Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
eThErEaL

Creative Video: God, Creation, Man, Good, Evil.

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Psshh, people talking about evil as if its a bad thing--a bad attribute. Evil is a good thing. Evil wants to exist and has the right to exist. Without evil, how can someone wish ill on another? And how can I fight evil and, in addition, it will be kinda boring when everything is just 'good'. There won't be prejudice or racism. Btw, Im drinking Laziza and doing basic math homework, but I feel like a physicist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
people talking about evil as if its a bad thing--a bad attribute. Evil is a good thing. Evil wants to exist and has the right to exist. Without evil, how can someone wish ill on another? And how can I fight evil and, in addition, it will be kinda boring when everything is just 'good'.

I think the one who made the video would agree with what you are saying. Evil can only exist if it is relatively good. I am also in agreement with that part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) It equates non-existence of good to evil. While this may be acceptable within most, if not all, religious traditions, it is not a given among many Western analytical philosophers.

“…And the belief that, as a matter of fact, nothing that exists is evil, is one which no one would advocate except a metaphysician defending a theory. Pain and hatred and envy and cruelty are surely things that exist, and are not merely the absence of their opposites; but the theory should hold that they are indistinguishable from the blank unconsciousness of an oyster. Indeed, it would seem that this whole theory has been advanced solely because of the unconscious bias in favour of optimism, and that its opposite is logically just as tenable. We might urge that evil consists in existence, and good in non-existence; that therefore the sum-total of existence is the worst thing there is, and that only non-existence is good. Indeed, Buddhism does seem to maintain some such view. It is plain that this view is false; but logically it is no more absurd than its opposite”

- Bertrand Russell, The Elements of Ethics, Chapter II, Aphorism 10

2) It also attributes the existence of evil within this world to be a result of a conscious state within God's "mind" to attain the knowledge of good and evil. This doesn't seem to be consistent with the original premise that evil is simply the absence of good. Pursuing the knowledge of what is good should not necessitate acquiring the knowledge of evil. As good is a "thing", while its absence (evil) is "not a thing." Unless, you assume that good can only be understood in contrast to what is "evil." Basically, knowledge of a "thing" can only be acquired when you also attain knowledge of the non-existence of that "thing." Am I getting that right?

3) It supposes that the resolution of the evil in the world can be achieved when another being enters into it, a being who lacks knowledge of good and evil, without being corrupted by the world itself (which is precisely the knowledge of good and evil). This seems to create more questions than answers.

4) It seems to have a strong Christian theological bent to it. The problem of evil is basically the result of us desiring the knowledge of good and evil. And it's solution is one in which a being outside normal man, Christ, saves people corrupted by that knowledge or desire of it (a consequence of Adam's eating the apple from the tree of knowledge). So, both the cause of the problem and solution seem to serve as something that would conform to a presupposed Christian theological belief. Doesn't really seem like something applicable to other religious traditions.

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As-Salamun Alaykum!

Thank you for critiquing the video!

1) It equates non-existence of good to evil. While this may be acceptable within most, if not all, religious traditions, it is not a given among many Western analytical philosophers.

“…And the belief that, as a matter of fact, nothing that exists is evil, is one which no one would advocate except a metaphysician defending a theory. Pain and hatred and envy and cruelty are surely things that exist, and are not merely the absence of their opposites; but the theory should hold that they are indistinguishable from the blank unconsciousness of an oyster. Indeed, it would seem that this whole theory has been advanced solely because of the unconscious bias in favour of optimism, and that its opposite is logically just as tenable. We might urge that evil consists in existence, and good in non-existence; that therefore the sum-total of existence is the worst thing there is, and that only non-existence is good. Indeed, Buddhism does seem to maintain some such view. It is plain that this view is false; but logically it is no more absurd than its opposite”

Perhaps you are able to see why your second point below answers this first point of yours. Evil does indeed exist but on a relative plane of existence. So why is goodness as such existence and badness as such nonexistence? If we go back to Plato, all existent things exist or are real inasmuch as they are good at being what they are; inasmuch as they participate in the Form of the Good. A rose is good at being what it is inasmuch as it is good at being a rose (inasmuch as it is Rose-ness). And Roseness is good at being an eternal Form inasmuch as it ultimately participates in the Form of the Good (the Form of all Forms).

