Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Salam, 

Here's an authentic hadith: 

مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَعْقُوبَ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ يَحْيَى عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عِيسَى عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ إِسْمَاعِيلَ بْنِ بَزِيعٍ عَنْ أَبِي الْحَسَنِ الرِّضَا ع قَالَ أَحْسِنِ الظَّنَّ بِاللَّهِ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ يَقُولُ أَنَا عِنْدَ ظَنِّ عَبْدِي بِي إِنْ خَيْراً فَخَيْراً وَ إِنْ شَرّاً فَشَرّاً 

Imam Ridha (as) said: "Have a good opinion of Allah, for Allah, Mighty and Exalted, has said, "I am according to my servant's opinion of Me - if good, then good, and if bad, then bad." 

Source: Al-kafi, V. 2, P. 58, No. 3

 

Question: 

  1. Is there no objective reality to Allah? 

 

Here's another authentic hadith that complements the aforementioned one. 

 وَ عَنْهُمْ عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنِ ابْنِ مَحْبُوبٍ عَنْ جَمِيلِ بْنِ صَالِحٍ عَنْ بُرَيْدِ بْنِ مُعَاوِيَةَ عَنْ أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ ع قَالَ وَجَدْنَا فِي كِتَابِ عَلِيٍّ ع أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ص قَالَ عَلَى مِنْبَرِهِ وَ الَّذِي لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا هُوَ مَا أُعْطِيَ مُؤْمِنٌ قَطُّ خَيْرَ الدُّنْيَا وَ الْآخِرَةِ إِلَّا بِحُسْنِ ظَنِّهِ بِاللَّهِ وَ رَجَائِهِ لَهُ وَ حُسْنِ خُلُقِهِ وَ الْكَفِّ عَنِ اغْتِيَابِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَ الَّذِي لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا هُوَ لَا يُعَذِّبُ اللَّهُ مُؤْمِناً بَعْدَ التَّوْبَةِ وَ الِاسْتِغْفَارِ إِلَّا بِسُوءٍ ظَنِّهِ بِاللَّهِ وَ تَقْصِيرٍ مِنْ رَجَائِهِ لَهُ وَ سُوءِ خُلُقِهِ وَ اغْتِيَابِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَ الَّذِي لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا هُوَ لَا يَحْسُنُ ظَنُّ عَبْدٍ مُؤْمِنٍ بِاللَّهِ إِلَّا كَانَ اللَّهُ عِنْدَ ظَنِّ عَبْدِهِ الْمُؤْمِنِ لِأَنَّ اللَّهَ كَرِيمٌ بِيَدِهِ الْخَيْرُ يَسْتَحْيِي أَنْ يَكُونَ عَبْدُهُ الْمُؤْمِنُ قَدْ أَحْسَنَ بِهِ الظَّنَّ ثُمَّ يُخْلِفَ ظَنَّهُ وَ رَجَاءَهُ فَأَحْسِنُوا بِاللَّهِ الظَّنَّ وَ ارْغَبُوا إِلَيْهِ 

 

... Part of a sermon by the Prophet (pbuh) ....

"... And by the one god than whom there is no other, Allah is according to the good opinion of a believer, for Allah, Who is so kind and in Whose Hand is only good, cannot bring Himself to disprove the good opinion and high hopes that the believer has in Him. So have good opinion of Allah and place your desires in Him."

 

Edited by SoRoUsH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following authentic hadith is on the same topic, however, its content raise a few important questions: 

