Who is Allah?
-
MOHD HUSSAIN
- Posts: 443
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2001 4:01 am
Who is Allah?
I have been somewhat confused by reading the different answers of Br Qiyam & Br Simon & others about the frequent mention of "ALLAH said so"-So how are we taking Allah -as a human or super human being who can talk? I always thought he was invisible super power you can pray to- then what is the difference of our Allah & other Gods of different religions?It seems that Br Qiyam & others uses away Allah as they please to explain their arguments! Can some philosophers in Islam throw light on this touchy subject? Thanks---
Re: Who is Allah?
Br. Mohd Hussain,
Great question! I’ve been trying to figure this out myself for a very long time. After some thinking I realized that the Muslims, in their determination to fulfill their desire to answer the “hard questions” in life, are much like everyone else who make “God” a finite representation, that they can comprehend and be comforted by. (Not to say that I find this “right” or “wrong”, but it just seems to be a reality) This has happened in almost every religion throughout history, and I think will continue to happen unless the way religion is taught to children is significantly changed.
Take for example, how parents use the thread of “God” when they are trying to teach their children not to misbehave. They say, “God will do this and that to you if you lie” or “God (Allah Mia .. God-Man) sees and hears everything that you do, so don’t misbehave” (Does god have eyes, or ears or any other sense?) and other such tactics. For this reason, children build up an “Old man in the sky” representation of God in their minds. I ask anyone to think of God ..(if you believe in God) and actually pay attention to what images come to their mind when they think of God. Most probably they will have some vague representation of this human-like thing that is extremely powerful, more powerful than any other man, that has these “super-senses” which he uses to monitor all our actions. But the representation of this “God” is very much relative to the experiences of the individuals who thinks of (it/him/her).
It seems that for the large majority of human beings, “God” is limited by the linguistic capabilities of the human being (by the nature of our species), and these lead to limitations in the symbolic representations, in our minds (or maybe vice-versa), which we use to create thoughts.
Think about how the Quran talks about God and how people talk about God. Pronouns and descriptive finite nouns are used to describe “God”. “He/She/Us/We” are commonly used throughout the Quran and in common language when talking about “Allah” (which itself is a finite descriptive noun). This further obfuscates the infinite reality of “God” that (I think) Islam and probably all other religions try to communicate.
Having said that, I think there are some huge problems in the way religion is taught. Children should not be given this “Old man in the sky” idea of God, because children (And arguably adults), by their very nature simplify things so that they are understandable to themselves. And when a “concept” of God is built up from a very young age, it will be hard to erase as the person grows older. I haven’t figured out how to totally approach this problem, but I think there is a way to teach children about religion (which I think has the main purpose of teaching children how to live productive, meaningful lives) without corrupting their minds with juvenile images of “God” as a “Super-Human” being that is up in the sky watching them and counting their deeds. Because of this, children develop corrupted ways of acting, which rely more on the ends (Heaven and Hell) rather than the means (Moral and Ethical behavior). And speaking of “Heaven and Hell”, these are the two most immature concepts that exist, and I think they play a large part in the corruption of Islam and other religions.
I mean, what’s the point of doing anything if it doesn’t come from the heart? Why should “God” have to bribe us with “Heaven and Hell” to make us be good to our fellow human beings?
These are just some random thoughts, hope they make sense.
sh
Great question! I’ve been trying to figure this out myself for a very long time. After some thinking I realized that the Muslims, in their determination to fulfill their desire to answer the “hard questions” in life, are much like everyone else who make “God” a finite representation, that they can comprehend and be comforted by. (Not to say that I find this “right” or “wrong”, but it just seems to be a reality) This has happened in almost every religion throughout history, and I think will continue to happen unless the way religion is taught to children is significantly changed.
Take for example, how parents use the thread of “God” when they are trying to teach their children not to misbehave. They say, “God will do this and that to you if you lie” or “God (Allah Mia .. God-Man) sees and hears everything that you do, so don’t misbehave” (Does god have eyes, or ears or any other sense?) and other such tactics. For this reason, children build up an “Old man in the sky” representation of God in their minds. I ask anyone to think of God ..(if you believe in God) and actually pay attention to what images come to their mind when they think of God. Most probably they will have some vague representation of this human-like thing that is extremely powerful, more powerful than any other man, that has these “super-senses” which he uses to monitor all our actions. But the representation of this “God” is very much relative to the experiences of the individuals who thinks of (it/him/her).
It seems that for the large majority of human beings, “God” is limited by the linguistic capabilities of the human being (by the nature of our species), and these lead to limitations in the symbolic representations, in our minds (or maybe vice-versa), which we use to create thoughts.
Think about how the Quran talks about God and how people talk about God. Pronouns and descriptive finite nouns are used to describe “God”. “He/She/Us/We” are commonly used throughout the Quran and in common language when talking about “Allah” (which itself is a finite descriptive noun). This further obfuscates the infinite reality of “God” that (I think) Islam and probably all other religions try to communicate.
Having said that, I think there are some huge problems in the way religion is taught. Children should not be given this “Old man in the sky” idea of God, because children (And arguably adults), by their very nature simplify things so that they are understandable to themselves. And when a “concept” of God is built up from a very young age, it will be hard to erase as the person grows older. I haven’t figured out how to totally approach this problem, but I think there is a way to teach children about religion (which I think has the main purpose of teaching children how to live productive, meaningful lives) without corrupting their minds with juvenile images of “God” as a “Super-Human” being that is up in the sky watching them and counting their deeds. Because of this, children develop corrupted ways of acting, which rely more on the ends (Heaven and Hell) rather than the means (Moral and Ethical behavior). And speaking of “Heaven and Hell”, these are the two most immature concepts that exist, and I think they play a large part in the corruption of Islam and other religions.
I mean, what’s the point of doing anything if it doesn’t come from the heart? Why should “God” have to bribe us with “Heaven and Hell” to make us be good to our fellow human beings?
These are just some random thoughts, hope they make sense.
sh
Re: Who is Allah?
Br Barwani,
So according to you God does not have ears to hear and eyes to see.
Maybe the children should be taught that since God does not have ears and eyes, he cannot hear or see or may be what they should be taught is that he does not have eyes or ears but he can still see and hear. But then I don't think many people teach their kids that God can hear and see because he has ears and eyes. Whether he has eyes or ears is the limitation that you have put on God to be able to hear and see.
Do you know that he does not have eyes or ears? I don't think so. But can he hear and see? Damn right he can.
And you are right, there is no point in doing anything if it does not come from the heart. So if the thought of committing a crime comes from the heart, I should be allowed to commit it huh!!
God needs to bribe us because what comes from the heart is not always what is right.
So according to you God does not have ears to hear and eyes to see.
Maybe the children should be taught that since God does not have ears and eyes, he cannot hear or see or may be what they should be taught is that he does not have eyes or ears but he can still see and hear. But then I don't think many people teach their kids that God can hear and see because he has ears and eyes. Whether he has eyes or ears is the limitation that you have put on God to be able to hear and see.
Do you know that he does not have eyes or ears? I don't think so. But can he hear and see? Damn right he can.
And you are right, there is no point in doing anything if it does not come from the heart. So if the thought of committing a crime comes from the heart, I should be allowed to commit it huh!!
God needs to bribe us because what comes from the heart is not always what is right.
Re: Who is Allah?
The quran is written for humans to read and understand. Is it possible for you to suggest a better way of describing God? God is describing himself as he/us/we so that we can understand because of the limited vocabulary that we have, if he were to refer to himself as "wecdgferdcfdrr" would that have made any sense to you? when he/us/we does not imagine what that would've done.Think about how the Quran talks about God and how people talk about God. Pronouns and descriptive finite nouns are used to describe “God”. “He/She/Us/We” are commonly used throughout the Quran and in common language when talking about “Allah” (which itself is a finite descriptive noun). This further obfuscates the infinite reality of “God” that (I think) Islam and probably all other religions try to communicate.
Re: Who is Allah?
<I>So according to you God does not have ears to hear and eyes to see.</I>
No. According to me, I don’t know.