2) It also attributes the existence of evil within this world to be a result of a conscious state within God's "mind" to attain the knowledge of good and evil. This doesn't seem to be consistent with the original premise that evil is simply the absence of good. Pursuing the knowledge of what is good should not necessitate acquiring the knowledge of evil. As good is a "thing", while its absence (evil) is "not a thing." Unless, you assume that good can only be understood in contrast to what is "evil." Basically, knowledge of a "thing" can only be acquired when you also attain knowledge of the non-existence of that "thing." Am I getting that right?

That is exactly right! keep in mind that a thing which exists also doesn't exist inasmuch as it is limited by virtue of it not being God. What I mean by this is that things in this world are grey, neither black nor white or both black and white. So the limitations (or limits) of a thing (which is it's non-existence) is it's bad-ness. And the existential aspect(s) of that very same thing is it's goodness. And both are necessary on the relative plane.

3) It supposes that the resolution of the evil in the world can be achieved when another being enters into it, a being who lacks knowledge of good and evil, without being corrupted by the world itself (which is precisely the knowledge of good and evil). This seems to create more questions than answers.

4) It seems to have a strong Christian theological bent to it. The problem of evil is basically the result of us desiring the knowledge of good and evil. And it's solution is one in which a being outside normal man, Christ, saves people corrupted by that knowledge or desire of it (a consequence of Adam's eating the apple from the tree of knowledge). So, both the cause of the problem and solution seem to serve as something that would conform to a presupposed Christian theological belief. Doesn't really seem like something applicable to other religious traditions.

I will explain this from within the Islamic context. This being is Muhammad (S) who has been sent as a mercy to all of the worlds (wa ma arsalnaka illa rahmatal lil-aalameen). Why is his(S) existence necessary? because Muhammad (S) is the final cause of creation (i.e. the goal). And to keep ourselves within the context of this discussion, Muhammad (S) (unlike people like Bertrand Russell) is Perfectly Optimistic. In other words, the Absolute Good wanted to know Himself but in a relative way (He wanted to know His goodness relatively); and so God created the Perfectly Optimistic Being (Muhammad (S)) through whom God is able to know His Goodness relatively! So God just created Muhammad (S). But the creation of Muhammad (S) implies the entire creation from the inanimate earthly beings to the angelic heavenly beings just as the fruit implies the entire fruit tree from the roots buried in the soil to the leaves on the top of the branches. What does it mean to be "saved" by Muhammad (S)? To understand that he (S) is the meaning of our existence. And to truly understand that he (S) is the meaning of our existence is to worship (by being optimistic of) God through or in him (S) (i.e. through his capacity). The reason why everyone naturally has an unconscious bias towards optimism is because Muhammad (S), the Perfectly Optimistic Being, is the final goal of everything. .

Indeed, Buddhism does seem to maintain some such view.

And Buddhism does not teach such a thing. Buddhism teaches that life is suffering (dukha) and that we must free ourselves from suffering and enter nirvana. For Buddhists the Buddha is the one who "saves" humanity.

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As-Salamun Alaykum!

Thank you for critiquing the video!

Perhaps you are able to see why your second point below answers this first point of yours. Evil does indeed exist but on a relative plane of existence. So why is goodness as such existence and badness as such nonexistence? If we go back to Plato, all existent things exist or are real inasmuch as they are good at being what they are; inasmuch as they participate in the Form of the Good. A rose is good at being what it is inasmuch as it is good at being a rose (inasmuch as it is Rose-ness). And Roseness is good at being an eternal Form inasmuch as it ultimately participates in the Form of the Good (the Form of all Forms).

But, then, going by this arguement and the one made in the video that evil exists only because it is a prerequisite for knowledge of good and that some within "The All" wished to have this knowledge, evil as well is good at being itself; it has a purpose. That would also make evil good and, therefore, desirable, no?

As-Salamun Alaykum!

In other words, the Absolute Good wanted to know Himself but in a relative way (He wanted to know His goodness relatively); and so God created the Perfectly Optimistic Being (Muhammad (S)) through whom God is able to know His Goodness relatively!

Doesn't this make it sound like God didn't know something, which goes totally against our belief in His Omniscience?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As-Salamun Alaykum!

Thank you for critiquing the video!

