Support NeoGAF

[Salih]

Basically, how can a god allow evil in the world if he 1) has the power to stop it, 2) knows about it, and 3) is morally good?

google the concept of dunya vs akhirah.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Basically, how can a god allow evil in the world if he 1) has the power to stop it, 2) knows about it, and 3) is morally good?

It is really begging the question, as it makes the assumption that 'evil' is something that can readily be defined by humanity.

The 'problem of evil' is an interesting one because it is something that isn't about the existence of God, it isn't an argument for atheism. It is certainly a stumbling block for simplistic ideas of an eternally benevolent God.

The nature of God is not confined to 'wadud' (love) in Islam. Allah is also 'al-Qahhar' and 'al-Mumit' (the compelling subduer, the destroyer, the one who brings death).

 

[Ashes]

Basically, how can a god allow evil in the world if he 1) has the power to stop it, 2) knows about it, and 3) is morally good?

I think Muslms believe that every act that happens, happens in accordance to their god's will.

I've also heard of what OS states above, that God is not love per se, like for example, sometimes human beings are asked to pray to their god to protect themselves from god's wrath as it were.

Separate, to that I have a different query. What kind of a god could exist without fundamentally breaking the universe if it didn't allow suffering of any sort?

i.e. man hits hammer with thumb, suffers, therefore god doesn't exist.

Pain, shall we say, is fundamentally a human trait, biological and philosophically.

I suppose we could switch off the part of the brain that feels pain. So what does that do to the understanding of suffering? do we cease to empathise?

I suppose we do. I read a few years ago, that some researchers say sharks can't be cruel, like us or orangutans, because they are said to lack this basic part in their brain. I tried google search but cruelty and animals brings up prevention of cruelty to animals.

Anything that can happen does happen - within the rules of the universe. That's the universe we live in I guess. Obviously the dictation of the 'can happen' rule is up for debate. i.e. What are those rules? ( gravity etc) who made those rules? (Nobody or God) Why does matter follow those rules? (It just does/god wills it too)

 

[OttomanScribe]

I've also heard of what OS states above, that God is not love per se, like for example, sometimes human beings are asked to pray to their god to protect themselves from god's wrath as it were.

Yeah.

God has love as part of His attribute, like He has Mercy (rahma)... but He is not confined to either of those attributes. As my Sheikh put it (paraphrased):

'God is not some fluffy old man you can put in your pocket and call "friend", the same God whose Mercy will go on and on on the Day of Reckoning is the God that is the causer of mass extinctions. The nature of this affair is to take refuge from God, in God. Take shelter in the eye of the storm!'.

 

[Chairman Yang]

Thanks for the replies regarding the Problem of Evil so far, guys! I'd like to post a few follow-up questions/comments.

I look at it differently. That God has created mankind to be good ideally. In the end, we all have the potential to be good and attain peace and prosperity among each other and has left it in our free will to go about it.

The issue with this is that it doesn't explain bad things that happen that are beyond our power. Like a kid who dies of cancer or a natural disaster. Our free will and potential to be good might affect how we respond to these things, but it doesn't affect the bad events themselves. We still suffer, and God is responsible.

google the concept of dunya vs akhirah.

Thanks, I just did. However, based on my reading of the concepts, a truly all-powerful Allah would have been able to create a universe where there is no conflict between dunya and akhirah for anyone. The fact that there often is means that God has created unnecessary suffering.

It is really begging the question, as it makes the assumption that 'evil' is something that can readily be defined by humanity.

The 'problem of evil' is an interesting one because it is something that isn't about the existence of God, it isn't an argument for atheism. It is certainly a stumbling block for simplistic ideas of an eternally benevolent God.

The nature of God is not confined to 'wadud' (love) in Islam. Allah is also 'al-Qahhar' and 'al-Mumit' (the compelling subduer, the destroyer, the one who brings death).

I'm not too convinced by the "unknowable Godly definition of evil" argument, for two reasons. First, if we can't define or understand true evil, then why should we care about it over our conventional, earthly definition of evil? Second, an all-powerful God should be able to prevent any evil (by his own definition) while simultaneously preventing any evil (by our earthly definitions). Whatever God's ultimate motives, he would have the power to simultaneously fulfill humanity's motives.

Agreed, the problem of evil isn't a direct argument for atheism. It's only a direct argument against a deity with certain characteristics (that is: all-benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient).

Based on my understanding of what you've written, you've relaxed the "all-benevolent" characteristic. Doesn't this make God essentially an all-powerful tyrant, and those who worship him analogous to those who worship a Stalin-like dictator because of the threat of suffering and death? (No disrespect intended with this analogy, and please correct me if I'm misunderstanding.)

