Does the conscious arise from a quantum process.

[ZenoInTheZoo]

now take a look and contradictions are in ur posts.
ALLAH is hazir in the essence of QURAN. and is knowable though we not see HIM.

If u meant the highlighted parts, then there is no contradictions. If there is then please point it out.......
Argument in the second line of ur post is invalid.

 

[ZenoInTheZoo]

You haven't read my words carefully, Sir. I said that there are things that CANNOT be proven by Empirical Sciences simply because they relate to the Dhaat of Allah (SWT).

Kya aap Qayamat say pehlay Allah (SWT) ko dikha saktay hain? Ya phir Allah kay Arsh ko dikha saktay hain? Ya phir Allah key Kursi key video bana saktay hain? Yeh tamaam cheezain Qur'an main maujood hain. toh kya iska yeh matlab hai kay Science yeh saari cheezain prove kardega? Kuch hosh karo yaar. Shayad aapko angrezi samajhnay main dikkat pesh arahi hai?

As for the infinity part then it is simple: Allah is Limitless and therefore you cannot chain Him by any one thing that you prefer - be it logic, mathematics, astrology or anything else.

Body is made of material so at least traceable through Darwin or any other theory but consciousness is also physical that could be known one day?

How would you describe a "scientific method" to prove some thing, old days it used to be Maths, Biology, Physics etc in "realm" of science but now even psychology is also branch of science. Would you rule out possible new branches of sciences in future or you believe Science has reached it's peak so no further progress!

Where did you get this idea that infinite needs infinite ways to prove it's infinity? Suppose one needs to prove other stupid, shall require stupid ways to prove his stupidity! Is that what you are trying to establish?

Can you guys give your opinion/understanding of how mutashabehat and muhkmat verses are differentiated from each other and classified, please?

Is there an agreed methodology for this purpose on which there is Ijma of Ummah?

 

[Aleph]

Bhai saheb, main nay toh siray say CONSCIOUS (agahi) kay upar tabsara hee nahin kiya. Main nay sirf itna farmaya kay FIL WAQT science nay agahi/fehem key asal ko saabit nahin kiya. Naa hee iskay irtiqa par behes key hai. Main nay yeh toh nahin kaha kay science kisi din agahi ko saabit nahin kar sakti?

Haan, main nay yeh zuroor kaha kay KUCH cheezain jo kay Qur'an main hain (jis tarha Allah ka Arsh, Kursi, Lawh Al-Mahfouz waghera) sciency 'uloom say nahin saabit key ja sakteen. Kyonkay yeh cheezain mutashabihaat main say hain aur inki asal tak rasa'i mumkin nahin.

Aap ko yeh pata hona chahye kay science kay liye kisi cheez ko QAT'AN saabit karnay kay liye us cheez ka insaani hawaas say saabit hona zuroori hai. Isko EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE kehtay hain Sciency istilah main. Jis cheez ko siray say "touch, hear, smell, see, feel" nahin kar saktay usko science mustarad karta hai. Aur insaani ruh toh phir bhi maadda hai kisi qism ka - yanay kay aik makhlooq hai. Ishi tarha insaani fehem/agahi bhi makhlooq hai. Khalqat insaani hawaas kay dairay main hee hoti hai.

Allah key woh makhlooq jo kay mutashabihat kay zumray main aati hain unkay liye muaamla aur hai. Yeh makhlooq toh hai laikin inki haqeeqi shakal insaani hawaas main kabhi nahin aa sakteen. Yeh main nahin kehta balkay Allah Ta'ala ka farmaan hai (Surah 3:7). Isiliye in makhlooq ko science nahin prove kar sakti kabhi bhi. In cheezon par sirf imaan rakha jaa sakta hai aur woh bhi ANDHA IMAAN. Inki asliyyat ya haqeeqi shakal kya hai yeh sirf aakhirat main ayaan hogi.

