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

Did Khidr Murder A Boy?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 213
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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.

I'm really struggling to see the issue here. Musa and Khidr encountered a boy, and Khidr killed him. He later explained that his parents were believers, and he didn't want them to become oppressed by

Faulty logic! If you are seriously going to project your lack of knowledge on the Imams (as) efforts and the Quran's reliability, I don't know if it's possible to argue with you. I think the point sis

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member

Consider the Islamic point of view that humankind has been deliberately situated in a land of trial and tribulation for the purpose of testing their faith and mettle.

Now, how can one maintain simultaneously that it would have been inappropriate to allow the parents to experience trouble and to allow the boy to pursue his wayward path?

As a result of freewill being prevented from taking its natural course: the boy was killed and rewarded despite his transgressive nature, and the parents were artificially averted from a test that would have brought to light their actual level of faith and mettle.

 

What can I conclude from this sequential analysis?  That the Islamic thought behind the purpose of creation and this particular story are irreconcilable. The series of oppression and injustice in the historical records did not have to happen. Why? I point directly to a story wherein any notion of test was deliberately bleached out.

 

From day one of my initiation into understanding the Islamic perception of "purpose," I was told ad nauseam that "life is a test." But this explanation is defeated by a story that is self-defeating, in terms of its lack of consistency with the doctrine in its entirety.

 

If the boy can forcefully be saved from his own actions and be rewarded without any actual effort on his part, the religion turns into an extremely crude joke. Why? Because it puts to rest once and for all the argument that "it would be unfair for God to reward everyone without having them do anything to deserve it."

 

 

Can one, henceforth, be blamed for taking mockery of a story that contains such an embarrassing contradiction vis-à-vis the Islamic notion of purpose?

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to your logic, God can't make anyone rich, if he makes someone poor. He can't make anyone poor, if he makes one rich. He can't intervene if he doesn't intervene in all cases. If he tests someone, he has to test everyone with the same test. But such a world would be illogical.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members

I will give my try in this phenomena with only what I have in mind.

 

I think we need to really start this story right from the beginning, which is verse 60, which I believe is the key to understand this mind boggling narration, where Musa said:

 

"I will not cease [traveling] until I reach the junction of the two seas or continue for a long period."

 

This junction of two seas or a place between two seas is the destination that Musa had in mind right at the beginning, no where else.

But to go there he must cross the first sea that he come across. But where is the right place to cross? According to his understanding by that time, his theological knowledge was a dead duck, useless knowledge (just like what we are experiencing today). His other knowledges were useful such as military, construction, agriculture etc. But his theological knowledge was useless theory and rethoric. Here his advanture began.

 

If that dead fish (theological knowledge) become alive, he surely has reached the right place to cross, into a place where laws of right and wrong is not applicable, a place where the future is being written, the designer arena. I believe the "boy" was still on the drawing board, so to speak.

 

Just a thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

For struggling. Chair appears to be saying that "The series of oppression and injustice in the historical records did not have to happen.".

Despite the belief that "it would be unfair for God to reward everyone without having them do anything to deserve it.".

This idea implies that a test is necessary, but a test does not appear to be necessary based on the story.

-------------------

It isn't quite the same as saying that God cannot make a rich person if he makes a poor person because both rich and poor people (in a worldly sense) are still within the confines of a test.

--------------------

What I want to point out is that, struggling, just because you can fathom a possibility, doesn't necessarily make what you fathom, truth.

Your imagination doesn't create reality.

So, just because you can picture something in your head and say, well maybe this, maybe that, this is possible, well maybe that's the case etc., this is not a solid way of establishing truth.

Many people bend and reshape their beliefs in God, until they're able to win out in a discussion, unaware of the fact that they're redefining and recreating God in their mind, every step of the way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For struggling. Chair appears to be saying that "The series of oppression and injustice in the historical records did not have to happen.".

Despite the belief that "it would be unfair for God to reward everyone without having them do anything to deserve it.".

This idea implies that a test is necessary, but a test does not appear to be necessary based on the story.

 

To enter heaven it's not necessary to be tested with trials of this world. Houral Ayn exist in heaven and they haven't be tried with this world. The same is true of the many children that die. However, to bring about the best in us and bestow special robes of honour and high ranks, this takes testing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

To enter heaven it's not necessary to be tested with trials of this world. Houral Ayn exist in heaven and they haven't be tried with this world. The same is true of the many children that die. However, to bring about the best in us and bestow special robes of honour and high ranks, this takes testing.

 

Are you implying that people wear robes in heaven? Or is this some kind of metaphorical speech?

 

Your idea of heaven sounds like something from a movie.

 

cinema.jpg

 

And again, just because you can fathom an idea.  Doesnt make it real.

 

I can imagine a bird in the tree outside of my window.  It could very well be there. But I need more than simple hearsay to recognize that it is really there.

 

We can sit and talk about people being tested or not tested, or perhaps robes and ranks in heaven.  But, there is no possible way you could actually be aware of the existance of such a thing.

