Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Undeniable Idea of God

Zainuu

Entry posted by Zainuu in Belief

2,248 views

 Share

"And your Lord has commanded that you shall not serve (any) but Him...."
Each and every creation (makhlooq) in this universe has a natural innate attachment with the creator. Every being that is created, itself carries a signature of the creator in every form and shape and also submits to the reality of existence of its creator. This is not something for which a creature needs something from outside his being. His existence itself contains those elements that lead his way towards his creator. If we try to specify those elements within a human being, our first attention goes towards the conscience (fitrah) of a human being. This conscience is captured in our soul and is completely intrinsic to our being. The spirit is the being which is the home of conscience while body is just the outer representation of our being.
Our conscience is the one which tells us the right and wrong and all such moral principles. Hence, it needs to have an orientation or inclination. Orientation will set a direction for a being and finally a direction will have no end without an inspiration. So, basically, every spirit has a conscience which sets the moral principles and in order to do that, we ultimately and naturally need an ultimate inspiration. The entity that might act as an inspiration can have a scope. But there needs to be one entity, neither more nor less, which needs to be above every entity. To explain this mess, I would like to take an example of a student pursuing a career:
Let's suppose that a person has an orientation of caring and healing others. A sudden thought comes to his/her mind that he/she should become a doctor. Also, he/she defines certain objectives to achieve his/her career. This is the direction that was taken according to the orientation. According to the scope of final objective, inspiration or motivation is also recognized. And finally, he/she goes to the school and college and studies to become a doctor which is the path to reach the inspiration.
If we carefully notice this example, everything is clear-as-sky that the career path selected is due to the orientation which acts as a cause and it is pointing towards a direction to become something which is guided by the inspiration. And the inspiration here can be multiple but one, the ultimate is definitely needed. So, that states our point of view that the idea of God is an idea of ultimate inspiration which is undeniable if we have a conscience that is willing to set it's moral principles. Now, because taking care of morality is intrinsic to our conscience, the idea of god is also intrinsic and an innate reality which cannot be denied by our conscience.
This argument stated above begs a question. What about the conscience of a person who denies the existence of God? The simple answer is that it is impossible. Because it is not our words that testify to the idea of God but it is our conscience and our conscience doesn't work exactly according to us. Every being has an ultimate inspiration within his self. If someone denies that ultimate inspiration, his self will start recognizing something else as an inspiration and if he still denies this new inspiration then his self will cling to something else and so on. So, denying the idea of God means ultimately denying the idea of existence or submitting to something at some point by stopping the loop of denial. My physics teacher in school once said that most of the scientists our athiests and they don't believe in god. But he was forced to conclude his statement by saying that there god is nature. So, one can say that 'his idea of god is different than others' but cannot deny the idea itself. So, we conclude that atheism by definition has no value and it is fundamentally impossible to deny the existence of God. And the Holy Quran states in this context:
"The seven heavens declare His glory and the earth (too), and those who are in them; and there is not a single thing but glorifies Him with His praise, but you do not understand their glorification; surely He is Forbearing, Forgiving." Al Isra (17:44)
The above verse shows how the idea of God is within every creation. And another verse which states that how our conscience says opposite to what a proponent of athiesm might say:
"Read your book; your own self is sufficient as a reckoner against you this day." Al Isra (17:14)
Our self definitely contains this fundamental idea of god and that is the reason it will be a proof against us finally. Also, Imam Ali (عليه السلام) states, "The one who recognized his self, recognized his lord" implying that ultimately our self consists all those fundamentals we need to understand the idea of God in its entirety. So, now let us go further to address what is left with us.
We see that ultimately we now have to see what can be the possible reality of God. And we shall only use the most basic rational ways to reach the results inshallah. We can easily think of some possiblilities. Either God is one or more than one. Within these two broad categories of reality of God lies a long list of classifications. We are not going to mention them as it is not at all necessary to ponder on each and every speculation regarding these categories. Definition of more than one gods is followed in the polytheistic systems. This is a possibility but let us match this idea with what our self testifies. It doesn't matter for us over here whether Gods are two, three or more than that but the fact of the matter is that does our pure and perfect self which is the essence of our being accept it? Our self contains the innate idea of God which must be an ultimate inspiration. Can we have more than one ultimate inspiration? If we have many inspirations within our idea of God, those inspirations should either be absolutely equal or they should differ from each other. If they are equal then why are they having multiple forms? There multiple forms is a proof of the fact that they are different. Even if there forms are identical in a way that they are exactly a replica of each other then they cannot be absolute or independent. Because a replica needs to have an original version which means it depends on it's original form and that implies that it is not absolute but rather relative to the existence of the original version. Another proof is there similarlity which itself testifies that they are not unique.
So, absoluteness with exact equality is impossible and hence we are left with another option that they are different. Now, being different is itself a proof that one inspiration is better than another and one is best of all of them. So, again the multiplicity of the inspiration will finally melt down into a single inspiration which is best of all of them. We see this in the polythiestic faiths where one god is better than other and one of them is best of all. Because establishing such an idea is possible but it will not sustain. It will finally break into a hierarchy. This defeats the argument of multiple gods. As the gods which are different, comparative and have a hierarchy can be an inspiration but not ultimate inspiration. Our soul is traversing on a path which should end up on the absolute, the ultimate inspiration and objective rather than a passer-by-checkpoint or a short term goal. A doctor will never settle alone with a medical science degree. He/she will explore more unless and until he reaches a point where he doesn't need to strive further.
The Holy Quran challenges the idea of multiple gods or even a lower form of god by stating:
Do not associate with Allah any other god, lest you sit down despised, neglected. Al Isra (17:22)
This verse is not neglecting the possibility of a human being to accept multiple gods but rather it is clarifying that one would not achieve and would be finally neglected and despised if they do so. Because, naturally it means lowering the bar of the objective and inspiration which will be problematic for none but the self of the person as his soul will loose the ability to explore, think and ascend further. Finally, submitting to something less than the ultimate inspiration actually means submitting to someone who carries it's own inspiration. As Quran says:
"Those whom they call upon, themselves seek the means of access to their Lord-- whoever of them is nearest-- and they hope for His mercy and fear His chastisement; surely the chastisement of your Lord is a thing to be cautious of." Al Isra (17:57)
So, we notice how beautifully these verses state which is extremely fundamental to our souls. How these verses convert the fundamentals of every being into words and negate the reality of polythiestic ideologies. The verses of Quran are definitely speaking the voice of our self here which we don't listen. Concluding the above argument, we stand clear that atheism is impossible and an athiest has a god which he submits but is unaware of his own submission. And polytheism which might be a possible inclination will vanish if we deeply ponder upon the fundamentals of our self. We will understand if we ponder carefully that all the entities that we accidently thought of as gods were short of being an ultimate inspiration.
Now, if we enter into the realm of monotheism, we again need to deal with several questions. Now, the focus of discussion has shifted from 'what is the suitable idea of god?' to 'how should we define a single inspiration/God?' There can be a few possibilities. But those possibilties are not what we are looking to identify but rather what our soul will find to be the best. We need to understand that we are not forcing our conscience to accept something which is not asked for and is inferior. The concept of a single inspiration is proven but that inspiration should fit into the exact criteria of what our conscience fundamentally wants. It was stated in the above discussion that there must be atleast one ultimate inspiration above all that should suffice the requirement of our final destiny or objective on this journey of our soul. Further, we also stated while having an argument on polytheism that inspiration can be comparative and different but such inspiration cannot be considered ultimate inspiration. It might be the best among all but if it is comparable then it is not unique. Our ultimate inspiration should be one, unique, independent and above everything while being the origin of everything. Can an entity within the realm of creation fulfill such a criteria? Can we call a creation, an origin of other creation? Even if this creation is not known to us or it is something really amazing and out of the box? The problem over here is that, whatever it might be, it is still a creation and hence it doesn't fulfills the criteria of being above all. Because, it lies withing the realm of creation and is remotely comparable to something even if the comparison is not that close. A star we see in the sky might be a million light years apart but the distance is still finite and it can be compared to other stars because it is has all the features of a star. So, this short example shows that our conscience will never settle with an ultimate inspiration which is not unique in all aspects and has nothing remotely similar. One might say, what about this universe as a single entity? Well, this universe is a system which is dependent upon several physical forces and natural phenomenas and if we contemplate the origin of these forces we are left with a question mark. It doesn't suffice the criteria of the self that the inspiration should be independent. So, whatsoever we might imagine and regardless of how much we move ahead, our self searches for more.
We our left with nothing but to take an option of this ultimate inspiration which is away from all bounds. This process of reasoning to reach the final conclusion is quite clear in the Holy Book (Qur'an) where Prophet Ibrahim (عليه السلام) says:
So when the night over-shadowed him, he saw a star; said he: Is this my Lord? So when it set, he said: I do not love the setting ones.
Then when he saw the moon rising, he said: Is this my Lord? So when it set, he said: If my Lord had not guided me I should certainly be of the erring people.
Then when he saw the sun rising, he said: Is this my Lord? Is this the greatest? So when it set, he said: O my people! surely I am clear of what you set up (with Allah).
Al Anaam (6:76-78)