<I>Maybe the children should be taught that since God does not have ears and eyes, he cannot hear or see or may be what they should be taught is that he does not have eyes or ears but he can still see and hear. But then I don't think many people teach their kids that God can hear and see because he has ears and eyes. Whether he has eyes or ears is the limitation that you have put on God to be able to hear and see.</I>
I don’t even know where you’re trying to go with this statement, but how about teaching children to be good for the sake of being good, and not for some pathetic ends, resulting in 70 some virgins for them to have their fun with.
<I>Do you know that he does not have eyes or ears? I don't think so. But can he hear and see? Damn right he can.</I>
How do you know “God” is a “he”? .. I can play your stupid little game too.
<I>And you are right, there is no point in doing anything if it does not come from the heart. So if the thought of committing a crime comes from the heart, I should be allowed to commit it huh!!</I>
So if a crime comes about in the search for “heaven” and “longing for God” that’s fine? We’ve already seen how much trouble that philosophy has gotten us into.
BTW: Please re-read your arguments because you keep tripping over your own words.
God needs to bribe us because what comes from the heart is not always what is right. </I>
I was suggesting that we should make the means our priority, and not the ends. We should do things because they are good, not because we will be rewarded for doing good.
<I>The quran is written for humans to read and understand. Is it possible for you to suggest a better way of describing God? God is describing himself as he/us/we so that we can understand because of the limited vocabulary that we have, if he were to refer to himself as "wecdgferdcfdrr" would that have made any sense to you? when he/us/we does not imagine what that would've done.</I>
Where are you trying to get to with this argument? I was merely saying that we can not hope to understand the “infinity” of "God" because of our linguistic and mental limitations.
sh
No. According to me, I don’t know.
<I>Maybe the children should be taught that since God does not have ears and eyes, he cannot hear or see or may be what they should be taught is that he does not have eyes or ears but he can still see and hear. But then I don't think many people teach their kids that God can hear and see because he has ears and eyes. Whether he has eyes or ears is the limitation that you have put on God to be able to hear and see.</I>
I don’t even know where you’re trying to go with this statement, but how about teaching children to be good for the sake of being good, and not for some pathetic ends, resulting in 70 some virgins for them to have their fun with.
<I>Do you know that he does not have eyes or ears? I don't think so. But can he hear and see? Damn right he can.</I>
How do you know “God” is a “he”? .. I can play your stupid little game too.
<I>And you are right, there is no point in doing anything if it does not come from the heart. So if the thought of committing a crime comes from the heart, I should be allowed to commit it huh!!</I>
So if a crime comes about in the search for “heaven” and “longing for God” that’s fine? We’ve already seen how much trouble that philosophy has gotten us into.
BTW: Please re-read your arguments because you keep tripping over your own words.
God needs to bribe us because what comes from the heart is not always what is right. </I>
I was suggesting that we should make the means our priority, and not the ends. We should do things because they are good, not because we will be rewarded for doing good.
<I>The quran is written for humans to read and understand. Is it possible for you to suggest a better way of describing God? God is describing himself as he/us/we so that we can understand because of the limited vocabulary that we have, if he were to refer to himself as "wecdgferdcfdrr" would that have made any sense to you? when he/us/we does not imagine what that would've done.</I>
Where are you trying to get to with this argument? I was merely saying that we can not hope to understand the “infinity” of "God" because of our linguistic and mental limitations.
sh
-
MOHD HUSSAIN
- Posts: 443
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2001 4:01 am
Re: Who is Allah?
Thank you Br Barwani- You did an excellent job of explaining there & also counterarguing with Br Anajmi-I still don't understand what Br Anajmi is talking about? I need to hear from Br Qiyam since his favorite talk is "Allah said so"-How do the muslims think -whether Allah talked to the prophet or did Allah just gave revelation when the prophet was meditating? Is Allah He or She?
Re: Who is Allah?
> how about teaching children to be good for the sake of being good
barwani,
Ethically, I would say that this is the best way to go. Practically speaking, is this possible?
The problem with being good for the sake of being good is that we encounter the Tragedy of the Commons - all it takes is one person to realize that nothing is preventing them from being bad to make the whole system fall apart.
However, one could also argue that what you are objecting to with regards to rewards is covered by the Islamic concept of nifaq, which is sort of a catch-all: anyone one who makes a show of faith and morality for the pure sake of the gain it brings them is a Hypocrite, because they have not unified their conscience with the moral ethic they are purporting to live by.
As far as the anthropomorphization of God goes, I agree it is easy to fall into due to the language used, but if one pays attention, the Qur'an is constantly reminding the reader that we are incapable of having any conception of the Godhead. Things like the 99 names of Allah exist to give us concrete facets to think about, because the Whole is beyond our ken. However, we need the concreteness, or we will make it up on our own. Example: most forms of Buddhism today are full of figures that have become focal points of worship and spirituality, despite -- and I would say because of -- the fact that the Buddhist concept of God is as purely spiritual and abstract as any religion has ever laid out. There is no room in Buddhism to make the Brahman something people can understand and identify with, so other things have been brought in to fill that void.
salaam
barwani,
Ethically, I would say that this is the best way to go. Practically speaking, is this possible?
The problem with being good for the sake of being good is that we encounter the Tragedy of the Commons - all it takes is one person to realize that nothing is preventing them from being bad to make the whole system fall apart.
However, one could also argue that what you are objecting to with regards to rewards is covered by the Islamic concept of nifaq, which is sort of a catch-all: anyone one who makes a show of faith and morality for the pure sake of the gain it brings them is a Hypocrite, because they have not unified their conscience with the moral ethic they are purporting to live by.
As far as the anthropomorphization of God goes, I agree it is easy to fall into due to the language used, but if one pays attention, the Qur'an is constantly reminding the reader that we are incapable of having any conception of the Godhead. Things like the 99 names of Allah exist to give us concrete facets to think about, because the Whole is beyond our ken. However, we need the concreteness, or we will make it up on our own. Example: most forms of Buddhism today are full of figures that have become focal points of worship and spirituality, despite -- and I would say because of -- the fact that the Buddhist concept of God is as purely spiritual and abstract as any religion has ever laid out. There is no room in Buddhism to make the Brahman something people can understand and identify with, so other things have been brought in to fill that void.
salaam
Re: Who is Allah?
Khairan,
<I>Ethically, I would say that this is the best way to go. Practically speaking, is this possible?
The problem with being good for the sake of being good is that we encounter the Tragedy of the Commons - all it takes is one person to realize that nothing is preventing them from being bad to make the whole system fall apart.
However, one could also argue that what you are objecting to with regards to rewards is covered by the Islamic concept of nifaq, which is sort of a catch-all: anyone one who makes a show of faith and morality for the pure sake of the gain it brings them is a Hypocrite, because they have not unified their conscience with the moral ethic they are purporting to live by.</I>
Practically speaking, I don’t think that that “fear-tactic” approach has really shown itself to work. What it leads to is a self-righteous group of individuals who feel that it is their duty to “show the rest of the flock its way.” This tends to be extremely dangerous because people start speaking for “God” and try to impose their will on others. (i.e. “Jesus loves you, but if you don’t love Jesus back, you can rot in hell” or “I know I’m right, because Allah said so, and if you don’t believe what I have to say, you’ll end up in hell with the rest of the kafir” or “If you criticize the Dai, “God” will do horrible things to you”) On the other hand I think that a means-directed approach if employed properly will teach children to continually better themselves and be as introspective as possible so that they can act ethically and justly. For example, take a look at Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), he was an orphan twice over, he had no siblings, and was living in a pretty decadent and violent society (also, Jesus was without a father, and Moses was also without his real parents… very interesting to think about…)– Muhammad, I think, directly due to the experiences in his life needed to find out the answers for himself, which led to him going to the cave and meditating to figure things out. And what he ended up with after 23 years of “revelation” and understanding was a pretty pragmatic approach to life. But today, I think many Muslims do not wish to look at life with such open eyes, they like to put things in little boxes and think that the world exists within them. The wish to define their relations to everyone and everything by standards that were fresh and new 1400 years ago (Due to the progressiveness of Muhammad’s message), but now, the shell of that message is old, but the core (which today seems hidden) is as fresh and new as it always has been – we should approach life by being as practical as possible. And maybe if we teach our future generations to look at life with open eyes, and open minds, imagine what they will be able to accomplish. In Islam, over the last few centuries, I think dialogue and debate have been choked so that the religion remained stagnant and I think if this continues, there will be far worse problems than we see today.
