السبت، 1 سبتمبر 2012
allah
Golden Day shared Egypt Days's photo.
Say, "He is Allah, [who is] One, (1) Allah, the Eternal Refuge. (2) He neither begets nor is born, (3) Nor is there to Him any equivalent." (4)
Say, "He is Allah, [who is] One, (1) Allah, the Eternal Refuge. (2) He neither begets nor is born, (3) Nor is there to Him any equivalent." (4)
hadith
Abdullah ibn Mas’ud said, “The intercession of the people will continue and they will be taken out of the Hellfire until, verily, Satan himself will hope that it will be lengthened such that he is included.”
[At-Tabarani, Al-Ma’jam Al-Kabir, Number 10513]
عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ مَسْعُودٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ قَالَ لَا تَزَالُ الشَّفَاعَةُ بِالنَّاسِ وَهُمْ يَخْرُجُونَ مِنَ النَّارِ حَتَّى إِنَّ إِبْلِيسَ الْأَبَالِسِ لَيَتَطَاوَلُ لَهَا رَجَاءَ أَنْ تُصِيبَهُ
المعجم الكبير باب العين من اسمه عبد الله عبد الله بن مسعود الهذل
[At-Tabarani, Al-Ma’jam Al-Kabir, Number 10513]
عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ مَسْعُودٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ قَالَ لَا تَزَالُ الشَّفَاعَةُ بِالنَّاسِ وَهُمْ يَخْرُجُونَ مِنَ النَّارِ حَتَّى إِنَّ إِبْلِيسَ الْأَبَالِسِ لَيَتَطَاوَلُ لَهَا رَجَاءَ أَنْ تُصِيبَهُ
المعجم الكبير باب العين من اسمه عبد الله عبد الله بن مسعود الهذل
A dialogue with My Atheist Friend:
A dialogue with My Atheist Friend: ( Episode 1 )
My friend is a man who likes to argue and delights in
talking. He thinks that we, naive believers as we are, feed on
illusions and miss me pleasures and attractions of this world
My friend is a man who likes to argue and delights in
talking. He thinks that we, naive believers as we are, feed on
illusions and miss me pleasures and attractions of this world
beguiling ourselves with Paradise and the Houris. He studied
in France where he got a Ph.D. degree, consorted with
I lippies, and came to disbelieve in everything.
He adressed me sarcastically:
-You say that God exists. The chief among your proofs is
the law of causation which stipulates that every artefact,
creature, or existent must have been brought into being by a
maker, creator, or efficient cause : a piece of fabric points to
the weaver, a painting to the painter, an engraving to the
engraver. The universe, according to this logic, is the most
cogent proof of a Puissant God who created it.
Granted that we believe in this creator, aren't we entitled,
according tp the same logic, to ask, "Who created the
Creator; who created that God you talk about?" Doesn't
your own reasoning and in keeping with the same law of
causation lead you to this question? Now, What have you to
say about this dilemma?
I replied to him " - There is no dilemma or anything of that sort. You grant that God is a Creator and then you ask about who created Him making Him both creator and created in the same
sentence, which is a contradiction.
The other side of your question's meaninglessness is that
you imagine the creator as being subject to the laws which
govern his creatures. Causation is a law for us who live in
space and time. God, who created space and time, is
necessarily transcendent in relation to both and it is an error
on our part to think that he is bound either by them or by
their laws. It is God who created the law of causation and we
cannot consider Him as subject to the law He created.
In this sophistry of yours you are like those dolls that,
seeing they move by springs, imagine that the human who
made them must also derive his motion from the action of
springs. If they were told that he is self-moved, they would
retort that it is impossible for anything to move spontaneously
since everything in their world is moved by a spring. Just like
them, you cannot imagine that God exists in His own Essence
with no need of an efficient cause; and this is because you see
everything around you in need of such a cause. It is as if you
thought that God needs a parachute to descend among men
or a fast car to reach His prophets; God is infinitely exalted
above such conceptions.
The German philosopher, Immanuel Kant realized, in his
Critique of Pure Reason, that the mind cannot comprehend
infinite realities and that it is by nature fitted only to
apprehend particulars. It is incapable of apprehending such a
universal or total existence as that of the divinity. God was
known by conscience not by reason. Just as our thirst for
water is a proof that it exists, our yearning for justice is proof
to us that a just Being exists.
Aristotle followed the chain of causality tracing the chair
from wood, wood from the tree, the tree from a seed, and the
seed from the planter. He had to conclude that this chain
which regresses into infinite time must have begun with an
'uncaused' cause, a primum mobile in no need of a mover, a
creator who has not been created. This is the same thing we
assert of God.
