with higher education I can increase my tax bracket,and fund a good lifestyle for me and my children.
as for islaam,I think that Akbari(Ibn A'rabi) Sufism is the logical culmination of all philosophies.
§7. The essence of the First Truth is either [a] necessary in itself with respect to the procession of its act from its essence, possible in itself with respect to the procession of its act from its essence, or [c] impossible in itself with respect to the procession of its act from its essence. If the essence of the First Truth were impossible in itself with respect to the procession of its act from its essence, then, nothing would ever exist. But we know the consequent to be false because the world, which is the act of the First Truth, exists. Hence the antecedent must also be false. Now if the essence of the First Truth were possible in itself with respect to the procession of its act from its essence, then, that which is possible in itself cannot necessitate its essential possibility by itself, as that would imply its being essentially necessary in the aspect in which it is essentially possible, and this entails a contradiction.
Therefore, the Necessary Existent is dependent upon another for the necessitation of its essential possibility with respect to the procession of its act from its essence. But dependence is contrary to essential necessity. Hence, the First Truth or the Necessary Existent cannot be possible in itself with respect to its act, and is, therefore, essentially necessary with respect to the procession of its act from its essence. That is to say, that the act of the First Truth or the Necessary Existent is a necessary consequence of its sublime essence, and, thus, cannot fail to exist, because it is eternal through the eternity of the First Truth, the Eternal in itself.
-https://sadrianphilosophy.wordpress.com ... ncipience/
Ibn A'rabi said the world was eternal.I agree with him.you cannot be by nature possible and necessary,to posit the incipience of the world implies God is possible and not necessary and thus dependant on another essentially like all possible things,and that would be no God.
Contigent and conditioned things (all having parts)must be rooted in origin in something necessary-self dependant,unconditioned and partless,that is basic logic.
people know and believe things are illuminated or made existant -being contigent and conditioned-but there is no light (perfect and thus unconditioned existance)giving that illumination?
the argument from Aquinas on degrees of perfection pointing to their origin in ultimate goodness-perfection is true.
f God is perfect,he is sovereign,has power over all things.
if there are 2 divine beings,they must be perfect,now it is perfect to be sovereign and powerfull over ll things,and the cause of all other things but this is impossible with multiple gods.even if as the christians,say that Allaah,who they call the father has power over I'saa and the holy spirit,because if those latter are divine,they must be sovereign over all things and themselves,and this is because they must be perfect due to being 'divine'(even if created timelessly by Allaah).
Also the idea that multiple gods would have harmony seeing it is a good trait,defeats the perfection of being sovereign and the sole bearer of all power and all might,and there being only one God would defeat a contradiction between perfections,which is itself not perfection if there were a lack of fulfillment of all perfections,and a sole God ahs harmony with everything anyway because he is Qadir a'la kulli shay.
قُل لَّوْ كَانَ مَعَهُۥٓ ءَالِهَةٌۭ كَمَا يَقُولُونَ إِذًۭا لَّٱبْتَغَوْا۟ إِلَىٰ ذِى ٱلْعَرْشِ سَبِيلًۭا ٤٢
Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “Had there been other gods besides Him—as they claim—then they would have certainly sought a way to ˹challenge˺ the Lord of the Throne.
مَا ٱتَّخَذَ ٱللَّهُ مِن وَلَدٍۢ وَمَا كَانَ مَعَهُۥ مِنْ إِلَـٰهٍ ۚ إِذًۭا لَّذَهَبَ كُلُّ إِلَـٰهٍۭ بِمَا خَلَقَ وَلَعَلَا بَعْضُهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍۢ ۚ سُبْحَـٰنَ ٱللَّهِ عَمَّا يَصِفُونَ ٩
Allah has never had ˹any˺ offspring, nor is there any god besides Him. Otherwise, each god would have taken away what he created, and they would have tried to dominate one another. Glorified is Allah above what they claim!
as ibn rushd said,2 gods would be dependant on a specific differentiating nature natural to it,and a shared nature of divinity natural to it,and thus would be composed of two ontologically distinct parts,and thus not dependant,since the parts come prior to the whole as ibn rushd said concerning this,and thus these gods would not be self-sufficient and thus divine and perfect.
one God however would have only a differentiating nature and specificity,and thus none would share in his glory or divinity,and he would be identical with his one essence,and thus would be The sovereign God.
This makes the most sense to me personally,but I am not here to proselytize,I think that traditional muslim women are good wives and good mothers,and even poor men can marry them,like the bedouins and the Berbers of the Riff do all the time.
