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
Chair Pundit

Did Khidr Murder A Boy?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I understand what you were saying now.

 

And one more thing.

 

I find it very strange that this site has no policy to "manage" avowed enemies of Islam or those who are decidedly determined to harm Islam, Freedom of speech is a very good thing. But if you know that someone is all out to hurt you and everything that you care for,  he must most certainly be neutralized or else it could mean a lot of harm to the hard work that our Holy Prophet and Imams have tried to put in.

 

There is very clear evidence in this thread of such things happening.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chair Pundit reminds me of...what's his name? Rorschach. Same approach, sometimes loses temper and resorts to ad hominems and never gets the bigger picture. When words run  out, it's the denying/rejecting game that follows up. If it's you, then remember a thread you started a long time ago about God condemning the Christians to hell? I recommend you to look it up and read it again + the replies I provided. IF it's not you then appologies. (You can guess why I'm not contributing to this thread).

 

Shorter version: Your thought process never changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God kills this boy for being able to change the faith of his parents but respites Satan and allows him to corrupt humans.

 

Why wasn't this type of mercy applied to humanity with respect to Iblis?

 

Solid observation.

 

Apparently, even Iblis didn't have the sort of power to mislead the believing parents that the boy had. Clearly, this boy was something else.

 

 

And one more thing.

 

I find it very strange that this site has no policy to "manage" avowed enemies of Islam or those who are decidedly determined to harm Islam, Freedom of speech is a very good thing. But if you know that someone is all out to hurt you and everything that you care for,  he must most certainly be neutralized or else it could mean a lot of harm to the hard work that our Holy Prophet and Imams have tried to put in.

 

There is very clear evidence in this thread of such things happening.  

 

 

The following statement hurts you:

 

The boy was killed to be rewarded... for not being able to mislead his parents in some future circumstance.

 

Apparently, with this statement I have the ability to, as you say, undermine entirely the "hard work of the Holy Prophet and the Imams." You're not exactly helping your case, are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The boy was killed to be rewarded... for not being able to mislead his parents in some future circumstance.

 

As I said, I do not agree with a literal understanding of the Quran. 

 

if you think you understand the Quran well, do keep going.

 

This site is a free-for-all.

 

Good luck!

 

 

Apparently, with this statement I have the ability to, as you say, undermine entirely the "hard work of the Holy Prophet and the Imams." You're not exactly helping your case, are you?

 

Yes, you certainly do.

 

You don't need to be a famous dictator like Saddam to do that.

 

A less known person can also do that.

 

You have great power, my friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, I do not agree with a literal understanding of the Quran. 

 

If you consider the fact that a literal story is being discussed that actually happened... it goes to reason that this particular verse in the Qur'an is not allegorical. I shouldn't really have to explain this.

 

if you think you understand the Quran well, do keep going.

 

I don't think that; that's why I'm asking you to make sense out of something that doesn't make any sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you consider the fact that a literal story is being discussed that actually happened...

 

The Quran's style is not easy to unravel. Our  Imams have given the explanation of lots of things but I am not sure if anyone in this site knows If there is something fir this. In any case, I have tried to explain my point of view in post no 65.

 

I don't think that; that's why I'm asking you to make sense out of something that doesn't make any sense. 

 

As I said, I have explained my point of view.

 

If you have any questions on the points I have made in that post or this, I 'll try to answer.

 

But if you keep insisting that you understand better, then there is nothing to discuss.

Edited by baqar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if you keep insisting that you understand better, then there is nothing to discuss.

 

Where did I insist?  Your post #65 doesn't actually answer anything. 

 

Interesting to see how everyone has decided to desert the thread. Clearly I'm right in saying that the story is, indeed, incoherent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did I insist?  

 

Throughout this thread.

 

 Your post #65 doesn't actually answer anything.  

 

 

Your inability to make a sensible comment or ask a decent question is your failing.

 

Interesting to see how everyone has decided to desert the thread. Clearly I'm right in saying that the story is, indeed, incoherent.