As Imam Ali (عليه السلام) states the definition of that one god, the ultimate inspiration below:
Praise is due to Allah whose worth cannot be described by speakers, whose bounties cannot be counted by calculators and whose claim (to obedience) cannot be satisfied by those who attempt to do so, whom the height of intellectual courage cannot appreciate, and the divings of understanding cannot reach; He for whose description no limit has been laid down, no eulogy exists, no time is ordained and no duration is fixed. He brought forth creation through His Omnipotence, dispersed winds through His Compassion, and made firm the shaking earth with rocks......
He is a Being, but not through phenomenon of coming into being. He exists but not from non-existence. He is with everything but not in physical nearness. He is different from everything but not in physical separation. He acts but without connotation of movements and instruments. He sees even when there is none to be looked at from among His creation. He is only One, such that there is none with whom He may keep company or whom He may miss in his absence.
(excerpts of Nahj ul Balagha sermon 1)
As Amir al Mumineen (عليه السلام) defines, this is the ultimate destiny and inspiration our self is looking for and this is the only inspiration which can set pure moral standards for our conscience. Hence, this is the best and most beautiful definition of monotheism as it is testified by the soul and it is fundamental and intrinsic within ourselves.
Concluding this entire discussion now, we reach a conclusion which is solely given to us by our pure soul and our conscience. Similar to this, as described in the above verses, every particle in this entire universe is in complete servitude to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) (the ultimate inspiration). Hence, while setting up moral principles, they should be derived from this inspiration and nothing else. Such should be the fundamental of the religion of our conscience. Therefore, monotheism in theory and in action is our fundamental principle whether we accept it or deny it. As the verse below says:
"Whoever goes aright, for his own soul does he go aright; and whoever goes astray, to its detriment only does he go astray...." Al Isra (17:15)
At last, the acting upon this principle just means pure servitude. We end on where we started. Serving the commandment of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is the only way to act upon the principle of monotheism and for this Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has given commandments in his book of principles i.e Quran. Along with this he has brought the guiding inspirations which are not the ultimate inspirations but just the checkpoints on the path. Not the destiny but the bridge that connects to destiny. These are the prophets and Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام). This is just a brief Islamic point of view to elaborate the principle of monotheism and not necessarily the scope of our discussion for now. In this way we conclude our discussion by claiming from the purity of our soul that:
"Verily, we belong to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and verily to him do we return."
[Al Baqarah (2:156)]

