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
Logic1234

Claim: Only Allah is infallible

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

:bismillah:

Recently, While I was discussing significance of hadith on another thread with few brothers, I come to know strange claim where a brother said he believe that only Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is infallible. 

Is this assertion correct? What is meant by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is infallible while He Himself is Al-Asim? If anyone claims that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is "Ma'soom", who is His Asim then? 

Let the discussions began!
 

Edited by Logic1234

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another strange argument comes from the question, in which one ask "Do you believe God can do everything? (innAllaha ala kulle shayin qadeer)", obviously we believe in it and we say yes. Then the person say therefore, He can speak lies, He can do anything, He can err, He can forget, even He can sin because there is no one who can stop Him. 

I am making a separate thread for this one.

Edited by Logic1234

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:salam:

Fallibility of creatures (be it physical or spiritual) is a mercy from the Creator, for they can benefit from His Mercy.

A hungry creature who finds its rizq provided by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is a Mercy. An physically infallible creature would not benefit from such a relationship with its creator.

A sinner who repents and gets forgiven by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), or a pious person in the state of humility also enters His mercy.

All creatures need this fallibility to some extent, even those we consider as infallible as Prophets or Imams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, realizm said:

Fallibility of creatures (be it physical or spiritual) is a mercy from the Creator, for they can benefit from His Mercy.

You mean all the creatures are unprotected? 
Are you arguing that mankind is fallible by nature? And this is the divine mercy because of which we are fallible? 
 

Quote

 A human who is born blind is incapable of having a lustful look simply because he lacks the ability (in this case, eyesight) to do so.

Being incapable of committing this sin makes the blind person infallible in this regard, but not Ma’soum, as they have no discretion or choice in the matter. Similarly, an infant is incapable of committing adultery because his potency is not yet developed. Incapacity in this sense is not a virtue. An infant is not worthy of praise for its chastity. We only admire the one who, although was capable of indulging in the sin, was able to control and protect himself against it.
https://www.al-Islam.org/articles/infallibility-shaykh-mansour-leghaei

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

Musa -(عليه السلام). 's response to Pharaoh Ayat 20:52.

Perhaps the verse says "My Lord errs not nor he forgets". 

What would you have to say when they respond you by a clear "NO", Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) can forget if He wills to, and present before you another verse which says "they forgot Allah, so Allah has forgotten them" (9:67). 

Edited by Logic1234
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Logic1234 said:

you by a clear "NO", Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) can forget if He wills to,

A speculative assertion (and a sin).

"Forget" in this context implies 'ignore'. Note that every use of the triliteral root is rendered 'forget' in Qur'an.

Ayats 32:13-14 illustrate this.

Some of the same is in Ayats 7:31 and 45:32.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

A speculative assertion (and a sin).

"Forget" in this context implies 'ignore'. Note that every use of the triliteral root is rendered 'forget' in Qur'an.

Ayats 32:13-14 illustrate this.

Some of the same is in Ayats 7:31 and 45:32.

 

Well said. MaSha Allah!!

So Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) indeed forgets not, and what Musa (عليه السلام) said is correct indeed. نَسُوا can also mean to ignore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hasanhh said:

The person whom you quoted assertion is Quranically correct/consistent.

Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) err not nor He forgets, how is this related to the claim that He is "protected" from doing any sin (Ma'soom). He is Al-Asim Himself. If He is Ma'soom who can be His Asim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Logic1234 said:

Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) err not nor He forgets, how is this related to the claim that He is "protected" from doing any sin (Ma'soom). He is Al-Asim Himself. If He is Ma'soom who can be His Asim?

Why the tricky phrasing.

Allah -(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). says "what is just and fitting", and as such, He -(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). says/defines what is a sin. Example, promiscuity is a sin for Man but not for the other creations.

"who can be ___ Asim?"  This is Shirk-al-Akbar because this a partnering with Allah-(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hasanhh said:

Why the tricky phrasing.

Al-Asim is one of Allah's name. 

 

2 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

Allah -(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). says "what is just and fitting", and as such, He -(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). says/defines what is a sin.

This means that the term 'infallibility" cannot be applied on Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)
Or can you call Him Ma'soom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Logic1234 said:

:bismillah:

Recently, While I was discussing significance of hadith on another thread with few brothers, I come to know strange claim where a brother said he believe that only Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is infallible. 

Is this assertion correct? What is meant by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is infallible while He Himself is Al-Asim? If anyone claims that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is "Ma'soom", who is His Asim then? 