 

Even if someone wrote on a piece of paper, a compelling argument that there was a bird in the tree outside, i couldnt really know if it were there if i never saw it, or heard it or, smelled it etc.

 

Even if i saw a bird earlier in the morning flying toward the tree, to go further and to say that the bird is sitting on the third branch from the bottom, without having any actual experience in reality, with that bird, my ideas would be purely in my mind.

 

And if chair came along and made an argument for why the bird is actually on the 5th branch, me saying to chair that his argument doesnt invalidate the idea that it is on the 3rd branch, doesnt actually create the reality that it is on the 3rd branch.

Edited by iCambrian
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

This entire thread is like a debate going on within peoples minds.  Where, whoever can "imagine" more reasonable ideas, is the victor.  Independent of anyone recognizing that it is only occuring in our minds. And so long that the arguments are purely based in everyones minds, nobody will ever be able to serve a definitive blow to the other person.

 

Its like with ISIS.  You cant convince ISIS that they dont understand Islam, because youre pitting your imagination (purely in your mind) against another imagination.  Its just not enough.

 

And this post is for chair too.  I dont want to derail your thread, but your efforts are likely not going to have any impact on these people, because your argument is based in an imaginary world (inside their imaginary world), where people can twist and bend what is real.  They can transform your argument so long as they can fathom different parameters for it.  Which is exactly what theyre doing.  You think you have found a rational argument, only to find out that the goal posts have shifted, again (its not the first time). Where they redefine reality in a way in which your argument is inneffective.

 

For struggling for light, I am fine with faith, and faith based belief.  But, its important to be aware that these concepts, no matter how reasonable they may be (to you), are purely in your mind.  And even if you can imagine it being possible, this isnt justification for you defending it as truth.

Edited by iCambrian
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

To enter heaven it's not necessary to be tested with trials of this world. Houral Ayn exist in heaven and they haven't be tried with this world. The same is true of the many children that die. However, to bring about the best in us and bestow special robes of honour and high ranks, this takes testing.

 

Which prompts the following question: then why have the test to begin with? 

 

The full-breasted houris were not placed in the world to be tested, thus making these most-refined women irrelevant to your argument, and the babies who die due to negative health conditions experience a natural death; they are not wilfully terminated via divine intervention in order to prematurely terminate the test of another being; and if I am incorrect on this point I refer you back to the question above for you to answer. 

 

 

And this post is for chair too.  I dont want to derail your thread, but your efforts are likely not going to have any impact on these people, because your argument is based in an imaginary world (inside their imaginary world), where people can twist and bend what is real.  They can transform your argument so long as they can fathom different parameters for it.  Which is exactly what theyre doing.  You think you have found a rational argument, only to find out that the goal posts have shifted, again (its not the first time). Where they redefine reality in a way in which your argument is inneffective.

 

 

I don't disagree, and it's precisely because of their shifting of the goal post and facile reasoning that I can tease out the inconsistencies and make this thread a useful source for critical thinkers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Its an interesting read. Thanks Chair for keeping it going.

 

I dont have any answers, just some thoughts.

 

I think part of the issue is that we are judging Allah from a human perspective.

 

For example, there has been a lot of too and fro about free will and predestination. Do you think God experiences linear time? To Him he can see all our deeds AND potential deeds, just like paths in a forest. There is no past and future for Him.

 

With that in mind, the boys future had already happened in God's eyes, the boy had done whatever he was going to do.

 

As for the issue of justice, is it Just that Allah kills a boy who hasnt done anything wrong? If we now add in the above element about time, we can see that Allah has already witnessed the boy doing wrong.

 

lets imagine 2 scenarios

1. the boy is killed before the crime.

2. boy killed after the crime.

 

We would expect option 2. to be the most just, but consider this, if one is killed before the crime, then did they ever actually commit it? In God's eyes, yes, as He knows that what his future would have been, but in our eyes, no.

 

So killing before the crime, then leaves us with the issue of punishment / reward. Eg is this a punishment or reward from God and why did the boy end up (apparently) in heaven?

 

In this situation it appears God is not punishing the boy, but being merciful to the parents,from my understanding a punishment could only be when you have witnessed your own deeds. From the Boy's perspective he is not being punished, but rather his life has ended and now he has gone to heaven. From the Parents perspective, their son has tragically died and because of their faith, they remain patient and are given another child and avoid the challenge of the first child.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

In this situation it appears God is not punishing the boy, but being merciful to the parents,from my understanding a punishment could only be when you have witnessed your own deeds. From the Boy's perspective he is not being punished, but rather his life has ended and now he has gone to heaven. From the Parents perspective, their son has tragically died and because of their faith, they remain patient and are given another child and avoid the challenge of the first child.

 

That certainly sounds uncontroversial at first, but it still fails to explain why the parents couldn't have faced the challenge the boy would have thrown at their feet. That would have genuinely tested their faith; there is no reason why the murder of their child would have shaken their belief, so it can't conceivably be considered a real test of one's faith. 