If so, how do you deal with this mentally and emotionally? Do you feel like a citizen of an oppressive regime that has managed to follow the rules, not anger the leader, and can have a reasonably happy life if you stay within the bounds? Do you have any moral objection to a non-benevolent God, or have you subsumed your personal morals to the unknowable morality of God?

 

[Ashes]

You choose the word tyrant. Why?

Omnibenevolence is not an accurate description of the Muslim version of god. You are correct in this assumption.

But tyranny doesn't account for a being said to be most merciful, perhaps even most benevolent.

99 names of Allah(swt):

http://www.arabacademy.com/en/downloads/Learn-Arabic-English-translation-of-99-names-of-Allah

 

[Chairman Yang]

I think Muslms believe that every act that happens, happens in accordance to their god's will.

I've also heard of what OS states above, that God is not love per se, like for example, sometimes human beings are asked to pray to their god to protect themselves from god's wrath as it were.

Separate, to that I have a different query. What kind of a god could exist without fundamentally breaking the universe if it didn't allow suffering of any sort?

i.e. man hits hammer with thumb, suffers, therefore god doesn't exist.

Pain, shall we say, is fundamentally a human trait, biological and philosophically.

I suppose we could switch off the part of the brain that feels pain. So what does that do to the understanding of suffering? do we cease to empathise?

I suppose we do. I read a few years ago, that some researchers say sharks can't be cruel, like us or orangutans, because they are said to lack this basic part in their brain. I tried google search but cruelty and animals brings up prevention of cruelty to animals.

Anything that can happen does happen - within the rules of the universe. That's the universe we live in I guess. Obviously the dictation of the 'can happen' rule is up for debate. i.e. What are those rules? ( gravity etc) who made those rules? (Nobody or God) Why does matter follow those rules? (It just does/god wills it too)

Well, an all-powerful God would presumably be able to change the rules of the universe at will. He could switch off pain receptors and still simultaneously design brains to feel empathy. He could eliminate suffering while still preserving his ineffable goals.

If he couldn't do this things, and if he's bound by the rules of the universe, then he's clearly not all-powerful. Maybe he's just a being who has some degree of power. That might be good enough for some people, and it would explain why God allows or creates so much suffering/evil, but I suspect it wouldn't be good enough for many Muslims. Based on my minimal knowledge, that's also not the type of God that Islam preaches.

 

[Chairman Yang]

You choose the word tyrant. Why?

Omnibenevolence is not an accurate description of the Muslim version of god. You are correct in this assumption.

But tyranny doesn't account for a being said to be most merciful, perhaps even most benevolent.

99 names of Allah(swt):

http://www.arabacademy.com/en/downloads/Learn-Arabic-English-translation-of-99-names-of-Allah

I chose the word tyrant based on the existence of evil/suffering (according to our human definitions). If a being causes, or does not prevent these things, and is all-powerful, this seems like an appropriate word.

I'm not sure even "most merciful" or "most benevolent" would be appropriate descriptors for this kind of being. I can easily imagine a deity that is more merciful or more benevolent than a deity that has created our world and all of its problems.

 

[Ashes]

Well, an all-powerful God would presumably be able to change the rules of the universe at will. He could switch off pain receptors and still simultaneously design brains to feel empathy. He could eliminate suffering while still preserving his ineffable goals.

If he couldn't do this things, and if he's bound by the rules of the universe, then he's clearly not all-powerful. Maybe he's just a being who has some degree of power. That might be good enough for some people, and it would explain why God allows or creates so much suffering/evil, but I suspect it wouldn't be good enough for many Muslims. Based on my minimal knowledge, that's also not the type of God that Islam preaches.

Well, firstly, an all powerful god does what it wills, regardless of humanity and the conditions it finds it self in.

Secondly, I suppose, if it can do these things, and hasn't, the fair question, is that it has decided not to. And where your reasoning doesn't seem to allow this possibility, my own reasoning does.

I think your idea of the world, is one based on events, not physics. Does gravity exist where a child is stopped from falling off a hill, because it is painful for a child to die?
Would you even have death? would you have hammers and nails? or just soft clouds and no rejection?

 

[Ashes]

I chose the word tyrant based on the existence of evil/suffering (according to our human definitions). If a being causes, or does not prevent these things, and is all-powerful, this seems like an appropriate word.

I'm not sure even "most merciful" or "most benevolent" would be appropriate descriptors for this kind of being. I can easily imagine a deity that is more merciful or more benevolent than a deity that has created our world and all of its problems.

Imagine all you will, but according to this theory, this god in this universe is claiming to be the most merciful. The logic is reasonable in my opinion.