God says in a Divine Utterance (Hadith Qudsi): "It is I
who aids in proving and finding, there is no proof leading to
Me."
God is the proof which is in no need of another proof. He is
the self-evident Truth; and He is the evidence that substantiates everything.
He is manifest in order, precision, beauty, and regularity; in tree leaves, in the feathers of a fawn, in the wings of the butterfly, in the fragrance of flowers, in the chanting of the nightingale, in the harmony of planets and stars which makes up that symphonic poem we call the universe.
If we allege that all this came into being by chance,
we would be like a person'who believes that blowing-up the
types of a press into space can result in their spontaneous assembly into an authorless Shakepearean sonnet.
The Quran spares us all these arguments with a few
expressive words. It says without sophistry and in a decisiv~
clarity:
"Say that God is One, the Eternal.
He begot none nor was he begotten.
None is equal to Him."
........ Follow ....
✄ From The Book " A Dialogue with My Atheist Friend , Dr Mustafa Mahmoud "
in France where he got a Ph.D. degree, consorted with
I lippies, and came to disbelieve in everything.
He adressed me sarcastically:
-You say that God exists. The chief among your proofs is
the law of causation which stipulates that every artefact,
creature, or existent must have been brought into being by a
maker, creator, or efficient cause : a piece of fabric points to
the weaver, a painting to the painter, an engraving to the
engraver. The universe, according to this logic, is the most
cogent proof of a Puissant God who created it.
Granted that we believe in this creator, aren't we entitled,
according tp the same logic, to ask, "Who created the
Creator; who created that God you talk about?" Doesn't
your own reasoning and in keeping with the same law of
causation lead you to this question? Now, What have you to
say about this dilemma?
I replied to him " - There is no dilemma or anything of that sort. You grant that God is a Creator and then you ask about who created Him making Him both creator and created in the same
sentence, which is a contradiction.
The other side of your question's meaninglessness is that
you imagine the creator as being subject to the laws which
govern his creatures. Causation is a law for us who live in
space and time. God, who created space and time, is
necessarily transcendent in relation to both and it is an error
on our part to think that he is bound either by them or by
their laws. It is God who created the law of causation and we
cannot consider Him as subject to the law He created.
In this sophistry of yours you are like those dolls that,
seeing they move by springs, imagine that the human who
made them must also derive his motion from the action of
springs. If they were told that he is self-moved, they would
retort that it is impossible for anything to move spontaneously
since everything in their world is moved by a spring. Just like
them, you cannot imagine that God exists in His own Essence
with no need of an efficient cause; and this is because you see
everything around you in need of such a cause. It is as if you
thought that God needs a parachute to descend among men
or a fast car to reach His prophets; God is infinitely exalted
above such conceptions.
The German philosopher, Immanuel Kant realized, in his
Critique of Pure Reason, that the mind cannot comprehend
infinite realities and that it is by nature fitted only to
apprehend particulars. It is incapable of apprehending such a
universal or total existence as that of the divinity. God was
known by conscience not by reason. Just as our thirst for
water is a proof that it exists, our yearning for justice is proof
to us that a just Being exists.
Aristotle followed the chain of causality tracing the chair
from wood, wood from the tree, the tree from a seed, and the
seed from the planter. He had to conclude that this chain
which regresses into infinite time must have begun with an
'uncaused' cause, a primum mobile in no need of a mover, a
creator who has not been created. This is the same thing we
assert of God.
God says in a Divine Utterance (Hadith Qudsi): "It is I
who aids in proving and finding, there is no proof leading to
Me."
God is the proof which is in no need of another proof. He is
the self-evident Truth; and He is the evidence that substantiates everything.
He is manifest in order, precision, beauty, and regularity; in tree leaves, in the feathers of a fawn, in the wings of the butterfly, in the fragrance of flowers, in the chanting of the nightingale, in the harmony of planets and stars which makes up that symphonic poem we call the universe.
If we allege that all this came into being by chance,
we would be like a person'who believes that blowing-up the
types of a press into space can result in their spontaneous assembly into an authorless Shakepearean sonnet.
The Quran spares us all these arguments with a few
expressive words. It says without sophistry and in a decisiv~
clarity:
"Say that God is One, the Eternal.
He begot none nor was he begotten.
None is equal to Him."
........ Follow ....
✄ From The Book " A Dialogue with My Atheist Friend , Dr Mustafa Mahmoud "
الاشتراك في:
الرسائل (Atom)