ThE pOwEr Of SiLeNcE wrote:

So you [personally] provide dawah and give ur zakat?

Yes I pay zakat directly to the poor as the state mechanisms are not there.
I do dawa, from speaking to every and any Muslims I meet or encounter - online and offline. Proactively, I attend political activities like conferences, demonstrations, fax/email campaigns to embassies/consulates/influentials/leaders. I teach students and I also write.
I meet with people from different groups, discuss ideas with them and their activities, and contribute however I can.

ThE pOwEr Of SiLeNcE wrote:

are u saying "providing sticky plasters" is less helpful than dawah? :S

No I'm saying they are two separate activities and should not be seen as replacing each other. Each has a DEFINITE place. I do both as much as I can.

For example Abu Bakr freed slaves in Mekkah which he could do with his wealth. He also went with the Prophet(saw) to try convincing leaders about the Islamic call and the need to implement Islam in governance (nusrah). The companions did both - to bring about social and political change, aid does not do it. Political activities like pressurising governments through lobbies, demonstrations, articles, media appearance etc are necessary. If the government refuses to reform, then the masses need to be made aware of the problem and asked to do the same so all society bring the government back to do what it wants and not let a small bunch of people do what they want. If the government still refuses, the society need to contact the militaries to remove them by force and replace them by people who will do the right thing.

Hope that makes sense...

Anonymous1 wrote:

ThE pOwEr Of SiLeNcE wrote:

anon1 wrote:

For someone who cannot even prove basic questions like God exists, or the universe is not eternal

can you answer those for me, please?

No problems sis.

Premise 1: Rational thought to be used and not speculative thought - the difference being the former uses arguments that are supported by evidence (sense perception/reason) and the latter uses arguments that have no evidence and are presented as credible (eg eternal spiders spinning the universe!)

Premise 2: Numerous evidences are needed to claim something is certain - some evidences are needed to indicate something is a credible possibility, no evidences imply something is speculation (fantasy - eg santa claus!)

The argument is briefly (details can be added once you get a feel for the structure rather than overwhelming you with detail now so you struggle to even follow the argument):
Where did the universe we live in an experience come from?

There are two approaches that can address this problem:
- directly - using science/maths to conclude a creator exists
- indirectly - through an elimination process of reasoning

The former is not possible as we cannot gain access in any empirical way to what preceded the universe. Thus science cannot directly prove or disprove a God - it is beyond its scope. It's like asking a scientist to examine a watch and describe or determine who the watchmaker is (robot, man, woman, assembly plant etc) He cannot!

Thus a rational elimination process is the only way to do it.

There are only three possibilities (despite all the theories and descriptions of forms including big bangs, multiverses, cyclical universes etc):
- the matter/energy that the universe comprises is eternal in some shape or form
- the matter/energy that the universe comprises came from nothing (without the need of a cause/creator)
- the matter/energy that the universe comprises was created or caused by something external to the universe

If we can eliminate two possibilities with evidence that is certain, the third is correct.

Possibility one is incorrect as our sum knowledge and experience of the universe indicates it should be in a state of equilibrium which it is not. Thus it is not eternal.
Possibility two in incorrect as our sum knowledge and experience of the universe shows matter/energy cannot come from nothing - thus this possibility is incorrect.

It leaves one possibility that the universe was created by something external.

This external entity has to be eternal as if it is not then the question arises as to its origins which are either it came from nothing or something created it. Things don't come from nothing thus something created it. The same questions apply to that thing leading to an infiniate regression which is an absurdity - leaving us with one possibility, the creator is eternal.

what knowledge and experience? how would you prove this to an atheist? Did the atheist u were conversing with accept your explanation?

Anonymous1 wrote:

I do dawa, from speaking to every and any Muslims I meet or encounter - online and offline. Proactively, I attend political activities like conferences, demonstrations, fax/email campaigns to embassies/consulates/influentials/leaders. I teach students and I also write.
I meet with people from different groups, discuss ideas with them and their activities, and contribute however I can.

