Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
AskerOfQuestions

Dualism in Islam?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

^The location of the soul doesn't make a difference. Heard of property dualism? It's still dualism. So long as you make a distinction between mind and matter, you are a dualist.

Strawson argues that we cannot count minds in the term Descarte puts in. How do I know that my soul today is the soul I will have tomorrow? What evidence is there to suggest this when the soul has NO location, NO mass, NO physicality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Strawson demonstrates how it is the same mind, or whether there can be more than one mind. Regardless of this, so long as you are accepting these two (regardless of number or whether they are substance, states or properties), you are a dualist. Before you question the nature of the soul, question its existence. If you are actually going to go ahead and believe in the soul, you will have to accept that it doesn't have location or physicality, unless you are a property dualist. Even there, you'll have loads of problems. No one is saying the only form of dualism is Cartesian.

Edited by Shia & Proud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Property Dualism is the belief that there are mental states and physical states, but the mind and body are not two different substances, as Descartes had suggested. However, mental states cannot be found in the brain since they are a different property. In other words, there is no ghostly soul looming over our heads or whatever beliefs there may be. They hold the stance that this property is there when we are born and dies when we die (Unlike substance dualism).

Well it all depends on whether you are a materialist or a dualist. Ryle would refer to the soul as a 'dogma of the ghost in the machine', that human behaviour is mistakenly ascribed to mental and physical states. The terms 'belief' and other such 'mental states' are mistakenly catagorised as mental states, whilst they are in reality a fragment of folk psychology, and physical in nature. Or you can take the Dualist stance and countless of questions will arise from there.

Edited by Shia & Proud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Property Dualism is the belief that there are mental states and physical states, but the mind and body are not two different substances, as Descartes had suggested. However, mental states cannot be found in the brain since they are a different property. In other words, there is no ghostly soul looming over our heads or whatever beliefs there may be. They hold the stance that this property is there when we are born and dies when we die (Unlike substance dualism).

Property Dualism suggests that our soul/mind dies when our bodies do? That doesnt seem like an Islamic belief.

Well it all depends on whether you are a materialist or a dualist. Ryle would refer to the soul as a 'dogma of the ghost in the machine', that human behaviour is mistakenly ascribed to mental and physical states. The terms 'belief' and other such 'mental states' are mistakenly catagorised as mental states, whilst they are in reality a fragment of folk psychology, and physical in nature. Or you can take the Dualist stance and countless of questions will arise from there.

Materialist notion goes against Islam does it not? Does it not suggest that the mind will also perish?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How far does Islam agree with the Dualism?

We certainly don't believe in the Cartesian dualism; we don't believe in two mutually exclusive "substances" which have nothing to do with each other.

To the extent that we do indeed believe that there is a spirit, and a body we can be called dualists. But to the extent that we believe that there is a barzakh in-between the spirit (ruh) and the body (jism), which we call the soul (nafs), we can be called nondualists!

the soul (nafs) which contains within it, bodily elements and spiritual elements (since its an in-between-ness) starts out initially as a mere body (we all started off unconscious no? we were a drop of semen and we were as good as lifeless) and ends up into something purely spiritual.

body = imperfection.

spirit = perfection.

soul = a transition from imperfection to perfection within a time span.

Once our perfection is reached, we are no longer in need of our body. Once our perfection is reached, our soul becomes united and one with the spirit. Our soul is no longer a body once we reach our perfection. This perfection is called "death".

By perfection. this does not mean we become infallible saints. :)

By perfection, we mean simply that our identities become fixed. Perfection means that we no longer have any chance for "improvement" or "de-provement".

By perfection we mean the degree to which we were able to live up to our spirit. So being "one" with or "identical" to the spirit does not necessarily mean being "one" with or "identical" to the spirit as such or the spirit in its utter perfection. To the contrary, to be "identical" or "one" with the spirit, means to be "identical" or "one" with the spirit insofar as we have lived up to it, or insofar as we were able to be in harmony with it.

This very harmony or this very living-up-to (or lack thereof) mentioned above is in fact what is known as the "subtle body" (jasad) as opposed to the "dense body" (jism) which we find ourselves with right now. This jasad is who we really are (it is our true identity). This jasad has not only one form, but many forms at once (it is after all a "spiritualized body", or a "perfect" body). It not only has many forms at once but also perceives things much more intensely than the way way we perceive things right now.

This is just a general idea of what is involved. This issue is way more complicated than what was just outlined. and although it may have sufficiently answered your initial question, it will probably create more questions.

.

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you clarify the actual difference between the soul and the spirit?

You seem to suggest that the spirit is the "in-between" element. I still dont understand how the spirit is both partially physical and non-physical.

