There's a standard kalam approach to establishing the truth of Islam, which runs as follows:

(1) Establish the truth of monotheism.

(2) Establish the possibility of prophethood.

(3) Establish the veracity of the Prophet ﷺ (through mutawatir evidential-miracle reports). (1/) This is then contrasted with fideism -- ie, that one should accept Islam on blind faith -- which is rightfully condemned by everyone (even the major anti-kalam scholars). (2/)

Modern science, technology, and productive capacities give us the ability to have societies which are *more* "Islamic" than our predecessors could have had. (1/10) Even the most pious, knowledgeable, and justly governed Muslim society in the past would have to have been structured around securing mere subsistence for most of its population (2/)

One of the hallmarks of the modern western order is institutions which attempt to align individual material self-interest with the public good.

There is certainly genius in this. Rather than fight against human nature in the form of selfishness, harness it.

However... (1/23) Amongst the highest this-worldly goods is virtuous/excellent character.

The Prophet ﷺ said: "I have only been sent to perfect noble character." (2/)

Marx identified our alienated condition under capitalism, and posited that dialectically overcoming this condition (ie doing so whilst retaining and expanding its benefits) would involve technologically-given material abundance and rational socio-economic planning. (1/13) The result would be a society where individuals and free associations of individuals (treating each other as ends in themselves) would freely engage in production and distribution for its own sake, which he equated with human flourishing (the fulfilment of our "species-being").

Crypto seems to be very popular amongst a subset of Muslim Twitter.

I'm agnostic as to whether crypto is going to be a net good or bad.

But let's suppose the best case scenario: it's brilliant and should and will replace other types of currencies. (1/6) Even if that outcome was guaranteed, that likely couldn't justify the scale of attention on crypto specifically.

It is a means of exchange. Incommensurably more important is to have things to exchange. (2/6)

To my knowledge, Muslim intellectuals have failed to grapple with the fact that – by the standards of virtually everyone pre-industrial revolution – we have achieved the capacity to have a "post-scarcity" society. (1/22)

https://twitter.com/mmjukic/status/1796472233227067655

Muslim political thought seems to be a mix between Luddism on the one hand, and simple failure to recognise the profound changes ushered in by the Industrial Revolution on the other hand. (2/)

Utterly bizarre that (in stable, secure societies with advanced economies) one can purport to be "interested" or even "involved" in politics without ever having reflected systematically on the proper ends of politics (society, the state, etc) from first principles. (1/8) Indeed, this lack of reflection is virtually universal – even amongst highly educated elites. (2/)

It seems to me that any successful large-scale "Islamic" governance in the Muslim world would need the following elements: (1/11) I. The "Islamic" component

This would include, amongst other things:

1. Courts making rulings derived from fiqh.

This is the sine qua non of an Islamic polity. (2/)

I was thinking about the S5 modal ontological argument recently.

In short, it goes: it is possible that God necessarily exists, therefore (via a system of modal logic known as S5) God necessarily exists.

My current sense is that this is *not* a valuable argument. (1/20) We need to unpack the modal categories used here, namely "possibly" and "necessary".

Following Avicenna, it seems that necessity comes in two sorts: an entity or state of affairs P can be: (2/)

"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion (to which few members of other civilizations were converted) but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do."

🧵 (1/) – Samuel P. Huntington.

The modern secular world holds that values are not the sort of thing we can or should reason about.

Supposedly, true values are "self-evident", and/or knowable through so-called "intuition" (really, gut feelings), and/or not objective. (2/)

I actually believe that the "science - religion conflict thesis" is true.

It's not that religion and science are necessarily at odds, but religious and secular scholars compete for authority and status. 🧵 So religious scholars often hold and encourage a lack of epistemic virtue towards secular scholarship, and vice versa.

Which is why it's commonplace to see religious scholars denigrate science and scientists denigrate religion.