Yeh behes isliye chiri kyonkay jin saheb nay yeh topic shuru kiya unka kehna tha kay Qiyamat us din tak nahin aayegi jis din tak Qur'ani key har aik baat saabit na hojaye sciency i'tibaar say. Toh main nay unsay poocha kay agar yeh baat hai toh qiyamat toh kabhi nahin ayegi kyonkay mutashabihaat ko Qur'an nay khud keh diya hai kay insaan iska ihaata nahin kar sakta.

Umeed hai kay aapko mera mu'akkif ab samajh main aa gaya ho.

گستاخی معاف جناب، ویلے ٹاٹ کے سکولوں میں پلا بڑھا ہے اس لیے انگریزی سے اتنی آشنائی نہیں مگر یہ اصول آپ نے کہاں سے لیا کہ صرف "دیکھنا" ہی موجودگی کی علامت ہے جیسا کہ آپ نے سارا زور دیکھنے پر دیا ہے کہ سائنس عرش و کرسی دکھا نہیں سکتی

جو ویلا سمجھا آپ نے فرمایا تھا کہ ڈارون کے نظریے سے انسان کی ارتقا تو سمجھ آسکتی ہے مگر آگاہی نہیں، اس کی بابت ویلے نے سوال کیا تھا کہ کہ انسان کا جسم تو مادی ٹھرا تو اس کی ارتقا کے پر پرزوں کو ڈھونڈا جاسکتا ہے مگر کیا آگاہی بھی مادہ ہے جس کے پر پرزوں ایک دن دریافت ہوں؟

دوسرا سوال کسی شے کے ثابت کرنا کا سائنسی طریقہ کیا ہے؟ آپ نے فرمایا کہ متشابہات غیر سائنسی ہیں اس پر عرض کیا تھا کہ کیا سائنس نے ترقی کے آخری منہج پر پہنچ گئی جو آپ نے فیصلہ صادر کر دیا یہ ناممکن ہیں، اسی پر سائنسی مضامین کا ذکر کیا جو کل تک سائنس میں شمار نہیں ہوتے تھے مگر آج ہوتے ہیں تو جب سائنس خود ابھی ارتقا کے مراحل میں ہے تو پھر آپ فیصلہ صادر کیسے کر سکتے ہیں

اس کو مزید واضح کر دوں کہ کل اعتراض کیا جاتا تھا کہ رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم نے کیسے فرمایا دیا کہ سورج عرش تک چڑھتا ہے پھر رب کا حکم پا کر واپس لوٹ جاتا ہے، منکرین حدیث اس پر رولا ڈالتے تھے کہ رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم کو کہاں ایسی باتیں معلوم، مگر آج آپ کے معزز سائنس دانوں نے سولر اپیکس کا نظریہ دیا ہے جو تصدیق کرتا ہے

تیسرا سوال آپ کے اصول پر تھا کہ لامحدود کو ثابت کرنے کو لامحدود طریقے چاہیے، اس پر عرض کیا تھا کہ پھر تو کسی احمق کو احمق ثابت کرنے کو احمقانہ طریقہ چاہیے

امید ہے اب آپ سوال سمجھیں ہونگے

 

[Aleph]

Yes, the muhkam v/s mushabbih have been defined by the mufassireen in great detail. As a rule of thumb, this topic is covered in "Kalam" (one of the many Islamic sciences). That rule of thumb is as follows: Any and all verses of similtude with respect to the Being (Zaat) of Allah are to be taken as "mutashabih". So, when Allah speaks in the Quran of "Both His Hands" its literal meaning MUST NOT be taken and Allah (SWT) only uses these words as means to explain to His Creation of His Affairs.

This is because Allah has no example or precedent. Therefore, Allah speaks to humans in the frame of reference with which they can understand. Hope this clarifies.

Can you guys give your opinion/understanding of how mutashabehat and muhkmat verses are differentiated from each other and classified, please?

Is there an agreed methodology for this purpose on which there is Ijma of Ummah?