I assume this mostly involves jumping on people and calling them HinduMuslims and devil worshipppers in order to feel smug and superior... I mean to preach.

Anonymous1 wrote:

ThE pOwEr Of SiLeNcE wrote:

So you [personally] provide dawah and give ur zakat?

Yes I pay zakat directly to the poor as the state mechanisms are not there.
I do dawa, from speaking to every and any Muslims I meet or encounter - online and offline. Proactively, I attend political activities like conferences, demonstrations, fax/email campaigns to embassies/consulates/influentials/leaders. I teach students and I also write.
I meet with people from different groups, discuss ideas with them and their activities, and contribute however I can.

Masha'Allah for your effort

anon1 wrote:

ThE pOwEr Of SiLeNcE wrote:

are u saying "providing sticky plasters" is less helpful than dawah? :S

No I'm saying they are two separate activities and should not be seen as replacing each other. Each has a DEFINITE place. I do both as much as I can.

For example Abu Bakr freed slaves in Mekkah which he could do with his wealth. He also went with the Prophet(saw) to try convincing leaders about the Islamic call and the need to implement Islam in governance (nusrah). The companions did both - to bring about social and political change, aid does not do it. Political activities like pressurising governments through lobbies, demonstrations, articles, media appearance etc are necessary. If the government refuses to reform, then the masses need to be made aware of the problem and asked to do the same so all society bring the government back to do what it wants and not let a small bunch of people do what they want. If the government still refuses, the society need to contact the militaries to remove them by force and replace them by people who will do the right thing.

Hope that makes sense...

so erm ok, now i understand what the Prophet and companions RA did...but what do you do to help those people in for example palestine? :S

ThE pOwEr Of SiLeNcE wrote:

Possibility two is incorrect as our sum knowledge and experience of the universe shows matter/energy cannot come from nothing - thus this possibility is incorrect.

It leaves one possibility that the universe was created by something external.

what knowledge and experience? how would you prove this to an atheist? Did the atheist u were conversing with accept your explanation?[/quote]

All our observations of phenomena around us shows energy/matter does not come from nothing - it comes from somewhere. Examples include:
- oil/coal etc come from decayed plant life millions of years ago
- water comes from rain from the clouds and not nothing - which in turn gets there through evaporation
- heat comes from the sun and not nothing - which in turn comes from a burning mass
These observations are so numerous that they are summed up in scientific laws, known as conservation of energy/matter. But they are all around for everyone to see and are not confined to scientific thought or works. They are so numerous people intuitively believe them and would even call you a liar with certainty if you argued or made claims to the contrary.

The atheist I am arguing with generally accepted these facts, but tried to argue against the conclusion by saying it was possible that matter/energy came from nothing. When asked for evidence he tried citing a subatomic quantum theory - however the theory under scrutiny is problematic as it does not show particles coming from nothing but from gravitational fields. He cannot refute this - the discussion is still ongoing. A previous atheist who went further argued that we will find an answer in the future - to which I responded that this answer leads to an infinite regression as one could say the opponent will have an answer to that answer in the future, and you will have an answer to the answer's answer again in the future - just speculations without any evidence. It's like saying I don't accept 2+2=4 is certain or correct because there might be another answer I discover in the future!

It is a major problem for atheists - they have to start entering speculative possibilities, that have no evidence. And this is what Allah condemns in many Quranic ayat when he asks, where is there proof? their burhaan? All they follow is speculation (zann) - guesses without evidence - or in layman's terms, fantasies!

(heat from the sun does not come from burning mass, but from a fusion reaction that leaves an excess of energy.)

You wrote:

(heat from the sun does not come from burning mass, but from a fusion reaction that leaves an excess of energy.)

Maybe - but this may help elaborate...

"Hydrogen burning is a process that takes place in every star, whereby hydrogen nuclei are fused into helium at high temperatures and pressures. It is the most common type of process known as stellar nucleosynthesis.
Star formation occurs in dense gas clouds in interstellar space. Eventually, a high concentration of mass appears in an area around the size of our solar system. When the temperature and pressure in its center reaches a certain level hydrogen ignition occurs, and vast amounts of heat and light are produced. This is the birth of a star.