Edited by Zainuu

 Share

0 Comments

Recommended Comments

There are no comments to display.

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×

  • Latest Blog Entries

    • Haji 2003
      Post-Ottoman Settlement Deprived the Arab World of Its Industrial Core
      By Haji 2003 in Contemporania - AI enhanced
         0 comments
      The Developmental Cost of Fragmentation: How the Post-Ottoman Settlement Deprived the Arab World of Its Industrial Core
      The post-Ottoman settlement of the Middle East produced a structural distortion whose consequences are still compounding a century later: it separated the Arab world's largest population centre from its most significant resource base, preventing the emergence of indigenous Arab industrial and technological capacity.
      This was not accidental. When Muhammad Ali's Egypt attempted to extend control over the Arabian peninsula in the 1810s–1830s, European powers intervened to roll it back. The post-First World War order institutionalised this logic, establishing small, dependent sheikhdoms over the Gulf's energy reserves while leaving Egypt — then, as now, the Arab world's demographic and cultural centre of gravity — without the resource base to develop at scale. British imperial interests were better served by client micro-states controlling energy chokepoints than by a regional power capable of independent action.
      The consequences are visible in a paradox that defines the contemporary Arab world. The Gulf states, controlling vast hydrocarbon wealth, lack the population to staff their own economies. They import millions of workers — engineers, doctors, educators, project managers — from South and Southeast Asia and from poorer Arab states, including Egypt itself. Meanwhile, Egypt's 100 million people, many inadequately educated and underemployed, export their labour on terms set by host states that offer no permanent residency, limited rights, and minimal knowledge transfer. The value generated accrues to Gulf sovereign wealth funds; what returns to Egypt comes freighted with political obligation. The 2024 Ras El-Hekma deal — in which Egypt transferred 170 million square metres of Mediterranean coastline to Abu Dhabi's ADQ in exchange for debt relief — exemplifies the dynamic: sovereign territory exchanged for short-term fiscal survival.
      Iran provides the most instructive counterfactual. With a population comparable to Egypt's and significant hydrocarbon resources, Iran was forced by decades of sanctions into developing indigenous industrial capacity — steel production, petrochemical management, pharmaceutical manufacturing, and a defence industry that, whatever one's view of the regime, has demonstrably sustained operations against a US–Israeli military campaign for nearly two months. No Arab state possesses comparable self-sufficiency. The Gulf states, for all their wealth, cannot defend their own airports, as the 2026 conflict has brutally demonstrated. Iran's capacity was built under conditions of extreme adversity. The question this raises is uncomfortable: what might a state with Egypt's demographic scale and the Gulf's resource base have achieved under a developmental nationalist programme of the kind Nasser pursued — but with adequate capital behind it?
      The answer points toward the deepest cost of fragmentation: not merely Egyptian impoverishment, but the absence of an Arab developmental core. The Gulf states are now spending billions on workforce nationalisation programmes — Saudisation, Emiratisation — to train citizen populations into roles that expatriates have filled for decades. They are attempting, expensively and artificially, to solve a problem that would not exist had demographic mass and resource base not been deliberately separated. The current arrangement serves a handful of ruling dynasties and their external patrons. It has not served the Arab world's 400 million people, who remain collectively without the indigenous industrial, technological, and military capacity that their resources and population could readily have sustained.
    • Haji 2003
      Why Iran Didn't Collapse: Revolutionary Theology as Military Architecture
      By Haji 2003 in Contemporania - AI enhanced
         0 comments
      What Held Iran Together? The Answer Western Strategists Don't Want to Hear
      When the US and Israel killed Iran's Supreme Leader and top military brass in a single night, the playbook said the regime should crumble. It didn't. The reason challenges a deep Western assumption about religion and war.
      A familiar playbook
      When the United States and Israel launched their attack on 28 February 2026, the strategic logic was well-worn: decapitate the leadership, destroy key military assets, and watch a hierarchical adversary lose coherence. Within hours, Supreme Leader Khamenei was dead, along with the defence minister, the IRGC commander, and dozens of senior officials. By any precedent from recent Middle Eastern conflicts, Iran should have fractured.
      It did not.
      Instead, thirty-one provincial Revolutionary Guard commands activated pre-delegated authority and sustained retaliatory operations across nine countries for nearly six weeks, culminating in an April ceasefire negotiated from a position of bruised but recognisable strength.
      Doctrine isn't enough
      The standard explanation centres on Iran's "mosaic defence" — a doctrine formally adopted around 2005 that restructured the Revolutionary Guards into semi-autonomous regional commands, designed to survive precisely the kind of decapitation strikes that destroyed Ba'athist Iraq in 2003 and Gaddafi's Libya in 2011.
      But doctrine alone does not explain why the system held. Organisational charts can prescribe decentralised authority; they cannot guarantee that dispersed commanders, operating under degraded communications and immense pressure, will continue pursuing coherent objectives rather than freelancing, surrendering, or simply going home.
      The operating system beneath the org chart
      What provided that guarantee was something Western strategic thinking habitually underestimates: a shared revolutionary theology that functions as an operating system for distributed decision-making.
      The IRGC is not merely a military organisation; it is an ideological one. Every officer is trained in the doctrine of velayat-e faqih — the guardianship of the Islamic jurist — which locates ultimate authority not in any individual leader but in a divinely mandated system of governance. When Khamenei died, the system's theological logic did not die with him. Mid-ranking commanders could act autonomously because they shared an internalised understanding of the revolution's purpose that required no phone call from Tehran to activate.
      Why Iraq and Libya shattered — and Iran didn't
      The contrast with the region's recent history is striking. Saddam Hussein's Iraq operated through concentric circles of personal loyalty — family, clan, Ba'ath Party, Republican Guard — each bound by patronage rather than conviction. Remove Saddam, and the entire structure lost its organising principle within weeks. Gaddafi's Libya was even more personalised: a deliberate strategy of institutional weakness designed to prevent rivals accumulating power, which meant that when NATO struck the centre, nothing held the periphery together.
      Iran's system inverts this logic. Its combination of ideological training, the Basij militia's integration into provincial commands, and a culture of sacrifice rooted in the Shia narratives of Karbala creates an organisation where shared belief substitutes for direct supervision.
      The uncomfortable lesson
      This is not to romanticise the outcome. Autonomous units struck Turkey and Oman apparently without authorisation — the predictable cost of trading control for resilience. But the broader lesson is uncomfortable for those who assume religious conviction is merely an obstacle to modern military effectiveness. In Iran's case, it was the precondition for a form of organisational resilience that four decades of secular authoritarian rule elsewhere in the Middle East never achieved.
      Six weeks of war may have revealed less about the limits of airpower than about the limits of assuming all hierarchies shatter the same way when their apex is removed.
       