 

[OttomanScribe]

I'm not too convinced by the "unknowable Godly definition of evil" argument, for two reasons. First, if we can't define or understand true evil, then why should we care about it over our conventional, earthly definition of evil? Second, an all-powerful God should be able to prevent any evil (by his own definition) while simultaneously preventing any evil (by our earthly definitions). Whatever God's ultimate motives, he would have the power to simultaneously fulfill humanity's motives.

I didn't say 'unknowable' in there. So don't make that assumption. We can define right and wrong action, but this is distinct from 'evil'. Evil is a word thrown around a lot, but has little meaning in itself.

Humanity's motives aren't a thing here. There is only God's motives.

Agreed, the problem of evil isn't a direct argument for atheism. It's only a direct argument against a deity with certain characteristics (that is: all-benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient).

Well, as you say below, the first one isn't in this discussion.

Based on my understanding of what you've written, you've relaxed the "all-benevolent" characteristic. Doesn't this make God essentially an all-powerful tyrant, and those who worship him analogous to those who worship a Stalin-like dictator because of the threat of suffering and death? (No disrespect intended with this analogy, and please correct me if I'm misunderstanding.)

Well it would really depend on how much you like hyperbole whether you go with that definition or not.

If so, how do you deal with this mentally and emotionally? Do you feel like a citizen of an oppressive regime that has managed to follow the rules, not anger the leader, and can have a reasonably happy life if you stay within the bounds? Do you have any moral objection to a non-benevolent God, or have you subsumed your personal morals to the unknowable morality of God?

I am content. It is not a difficult path to walk, on the whole, and the bounds are clearly defined. I have faith in God's mercy just as I have awe for his power.

It is a realistic way to live. An atheist will certainly not be in a more appealing position! Your definition of this along dictatorial lines seems more about polemical intent as opposed to actual consideration of the implications. If reality is a storm, and one can take refuge in the eye, for you, it is all storm, no eye.

'How do you deal with that mentally and emotionally?' Shall I patronise you a bit? Define you in sardonic terms as a psychologically disturbed nihilist and chuckle at my own self assumed superiority?

No, I'll try not to, as Umar Mukhtar said, you are not my teacher.

 

[Chairman Yang]

I apologize if I'm come across as patronizing, polemical, or just plain dickish, OS. That's not my intent. I'm genuinely trying to understand your feelings regarding your arguments against the Problem of Evil. Your view of God as non-benevolent is vastly different than most people I've had discussions with, and I'm genuinely interested in it.

I didn't say 'unknowable' in there. So don't make that assumption. We can define right and wrong action, but this is distinct from 'evil'. Evil is a word thrown around a lot, but has little meaning in itself.

Humanity's motives aren't a thing here. There is only God's motives.

Well, this is my point. Why should we care about God's motives, except to the extent that they intersect with human motives?

Well, as you say below, the first one isn't in this discussion.

Well it would really depend on how much you like hyperbole whether you go with that definition or not.

Is it really hyperbolic according to any non-Muslim? If we accept that God is not all-benevolent, then we have to start looking at every bad event--natural disasters, the death/suffering of innocents, the world not hearing God's message and not being Muslim--as evidence of God's tyranny.

I am content. It is not a difficult path to walk, on the whole, and the bounds are clearly defined. I have faith in God's mercy just as I have awe for his power.

It is a realistic way to live. An atheist will certainly not be in a more appealing position! Your definition of this along dictatorial lines seems more about polemical intent as opposed to actual consideration of the implications. If reality is a storm, and one can take refuge in the eye, for you, it is all storm, no eye.

Ok, let me reframe my "God as dictator" analogy. Would it be safe to say that God is a force of nature? Not evil, but sometimes uncaring? After all, if reality is a storm, and God is responsible for all reality, he is responsible for both the "storm" part and the "eye" part.

In this case, what would impel you to have faith in God's mercy? Would you agree that Muslims can unjustly suffer, and non-Muslims can unjustly prosper? How are you able to tolerate/accept that?

I absolutely agree that in your model of the universe, an atheist would not be in a more appealing position. That ultimately boils down to a version of the "if God didn't exist, the universe would be too terrible to contemplate, therefore God exists" argument, though.

'How do you deal with that mentally and emotionally?' Shall I patronise you a bit? Define you in sardonic terms as a psychologically disturbed nihilist and chuckle at my own self assumed superiority?

No, I'll try not to, as Umar Mukhtar said, you are not my teacher.

Again, I apologize if I've been offensive. I'm trying to be probing and get an idea of your mindset without disrespect, and I don't know how to phrase things in a different way to do this. If you don't want to discuss this topic as a result, I will drop it and understand.