َ فِي ثَوَابِ الْأَعْمَالِ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ سَعْدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ عَنْ يَعْقُوبَ يَزِيدَ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ الْحَجَّاجِ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع قَالَ إِنَّ آخِرَ عَبْدٍ يُؤْمَرُ بِهِ إِلَى النَّارِ فَيَلْتَفِتُ فَيَقُولُ اللَّهُ جَلَّ جَلَالُهُ أَعْجِلُوهُ فَإِذَا أُتِيَ بِهِ قَالَ لَهُ عَبْدِي لِمَ الْتَفَتَّ فَيَقُولُ يَا رَبِّ مَا كَانَ ظَنِّي بِكَ هَذَا فَيَقُولُ اللَّهُ جَلَّ جَلَالُهُ عَبْدِي مَا كَانَ ظَنُّكَ بِي فَيَقُولُ يَا رَبِّ كَانَ ظَنِّي بِكَ أَنْ تَغْفِرَ لِي خَطِيئَتِي وَ تُدْخِلَنِي جَنَّتَكَ قَالَ فَيَقُولُ اللَّهُ جَلَّ جَلَالُهُ مَلَائِكَتِي وَ عِزَّتِي وَ جَلَالِي وَ آلَائِي وَ ارْتِفَاعِ مَكَانِي مَا ظَنَّ بِي هَذَا سَاعَةً مِنْ حَيَاتِهِ خَيْراً قَطُّ وَ لَوْ ظَنَّ بِي سَاعَةً مِنْ حَيَاتِهِ خَيْراً مَا رَوَّعْتُهُ بِالنَّارِ أَجِيزُوا لَهُ كَذِبَهُ وَ أَدْخِلُوهُ الْجَنَّةَ ثُمَّ قَالَ أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع مَا ظَنَّ عَبْدٌ بِاللَّهِ خَيْراً إِلَّا كَانَ لَهُ عِنْدَ ظَنِّهِ وَ مَا ظَنَّ بِهِ سُوءاً إِلَّا كَانَ اللَّهُ عِنْدَ ظَنِّهِ بِهِ وَ ذَلِكَ قَوْلُ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ وَ ذلِكُمْ ظَنُّكُمُ الَّذِي ظَنَنْتُمْ بِرَبِّكُمْ أَرْداكُمْ فَأَصْبَحْتُمْ مِنَ الْخاسِرِينَ 

 

It seems that Allah was, firstly, throwing a servant in fire/hell. Allah would only do so, if the servant's deeds justifies his place in hell. However, the servant claims that he had a good opinion of Allah. Allah refutes that statement as a lie. So, this servant did not have a good opinion of Allah. Yet, and this is strange, because he uettered that he had a good opinion of Allah, at that moment, Allah chose to allow him in paradise. 

Questions:

  1. Where's the justice of Allah in this case? (Yes. I do know that His mercy precedes His justice.)
  2. Can our deeds/utterances in the hereafter change determine our abode, in hell or paradise? (In this world, the aforementioned servant, didn't have a good opinion of Allah, even for an hour.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:
  1. Where's the justice of Allah in this case? (Yes. I do know that His mercy precedes His justice.)

Wa aleykumsalaam,

Whenever you stumble upon such question stop your further questioning brother, we will never have complete knowledge of the reason behind his judgement, like angel asked him why are you creating humans who will only cause bloodshed, Allah says you know not what I know. Allah is all beneficent all merciful. hadeeth you quoted is very beautiful loved it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

فَأُلْقِيَ السَّحَرَةُ سُجَّدًا قَالُوا آمَنَّا بِرَبِّ هَارُونَ وَمُوسَىٰ {70}

[Shakir 20:70] And the magicians were cast down making obeisance; they said: We believe in the Lord of Haroun and Musa.
[Pickthal 20:70] Then the wizards were (all) flung down prostrate, crying: We believe in the Lord of Aaron and Moses.
[Yusufali 20:70] So the magicians were thrown down to prostration: they said, "We believe in the Lord of Aaron and Moses".

*****

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235055325-command-behoves-only-Allah/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/9/2018 at 3:13 PM, SoRoUsH said:

The following authentic hadith is on the same topic, however, its content raise a few important questions: 