 

[ZenoInTheZoo]

Yes, the muhkam v/s mushabbih have been defined by the mufassireen in great detail. As a rule of thumb, this topic is covered in "Kalam" (one of the many Islamic sciences). That rule of thumb is as follows: Any and all verses of similtude with respect to the Being (Zaat) of Allah are to be taken as "mutashabih". So, when Allah speaks in the Quran of "Both His Hands" its literal meaning MUST NOT be taken and Allah (SWT) only uses these words as means to explain to His Creation of His Affairs.

This is because Allah has no example or precedent. Therefore, Allah speaks to humans in the frame of reference with which they can understand. Hope this clarifies.

Thanks for ur response......really appreciate it.

Now, is there overall ijma on this understanding/explanation/rule of thumb in the Islamic world without any SIGNIFICANT dissenting voice(s)?

 

[Aleph]

Yes, there is ijma' on this matter. The only divergence that occurred was from some literalists in the 3rd-4th century Hijri who were referred to as the "Mujassimah". These were those who took these verses literally. Those Mujassimites aren't in existence anymore.

Although, there is an opinion even today that is held by the Salafis (whom some people call "Wahhabis" or in Indo-Pak, "Ahl-e-Hadith"). Although they also admit that these verses are from the mutashabihaat, their discourse around it is such that they TEETER on the edges of literalism/anthropomorphism.

Thanks for ur response......really appreciate it.

Now, is there overall ijma on this understanding/explanation/rule of thumb in the Islamic world without any SIGNIFICANT dissenting voice(s)?

 

[Veila Mast]

Bhai saheb, main nay toh siray say CONSCIOUS (agahi) kay upar tabsara hee nahin kiya. Main nay sirf itna farmaya kay FIL WAQT science nay agahi/fehem key asal ko saabit nahin kiya. Naa hee iskay irtiqa par behes key hai. Main nay yeh toh nahin kaha kay science kisi din agahi ko saabit nahin kar sakti?

Haan, main nay yeh zuroor kaha kay KUCH cheezain jo kay Qur'an main hain (jis tarha Allah ka Arsh, Kursi, Lawh Al-Mahfouz waghera) sciency 'uloom say nahin saabit key ja sakteen. Kyonkay yeh cheezain mutashabihaat main say hain aur inki asal tak rasa'i mumkin nahin.

Aap ko yeh pata hona chahye kay science kay liye kisi cheez ko QAT'AN saabit karnay kay liye us cheez ka insaani hawaas say saabit hona zuroori hai. Isko EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE kehtay hain Sciency istilah main. Jis cheez ko siray say "touch, hear, smell, see, feel" nahin kar saktay usko science mustarad karta hai. Aur insaani ruh toh phir bhi maadda hai kisi qism ka - yanay kay aik makhlooq hai. Ishi tarha insaani fehem/agahi bhi makhlooq hai. Khalqat insaani hawaas kay dairay main hee hoti hai.

Allah key woh makhlooq jo kay mutashabihat kay zumray main aati hain unkay liye muaamla aur hai. Yeh makhlooq toh hai laikin inki haqeeqi shakal insaani hawaas main kabhi nahin aa sakteen. Yeh main nahin kehta balkay Allah Ta'ala ka farmaan hai (Surah 3:7). Isiliye in makhlooq ko science nahin prove kar sakti kabhi bhi. In cheezon par sirf imaan rakha jaa sakta hai aur woh bhi ANDHA IMAAN. Inki asliyyat ya haqeeqi shakal kya hai yeh sirf aakhirat main ayaan hogi.

Yeh behes isliye chiri kyonkay jin saheb nay yeh topic shuru kiya unka kehna tha kay Qiyamat us din tak nahin aayegi jis din tak Qur'ani key har aik baat saabit na hojaye sciency i'tibaar say. Toh main nay unsay poocha kay agar yeh baat hai toh qiyamat toh kabhi nahin ayegi kyonkay mutashabihaat ko Qur'an nay khud keh diya hai kay insaan iska ihaata nahin kar sakta.

Umeed hai kay aapko mera mu'akkif ab samajh main aa gaya ho.

Now you have listed five senses to get scientific approval and counted FEEL and opted out Taste.