<I>
As far as the anthropomorphization of God goes, I agree it is easy to fall into due to the language used, but if one pays attention, the Qur'an is constantly reminding the reader that we are incapable of having any conception of the Godhead. Things like the 99 names of Allah exist to give us concrete facets to think about, because the Whole is beyond our ken. However, we need the concreteness, or we will make it up on our own. Example: most forms of Buddhism today are full of figures that have become focal points of worship and spirituality, despite -- and I would say because of -- the fact that the Buddhist concept of God is as purely spiritual and abstract as any religion has ever laid out. There is no room in Buddhism to make the Brahman something people can understand and identify with, so other things have been brought in to fill that void.<I>
I agree, and to be honest, I haven’t thought much about why Buddhism and Hinduism which have extremely abstract and esoteric concepts of God – tend to Idol worship. But I think it definitely has something to do with what you said about making God graspable. But if you take a look at Judaism, they have a very abstract concept of God (Basically the same as ours in Islam), but they have no concept of Heaven and Hell and yet they still don’t worship idols – so how is it possible with Judaism? One reason I think Judaism did not fall into the idol worship, etc. is because of their strong rabbinical tradition of debate and argument. Obviously every religion has its faults, including Islam, (I just wanted to make this clear so people don’t post stupid replies of how Judaism or whatever are wrong religions because the Quran said so… how do we know that Islam didn’t get corrupted in the last 1400 years? . . . We don’t. We might believe it didn’t but we really don’t know.) but as people who are within the Islamic tradition we have to find novel ways to approach our problems and continually challenge the authority if there are things are going wrong.
sh
<I>Ethically, I would say that this is the best way to go. Practically speaking, is this possible?
The problem with being good for the sake of being good is that we encounter the Tragedy of the Commons - all it takes is one person to realize that nothing is preventing them from being bad to make the whole system fall apart.
However, one could also argue that what you are objecting to with regards to rewards is covered by the Islamic concept of nifaq, which is sort of a catch-all: anyone one who makes a show of faith and morality for the pure sake of the gain it brings them is a Hypocrite, because they have not unified their conscience with the moral ethic they are purporting to live by.</I>
Practically speaking, I don’t think that that “fear-tactic” approach has really shown itself to work. What it leads to is a self-righteous group of individuals who feel that it is their duty to “show the rest of the flock its way.” This tends to be extremely dangerous because people start speaking for “God” and try to impose their will on others. (i.e. “Jesus loves you, but if you don’t love Jesus back, you can rot in hell” or “I know I’m right, because Allah said so, and if you don’t believe what I have to say, you’ll end up in hell with the rest of the kafir” or “If you criticize the Dai, “God” will do horrible things to you”) On the other hand I think that a means-directed approach if employed properly will teach children to continually better themselves and be as introspective as possible so that they can act ethically and justly. For example, take a look at Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), he was an orphan twice over, he had no siblings, and was living in a pretty decadent and violent society (also, Jesus was without a father, and Moses was also without his real parents… very interesting to think about…)– Muhammad, I think, directly due to the experiences in his life needed to find out the answers for himself, which led to him going to the cave and meditating to figure things out. And what he ended up with after 23 years of “revelation” and understanding was a pretty pragmatic approach to life. But today, I think many Muslims do not wish to look at life with such open eyes, they like to put things in little boxes and think that the world exists within them. The wish to define their relations to everyone and everything by standards that were fresh and new 1400 years ago (Due to the progressiveness of Muhammad’s message), but now, the shell of that message is old, but the core (which today seems hidden) is as fresh and new as it always has been – we should approach life by being as practical as possible. And maybe if we teach our future generations to look at life with open eyes, and open minds, imagine what they will be able to accomplish. In Islam, over the last few centuries, I think dialogue and debate have been choked so that the religion remained stagnant and I think if this continues, there will be far worse problems than we see today.
<I>
As far as the anthropomorphization of God goes, I agree it is easy to fall into due to the language used, but if one pays attention, the Qur'an is constantly reminding the reader that we are incapable of having any conception of the Godhead. Things like the 99 names of Allah exist to give us concrete facets to think about, because the Whole is beyond our ken. However, we need the concreteness, or we will make it up on our own. Example: most forms of Buddhism today are full of figures that have become focal points of worship and spirituality, despite -- and I would say because of -- the fact that the Buddhist concept of God is as purely spiritual and abstract as any religion has ever laid out. There is no room in Buddhism to make the Brahman something people can understand and identify with, so other things have been brought in to fill that void.<I>
I agree, and to be honest, I haven’t thought much about why Buddhism and Hinduism which have extremely abstract and esoteric concepts of God – tend to Idol worship. But I think it definitely has something to do with what you said about making God graspable. But if you take a look at Judaism, they have a very abstract concept of God (Basically the same as ours in Islam), but they have no concept of Heaven and Hell and yet they still don’t worship idols – so how is it possible with Judaism? One reason I think Judaism did not fall into the idol worship, etc. is because of their strong rabbinical tradition of debate and argument. Obviously every religion has its faults, including Islam, (I just wanted to make this clear so people don’t post stupid replies of how Judaism or whatever are wrong religions because the Quran said so… how do we know that Islam didn’t get corrupted in the last 1400 years? . . . We don’t. We might believe it didn’t but we really don’t know.) but as people who are within the Islamic tradition we have to find novel ways to approach our problems and continually challenge the authority if there are things are going wrong.
sh
Re: Who is Allah?
> But I think it definitely has something to do with what you said about making God graspable. But if you take a look at Judaism, they have a very abstract concept of God (Basically the same as ours in Islam), but they have no concept of Heaven and Hell and yet they still don?t worship idols ? so how is it possible with Judaism? One reason I think Judaism did not fall into the idol worship, etc. is because of their strong rabbinical tradition of debate and argument.
barwani,
couple of things here. First, I don't know if you misunderstood me or if you were moving on to another point entirely, but I wasn't trying to say that the notions of Heaven/Hell are there to make the concept of God more concrete. My point was that punishment and reward are basic human motivations, rooted in animal biology. Their are entire chemical subsystems of the brain that are responsible for aversive and reward feedback, and I would argue that animals, including ourselves, are hardwired to need the things that we do to be positively or negatively reinforced. It is a basic learning mechanism that teaches us whether a given activity is worthwhile or not. This is the entire point of pain and nociception in general, for example. I think Heaven and Hell make the rather esoteric concept of Good and Evil somewhat more understandable to us, because of this aforementioned biology.
On the note of Judaism not falling into idol worship, let me point out the story from Exodus of the Golden Calf. The Jews were so distraught at depending on this entity of which they had no conception, once they were out in the middle of the desert with no Egyptians to feed and protect them, that they decided to give their God a face by forging an idol. The Bible goes on to ascribe a reversion to idol worship to the Jewish people time and time again. So, ignoring the Islamic traditions entirely, even the Jews' own stories say that they longed for an understandable Deity, and were often attracted to idol worship as a result.
Another thing I'd like to point out is that in the Qur'an, the great sin is not cruelty or "evil", but hubris. Satan fell because he was too proud to acknowledge man's superiority. Along the same lines, I think that people are told by the Qur'an to "fear" not because they should be frightened into doing good (which I think travels dangerously close to nifaq), but because they should forego their pride and realize that they are not ends unto themselves. What the Qur'an tries to impart is a respect for the greater social and spiritual whole, and an understanding that hubris estranges the individual from that whole (which I believe to be represented by Heaven).
salaam
barwani,
couple of things here. First, I don't know if you misunderstood me or if you were moving on to another point entirely, but I wasn't trying to say that the notions of Heaven/Hell are there to make the concept of God more concrete. My point was that punishment and reward are basic human motivations, rooted in animal biology. Their are entire chemical subsystems of the brain that are responsible for aversive and reward feedback, and I would argue that animals, including ourselves, are hardwired to need the things that we do to be positively or negatively reinforced. It is a basic learning mechanism that teaches us whether a given activity is worthwhile or not. This is the entire point of pain and nociception in general, for example. I think Heaven and Hell make the rather esoteric concept of Good and Evil somewhat more understandable to us, because of this aforementioned biology.