 

May be their time is more important than wasting it with an avowed and determined hater of Islam.

 

I am sure you are aware that your heart is burning with hatred for Islam.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure you are aware that your heart is burning with hatred for Islam.  

 

Lol.  Actually, my heart is burning for the truth.  Sorry if my search for the truth offends you in the process.

 

You can continue with the evasionary tactics.  It only helps to increase the popularity of this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chair Pundit reminds me of...what's his name? Rorschach. Same approach, sometimes loses temper and resorts to ad hominems and never gets the bigger picture. When words run  out, it's the denying/rejecting game that follows up. If it's you, then remember a thread you started a long time ago about God condemning the Christians to hell? I recommend you to look it up and read it again + the replies I provided. IF it's not you then appologies. (You can guess why I'm not contributing to this thread).

 

Shorter version: Your thought process never changed.

 

They are the same person.

 

He is to be blamed for not learning, but we shia are also deserving of that blame. The same questions are asked again and again and we usually give very poor replies. Our critical thinking is poor.

Edited by Muhammed Ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is to be blamed for not learning

Isn't asking questions a key component to learning? I'm not sure how I'm supposed to learn when I'm given poor replies by those who lack critical thinking skills.

but we shia are also deserving of that blame. The same questions are asked again and again and we usually give very poor replies. Our critical thinking is poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL This thread is like kindergarten. 

 

Wai Gad no killit Satan, mommy?

 

Wai Gahd killt dat boi??

 

Wai Gad kills people???? I wana live forever!!

 

WAI MOMMY? WAI WAI WAI WAI!! MOMMY I BOMB UUUU!!!! Y U NO THINK!!! :lol:


They are the same person.

 

He is to be blamed for not learning, but we shia are also deserving of that blame. The same questions are asked again and again and we usually give very poor replies. Our critical thinking is poor.

 

Must we answer a question a million times with each new thread every other day? They should learn about the search function. When we do answer they don't get it, most of them don't want to. And thats the whole point behind these threads. They are dishonest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't asking questions a key component to learning? I'm not sure how I'm supposed to learn when I'm given poor replies by those who lack critical thinking skills.

 

 

I am generalising, to encourage some people to improve those skills.

 

You ignore good answers when they are given to you and outright lie about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you consider the fact that a literal story is being discussed that actually happened... it goes to reason that this particular verse in the Qur'an is not allegorical. I shouldn't really have to explain this.

 

It isn't? How about it is. The interaction between Moses and Khidr is a parable.
 
- Moses represents the seeker of spiritual reality 
- Khidr represents the spiritual teacher/master
- Moses's servant represents the self-reproaching spirit: It senses evil, resists it and tries to purify itself by seeking God’s grace and pardon.
- The fish symbolizes the intellect
- The two seas are the ‘seas of Divine Knowledge and of human knowledge’. 
 
Now, as the ‘seeker of  Truth’ (Moses) journeys on the path, he finds himself crossing  from ‘sea of human knowledge’ into the ‘sea of Divine Knowledge’. It is at this juncture that the ‘ intellect’ (fish) gives up the journey: unable to comprehend the Reality of the Spiritual World and stunned by the vastness of the Divine Sea, there is nothing left for it to do but to recoil silently.
 
Upon finding the master, the seeker asks him to teach him higher spiritual truths but the master tells him it's a difficult path.
 
 
The boat incident:
 
Those who belong to God have to be saved from the tyrant king (worldly desires) and therefore the heart is pierced with the love of God, so as to eradicate it of all worldly attachments.
The seeker suffers worldly losses and endures difficulties sometimes with doubt.  The seeker has been informed about the duality of the struggle: to endure trials or lose himself to the world. What seems to him an unjust act is indeed an act of kindness. The seeker now realizes that it is by emptying his heart of his worldly desires that he will grow spiritually.
 
 
The boy:
 
The Master thwarts the vain desires which still lurk in the heart of the disciple. They appear harmless and innocent to the seeker, so that he demands an explanation from his Master for destroying them. The Teacher explains that though these vain desires look innocent they are the work of Satan bringing sorrow and despair in the end.
 