َ فِي ثَوَابِ الْأَعْمَالِ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ سَعْدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ عَنْ يَعْقُوبَ يَزِيدَ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ الْحَجَّاجِ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع قَالَ إِنَّ آخِرَ عَبْدٍ يُؤْمَرُ بِهِ إِلَى النَّارِ فَيَلْتَفِتُ فَيَقُولُ اللَّهُ جَلَّ جَلَالُهُ أَعْجِلُوهُ فَإِذَا أُتِيَ بِهِ قَالَ لَهُ عَبْدِي لِمَ الْتَفَتَّ فَيَقُولُ يَا رَبِّ مَا كَانَ ظَنِّي بِكَ هَذَا فَيَقُولُ اللَّهُ جَلَّ جَلَالُهُ عَبْدِي مَا كَانَ ظَنُّكَ بِي فَيَقُولُ يَا رَبِّ كَانَ ظَنِّي بِكَ أَنْ تَغْفِرَ لِي خَطِيئَتِي وَ تُدْخِلَنِي جَنَّتَكَ قَالَ فَيَقُولُ اللَّهُ جَلَّ جَلَالُهُ مَلَائِكَتِي وَ عِزَّتِي وَ جَلَالِي وَ آلَائِي وَ ارْتِفَاعِ مَكَانِي مَا ظَنَّ بِي هَذَا سَاعَةً مِنْ حَيَاتِهِ خَيْراً قَطُّ وَ لَوْ ظَنَّ بِي سَاعَةً مِنْ حَيَاتِهِ خَيْراً مَا رَوَّعْتُهُ بِالنَّارِ أَجِيزُوا لَهُ كَذِبَهُ وَ أَدْخِلُوهُ الْجَنَّةَ ثُمَّ قَالَ أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع مَا ظَنَّ عَبْدٌ بِاللَّهِ خَيْراً إِلَّا كَانَ لَهُ عِنْدَ ظَنِّهِ وَ مَا ظَنَّ بِهِ سُوءاً إِلَّا كَانَ اللَّهُ عِنْدَ ظَنِّهِ بِهِ وَ ذَلِكَ قَوْلُ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ وَ ذلِكُمْ ظَنُّكُمُ الَّذِي ظَنَنْتُمْ بِرَبِّكُمْ أَرْداكُمْ فَأَصْبَحْتُمْ مِنَ الْخاسِرِينَ 

 

It seems that Allah was, firstly, throwing a servant in fire/hell. Allah would only do so, if the servant's deeds justifies his place in hell. However, the servant claims that he had a good opinion of Allah. Allah refutes that statement as a lie. So, this servant did not have a good opinion of Allah. Yet, and this is strange, because he uettered that he had a good opinion of Allah, at that moment, Allah chose to allow him in paradise. 

Questions:

  1. Where's the justice of Allah in this case? (Yes. I do know that His mercy precedes His justice.)
  2. Can our deeds/utterances in the hereafter change determine our abode, in hell or paradise? (In this world, the aforementioned servant, didn't have a good opinion of Allah, even for an hour.)

Such narratives are not to be taken literally (the intended meaning is expressed in such a way As a mercy for us because it is only in such a way that we can relate to God).

Does God even speak to people in the way this Hadith describes?  There are so many things that wouldn’t make sense if we think of this narrative in a literal way (it isn’t only the things you mentioned).  The point of this Hadith is simply to tell us that God is looking for any pportunity He can possibly find in order to forgive us, show us mercy and to give us paradise.   

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

Such narratives are not to be taken literally (the intended meaning is expressed in such a way As a mercy for us because it is only in such a way that we can relate to God).

Does God even speak to people in the way this Hadith describes?  There are so many things that wouldn’t make sense if we think of this narrative in a literal way (it isn’t only the things you mentioned).  The point of this Hadith is simply to tell us that God is looking for any pportunity He can possibly find in order to forgive us, show us mercy and to give us paradise.   

I'm not a fan of cherry-picking when to interpret a hadith or verse as metaphorical and when to do it as literal. 

This hadith may have very well been meant to be interpreted literally, and the parts that we don't understand, we should work and try harder to understand. Claiming something that is diffficult to understand literally to bemetaphorical is intellectual laziness. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Below is my opinion, i may be wrong, please correct the mistake :

The hadist seems intended to human who can not comprehend that Allah SWT is beyond our control. So to teach them goodness, it is told to choose the goodness or badness in Allah SWT.

Only do'a can change everything if it is accepted by God/Allah SWT.

Once in the hereafter, we can not change anything through do'a.

The justice is with the mizan/scale, but i do not know the unit measure of justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

I'm not a fan of cherry-picking when to interpret a hadith or verse as metaphorical and when to do it as literal. 

This hadith may have very well been meant to be interpreted literally, and the parts that we don't understand, we should work and try harder to understand. Claiming something that is diffficult to understand literally to bemetaphorical is intellectual laziness. 