Let the discussions began!
 

Salam,

From a theological point of view:

It is not “logically impossible” for there to be an individual that throughout his or her life does “the right action”.  If this is what we mean my Ma’sum then it is possible for individuals to be Masum!

God doesn’t do “right actions”, and so there is no contradiction here (at least in this respect).

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

But the contradiction arises when we consider what “constitutes right action”.  From the point of view of Ma’rifa, right and wrong action are only at the level of convention and Shariah.  Shariah implies that there is an individual or person (because the shariah addresses someone or something and instructs the person to do or not to do).  From the point of view of Ma’rifa another perspective is also considered, and this perspective is about knowing your real Self as God and not as an individual or a person.  From this point of view, to be a Ma’sum is essentially about Knowing Thy Self.  The Prophet (S) and the Aimmah (عليه السلام) are not really individuals, because there is only One Absolute Self, no other selves truly exist except as an illusion.  From this point of view, individuals appear to have free will but are not really free/ in fact just as the entire individual is illusory so also is his or her free will!  Only God (your real Self) is truly and essentially Free. And for God to be Free this means that God is free of action or free of doing!  Now, it is IMPOSSiBLE, from this ma’rifi perspective for any person to be Infallible because there are no persons!!! There is only a God and God is not a person, God is Absolute Reality.  

 

 

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


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

From the point of view of Ma’rifa another perspective is also considered, and this perspective is about knowing your real Self as God and not as an individual or a person.  From this point of view, to be a Ma’sum is essentially about Knowing Thy Self.  The Prophet (S) and the Aimmah (عليه السلام) are not really individuals, because there is only One Absolute Self, no other selves truly exist except as an illusion.

Salam brother!

"Man A'rafa nafsah, faqad a'rafa Rabbah"

(One who recognized his self, recognized his Rabb). 

Can you please elaborate this point "knowing your real self as God"? 

In the above hadith, I don't see anything which directs us to recognize our real self as God. 

As you know there are different categories/states of "nafs" mentioned in Qur'an namely, Ammara, Lawwama & Mutma'innah, how can one knows it as God? 

Another question is that why not we know our real self as "Amr" of God?

Lastly, why should anyone recognize his real self as God while Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) said in a verse that "Never can there be a secret confabulation between three persons without His being the fourth of them, nor between five without His being the sixth of them"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, hasanhh said:

Why the tricky phrasing.

 

7 hours ago, Logic1234 said:

Al-Asim is one of Allah's name. 

 

This means that the term 'infallibility" cannot be applied on Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)
Or can you call Him Ma'soom?

You are juggling around 'revealed nouns' to pronounce a contradiction.

Cite which ayats you are using.

Share this post


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

As you know there are different categories/states of "nafs" mentioned in Qur'an namely, Ammara, Lawwama & Mutma'innah, how can one knows it as God? 

Salam brother,

My search engine feature is not doing well finding the ayats for these. Can you please cite the ayats?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Logic1234 said:

:bismillah:

Recently, While I was discussing significance of hadith on another thread with few brothers, I come to know strange claim where a brother said he believe that only Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is infallible. 

Is this assertion correct? What is meant by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is infallible while He Himself is Al-Asim? If anyone claims that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is "Ma'soom", who is His Asim then? 

Let the discussions began!
 

Masoom is the attribute whose source is Allah (عزّ وجلّ), So, He (عزّ وجلّ) is owner of Ismah and that is why He (عزّ وجلّ) likes goodness and hates sins. Whatever goodness is, it is actually because of What Allah (عزّ وجلّ) is and Whatever the sins are, these are actually hateful because these are contrary to His being.

 

11 hours ago, Logic1234 said:

Another strange argument comes from the question, in which one ask "Do you believe God can do everything? (innAllaha ala kulle shayin qadeer)", obviously we believe in it and we say yes. Then the person say therefore, He can speak lies, He can do anything, He can err, He can forget, even He can sin because there is no one who can stop Him. 

I am making a separate thread for this one.

Allah (عزّ وجلّ) is not only Owner of the Ismah but also Just and Supreme intelligent. Why would a Just being who is already on Highest position would make a weak choice of sinning which may prove his lack of intelligence and injustice ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

Salam brother,

My search engine feature is not doing well finding the ayats for these. Can you please cite the ayats?