 
Since the killing of the boy was your issue I end the explanation here.
 
_________
 
If the story literally happened, let's bring a similar one to understand it:
 
Before starting, let's remember that 1.) God told us the killing of a boy is a sin. 2.) The same God sent and directly ordered his servant to kill a boy. People already die young or in natural disasters sent by God, we don't know the full story behind each, seemingly, innocent death. God is above religion making #2 not applicable for us. What may seem cruel to the observing eye is in fact an act of kindness and mercy. It is for the greater good as many would call it. 
 
 
Now to our similar short story. 
 
A boy comes to you showing a real gun, mentioning it is fully loaded and he is going to cause a bloodbath tomorrow in X school as soon as it starts. You call the police and describe everything in detail. The next day the boy walks to school with the gun in his hand. As soon as he approaches X school, an officer recognizes the threat and orders the boy to stop moving and drop the gun.  The boy ignores the officer and keeps walking. When the officer approaches carefully, the boy points the gun at the officer. The officer takes action and fatally wounds the boy. After examinating the gun, it happens to be real and fully loaded. 
 
Do you legitimise the murder of this boy? Do you legitimise the murder of a boy in general after this regardless of their actions? 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now to our similar short story. 

 
A boy comes to you showing a real gun, mentioning it is fully loaded and he is going to cause a bloodbath tomorrow in X school as soon as it starts. You call the police and describe everything in detail. The next day the boy walks to school with the gun in his hand. As soon as he approaches X school, an officer recognizes the threat and orders the boy to stop moving and drop the gun.  The boy ignores the officer and keeps walking. When the officer approaches carefully, the boy points the gun at the officer. The officer takes action and fatally wounds the boy. After examinating the gun, it happens to be real and fully loaded. 
 
Do you legitimise the murder of this boy? Do you legitimise the murder of a boy in general after this regardless of their actions? 

 

Do you not see the flaw in this analogy?  The officer first delivers a warning, and then opens fire at the very moment he is faced with threat.  Khidr doesn't give the boy any warning; he immediately kills the boy on the assumption that the boy is inevitably destined to mislead his parents in some future circumstance.  

 

But here is the major flaw: the boy, in your analogy, would supposedly be punished by God for even trying to carry out his intention to harm unlawfully.  On the other hand, Khidr kills the boy before the boy has any intent to mislead his parents, but kills the boy because the boy undoubtedly will lead astray his parents and God rewards the boy in the end. 

Thus, is stands to reason that:

 

The boy was killed to be rewarded... for not being able to mislead his parents in some future circumstance.

 

This is evidently nonsensical. 

 

 

By the way, I'd appreciate it if you could answer my latest question on this past thread: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235013353-islam-contradicts-itself-on-christians-and-jews/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see you are hesitating to agree with the analogy but you indirectly do. The officer ultimately prevented a future event from occuring, a future event which might or might not have occured at all. We may suggest as much as we want and point to the posibility being most likely that the boy would have effectively done it. But he never did. You could say the officer killed the boy because he was under threat (bad example I know, it should have been the boy runs faster towards school and gets fatally shot. It  was midnight for me). But the main reason he was there in the first place, was to prevent a bloodbath and save the children in school. Khidr didn't kill on assumptions. He has been informed by the All-knowing who doesn't assume.

 

You made the boy the main reason which is the issue to your major flaw. The main reason, just like the children in school, are the parents. God showed them mercy through Khidr by undoing the not potential but certain upcoming harm. The boy indirectly benefitted from this which shows God's mercy twice.

 

As for the other thread, your latest question shows you never understood it. Read the underlined in my first reply, and the following replies if necessary. 

 

Edit: You never picked on the parable, never thought it could be one?

Edited by Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You made the boy the main reason which is the issue to your major flaw. The main reason, just like the children in school, are the parents. God showed them mercy through Khidr by undoing the not potential but certain upcoming harm. The boy indirectly benefitted from this which shows God's mercy twice.