Is it intellectual laziness when we say God does not literally have hands the way humans do?  Is this cherry picking?

Just to imagine that God speaks like any other person and that his speech “takes time” or is in duration is to limit God.  It isn’t that one doesn’t understand that Hadith, almost everyone understands that Hadith you brought up.  It makes intuitive sense.  But only few ask the kinds of questions that you ask.  Your question is due to a language problem. 

This is is not intellectual laziness because intellectuals know never to take  literally something that is said rhetorically, symbolically and by way of a myth.  

For example: You cannot take the word “half” literally in “marriage is half of your religion”.  Any intellectual knows this is an eloquent way of speaking and is part of Arabic rhetoric.  It would be absurd to think of this mathematically and say, “what is the other half?” 

Anytime God speaks about the afterlife or the Heavens or the Realm of the Unseen, then it is necessarily something that needs to be taken symbolically.

 

 

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

Is it intellectual laziness when we say God does not literally have hands the way humans do?  Is this cherry picking?

Just to imagine that God speaks like any other person and that his speech “takes time” or is in duration is to limit God.  It isn’t that one doesn’t understand that Hadith, almost everyone understands that Hadith you brought up.  It makes intuitive sense.  But only few ask the kinds of questions that you ask.  Your question is due to a language problem. 

Salam, 

Cherry-picking is when we don't know whether something ought to be interpreted literally or metaphorically, but choose to interpret it metaphorically because it's easier that way.

There are numerous cases in which we know the given text cannot be taken literally because we have solid indubitable textual evidence against it. For example, God doesn't have physical hands. We know this, because elsewhere it's been made clear to us. It's also been made clear to us that God's hands imply His power. We have sufficient reason to know that "God's hands" must always be interpreted metaphorically. 

Quote

This is is not intellectual laziness because intellectuals know never to take  literally something that is said rhetorically, symbolically and by way of a myth.

Do intellectuals know in this case the details of events in the hereafter? Or how God will behave or make decisions during the Judgment Day?

Quote

For example: You cannot take the word “half” literally in “marriage is half of your religion”.  Any intellectual knows this is an eloquent way of speaking and is part of Arabic rhetoric.  It would be absurd to think of this mathematically and say, “what is the other half?”

This is a good example. Marriage may, indeed, be literally half the religion, because it involves numerous rites and responsibilities. Is there were 100 religious deeds, may be 50 of them involves rights and responsibilities within marriage?! Has anyone done this calculation? I highly doubt it, because we're intellectually lazy and this would be gigantic task, with little foreseeable useful outcome. 

And whatever other "halves" are, they don't need to be mutually exclusive of each other. Rights and responsibilities of each "half" can overlap.

Quote

Anytime God speaks about the afterlife or the Heavens or the Realm of the Unseen, then it is necessarily something that needs to be taken symbolically.

Why?!

This is a pure conjecture!

Do you have any solid textual from the Ahlul bayt (as) that would support this proposition? 

 

Edited by SoRoUsH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Metaphors are a part of language so I dont think its right to say that its lazy to take something metaphorically.  I also dont think that we always need a hadith to tell us that x is metaphorical before we can accept it as non-literal.  Theres no reason to think this.  All we need is an independent reason, which may be textual or rational.  That doesnt mean I agree with everything ethereal said above - its just a general point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, .InshAllah. said:

Metaphors are a part of language so I dont think its right to say that its lazy to take something metaphorically.  I also dont think that we always need a hadith to tell us that x is metaphorical before we can accept it as non-literal.  Theres no reason to think this.  All we need is an independent reason, which may be textual or rational.  That doesnt mean I agree with everything ethereal said above - its just a general point

Salam, 

I am not denying the significance or usefulness of metaphors in language. I am pointing to the fact that there are times when it's not clear whether something should be interpreted metaphorically or literally. If one chooses the former, simply because it's easier and encounters fewer hurdles, then that's intellectual laziness. 

In my opinion, when it comes to religious texts, we do need a firm guideline other than our own limited reasoning ability. Our reasoning is limited to our current state of knowledge and this knowledge is always limited, especially once we get into the realm of the unseen. 