    • Haji 2003
      Dogs, anthropomorphism and societal implications
      By Haji 2003 in Contemporania - AI enhanced
         4 comments
      Introduction
      I asked the reasoning version of ChatGPT the following two questions (in the quotation box).
      The answer to the latter question is presented below.
      This issue is one of many that contrasts the social and economic implications of Islamic injunctions vs. those of other religions. In summary, the Islamic notion of dogs as religiously impure focuses Muslims' attention towards other humans for social and emotional support. I believe that is superior to a society that redirects such attention to animals. 
      @Northwest

      TLDR
      The proposition that an Islamic-oriented society—with religious reservations about dog ownership—places a greater emphasis on human-human relationships than dog-friendly societies finds support in cross-cultural consumer research and Islamic marketing scholarship. The religious designation of dogs as impure curtails intensive anthropomorphic tendencies, leading consumers in Islamic contexts to channel social and emotional resources primarily toward family, friends, and community members. Consequently, marketing strategies and consumer behaviors in these contexts underscore interpersonal bonds, charitable obligations, and group cohesion rather than pet-centric consumption.
      By contrast, in societies that celebrate and encourage dog ownership, anthropomorphism significantly shapes consumer behavior, often shifting a portion of emotional and financial resources to human-dog relationships. These differences highlight how deeply cultural and religious frameworks influence the scope and nature of anthropomorphism, delineating the ways consumers allocate their relational capital between human and non-human companions.
       