Perhaps you are able to see why your second point below answers this first point of yours. Evil does indeed exist but on a relative plane of existence. So why is goodness as such existence and badness as such nonexistence? If we go back to Plato, all existent things exist or are real inasmuch as they are good at being what they are; inasmuch as they participate in the Form of the Good. A rose is good at being what it is inasmuch as it is good at being a rose (inasmuch as it is Rose-ness). And Roseness is good at being an eternal Form inasmuch as it ultimately participates in the Form of the Good (the Form of all Forms).

That is exactly right! keep in mind that a thing which exists also doesn't exist inasmuch as it is limited by virtue of it not being God. What I mean by this is that things in this world are grey, neither black nor white or both black and white. So the limitations (or limits) of a thing (which is it's non-existence) is it's bad-ness. And the existential aspect(s) of that very same thing is it's goodness. And both are necessary on the relative plane.

I will explain this from within the Islamic context. This being is Muhammad (S) who has been sent as a mercy to all of the worlds (wa ma arsalnaka illa rahmatal lil-aalameen). Why is his(S) existence necessary? because Muhammad (S) is the final cause of creation (i.e. the goal). And to keep ourselves within the context of this discussion, Muhammad (S) (unlike people like Bertrand Russell) is Perfectly Optimistic. In other words, the Absolute Good wanted to know Himself but in a relative way (He wanted to know His goodness relatively); and so God created the Perfectly Optimistic Being (Muhammad (S)) through whom God is able to know His Goodness relatively! So God just created Muhammad (S). But the creation of Muhammad (S) implies the entire creation from the inanimate earthly beings to the angelic heavenly beings just as the fruit implies the entire fruit tree from the roots buried in the soil to the leaves on the top of the branches. What does it mean to be "saved" by Muhammad (S)? To understand that he (S) is the meaning of our existence. And to truly understand that he (S) is the meaning of our existence is to worship (by being optimistic of) God through or in him (S) (i.e. through his capacity). The reason why everyone naturally has an unconscious bias towards optimism is because Muhammad (S), the Perfectly Optimistic Being, is the final goal of everything. .

And Buddhism does not teach such a thing. Buddhism teaches that life is suffering (dukha) and that we must free ourselves from suffering and enter nirvana. For Buddhists the Buddha is the one who "saves" humanity.

I agree. To me, existence is in and of itself something good. The fact that we exist is something good. All beings would rather exist than not exist, for existence is superior to non-existence. This is something intuitive and natural to us not only as humans, but to all of life (plants and animals included). So, Russell's statement doesn't really work for me. However, it's important to understand how a Western audience may view this due to the huge influence of analytical philosophy. These kind of claims are just not givens in their view.

Your response to the third and fourth points seems fairly good. It is one of the many ways to respond to it. I'm not sure but it seems to be consistent with the explanation of the hadith among Sufi circles in which God was supposed to have said, "I was a hidden treasure and I loved that I be known, therefore, I created creation and made by Myself known to them." Although, the hadith is almost certainly weak, I don't find its content objectionable. Good explanation though. However, my question was, if I understood the video correctly, why the problem of evil is a result of our knowledge of good and evil (or at least, desire for it)? And why this saviour is precisely that, a saviour, due to his lack of knowledge of good and evil? How does lack of knowledge of good and evil save us? This is why I insisted that it is derived largely from a Christian belief system.

(wasalam)

Edited by Ibn al-Hassan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But, then, going by this arguement and the one made in the video that evil exists only because it is a prerequisite for knowledge of good and that some within "The All" wished to have this knowledge, evil as well is good at being itself; it has a purpose. That would also make evil good and, therefore, desirable, no?

Yes, evil is desirable only indirectly. What is desired directly is relative goodness, but as a result, relative evil is implied. It is actually God who wanted this (this knowledge) but through man; God wanted to know Himself(His Goodness) relatively. And He accomplishes this through man.

Doesn't this make it sound like God didn't know something, which goes totally against our belief in His Omniscience?

The relative plane does not come after in time. It is always with God in the unchanging present moment. We can also say that God's knowledge of creation is eternal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The relative plane does not come after in time. It is always with God in the unchanging present moment. We can also say that God's knowledge of creation is eternal.

