182 replies to this topic

[Khadim uz Zahra]

La, on 26 February 2012 - 05:39 PM, said:

but the most important thing that would ultimately prove whether he is in connection with the divine or has lost his mind is an established, independant criterion that showcases a divine source for all the words he speaks.

And, what would, according to you, be a good criterion?

[MysticKnight]

Jebreil, your using circular reasoning. What if all people no matter how good they are, can change? You haven't disproved this except by saying God's representatives must be infallible. You haven't established God's representatives exist in the first place. You haven't even established what you mean by excellent character and how you will tell that person has that character. I think Khomeini was of excellent character. Since we both know Khomeini to an extent let's talk about him. I don't think he is that special to be a Prophet or God's representative as well. If he claimed to be a Prophet, I think I and most people, would not have had the respect for him as we do today. Also, I think it's never impossible for a person to change for the worse.  It would take away also from nobleness of a person if he was set to be excellent after choosing to be excellent character. I believe there is a constant will power - and it's never set to stone that you can't change. Just as a super bad person can change to good, and it's never over for him, the same is true of a good person. It maybe highly unlikely, but the possibility is still there.

[.InshAllah.]

Theres good reason to believe in the existence of people who never sin.  By 'sin' I mean: do culpable wrong.  And the people that Im referring to are those who have mature intellects capable of moral insight.

1.  We are blameworthy if we sin.  (Thats why we need to repent if we sin)
2.  We are not blameworthy for anything that we can't do
3.  Therefore we are capable of not sinning.  In other words, we are capable of living sinless lives.

Just think what that means.  The billions of humans who have walked this Earth from Adam were capable of living sinless lives.

Surely some of them achieved this?  It would be really bizarre if none of them did.

[MysticKnight]

.InshAllah., on 27 February 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

Surely some of them achieved this?  It would be really bizarre if none of them did.

A person can argue it would seem bizarre if less then 0.001% achieved this. After all, if something is only achieved by less then 0.001% of the population, are we really blameworthy for not achieving it? In fact, even if it was 1%, are we blameworthy for not achieving it?

It's a possibility that a person never does a single mistake on a single test in school from when he is a child till he grows up. It's possible..it's not impossible. Doesn't mean there has to be a person whom did so.

Also in Quran, sin, even if not of the evil type, is still attributed to the Prophet. He is told to ask forgiveness for his sins..so even if his sin is not like evil sins, they are still blameworthy. After all why ask forgiveness for something you aren't to blame for. Since your saying there was bound to be humans whom lived blameless lives, then why isn't Mohammad blameless? Call the sins "tarkal awla" (leaving the best option), they are still blameworthy, as why would you seek forgiveness for something not blameworthy. By your argument, there should be a non-blameworthy human, yet even the "the Most Praised One" (Ahmad) is not that.

Also, even we give for granted that there were sinless humans and unblameworthy humans, it doesn't show that they are incapable of doing sins, and that at given point in their life, they weren't capable of changing to bad.  Nor does it mean they are representatives of God, and that God would communicate through them. They may be extraordinary humans for not having sinned or done anything blameworthy, but not that special to be chosen as ambassadors of God.

Edited by MysticKnight, 27 February 2012 - 08:12 PM.

[.InshAllah.]

MysticKnight, on 27 February 2012 - 07:31 PM, said:

A person can argue it would seem bizarre if less then 0.001% achieved this. After all, if something is only achieved by less then 0.001% of the population, are we really blameworthy for not achieving it?.

That is bizarre, but not as bizarre as saying that noone achieved this.  So should we believe that more than 0.001% were sinless?  I dont know what the percentage is, but I know from experience that it will be very low, as I know from experience that people tend to sin.  But while experience tells me that its very low, it doesnt tell me that its 0%, and I have this argument which makes me think its above 0%.  So there are sinless people, but few in number.

Quote

It's a possibility that a person never does a single mistake on a single test in school from when he is a child till he grows up. It's possible..it's not impossible. Doesn't mean there has to be a person whom did so.

True, possibility doesnt always mean that its likely to have happened, and the argument doesnt claim that this is the case.  I think that theres an intuitive difference between your test possibility and the sinless possibility.  Its difficult to say exactly what the relevant difference is, but it may be because of the central importance of morality in our lives.  Living ethically is the point of living, whereas getting 100% on every test isnt.  So perhaps thats why I find it bizarre that noone is sinless despite being able to be, but dont find your example bizarre.