 

Consider, too, how the parents unnaturally avoided the test and how the boy was unnaturally saved from his own actions that would otherwise have made him deserving of chastisement. In both cases, I cannot help but see a clearly unfair advantage that is not usually granted to the rest of humankind. Why?

 

Moreover, it arguably doesn't exactly put across a palatable message. If you were to offer the hypothesis to a grieving parent that the murder of her child may have been part of a greater plan, so as to console her, not only would it come across as deeply offensive but you would also inadvertently be absolving the murderer if your hypothesis were true that the murder, per se, actually was part of a greater plan. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Moreover, it arguably doesn't exactly put across a palatable message. If you were to offer the hypothesis to a grieving parent that the murder of her child may have been part of a greater plan, so as to console her, not only would it come across as deeply offensive but you would also inadvertently be absolving the murderer if your hypothesis were true that the murder, per se, actually was part of a greater plan. 

 

 

This sounds like a dangerous mentality to have ^.  This idea that its potentially ok for someone to be murdered, given that the murderer may believe that this is what God wants.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

 

 

That certainly sounds uncontroversial at first, but it still fails to explain why the parents couldn't have faced the challenge the boy would have thrown at their feet. That would have genuinely tested their faith; there is no reason why the murder of their child would have shaken their belief, so it can't conceivably be considered a real test of one's faith. 

 

Consider, too, how the parents unnaturally avoided the test and how the boy was unnaturally saved from his own actions that would otherwise have made him deserving of chastisement. In both cases, I cannot help but see a clearly unfair advantage that is not usually granted to the rest of humankind. Why?

 

Moreover, it arguably doesn't exactly put across a palatable message. If you were to offer the hypothesis to a grieving parent that the murder of her child may have been part of a greater plan, so as to console her, not only would it come across as deeply offensive but you would also inadvertently be absolving the murderer if your hypothesis were true that the murder, per se, actually was part of a greater plan. 

 

 

 

Effectively your point is if an exception is made in this case, why is it not made in other cases. Eg why do some parents have to suffer bad kids etc. and why did the child avoid the test all together. Perhaps every faithful person has this mercy of God throughout their lives.

 

As for the nature of the killing, we dont know what happened and if Khider is even a man, some have said it actually refers to nature ( eg green) and the death could have been a virus and the ships damaged the wind etc.

 

Like I said, to us they avoided the challenge, but to God, He saw both timelines, so to Him, they faced it and deserved mercy. In an alternate timeline, they did face the challenge. 

 

Im not saying I have any answers, im not even sure we can reach any answers, I mean we are effectively trying to measure Allah in terms of justice, which seems to be impossible.

 

 

This sounds like a dangerous mentality to have ^.  This idea that its potentially ok for someone to be murdered, given that the murderer may believe that this is what God wants.

 

Thats not what is being said at all. 

 

Lets go back a step, what is wrong with killing?

 

We cant answer that unless we know the context, eg if i kill a random person for no reason, that is morally disgusting. If however someone attacks me and in the process of defending myself the only way to defend myself results in the attackers death, then this is seemed as morally fine. 

 

So context is key in morality. For example, in this case, we do not know the context, perhaps that boy would have killed hundreds or thousands, would it be morally better to kill him?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
 

It is so predictable when believers pretend they know how God operates & under what parameters...

until they reach a point where it would appear that God  is either hateful, unfair or paradoxical,

and then it's back to "We are mere humans, and the created cannot understand the creator."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

 

 
It is so predictable when believers pretend they know how God operates & under what parameters...
until they reach a point where it would appear that God  is either hateful, unfair or paradoxical,
and then it's back to "We are mere humans, and the created cannot understand the creator."

 

 

So by this are you claiming you know how God operates and under what parameters?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

So by this are you claiming you know how God operates and under what parameters?

 

 
I am claiming that YOU don't know anything about God and yet you make concrete statements about Him.
 
You stated:
Do you think God experiences linear time? To Him he can see all our deeds AND potential deeds, just like paths in a forest. There is no past and future for Him.
 
With that in mind, the boys future had already happened in God's eyes, the boy had done whatever he was going to do.
 
I mean we are effectively trying to measure Allah in terms of justice, which seems to be impossible.
 
How do you know that?
 
Everything you know about "God" is hearsay, something someone else told you. 
 
Other people claim that God talked directly to them and they told you what God said to them so you'd know how to act,
but never once in your entire life has God ever actually spoken  directly to you.
 
Omar Khayyám:
 
Allah, perchance, the secret word might spell;
If Allah be, He keeps His secret well;
What He hath hidden, who shall hope to find?
Shall God His secret to a maggot tell?
 
And do you think that unto such as you,
A biggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew,
God gave the secret, and denied it me?—
Well, well, what matters it!.. believe that too
:)
 
wslm.
*
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Its an interesting read. Thanks Chair for keeping it going.

 

I dont have any answers, just some thoughts.

 

I think part of the issue is that we are judging Allah from a human perspective.

 

For example, there has been a lot of too and fro about free will and predestination. Do you think God experiences linear time? To Him he can see all our deeds AND potential deeds, just like paths in a forest. There is no past and future for Him.