Maybe I just didnt understand your reply.

its the soul (nafs) that is the "in-between-ness" of the spirit and the body.

1) The spirit (in itself) is not sensible and therefore invisible. The spirit is also simple and noncomposite. it is pure awareness or consciousness. it is meaning.

2) The body (in itself) is sensible and therefore visible. the body is essentially composite and infinitely divisible. It in itself unaware or unconscious. it is form.

Now it is quite clear that we have never experienced any of the two qualities (numbered above) by themselves. Have we ever expericed pure simplicity or pure invisibility? or pure awareness? no we have not. Have we ever expereinced pure sensation, or pure composition? no we have not. the pure body itself doesnt even exist for one to even experience it.

So how then can we talk about them and know these two qualities? The answer is that we dont know these two qualities in and of themselves. but we know them when both quaities come togetehr and are mixed. If you look at the word "cat". This word is exprienced the way it is precisely because it is a mixture of "form" (the visible word written out) and "meaning" (the invisible essence of what it means to be a cat). So we can see "a coming together" of form and meaning. we can experience an inbetweenness of form and meaning. If you wat to know why modern philosophy (Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza) pretty much fail, it is because they have lost sight of the reality of "inbetweenness". Only the existentialist philosophers have almost captured this reality, but their problem is that they have lost sight of the fact that spirit and body are also seperate (or they dont emphasize it as much). the difference between the two approaches is that of methodology. the moder philosophers use the methos of "ratiocinaion". When people use this faculty they will have the tendency to seperate things and place them in different catgeories. They will be careful to distinguish between "A" and "-A". the method of the existentialists however ignore the faculty of ratiocination and instead try to capture the bare experience of things without rationalizing them. that is why they fuse togetehr "A" and "-A". This is the facculty of khayal (imaginal faculty). Both of these two methods if used alone, are problamatic. The correct approach is to use both "khayal" and "ratiocination" when trying to understand something. so remember, "ratiocinaion" separates, while "khayal" brings together. This approach of using both "khayal" and "ratiocination" is grounded in Sacred Tradition. It is found in the Traditions of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity. By Tradition i mean "sacred tradition" not "conventional tradition". these are esoteric teachings found in all sacred revealed traditions. This goes to show that only when one is gruonded in a religious tradtion will they not deviate or miss the mark. People who have faith in religion will always prosper. and the philoophers who think for themselves will always fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Property Dualism suggests that our soul/mind dies when our bodies do? That doesnt seem like an Islamic belief.

Materialist notion goes against Islam does it not? Does it not suggest that the mind will also perish?

I never said property dualism is Islamic and yes, materialism doesn't comply with the Islamic concept of mind and matter - since Islam is also dualist.

We certainly don't believe in the Cartesian dualism; we don't believe in two mutually exclusive "substances" which have nothing to do with each other.

To the extent that we do indeed believe that there is a spirit, and a body we can be called dualists. But to the extent that we believe that there is a barzakh in-between the spirit (ruh) and the body (jism), which we call the soul (nafs), we can be called nondualists!

the soul (nafs) which contains within it, bodily elements and spiritual elements (since its an in-between-ness) starts out initially as a mere body (we all started off unconscious no? we were a drop of semen and we were as good as lifeless) and ends up into something purely spiritual.

body = imperfection.

spirit = perfection.

soul = a transition from imperfection to perfection within a time span.

Once our perfection is reached, we are no longer in need of our body. Once our perfection is reached, our soul becomes united and one with the spirit. Our soul is no longer a body once we reach our perfection. This perfection is called "death".

By perfection. this does not mean we become infallible saints. :)

By perfection, we mean simply that our identities become fixed. Perfection means that we no longer have any chance for "improvement" or "de-provement".

By perfection we mean the degree to which we were able to live up to our spirit. So being "one" with or "identical" to the spirit does not necessarily mean being "one" with or "identical" to the spirit as such or the spirit in its utter perfection. To the contrary, to be "identical" or "one" with the spirit, means to be "identical" or "one" with the spirit insofar as we have lived up to it, or insofar as we were able to be in harmony with it.

This very harmony or this very living-up-to (or lack thereof) mentioned above is in fact what is known as the "subtle body" (jasad) as opposed to the "dense body" (jism) which we find ourselves with right now. This jasad is who we really are (it is our true identity). This jasad has not only one form, but many forms at once (it is after all a "spiritualized body", or a "perfect" body). It not only has many forms at once but also perceives things much more intensely than the way way we perceive things right now.

This is just a general idea of what is involved. This issue is way more complicated than what was just outlined. and although it may have sufficiently answered your initial question, it will probably create more questions.