On the note of Judaism not falling into idol worship, let me point out the story from Exodus of the Golden Calf. The Jews were so distraught at depending on this entity of which they had no conception, once they were out in the middle of the desert with no Egyptians to feed and protect them, that they decided to give their God a face by forging an idol. The Bible goes on to ascribe a reversion to idol worship to the Jewish people time and time again. So, ignoring the Islamic traditions entirely, even the Jews' own stories say that they longed for an understandable Deity, and were often attracted to idol worship as a result.
Another thing I'd like to point out is that in the Qur'an, the great sin is not cruelty or "evil", but hubris. Satan fell because he was too proud to acknowledge man's superiority. Along the same lines, I think that people are told by the Qur'an to "fear" not because they should be frightened into doing good (which I think travels dangerously close to nifaq), but because they should forego their pride and realize that they are not ends unto themselves. What the Qur'an tries to impart is a respect for the greater social and spiritual whole, and an understanding that hubris estranges the individual from that whole (which I believe to be represented by Heaven).
salaam
Re: Who is Allah?
There isn't much difference between Allah and the other Gods of other people except that Allah is a bit overloaded since he is all powerful while a lot of other religions have some sort of power sharing between different Gods.
We are not created in his image, he is created in our image.
-N
We are not created in his image, he is created in our image.
-N
Re: Who is Allah?
<I>couple of things here. First, I don't know if you misunderstood me or if you were moving on to another point entirely, but I wasn't trying to say that the notions of Heaven/Hell are there to make the concept of God more concrete. My point was that punishment and reward are basic human motivations, rooted in animal biology.</I>
Yea, I definitely did not get that point from your previous post. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
<I>Their are entire chemical subsystems of the brain that are responsible for aversive and reward feedback, and I would argue that animals, including ourselves, are hardwired to need the things that we do to be positively or negatively reinforced. It is a basic learning mechanism that teaches us whether a given activity is worthwhile or not. This is the entire point of pain and nociception in general, for example. I think Heaven and Hell make the rather esoteric concept of Good and Evil somewhat more understandable to us, because of this aforementioned biology.</I>
I can’t argue with that, it does seem true that humans are conditioned to prefer certain activities over others. And I see how reward and punishment play into this type of conditioning, but doesn’t the conditioning come only after one as attempted the action, so that a person builds up a symbolic representation that (x action -> y result)?. (i.e. the mouse getting shocked when he tries to eat the cheese, so he learns not to eat the cheese) But the “objective” truths that are communicated in the form of the concepts of “heaven and hell” for some reason do not seem to have the same relationship to actions that lead to them, as do the ones produced via the normal conditioning apparatus that humans use to adapt to their environments. Therefore, doesn’t it seems that there might be some short circuiting of our action -> reaction systems that make us act the way we do, when all we rely on is the concepts of heaven and hell? Wouldn’t it be much more effective to teach children the proper results of their actions, rather than some esoteric theory of what their actions will ultimately lead to.
Take for example, two children, one who is taught that if he doesn’t help the poor, he’s going to hell. The other one is shown the suffering of the poor and shown that if he gives some alms or food to these people, that they can live decent lives. Which child do you think will see the real justice in helping the poor? I’m just trying to say that I understand that we have to instill values in ourselves as human beings, but, the question comes down to which method is more practical and results in real understanding rather than selfish attempts to gain something.
Also, I just want to point out that I am in no way trying to say that I know all of the answers and that my claim is totally right and someone else’s is totally wrong – I just want to acknowledge that these questions about ethics, justice, god and actions have been asked for centuries, and I find it doubtful that we’ll get to an answer on the message board of a website. But maybe we can get a step closer.
<I>On the note of Judaism not falling into idol worship, let me point out the story from Exodus of the Golden Calf. The Jews were so distraught at depending on this entity of which they had no conception, once they were out in the middle of the desert with no Egyptians to feed and protect them, that they decided to give their God a face by forging an idol. The Bible goes on to ascribe a reversion to idol worship to the Jewish people time and time again. So, ignoring the Islamic traditions entirely, even the Jews' own stories say that they longed for an understandable Deity, and were often attracted to idol worship as a result.</I>
Yes, you’re right to some extent– but the whole foundation of the Jewish faith is the belief in an unseen and unknowable God, and the stories in the bible about the worship of idols, try to convey the message that one should not try to put brackets around “God” in order grasp something that is outside our scope. And that the journey is in fact the destination, the means are in fact the ends in themselves.
<I>Another thing I'd like to point out is that in the Qur'an, the great sin is not cruelty or "evil", but hubris. Satan fell because he was too proud to acknowledge man's superiority. Along the same lines, I think that people are told by the Qur'an to "fear" not because they should be frightened into doing good (which I think travels dangerously close to nifaq), but because they should forego their pride and realize that they are not ends unto themselves. What the Qur'an tries to impart is a respect for the greater social and spiritual whole, and an understanding that hubris estranges the individual from that whole (which I believe to be represented by Heaven).</I>
Totally agreed. I re-read the Quran in English along with the Arabic few years ago and that is the message that I got out of it. The Quran also talks of giving metaphors and allegorical descriptions of certain things so that we (actually I think it was the 6th century illiterate tribal Arabs) can understand hard concepts. And I think in Sura Imran vs. 7, the Quran talks about those who take these allegorical sayings in the Quran and use them to divide people and cause strife. So what I got from that was that these allegorical things in the Quran, the stories that are presented, etc. are all to be taken for their moral content and not at face value. And I think that in order to understand these allegorical verses, one must have experience on which they can draw relationships with these stories – so they can understand, really understand, what the Quran is trying to say.
sh
Yea, I definitely did not get that point from your previous post. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
<I>Their are entire chemical subsystems of the brain that are responsible for aversive and reward feedback, and I would argue that animals, including ourselves, are hardwired to need the things that we do to be positively or negatively reinforced. It is a basic learning mechanism that teaches us whether a given activity is worthwhile or not. This is the entire point of pain and nociception in general, for example. I think Heaven and Hell make the rather esoteric concept of Good and Evil somewhat more understandable to us, because of this aforementioned biology.</I>
I can’t argue with that, it does seem true that humans are conditioned to prefer certain activities over others. And I see how reward and punishment play into this type of conditioning, but doesn’t the conditioning come only after one as attempted the action, so that a person builds up a symbolic representation that (x action -> y result)?. (i.e. the mouse getting shocked when he tries to eat the cheese, so he learns not to eat the cheese) But the “objective” truths that are communicated in the form of the concepts of “heaven and hell” for some reason do not seem to have the same relationship to actions that lead to them, as do the ones produced via the normal conditioning apparatus that humans use to adapt to their environments. Therefore, doesn’t it seems that there might be some short circuiting of our action -> reaction systems that make us act the way we do, when all we rely on is the concepts of heaven and hell? Wouldn’t it be much more effective to teach children the proper results of their actions, rather than some esoteric theory of what their actions will ultimately lead to.
Take for example, two children, one who is taught that if he doesn’t help the poor, he’s going to hell. The other one is shown the suffering of the poor and shown that if he gives some alms or food to these people, that they can live decent lives. Which child do you think will see the real justice in helping the poor? I’m just trying to say that I understand that we have to instill values in ourselves as human beings, but, the question comes down to which method is more practical and results in real understanding rather than selfish attempts to gain something.
Also, I just want to point out that I am in no way trying to say that I know all of the answers and that my claim is totally right and someone else’s is totally wrong – I just want to acknowledge that these questions about ethics, justice, god and actions have been asked for centuries, and I find it doubtful that we’ll get to an answer on the message board of a website. But maybe we can get a step closer.
<I>On the note of Judaism not falling into idol worship, let me point out the story from Exodus of the Golden Calf. The Jews were so distraught at depending on this entity of which they had no conception, once they were out in the middle of the desert with no Egyptians to feed and protect them, that they decided to give their God a face by forging an idol. The Bible goes on to ascribe a reversion to idol worship to the Jewish people time and time again. So, ignoring the Islamic traditions entirely, even the Jews' own stories say that they longed for an understandable Deity, and were often attracted to idol worship as a result.</I>
Yes, you’re right to some extent– but the whole foundation of the Jewish faith is the belief in an unseen and unknowable God, and the stories in the bible about the worship of idols, try to convey the message that one should not try to put brackets around “God” in order grasp something that is outside our scope. And that the journey is in fact the destination, the means are in fact the ends in themselves.