Why are you absolving the boy of his ill intent? He was only killed because there would have otherwise been a "certain upcoming harm" caused by the boy himself. How is it even remotely logical that the boy would be rewarded when apostasy and rebellion was the REASON for his murder in the FIRST PLACE?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you absolving the boy of his ill intent? He was only killed because there would have otherwise been a "certain upcoming harm" caused by the boy himself. How is it even remotely logical that the boy would be rewarded when apostasy and rebellion was the REASON for his murder in the FIRST PLACE?

 

So you admit the boy was not innocent. He had "ill intent."

Only Allah would know the ill intent of a person. Others would not understand, but a servant of Allah (Khidr) would obey Allah's order.

Edited by hameedeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you admit the boy was not innocent. He had "ill intent."

Only Allah would know the ill intent of a person. Others would not understand, but a servant of Allah (Khidr) would obey Allah's order.

 

He wasn't innocent? Why was the boy rewarded with grace and honour then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're trying to answer him in a language he does not understand. He does not recognize God, or prophets, or their miracles (the "super human" stuff that issues without his science's primitive temporal understandings). Its their way. I would let him be. Its like trying to program a FM radio with C++. Not going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you absolving the boy of his ill intent? He was only killed because there would have otherwise been a "certain upcoming harm" caused by the boy himself. How is it even remotely logical that the boy would be rewarded when apostasy and rebellion was the REASON for his murder in the FIRST PLACE?

Simple answer: he didnt do it. He was going to. But he wasnt able. Two birds down with one stone i say, no rebellion on earth and he also gets to go to heaven.

If you were serious, you would not be going on about such a silly topic over and over again. People gave you sufficient answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The parents, however, had not been experiencing any problem with the boy at that point in time. Picture yourself as the father of the murdered boy. How would you react? Obviously with intense grief and anger. If you then came to know that your boy had to be killed because you wouldn't have been able to handle him in the future, you would have reacted with utter disbelief at the twisted logic of the rationale.

 

 

 

You asked "what happened to the notion of life being a test?" I responded that people are tested in accordance to what they can handle. Thereafter you respond with something that doesn't address my point? This is what you do when your objections are dealt with successfully. I would like to see you actually address my counter point, rather than change the subject
 
I may add that the test of dealing with reality (assuming that the described situation were to even occur) was more appropriate than the test of dealing with the boy.

Let me get this straight. God knows the entire script without being involved in writing the script. The assumption being that God's foreknowledge has no tangible bearing on a freely chosen outcome.

So if there are three choices in front of me, God already knows the choice I will take. So is God's omniscience subordinated to my freely chosen action or is my freely chosen action subordinated to God's omniscience?

 

You can't have both. 

 

 

Again, you are not responding to what I wrote but bringing up an irrelevant objection. I can answer that question, but why not respond to what I said? Changing the subject makes you look bad.

 

 

This is superficial nonsense. There are a variety of nature and nurture factors which have a role in shaping the future of an individual. To "fix" a destiny is no different to planning a particular outcome. Why? Because God is responsible for creating the conditions in which a person is born. This is self-evident. It follows from this premise that any choice to be made has a limited scope which is largely dependant on the given conditions. 

 

 

 

 

You don't believe in free will? 

 

The belief is that since God's knowledge is not constrained by existing within space-time, he is able to see the free actions committed by free agents. 

He wasn't innocent? Why was the boy rewarded with grace and honour then?

 

Is the narration authentic? Should it be accepted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said it before and I'll say it again...

 

"Attaining honour and Divine grace" does not equate to Paradise.

 

Yet it's still a reward you'll say, and that's because Allah does not overlook a single thing,

 

For example, when the Prophet Musa (as) was told to speak to the Pharaoh in a soft voice (as opposed to a harsh one), it was explained that the reason for this is because... despite the Pharaoh murdering infants every other year and whatever else, he allowed a baby from a river (the Prophet) to enter his house and he provided for that baby and raised that baby. Therefore, Allah does not miss a thing.

 

But as usual it'll just be disregarded or twisted. 

