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

11 hours ago, Cool said:

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!

If I were you, I wouldn’t want to “force” the “concept of non-duality” into the Qur'an. The opening should naturally arise between the Qur'an and the one reading it.  Rumi has something very interesting to say in this regard:

The Qur’an is like a bride.
Although you pull the veil away from her face,
she does not show herself to you.
When you investigate the Qur’an,
but receive no joy or mystical unveiling,
it is because your pulling at the veil
has caused you to be rejected.
The Qur’an has deceived you
and shown itself as ugly.

It says,
“I am not a beautiful bride.”
It is able to show itself in any form it desires.
But if you stop pulling at its veil and seek its good pleasure;
if you water its field, serve it from afar
and strive in that which pleases it,
then it will show you its face
without any need for you to draw aside its veil.

– Rumi, translated by William C. Chittick

 

Some cannot help but see non-duality in Surah  Ikhlas even if the explicit language in it appears to be non-dual.  Speaking dualistically does not negate non-duality.  The alterations between Night and Day seem to be dualities even if they are in fact one continuum or a non-dual whole.  To see how duality and non-duality are themselves not dualities is non-duality.  If you are looking for something explicitly non-dual, then I would simply point you to one of the verses that say, “la ilaha illa Ana” (there is no God but I). 

Share this post


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

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.

It means that all the Multiplicity of creation (in all of its details and intricacy) is seen to be transparent to the One.  It isn’t that in order to see the One you have to get the multiplicity out of the way.  No.  Rather, the multiplicity never obstructed the presence of the One.  The One is fully there, 100% present everywhere, even with the multiplicity.  In other words, even with the multiplicity, there is absolutely no where that you won’t be able to find the One in its 100% complete and full presence.   Just like in the mirror example, no matter where you look, no matter how many objects appear, the one substance of the mirror is 100% fully there, and 100% unobstructed.   

 

Share this post


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

It means that all the Multiplicity of creation (in all of its details and intricacy) is seen to be transparent to the One.  It isn’t that in order to see the One you have to get the multiplicity out of the way.  No.  Rather, the multiplicity never obstructed the presence of the One.

Is it all about how we should view the things? Is it about viewing ourselves as "illusion" to get to the one & only reality? Please correct me if I am wrong. 

One can "believe" that God is Wahid & Ahad, one can believe that God Almighty present everywhere and can believe on His absolute presence by adopting & maintaining the approach of dualism (Khaliq-Makhlooq). 
 

1 hour ago, eThErEaL said:

 In other words, even with the multiplicity, there is absolutely no where that you won’t be able to find the One in its 100% complete and full presence.

Can we not find the One in its 100% complete & full presence by maintaining the approach of dualism (Khaliq-Makhlooq)? What are the limitations & problems you view in the approach of dualism?



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2019 at 2:46 AM, Guest Pschological warfare said:

[Shakir 112:4] And none is like Him.

You mean to say that "none is like Him" in anything including the "infallibility"? 
But I was just asking whether it is correct & logical to apply the term "Masum" on God? 

Share this post


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

To see how duality and non-duality are themselves not dualities is non-duality.

How can I see that way? The one who said "say (qul)" is a messenger, an abd while Ahad is his Lord. 

A messenger & its sender cannot be one. 

23 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

If I were you, I wouldn’t want to “force” the “concept of non-duality” into the Qur'an.

No, I am not forcing anything sir. It was just a query to know what has made you to think that way about Sura Al- Ikhlas.

 

Share this post


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

How can I see that way? The one who said "say (qul)" is a messenger, an abd while Ahad is his Lord. 

A messenger & its sender cannot be one.

The one who said “say”, is the messenger?  

 

3 hours ago, Cool said:

No, I am not forcing anything sir. It was just a query to know what has made you to think that way about Sura Al- Ikhlas.

I am sorry, I wasn’t intending to impune you of anything.  

Share this post


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

Is it all about how we should view the things? Is it about viewing ourselves as "illusion" to get to the one & only reality? Please correct me if I am wrong. 

Ultimately everything is about seeing things as they really are.  So, if the creation is illusory, one should see it as so.

13 hours ago, Logic1234 said:

One can "believe" that God is Wahid & Ahad, one can believe that God Almighty present everywhere and can believe on His absolute presence by adopting & maintaining the approach of dualism (Khaliq-Makhlooq). 

Yes.  One can.  But for others it isn’t enough.  Belief is one thing.  But Certitude is another.  Certitude (it turns out) is not in the form of a thought but rather certitude is one with our being (it is who we really are)

13 hours ago, Logic1234 said:

Can we not find the One in its 100% complete & full presence by maintaining the approach of dualism (Khaliq-Makhlooq)?

As I said, dualism isn’t contradictory to non-dualism only because non-dualism is not part of a duality.  If it were then it would be contradictory or paradoxical.   But for the one who only sees duality, he or she cannot see non-duality.  But for the one who knows non-duality, he or she sees both, duality and non-duality.  

13 hours ago, Logic1234 said:

What are the limitations & problems you view in the approach of dualism?

For the one who does not see non-duality, he is necessarily limiting The Absolute, because the Absolute for him or her is necessarily an “object” of belief (he or she thinks he knows God).  Knowledge of God in its true sense is not a thought but rather it God’s Light saturating one’s entire body, feelings, thoughts and the entire world.  Also, Such knowledge has to belong to God alone.   One gradually realizes in their core that as they perfect their tawhid, God Knows Everything and Everyone (including your perceived sense of yourself!).  