<I>Another thing I'd like to point out is that in the Qur'an, the great sin is not cruelty or "evil", but hubris. Satan fell because he was too proud to acknowledge man's superiority. Along the same lines, I think that people are told by the Qur'an to "fear" not because they should be frightened into doing good (which I think travels dangerously close to nifaq), but because they should forego their pride and realize that they are not ends unto themselves. What the Qur'an tries to impart is a respect for the greater social and spiritual whole, and an understanding that hubris estranges the individual from that whole (which I believe to be represented by Heaven).</I>
Totally agreed. I re-read the Quran in English along with the Arabic few years ago and that is the message that I got out of it. The Quran also talks of giving metaphors and allegorical descriptions of certain things so that we (actually I think it was the 6th century illiterate tribal Arabs) can understand hard concepts. And I think in Sura Imran vs. 7, the Quran talks about those who take these allegorical sayings in the Quran and use them to divide people and cause strife. So what I got from that was that these allegorical things in the Quran, the stories that are presented, etc. are all to be taken for their moral content and not at face value. And I think that in order to understand these allegorical verses, one must have experience on which they can draw relationships with these stories – so they can understand, really understand, what the Quran is trying to say.
sh
Re: Who is Allah?
Guys,
I am sorry I wasn't able to make any sense to you. It happens to some. Things do not make sense.
As far as doing good for the sake of good is concerned, all that is very good, but I do not understand what your problem is if we are being rewarded for it.
I am sure you will refuse to accept a bonus this year for of all the good work that you did because you did it for the sake of good and not for a bonus. And I am sure you will refuse to accept any gifts from God because you did good on earth too.
How do I know God is a he?? The prophet referred to God as a he. Also it is a common practice to refer to someone as a he if you do not know whether he is a he or a she.
And please do not play my stupid game cause one stupid game is probably enough for us.
If I am to do good that you think is good then you better reward me for doing it. Why else shouldn't I do what a serial killer thinks is good? Just as I can get punished for doing that which is bad, it wouldn't be bad to be rewarded for doing that which is good.
Doing good becomes easier if there is a reward associated with it. Doing good is more difficult if there is no reward for doing good but a punishment awaits for doing bad.
Of course I have said a lot which may not make sense to most of you, but hey not all of us good brains.
I am sorry I wasn't able to make any sense to you. It happens to some. Things do not make sense.
So if you do not know, why comment?No. According to me, I don’t know.
As far as doing good for the sake of good is concerned, all that is very good, but I do not understand what your problem is if we are being rewarded for it.
I am sure you will refuse to accept a bonus this year for of all the good work that you did because you did it for the sake of good and not for a bonus. And I am sure you will refuse to accept any gifts from God because you did good on earth too.
How do I know God is a he?? The prophet referred to God as a he. Also it is a common practice to refer to someone as a he if you do not know whether he is a he or a she.
And please do not play my stupid game cause one stupid game is probably enough for us.
Now you are becoming delusional. Did I say anything close to what you are suggesting??So if a crime comes about in the search for “heaven” and “longing for God” that’s fine? We’ve already seen how much trouble that philosophy has gotten us into.
And who defines what is good? You??I was suggesting that we should make the means our priority, and not the ends. We should do things because they are good, not because we will be rewarded for doing good.
If I am to do good that you think is good then you better reward me for doing it. Why else shouldn't I do what a serial killer thinks is good? Just as I can get punished for doing that which is bad, it wouldn't be bad to be rewarded for doing that which is good.
Doing good becomes easier if there is a reward associated with it. Doing good is more difficult if there is no reward for doing good but a punishment awaits for doing bad.
And why do you need to understand the "infinity" of "God"? What you do not understand is "God" and not the "infinity" of "God". But you cannot accept that you do not understand what the heck God is talking about. Do you want to understand the "inifinity" of "God" to be able to do that which is "good" for the sake of "good"?Where are you trying to get to with this argument? I was merely saying that we can not hope to understand the “infinity” of "God" because of our linguistic and mental limitations.
Of course I have said a lot which may not make sense to most of you, but hey not all of us good brains.
Re: Who is Allah?
This statement in itself is indicative of the issues being addressed in this thread. When you are taught not to think, and never grow out of the God rewards you bit, when you get older you are looking for the reward of 70 virgins, because every good deed must have a reward, like candy.If I am to do good that you think is good then you better reward me for doing it.
For you no book or deed will offer a reward, just a promise of 70 virgins; in the end the only universal right comes from a conscience that a good upbringing and environment fosters.
For me the personal satisfaction of having done a good deed or having helped someone is reward enough. 70 virgins would be nice (right now !), not when I am dead.
All avenues lead to the same God, which to me is a concept, and a healthy one.
Re: Who is Allah?
This is what barwani said:
"""Take for example, how parents use the thread of “God” when they are trying to teach their children not to misbehave. They say, “God will do this and that to you if you lie” or “God (Allah Mia .. God-Man) sees and hears everything that you do, so don’t misbehave” (Does god have eyes, or ears or any other sense?) and other such tactics. For this reason, children build up an “Old man in the sky” representation of God in their minds. I ask anyone to think of God ..(if you believe in God) and actually pay attention to what images come to their mind when they think of God. Most probably they will have some vague representation of this human-like thing that is extremely powerful, more powerful than any other man, that has these “super-senses” which he uses to monitor all our actions. But the representation of this “God” is very much relative to the experiences of the individuals who thinks of (it/him/her). """
This is what I said which confused people.
"""Maybe the children should be taught that since God does not have ears and eyes, he cannot hear or see or may be what they should be taught is that he does not have eyes or ears but he can still see and hear. But then I don't think many people teach their kids that God can hear and see because he has ears and eyes. Whether he has eyes or ears is the limitation that you have put on God to be able to hear and see."""
Let me try and make it a little bit clearer.
When parents tell their children that God hears and sees them, children develop a mental picture of God that has human like features and brother barwani has a problem with that. He says that the "infinity" of "God" is not conveyed.
So I raised a question as to what should the parent teach the children? and then I answered it myself by saying "Maybe the children should be taught that since God does not have ears and eyes, he cannot hear or see" or "may be what they should be taught is that he does not have eyes or ears but he can still see and hear." i.e. the children should be taught (according to br. barwani) "God can hear and see but do not try to imagine him cause he is infinite"
Each one of us has his/her own image of God. Without an image it will be impossible to love/obey/respect our creator. What matters is not what we think God looks like, but whether we live our lives according to his injunctions or not. Of course for most humans, the most beautiful form is the form of a human, so they imagine God to be human like.
"""Take for example, how parents use the thread of “God” when they are trying to teach their children not to misbehave. They say, “God will do this and that to you if you lie” or “God (Allah Mia .. God-Man) sees and hears everything that you do, so don’t misbehave” (Does god have eyes, or ears or any other sense?) and other such tactics. For this reason, children build up an “Old man in the sky” representation of God in their minds. I ask anyone to think of God ..(if you believe in God) and actually pay attention to what images come to their mind when they think of God. Most probably they will have some vague representation of this human-like thing that is extremely powerful, more powerful than any other man, that has these “super-senses” which he uses to monitor all our actions. But the representation of this “God” is very much relative to the experiences of the individuals who thinks of (it/him/her). """
This is what I said which confused people.
"""Maybe the children should be taught that since God does not have ears and eyes, he cannot hear or see or may be what they should be taught is that he does not have eyes or ears but he can still see and hear. But then I don't think many people teach their kids that God can hear and see because he has ears and eyes. Whether he has eyes or ears is the limitation that you have put on God to be able to hear and see."""
Let me try and make it a little bit clearer.
When parents tell their children that God hears and sees them, children develop a mental picture of God that has human like features and brother barwani has a problem with that. He says that the "infinity" of "God" is not conveyed.