1. Inna al-nafsa ammarato bil-su (this perhaps verse of chapter 12, you can search phonetically)

2. Fala uqsemo bil nafsil lawwama (Chapter Qayamat)

3. Ya ayyatoha alnafsil mutma'innah (Chapter Wal Fajr)

Here are the verse:

Surah Yusuf, Verse 53:
وَمَا أُبَرِّئُ نَفْسِي إِنَّ النَّفْسَ لَأَمَّارَةٌ بِالسُّوءِ إِلَّا مَا رَحِمَ رَبِّي إِنَّ رَبِّي غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ

And I do not declare myself free, most surely (man's) self is wont to command (him to do) evil, except such as my Lord has had mercy on, surely my Lord is Forgiving, Merciful.
(English - Shakir)

Surah Al-Qiyama, Verse 2:
وَلَا أُقْسِمُ بِالنَّفْسِ اللَّوَّامَةِ

Nay! I swear by the self-accusing soul.
(English - Shakir)

Surah Al-Fajr, Verse 27:
يَا أَيَّتُهَا النَّفْسُ الْمُطْمَئِنَّةُ

O soul that art at rest!
(English - Shakir)

 

Edited by Cool

Share this post


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

"Man A'rafa nafsah, faqad a'rafa Rabbah"

(One who recognized his self, recognized his Rabb). 

Can you please elaborate this point "knowing your real self as God"? 

In the above hadith, I don't see anything which directs us to recognize our real self as God. 

Because the Hadith speaks to everyone at their level.  So you are meant to see only what you see.  The highest is this:. If you really know your self (as not-nafs), then you know your Lord (the one and only Self) since Only Self remains after all has perished.

Quote

As you know there are different categories/states of "nafs" mentioned in Qur'an namely, Ammara, Lawwama & Mutma'innah, how can one knows it as God? 

Because the nafs become more and more transparent as one ascends higher and higher.  When the Nafs becomes transparent one notices the Light rather than that through which the light shines through.  

Quote

Lastly, why should anyone recognize his real self as God while Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) said in a verse that "Never can there be a secret confabulation between three persons without His being the fourth of them, nor between five without His being the sixth of them"?

The Amr of God is the spirit, ruh.  The Spirit of God comes From God and is mysteriously “connected” to Him.  The Ruh recognizes its own nothingness.  It doesn’t see itself as an entity.  The name Ruh is only for us to conceptualize it.  (And of the Spirit, we know very little!)

The reason why God is always the third or fourth among people( however the verse goes) is because The Self is always there regardless of what we may think we are.  If you think you are Mike, then no worries because the real Self is still there despite the ignorance of Mike.  

 

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can not mention Allah's infallibility in the same sentence when talking of His creatures' let alone compare the two. Maybe OP's friend is angel Jibraiel (عليه السلام)??? For the rest of us mere mortals, we simply do not possess the marifah or status to make comments on such a matter, comparing Allah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

The reason why God is always the third or fourth among people( however the verse goes) is because The Self is always there regardless of what we may think we are.  If you think you are Mike, then no worries because the real Self is still there despite the ignorance of Mike.  

One more question, how you explain all this in light of the verse which says "surely we are for Allah and towards Him shall we return"? (Inna lillahe wa inna ilayhe raje'oon).

These too are the words of Imam Ali (عليه السلام), as per my knowledge, quoted in Qur'an as a verse. Here our belonging is mentioned (we belongs to or we are for Allah), what you are saying would also mean in a sense that we are Allah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cool said:

s you know there are different categories/states of "nafs" mentioned in Qur'an namely, Ammara, Lawwama & Mutma'innah

brother, you are making things way more complicated than from what is revealed.

Ayat 12:53 tri-literal hamza wa ra -enjoin (the encouraging aspect of 'to command/instruct') see Ayat 43:36-38 Comment: The Aziz's wife had withdrawn from remembrance, repented and now understands what her condition was and her 'companion' is now subdued. [Sub-Comment: l know many believe this is Yusef -(عليه السلام). talking because of the insightful nature expressed in this ayat, but Yusef -(عليه السلام). did not have such an 'evil companion'; and the 52nd ayat gives the context.]

Ayat 75:2 tri-literal lam waw min -blame, self-accusing. The nafs knows it has done wrong.

Ayat 89:27 tri-literal ta min nun -content, satisfied. The nafs will have come safely through on the Last Day.