We use metaphors to understand what seems incomprehensible if taken literally. However, by doing so, we slice up or box reality into small segments, which can fit in our minds. Understanding these self-made concepts and ideas doesn't entail understanding reality as it really is. In other words, when we use metaphors we construct a story that we can understand, not reality as it really is. 

So, we should be cautious with using metaphors, because we could misgiude ourselves by following our own subjective models of reality.

And the stakes are much higher in religious cases. 

Edited by SoRoUsH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2018 at 9:30 PM, SoRoUsH said:

Salam, 

Cherry-picking is when we don't know whether something ought to be interpreted literally or metaphorically, but choose to interpret it metaphorically because it's easier that way.

There are numerous cases in which we know the given text cannot be taken literally because we have solid indubitable textual evidence against it. For example, God doesn't have physical hands. We know this, because elsewhere it's been made clear to us. It's also been made clear to us that God's hands imply His power. We have sufficient reason to know that "God's hands" must always be interpreted metaphorically. 

Do intellectuals know in this case the details of events in the hereafter? Or how God will behave or make decisions during the Judgment Day?

This is a good example. Marriage may, indeed, be literally half the religion, because it involves numerous rites and responsibilities. Is there were 100 religious deeds, may be 50 of them involves rights and responsibilities within marriage?! Has anyone done this calculation? I highly doubt it, because we're intellectually lazy and this would be gigantic task, with little foreseeable useful outcome. 

And whatever other "halves" are, they don't need to be mutually exclusive of each other. Rights and responsibilities of each "half" can overlap.

Why?!

This is a pure conjecture!

Do you have any solid textual from the Ahlul bayt (as) that would support this proposition? 

 

Salam,

I think with just a little background in Islamic Cosmology you will come to quickly realize why I said that any description of The realm of the Unseen (afterlife, Heavens, God etc) are to be taken symbolically.  A symbol has some “literal significance” to the extent that the symbol “ontologically” participates in the symbolized (the symbol is a refracted light of the symbolized) .  But the symbol is not the symbolized anymore than a reflection is whatever it reflects.

There are two main categories in existence.  Heaven and Earth.  

Heaven has the following qualities:

unseen, luminous, conscious, knowing, aware, perfect, whole, alive, subtle etc etc. 

Earth has the following qualities:

Seen, dark, unconscious, ignorance, unaware, imperfect, corrupt, dead, gross etc etc.

...............

These two categories are merely two categories.  They are simply categories of the mind (conceptual ideas).  The reality is that Heaven and Earth is is like “up and down”.  I’m they are entirely relative to each other.  And so, something which is heavenly is heavenly in relation to something else which is earthly.  A thing is up in relation to something else which is down.  And what is considered down can still be considered up if that same thing is seen in relation to something lower than itself.  

..........

So don’t think there are two mutually exclusive realms called heaven and earth. Rather think of it like this: There is just one creation (the cosmos or the universe) with varying degrees or varying intensities of existence.  One level is dark in relation to the level above it and luminous in relation to the level beneath it.  

.........

Pure Heaven (and let us not confuse the word Heaven for Paradise) does not exist because Pure Heaven would be nothing other than absolute perfection and absolute perfection is reserved for God (there is no Absolute but God Himsef).  And pure earth does not exist because pure earth would be absolute death, or absolute non-existence and non-existence does not exist!

...........

So, any description of Heaven (the Unseen) is going to be limited because the qualities of Heaven are the none other than the qualities of God Himself in His utmost perfection.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

Salam,

I think with just a little background in Islamic Cosmology you will come to quickly realize why I said that any description of The realm of the Unseen (afterlife, Heavens, God etc) are to be taken symbolically.  A symbol has some “literal significance” to the extent that the symbol “ontologically” participates in the symbolized (the symbol is a refracted light of the symbolized) .  But the symbol is not the symbolized anymore than a reflection is whatever it reflects.

There are two main categories in existence.  Heaven and Earth.  

Heaven has the following qualities:

unseen, luminous, conscious, knowing, aware, perfect, whole, alive, subtle etc etc. 

Earth has the following qualities:

Seen, dark, unconscious, ignorance, unaware, imperfect, corrupt, dead, gross etc etc.