 

With that in mind, the boys future had already happened in God's eyes, the boy had done whatever he was going to do.

 

As for the issue of justice, is it Just that Allah kills a boy who hasnt done anything wrong? If we now add in the above element about time, we can see that Allah has already witnessed the boy doing wrong.

 

lets imagine 2 scenarios

1. the boy is killed before the crime.

2. boy killed after the crime.

 

We would expect option 2. to be the most just, but consider this, if one is killed before the crime, then did they ever actually commit it? In God's eyes, yes, as He knows that what his future would have been, but in our eyes, no.

 

So killing before the crime, then leaves us with the issue of punishment / reward. Eg is this a punishment or reward from God and why did the boy end up (apparently) in heaven?

 

In this situation it appears God is not punishing the boy, but being merciful to the parents,from my understanding a punishment could only be when you have witnessed your own deeds. From the Boy's perspective he is not being punished, but rather his life has ended and now he has gone to heaven. From the Parents perspective, their son has tragically died and because of their faith, they remain patient and are given another child and avoid the challenge of the first child.

 

It would have saved a whole lot of trouble if the boy wasn't born in the first place based on your argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

 

 
I am claiming that YOU don't know anything about God and yet you make concrete statements about Him.
 
You stated:
Do you think God experiences linear time? To Him he can see all our deeds AND potential deeds, just like paths in a forest. There is no past and future for Him.
 
With that in mind, the boys future had already happened in God's eyes, the boy had done whatever he was going to do.
 
I mean we are effectively trying to measure Allah in terms of justice, which seems to be impossible.
 
How do you know that?
 
Everything you know about "God" is hearsay, something someone else told you. 
 
Other people claim that God talked directly to them and they told you what God said to them so you'd know how to act,
but never once in your entire life has God ever actually spoken  directly to you.
 
Omar Khayyám:
 
Allah, perchance, the secret word might spell;
If Allah be, He keeps His secret well;
What He hath hidden, who shall hope to find?
Shall God His secret to a maggot tell?
 
And do you think that unto such as you,
A biggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew,
God gave the secret, and denied it me?—
Well, well, what matters it!.. believe that too
:)
 
wslm.
*

 

 

 

We know Allah has knowledge of everything, so there is nothing that "happens" to Allah, eg He does not experience "new" events. Hence He does not experience linear time like we do. 

 

Or do you deny this? Your attitude seems to suggest you know something we dont and yet your too arogant to share, please come down from your throne and share your opinions with us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Like I said, to us they avoided the challenge, but to God, He saw both timelines, so to Him, they faced it and deserved mercy. In an alternate timeline, they did face the challenge. 

 

This is incorrect. What God foresaw did not come to be due to the preemptive intervention.  But the ultimate end result of the intervention reveals a problem: if it's merciful to stop the entire game in its tracks and reward the boy to remove the test, it puts into question the entire purpose of existence.  What made the boy so special for him to deserve such an evidently asymmetric advantage? 

 

So context is key in morality. For example, in this case, we do not know the context, perhaps that boy would have killed hundreds or thousands, would it be morally better to kill him?

 

That isn't true.  The boy was killed to save his parents from a certain, but unknown, hardship.  To extrapolate beyond that is to engage in guesswork.

But let's assume that it was morally sound to kill him for the reason you've given.  It makes little sense to subdue one potential oppressor through divine intervention and not the rest.  I find no logic or purpose in such an approach at all.  Why is it that when a tragedy occurs by means of human intervention that there is always a theological reason provided for why it could not be divinely subdued, but not in this case?  Do you not find that the least bit curious, let alone inconsistent?

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to your Logic, because God did got Mariam (sister of Harun) to check up on Moses for his mother's sake,  it makes no sense because this place is a trial and he should try Moses' mother with more pressure. Any intervention to put ease on a heart makes no sense because this place is a trial.

 

I have no idea why you think such logic is sound.

 

God tests with both ease and hardship, favours and affliction, tests us to be grateful or patient. In this case, he rather have tried them with the death of their son, then risk them grief due to disbelief of their son and rebellion which God knew was highly probable.

 

I don't know why my soul was born in a body with schizophrenia being so likely or almost inevitable, but obviously, because I was given such a body, it doesn't mean most of humanity ought to be. Perhaps one of the favors is that I get more unseen experiences due to the fact God can try me with believing whether it's my illness or real. It also perhaps one of the hidden purposes by which I can get ilham (inspiration) regarding Quranic verses but it not being such an easy way of tranquillity given that I know I am ill...

 

Now because God may try me with that for a special favour with an affliction that is hard to bear and live with, does it make sense all humanity ought to be schizophrenic for the same reason?

 

Obviously if God is going to kill everyone who he thinks can cause other people intense grief, there will be a huge problems.

 

Obviously if God is going to give everyone schizophrenia, the world will be with huge problems.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

According to your Logic, because God did got Mariam (sister of Harun) to check up on Moses for his mother's sake,  it makes no sense because this place is a trial and he should try Moses' mother with more pressure. Any intervention to put ease on a heart makes no sense because this place is a trial.