Anyhow, I don't want to beat around this but however I asked "Scientific Method" not "Scientific Source", please at least understand question before jumping to answer it.

Secondly, I truly admire your admission of objecting "all" and restricting it to Muhkamaat.

Then I asked about principles: as you suggested Infinity needs infinite way to prove infinity. How did you make it out?

As I admitted my incapacity of English language so I looked for Empirical in dictionary: based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. (Google)

So are you suggesting logic theory/pure logic are outside realm of Science?

Having said that you stated 3:7 which I believe is Surah Al e Imran, Ayat 7 then you may find Rasikhoon fil Ilm having knowledge of Mustashabihat which according to you can't be proven!

According to Quran: your deeds are also Makhlooq and I hope deeds are not Mustashabihaat but however deeds are physical only?

 

[Veila Mast]

Can you guys give your opinion/understanding of how mutashabehat and muhkmat verses are differentiated from each other and classified, please?

Is there an agreed methodology for this purpose on which there is Ijma of Ummah?

Sir G, How are you, Ap Bhi Kuch Bataien Ya Bacho Say Imtihan Hee Laina Hai! Lol

 

[ZenoInTheZoo]

Bhai saheb, main nay toh siray say CONSCIOUS (agahi) kay upar tabsara hee nahin kiya. Main nay sirf itna farmaya kay FIL WAQT science nay agahi/fehem key asal ko saabit nahin kiya. Naa hee iskay irtiqa par behes key hai. Main nay yeh toh nahin kaha kay science kisi din agahi ko saabit nahin kar sakti?

Haan, main nay yeh zuroor kaha kay KUCH cheezain jo kay Qur'an main hain (jis tarha Allah ka Arsh, Kursi, Lawh Al-Mahfouz waghera) sciency 'uloom say nahin saabit key ja sakteen. Kyonkay yeh cheezain mutashabihaat main say hain aur inki asal tak rasa'i mumkin nahin.

Aap ko yeh pata hona chahye kay science kay liye kisi cheez ko QAT'AN saabit karnay kay liye us cheez ka insaani hawaas say saabit hona zuroori hai. Isko EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE kehtay hain Sciency istilah main. Jis cheez ko siray say "touch, hear, smell, see, feel" nahin kar saktay usko science mustarad karta hai. Aur insaani ruh toh phir bhi maadda hai kisi qism ka - yanay kay aik makhlooq hai. Ishi tarha insaani fehem/agahi bhi makhlooq hai. Khalqat insaani hawaas kay dairay main hee hoti hai.

Allah key woh makhlooq jo kay mutashabihat kay zumray main aati hain unkay liye muaamla aur hai. Yeh makhlooq toh hai laikin inki haqeeqi shakal insaani hawaas main kabhi nahin aa sakteen. Yeh main nahin kehta balkay Allah Ta'ala ka farmaan hai (Surah 3:7). Isiliye in makhlooq ko science nahin prove kar sakti kabhi bhi. In cheezon par sirf imaan rakha jaa sakta hai aur woh bhi ANDHA IMAAN. Inki asliyyat ya haqeeqi shakal kya hai yeh sirf aakhirat main ayaan hogi.

Yeh behes isliye chiri kyonkay jin saheb nay yeh topic shuru kiya unka kehna tha kay Qiyamat us din tak nahin aayegi jis din tak Qur'ani key har aik baat saabit na hojaye sciency i'tibaar say. Toh main nay unsay poocha kay agar yeh baat hai toh qiyamat toh kabhi nahin ayegi kyonkay mutashabihaat ko Qur'an nay khud keh diya hai kay insaan iska ihaata nahin kar sakta.

Umeed hai kay aapko mera mu'akkif ab samajh main aa gaya ho.

I think there are (scientific) studies that prove that there is evolution going on in human consciousness/understanding (as understood in terms of its increasing CAPACITY to process and assimilate data/knowledge).