Ok, I am no philosopher so maybe you've already answered me and I just didn't get it but what I was asking is, you seem to say again and again that God wanted to know Himself (or His Goodness) relatively and that is why he created man (or Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) ) but what I don't get it, being God, and the Omniscient Being He is, doesn't He already know Himself (even though I don't know everything, at least I know myself) and His (relative) Goodness? Oh, and what exactly do you mean by relative Goodness?

Oh, and since I am surrounded by philosophers (and this question is especially for eThErEal because he is the one who posted the video), what do you think about the God = The All arguement? I mean, if we agree to that, aren't we calling ourselves God (or, at least, a part of Him)? And, if He is not The All, then what happens about The All being greater and, therefore, God not being God?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and since I am surrounded by philosophers (and this question is especially for eThErEal because he is the one who posted the video), what do you think about the God = The All arguement? I mean, if we agree to that, aren't we calling ourselves God (or, at least, a part of Him)? And, if He is not The All, then what happens about The All being greater and, therefore, God not being God?

You're treading on some dangerous ground, mister.

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, my question was, if I understood the video correctly, why the problem of evil is a result of our knowledge of good and evil (or at least, desire for it)? And why this saviour is precisely that, a saviour, due to his lack of knowledge of good and evil? How does lack of knowledge of good and evil save us? This is why I insisted that it is derived largely from a Christian belief system.

Let me give you an analogy. Traditions talk about the "Breath of the All-Merciful". Just recently, I came across a hadith someone posted on ShiaChat where one of the Imams (as) was reported to have said that God's biggest breath was the Prophet (S). If someone can quote it precisely I would greatly appreciate it. Anyway, the reason for God's breath is that God creates by speaking. "When He desires a thing, He says to it, Be and it is" (Iza arada shayan, an yaqula lahu, kun fayakun). And His words are His creatures which are uttered and subsist through a Breath or Word (Be) which comes from God Himself. Muhammad (S) is this breath which forms an "intermediary" between the creatures or words and the Speaker. This Be or Breath is the Word of God which Christians say, was made flesh (I.e. manifested itself in history as Jesus Christ). Of course for us Muslims we believe this Word was made into the Quran and that the Quran is epitomized by Muhammad (S) and the Ahlul Bayt (as). The Quran and the Ahlul Bayt enable us to unite with God since they are inwardly that Word which issued from God. In fact, the Word is God-Manifest. In Christianity "Jesus is the way to the Father". This is why Christians refer to Jesus as the Son of God because they see Him as that Word made flesh.

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're treading on some dangerous ground, mister.

(wasalam)

Hey, I don't have pantheistic beliefs. In fact, the reason I asked was because his arguement made sense about The All and I wanted an answer. Since you are well versed in philosophy and also seem to know about this particular arguement, maybe you could help me a bit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, I am no philosopher so maybe you've already answered me and I just didn't get it but what I was asking is, you seem to say again and again that God wanted to know Himself (or His Goodness) relatively and that is why he created man (or Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) ) but what I don't get it, being God, and the Omniscient Being He is, doesn't He already know Himself (even though I don't know everything, at least I know myself) and His (relative) Goodness? Oh, and what exactly do you mean by relative Goodness?
Oh, and since I am surrounded by philosophers (and this question is especially for eThErEal because he is the one who posted the video), what do you think about the God = The All arguement? I mean, if we agree to that, aren't we calling ourselves God (or, at least, a part of Him)? And, if He is not The All, then what happens about The All being greater and, therefore, God not being God?

Essence: God in Himself. With respect to God Himself, creation doesn't exist at all! (absolute)

Attribute(s): A relation between Essence and Act. By relating to us, we understand God. (relatively absolute)

Act(s): God's act is the creation itself. (relative)

Let me give you an analogy. A person can be seen with respect to any of these three aspect. There is the person in himself (his self or mind which is invisible to others but visible to him). The person my perform the following acts: smile, give charity, visit the sick etc.. From these acts we know his attribute: merciful.

With God it is the same way except for two things!

1) The creation as a whole is God's very Act (the creation is not the result of His Act but God's very Act itself). So this implies that everything is God in some way or another (no duality).

2) The Act of God exists to the extent it is connected to God, and it doesn't exist to the extent it is by itself. The ray that come from the Sun is luminous to the extent it is the Sun's light and dark to the extent that it is not the Sun! Just like how we can say that only the Sun is truly luminous and not it's ray, so also can we say that only God, the Essence, truly exists, and not His Acts.