...............

These two categories are merely two categories.  They are simply categories of the mind (conceptual ideas).  The reality is that Heaven and Earth is is like “up and down”.  I’m they are entirely relative to each other.  And so, something which is heavenly is heavenly in relation to something else which is earthly.  A thing is up in relation to something else which is down.  And what is considered down can still be considered up if that same thing is seen in relation to something lower than itself.  

..........

So don’t think there are two mutually exclusive realms called heaven and earth. Rather think of it like this: There is just one creation (the cosmos or the universe) with varying degrees or varying intensities of existence.  One level is dark in relation to the level above it and luminous in relation to the level beneath it.  

.........

Pure Heaven (and let us not confuse the word Heaven for Paradise) does not exist because Pure Heaven would be nothing other than absolute perfection and absolute perfection is reserved for God (there is no Absolute but God Himsef).  And pure earth does not exist because pure earth would be absolute death, or absolute non-existence and non-existence does not exist!

...........

So, any description of Heaven (the Unseen) is going to be limited because the qualities of Heaven are the none other than the qualities of God Himself in His utmost perfection.  

Salam,

I appreciate your post. However, I'm not certain how much of it is acceptable and Islamic. You speak of Islamic cosmology. Where did you learn about it? Through the statements of Ahlulbayt (as)? Because that's all I care about.

So, I'd appreciate it, if you could justify and support your statements by presenting authentic or acceptable traditions from Ahlul Bayt (as). If you don't, then, I can't take them as Islamic, since I can't be certain of their origins. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:bismillah:

On 2/9/2018 at 11:14 PM, SoRoUsH said:

Question: 

  1. Is there no objective reality to Allah? 

Salam Alaikom, can you please continue to explain the question more. We say; have an opinion of God and let that opinion be good, [Hosn Zahn], it would be a virtue [fazael ahklaqi] for the human being, and fruitful for the one practicing it.

 

رسول اللّه صلى الله عليه و آله: السَّخِيُّ إنَّما يَجودُ مِن حُسنِ الظَّنِّ بِاللّهِ ، وَالبَخيلُ إنَّما يَبخَلُ مِن سوءِ الظَّنِّ بِاللّهِ
پيامبر خدا صلى الله عليه و آله : سخاوتمند ، از آن رو مى بخشد كه به خداوند ، گمان نيك دارد؛ و بخيل ، بدان سبب بخل مى ورزد كه به خداوند ، بدگمان است
 
دانشنامه قرآن و حديث جلد یازدهم / محمّد محمّدی ری شهری / صفحه 370

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:bismillah:

5 minutes ago, SoRoUsH said:

I appreciate your post. However, I'm not certain how much of it is acceptable and Islamic. You speak of Islamic cosmology. Where did you learn about it? Through the statements of Ahlulbayt (as)? Because that's all I care about.

This article is in farsi but an english [bad english] summary exist on the issue.

http://pwq.bou.ac.ir/article_15283_1523.html

Edited by Ali.Isa
spacing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/10/2018 at 7:17 AM, Aquib Rizvi said:

Wa aleykumsalaam,

Whenever you stumble upon such question stop your further questioning brother, we will never have complete knowledge of the reason behind his judgement, like angel asked him why are you creating humans who will only cause bloodshed, Allah says you know not what I know. Allah is all beneficent all merciful. hadeeth you quoted is very beautiful loved it.

For how I understood it , there is nothing wrong with his question. It is good to question and learn if it is in the right manner ofcourse. Yes, we are limited including in our understanding but we can still learn a lot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Ali.Isa said:

Salam Alaikom, can you please continue to explain the question more.

Salam, 

God informs us that He is what we think of Him. If our opinion of Him is good, then He's good. If our opinion of Him is bad, then He's bad. In other words, whether He's good or bad depends on our opinion of Him. Is God objectively good or bad? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Ali.Isa said:

This article is in farsi but an english [bad english] summary exist on the issue.

 

Thank you!

To be honest,  and I've said this before, I am not interested in the opinions of scholars or thinkers, if they're not based on traditions of Ahlul Bayt (as). And if they are, then I am more interested to see those employed traditions than whatever has been inferred from them. 

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

×