More than any scientific study or empirical evidence, the Quran per se is a Burhan-e-Qata'e in this regard when it says that divine guidance is complete now and this is the final book of Allah. It in other words meant that human consciousness since the days of Adam (AS) had reached to the level and capacity where it is capable of understanding the final message of Allah, capable of operating/carrying out a fairly complex system (Deen) and capable of using/processing the given/received guidance as needed at any specific point in time in future.

This is very fascinating topic. Initially, there were fewer things/objects/stimuli and simpler communication. With time humans' interaction with their environment started to add to that inventory of stimuli and communications became much more complicated with a lot of noise in it and thus, increasing challenges for human understanding/conscious/intellect.

 

[Aleph]

Sir, frankly you are wasting my time.

Firstly thanks for pointing out the typo - it should have been TASTE and not "feel" (which I already covered in "touch").

Secondly, you got your answer from the dictionary. Yes, an explanation can sound as logical as it can, but if there is EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE against it then it is NOT scientific. You are apparently not aware that "logic" is a RELATIVE concept and not an absolute one. A rational explanation need not be scientific. Philosophy talks about rational concepts, but most of it is CONJECTURE if seen from the prism of science.

According to Quran: your deeds/actions are Makhlooq - YES, you are right. That is why you can SEE them :) When did I say that deeds are "mutashabihaat"? Bhai saheb meray moun main alfaaz kyon thoonsay ja rahay hain aap?

You are confusing SIGNS versus DEFINITIVE PROOF. In Scientific nomenclature, a concept is only proven if there is DEFINITIVE PROOF. The dictionary you consulted already showed you that definitive proof is only that which is verifiable by observation or experience. The moon can be verified by observation. Allah (SWT) cannot.

We BELIEVE in Allah out of pure belief, and we try to rationalize it by showing His SIGNS. You keep dodging the bullet here: Allah (SWT) Himself states categorically in the Qur'an that His Ru'yah is IMPOSSIBLE before Qiyamah.

Please note that Ru'yah literally means "to see with eyes", but it also means "to measure" or "to observe" or to "verify by precedence". Just like your google dictionary told you. So what I am saying is BACKED by the nass of the Qur'an.

Thanks!

Now you have listed five senses to get scientific approval and counted FEEL and opted out Taste.

Anyhow, I don't want to beat around this but however I asked "Scientific Method" not "Scientific Source", please at least understand question before jumping to answer it.

Secondly, I truly admire your admission of objecting "all" and restricting it to Muhkamaat.

Then I asked about principles: as you suggested Infinity needs infinite way to prove infinity. How did you make it out?

As I admitted my incapacity of English language so I looked for Empirical in dictionary: based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. (Google)

So are you suggesting logic theory/pure logic are outside realm of Science?

Having said that you stated 3:7 which I believe is Surah Al e Imran, Ayat 7 then you may find Rasikhoon fil Ilm having knowledge of Mustashabihat which according to you can't be proven!

According to Quran: your deeds are also Makhlooq and I hope deeds are not Mustashabihaat but however deeds are physical only?

 

[Aleph]

My argument is simply that science has not been able to posit (much less prove) how the Intellect came into existence, period.

In the case of the human body, we have theories such as that of Darwin where basically everything came from a common primordial parent. While this is a logical explanation for the human body there is NO such explanation of how the intellect came into existence. So, the Neanderthals were supposed to be our ancestors, yet they didn't possess the Intellect that we have. So, bodily the theory of evolution might make sense, but then it doesn't explain how from no intellect (or limited) there came full-fledged intellect.

I think there are (scientific) studies that prove that there is evolution going on in human consciousness/understanding (as understood in terms of its increasing CAPACITY to process and assimilate data/knowledge).

More than any scientific study or empirical evidence, the Quran per se is a Burhan-e-Qata'e in this regard when it says that divine guidance is complete now and this is the final book of Allah. It in other words meant that human consciousness since the days of Adam (AS) had reached to the level and capacity where it is capable of understanding the final message of Allah, capable of operating/carrying out a fairly complex system (Deen) and capable of using/processing the given/received guidance as needed at any specific point in time in future.