 

[Chairman Yang]

Well, firstly, an all powerful god does what it wills, regardless of humanity and the conditions it finds it self in.

Secondly, I suppose, if it can do these things, and hasn't, the fair question, is that it has decided not to. And where your reasoning doesn't seem to allow this possibility, my own reasoning does.

I think your idea of the world, is one based on events, not physics. Does gravity exist where a child is stopped from falling off a hill, because it is painful for a child to die?
Would you even have death? would you have hammers and nails? or just soft clouds and no rejection?

Hmm...well, I'm not using an idea of the world based on physics, because I'm assuming God can change physics at will to suit his purposes.

 

[OttomanScribe]

I apologize if I'm come across as patronizing, polemical, or just plain dickish, OS. That's not my intent. I'm genuinely trying to understand your feelings regarding your arguments against the Problem of Evil. Your view of God as non-benevolent is vastly different than most people I've had discussions with, and I'm genuinely interested in it.

Good to hear If this is your intent, words like Stalin-like muddy that.

Well, this is my point. Why should we care about God's motives, except to the extent that they intersect with human motives?

I am not sure I get you. If one is, for the sake of argument, assuming that God exists, then one will naturally also assume (at least making the assumption that the Abrahamaic faiths do) that God is the sole definer or morality. The question is thus a moot point.

Is it really hyperbolic according to any non-Muslim? If we accept that God is not all-benevolent, then we have to start looking at every bad event--natural disasters, the death/suffering of innocents, the world not hearing God's message and not being Muslim--as evidence of God's tyranny.

The second bit is a different issue (one does not have to be Muslim to hear the message or be 'saved' for example). The first is a different issue as well, in that there is no inherently 'bad' event. Things are bad according almost exclusively in relation to one's reaction to them. Some people are surrounded by 'good' and it does nothing for them, they are miserly, cruel and bitter. Others are surrounded by 'bad', natural disasters etc. yet their character is the opposite, they are content, charitable and kind. Reactions are what is important here.

Additionally, Islam additionally makes the assumption that there is a reckoning of all deeds, those who suffer in this life gain recompense for it in the end. That would include anyone who has suffered oppression or hardship, it is an expiation for them.

Ok, let me reframe my "God as dictator" analogy. Would it be safe to say that God is a force of nature? Not evil, but sometimes uncaring? After all, if reality is a storm, and God is responsible for all reality, he is responsible for both the "storm" part and the "eye" part.

I wouldn't use the word 'uncaring' but I'd say that you have to remember that Islamic understandings of God are not anthropomorphic. As to the second part, yes, that was my assertion in the beginning.

In this case, what would impel you to have faith in God's mercy? Would you agree that Muslims can unjustly suffer, and non-Muslims can unjustly prosper? How are you able to tolerate/accept that?

There is a reckoning for both. Also there are those who suffer, and it matters little to them. I have met people who eat once every second day, and I ask them how they are doing, and their reply is 'alhamduliLlah!' (All Praise is due to God, I am well). Then I have met people for whom the 'blessings' never seem to end, wealth, health and love, yet they are poor in character, nasty bitter and unhappy. Who is better off?

I absolutely agree that in your model of the universe, an atheist would not be in a more appealing position. That ultimately boils down to a version of the "if God didn't exist, the universe would be too terrible to contemplate, therefore God exists" argument, though.

I wasn't putting it forth as an argument for the existence of God. Merely pointing out that when atheists make this argument it often seems strange, as it seems almost an attempt to argue for unbelief through creating a kind of dislike of God in religious people. I know many people who are atheists less in that they don't believe in God and more in that they really really don't like Him.

Again, I apologize if I've been offensive. I'm trying to be probing and get an idea of your mindset without disrespect, and I don't know how to phrase things in a different way to do this. If you don't want to discuss this topic as a result, I will drop it and understand.

Happy to discuss. I just find that overuse of such rhetorical devices can muddy the waters a bit.

 

[Ashes]

Hmm...well, I'm not using an idea of the world based on physics, because I'm assuming God can change physics at will to suit his purposes.

We have entered unfamiliar territory where circumstances or argumentation require a non-Muslim to believe or propose a more irrational world than a Muslim.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

There was a story today on the Daily Mail of a UK Somali citizen was been detained in Djibouti. Before he left the UK, he claims Mi5 blackmailed him into working for them, accused him of being an extremist. I googled this and found similar claims in the past. The Independent wrong an article on it

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-threats-to-recruit-muslim-spies-1857750.html

From a logical point of view, the security services need Muslim spies, so why would they risk ostracising them by doing this?

 

[phosphor112]

google the concept of dunya vs akhirah.

I think this is the best answer.