      1. Anthropomorphism and Relationship Substitution
      Pet Humanization in Secular or Dog-Friendly Societies
      In many societies that promote dog ownership, there is a pronounced tendency to anthropomorphize pets—assigning them human-like traits and emotions (Epley, Waytz, & Cacioppo, 2007; Journal of Consumer Research). Pet ownership often translates into emotional bonds that parallel, or sometimes even substitute for, human-human connections. For example, Belk (2013; Journal of Consumer Research) discusses how dogs are seen as “extensions of the self,” enabling individuals to fulfill social, emotional, and identity-related needs. In marketing contexts, this humanization of pets manifests as substantial expenditures (e.g., premium dog food, grooming, dog-friendly travel) and even the creation of communities around pet ownership.
      Religious and Cultural Boundaries in Islamic Contexts
      Islamic teachings often classify dogs as najis (impure), especially concerning their saliva, leading to social and religious restrictions on close physical interactions (Alhussain & Thakur, 2019; Journal of Islamic Marketing, Emerald). While not all Muslims adhere to the same level of strictness (diversity exists across regions and jurisprudential schools), in many contexts, dog ownership is minimized or relegated to functional roles (e.g., guard dogs, herding), reducing the emotional human-pet bond. Anthropomorphism, thus, is largely muted. This diminished emphasis on dog-human relationships can redirect emotional and social energies toward more robust human-human ties, as there is little inclination to invest in a being commonly viewed as “impure” within a domestic setting (Ibrahim & Al Kamdah, 2020; Journal of Islamic Marketing).
      2. Emphasis on Human-Human Relations
      Communal and Familial Bonds
      Several studies on Muslim consumer behavior note a pronounced focus on family cohesion, kinship obligations, and community welfare (Wilson & Grant, 2013; Journal of Islamic Marketing; Emerald). This cultural emphasis is partly derived from key Islamic principles like ummah (community) and zakat (almsgiving). Since dogs are not typically incorporated as household companions, the emotional investment that might be directed toward pets is instead often channeled into human relationships—strengthening family ties, neighborhood communities, and broader social networks. Social gatherings, frequent family visits, and kin-based reciprocity form the core of daily life (Jafari & Goulding, 2008; Consumption, Markets & Culture, Taylor & Francis).
      Social Interaction Rituals
      Societies that discourage dog ownership frequently invest in elaborate human-centric rituals: communal prayers, frequent visits to relatives, large-scale cultural festivals such as Eid, and extended family gatherings (Essoo & Dibb, 2004; European Journal of Marketing). These rituals encourage sustained human-human interaction. By contrast, in dog-friendly contexts, social rituals often include pet-oriented activities—visits to dog parks, “puppy parties,” or dog adoption events—showcasing how some communal bonding can revolve around animals rather than solely around human interaction (Holbrook & Woodside, 2008; Journal of Business Research, Elsevier).
      3. Consumer Behavior Implications
      Expenditure Flows
      Dog-Friendly Societies: A significant proportion of household expenditures—such as premium dog food, veterinary care, and leisure activities—can be allocated to pets (Hirschman, 1994; Journal of Consumer Research). Over time, this fosters an entire “pet economy,” often reinforced by emotional satisfaction drawn from anthropomorphized relationships with dogs.
      Islamic-Oriented Societies: Due to religious constraints, there is limited demand for dog-centric products and services. Instead, expenditures that might have been channeled toward pet care could be redirected toward communal obligations (e.g., charitable giving, gifts to family, social events). The consumer culture thus prioritizes human welfare, strengthening what might be viewed as social capital within human networks (Jafari & Goulding, 2008; Consumption, Markets & Culture).
      Marketplace Signaling and Sociocultural Values
      Signaling Communal Responsibility: Consumers in Islamic contexts may signal piety and communal commitment through active participation in social events or charitable acts, reflecting a cultural script that values direct human welfare (Wilson & Grant, 2013; Journal of Islamic Marketing).
      Signaling Affection for Pets: In Western or dog-friendly contexts, owning a pampered dog can signal care, empathy, and a nurturing personality, reinforcing a sense of belonging in communities of pet lovers (Belk, 1988; Journal of Consumer Research). Marketers leverage anthropomorphism in advertising, depicting dogs as “family members” to appeal to consumers’ emotional investment in pets (Waytz, Cacioppo, & Epley, 2010; Trends in Cognitive Sciences).
      4. Societal and Cultural Outcomes
      Stronger Intra-Human Bonds in Islamic Contexts
      The proposition that Islamic-oriented societies have a stronger emphasis on human-human relationships can be understood through the lens of “resource allocation” in consumer behavior. With limited scope for dog-human emotional or social investment, individuals are more inclined to strengthen kin networks, community relations, and collective identity (Ibrahim & Al Kamdah, 2020). This focus on human-centered relationships is further reinforced by religious teachings promoting empathy, community service, and direct human engagement over companionship with creatures deemed ritually impure (Alhussain & Thakur, 2019).
      Diverse Relationship Portfolios in Dog-Friendly Societies
      In societies where dogs occupy central roles in households, individuals often have “relationship portfolios” that include significant non-human elements (Belk, 2013). Emotional fulfillment, social activities, and even identity expression can revolve around pet ownership, potentially substituting or complementing human-human connections. While this can enrich daily life for pet owners, critics argue it may diminish time and investment in broader community involvement (Holbrook & Woodside, 2008; Hirschman, 1994).
       