 

Bye now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Why are you absolving the boy of his ill intent? He was only killed because there would have otherwise been a "certain upcoming harm" caused by the boy himself toward his parents. How is it even remotely logical that the boy would be rewarded when apostasy and rebellion was the REASON for his murder in the FIRST PLACE?

 

I added a little to your comment in red. The boy was only killed to protect (and have mercy on) his parents. It is very important that you know the primary reason[reminder]. 

 

You now understand the boy was not innocent as hameedeh noted. The first 4 lines in my post #87 represented a mirror. I borrowed the style of the OP so you would have the same reaction and understanding or thought process as the ones you are addressing in this thread. Claiming the boy innocent as per OP, would be rather absurd when the facts are presented (i.e loaded gun, runs to school etc). 

 

I never absolved his ill intent. The boy acquired ill intent and it was just a matter of time for it to explode on his parents and God knows who/what else. The 'upcoming harm' could have started and developed from that very day on his way home, a week or year later. We lack details. 'Upcoming harm' in the story, consists of hardship, rebellion and disbelief for an assumed entire lifespan? Rather, we have been given valid reasons and they most likely would have been stepping stones for worse crimes, if his life continued. 

I never said the boy would be rewarded, I said the boy indirectly benefitted from it...in the long run. The boy has been "punished" to death for the 'upcoming harm', primarily to protect the parents - refer to the analogy. Gods mercy on the parents expanded to the boy and he was only accounted for intent. Had his life continued a chain of crimes would have attached to it, increasing his punishment severely. Is he being punished? We do not know what the boy did before dying. He may only have done good deeds. When good deeds outweigh the bad, God is most merciful.

 

This would add free will, predestination and how God interacts with them to the list. Reading your reply to post #2 tells us you aren't able to make a distinction as soon as God is involved. Which is another source of flaw in your understanding along with your approach to this story.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You asked "what happened to the notion of life being a test?" I responded that people are tested in accordance to what they can handle. Thereafter you respond with something that doesn't address my point? This is what you do when your objections are dealt with successfully. I would like to see you actually address my counter point, rather than change the subject

 

To your mind, of course objections have been dealt with "successfully." That's because you don't care to see another angle to the debate apart from your own. 

The problem with your response is that it isn't an actual response at all. While it could be assumed to be true that the disbelief of the boy would have been too much for the parents to cope with, not only does the assumption look utterly unreal but it begs the question why the 'test' had to come in the shape of a real boy who had to be killed before the the test (actions of the boy) could even be carried out. In this light, why did God allow the non-existent test (the potential actions of boy) to exist (the boy himself) in the first place?

 

Again, you are not responding to what I wrote but bringing up an irrelevant objection. I can answer that question, but why not respond to what I said? Changing the subject makes you look bad.

 

Do you want me to just accept your argument that, basically, the "boy would be obstinate and never improve" and leave it at that?  Are you alleging that I changed the subject because I asked a difficult, but relevant, question that you don't have an answer to? Some honesty would be appreciated here.

 

he is able to see the free actions committed by free agents. 

 

Yes. But before the actions even take place. Which is why my question is absolutely pertinent. 

 

Is the narration authentic? Should it be accepted?
 
That's for you to decide.  If the boy was swiftly sent to hell for a crime he was destined to commit but hadn't yet committed, it is reasonable to question why a merciful God even allowed him to be born while He knew that the boy would be punished.  It's not like the boy had a choice right?  It wouldn't make any sense to the kill the boy if he actually did have a choice other than what he had been destined. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said the boy would be rewarded, I said the boy indirectly benefitted from it...in the long run. The boy has been "punished" to death for the 'upcoming harm', primarily to protect the parents - refer to the analogy. Gods mercy on the parents expanded* to the boy and he was only accounted for intent. 

 

*extended

 

It should be noted here that "intended harm" is a laughably dramatised expression to use for the mere act of convincing someone to "disbelieve."  It would've been the parents' own fault for becoming convinced, not the boy's fault entirely, since the parents clearly lacked strong faith in the first instance. 