You have one nafs. Ayat 74:38. So what you are trying to argue with is the different 'earnings' people acquire.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Cool said:

One more question, how you explain all this in light of the verse which says "surely we are for Allah and towards Him shall we return"? (Inna lillahe wa inna ilayhe raje'oon).

These too are the words of Imam Ali (عليه السلام), as per my knowledge, quoted in Qur'an as a verse. Here our belonging is mentioned (we belongs to or we are for Allah), what you are saying would also mean in a sense that we are Allah.

So Allah is the one and only real Self.  All “other selves” are illusory in that they “seem” to be real but are not in fact real.  Kind of like a stained glass which, without light’s penetration, is in fact utterly dark (and therefore black in and of itself).  The different colors of light that appear in the stained glass are like the illusory selves which appear to be real but are not in fact real.  What is in fact real is the One Colorless Light.  The Light of the different colors never ever belonged to the stained glasses, that One Colorless Light was wrongly associated (shirk) with the glasses which were dark in and of themselves.  The One Colorless Light is the true Malik, (Possessor) not those pieces of glass.  God is Malikul Mulk (Possessor of The Kingdom).  

So this verse is very profound.  Who do we (as illusory selves who think we have separate realities) come from and to Whom do we return?  We come from our true Self and to our true Self do we all return.  You can trace the luminosity of all the seemingly real colors that appear from the stained glass to its source (namely the One and Only Colorless Light).  This is what return means.  And this is why all praise (not just some or certain praises but ALL the praises that exist) belongs to God.  We are not praiseworthy and we never were even if it “appears” to be so.  

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


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

From a theological point of view:

It is not “logically impossible” for there to be an individual that throughout his or her life does “the right action”.  If this is what we mean my Ma’sum then it is possible for individuals to be Masum!

Thank you Brother! 
 

18 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

 From the point of view of Ma’rifa, right and wrong action are only at the level of convention and Shariah.  Shariah implies that there is an individual or person (because the shariah addresses someone or something and instructs the person to do or not to do).  From the point of view of Ma’rifa another perspective is also considered, and this perspective is about knowing your real Self as God and not as an individual or a person.  From this point of view, to be a Ma’sum is essentially about Knowing Thy Self.  The Prophet (S) and the Aimmah (عليه السلام) are not really individuals, because there is only One Absolute Self, no other selves truly exist except as an illusion.

I can understand what you are saying brother. I never thought that the OP will turn this discussion toward wahdat ul wajood :). A subject which I left learning because of some personal reasons.

So let it be the touheed of common people at the moment and within that frame, you are saying that the claim "Only Allah is infallible" is logically incorrect as there is logical possibility for someone other than Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) to be Ma'sum. 

What I am trying to understand within this framework, is that the application of term "Ma'sum" on Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), logically valid? Can we say He is Al-Asim & He is Al-Ma'sum?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Logic1234 said:

Thank you Brother! 
 

I can understand what you are saying brother. I never thought that the OP will turn this discussion toward wahdat ul wajood :). A subject which I left learning because of some personal reasons.

So let it be the touheed of common people at the moment and within that frame, you are saying that the claim "Only Allah is infallible" is logically incorrect as there is logical possibility for someone other than Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) to be Ma'sum. 

‘Isma literally means “protection”.  I am not sure if it would be appropriate to apply the term “Masum” on God.  Can you explain in at least a sentence or two what you mean by “Masum”?

“Doing the right thing at all times” is not really what I understand by Masoom.  I am assuming this what most people understand by Isma though.  If you want to consider this inaccurate way of understandings isma then I would say that people can be masum (it is logically possible).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Pschological warfare
On 9/20/2019 at 3:31 AM, Logic1234 said:

:bismillah:

Recently, While I was discussing significance of hadith on another thread with few brothers, I come to know strange claim where a brother said he believe that only Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is infallible. 

Is this assertion correct? What is meant by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is infallible while He Himself is Al-Asim? If anyone claims that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is "Ma'soom", who is His Asim then? 

Let the discussions began!
 

I understand the need based on nurture to split hair and have a Phd thesis. But those tool based on nuture/education/educational system  are for other disciplines.

For us layman Simple reflection will do here. This basic and fundamental Concept will be your guide. 

وَلَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُ كُفُوًا أَحَدٌ {4}

[Shakir 112:4] And none is like Him.
[Pickthal 112:4] And there is none comparable unto Him.
[Yusufali 112:4] And there is none like unto Him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2019 at 6:13 PM, eThErEaL said:

Isma literally means “protection”.  I am not sure if it would be appropriate to apply the term “Masum” on God.  Can you explain in at least a sentence or two what you mean by “Masum”?