      Key References
      Alhussain, T., & Thakur, R. (2019). Religious beliefs and consumer behavior: A conceptual framework and research propositions. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 10(3), 948–962. [Emerald]
      Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168. [University of Chicago Press]
      Belk, R. W. (2013). Extended self in a digital world. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 477–500. [University of Chicago Press]
      Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864–886. [APA; frequently cited in marketing and consumer research]
      Essoo, N., & Dibb, S. (2004). Religious influences on shopping behaviour: An exploratory study. European Journal of Marketing, 38(5/6), 536–553. [Emerald]
      Hirschman, E. C. (1994). Consumers and their animal companions. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 616–631. [Oxford University Press for the Association for Consumer Research]
      Holbrook, M. B., & Woodside, A. G. (2008). Animal companions, consumption experiences, and the marketing of pets: Transcending boundaries in the animal-human distinction. Journal of Business Research, 61(5), 377–381. [Elsevier]
      Ibrahim, B., & Al Kamdah, A. (2020). Exploring the Islamic marketing ethics from macro and consumer behaviour perspectives. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 11(5), 1295–1312. [Emerald]
      Jafari, A., & Goulding, C. (2008). “We are not terrorists!” UK-based Iranians, consumption practices and the ‘torn self.’ Consumption, Markets & Culture, 11(2), 73–91. [Taylor & Francis]
      Wilson, J. A. J., & Grant, J. (2013). Islamic marketing – A challenger to the classical marketing canon? Journal of Islamic Marketing, 4(1), 7–21. [Emerald]
      Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J. T., & Epley, N. (2010). Who sees human? The stability and importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 219–232. [SAGE, frequently cited in consumer research]
      These references illustrate how socio-religious norms and cultural frameworks (particularly in Islamic contexts) shape the nature and direction of anthropomorphism and, consequently, influence where consumers channel their social and emotional investment—ultimately affirming the proposition that Islamic-oriented societies often place a stronger emphasis on human-human relations.
    • Haji 2003
      Prophet Yusuf's (عليه السلام) policy options
      By Haji 2003 in Qur'an Semantic Field Analysis
         12 comments
      [amended 19 August 2023 to include references to the Irish potato famine and two Bengal famines]
       


       
      Images taken at the Egyptian Museum, Tahrir Sq, Cairo. June 2024
      Surah Yusuf
      Prophet Yusuf (عليه السلام) advised Pharoah to hoard grains during the years of plenty. I think this episode is a noteworthy one because it shows how a State can intervene in the marketplace in order to improve the welfare of the wider population.
      But as we shall see below, the government intervention that Prophet Yusuf (عليه السلام) instigated favoured some sections of the population over others - it was not neutral in terms of how it spread gains and losses across the population.
      https://www.al-islam.org/sites/default/files/singles/633-yusuf.pdf
      While there is other material in the Qur'an that deals with transactions within the marketplace between individual participants - this story stands out in terms of its focus on state intervention. 
      I'll be coming back to this issue later - but I think it informs the discussions we have about Islam and contemporary socio-economic theories. In particular, I think it illustrates that Islam does see the State as an active market participant and that in an Islamic state, the role of government is not one that is hands-off or laissez-faire.
       
      What policy options did Prophet Yusuf (عليه السلام) have?
      We should not take the story as presented 'for granted'. In reality, the Prophet (عليه السلام). had a range of choices open to him, and thinking those through helps us better understand the reasons for the policy he undertook and the reason why. 
      No government interference
      Let's start with the simplest and easiest option that Pharoah's government could have pursued once they knew that there would be seven years of plenty followed by seven years of famine (as predicted by the Pharoah's dream which was interpreted by Prophet Yusuf (عليه السلام).) .
      Pharoah could have left the entire issue to the 'market'. During the years of plenty, the price of food would have fallen and people would have enjoyed a higher standard of living. For example, the lower grain prices could have led to people rearing more cattle and their diets would have improved with more meat.
      However, during the years of famine, grain prices would have risen and those people who had accumulated assets in the years of plenty would be able to pay the higher prices in the famine years. Those who had not had such assets would have starved.
      This assumes a fairly high level of self-discipline on the part of the population, but as Milton Friedman would say, the people would have been 'free to choose'. This is not a hypothetical option. The British lack of action to the Irish potato famine has been attributed to the British government's ideological adherence to a laissez-faire approach to macro-economics:
      https://kenanfellows.org/kfp-cp-sites/cp01/cp01/sites/kfp-cp-sites.localhost.com.cp01/files/LP3_BBC Irish Famine Article for Lab.pdf
       
      The Bengal famine is another one where government policy was different to the one Prophet Yusuf ((عليه السلام).) prescribed to Pharoah. In this instance, it was lack of government restriction over the action of privateers:
      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/29/winston-churchill-policies-contributed-to-1943-bengal-famine-study
       
      Going back still further, the Great Bengal Famine of 1770 has been directly attributed to British government laissez-faire economic policy.
      https://worldfinancialreview.com/the-political-economy-of-famines-during-the-british-rule-in-india-a-critical-analysis/
       