So I raised a question as to what should the parent teach the children? and then I answered it myself by saying "Maybe the children should be taught that since God does not have ears and eyes, he cannot hear or see" or "may be what they should be taught is that he does not have eyes or ears but he can still see and hear." i.e. the children should be taught (according to br. barwani) "God can hear and see but do not try to imagine him cause he is infinite"
Each one of us has his/her own image of God. Without an image it will be impossible to love/obey/respect our creator. What matters is not what we think God looks like, but whether we live our lives according to his injunctions or not. Of course for most humans, the most beautiful form is the form of a human, so they imagine God to be human like.
Re: Who is Allah?
I don't understand what there is to think. Everything that is good has been specified as good and everything that is bad has been specified as bad. For you the personal satisfaction is enough and I have no problems with that. I get a personal satisfaction in doing good too. Why do you have a problem when I am getting rewarded with 70 virgins? In fact if you do not want yours, I wouldn't mind having 140 and br. barwani can add his 70 to that too.This statement in itself is indicative of the issues being addressed in this thread. When you are taught not to think, and never grow out of the God rewards you bit, when you get older you are looking for the reward of 70 virgins, because every good deed must have a reward, like candy.
For you no book or deed will offer a reward, just a promise of 70 virgins; in the end the only universal right comes from a conscience that a good upbringing and environment fosters.
For me the personal satisfaction of having done a good deed or having helped someone is reward enough. 70 virgins would be nice (right now !), not when I am dead.
All avenues lead to the same God, which to me is a concept, and a healthy one.
If all avenues lead to the same God, which avenue are you taking? One that was created by someone else or one that you created by you?
Re: Who is Allah?
that should've been "one that you created yourself"
Re: Who is Allah?
brother barwani/muddai
Let me ask you guys a personal question. What kind of good have you guys done and I will list a few, please pick one from this list if it applies to you.
1 - zakat
2 - sadaqa
3 - donate money towards the construction of a mosque
4 - fitra
5 - prayers
6 - fasting
7 - feeding an orphan
8 - Iftar
9 - forgive a debt
Let me ask you guys a personal question. What kind of good have you guys done and I will list a few, please pick one from this list if it applies to you.
1 - zakat
2 - sadaqa
3 - donate money towards the construction of a mosque
4 - fitra
5 - prayers
6 - fasting
7 - feeding an orphan
8 - Iftar
9 - forgive a debt
Re: Who is Allah?
Man has created each avenue leading to a GodIf all avenues lead to the same God, which avenue are you taking? One that was created by someone else or one that you created by you?
Re: Who is Allah?
What is the relevance and purpose of your questionnaire ?
As long as we are dealing in the nonsensical, let me ask you:
1. Have you helped an animal shelter ?
2. Have you allowed people to earn a living to help their families ?
3. Have you donated toys for kids ?
4. Have you volunteered in a political campaign that you believe in ?
5. Have you given your rickshawaala 5 times the amount that he quoted you ?
..got you !
As long as we are dealing in the nonsensical, let me ask you:
1. Have you helped an animal shelter ?
2. Have you allowed people to earn a living to help their families ?
3. Have you donated toys for kids ?
4. Have you volunteered in a political campaign that you believe in ?
5. Have you given your rickshawaala 5 times the amount that he quoted you ?
..got you !
Re: Who is Allah?
Muddai,
I will ask again, which avenue are you taking? One that was created by someone else or one that you created yourself?
Br. Barwani,
About the question you asked about how I knew that Allah was a he, he refers to himself as a HE in the quran. Of course I was reading the english translation as I do not know arabic, so if anyone who knows arabic and can throw some light on this subject, it would be greatly appreciated.
I will ask again, which avenue are you taking? One that was created by someone else or one that you created yourself?
Br. Barwani,
About the question you asked about how I knew that Allah was a he, he refers to himself as a HE in the quran. Of course I was reading the english translation as I do not know arabic, so if anyone who knows arabic and can throw some light on this subject, it would be greatly appreciated.
Re: Who is Allah?
Muddai,
This talk about doing good for the sake of good is bullshit and that you have proven.
When people cannot do good as defined by a religion (like the ones that I mentioned) they want to justify the fact that whatever good they do is good enough for them and that they are not looking for a reward. Ofcourse the fact is that they aren't getting any in anycase. Have you heard about the story of the sour grapes?
When people cannot give zakat, they talk about animal shelters and so on and so forth. Fell right for it didn't you muddai?
This talk about doing good for the sake of good is bullshit and that you have proven.
When people cannot do good as defined by a religion (like the ones that I mentioned) they want to justify the fact that whatever good they do is good enough for them and that they are not looking for a reward. Ofcourse the fact is that they aren't getting any in anycase. Have you heard about the story of the sour grapes?
When people cannot give zakat, they talk about animal shelters and so on and so forth. Fell right for it didn't you muddai?
Re: Who is Allah?
As far as your questions go, I do not have a problem answering. (Of course did I mention that I am feeling good about this!!)
1. Have you helped an animal shelter ?
Yeah. I help a rat shelter.
2. Have you allowed people to earn a living to help their families ?
Yes I have.
3. Have you donated toys for kids ?
Yes I have.
4. Have you volunteered in a political campaign that you believe in ?
No cause I do not believe in any.
5. Have you given your rickshawaala 5 times the amount that he quoted you ?
No, cause the rickshawaala is earning his living (and most probably quote 5 times anyways!!)
Got me huh!!
1. Have you helped an animal shelter ?
Yeah. I help a rat shelter.
2. Have you allowed people to earn a living to help their families ?
Yes I have.
3. Have you donated toys for kids ?
Yes I have.
4. Have you volunteered in a political campaign that you believe in ?
No cause I do not believe in any.
5. Have you given your rickshawaala 5 times the amount that he quoted you ?
No, cause the rickshawaala is earning his living (and most probably quote 5 times anyways!!)
Got me huh!!
Re: Who is Allah?
> What matters is not what we think God looks like, but whether we live our lives according to his injunctions or not.
anajmi,
I disagree with you here. It very much matters what we think God looks like, because as you said, we have a tendency to mold God into the forms that are most pleasing to our own sensibilities. For instance, Catholics in Europe came to think of Jesus (their God) as white, and therefore religion subtly reinforced their own conceptions of racial superiority, to the point where the Spaniards could believe that the Native Americans they slaughtered were soulless animals who had no place in God's kingdom. Clearly, a "white" Jesus was not the only reason for this, but certainly it contributed.
Simply put, while it may not matter what we think God is, I think it is certainly important that we at the very least are able to identify what God is not. Else, we risk worshipping an image which exists only to legitimize our own political agendas...
anajmi,
I disagree with you here. It very much matters what we think God looks like, because as you said, we have a tendency to mold God into the forms that are most pleasing to our own sensibilities. For instance, Catholics in Europe came to think of Jesus (their God) as white, and therefore religion subtly reinforced their own conceptions of racial superiority, to the point where the Spaniards could believe that the Native Americans they slaughtered were soulless animals who had no place in God's kingdom. Clearly, a "white" Jesus was not the only reason for this, but certainly it contributed.
Simply put, while it may not matter what we think God is, I think it is certainly important that we at the very least are able to identify what God is not. Else, we risk worshipping an image which exists only to legitimize our own political agendas...
Re: Who is Allah?
> Therefore, doesn?t it seems that there might be some short circuiting of our action -> reaction systems that make us act the way we do, when all we rely on is the concepts of heaven and hell? Wouldn?t it be much more effective to teach children the proper results of their actions, rather than some esoteric theory of what their actions will ultimately lead to.
barwani,
you're right that there isn't the same kind of direct conditioning involved in teaching someone about Heaven or Hell as their is in zapping a mouse every time it approaches a bit of cheese. However, the associations are made, and the motivation is established. Unfortunately, because no actual research has been done (to my knowledge) on this subject, our conversation cannot leave the realm of the purely speculative.
I will say this: altruism is a fallacy. No one, ever, does anything for purely selfless reasons. If you feel a sense of satisfaction, or have assuaged guilt, for giving a pauper money, then your good action is being reinforced or a negative reaction has been prevented. In that sense, Heaven and Hell are as far from esoteric as one can be, because they tie all actions and consequences back to Self. Heaven and Hell so become another layer of concreteness to supplement the rather abstract Buddhist notion of karma.