Firstly, are you suggesting that the soul only comes into existence with our birth? And if so, why doesn't it die as our body dies?

Secondly, if you are saying that once our soul reaches perfection and then reunites with the 'spirit' (I want a source for this), and no longer needs the body, then you have clearly shown that it is dualism.

Thirdly, by 'inbetween' in 'barzakh', what is meant is we are in between worlds, namely the dunya and akhira. Not in-between body and spirit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, are you suggesting that the soul only comes into existence with our birth? And if so, why doesn't it die as our body dies?

Secondly, if you are saying that once our soul reaches perfection and then reunites with the 'spirit' (I want a source for this), and no longer needs the body, then you have clearly shown that it is dualism.

Thirdly, by 'inbetween' in 'barzakh', what is meant is we are in between worlds, namely the dunya and akhira. Not in-between body and spirit?

1) the soul is nothing but the very body at the beginning. nohing but a lump of flesh initially.

2) the soul just becomes spiritualized over time. it is not dualism insofar as the soul is the very transition (in a time span) from body to spirit. once the soul becomes spiritualized, the body disintegragtes into nonexistence (or becomes governed by other souls like plant soul, animal soul--as we see in the food cycle perhaps).

3) the Koran uses "barzakh for the meeting point of the sea and the fresh water. it means inbetween ness in general. there are 3 types of barzakh. one is that between heavens and earth. another is between nonexistence and Being. and another is between body and spirit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as dualism goes we do believe we have a body and a soul.

At school i do philosophy and compared to a certain philosopher who believes we can access things through our soul, islam differs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • If one turns to Jesus for a favor, I don't see how or why God should resent it. You see, SoP, asking someone for a favor does not mean that you worship him. Asking someone for something just means that you consider him capable of fulfilling your wish. That is all. It does not mean you necessarily equate him to God. So personally I would have no problem if a Christian (or even a Muslim) asks Jesus for something. Asking Jesus for something is no different to asking your boss to give you a salary raise or a promotion. Why do you ask your boss? Why don't you just ask God for a promotion and leave it at that? You ask your boss because you know that your boss will be able to fulfill your wish. Similarly, if you believe that Jesus, because of his close relationship to God, will be able to fulfill your wish, I find no problem your asking Jesus for a favor. Asking for something is not the same as worshiping. I hope you understand what I am trying to say. A lot of people make a lot of fuss on this topic. But to me it is perfectly OK. 
    • The Saudis have no shame in declaring that they are pro-Israel and anti-Shia: https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5047348,00.html   https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5047289,00.html
    • Brother, all Muslim women who don't observe Hijab know that it's Wajib. They all know that it's in Quran. Your approach should be changed. When I said be nice to her, I mean be super nice. For example, see what she likes to drink in the morning. Wake up early, GI to kitchen, make a perfect coffee or whatever and go to her room and give it to her. You should try hard. It's a Jihad. You can also peel fruit and give it to her during the day. She should feel that her brother is supportive and trustful first. I know you are good to her now, but for a big change like Hijab observation, you should try harder. When I was back in Iran, I used to do similar things for my mother, and it affects on the person. I made breakfast and gave it to my mum on her bed when she woke up. I didn't do that to ask my mum to do sth, I did that because I love my mum. I realized that women like it. After several months of supporting and being nice, you can gradually start talking about Hijab. That time you can be HOPEFUL to see some small changes in her dress style (maybe wearing long shorts or leggings instead of short ones). Regardless of whatever result you'll get, you did your effort and Jihad. If it's a small change, you should be proud of yourself. 
    • 1. The narrations from Ahl albaayt AS indicate the permission of wearing black clothes in  month of Muharram  for the  mourning for Imam Hussein over the calamities  faced by him 2.  The views of ulema indicate that the black clothes are not permissible while praying. The simple question arises here does it mean that the praying during the month of Muharram with black clothes is Makrooh . haram? Similarly, if the Kaaba is clothed black in all does it mean that all the persons praying there have makrooh  prayers because of black Kaaba? would you please like to clarify? wasalam
    • See this http://holywatcher.narod.ru/iblis.pdf Very dangerous path.  They keep saying that Iblis did not prostrate because he did not want to worship other than Allah. However the Quran, and Iblis' response in the Quran is not so! Iblis says in the Quran that he did not prostrate because Adam a.s. was made of 'mud' ... in essence saying he is higher... or in other terminology known as 'Racism' and Arrogance.  So why and where on earth are these people forcing the image that Iblis acted out of love for God?? Completely absurd.  @Haydar Husayn
×