      Light interference - provision of information
      A common policy option nowadays, where people do not want direct government intervention is to recommend improving the provision of information to the population who will then be better able to make the correct decisions for themselves. The government could have mounted an information campaign during the years of plenty and told people to hoard food themselves, hoarding when there is no shortage is allowed in Islam.
      However such attempts to influence awareness about the famine to come and changing peoples' attitudes so that they saved more than they were used to, would likely have run against increased social pressures on people to do the opposite. For example typically in societies as wealth increases there is social pressure to spend more, in this case, for example, have more lavish weddings.
      Also providing information would have been a practical benefit for the better off e.g. those with storage capacity, but not so good for the poor (who would not have room to store grain, for example).
      The government (using a bit more intervention) could have given tax breaks to people who owned granaries, to help the poor who needed such facilities. Again this solution would be to focus on market-based interventions and simply alter the working of the market using incentives. Current economic theory holds that people discount future risks very heavily i.e. they don't perceive them as much of a threat as they should. So, for example, just telling people they should save for a pension does not work. 
      So we can likely predict that the solutions described above would not have worked had they tried them.
      Heavy interference
      This is what they actually did.
      In times of plenty, Pharoah's government did not let prices fall as would have happened under free market conditions. They kept prices higher than they otherwise would have been because the government intervened and took excess stocks of grain out of circulation.
      All people (rich and poor alike) had no option but to pay the usual higher prices - effectively, the government was taxing everyone, but this was not seen as a loss by anyone because the prices were no higher than usual.
      The government stored the grain centrally and then they decided to release the grain according to their own policies.
      Assumptions made by Prophet Yusuf's government
      If you leave people to their own devices they may not make the best decisions (whether they are rich or poor), this could be due to: People do not have the resources to cater for future shocks (mainly the poor) People do not have the discipline to address future shocks (applies to both the rich and the poor) The government can make better decisions than individuals acting in their own self-interest because: The government can have access to more and better information than individuals do The government may not be as susceptible to a lack of self-discipline  
      Conclusion
      Of all the policy options open to Prophet Yusuf (عليه السلام) he advised Pharoah to pursue the most interventionist one. Some people may be tempted to call this socialist or communist, but I think those terms carry a lot of excess baggage, so I won't bring them into the discussion.
      What I think can be safely inferred from his choice of policy is a fundamental principle that could inform economic policy in any Islamic state.
      Facing an external shock to the Egyptian economy, he went for the option that would cause the least pain to the worst off in society. Other policy options would have caused more pain for the poorest but somewhat less for the better off.
       