 

In any case, I believe what you're explaining is that the killing of the boy was a kind of mercy to the boy because it prevented him from committing even more crimes in the future (there is, however, no proof for this particular point). An assumption goes unchallenged here though. Why did God allow the non-existent 'test' (the potential actions of the boy) to exist (the boy himself) in the first place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be noted here that "intended harm" is a laughably dramatised expression to use for the mere act of convincing someone to "disbelieve."  It would've been the parents' own fault for becoming convinced, not the boy's fault entirely, since the parents clearly lacked strong faith in the first instance. 

 

In any case, I believe what you're explaining is that the killing of the boy was a kind of mercy to the boy because it prevented him from committing even more crimes in the future (there is, however, no proof for this particular point). An assumption goes unchallenged here though. Why did God allow the non-existent 'test' (the potential actions of the boy) to exist (the boy himself) in the first place?

 

 

Let's go by your interpretation. Overburdening and transgression translates to a mere act of convincing? He would force and oppress them into disbelief.

Since you aren't familiar with God and his attributes, I created an analogy to give you the bigger picture. If you were looking for a 'test' then the boy's death served as one.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's go by your interpretation. Overburdening and transgression translates to a mere act of convincing? He would force and oppress them into disbelief.

 

[Pickthal 18:80] And as for the lad, his parents were believers and we feared lest he should oppress them by rebellion and disbelief.
 
Actually, your interpretation turns out to be flat out wrong. I think I made the same mistake, too. The boy would oppress them with rebellion and disbelief. Not cause the parents to disbelieve. Where did you get the idea that the boy would "oppress them into disbelief?"
 

If we go by your interpretation, there would be an error in the verse itself. Oppression of an individual, whatever that may entail, doesn't necessarily lead the individual to disbelief under duress. It only involves dissimulation (taqiyah). Therefore, the verse would be wholly inaccurate if it claimed that the boy caused the believing parents to actually disbelieve.

 

Since you aren't familiar with God and his attributes, I created an analogy to give you the bigger picture. If you were looking for a 'test' then the boy's death served as one.

 

I indicated the flaw in your "bigger picture" analogy. 

 

You're not meaningfully engaging with my argument. Muhammed Ali recognises that the "test" constituted the potential actions of the boy in some future circumstance which was avoided because the parents would not have been able to "handle" it. The boy's death, per se, was not the test. So the question is why would God allow someone to be born who is predestined to be sent to hell? The test for the parents, which was the boy, wouldn't have had to be avoided if that boy didn't exist in the first place. But God chose to create him when He knew that his only destination would be hell. How does that describe merciful exactly?

 

And if you counter with "well, the boy did have a choice," I guess I'll just have to repeat myself in advance: one can only make a free decision truly if one has the chance to carry it out. The boy did not have that chance. He was killed before a choice could be made. Why? The only logical conclusion is that his destiny had been sealed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

[Pickthal 18:80] And as for the lad, his parents were believers and we feared lest he should oppress them by rebellion and disbelief.
 
Actually, your interpretation turns out to be flat out wrong. I think I made the same mistake, too. The boy would oppress them with rebellion and disbelief. Not cause the parents to disbelieve. Where did you get the idea that the boy would "oppress them into disbelief?"
 

If we go by your interpretation, there would be an error in the verse itself. Oppression of an individual, whatever that may entail, doesn't necessarily lead the individual to disbelief under duress. It only involves dissimulation (taqiyah). Therefore, the verse would be wholly inaccurate if it claimed that the boy caused the believing parents to actually disbelieve.

 

 

I indicated the flaw in your "bigger picture" analogy. 

 

You're not meaningfully engaging with my argument. Muhammed Ali recognises that the "test" constituted the potential actions of the boy in some future circumstance which was avoided because the parents would not have been able to "handle" it. The boy's death, per se, was not the test. So the question is why would God allow someone to be born who is predestined to be sent to hell? The test for the parents, which was the boy, wouldn't have had to be avoided if that boy didn't exist in the first place. 