Quote

Also in Quran, sin, even if not of the evil type, is still attributed to the Prophet. He is told to ask forgiveness for his sins..so even if his sin is not like evil sins, they are still blameworthy. After all why ask forgiveness for something you aren't to blame for. Since your saying there was bound to be humans whom lived blameless lives, then why isn't Mohammad blameless? Call the sins "tarkal awla" (leaving the best option), they are still blameworthy, as why would you seek forgiveness for something not blameworthy. By your argument, there should be a non-blameworthy human, yet even the "the Most Praised One" (Ahmad) is not that.

Leaving aside the interpretation of that verse, my argument above doesnt require there to be non-blameworthy humans.  1 says that doing sin is a sufficient condition for being blameworthy.  2 says that not being able to do something is a sufficient condition for not being blameworthy.  So according to 2, if we are unable to live sinless lives then we are not blameworthy for sinning.  But we are blameworhy for sinning, so we are able to live sinless lives.

Quote

Also, even we give for granted that there were sinless humans and unblameworthy humans, it doesn't show that they are incapable of doing sins, and that at given point in their life, they weren't capable of changing to bad. Nor does it mean they are representatives of God, and that God would communicate through them. They may be extraordinary humans for not having sinned or done anything blameworthy, but not that special to be chosen as ambassadors of God.

All the argument is meant to do is give reason to believe that sinless people exist.  It says nothing about being representatives of God, receiving revelation or being extraordinary.

[MysticKnight]

.InshAllah., on 27 February 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

That is bizarre, but not as bizarre as saying that noone achieved this.  So should we believe that more than 0.001% were sinless?  I dont know what the percentage is, but I know from experience that it will be very low, as I know from experience that people tend to sin.  But while experience tells me that its very low, it doesnt tell me that its 0%, and I have this argument which makes me think its above 0%.  So there are sinless people, but few in number.

It's not bizarre at all. But if that can be bizarre, then why couldn't be something more bizarre be possible?

Quote

True, possibility doesnt always mean that its likely to have happened, and the argument doesnt claim that this is the case.  I think that theres an intuitive difference between your test possibility and the sinless possibility.  Its difficult to say exactly what the relevant difference is, but it may be because of the central importance of morality in our lives.  Living ethically is the point of living, whereas getting 100% on every test isnt.  So perhaps thats why I find it bizarre that noone is sinless despite being able to be, but dont find your example bizarre.

No I don't think so. I think it's more likely a person never does a mistake on a test through out his life or assignment, then a person never sinning. I don't agree with your intuition. Yes morality is central, but what makes morality special is the extent of struggle against evil. The extent of the struggle against evil makes very unlikely for anyone to be sinless.

It's possible that a NHL team wins all their games in a single season including the play offs. But even in a billion years, with many teams coming and going, and many seasons of NHL, it very well may not happen. Yet NHL teams blame themselves when they lose a hockey game.

Quote

Leaving aside the interpretation of that verse, my argument above doesnt require there to be non-blameworthy humans.

Yeah it does. Because, because your whole reason is saying we aren't blameworthy for something we can't do. So it follows we can be blameless. And you said, it's bound that humans be sinless if they can be sinless. Your whole premise is that since it's possible humans can't sin, it's bound that there are some humans whom never sinned.  The same argument will mean there should be blameless humans. Yet Quran shows Prophets like Musa and Nuh asking forgiveness...and hadiths report Prophet would seek forgiveness 70 times a day...forgiveness implies doing something blameworthy of.

We are not blameworthy if it was not possible to be blameless.
Humans therefore can be blameless.

Out of so many humans that lived, it would be bizarre if no human is blameless.

Yet Quran shows even Prophets are blameworthy for some of their actions.

Quote

All the argument is meant to do is give reason to believe that sinless people exist.  It says nothing about being representatives of God, receiving revelation or being extraordinary.

Sure.

Jebreil, we are going in circles (I don't think I'm the one to blame on that). Really. You avoid my points and just repeat your argument. Sure if your going to say nothing has changed, he is truthful, then you would conclude he is a Prophet. My point is how do you know he hasn't changed or is not who you thought the person was. I also am interested how you deduce a person has a sublime character. But anyways, it's all irrelevant to why people believe in Prophets today.