       
    • Haji 2003
      Yield to companions
      By Haji 2003 in Stories for Sakina
         0 comments
      By the time the city finished installing ramps for paws beside every staircase, the ramps for people had quietly been removed.
      No one remembered the meeting where it was decided. Decisions arrived now as laminated notices tied to lampposts with biodegradable twine: PLEASE YIELD TO COMPANIONS; QUIET HOURS FOR CANINE SENSITIVITY. The notices bore smiling silhouettes of dogs wearing scarves. People learned to read them the way one reads weather—by feeling the chill before seeing the cloud.
      Mara noticed first when her neighbour collapsed on the pavement. He was thin, as if he had been erased a little at a time. The street was busy, yet no one stopped. A woman paused only to pull her terrier closer, murmuring reassurance. “Not you,” she said, as the man’s hand trembled toward her ankle. “Careful.”
      A drone hummed in and descended. Its camera irised, not toward the man, but toward the terrier. A soft voice chimed: IS YOUR COMPANION DISTRESSED? The woman nodded. A thermal blanket unfurled—around the dog. The man’s breath rattled like loose change in a pocket.
      At the clinic where Mara worked, the waiting room had been renovated. Plush beds lined the walls, bowls of filtered water glowed with LED halos. People stood. There were no chairs anymore; standing was healthier, the pamphlet said, and chairs took up space that could be used for enrichment. When the nurse called names, she called the dogs’. Owners answered for them, translating barks into grievances with practiced fluency.
      Mara’s brother arrived one afternoon with a bandage soaked through. He had been laid off, then laid out by a factory gate. “Just stitches,” he said. “I’ll wait.”
      But a golden retriever was wheeled past on a gurney, an IV pole jangling like a charm bracelet. Applause broke out. Someone filmed. “Such bravery,” a man whispered. The nurse smiled and closed the door.
      That night, Mara walked home through the park. It had once been a place of benches and chessboards. Now it was a sanctuary. Portraits hung from trees—dogs in graduation caps, dogs with medals. At the center stood a statue, bronze polished by touch: a dog gazing forward, jaw set in purpose. At its base, an inscription had been sanded smooth by time or by hands.
      She watched a man kneel to tie a shoelace. A collie stiffened, hackles raised. The man froze, palms open, the universal sign of surrender. A handler clipped a leash shorter. “You can’t loom like that,” she said gently. “They feel threatened.”
      Mara looked into the statue’s blank eyes and felt a strange vertigo. It was not that dogs were cruel; they were what they had always been—loyal, frightened, alive. It was that people had learned to look at one another through fur.
      On her kitchen table lay an old photograph, rescued from a drawer: her parents, laughing, no pets in frame. She tried to remember when laughter had required translation.
      Outside, the city hummed, orderly and kind, and she could not tell anymore—by posture, by priority—who was meant to serve whom.
    • shuaybi
      Beyond Taqlid: The Path Of Taslim
      By shuaybi in The Shuaybi Blog
         0 comments
      The episode is a rigorous examination of religious adherence within the Twelver Shia tradition, contrasting the modern practice of Taqlid with the foundational concept of Taslim, or total submission to the Ahl al-Bayt. The central inquiry is whether following a scholar’s speculative opinion is the path designed by the Infallibles, or a human construct relying on conjecture rather than Divine Knowledge.
      The author establishes the path of Taslim using primary narrations. This path requires three pillars: unconditional referral of all religious matters to the Imams, the precise preservation and transmission of their Hadith without addition or subtraction, and adherence to their specific speech as the definition of Shia identity. The Imams warned that refusing this direct referral risks spiritual deviation (Shirk).
      The core critique centers on the epistemological gap between the Infallibles’ demand for Certainty (Yaqin) and the admitted reliance of modern Usuli jurisprudence on Conjecture (Zann), or educated probability. The Imams consistently prohibited basing religious practice on Zann, insisting that Allah's proof is clear and accessible. Following a scholar is only acceptable if that individual functions as a transparent guide to the Imam’s preserved words, rather than acting as a filter who mixes the infallible truth with his own deductions.
      The author further argues that since seeking religious knowledge is obligatory for all Muslims, the means to access it must be universally available. Restricting laypeople from reading the clear, preserved body of Hadith—a Divine guarantee—and forcing them to rely on an intermediary creates a self-serving verification trap. True submission demands that the believer return to the clear light of the Akhbar, restoring the Imams as the direct and sufficient source of religious guidance, thereby moving the faith from a system of human opinion back to one of narrated truth.
    • Haji 2003
      Exodus vs. The Qur'an
      By Haji 2003 in Contemporania - AI enhanced
         0 comments
      Deepseek's analysis
      The prompt:
      Yes, that is a fair and insightful characterization. The difference in scope you've identified gets to the heart of how each text uses the Exodus story for its distinct theological purpose.
      Let's break down this distinction:
      The Quran: A Universal Monotheistic Message
      In the Quran, the conflict is fundamentally ideological, not ethnic or national. The message of Tawhid (absolute monotheism) is presented as universal truth, applicable to all parties.
      · For the Israelites: Moses is sent to liberate them and to call them back to the pure monotheism of their ancestor Abraham, from which they had strayed.
      · For the Egyptians, especially Pharaoh: The plagues are "signs" (آيَات) meant to invite Pharaoh and his people to recognize the one God. Their sin is not just oppression, but primarily polytheism and claiming divinity (shirk). Pharaoh's drowning-scene confession (10:90) underscores that the message was, in principle, for him too—though his acceptance came too late.
      · For the Reader: The story is a timeless lesson: the fate of those who reject God's messengers (like Pharaoh) versus those who believe, even if weak (like the Israelite believers and Pharaoh's own magicians who convert).
      Key Example: The Quranic Pharaoh is surrounded by some Egyptians who secretly believe (40:28-45), showing that the monotheistic message was intended for, and accepted by, some within Egyptian society.
      The Bible: A Particular Covenant with a Chosen People
      In the Biblical narrative, the focus is overwhelmingly on the election of Israel and the establishment of a unique covenant relationship.
      · For the Israelites: The Exodus is their foundational national liberation, leading directly to the covenant at Sinai. The laws and rituals (like Passover) are given specifically to them as a "kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (Exodus 19:6).
      · For the Egyptians: They serve as the instruments of God's judgment and the demonstration of His power. Pharaoh's heart is hardened so that God's glory and power might be shown (Exodus 9:16, Romans 9:17). While there is recognition of the "God of the Hebrews," there is no sustained call for the Egyptians as a people to convert to worshiping Yahweh. The focus is on their defeat, not their spiritual redemption.
      · Theological Goal: The story establishes Yahweh as the God who acts uniquely in history for His people, Israel. It's about identity, covenant, and law for a specific nation.
      Side-by-Side Comparison of the Audience

      Conclusion
      Your observation is precise. The Quran presents the Exodus as a paradigm of the universal prophetic struggle, where the message of One God is delivered to both the oppressed (Israelites) and the oppressor (Pharaoh and Egyptians), with eternal consequences for each based on belief.
      The Bible presents it as the formative, particularist history of Israel, where God acts decisively to create a covenant people, using the confrontation with Egypt to demonstrate His unique commitment to them.
      Thus, the Quranic account moralizes and universalizes the story, while the Biblical account historicizes and nationalizes it. This difference stems from the distinct contexts: the Quran establishing a universal faith for all nations, and the Torah establishing the identity of a specific nation.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Blog Statistics

    92
    Total Blogs
    522
    Total Entries
×
×
  • Create New...