If you can get yourself to forget about the beggar who is starving outside your window, then the guilt you feel for letting it happen or the satisfaction you feel for preventing it become non-issues; it is only when one has to answer for all of his actions does one live in a universe wherein it becomes impossible for the individual, try as he might, to separate himself from the wheel of causality.
barwani,
you're right that there isn't the same kind of direct conditioning involved in teaching someone about Heaven or Hell as their is in zapping a mouse every time it approaches a bit of cheese. However, the associations are made, and the motivation is established. Unfortunately, because no actual research has been done (to my knowledge) on this subject, our conversation cannot leave the realm of the purely speculative.
I will say this: altruism is a fallacy. No one, ever, does anything for purely selfless reasons. If you feel a sense of satisfaction, or have assuaged guilt, for giving a pauper money, then your good action is being reinforced or a negative reaction has been prevented. In that sense, Heaven and Hell are as far from esoteric as one can be, because they tie all actions and consequences back to Self. Heaven and Hell so become another layer of concreteness to supplement the rather abstract Buddhist notion of karma.
If you can get yourself to forget about the beggar who is starving outside your window, then the guilt you feel for letting it happen or the satisfaction you feel for preventing it become non-issues; it is only when one has to answer for all of his actions does one live in a universe wherein it becomes impossible for the individual, try as he might, to separate himself from the wheel of causality.
Re: Who is Allah?
<I>So if you do not know, why comment?</I>
It’s called “having a discussion”, its used to create understanding between individuals and also help us learn, about which we do not know, so that we may come to understand.
<I>As far as doing good for the sake of good is concerned, all that is very good, but I do not understand what your problem is if we are being rewarded for it.
I am sure you will refuse to accept a bonus this year for of all the good work that you did because you did it for the sake of good and not for a bonus. And I am sure you will refuse to accept any gifts from God because you did good on earth too.</I>
Think of it this way . . . If you were to help a starving man, because you knew that one day he would become rich and give you a good amount of money in repayment – would your actions be considered as ones that are for “the service of ‘God’” ? Or would you consider them self-serving? From what I recall, Islam is a faith, by definition, is a submission to “God”, not submission to our desires for gain.
<I>How do I know God is a he?? The prophet referred to God as a he. Also it is a common practice to refer to someone as a he if you do not know whether he is a he or a she.</I>
Well, lets take your comment to the next step. God is also referred to in the Quran as “We” and “Us”, are we therefore supposed to conclude that there are multiple Gods, because a plural pronoun is used?
<I>And please do not play my stupid game cause one stupid game is probably enough for us. </I>
Huh?
<I>Now you are becoming delusional. Did I say anything close to what you are suggesting??</I>
Hmm… Well this is initially what I had said:
<I> I mean, what’s the point of doing anything if it doesn’t come from the heart? Why should “God” have to bribe us with “Heaven and Hell” to make us be good to our fellow human beings?</I>
And this is how you responded:
<I> And you are right, there is no point in doing anything if it does not come from the heart. So if the thought of committing a crime comes from the heart, I should be allowed to commit it huh!!</I>
And this is how I responded to that:
<I> So if a crime comes about in the search for “heaven” and “longing for God” that’s fine? We’ve already seen how much trouble that philosophy has gotten us into.</I>
So, if you look at my first statement … where did I mention ‘committing a crime’? I was talking about good deeds, and how they should come from the heart. You attempted to twist that around and say that “if the thought of committing a crime comes from the heart…” So I countered your twisted argument about how I supposedly endorse “crimes that come from the heart”, by stating that individuals will also do bad things in their zealous aims to “please god” or “get to heaven.” I am not sure how you can perceive my comment as delusional, when it was initially your twisted rendition that was in fact, quite delusional.
<I>And who defines what is good? You??
If I am to do good that you think is good then you better reward me for doing it. Why else shouldn't I do what a serial killer thinks is good? Just as I can get punished for doing that which is bad, it wouldn't be bad to be rewarded for doing that which is good.
Doing good becomes easier if there is a reward associated with it. Doing good is more difficult if there is no reward for doing good but a punishment awaits for doing bad.<I>
Well, I am supposing you believe in the Quran and I think it lays down quite a lot of things that are considered “good.” It tells us to be good to orphans, our neighbors, family, parents, the poor, the traveler. It also tells us to give to charity, be fair, … etc. So I am not sure what point you are trying to make, I was merely stating that within the ethical framework of the Quran (the “good”) has been defined, and if one believes in the Quran, one should do the things that are “good” for their own sake. (Which can also be said, in more simplistic terms as – the things that please “God.”)
<I>And why do you need to understand the "infinity" of "God"? What you do not understand is "God" and not the "infinity" of "God". But you cannot accept that you do not understand what the heck God is talking about. Do you want to understand the "inifinity" of "God" to be able to do that which is "good" for the sake of "good"?
Of course I have said a lot which may not make sense to most of you, but hey not all of us good brains</I>
Wow. I am not sure how to respond to your insults. I remember that in an earlier post you insulted my parents for not bringing me up correctly – now you are insulting my mental capacity. But it’s ok, I accept my limitations.
Now, Let us slowly attempt to break down your statement.
<I>And why do you need to understand the "infinity" of "God"?</I>
I do not think that it is about understanding it – because within the scriptures that we are using as our references state that “understanding” God is beyond our scope. I think we merely have to accept the fact that we can not define “God” – mainly because of the limitations that we have as humans.
This goes back to what Nausicaa said:
<I> We are not created in his image, he is created in our image.</I>
In our feeble attempts to comprehend “God” – we have cast “God” in our image – by saying that “God” has features similar to, but exceeding man. Others have gone further and created idols in the image of things around them, and themselves. I remember a saying that I heard from a scholar of Islam who now teaches at Princeton – “How is it possible for a frog who has lived his whole life in a well to comprehend the ocean?” That is in fact our relationship with “God”, a mere contemplation about something that we have never seen.
Next –
<I>What you do not understand is "God" and not the "infinity" of "God".</I>
I accept “God”, but that is a matter of my faith – but I admit no understanding of “God” or “the infinity of God”, even in the remotest sense of the word.
And then –
<I> But you cannot accept that you do not understand what the heck God is talking about. </I>
So after getting rid of your awkward sentence structure I think your statement reads like this: “But you can accept that you understand what ‘God’ is talking about” …
To this, all I can say is that I try. But I am a human, and I admit that I have made mistakes, and may make more.
<I> Do you want to understand the "inifinity" of "God" to be able to do that which is "good" for the sake of "good"? </I>
No, I think I have accepted the fact that I will never truly understand the “infinity of God” – therefore I will strive to live according the ethical codes prescribed – for the sake that they have been prescribed.
… I hope that clears things up a little.
Also:
<I>
Let me ask you guys a personal question. What kind of good have you guys done and I will list a few, please pick one from this list if it applies to you.
1 - zakat
2 - sadaqa
3 - donate money towards the construction of a mosque
4 - fitra
5 - prayers
6 - fasting
7 - feeding an orphan
8 - Iftar
9 - forgive a debt</I>
Even if I have done these things – why should it matter to you? The fact that you even asked this question is enough to suggest that you may not appreciate these actions for what they are – simply “good deeds” that must be done for their own sake.
Thanks,
sh
It’s called “having a discussion”, its used to create understanding between individuals and also help us learn, about which we do not know, so that we may come to understand.
<I>As far as doing good for the sake of good is concerned, all that is very good, but I do not understand what your problem is if we are being rewarded for it.
I am sure you will refuse to accept a bonus this year for of all the good work that you did because you did it for the sake of good and not for a bonus. And I am sure you will refuse to accept any gifts from God because you did good on earth too.</I>
Think of it this way . . . If you were to help a starving man, because you knew that one day he would become rich and give you a good amount of money in repayment – would your actions be considered as ones that are for “the service of ‘God’” ? Or would you consider them self-serving? From what I recall, Islam is a faith, by definition, is a submission to “God”, not submission to our desires for gain.