Salamun Alaykum Brother, 

As per our books the definition of Isma is as under:
 

Quote

Al-’Isma is the Arabic root of the term under discussion which literally means taking hold of something; abstaining.

By definition, the term fallible means capable of making an error. As such, the term infallible, where ‘in’ means not, means incapable of error or mistakes. By contrast, al-'Isma (of the Prophets) means that God has protected them by virtue of their pure soul, and by helping them with resistance, tranquility and blessings, thus making them Ma’soum.

https://www.al-Islam.org/articles/infallibility-shaykh-mansour-leghaei#infallibility


God is Al-Asim, means He is "The Protector", so there is a Protector this means there will naturally be some protected ones as well. 

Since God is Al-Asim, He cannot be Ma'sum at the same time. If it is said that He is Ma'sum as well, who would be His Asim then?
So to me, the claim that "Only God is ma'sum (infallible) doesn't make any sense logically. 
 

Edited by Logic1234

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Logic1234 said:

Salamun Alaykum Brother, 
Since God is Al-Asim, He cannot be Ma'sum at the same time. If it is said that He is Ma'sum as well, who would be His Asim then?
So to me, the claim that "Only God is ma'sum (infallible) doesn't make any sense logically. 
 

Salamun Alaykum,  

Thank you for sharing that article on ‘Isma.

The way I understand this statement by Imam Jaffer Sadiq (عليه السلام),

Quote

 

“I asked Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) about the meaning of ‘infallibility’ in the realm of humans and he replied:

‘The (Ma’sum) means he who by the will of God abstains absolutely from all that is forbidden. Indeed Allah the almighty said: Whoever holds (Ya’simu..) firmly to Allah, then he is indeed guided to the Right Path.’”

 

Is as follows:

At root, what is forbidden is the belief in separative existence or of a reality that is other than God.  So, Ignorance is sin.  So, obviously, knowing that only God is, is the antidote.  And this knowing can only come from God.  Knowing God through God alone is therefore I’sma.  In other words, Marifa is Isma.  So, in this sense, there is no “person” other than God to be protected because it is never the “person” that knows God.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

 So, in this sense, there is no “person” other than God to be protected because it is never the “person” that knows God.  

Masha Allah, 

I must appreciate you brother! You have been blessed with a bright mind. My prayers are with you, may God further polish your abilities and grant you abundance of knowledge. 

As I said earlier, I am discussing this in a different perspective. For a common person, the duality between Al-Khaliq & Makhlooq remains in place. How you solve this problem of duality?

Even if we solve it by considering that Makhlooq is an illusion, then the term "Ma'sum" automatically becomes an illusion as well hence its application on God, becomes absurd.

The problem which arises for me, and that really force me to not go beyond the limits (and that was the reason I have quit studying Wahdat Al-Wajood), is the idea which denies that there is neither a creator nor a creation, neither protector nor the protected. If we consider the notion that "to think God is the creator is to divide the reality into two", that belief or idea is not ours either as it is mentioned in the scripture.

Should we believe in what our mind dictates to us or should we believe in the words of God and remain within the limits?
How you deal with this issue?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Logic1234 said:

Masha Allah, 

I must appreciate you brother! You have been blessed with a bright mind. My prayers are with you, may God further polish your abilities and grant you abundance of knowledge. 

Thank you for your kind words and your prayer. may a God bless you as well in abundance.  

Quote

As I said earlier, I am discussing this in a different perspective. For a common person, the duality between Al-Khaliq & Makhlooq remains in place. How you solve this problem of duality?

Yes.  As the Urafa say.... the Lord is always a Lord and the Servant is always a servant.  

Quote

Even if we solve it by considering that Makhlooq is an illusion, then the term "Ma'sum" automatically becomes an illusion as well hence its application on God, becomes absurd.

Yes.  

Indeed.

 So, the creation remains a creation except that it is seen for what it is: an illusion.  A gold ring is nothing but a substance of gold , but our minds superimpose “ringness” onto this substance.  What is real is the gold, but the “ringness” exists only as a matter of convention or a superimposition (as a means whereby we can relate to this golden substance).  Some people imagine that the “ringness” is real above and beyond our minds conception or social convention, but this is not in fact true.  Some people ignore or forget about the Golden Substance entirely and merely focus on the ringness itself (they may not even know the real value of the ring).    