 

I have no idea why you think such logic is sound.

 

I don't think it's logically sound, neither do I consider it analogous.  I haven't argued that one ought to be wilfully mindless or unmindful of reality by virtue of the fact that life is a trial.  When the sister of Moses followed him up the river bank at the behest of her mother, not only was she obeying her mother but also her observation served as a way to ensure that Moses had a safe departure (because destiny is not fixed, right?).  The obvious difference is that Miriam was not removing a trial by divinely shaping a specific outcome; thus, it is not comparable. 

 

God tests with both ease and hardship, favours and affliction, tests us to be grateful or patient. In this case, he rather have tried them with the death of their son, then risk them grief due to disbelief of their son and rebellion which God knew was highly probable.

 

But God determined the murder of their son for a specific reason.  Why would God randomly intervene to save a boy from his own actions in order to save the parents from the actions of the boy?  Why would God cancel the entire purpose of existence to demonstrate that there is a greater wisdom to the way he sometimes operates?  It's at complete odds with common sense.  The exception to the rule in this case inadvertently illustrates that God doesn't need to chastise anyone if he can engage in premeditated "save your soul" missions.  

 

Again, I must ask, why did this boy receive special treatment?  

 

Now because God may try me with that for a special favour with an affliction that is hard to bear and live with, does it make sense all humanity ought to be schizophrenic for the same reason?
 
This is simply a bad analogy.  A schizophrenic has a natural mental health condition, which is unlike a boy who has been saved by divine intervention from his own future misdeeds.  I naturally expect the latter favour to apply to the rest of humanity.  Why not?
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

According to your Logic, because God did got Mariam (sister of Harun) to check up on Moses for his mother's sake,  it makes no sense because this place is a trial and he should try Moses' mother with more pressure. Any intervention to put ease on a heart makes no sense because this place is a trial.

 

I have no idea why you think such logic is sound.

 

 

 

I don't think it's logically sound, neither do I consider it analogous.  I haven't argued that one ought to be wilfully mindless or unmindful of reality by virtue of the fact that life is a trial.  When the sister of Moses followed him up the riverbank at the behest of her mother, not only was she obeying her mother but also her observation served as a way to ensure that Moses had a safe departure (because destiny is not fixed, right?).  The obvious difference is that Miriam was not removing a trial by divinely shaping a specific outcome; thus, it is not comparable. 

 

God tests with both ease and hardship, favours and affliction, tests us to be grateful or patient. In this case, he rather have tried them with the death of their son, then risk them grief due to disbelief of their son and rebellion which God knew was highly probable.

 

But God determined the murder of their son for a specific reason.  Why would God randomly intervene to save a boy from his own actions in order to save the parents from the actions of the boy? In other words, why would God cancel the entire purpose of existence to demonstrate that there is a greater wisdom to the way he sometimes operates? It's at complete odds with common sense.  The exception to the rule in this case inadvertently illustrates that God doesn't need to chastise anyone if he can just as well engage in premeditated "save your soul" missions.  

 

Now because God may try me with that for a special favour with an affliction that is hard to bear and live with, does it make sense all humanity ought to be schizophrenic for the same reason?

 

This is simply a bad analogy.  A schizophrenic has a natural mental health condition, which is unlike a boy who has been saved by divine intervention from his own future misdeeds.  I naturally expect the latter favour to apply to the rest of humanity.  Why not?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

This is incorrect. What God foresaw did not come to be due to the preemptive intervention.  But the ultimate end result of the intervention reveals a problem: if it's merciful to stop the entire game in its tracks and reward the boy to remove the test, it puts into question the entire purpose of existence.  What made the boy so special for him to deserve such an evidently asymmetric advantage? 

 

 

That isn't true.  The boy was killed to save his parents from a certain, but unknown, hardship.  To extrapolate beyond that is to engage in guesswork.

But let's assume that it was morally sound to kill him for the reason you've given.  It makes little sense to subdue one potential oppressor through divine intervention and not the rest.  I find no logic or purpose in such an approach at all.  Why is it that when a tragedy occurs by means of human intervention that there is always a theological reason provided for why it could not be divinely subdued, but not in this case?  Do you not find that the least bit curious, let alone inconsistent?

 

I disagree.

 

As for the first point, Allah saw the boys actions, the boy lived and did whatever bad things he was going to do. It happened. Then Allah decided to change things such that it wont happen in this timeline.

 

Your second point is essentially, if Allah has the power, why doesnt he use it all the time etc This issue of divine justice is age old and best described by Epicurus as follows:

 

 

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?”

Essentially, there is justice, just because it is not instant doesnt mean it does not exist or wont happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I disagree.

 

As for the first point, Allah saw the boys actions, the boy lived and did whatever bad things he was going to do. It happened. Then Allah decided to change things such that it wont happen in this timeline.