Edited by MysticKnight, 27 February 2012 - 09:23 PM.

[.InshAllah.]

MysticKnight, on 27 February 2012 - 09:00 PM, said:

It's not bizarre at all. But if that can be bizarre, then why couldn't be something more bizarre be possible?

Firstly, Im not claiming that its impossible.  What Im doing is giving prima facie reason to believe that there are sinless people.  Its not meant to be a decisive knockdown argument.  With that in mind, if we have a good reason to believe x, and an even better reason to also believe y, then we ought to believe both x and y (providing they're not inconsistent).  But if we also have a better reason to deny x, then we should stick with y.  Applying that to this case, we have a good reason to believe that there are more than 0.0001% sinless people, a very good reason to believe that there are more than 0% sinless people.  But we have better reasons to deny that there are more than 0.0001%.  So we should just stick with the belief that there are more than 0% sinless people without also believing that the % is high.

Quote

I don't agree with your intuition.

Fine

Quote

Yeah it does. Because, because your whole reason is saying we aren't blameworthy for something we can't do. So it follows we can be blameless

No, this is what im saying:

1.  If we sin during our lives then we are blameworthy for sinning
2.  If we are unable to live sinless lives then we are not blameworthy for sinning

So we must be able to live sinless lives.

Quote

Your whole premise is that since it's possible humans can't sin, it's bound that there are some humans whom never sinned.  The same argument will mean there should be blameless humans.

But that would be a different argument.  Any any refutation of that argument would not entail a refutation of my argument.

Quote

We are not blameworthy if it was not possible to be blameless.
Humans therefore can be blameless.

Out of so many humans that lived, it would be bizarre if no human is blameless.

Yet Quran shows even Prophets are blameworthy for some of their actions.

Not only does this not make sense, it doesnt resemble my arguments structure at all.

Edited by .InshAllah., 27 February 2012 - 09:38 PM.

[MysticKnight]

.Inshallah., try to reflect calmly and think properly. This is your argument.

1.  We are blameworthy if we sin.  (Thats why we need to repent if we sin)
2.  We are not blameworthy for anything that we can't do
3.  Therefore we are capable of not sinning.  In other words, we are capable of living sinless lives.


As for 1, it can be replaced by "We are blameworthy if we do something blameworthy"
2 can stay the same.

And it would follow, we therefore are able to be blameless (or never do something blameworthy).



It's the same argument. I don't have a problem with the argument. I just have the problem with the premise that therefore it's very highly unlikely or bizarre that there be no blameworthy humans or sinless humans.

Edited by MysticKnight, 27 February 2012 - 09:45 PM.

[.InshAllah.]

MysticKnight, on 27 February 2012 - 09:39 PM, said:

It's the same argument.

No it's not, otherwise you wouldnt say 'i dont have a problem with the argument'.  What you dont have a problem with is part of the argument (which is 1 to 3).  The argument doesnt stop at establishing the possibility of humans not sinning.  It then goes on to say that this makes it likely that some humans are sinless.  Your version of the argument which uses 'blameworthy' has a different premise and different conclusion.  Your claim that Prophets are blameworthy (but not in the sense of blameworthy for evil) is an argument against that conclusion and that version, not against my version and my conclusion.

[MysticKnight]

Jebreil, on 27 February 2012 - 09:44 PM, said:

Are you asking how I know a person of a whole year of witnessed excellence and a reportedly excellent reputation of years before that hasn't changed over one night into a big liar of such huge proportion?

Yes. You are asking the question as if it's impossible. First you might of witnessed excellence, but you don't know his heart. Perhaps he looks down upon other humans, thinks he is superior to them, etc..but never shows it. Perhaps he thinks majority of people are a bunch of idiots...perhaps he dreams of leading people and authority...you don't know all that is going in his heart and mind. You only witness how he acts

Quote

To use your terminology, when somebody is special. Surely you are not talking nonsense when you say, "he is not that special." What is the ideal against which you are comparing him? That "special" ideal is your sublime character. Anyone who matches it, is sublime.

What I imagine to a special character (my imagination of Ahlebayt in the past) had more to do with what I can't see, but lies in their hearts. I imagined Prophets have a special heart of sincerity unlike others, but you can't witness that in people's action. The heart and amount of love towards God, not want of power or leadership, or arrogance, all this, cannot always be witnessed.

If you go by teachings, Baha'Allah seems to have a lot of good teachings. So I don't think good teachings always reflects a good heart.

