Post

More from @safwanSpiker7

Safwan

@safwanSpiker7

Jul 7

When Muslims are asked what their belief is about God, the answer is simple; He exists, He is one and is the only one worthy of worship, only He should be worshipped. This is the correct Islamic aqidha (belief), Tāwhid, whose english translation is most suitably “monotheism.”

🧵

Then the question arises, is this belief true in Reality? Surely, Muslims believe that it is, otherwise they would not be Muslims in the first place.

So far we were dealing with the correct Islamic view on the level of creed—what is true and false belief. But after this, we come to deal with how this is true in Reality? Here we start dealing with Islamic view i.e., Tāwhid, in the domain of metaphysics, for on a rational—

Read 17 tweets

Safwan

@safwanSpiker7

Jun 28

One of my favorite hadith due to its philosophical depth which refutes extreme neo-Ash’aris—Wahābi Ash’aris, Salafis and modernist groups who reject the idea of Islam having commensurate ideas with non-Islamic and pagan religions and traditions and Muslims taking from them.

🧵

Whenever these kinds of Muslims see a traditional or orthodox Sunni who is a student or scholar of Islamic rational and mystical sciences, admiring or affirming a wisdom or knowledge from a pagan or hindu or christian or atheist or any non-Muslim, or they see commensurability

between the Islamic philosophy and metaphysical sufism and the views of non-Muslim people and traditions, they have a dogmatic emotional religious outburst that a traditional orthosox Sunni Muslim cannot be doing that and that Islām cannot have commensurability with the false

Read 13 tweets

Safwan

@safwanSpiker7

Jun 23

To rationally understand why Islam is not monotheistic on the metaphysical level, but monism of whatever kind suits it best, there is no better place to start than Zubdat al-Haqāʾiq of the disciple of Imām Ahmad al-Ghazāli ق, Shaykh Ayn al-Qudat ق, who takes theology and

🧵

philosophy to the next level, exploring and explaining the deeper dimensions of Tawhid in the Qur’ān and ahādith and the Islam creed in general.

Shaykh ʿAyn al-Quḍāt ق,

"... something might be existent in one sense and non-existent in another. This is the situation of everything other than the One Existent [i.e., God] whose existence abides through itself. Any contingent [determination], seen in itself and without

Read 6 tweets

Safwan

@safwanSpiker7

Jun 14

This is the curriculum that you would find in pre-colonial traditional Ottoman and Indian madrassas and we can clearly see that they never took kalām for a philosophical science [metaphysics] per se due to its subject matter being different from metaphysics.

🧵

The neo-kalām people today who equate kalām with metaphysics and use it in matters of pure tahqiqi metaphysics, not only are not on traditional understanding of the sciences because they don’t understand and employ the principle of demarcation in sciences but also don’t know

what philosophy is and how to do philosophy.

Read 9 tweets

Safwan

@safwanSpiker7

Jun 13

This passage refutes all Muslim modernists and secularists who have fallen victim to the christian bifurcation of faith and ethics since Paul’s bifurcation of the spirit and law, reducing the former to blind faith and latter to social culture, and impose it on Islam as well.

🧵

You often find them treating morals and ethics as more important than faith (imān) in God and his Prophets especially excluding the latter from having any basis or effect on our spiritual and moral condition.

The Pakistani modernist scholar Ghāmidi and his followers go even beyond by saying that the Qur’ān does not state that only those who have imān in God and His Prophets will go to heaven, whenever they are pressured by atheists and modernists about the disbelievers who are

Read 11 tweets

Safwan

@safwanSpiker7

Jun 9

Shaykhūna Hasan Spiker:

"Kant’s account of Plato’s epistemology and metaphysics is a multifaceted misrepresentation; indeed, every single assertion he makes in his characterization of Plato’s position is demonstrably inaccurate. What is this ‘previous intuition of divinity’

🧵

that Kant alleges, and that constitutes ‘the primary source of the pure concepts of the understanding and of first principles’, as opposed to a ‘still-continuing’ intuition? The depiction of the source of our knowledge of first principles and ‘the pure concepts of the

understanding’ as an ‘intuition of divinity’ is unrecognizable in light of any of Plato’s actual words in the dialogues. Most probably, Kant’s lack of significant direct acquaintance with Plato’s work and the eighteenth-century tendency to identify the doctrine of Plato himself

Read 17 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Safwan

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @safwanSpiker7

Safwan

Safwan

Safwan

Safwan

Safwan

Safwan

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!