The same goes for all the entities of this world.  In reality there is only Allah’s Essence and everything other than this One Reality is superimposition.  The superimpositions can exist, but they need to be seen for what they are!  

You might say, what about the mind itself that is doing the superimposition.  This statement or thought is itself a superimposition.  In reality there is no “substance” or “substances” called mind or minds.  This thought if there being an actual mind substance is itself a superimposition.  If you can see the mind, not as a substance but as nothing but a superimposition then you are close to very close to seeing things as they are.  

 

 

Wil I’ll continue later:

Quote



The problem which arises for me, and that really force me to not go beyond the limits (and that was the reason I have quit studying Wahdat Al-Wajood), is the idea which denies that there is neither a creator nor a creation, neither protector nor the protected. If we consider the notion that "to think God is the creator is to divide the reality into two", that belief or idea is not ours either as it is mentioned in the scripture.

Should we believe in what our mind dictates to us or should we believe in the words of God and remain within the limits?
How you deal with this issue?
 

 

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


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

Wil I’ll continue later:

No problem brother. I will respond once you finish with explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/23/2019 at 2:37 AM, Logic1234 said:

Should we believe in what our mind dictates to us or should we believe in the words of God and remain within the limits?
How you deal with this issue?
 

When we read the Qur'an, our thoughts and our perception of the verses/ text contribute to the understanding we derive from it (and the same goes for our understanding of the Hadith).  In other words, our individuality/ego/ mind colors and therefore limits the colorless and limitless light of the Qur'an as it shines through each of us.  The more transparent the ego is to the Light of the Qur'an, the more one can see the Qur'an as it is.  In this respect one can now see what Imam Ali (عليه السلام) meant when he said “Ana Qur'an An-Natiq” (I am the speaking Qur'an). 

 

If I were to draw an equilateral triangle, the 3 vertices can respectively be called the Book (Qur'an), the Cosmos (Heavens and Earth), and Man.  They are three expressions of the same reality.  You can call them three Books.  The Cosmic Book, the Book of the Soul/Heart and the Book of Scripture.  After all, both the created things in general and the scripture are all referred to as the speech of God, as word(s) of God.  God describes his creative act in the form of speech, for example, “He only has to say to a thing, ‘Be’ and it is”.  Also Jesus (عليه السلام) is referred to as a “word” of God.

 

Now the Qur'an is the Explicit Version of the Cosmos (since the Qur'an is in a human language) and the Cosmos is the Implicit Version of the Qur'an. Ideally, The Human Being has the capacity to synthesize, unify, and internalize the meanings of all that is written in the Cosmos and in Scripture.  This is what it means for him (Adam) to be taught all the names of God (not just some of the names of God).  Each thing in creation is a name of God, an expression of God (this is what speech is after all, it is an expression).

 

The Islamic tradition is crystal clear that when it comes to understanding the religion, especially when it comes to God (or other metaphysical facts), Taqlid(to Imitate others) is not sufficient.  Rather, the opposite is called for in this case: namely, Tahqiq(Verification/ Realization).  Whatever is found in the world outside or in Scripture is meant to be found within yourself (this is another way of saying that we ought verify them in our direct experience.).  It is too see all that is written outside inside as that which has already been written inside yourself (within the Book of your heart).  Knowing the Book within yourself (the Book of your Heart) is another way of saying “Self-Knowledge”.  When you understand the Book of your Heart (thereby knowing yourself), then you certainly have understood its Author (Your Lord).  

 

Not everyone lives up to this ideal state of being Human.  We would like to say that the examples of those that have lived up to this ideal state are the Prophets, Imams and certain other friends of God.  (peace and blessings be upon them all).   

 

Human beings are at various levels of understanding the Book(s) of God.  Basically, what you understand from the Qur'an or whatever you understand from the Horizons of God’s creation is nothing but a projection of how you understand yourself.  As an example, If all one sees is a chaotic world full of misery and suffering, if all one sees in the Qur'an is wrath, punishment and abasement, then that is a reflection of the way he understands himself. 

Quote

The problem which arises for me, and that really force me to not go beyond the limits (and that was the reason I have quit studying Wahdat Al-Wajood), is the idea which denies that there is neither a creator nor a creation, neither protector nor the protected. If we consider the notion that "to think God is the creator is to divide the reality into two", that belief or idea is not ours either as it is mentioned in the scripture.