<I>How do I know God is a he?? The prophet referred to God as a he. Also it is a common practice to refer to someone as a he if you do not know whether he is a he or a she.</I>
Well, lets take your comment to the next step. God is also referred to in the Quran as “We” and “Us”, are we therefore supposed to conclude that there are multiple Gods, because a plural pronoun is used?
<I>And please do not play my stupid game cause one stupid game is probably enough for us. </I>
Huh?
<I>Now you are becoming delusional. Did I say anything close to what you are suggesting??</I>
Hmm… Well this is initially what I had said:
<I> I mean, what’s the point of doing anything if it doesn’t come from the heart? Why should “God” have to bribe us with “Heaven and Hell” to make us be good to our fellow human beings?</I>
And this is how you responded:
<I> And you are right, there is no point in doing anything if it does not come from the heart. So if the thought of committing a crime comes from the heart, I should be allowed to commit it huh!!</I>
And this is how I responded to that:
<I> So if a crime comes about in the search for “heaven” and “longing for God” that’s fine? We’ve already seen how much trouble that philosophy has gotten us into.</I>
So, if you look at my first statement … where did I mention ‘committing a crime’? I was talking about good deeds, and how they should come from the heart. You attempted to twist that around and say that “if the thought of committing a crime comes from the heart…” So I countered your twisted argument about how I supposedly endorse “crimes that come from the heart”, by stating that individuals will also do bad things in their zealous aims to “please god” or “get to heaven.” I am not sure how you can perceive my comment as delusional, when it was initially your twisted rendition that was in fact, quite delusional.
<I>And who defines what is good? You??
If I am to do good that you think is good then you better reward me for doing it. Why else shouldn't I do what a serial killer thinks is good? Just as I can get punished for doing that which is bad, it wouldn't be bad to be rewarded for doing that which is good.
Doing good becomes easier if there is a reward associated with it. Doing good is more difficult if there is no reward for doing good but a punishment awaits for doing bad.<I>
Well, I am supposing you believe in the Quran and I think it lays down quite a lot of things that are considered “good.” It tells us to be good to orphans, our neighbors, family, parents, the poor, the traveler. It also tells us to give to charity, be fair, … etc. So I am not sure what point you are trying to make, I was merely stating that within the ethical framework of the Quran (the “good”) has been defined, and if one believes in the Quran, one should do the things that are “good” for their own sake. (Which can also be said, in more simplistic terms as – the things that please “God.”)
<I>And why do you need to understand the "infinity" of "God"? What you do not understand is "God" and not the "infinity" of "God". But you cannot accept that you do not understand what the heck God is talking about. Do you want to understand the "inifinity" of "God" to be able to do that which is "good" for the sake of "good"?
Of course I have said a lot which may not make sense to most of you, but hey not all of us good brains</I>
Wow. I am not sure how to respond to your insults. I remember that in an earlier post you insulted my parents for not bringing me up correctly – now you are insulting my mental capacity. But it’s ok, I accept my limitations.
Now, Let us slowly attempt to break down your statement.
<I>And why do you need to understand the "infinity" of "God"?</I>
I do not think that it is about understanding it – because within the scriptures that we are using as our references state that “understanding” God is beyond our scope. I think we merely have to accept the fact that we can not define “God” – mainly because of the limitations that we have as humans.
This goes back to what Nausicaa said:
<I> We are not created in his image, he is created in our image.</I>
In our feeble attempts to comprehend “God” – we have cast “God” in our image – by saying that “God” has features similar to, but exceeding man. Others have gone further and created idols in the image of things around them, and themselves. I remember a saying that I heard from a scholar of Islam who now teaches at Princeton – “How is it possible for a frog who has lived his whole life in a well to comprehend the ocean?” That is in fact our relationship with “God”, a mere contemplation about something that we have never seen.
Next –
<I>What you do not understand is "God" and not the "infinity" of "God".</I>
I accept “God”, but that is a matter of my faith – but I admit no understanding of “God” or “the infinity of God”, even in the remotest sense of the word.
And then –
<I> But you cannot accept that you do not understand what the heck God is talking about. </I>
So after getting rid of your awkward sentence structure I think your statement reads like this: “But you can accept that you understand what ‘God’ is talking about” …
To this, all I can say is that I try. But I am a human, and I admit that I have made mistakes, and may make more.
<I> Do you want to understand the "inifinity" of "God" to be able to do that which is "good" for the sake of "good"? </I>
No, I think I have accepted the fact that I will never truly understand the “infinity of God” – therefore I will strive to live according the ethical codes prescribed – for the sake that they have been prescribed.
… I hope that clears things up a little.
Also:
<I>
Let me ask you guys a personal question. What kind of good have you guys done and I will list a few, please pick one from this list if it applies to you.
1 - zakat
2 - sadaqa
3 - donate money towards the construction of a mosque
4 - fitra
5 - prayers
6 - fasting
7 - feeding an orphan
8 - Iftar
9 - forgive a debt</I>
Even if I have done these things – why should it matter to you? The fact that you even asked this question is enough to suggest that you may not appreciate these actions for what they are – simply “good deeds” that must be done for their own sake.
Thanks,
sh
Re: Who is Allah?
Yes just by having you take the stupid quizGot me huh!!
Re: Who is Allah?
Muddai,
Got you too, just by having you reply to my reply!!
Br barwani,
When good deeds are done for their own sake, then the definition of good changes from person to person. What is good for me may not be good for someone else.
I love and respect God because he tells me that I should lead a good life (good as he defines what good is) and that I should do good (good as he defines good is), and if I do that, I will be rewarded for it.
Of course he could've easily said that do good and that is its own reward, do bad and I will punish you. But then people would've done good out of fear and not out of love.
And then he could've said, do good if you feel like it and do bad if you feel like it and I don't care. Imagine what the state of the world would've been then.
As far as the good deeds that I mentioned are concerned, there are stipulations associated with each one. Zakat is 2.5% of your savings over a year (there may be other parameters too). If I feel good about giving just 1/2% then I may feel good about it, but it does not constitute zakat. Forget about getting rewarded, you may be punished for it. So yeah the only thing that would matter then is that you felt good about it.
As far as insulting you or your parents is concerned, that was not my intention. If it appeared that way, then I apologize.
Got you too, just by having you reply to my reply!!
Br barwani,
When good deeds are done for their own sake, then the definition of good changes from person to person. What is good for me may not be good for someone else.
I love and respect God because he tells me that I should lead a good life (good as he defines what good is) and that I should do good (good as he defines good is), and if I do that, I will be rewarded for it.
Of course he could've easily said that do good and that is its own reward, do bad and I will punish you. But then people would've done good out of fear and not out of love.
And then he could've said, do good if you feel like it and do bad if you feel like it and I don't care. Imagine what the state of the world would've been then.
Here you have completely changed the meaning of my sentence. My sentence reads ""But you cannot accept that you do not understand what the heck God is talking about.""But you cannot accept that you do not understand what the heck God is talking about.
So after getting rid of your awkward sentence structure I think your statement reads like this: “But you can accept that you understand what ‘God’ is talking about” …
As far as the good deeds that I mentioned are concerned, there are stipulations associated with each one. Zakat is 2.5% of your savings over a year (there may be other parameters too). If I feel good about giving just 1/2% then I may feel good about it, but it does not constitute zakat. Forget about getting rewarded, you may be punished for it. So yeah the only thing that would matter then is that you felt good about it.
As far as insulting you or your parents is concerned, that was not my intention. If it appeared that way, then I apologize.
Re: Who is Allah?
Br(sis?) Khairan,
My sentence
My sentence
should proably be changed to ""What we think God looks like SHOULD NOT matter, what SHOULD matter is whether we live our lives according to his injunctions or not.""What matters is not what we think God looks like, but whether we live our lives according to his injunctions or not.
Re: Who is Allah?
Br barwani,
As far as God referring to him as "Us" and "We" is concerned, I am sure you know the english language better than I do. Us and We are used as plural of respect too. Margaret thatcher used to refer to herself as "We".
As far as God referring to him as "Us" and "We" is concerned, I am sure you know the english language better than I do. Us and We are used as plural of respect too. Margaret thatcher used to refer to herself as "We".
Re: Who is Allah?
And also in Urdu people refer to themselves as "Hum" instead of "Main" that does not mean they are multiple people.