_________________________
[296] Ostrogorsky, George. 1969. History of the Byzantine State. (Translated from German by Joan Hussey). New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. p. 95.
[297] Sykes, Sir Percy Molesworth. 1951. A History of Persia. 3rd edition. Vol 1. London: Macmillan & Co., Ltd. p. 483.
[298] Ostrogorsky, George. p. 95.
[299] Ostrogorsky, George. pp. 100-101.
[300] Sykes, Sir Percy Molesworth. Vol 1. pp. 483-484.
[301] Tafseer Ibn Kathir, Musnad Ahmad, Sunan Tirmithee and An-Nisa'ee
_________________________
(Brown, The First and Final Commandment, pp. 397-400)​

Hopefully that puts things into perspective.

Regards

 

[Brother_Mujahid]

you can listen to the origianl talk by sheikh shabir at the following site, the talk is titled: To Deny God is Irrational and Superstitious

 

[nafy]

salaamz bro,
i hope u didnt mind but i tuk dis info cus i found it very interesting and shared it with ppl on another forum....
this is the response i got from a non muslim....and 2 tell u da truth i aint all dat cleva 2 try n answer it....any ideas??
take care
w/salamz

absoloute rubbish, its main principles rely on the"fact" that there is a god, it is basically a circular, uninformed argument. There's so much wrong with it that I really don't know where to begin...

The first bit seems to not have any plot, 3 main principles? what are the principles? They aren't listed,

Humans the only moral beings? um? morals are just associated emotions to a reaction as a result of our consciousness,
When my cat sticks her head in my plate of food and i tell her off, she knows she's done wrong, that is an example of morals, just without the conscious link association.

"Whatever exists has a purpose eg the universe, humans are created to obey Allah. When things don’t add up there needs to be an explanation. "

A typically egocentric human responce, why must EVERYTHING have a purpose? Nothing has a purpose, we exist merely because we do, don't flatter yourself by thinking you're to do anything.

"If you exclude god then you have no morals which have a dependable base.Moral argument – If things are wrong then there must be a god. "

This makes such little rational sense i actually laughed when I read it, I don't believe in god, but I don't go out raping/murdering/stealing, wanna know why? Because I have morals....