So, we need to ask, why does there have to be something more than the Absolute Essence or absolute Existence? Why does there have to be this kind of relative existence where things don't have true existence? This is because true Absoluteness is not relative at all! It is not relative to even Relativiity. True Absoluteness has to include Relativity as well. This is why there is not only 1) God seeing or knowing Himself (Absolute), but there is ALSO 2) God seeing or knowing Himself through other than Himself (Relatively).

So to answer your question, God knows Himself in Himself. But He also (as a mercy) knows Himself through other than Himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Forgive me, but how does that relate to the idea that the knowledge of good and evil resulted in the corruption of primal man (as stated in the video)?

(wasalam)

"Corruption" is understood metaphysically as distance or separation from God (Who is essentially or Absolutely Good or Merciful).

"Knowledge of good and evil" is understood metaphysically as relativity of good and evil.

"Second Man" Sees God through relative goodness. (he sees that only the good exists)

"Primal Man" one who has the potential (through Second Man) to see God through relative goodness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what do you think about the God = The All arguement? I mean, if we agree to that, aren't we calling ourselves God (or, at least, a part of Him)?

Each thing in the world is "nothing" but a manifestation of God (and His qualities) in some way or another. And the same goes for ourselves (not our ego selves, but our true virtuous selves). The point of life is to realize that only God exists, and that we don't, since we are nothing but His manifestation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Each thing in the world is "nothing" but a manifestation of God (and His qualities) in some way or another. And the same goes for ourselves (not our ego selves, but our true virtuous selves). The point of life is to realize that only God exists, and that we don't, since we are nothing but His manifestation.

Let me give an example here: say I meet a very poor man on the road and give him something to eat, when nobody else did. A bystander would say this is a manifestation of my kindness. The point is, for something to be a manifestation of something else, it must be a part of that something (my kindness is a part of me). So, wouldn't what you are saying make it like we are part of God?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me give an example here: say I meet a very poor man on the road and give him something to eat, when nobody else did. A bystander would say this is a manifestation of my kindness. The point is, for something to be a manifestation of something else, it must be a part of that something (my kindness is a part of me). So, wouldn't what you are saying make it like we are part of God?

I would like to make sure your read this post:http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235011170-creative-video-god-creation-man-good-evil/#entry2549306

(my kindness is a part of me).

Do you mean to say, "my act of kindness is a part of me"? The question to ask is: is the act of kindness me? And the answer is always going to be relative, yes/no. No inasmuch as it is a mere act and not me or let alone any person! Yes inasmuch as one can see an aspect of myself (my kindness) in the act.

This is what it means for God to be Absolute, and this is what it means for creation to be relative. For the Absolute there is only one answer: God! For the relative there is: God / no God.

So are we God? Yes / No.

Does this make sense?

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Each thing in the world is "nothing" but a manifestation of God (and His qualities) in some way or another. And the same goes for ourselves (not our ego selves, but our true virtuous selves). The point of life is to realize that only God exists, and that we don't, since we are nothing but His manifestation.

Are you saying that there are levels of manifestation? Also, do you make any distinction between God and His attributes?

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying that there are levels of manifestation? Also, do you make any distinction between God and His attributes?

(wasalam)

1) There are levels of manifestation.

2) It depends how one understands attributes. If one sees each attribute by itself, to the exclusion of other attributes, then God is NOT identical to His attributes. if, however, each attribute does not exclude other attributes, then attributes are identical to God. The important things here is that God is a simple, non-compartmentalized reality. so from point of view attributes are God and therefore should be affirmed. And from another point of view attributes are not God and therefore should be negated.

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As-Salamun Alaykum!