 

And if you counter with "well, the boy did have a choice," I guess I'll just have to repeat myself in advance: one can only make a free decision truly if one has the chance to carry it out. The boy did not have that chance. He was killed before a choice could be made. Why? The only logical conclusion is that his destiny had been sealed.

 

 

I never mentioned my interpretation from the start. I gave you a parable and a realistic event as an analogy, since you barely understand God. Why do you think my first line was "Let's go by yours"? You didn't understand the sentence in your own interpretation and turned it into 'a mere act of convincing' so I pointed to the keywords. You realised and now change it. 

I should have clarified in post #95. 

 

The "flaw" in my analogy was the officer facing threat, it was undone in the next post. 

 

You said life is a test, why are you narrowing and making the boy's potential harm the test? Why are you brushing off his death as a test? It collides with your conclusion?

 

- You started the thread while misreading (perhaps influenced by the hadith)

- Your questions/conclusions changed 180 degrees from the OP. The boy was innocent and suddenly "why are you absolving him of his ill intent", refer to the analogy. "He convinced his parents to apostasy in a peaceful way" and now it's just him who is a disbeliever.

- You barely understand God's interaction with free will and predestination so you mingle everything. Your reply to Martyrdom's  post #2 illustrates this. Educate yourself on the subject first?

 

But God chose to create him when He knew that his only destination would be hell. How does that describe merciful exactly?

 

 

God is supposed to cancel the creation of a human being when their actions are going to lead them to hell? What's the point of earth and 'life being a test', judgement day, paradise and hell in the first place if we go by this logic and blame God for the free will and actions of the individual? They certainly had options and chose the ones they wanted.  God just knew about the ones they will take. He shows you mercy in one way or an other throughout your life (in our case the boy's death with the parents as the primary reason). You think their actions are predestined (to hell) by God. There lies your error. It is not predestination.

 

 

Edited by Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said life is a test, why are you narrowing and making the boy's potential harm the test? Why are you brushing off his death as a test? It collides with your conclusion?

 

Khidr did not kill the boy in order to test his parents. There is nothing in the Qur'an or narrations which suggests this at all. Khidr killed the boy to avert future trouble which would be caused by the boy. That future trouble is the test that was averted. 

 

They certainly had options and chose the ones they wanted.  

 

I'll repeat for a third time.  One can only make a choice truly if one has the chance to carry it out. The boy did not have that chance. He was killed before a choice could be made. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surah Kahf:

74. Then they both proceeded, till they met a boy, he (Khidr) killed him. Musa (Moses) said: "Have you killed an innocent person who had killed none? Verily, you have committed a thing "Nukra" (a great Munkar - prohibited, evil, dreadful thing)!"

80. "And as for the boy, his parents were believers, and we feared lest he should oppress them by rebellion and disbelief.

Khidr killed the innocent boy.

You must accept the following assumptions:

- His destiny was fixed.

- God can arbitrarily violate freewill.

- God intervened to save the parents: what happened to the notion of life being a test?

Also, God logically cannot send the boy to a peaceful abode if the rationale for killing him in the first place was that he was destined to be a rebellious apostate.

And yet...

Imam Ja’far b. Muhammad as-Sadiq (ع) describes these blessings in these words: “Allah knew that if he stayed alive, the young man would lead his parents to disbelief and he would become a source of corruption and hardship for all. Thus Khidr (ع) was commanded to finish his life so that as a result all of them (the killer, the killed, and his parents) would attain honor and Divine grace.”

Good luck with the defence.

 

I have no intention of getting dragged into a long debate, but I'll explain why this is a non-issue.

 

1.  'Murder' is unjustified killing.  Khidr's killing the boy wasnt unjustified hence it wasnt murder. 

 

2. It was justified by God's commanding it, and God commanded it because of its overall benefit for everyone.

 

3.  Life is a test but not to the same degree for everyone, and for some people perhaps not at all eg those who die in infancy.  There is nothing philosophically problematic about this.