 

In this abstract alternative timeline that exists only in the mind of God, you maintain that the parents faced the challenge and thus became worthy of mercy.  But the assumption in this narrative is not consistent when it comes to the actions of the boy. Shouldn't the boy have become worthy of chastisement given that he provoked the challenge to begin with?

 

Your second point is essentially, if Allah has the power, why doesnt he use it all the time etc This issue of divine justice is age old and best described by Epicurus as follows:

 

 

This is a miscomprehension of my actual argument.  The point is rather simple: given that God rooted out the consequences of the scenario by having the boy killed and subsequently rewarded, God effectively rewarded the boy a heavenly abode in the absence of a prerequisite test.  So my argument is: this exception to the rule implicitly indicates that the rule, per se, is inherently unfair since the exception proved that the rule needn't exist in the first place.  Which is the reason why I followed up with the pertinent question: what made the boy so special for him to deserve such an asymmetric advantage vis-à-vis the rest of humanity?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
  • Advanced Member

3:178  "And let not the disbelievers think that Our postponing of their punishment is good for them. We postpone the punishment only so that they may increase in sinfulness. And for them is a disgracing torment."

Why did God choose not to grant privilege to the disbelievers the way it was granted to the boy? What is the reason for the inconsistent treatment?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 years later...
  • Advanced Member
On 12/24/2014 at 12:19 PM, Ibn Al-Shahid said:

You did consciously make a choice. You just don't remember it.

You consciously made a choice when you were 2, 3, 4, 5 years old, but you don't remember them. Does that mean it never happened?

I was reading this thread and found this point to be interesting.

What if I made a choice then that resulted in irreversible consequences?

How much morality is one expected to know intuitively prior to age seven?

How much is to be taught?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Psychological Warfare

Fyi, read in proper context 

-----------------------------------

فَوَجَدَا عَبْدًا مِنْ عِبَادِنَا آتَيْنَاهُ رَحْمَةً مِنْ عِنْدِنَا وَعَلَّمْنَاهُ مِنْ لَدُنَّا عِلْمًا {65}

[Pickthal 18:65] Then found they one of Our slaves, unto whom We had given mercy from Us, and had taught him knowledge from Our presence.

قَالَ لَهُ مُوسَىٰ هَلْ أَتَّبِعُكَ عَلَىٰ أَنْ تُعَلِّمَنِ مِمَّا عُلِّمْتَ رُشْدًا {66}

[Pickthal 18:66] Moses said unto him: May I follow thee, to the end that thou mayst teach me right conduct of that which thou hast been taught?

قَالَ إِنَّكَ لَنْ تَسْتَطِيعَ مَعِيَ صَبْرًا {67}

[Pickthal 18:67] He said: Lo! thou canst not bear with me.

وَكَيْفَ تَصْبِرُ عَلَىٰ مَا لَمْ تُحِطْ بِهِ خُبْرًا {68}

[Pickthal 18:68] How canst thou bear with that whereof thou canst not compass any knowledge?

قَالَ سَتَجِدُنِي إِنْ شَاءَ اللَّهُ صَابِرًا وَلَا أَعْصِي لَكَ أَمْرًا {69}

[Pickthal 18:69] He said: Allah willing, thou shalt find me patient and I shall not in aught gainsay thee.

قَالَ فَإِنِ اتَّبَعْتَنِي فَلَا تَسْأَلْنِي عَنْ شَيْءٍ حَتَّىٰ أُحْدِثَ لَكَ مِنْهُ ذِكْرًا {70}

[Pickthal 18:70] He said: Well, if thou go with me, ask me not concerning aught till I myself make mention of it unto thee.

فَانْطَلَقَا حَتَّىٰ إِذَا رَكِبَا فِي السَّفِينَةِ خَرَقَهَا ۖ قَالَ أَخَرَقْتَهَا لِتُغْرِقَ أَهْلَهَا لَقَدْ جِئْتَ شَيْئًا إِمْرًا {71}

[Pickthal 18:71] So they twain set out till, when they were in the ship, he made a hole therein. (Moses) said: Hast thou made a hole therein to drown the folk thereof? Thou verily hast done a dreadful thing.

قَالَ أَلَمْ أَقُلْ إِنَّكَ لَنْ تَسْتَطِيعَ مَعِيَ صَبْرًا {72}

[Pickthal 18:72] He said: Did I not tell thee that thou couldst not bear with me?

قَالَ لَا تُؤَاخِذْنِي بِمَا نَسِيتُ وَلَا تُرْهِقْنِي مِنْ أَمْرِي عُسْرًا {73}

[Pickthal 18:73] (Moses) said: Be not wroth with me that I forgot, and be not hard upon me for my fault.

فَانْطَلَقَا حَتَّىٰ إِذَا لَقِيَا غُلَامًا فَقَتَلَهُ قَالَ أَقَتَلْتَ نَفْسًا زَكِيَّةً بِغَيْرِ نَفْسٍ لَقَدْ جِئْتَ شَيْئًا نُكْرًا {74}

[Pickthal 18:74] So they twain journeyed on till, when they met a lad, he slew him. (Moses) said: What! Hast thou slain an innocent soul who hath slain no man? Verily thou hast done a horrid thing.