But even if someone had that special a character, it's because of believing that character would never turn evil, because of our believe in Prophets, that we attribute such character with that.

But the truth is,  it's possible and we have no reason to believe otherwise, even such a character can change. Islamically, you have Iblis whom was raised up to be with Angels, then he disobeyed, and changed all together.

In hollywood, we have StarWars. That cute kid who grows up, whom we saw some anger, but was a very good person, cared about others, loved to serve good, willing to sacrifice himself, but then changes due to some inner turmoil.

Ofcourse that is hollywood, but it shows we do believe even heroic characters can change for the worse.

.InshAllah., on 27 February 2012 - 09:57 PM, said:

No it's not, otherwise you wouldnt say 'i dont have a problem with the argument'.  What you dont have a problem with is part of the argument (which is 1 to 3).  The argument doesnt stop at establishing the possibility of humans not sinning.  It then goes on to say that this makes it likely that some humans are sinless.  Your version of the argument which uses 'blameworthy' has a different premise and different conclusion.  Your claim that Prophets are blameworthy (but not in the sense of blameworthy for evil) is an argument against that conclusion and that version, not against my version and my conclusion.

OK inshallah, I said the argument from 1 to 3  is what I don't have a problem with. What I meant by the same, is the structure is the exact same.   It's the final  conclusion outside the3 premises,  that it would make therefore bizarre that no humans at all are sinless out of all that exist that i disagree with. Your whole argument simply relies on the fact it's possible (which has proven wrong by counter examples) and given the amount of people, it becomes likely. I have a problem with this conclusion that doesn't follow your premises and you have not shown a reason why to believe it is the case other then claiming morality is central to our lives  which has no relationship at all.

Edited by MysticKnight, 27 February 2012 - 11:01 PM.

[MysticKnight]

Given that sins are a class of blameworthy actions, the same reason that it's highly unlikely a total blameless human exists can be the reason for why no sinless human exists. Murder is a class of blameworthy actions, but the extent of the type of evil is such that most humans would not commit it. It seems to me the case that small 'sins' are very close to the range of blameworthy actions (that are not sins), and the same thing that makes it highly improbable that a human be blameless all his life makes it highly improbable a human is sinless. The same intuition against a human being totally free of any blameworthy action all his life, is the same intuition against a human being totally sinless.   It seems that if it is the case that the possibility of being blameless doesn't make it likely, and rather remains highly unlikely, then being sinless is also unlikely, even though it is more likely then being blameless.

Edited by MysticKnight, 27 February 2012 - 10:59 PM.

[MysticKnight]

Then companions whom were praised with noble qualities including being truthful, being pleased with God, compassionate amongst themselves, seeking God's pleasure, striving hard for god's sake...should've not of suddenly changed right after the Messenger.

I think to be consistent with your argument, you would have to be Sunni.

Also you couldn't argue Abu Baker was hidding malice, since he gave a lot of money to the Prophet, fought with him, was one of the first to believe in him, was with him in the cave, etc, all his actions before death of Prophet shows he is high moral person, that is how he appears...so you can't say "perhaps there was some malice in his heart" "perhaps there was love of power in his heart" etc... after all such people never appear to be good in their actions according to you.

Also, riya intention, is impossible in your book? No one can act good to show off? Everyone's actions display their true intentions?

Egoistic people can appear to be humble.
Liars can appear to be truthful.
Unsincere people can appear to be sincere.
etc...

Edited by MysticKnight, 28 February 2012 - 11:42 AM.

[MysticKnight]

I will quote the verses about companions later, but I just want to go back to a point I wanted to make when I asked you about what you would think of a disbeliever if he appeared to be of the description. Take Mother Theresa for example. I'm not going to say she is perfect, but she seems to be a really honorable person in many people's eyes. However, she believes in trinity and believes Christianity is the true religion, which makes disbelieve in other religions that are not Christian. Good people will not be punished per Quran, right? So what is the Islamic verdict on such a person, that despite all her good, she remains a "kaffer" and even can be said a "mushrik".  The Quran dishonors people whom disbelieve, so that your view point is totally different about the person. At the end, Islamically, you will have to argue, that the disbelief and Shirk in the heart makes the person evil, despite of her life of compassion towards others. She is not the only good person whom disbelieves in Islam. And there is Good polytheists, good Atheists, good every type of religion.