 

4.  God can send someone to heaven if they havent committed any evil act, because they havent committed any evil act!

 

5.  Why doesnt God kill every person who will become evil in adulthood?  Many answers to this, but one is that noone has the right on God to die before they commit evil, and likewise noone has the right on God to live in order that they may commit evil.  So God is not infringing on anyones right by letting one person live and causing another to die.  If a person lives and commits evil then they are to blame because of free will.  If on the other hand they die, then that is from the grace of God 

 

6.  Another answer is that there is good in God allowing people to freely become evil.  For example, the opportunity for us to show courage patience in the face of oppression.  It is plausible that a world in which many people are left to choose their own path in life is overall better in terms of people turning to God and becoming better people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Khidr did not kill the boy in order to test his parents. There is nothing in the Qur'an or narrations which suggests this at all. Khidr killed the boy to avert future trouble which would be caused by the boy. That future trouble is the test that was averted. 

 

Who said that? Khidr killed the boy to protect the parents. Just like the officer killed the boy to protect the children in school, to prevent a bloodbath. Now the 'bloodbath' may sound overdramatized but the future trouble which was 'a' test (you keep saying 'the'), may have been too much unnecessary suffering for the parents caused by the free will of the boy. The story lacks details as I mentioned before but it would have most certainly escalated to worse. Another test was created by his death, causing his parents to grief. They could have lost faith in God among other things.

 

I'll repeat for a third time.  One can only make a choice truly if one has the chance to carry it out. The boy did not have that chance. He was killed before a choice could be made. 

 

 

So now he's back to innocent, which one is it? The boy could already have devised his plan and was just waiting for the right time to execute it. The trigger could have been that very day, the very moment Khidr took his life. 

 

I said: 

The officer ultimately prevented a future event from occuring, a future event which might or might not have occured at all. We may suggest as much as we want and point to the posibility being most likely that the boy would have effectively done it. But he never did.

 

 

Who knows? Maybe the boy was just carrying it around and never intended a bloodbath even when he told another person. That could have been a lie. This is what you're basically saying. Absurd? You judge.

 

So did the boy with the gun die an innocent death according to you or not? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said that? Khidr killed the boy to protect the parents. Just like the officer killed the boy to protect the children in school, to prevent a bloodbath. Now the 'bloodbath' may sound overdramatized but the future trouble which was 'a' test (you keep saying 'the'), may have been too much unnecessary suffering for the parents caused by the free will of the boy. The story lacks details as I mentioned before but it would have most certainly escalated to worse. Another test was created by his death, causing his parents to grief. They could have lost faith in God among other things.

 

Well, finally, you have understood that the looming rebellious apostasy (or "bloodbath" in your analogy) caused by the boy was the test that was averted for the parents. Therefore my question maintains legitimacy: why would God allow the boy to exist to begin with? If he hadn't been born, there would be no test.

 

I've highlighted your last sentence in italics because it is irrelevant and you've made it up. It also contradicts your previous stance, above.

 

 

So now he's back to innocent, which one is it? The boy could already have devised his plan and was just waiting for the right time to execute it. The trigger could have been that very day, the very moment Khidr took his life. 

 

 

Of course the boy is innocent according to the primary source I presented in the opening post. But since you reject that source, I'm discussing the situation based on the assumption that boy is guilty, which is your interpretation. In either case there is a problem.
 
- How can the boy be sent to heaven if the reason he was killed in the first place was because he would be guilty of committing oppression in some future circumstance? 
 
- How can the boy be sent to hell if he didn't get a chance to prove his guilt? It goes to reason that if his fate was not sealed then he would have been given a chance to carry out an alternative action. But since he was not given that chance, it is clearly proof that his fate was sealed, and therefore God's mercy is tainted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God can send someone to heaven if they havent committed any evil act, because they havent committed any evil act!

 

Right. But God can kill someone before they have committed any evil act for the reason that the person will commit an evil act... and then reward that person. Forgive me if I can't make sense of that.

 

One would expect a merciful God to take away the souls of all those who are also about to commit a sin that would make them worthy of hell. But it turns out that God is inconsistent with his mercy.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...