I will explain this from within the Islamic context. This being is Muhammad (S) who has been sent as a mercy to all of the worlds (wa ma arsalnaka illa rahmatal lil-aalameen). Why is his(S) existence necessary? because Muhammad (S) is the final cause of creation (i.e. the goal). And to keep ourselves within the context of this discussion, Muhammad (S) (unlike people like Bertrand Russell) is Perfectly Optimistic. In other words, the Absolute Good wanted to know Himself but in a relative way (He wanted to know His goodness relatively); and so God created the Perfectly Optimistic Being (Muhammad (S)) through whom God is able to know His Goodness relatively! So God just created Muhammad (S). But the creation of Muhammad (S) implies the entire creation from the inanimate earthly beings to the angelic heavenly beings just as the fruit implies the entire fruit tree from the roots buried in the soil to the leaves on the top of the branches. What does it mean to be "saved" by Muhammad (S)? To understand that he (S) is the meaning of our existence. And to truly understand that he (S) is the meaning of our existence is to worship (by being optimistic of) God through or in him (S) (i.e. through his capacity). The reason why everyone naturally has an unconscious bias towards optimism is because Muhammad (S), the Perfectly Optimistic Being, is the final goal of everything. .

(salam)

Very interesting post. I would like to expand on it, but in a different manner, with Quranic and hadith terminology.

When we observe the quranic verses, we see that the creation of the cosmos is for Man.

اللَّهُ الَّذِي خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ وَأَنزَلَ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ مَاءً فَأَخْرَجَ بِهِ مِنَ الثَّمَرَاتِ رِزْقًا لَّكُمْ ۖ وَسَخَّرَ لَكُمُ الْفُلْكَ لِتَجْرِيَ فِي الْبَحْرِ بِأَمْرِهِ ۖ وَسَخَّرَ لَكُمُ الْأَنْهَارَ

It is Allah who created the heavens and the earth, and He sends down water from the sky and with it He brings forth crops for your sustenance. And He disposed the ships for your [benefit] so that they may sail at sea by His command, and He disposed the rivers for you.(14:32)

وَسَخَّرَ لَكُمُ الشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ دَائِبَيْنِ ۖ وَسَخَّرَ لَكُمُ اللَّيْلَ وَالنَّهَارَ

He disposed the sun and the moon for you, constant [in their courses], and He disposed the night and the day, (14:33)

وَآتَاكُمْ مِنْ كُلِّ مَا سَأَلْتُمُوهُ ۚ وَإِنْ تَعُدُّوا نِعْمَتَ اللَّهِ لَا تُحْصُوهَا ۗ إِنَّ الْإِنْسَانَ لَظَلُومٌ كَفَّارٌ

and He gave you all that you had asked Him. If you enumerate Allah’s blessings, you will not be able to count them. Indeed man is most unfair and ungrateful! (14:34)

So we observe initially that all of creation was intended for Man. There are many verses which highlight this truth but I limited it to a few to be concise. We then observe in another verse Allah [swt] says:

وَمَا خَلَقْتُ الْجِنَّ وَالْإِنْسَ إِلَّا لِيَعْبُدُونِ

I did not create the jinn and the humans except that they may worship Me. (51:56)

It is pertinent to mention that the Imams when explaining this verse, would say so that they [the humans and jinn] know Him (liya'rifuneh). For worship is as a result of ma'rifah, and a human cannot worship the One [swt] whom he has no ma'rifah of.

Here we can see that the creation of Man was to achieve Ma'rifah and reach the state of pure servanthood (al ubudiyyah al mahda). In light of this we see that the the only person who reached this noble state is the Prophet Muhammad (sawa) because in the Quran whenever the word abd (servant) is used for any prophet other than the Prophet Muhammad (s), their name would be mentioned after it. In contrast, whenever the world abd is used alone it is always used to signify the Prophet Muhammad (s), because he was the one who reached the highest state of servanthood [ubudiyyah] and for he was the one who was at two bows lengths or even closer [qaba qowseen o adna].

It is through this introduction we can finally understand al hadith al qudsi which says "I was a hidden treasure that wished to be known so I created the creation to be known" and the hadith al qudsi which states "[O Mohammad] if it were not for you, I would not have created a thing" because it is only through the Prophet [Muhammed that the goal of creation was fully achieved, and that is al ma'rifah and total servanthood. It is through the Prophet that we realise and receive any good in this world and without him we cannot receive any divine providence. As the Urafa' say, he is wasitadul fayd [he is the means (wasita) through which Providence passes].

Edited by InfiniteAscension

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ To add to that:

The Imams [as] have stated that “We are that face through which Allah can be reached (is recognized).” They have also said that “If the Divine Proof does not remain on the earth, it will be destroyed along with whatever is in it and upon it. The earth cannot be devoid of Divine Proof for a moment.

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
Reply to this topic...

×   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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...