This is very fascinating topic. Initially, there were fewer things/objects/stimuli and simpler communication. With time humans' interaction with their environment started to add to that inventory of stimuli and communications became much more complicated with a lot of noise in it and thus, increasing challenges for human understanding/conscious/intellect.

 

[ZenoInTheZoo]

Yes, there is ijma' on this matter. The only divergence that occurred was from some literalists in the 3rd-4th century Hijri who were referred to as the "Mujassimah". These were those who took these verses literally. Those Mujassimites aren't in existence anymore.

Although, there is an opinion even today that is held by the Salafis (whom some people call "Wahhabis" or in Indo-Pak, "Ahl-e-Hadith"). Although they also admit that these verses are from the mutashabihaat, their discourse around it is such that they TEETER on the edges of literalism/anthropomorphism.

Many thanks once again!

Now do u have any knowledge of Shia understanding of this issue? What is their main discourse, if any?

 

[Veila Mast]

Sir, frankly you are wasting my time.

Firstly thanks for pointing out the typo - it should have been TASTE and not "feel" (which I already covered in "touch").

Secondly, you got your answer from the dictionary. Yes, an explanation can sound as logical as it can, but if there is EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE against it then it is NOT scientific. You are apparently not aware that "logic" is a RELATIVE concept and not an absolute one. A rational explanation need not be scientific. Philosophy talks about rational concepts, but most of it is CONJECTURE if seen from the prism of science.

According to Quran: your deeds/actions are Makhlooq - YES, you are right. That is why you can SEE them :) When did I say that deeds are "mutashabihaat"? Bhai saheb meray moun main alfaaz kyon thoonsay ja rahay hain aap?

You are confusing SIGNS versus DEFINITIVE PROOF. In Scientific nomenclature, a concept is only proven if there is DEFINITIVE PROOF. The dictionary you consulted already showed you that definitive proof is only that which is verifiable by observation or experience. The moon can be verified by observation. Allah (SWT) cannot.

We BELIEVE in Allah out of pure belief, and we try to rationalize it by showing His SIGNS. You keep dodging the bullet here: Allah (SWT) Himself states categorically in the Qur'an that His Ru'yah is IMPOSSIBLE before Qiyamah.

Please note that Ru'yah literally means "to see with eyes", but it also means "to measure" or "to observe" or to "verify by precedence". Just like your google dictionary told you. So what I am saying is BACKED by the nass of the Qur'an.

Thanks!

Sir I really appreciate your time and concern for such a Veila, Lol

But may I dare to ask one more thing about deed if you like to answer: Can you see Soum too or Tasbeeh?

 

[Aleph]

They are inline with the Sunnis on this. They also take them as mutashabihaat.

The only divergence with the shi'ah is that they deny ru'yat of Allah (SWT) even in akhirat. They say that because the Qur'an says that the ru'yah of Allah is impossible (ref: Musa (AS) conversation with Allah when he wanted to see Him), they maintain that this impossibility holds even for Qiyamah and after.

The Sunnis, however, refute this. They maintain that this impossibility is only for this world, but in the Hereafter the ru'yah is established. And there are several mutawaatir ahadith from Rasulullah (SAW) proving this. These ahadith have been rejected by the shi'ah primarily because they rejected the Sahabah (barring a handful) who were the relay of the sayings of the Prophet (SAW) .

Many thanks once again!

Now do u have any knowledge of Shia understanding of this issue? What is their main discourse, if any?

 

[Aleph]

Yes, you can. Sawm can be seen easily by the person who is observing it; same goes for tasbeeh. Also, please note that "Seeing" doesn't just mean to PHYSICALLY SEE. I already explained that. "Ru'yah" has many different meanings and "PHYSICALLY SEEING" is only one of them.

What I am talking of is what NO ONE can see (except whom Allah chooses, such as the Messengers).

Sir I really appreciate your time and concern for such a Veila, Lol

But may I dare to ask one more thing about deed if you like to answer: Can you see Soum too or Tasbeeh?

 

[ZenoInTheZoo]

My argument is simply that science has not been able to posit (much less prove) how the Intellect came into existence, period.