What's Muslim Gaf take on this Yemeni work of art? Brlliant? OK? Bad? Provocative?

Are they getting ready for Ashoora? Lol. (That's the event marking the death of Hussain... people dress in all black.... that's the joke. =/)

Spoiler

Otherwise this picture bothers me.

I can't dress like the first picture without being harassed, so I end up dressing like the 4th picture. It's very common to see women dress like the 7th picture though, even unmarried women (and the fucking gloves, so ridiculous).

I just hate the abayah. Not cute at all :l

Lol, it's ok, we just addended the Quran to add that you have to cover your hands feet and face now.

Revision 1.0.1 of the Quran!

 

[phosphor112]

double post

...since it's here..

I appreciate all the posts you make OS. My carpal tunnel doesn't like typing out complex responses, so I appreciate someone else who does.

 

[Chairman Yang]

Good to hear If this is your intent, words like Stalin-like muddy that.

I am not sure I get you. If one is, for the sake of argument, assuming that God exists, then one will naturally also assume (at least making the assumption that the Abrahamaic faiths do) that God is the sole definer or morality. The question is thus a moot point.

I am assuming that God is the sole definer of morality. I'm just asking: why should humankind care? Ok, God's morality is official and "objective" (whatever that means). If it differs from our own morality, however, why should anyone follow it instead of our existing unofficial moral systems? Is it again a case of might makes right--we should follow it because we'll be punished if we don't?

The second bit is a different issue (one does not have to be Muslim to hear the message or be 'saved' for example). The first is a different issue as well, in that there is no inherently 'bad' event. Things are bad according almost exclusively in relation to one's reaction to them. Some people are surrounded by 'good' and it does nothing for them, they are miserly, cruel and bitter. Others are surrounded by 'bad', natural disasters etc. yet their character is the opposite, they are content, charitable and kind. Reactions are what is important here.

Reactions can be factored out. God creates humans knowing how they'll react, so in essence he creates their reactions. If he creates reactions that cause suffering, he causes suffering.

Additionally, Islam additionally makes the assumption that there is a reckoning of all deeds, those who suffer in this life gain recompense for it in the end. That would include anyone who has suffered oppression or hardship, it is an expiation for them.

A truly all-powerful deity wouldn't need to compensate for suffering--he could simply prevent that suffering in the first place.

This balanced-scales argument also has some disturbing implications. It could be used to justify any number of atrocities in this life. After all, if the scales are balanced in the end, what's the problem? Any evil committed is worthwhile--and in fact almost morally necessary--as long as it will spread the message of Islam and let more souls be compensated in the end.

I wouldn't use the word 'uncaring' but I'd say that you have to remember that Islamic understandings of God are not anthropomorphic. As to the second part, yes, that was my assertion in the beginning.

There is a reckoning for both. Also there are those who suffer, and it matters little to them. I have met people who eat once every second day, and I ask them how they are doing, and their reply is 'alhamduliLlah!' (All Praise is due to God, I am well). Then I have met people for whom the 'blessings' never seem to end, wealth, health and love, yet they are poor in character, nasty bitter and unhappy. Who is better off?

See my comments on the reckoning argument above. I'll add that the examples you give don't negate the existence of Muslims who suffer and non-Muslims who prosper.

I wasn't putting it forth as an argument for the existence of God. Merely pointing out that when atheists make this argument it often seems strange, as it seems almost an attempt to argue for unbelief through creating a kind of dislike of God in religious people. I know many people who are atheists less in that they don't believe in God and more in that they really really don't like Him.
Happy to discuss. I just find that overuse of such rhetorical devices can muddy the waters a bit.

Thanks. I'll try to be more careful!

 

[Chairman Yang]

We have entered unfamiliar territory where circumstances or argumentation require a non-Muslim to believe or propose a more irrational world than a Muslim.

I'm not sure I understand. If Allah can't change the laws of physics, how could be possibly be considered all-powerful? Are you arguing for a God who set the universe in motion then could not intervene?

 

[OttomanScribe]

I am assuming that God is the sole definer of morality. I'm just asking: why should humankind care? Ok, God's morality is official and "objective" (whatever that means). If it differs from our own morality, however, why should anyone follow it instead of our existing unofficial moral systems? Is it again a case of might makes right--we should follow it because we'll be punished if we don't?

This seems unrelated to the question at hand but I'll answer it regardless.

There are multiple reasons, the first is in accordance with what benefits us. The second is that one can only really be certain of intent (which is what morality is about) when morality is 'objective' on some level, or at least external to the self. It is a pretty stark difference, a whimsical, self created morality, or the certainty and consistency of the Sacred Law. It also, in my experience, leads to a greater level of contentment, as living one's life in accordance with the Sha'riah brings a great sense of peace. It isn't the kind of ups and downs that normally characterise the life of a human, but rather a condition where regardless of what occurs, one's response is 'mash'Allah' (God willed it).