When a star is engaging in hydrogen burning, it is said to be on the main sequence, and is called a dwarf star. Our Sun is a yellow dwarf. Main sequence stars are the most common stars in the universe, primarily because of the length of time it takes for hydrogen burning to take place. Only a tiny percentage of the nuclei in the stellar core are fused into helium per year.

The way a star evolves after its formation depends on its mass. The more massive the star, the more quickly it burns its fuel. In the most massive stars, hydrogen burning is mostly completed after only a few million years, and the next step — helium burning, begins. In stars like our Sun, the hydrogen burning stage is expected to last nine billion years."

Are you really starting an argument over "is the energy from the sun coming from it burning or is it fusion?"

OK!

now this seems like debate we can make progress with!

i'm back on it, hopefully a clean slate all round?

start a new topic!

i want to say more but i wont. start a new topic...

Lilly wrote:

Are you really starting an argument over "is the energy from the sun coming from it burning or is it fusion?"

He likes to argue for argument's sake - when I argue, there is a point - here there is no point!

I've often found that there are many Muslim men from the sticks who cannot bear a woman to make a point correcting them - they feel somehow that a second class creature should not dare speak out when they have spoken...

you could potentially have noticed:

1. It was in brackets.
2. I didn't argue it further.

While the sun may look like ball of fire and be of a similar colour, burning and fusion are findamentally two different reactions.

Saying that, I see no problem with people reappropriating the term here as it was probably the term also used before people understood nuclear physics and would have continued so.

As for you being a woman, I take no issue with that. If you think it is an issue, you might suffer from a feminine version of the short syndrome. "I am short, I must be angry with EVERYONE."

As for guys not being able to accept that you have a voice... well, that is not much of an issue. They/we do not have to marry you. There is no need to store up the hate, just get on with life.

Anonymous1 wrote:

Lilly wrote:

Are you really starting an argument over "is the energy from the sun coming from it burning or is it fusion?"

He likes to argue for argument's sake - when I argue, there is a point - here there is no point!

I've often found that there are many Muslim men from the sticks who cannot bear a woman to make a point correcting them - they feel somehow that a second class creature should not dare speak out when they have spoken...

the point would be to gain knowledge on how the sun works. how useful that info is is another thing...
And i dont think You is against women. You've only seen him interact with one "second class creature" and that's you. So you cant really jump to conclusions...
He's an admin for God's sake. and the website doesnt even ask for gender! Showing that we're not sexist or base our ideas on stereotypes of what boys/girls do. Most forum ask for gender. So please, spare us, just this once..

I don't think we can simply write off the fact that I am sexist. Maybe I am? who knows. Maybe one day some psychologists/psychiatrists will commission a report.

Just saying, its not an impossibility.

It would be a fun/weird outcome to the study though.

Lilly wrote:

He's an admin for God's sake. and the website doesnt even ask for gender!

A thousand apologies for questioning an admin! Shame on me!

A website that doesn't ask for gender - wow! Do you think it's a magical site as well?

Anonymous1 wrote:

Lilly wrote:

He's an admin for God's sake. and the website doesnt even ask for gender!

A thousand apologies for questioning an admin! Shame on me!

A website that doesn't ask for gender - wow! Do you think it's a magical site as well?

if you say so. how can i convince you otherwise...

I don't think its relevant if I am a woman hater or not. (I am surprised she suggested it though - victim mentality or short syndrome?)

I don't think there was any need to push her insecurities onto me.

but if there was a scorecard, I think anon1 would be winning. I have only disagreed with her, she has disagreed with everyone else - the majority of whom were female.

but this is irrelevant. lets continue with the lesson on science.

(a problem with it is you are trying to define the parameters for others to work within. That is not how things work. You cannot simply tell them to simple work within your chosen parameters.)

You wrote:

but this is irrelevant. lets continue with the lesson on science.

(a problem with it is you are trying to define the parameters for others to work within. That is not how things work. You cannot simply tell them to simple work within your chosen parameters.)

LoL