قَالَ أَلَمْ أَقُلْ لَكَ إِنَّكَ لَنْ تَسْتَطِيعَ مَعِيَ صَبْرًا {75}

[Pickthal 18:75] He said: Did I not tell thee that thou couldst not bear with me?

قَالَ إِنْ سَأَلْتُكَ عَنْ شَيْءٍ بَعْدَهَا فَلَا تُصَاحِبْنِي ۖ قَدْ بَلَغْتَ مِنْ لَدُنِّي عُذْرًا {76}

[Pickthal 18:76] (Moses) said: If I ask thee after this concerning aught, keep not company with me. Thou hast received an excuse from me.

فَانْطَلَقَا حَتَّىٰ إِذَا أَتَيَا أَهْلَ قَرْيَةٍ اسْتَطْعَمَا أَهْلَهَا فَأَبَوْا أَنْ يُضَيِّفُوهُمَا فَوَجَدَا فِيهَا جِدَارًا يُرِيدُ أَنْ يَنْقَضَّ فَأَقَامَهُ ۖ قَالَ لَوْ شِئْتَ لَاتَّخَذْتَ عَلَيْهِ أَجْرًا {77}

[Pickthal 18:77] So they twain journeyed on till, when they came unto the folk of a certain township, they asked its folk for food, but they refused to make them guests. And they found therein a wall upon the point of falling into ruin, and he repaired it. (Moses) said: If thou hadst wished, thou couldst have taken payment for it.

قَالَ هَٰذَا فِرَاقُ بَيْنِي وَبَيْنِكَ ۚ سَأُنَبِّئُكَ بِتَأْوِيلِ مَا لَمْ تَسْتَطِعْ عَلَيْهِ صَبْرًا {78}

[Pickthal 18:78] He said: This is the parting between thee and me! I will announce unto thee the interpretation of that thou couldst not bear with patience.

أَمَّا السَّفِينَةُ فَكَانَتْ لِمَسَاكِينَ يَعْمَلُونَ فِي الْبَحْرِ فَأَرَدْتُ أَنْ أَعِيبَهَا وَكَانَ وَرَاءَهُمْ مَلِكٌ يَأْخُذُ كُلَّ سَفِينَةٍ غَصْبًا {79}

[Pickthal 18:79] As for the ship, it belonged to poor people working on the river, and I wished to mar it, for there was a king behind them who is taking every ship by force.

وَأَمَّا الْغُلَامُ فَكَانَ أَبَوَاهُ مُؤْمِنَيْنِ فَخَشِينَا أَنْ يُرْهِقَهُمَا طُغْيَانًا وَكُفْرًا {80}

[Pickthal 18:80] And as for the lad, his parents were believers and we feared lest he should oppress them by rebellion and disbelief.

فَأَرَدْنَا أَنْ يُبْدِلَهُمَا رَبُّهُمَا خَيْرًا مِنْهُ زَكَاةً وَأَقْرَبَ رُحْمًا {81}

[Pickthal 18:81] And we intended that their Lord should change him for them for one better in purity and nearer to mercy.

وَأَمَّا الْجِدَارُ فَكَانَ لِغُلَامَيْنِ يَتِيمَيْنِ فِي الْمَدِينَةِ وَكَانَ تَحْتَهُ كَنْزٌ لَهُمَا وَكَانَ أَبُوهُمَا صَالِحًا فَأَرَادَ رَبُّكَ أَنْ يَبْلُغَا أَشُدَّهُمَا وَيَسْتَخْرِجَا كَنْزَهُمَا رَحْمَةً مِنْ رَبِّكَ ۚ وَمَا فَعَلْتُهُ عَنْ أَمْرِي ۚ ذَٰلِكَ تَأْوِيلُ مَا لَمْ تَسْطِعْ عَلَيْهِ صَبْرًا {82}

[Pickthal 18:82] And as for the wall, it belonged to two orphan boys in the city, and there was beneath it a treasure belonging to them, and their father had been righteous, and thy Lord intended that they should come to their full strength and should bring forth their treasure as a mercy from their Lord; and I did it not upon my own command. Such is the interpretation of that wherewith thou couldst not bear.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2015 at 6:26 PM, Chair Pundit said:

Why did God choose not to grant privilege to the disbelievers the way it was granted to the boy? What is the reason for the inconsistent treatment?

Did God not grant disbelievers privilege to live in this world and live a good life and what good they do will be multiplied in hereafter ? So, do you think that this is lesser privilege ?

As far the boy, God is creator of our lives, and whether he gives us lives or whether he takes it away, it is solely given by him, you and we are not creators of ourselves. So, Prophet Khizr (عليه السلام) did not slew him in the way most of the critics of this verse suggest, he prayed for his swift death, because Prophets are sent as mercy. And, in this there is lesson for the believers, that if you have patience about what you have lost, you will have good reward in this world and hereafter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest YusufiZahra

The question we should be asking here is if khidr did not kill that child would the child have died or lived at the moment of his killing? 