While dualists do not accept non-duality, non-dualists accept duality.  This is because a non-dualist will not be accepting of there being an essential duality between non-duality and duality.  In light of this:  So what if the Qur'an speaks dualistically!!!? It also speaks of non-duality as well! (At least for those who have the eyes to see).  

Suratul Ikhlas for example is a perfectly non-dual even if the dualist who reads it cannot see it that way.  

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

Suratul Ikhlas for example is a perfectly non-dual even if the dualists who read it cannot see it that way.  

Salam,

May I open a new thread for knowing your understanding of suratul ikhlas? How that chapter is a non-dual which starts with the word "qul"? The one who "say" is apparently other than the "Ahad" mentioned in there.

Just curious!

Share this post


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

When we read the Qur'an, our thoughts and our perception of the verses/ text contribute to the understanding we derive from it (and the same goes for our understanding of the Hadith).  In other words, our individuality/ego/ mind colors and therefore limits the colorless and limitless light of the Qur'an as it shines through each of us.  The more transparent the ego is to the Light of the Qur'an, the more one can see the Qur'an as it is.  In this respect one can now see what Imam Ali (عليه السلام) meant when he said “Ana Qur'an An-Natiq” (I am the speaking Qur'an). 

 

If I were to draw an equilateral triangle, the 3 vertices can respectively be called the Book (Qur'an), the Cosmos (Heavens and Earth), and Man.  They are three expressions of the same reality.  You can call them three Books.  The Cosmic Book, the Book of the Soul/Heart and the Book of Scripture.  After all, both the created things in general and the scripture are all referred to as the speech of God, as word(s) of God.  God describes his creative act in the form of speech, for example, “He only has to say to a thing, ‘Be’ and it is”.  Also Jesus (عليه السلام) is referred to as a “word” of God.

 

Now the Qur'an is the Explicit Version of the Cosmos (since the Qur'an is in a human language) and the Cosmos is the Implicit Version of the Qur'an. Ideally, The Human Being has the capacity to synthesize, unify, and internalize the meanings of all that is written in the Cosmos and in Scripture.  This is what it means for him (Adam) to be taught all the names of God (not just some of the names of God).  Each thing in creation is a name of God, an expression of God (this is what speech is after all, it is an expression).

 

The Islamic tradition is crystal clear that when it comes to understanding the religion, especially when it comes to God (or other metaphysical facts), Taqlid(to Imitate others) is not sufficient.  Rather, the opposite is called for in this case: namely, Tahqiq(Verification/ Realization).  Whatever is found in the world outside or in Scripture is meant to be found within yourself (this is another way of saying that we ought verify them in our direct experience.).  It is too see all that is written outside inside as that which has already been written inside yourself (within the Book of your heart).  Knowing the Book within yourself (the Book of your Heart) is another way of saying “Self-Knowledge”.  When you understand the Book of your Heart (thereby knowing yourself), then you certainly have understood its Author (Your Lord).  

 

Not everyone lives up to this ideal state of being Human.  We would like to say that the examples of those that have lived up to this ideal state are the Prophets, Imams and certain other friends of God.  (peace and blessings be upon them all).   

 

Human beings are at various levels of understanding the Book(s) of God.  Basically, what you understand from the Qur'an or whatever you understand from the Horizons of God’s creation is nothing but a projection of how you understand yourself.  As an example, If all one sees is a chaotic world full of misery and suffering, if all one sees in the Qur'an is wrath, punishment and abasement, then that is a reflection of the way he understands himself. 

Subhan Allah!! 

Eloquence at its best. I am impressed brother!! the way you are showing your command on "ilm ul kalam" is outstanding indeed. 

I think we are 100% in agreement here, there is no difference of opinion between us at all. 

3 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

While dualists do not accept non-duality, non-dualists accept duality.  This is because a non-dualist will not be accepting of there being an essential duality between non-duality and duality.  In light of this:  So what if the Qur'an speaks dualistically!!!? It also speaks of non-duality as well! (At least for those who have the eyes to see).

Please elaborate it for me. What is meant by "not accepting essential duality between the two" while on the other hand he is accepting the duality.

I know the term "Unity in Multiplicity" and the verse which comes in my mind at the moment which can be linked to this understanding is "(فِطْرَةَ اللَّهِ الَّتِي فَطَرَ النَّاسَ عَلَيْهَا (30:30 " 

 

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...