As Umar (radiAllahu anhu) said iirc, 'I do not desire riches, nor do I desire poverty, for I know not which is better for me'.

Reactions can be factored out. God creates humans knowing how they'll react, so in essence he creates their reactions. If he creates reactions that cause suffering, he causes suffering.

What do you mean 'reactions that cause suffering'. I don't think you have got the point here.

A truly all-powerful deity wouldn't need to compensate for suffering--he could simply prevent that suffering in the first place.

That is assuming that the intent is that suffering does not exist at all, which you have not established. You are circling around, trying to re establish a premise that I have already pointed out we are not operating under the assumption of.

This balanced-scales argument also has some disturbing implications. It could be used to justify any number of atrocities in this life. After all, if the scales are balanced in the end, what's the problem? Any evil committed is worthwhile--and in fact almost morally necessary--as long as it will spread the message of Islam and let more souls be compensated in the end.

It could only be used in such a manner if the person were to reject the sacred law, and therefore in turn reject the very thing upon which such justifications would be founded upon, so that is a poor argument. The Sha'riah sets out that the end does not justify the means.

See my comments on the reckoning argument above. I'll add that the examples you give don't negate the existence of Muslims who suffer and non-Muslims who prosper.

I do not believe I was arguing that either don't exist....

 

[Ashes]

I'm not sure I understand. If Allah can't change the laws of physics, how could be possibly be considered all-powerful? Are you arguing for a God who set the universe in motion then could not intervene?

I'm not sure I follow you. It wasn't a question of whether God a, b, c, could do it. It was how that universe would manifest it self. Fluffy clouds and the abandonment of free will, gravity amongst hundreds of other things. In my mind, you're utilising an irrational universe to er prove that a god doesn't exist.

A universe that doesn't exist to prove that a god doesn't exist?

 

[Salih]

However, based on my reading of the concepts, a truly all-powerful Allah would have been able to create a universe where there is no conflict between dunya and akhirah for anyone.

From my perspective your argument is nonsense but i am not going to bother debating that, sorry. Please don't take it personally. Reason for that is, that it would be a waste of time. As far as i understood as muslims our duty is not to explain to non-muslims the details of our Deen but to convey the main message of Islam in a short, simple and understanding way. Not alot of chit chatting and debating. Not because we are afraid of losing our faith but because we as muslims want to invite you to our religion - the first step in accepting Islam is not with the mind but with the heart. We could disscuss several topics in Islam here with you (hijab, slavery, sharia etc.) and even if your accept our argument in all those topics you come with something different next time. In my eyes this would be a waste of time. Read the last hundred pages - mostly pure nonsense blablabla debating with non-muslims. Definitely a waste of time.

If you stop listing to your own mind and start listening to your heart for once and ask yourself if you really believe in an allmighty god - forget your rationality for one second because it is limited and your heart isn't. And with heart i don't mean that organ that is pumping blood in the left half of your body because even animals have that and it will die at a certain point. No, i mean your inner self, your soul. Allah (swt) give it to you to find Him (swt) again. The heart is the king and the rationality is only his vizier but you still need both of them to rule a country. Real self-knowledge leads to the awareness of God. We are people who enter a stage of meditation/spirituality 5 times a day.

So before you start understanding who God is, you better start with your yourself by understanding who you really are.

 

[F#A#Oo]

From my perspective your argument is nonsense but i am not going to bother debating that, sorry. Please don't take it personally. Reason for that is, that it would be a waste of time. As far as i understood as muslims our duty is not to explain to non-muslims the details of our Deen but to convey the main message of Islam in a short, simple and understanding way. Not alot of chit chatting and debating. Not because we are afraid of losing our faith but because we as muslims want to invite you to our religion - the first step in accepting Islam is not with the mind but with the heart. We could disscuss several topics in Islam here with you (hijab, slavery, sharia etc.) and even if your accept our argument in all those topics you come with something different next time. In my eyes this would be a waste of time. Read the last hundred pages - mostly pure nonsense blablabla debating with non-muslims. Definitely a waste of time.

If you stop listing to your own mind and start listening to your heart for once and ask yourself if you really believe in an allmighty god - forget your rationality for one second because it is limited and your heart isn't. And with heart i don't mean that organ that is pumping blood in the left half of your body because even animals have that and it will die at a certain point. No, i mean your inner self, your soul. Allah (swt) give it to you to find Him (swt) again. The heart is the king and the rationality is only his vizier but you still need both of them to rule a country. Real self-knowledge leads to the awareness of God. We are people who enter a stage of meditation/spirituality 5 times a day.