In the case of the human body, we have theories such as that of Darwin where basically everything came from a common primordial parent. While this is a logical explanation for the human body there is NO such explanation of how the intellect came into existence. So, the Neanderthals were supposed to be our ancestors, yet they didn't possess the Intellect that we have. So, bodily the theory of evolution might make sense, but then it doesn't explain how from no intellect (or limited) there came full-fledged intellect.

In human specie's context, is it really important to know how conscious/intellect came into existence and separate if from human body? For me it is integral part of human body and the very reason why humans are called humans and distinguished from other relatively similar species. If somebody does really need to make a sense of it, then they can use the reverse logic of the theory of bodily evolution to reach an acceptable explanation/understanding about its inception.

Limited intellect is a misnormer here. Either it was or not!

Personally I don't have much faith in Darwin's theory due to various reasons. Comparatively (and in purely logical terms as contrasted with belief in the divine revelation), I have greater faith in the Quranic explanation in this regard.

 

[ZenoInTheZoo]

They are inline with the Sunnis on this. They also take them as mutashabihaat.

The only divergence with the shi'ah is that they deny ru'yat of Allah (SWT) even in akhirat. They say that because the Qur'an says that the ru'yah of Allah is impossible (ref: Musa (AS) conversation with Allah when he wanted to see Him), they maintain that this impossibility holds even for Qiyamah and after.

The Sunnis, however, refute this. They maintain that this impossibility is only for this world, but in the Hereafter the ru'yah is established. And there are several mutawaatir ahadith from Rasulullah (SAW) proving this. These ahadith have been rejected by the shi'ah primarily because they rejected the Sahabah (barring a handful) who were the relay of the sayings of the Prophet (SAW) .

Many thanks for sharing this info..........much appreciated!

 

[ZenoInTheZoo]

Sir G, How are you, Ap Bhi Kuch Bataien Ya Bacho Say Imtihan Hee Laina Hai! Lol

Thanks Veila Sb.... I am good and hope everything is fine with you and ur exams have gone well, as well.

I have given my perspective and comments on the issue in various posts on this thread. If u have any specific thing in mind, please let me know and I'll see what more can I contribute.

BTW, do u have any comment or opinion on what Aleph Sb has said in response to my questions to you both?

 

[ZenoInTheZoo]

Sir I really appreciate your time and concern for such a Veila, Lol

But may I dare to ask one more thing about deed if you like to answer: Can you see Soum too or Tasbeeh?

Yes, you can. Sawm can be seen easily by the person who is observing it; same goes for tasbeeh. Also, please note that "Seeing" doesn't just mean to PHYSICALLY SEE. I already explained that. "Ru'yah" has many different meanings and "PHYSICALLY SEEING" is only one of them.

What I am talking of is what NO ONE can see (except whom Allah chooses, such as the Messengers).

Veila:
Now u r going into heuristics! Already too much of it.........:)

 

[Veila Mast]

Thanks Veila Sb.... I am good and hope everything is fine with you and ur exams have gone well, as well.

I have given my perspective and comments on the issue in various posts on this thread. If u have any specific thing in mind, please let me know and I'll see what more can I contribute.

BTW, do u have any comment or opinion on what Aleph Sb has said in response to my questions to you both?

Kithay Sir G, Siyapa is in May and then Wadda Siyapa shall start of finding JOB, Lol

About Maslow ladder of need Veila is skeptical as it is very idealistic kind of approach. If you observe life of Sahaba then you may find their foremost priority has been Islam and they risked even their lives.

Secondly, our dear capitalist also have some kind of pyramid where 1% trickle down effect is supposed to nourish 99% which of course doesn't happen.

Coming back to Maslow, it also doesn't address opportunist behavior so it is beyond reality. Well, that's nothing to do with topic so about topic I shall urge to share your views about Mutashabihat.

Aleph has confined it to Zaat e Bari Tala but what do you say if Life of Hazrat Esa Alaih Salam is Muhkum or Mutashabih?