Random Thoughts and Notes – Nos. 126-150

126.  Allah’s Attributes are not Him nor other than Him. Thus, these are meanings that are eternally true of Allah the Exalted – and thus, they are not entities or beings, they are ‘not Him’. If one were to say they were Him, then there are two potential problems, one of them that there would be multiple gods (because Knowledge would be an independent Eternal being, Power would be an independent Eternal being, and so on); or that Allah would not be a Being, but only an abstract Attribute or set of Attributes, and this is the ideology of Daoists, Hindus, and others, and this is impossible. Continue reading

Random Thoughts and Notes – Nos. 101-125

101.  The Ibaahiyah (i.e. ‘libertines’) were present in the Islamic society even in the beginning periods of Islam. And even though their arguments may have been more God-centered than what we see of libertines today, yet the main idea was the same, that everything is literally ‘Halaal’, and that there are no restrictions whatsoever. And again, the ‘Ulaamaa of the previous centuries were able to stand against them and neutralize their influence among the great masses of believers, unlike what we see today of the difficulties in getting our message across (this is what I personally see and feel). Continue reading

Random Thoughts and Notes – Nos. 76-100

76.  One matter that seems surprising about the modern-day approach to pushing the limits of humanity in what he can ‘progress’ in, and in unhindered accumulation of goods and pleasures, is that the lack of restraint is seen not only in spiritual and religious matters (which, since they are related to the Ghayb, may be dismissed by many), but even in those things related to this very visible material world. This is why developed and now even ‘developing’ countries have their financial institutions underpinned by usury, obesity-related health problems, even the destruction of the planet itself. Continue reading

Random Thoughts and Notes – Nos. 51- 75

51.  Those who say that Allah is not ‘like this body’ or not ‘like that body’ without saying that He is not a body at all, are basically opening the doors of catastrophe, for the correct thing to say is to deny ascription of bodies to Allah from the root, not to merely say that Allah does not resemble certain specific types of bodies [the inference being that perhaps there are other bodies He does resemble.] Continue reading

Random Thoughts and Notes – Nos. 26- 50

26.  Certain people tell us that the proof for the Existence of Allah is weak, in the sense that it may prove the existence of changes occurring to bodies, but it does not show how bodies themselves are created. But, the bodies having changes occurring in them are by definition also in need of a Creator, since we understand from this that their states are not necessary, but only possible in existence.So how can that which is only possible in existence be necessary [or eternally unchanging, as our opponent may say]. It is clear that this body itself would be in need of a Creator not measured in terms of the space-time dimensions, in order to avoid the problems of circularity and infinite regress, and this is the same principle we see in the ‘proof from changes to a body’. Continue reading

Random Thoughts and Notes – Nos. 1- 25

1.     There are people who say that, in the case of the proof for the Existence of Allah, they see a problem: they say suppose the ‘infinite regress’ were to be done without time as a parameter, then what would we say? From what I understand, we say this ‘infinite regress’ is “conceptually successive”, insofar as the exact dimensions are not important, except the fact of acknowledging that they are indeed limited dimensions. Continue reading