So before you start understanding who God is, you better start with your yourself by understanding who you really are.

I disagree brother. Without these types of discussion and engagements I don't know that I would have reverted since it was these types of discussions which lead me into researching islam.

People come to islam in many different ways and dawah can be almost anything and everything. For all you know someone who lurked in this thread came to islam or even started researching islam.

We should not stop engaging just because we don't like the questions being asked or who is asking them.

 

[Ashes]

From my perspective your argument is nonsense but i am not going to bother debating that, sorry. Please don't take it personally. Reason for that is, that it would be a waste of time. As far as i understood as muslims our duty is not to explain to non-muslims the details of our Deen but to convey the main message of Islam in a short, simple and understanding way. Not alot of chit chatting and debating. Not because we are afraid of losing our faith but because we as muslims want to invite you to our religion - the first step in accepting Islam is not with the mind but with the heart. We could disscuss several topics in Islam here with you (hijab, slavery, sharia etc.) and even if your accept our argument in all those topics you come with something different next time. In my eyes this would be a waste of time. Read the last hundred pages - mostly pure nonsense blablabla debating with non-muslims. Definitely a waste of time.

If you stop listing to your own mind and start listening to your heart for once and ask yourself if you really believe in an allmighty god - forget your rationality for one second because it is limited and your heart isn't. And with heart i don't mean that organ that is pumping blood in the left half of your body because even animals have that and it will die at a certain point. No, i mean your inner self, your soul. Allah (swt) give it to you to find Him (swt) again. The heart is the king and the rationality is only his vizier but you still need both of them to rule a country. Real self-knowledge leads to the awareness of God. We are people who enter a stage of meditation/spirituality 5 times a day.

So before you start understanding who God is, you better start with your yourself by understanding who you really are.

And what is this heart you speak of? An innate untouchable infallible incorruptible sort of magical thing.

You say that some people won't believe. I suppose you mean that even if god itself comes down; we've rationalised the idea that it has to always be a hallucination. Locked in shall we say. To the rationale of everything existing within current scientific understanding.

But I think this being a forum, debate is the order of the day. Some find it fun even.

 

[RustyNails]

I have a question for learned Islamic folks. What's the general consensus on "observing" Muharram? Some of the folks I know say we should not do anything on that day, no dawats or family get togethers because it is a sad day and we shouldn't be doing any "fun" activities that day. My gut feeling tells me this is something that's invented. What is your take/or scholars take on this?

 

[SmokyDave]

What's Muslim Gaf take on this Yemeni work of art? Brlliant? OK? Bad? Provocative?

Powerful. I'll go with powerful.

 

[OttomanScribe]

I have a question for learned Islamic folks. What's the general consensus on "observing" Muharram? Some of the folks I know say we should not do anything on that day, no dawats or family get togethers because it is a sad day and we shouldn't be doing any "fun" activities that day. My gut feeling tells me this is something that's invented. What is your take/or scholars take on this?

How do you mean 'something invented'? It is certainly a good day to fast, and it is not a wholly sad day, considering the import it had before the martyrdom of Hussein (radiAllahu anhu). As to the opinion of scholars, I haven't seen anything saying one should not gather or anything similar, though that does not mean there is nothing to that effect.

Hahaha.. answering like I'm a learned Islamic folk. Frontin'.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

Every faith has its devout followers. And every faith sees people converting to it, and away from it. What bounds the vast majority of these people together is that they were born into that faith. You will acknowledge that you may have very well been born into another faith and become devout following that message. How do you interpret this?

 

[RustyNails]

How do you mean 'something invented'? It is certainly a good day to fast, and it is not a wholly sad day, considering the import it had before the martyrdom of Hussein (radiAllahu anhu). As to the opinion of scholars, I haven't seen anything saying one should not gather or anything similar, though that does not mean there is nothing to that effect.

Hahaha.. answering like I'm a learned Islamic folk. Frontin'.

By something invented, I mean the arbitrary rules people have come up with, like no family get togethers or hanging out with friends on that day because Hasan and Hussein RA died that day.

 

[The Internet]

By something invented, I mean the arbitrary rules people have come up with, like no family get togethers or hanging out with friends on that day because Hasan and Hussein RA died that day.

I'm Muslim and have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

 

[Darackutny]

Al-Hassan didn't die in Muharram, and yeah, I'd follow your gut on this one.

 

[Aadil]

And what is this heart you speak of? An innate untouchable infallible incorruptible sort of magical thing.