My current philosophical leaning is broadly Aristotelian, save that Aristotle's immanent realism is grounded in an exemplary realism, and all of the above is grounded in God. I.e., exactly the position of the majority of Abrahamic philosophy, whether of the falasifa, post-Razi mutakalimin, some of the Akbaris, Catholic Scholastics, and Jewish followers of Rambam.

A good riposte to the anti-human and impossible to realise views sometimes put forward as criticisms of "modernity".

Cusa's argument applied to Islam:

Allah ﷻ established human beings as a khalifa on the earth, and this is in-built into the very natures of things He created.

https://twitter.com/PLeithart/status/1706274078942753052

The fullness ("perfection" in the sense of entelechy) of any created non-human thing consists in its service to human beings, within the boundaries of the shari'ah, towards our proper ends (chief of which are obedience, worship, knowledge, and love of God).

To the extent that any criticism of "modernity" succeeds, this will be because it is actually a criticism of kufr or jahiliyya – and not in the sense that if people were suffused by iman, institutions etc would be different (though this would be the case) but simply in the sense that if people were suffused by iman, society even under *existing institutions* will function in such a way that the problems identified by legitimate criticisms of "modernity" will be solved.

A certain segment of western Muslims take the Muslim world's economic, military, state, technological, natural scientific, etc underdevelopment as a mark of moral superiority, and actively call for a future which would be worse on all these fronts. (1/9) But the Sahabah sought to best Rome and Persia on all these fronts, and did so successfully.

As did the Umayyads, Abassids, Ottomans, Mughals etc against their rivals. (2/9)

I certainly don't hate analytic philosophy (AP). It is the form of philosophy I am formally trained in, I think it has produced and continues to produce much of value, and I generally prefer its writing style.

However... (1/26)

https://twitter.com/JoshuaLWatson/status/1685265381596819456

I'm currently most sympathetic to the view that the principal and highest goal of philosophy is to help us uncover, *see*, and contemplate the haqa'iq (realities). (2/)

I think the best design argument for the existence of God is that the fact the world is intrinsically *intelligible* (as opposed to arbitrary, nominalistic, chaotic) indicates or demonstrates an Intelligence standing behind it. The problem with many design arguments is that they posit some particular feature of the world or other (eg complex organisms or "fine-tuning") stands out from other features in evincing design.

These have (at least) three problems:

The first half of Halbach's book provides a solid grounding in modern logic.

Familiarity with Aristotelian logic is also worthwhile, dominant across the Abrahamic world up to around ~100 years ago.

This article provides a good quick overview: iep.utm.edu/aristotle-logi… (1/15) x.com/Evollaqi/statu… The difference between modern and Aristotelian logic is a microcosm of the difference between modern and classical thought.

Modern logic is far more computationally powerful than Aristotelian logic.

But Aristotelian logic is far more ambitious. (2/)

Islam is a civilisational endeavour.

As the universal religion of tawhid, nothing is excluded from the purview of Islam.

This includes that which undergirds all of life in the dunya: those things which we call 'civilisation'. (1/10) What does this entail?

For one thing, it means pursuing strong states, strong economies, strong militaries, powerful technologies, influential media, etc – and everything (material and intellectual) which is needed to achieve these things. (2/10)

It is vital for western Muslims to heed Sh. Sherman Jackson's thesis in this paper.

Namely: the shari'ah sanctions a realm of value- and decision- making (in politics, culture, and elsewhere) bounded by but autonomous from the ahkam of fiqh. I suspect (given my anecdotal evidence) that Muslims in the Muslim world tend to grasp this on an intuitive level, but western Muslims who are enthusiastic about 'ilm and/or applying Islamic thought beyond their private life sometimes don't.

Plotinus on matter

This paper provides an overview of Plotinus' alternative view of substance to Aristotelian hylomorphism.

(There is some evidence to suggest Razi held a Platonist view of substance akin to this, just as he might have held to Platonist views of forms, space, and time.) (1/11)