Qur'an clearly says that for every person is written and exact time and place for his death meaning your death is predestined before you even came to life and that nobody can neither postpone it nor accelerate it

Just because the medium for that Child's death was khidr doesn't mean that khidr was the cause of the time of his death, God choose the time of that kids end to be that moment according to the Qur'an and if khidr hadn't been the medium the child still would have died 

I feel personally the point of this verse was not about death but rather a declaration of ilm ul ghayb and khidrs state being a special action of force of God's control over life and death but instead many people forget the other verse I cross referenced namely that time of death is predestined and khidr was just a demonstration to musa of one of the forces of God a special favour given to khidr to carry out such high level commands 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member
On 12/3/2014 at 8:12 AM, Chair Pundit said:

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.

Every atom in this universe exists not by its own right (or because it deserves to exist), but only by the mercy of God.  It is not by His Justice that everything exists, but solely by His Loving-Mercy.  This is because Divine Justice demands that no one has the right to BE except for God’s Absolute Being.  So, no matter what happens in existence, by just the mere fact that it exists, it is nothing but God’s display of His Loving-Mercy.  We don’t “believe” in God’s mercy only when we think that things are “going well”, and nor do we stop “believing” in God’s mercy when we think that things are “not going well”, (for these are all judgements of the separative ego) but rather “WE KNOW” that God is eternally merciful, and we know this through our Spirit).  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 12/3/2014 at 7:12 PM, Chair Pundit said:

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.

Surah Al-Kahf, Verse 81:
فَأَرَدْنَا أَن يُبْدِلَهُمَا رَبُّهُمَا خَيْرًا مِّنْهُ زَكَاةً وَأَقْرَبَ رُحْمًا

So we desired that their Lord might give them in his place one better than him in purity and nearer to having compassion.
(English - Shakir)

Your question would require a detailed discussion, for which I don't have time at the moment. And I am totally convinced with the hadith you have quoted in your post.

Just referring you a verse to elaborate the highlighted word of the above verse in which Khidr (عليه السلام) mentioning the ta'veel of this incident. The main point of attention here should be that

a)the parents of that kid were mo'mineen (18:80) 

b) Allah does not impose guidance on anyone. So if anyone identified as a disbeliever or evil person according to divine knowledge, he would not except guidance or cannot change himself until or unless imposed. Now the following verse mentioning a divine promise:

Surah Al-Furqan, Verse 70:
إِلَّا مَن تَابَ وَآمَنَ وَعَمِلَ عَمَلًا صَالِحًا فَأُولَٰئِكَ يُبَدِّلُ اللَّهُ سَيِّئَاتِهِمْ حَسَنَاتٍ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ غَفُورًا رَّحِيمًا

Except him who repents and believes and does a good deed; so these are they of whom Allah changes the evil deeds to good ones; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
(English - Shakir)

May be some other time I will try to write more on this subject. 

Wallaho A'lam.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member
On 12/3/2014 at 7:42 PM, Chair Pundit said:

Khidr killed the innocent boy

- His destiny was fixed.

 

-Yes his (boy) destiny was fixed. 

On 12/3/2014 at 7:42 PM, Chair Pundit said:

God can arbitrarily violate freewill.

There is no free will.

 

On 12/3/2014 at 7:42 PM, Chair Pundit said:

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

Sure life is a test but of other kind. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2015 at 7:59 PM, Chair Pundit said:

Consider the Islamic point of view that humankind has been deliberately situated in a land of trial and tribulation for the purpose of testing their faith and mettle.

Now, how can one maintain simultaneously that it would have been inappropriate to allow the parents to experience trouble and to allow the boy to pursue his wayward path?

As a result of freewill being prevented from taking its natural course: the boy was killed and rewarded despite his transgressive nature, and the parents were artificially averted from a test that would have brought to light their actual level of faith and mettle.

 

What can I conclude from this sequential analysis?  That the Islamic thought behind the purpose of creation and this particular story are irreconcilable. The series of oppression and injustice in the historical records did not have to happen. Why? I point directly to a story wherein any notion of test was deliberately bleached out.

 

From day one of my initiation into understanding the Islamic perception of "purpose," I was told ad nauseam that "life is a test." But this explanation is defeated by a story that is self-defeating, in terms of its lack of consistency with the doctrine in its entirety.

 

If the boy can forcefully be saved from his own actions and be rewarded without any actual effort on his part, the religion turns into an extremely crude joke. Why? Because it puts to rest once and for all the argument that "it would be unfair for God to reward everyone without having them do anything to deserve it."

 

 

Can one, henceforth, be blamed for taking mockery of a story that contains such an embarrassing contradiction vis-à-vis the Islamic notion of purpose?

In my opinion, you are taking a wrong course. Now, you agree that we are here for test and test is where we are tested with hardship but reward is pleasant. 

The parents lost the child saw the hardship and were rewarded with even better. 

The parents were tested so was the child, the child got heaven and parents got a better one than previous. 

Where does this seems against any of the Islamic teachings. 

 

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...