You say that some people won't believe. I suppose you mean that even if god itself comes down; we've rationalised the idea that it has to always be a hallucination. Locked in shall we say. To the rationale of everything existing within current scientific understanding.

But I think this being a forum, debate is the order of the day. Some find it fun even.

I think what he meant was that in Islam the heart is more important than the mind. It is the third eye so to speak, the method of understanding.

As for the rest of Salih's post, I would completely disagree, if someone asks a question then its our duty to answer it to the best of our knowledge, its the only way that people can get an insight or understand certain aspects of any faith. From there they can do their own research.

 

[RustyNails]

http://imgur.com/a/izbvk

#1 reason why I think shias are crazy

(Edit: NSFW/L)

 

[Canis lupus]

http://imgur.com/a/izbvk

#1 reason why I think shias are crazy

Wow.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Yikes. Knew what that would be before I opened it.

 

[Smellycat]

http://imgur.com/a/izbvk

#1 reason why I think shias are crazy

(Edit: NSFW/L)

Oh my god. Allah yehdeehom. Is this Just in India??

 

[RustyNails]

Oh my god. Allah yehdeehom. Is this Just in India??

It's about the same if not worse in Pakistan. Iran is the worst it seems. We're talking about babies.

 

[L0st Id3ntity]

Some shiites actually defend this disgraceful act, a few sane condemn, but not loudly enough apparently.

 

[F#A#Oo]

http://imgur.com/a/izbvk

#1 reason why I think shias are crazy

(Edit: NSFW/L)

 

[Darackutny]

I'll simply never get why they go through all that for Al-Hussain, but won't do that for Ali.

 

[Scorpion]

.

 

[RustyNails]

I'll simply never get why they go through all that for Al-Hussain, but won't do that for Ali.

I thought they did it for Ali (RA) as well? I could be mistaken.

 

[Salih]

We are literally inside the house arguing who should do the dishes while we getting bombarded from the outside.

 

[Darackutny]

I thought they did it for Ali (RA) as well? I could be mistaken.

Maybe they'd gather in a group and shed a couple of tears, but nothing comparable to what they'd do on Ashura.

We are literally inside the house arguing who should do the dishes while we getting bombarded from the outside.

Bad analogy. Perhaps that would be the case if we were discussing inter-secterian fiqh issues like the placement of the hands in prayer, but the differences between Ahlul Sunnah and the Shias is much bigger than that.

 

[Ashes]

I should get to sleep. I thought Salih was being literal for a second.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

I should get to sleep. I thought Salih was being literal for a second.

So was I. There's been fighting in Damascus tonight and I'm pretty sure there's another GAFer who lives there besides Sentry.

 

[Salih]

Bad analogy. Perhaps that would be the case if we were discussing inter-secterian fiqh issues like the placement of the hands in prayer, but the differences between Ahlul Sunnah and the Shias is much bigger than that.

They are still our brothers and sisters. You know that since the death of our prophet (saw) differences in the ummah started arising and you know what happened back then. we should start dealing with it by not ignoring it but looking for a discourse with them and by starting to change our minds about shias. Afaik there were also shias who passed on hadiths. Just to label them as crazy is heartless.

the sunni/shia conflict is on the most stupidest and most unnecessary things i have ever seen and it breaks my heart. divide and conquer - that is the only method to break the ummah. right now our ummah is suffering from this sickness.

i enjoyed reading Scorpions post. i would like to add something because it really fits to this discussion:
If you don't show rahma to your ummah don't expect Allahs (swt) rahma on you on the day of judgment.

 

[Darackutny]

They are still our brothers and sisters. You know that since the death of our prophet (saw) differences in the ummah started arising and you know what happened back then.

This is a misconception. The differences occurred when the fitna happened around the mid-30s AH.

we should start dealing with it by not ignoring it but looking for a discourse with them and by starting to change our minds about shias. Afaik there were also shias who passed on hadiths. Just to label them as crazy is heartless.

I'm not one to generalize or label Shias as crazy or anything. I just have issues with some of their fundamental beliefs, like supplication through their Imams, and the Wilaya Takweeniya concept (that the Imams basically control the universe). Of course, not all Shias believe in these two things, and those that do, are in my opinion outside the fold of Islam.

the sunni/shia conflict is on the most stupidest and most unnecessary things i have ever seen and it breaks my heart. divide and conquer - that is the only method to break the ummah. right now our ummah is suffering from this sickness.

Who is doing the dividing and conquering though? As you've implied, these differences are pretty early. I hope you don't hold the opinion that the "West" is behind all of this.

 

[Tizoc]

Please do excuse my question as my memory is a bit hazy about some of the 'Dua'a', however one of my colleagues relatives passed away and am trying to remember the dua'a one says to a grieving person.