Muslims automatically respect a believer more then a disbeliever. This is because of Quran.

Your perception of people doesn't have all together to do with their actions. It's just one factor, but your perception depends on many other things. And society has all different type of views of each other that is not accurate. One man's hero is another man's villain.

A buddhist has a different perception of high character, because of his teachings, and would say Mohammad teachings lacked compassion, had a lot of hate, and described a god of imperfect character. There is a verse of believers laughing at disbelievers on the day of judgment.  A buddhist would be horrified at that, there disbelievers are going to face a severe torment, and believers are laughing at them.

I don't see how he can possibly be seen as respecting other people, when he disgraces polytheists, and disgraces disbelievers, and people of other religions...and only praises the believers...and even them, he says before they believed and changed them, they were on the brink of fire. Basically I see total lack of respect to other people.

Sure if your going to believe everything the person does is of perfect character, then you will see nothing but perfect character in all his actions and teaching. He marries a child when he is super old, and it's not imperfect. Ofcourse it's not, how could it be, when he is of perfect character right...He marries so many wives, it's ofcourse not imperfect, consistent with perfect character...he takes women of his conquered opponents as slaves, and it's also of perfect character.

Perhaps before you meet him, you haven't reached vision of what is to be of perfect character. The world doesn't agree Islam teachings are of perfect morality.

Your basically arguing, if I see him as of perfect character, then he must be perfect character.

I will get to the companions in Quran later. By the way, the interpretation I have is something majority of Muslims have as well. I'm not the only one to see it this way.

Edited by MysticKnight, 28 February 2012 - 02:50 PM.

[MysticKnight]

Jebreil, on 28 February 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

I find it immaterial to any issue raised in this thread, except the odd thing which is remotely related

Everything I posted is related to your points.  How about I give you time, and if you don't get why, I will explain why.

[Khadim uz Zahra]

In The Name of Allah (SWT) , The Most Beneficent, The Most Merciful.



Since we are into this discussion, I would like to add my two cents into whether it is possible for us to have infallible individuals.

Like inshaAllah said, Allah (SWT) punishes us and holds us accountable for our sins. Therefore, if it was not possible to refrain from each and every sin, then Allah (SWT) would unjust by making those things sins for us and, then, punishing us for them because, in the end, it was not in our hands so why should He punish us for it?

Of course, I am just alluding to the fact that it is possible to have infallible individuals but whether normal people can achieve this or not is a different discussion altogether.

[Ugly Jinn]

MysticKnight, on 28 February 2012 - 01:57 PM, said:

Your basically arguing, if I see him as of perfect character, then he must be perfect character.

Yes. Basing claims and believing using personality traits is subjective, and in my opinion erroneous.

With saying that, your post #5 is no different. You are using your 'own' customized 'personality' traits to validate God (ex. God shouldn't hate, should be nice, God shouldn't punish, etc. - you are deciding/customizing how God should behave according to your personalized criteria in order to believe in Him).

Both you and Jebreil are using the same approach, the only difference is that Jebreil is using it to figure out a fallible/infallible and you are using it to figure out God. Both have a tailor made criteria which isn't universal.

Edited by Ugly Jinn, 28 February 2012 - 05:45 PM.

[MysticKnight]

Ugly Jinn, on 28 February 2012 - 05:23 PM, said:

Yes. Basing claims and believing using personality traits is subjective, and in my opinion erroneous.

With saying that, your post #5 is no different. You are using your 'own' customized 'personality' traits to validate God (ex. God shouldn't hate, should be nice, God shouldn't punish, etc. - you are deciding/customizing how God should behave according to your personalized criteria in order to believe in Him).

Both you and Jebreil are using the same approach, the only difference is that Jebreil is using it to figure out a fallible/infallible and you are using it to figure out God. Both have a tailor made criteria which isn't universal.

You do have a good point. I am thinking about this, and will make a thread about the issue. Thankyou.

[Ugly Jinn]

@Jebreil

When I use the word 'universal', it means a criteria must be universally accepted that a fallible cannot meet that condition, only a divine agent can. Otherwise your prerequisites, which are important, can be achieved by a fallible, and very subjective - and because of this Agha Khan is a 'divine agent' that has millions of Muslim followers claiming he has the 'magic touch'.

Edited by Ugly Jinn, 29 February 2012 - 03:54 PM.