 I am not criticizing you for your beliefs.  It is a blessing indeed and may it be of benefit to you.   But that is it what we were created for really.  Because even the Jinn (Psychic entities) have belief in God.  Beliefs are at the stage of the psyche.  But you might, inshallah fee the need to access something even beyond your thoughts or psyche.  

Share this post


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

So, if the creation is illusory, one should see it as so.

Thanks for your response. 

This is a big "if". Considering this limited worldly life as "illusion" poses many serious consequences. Very first is that we are considering the "creation" as illusion which means considering an act of God as illusion. How would you solve this puzzle? Can we consider an act of God as illusion?

Second is that what would we assume about the life of hereafter which has been mentioned as "hayawan"? That would also be an illusion as per this logic. So everything including heaven & hell, the reward & punishment, the blessings (Ne'maat) would become allusion too. And that would bring us back to the notion which I shared earlier that "to consider God as creator is to divide the reality". 

I am holding here for a while to make things clear.
 

Share this post


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

Belief is one thing.  But Certitude is another.  Certitude (it turns out) is not in the form of a thought but rather certitude is one with our being (it is who we really are)

But the only way of expressing the "certitude" is by accepting the duality (Khaliq-Makhlooq). As you mentioned earlier:
 

On 9/23/2019 at 9:35 PM, eThErEaL said:

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

Or there are other ways too for expressing the certitude?

If the Urafa believes in Unity, that unity is not absolute either. Otherwise there would be no way of accepting the duality. 

Share this post


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

The one who said “say”, is the messenger?

Ouch, excuse me for this blunder.

The one who has been commanded as "say" is something other than the Ahad.

Share this post


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

Ouch, excuse me for this blunder.

The one who has been commanded as "say" is something other than the Ahad.

And who commands? 

Snd why should the servant participate in repeating the command?

Share this post


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

This is a big "if". Considering this limited worldly life as "illusion" poses many serious consequences. Very first is that we are considering the "creation" as illusion which means considering an act of God as illusion.

“Acting” means going from potentiality to actuality.  An act has to begin and end somewhere.  Does “God begin to do anything”?   Is that not implicitly constraining God within time?  If not, explain how acting  isn’t constraining God at all.  

Quote

How would you solve this puzzle? Can we consider an act of God as illusion?

You see, illusion is not a description for creation. Illusion IS creation and creation IS illusion.  That is the meaning of creation, Illusion.  It is what it is.  I don’t see what is puzzling about this.  I am not denying creation or the act of creation.  I am simply telling you what it is.

Quote

Second is that what would we assume about the life of hereafter which has been mentioned as "hayawan”.

The hereafter is hayawan because the hereafter is when things appear as they really are (as nothing but God’s theophany).  To see the illusion as illusion is what the “hereafter” is all about.  As the Qur'an says: “Eyes on that day shall be piercing”

 

Quote

And that would bring us back to the notion which I shared earlier that "to consider God as creator is to divide the reality". 

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) says that the perfection of declaring God’s unity is to divest Him of attributes.  Is Imam Ali (عليه السلام) going against Qur'an (wherein the Qur'an describes God with son many attributes)?  

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


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

 Does “God begin to do anything”?   Is that not implicitly constraining God within time? 

I think we are entering into sensitive area :). And I have no option but to take the help of scripture to answer these questions. So according to the words of God:
 

Quote

إِنَّمَا أَمْرُهُ إِذَا أَرَادَ شَيْئًا أَنْ يَقُولَ لَهُ كُنْ فَيَكُونُ {82}

[Shakir 36:82] His command, when He intends anything, is only to say to it: Be, so it is.
[Pickthal 36:82] But His command, when He intendeth a thing, is only that He saith unto it: Be! and it is.
[Yusufali 36:82] Verily, when He intends a thing, His Command is, "be", and it is!

To understand these divine words, I further take help of the divinely appointed teachers, how they have interpreted it:

Muhammad Bin Yaqoub from Ahmad Bin Idrees, from Muhammad Bin Abdul Jabbar, from Safwan Bin Yahya, who said,

‘I said to Abu Al-Hassan (asws), ‘Inform me about the Will of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and the will of the creatures?’ He (asws) said: ‘The will of the creatures – It is the conscience, and it leads to the act. And as for Allah (azwj) the High, His (azwj) Will – it is His Invention. It is not other than Him, because He does not narrate, and does not speculate, and does not think, and these are the Attributes, which are away from Him, and these are the qualities of the creatures.
Allah"s (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) Will and the Action are not different, Saying to it: “Be!”, so it comes into being [36:82]. This is without the Word, and speaking by the tongue, and not by speculation, and not by thinking, and not by mood to do that, as He (azwj) has no moods. Therefore Glory be to Him in Whose Hand is the Dominion of all things, and to Him you shall be returning [36:83]

Whether Allah begin to do anything? Here is what Qur'an says:
 

Quote

اللَّهُ يَبْدَأُ الْخَلْقَ ثُمَّ يُعِيدُهُ ثُمَّ إِلَيْهِ تُرْجَعُونَ {11}

[Shakir 30:11] Allah originates the creation, then reproduces it, then to Him you shall be brought back.
[Pickthal 30:11] Allah produceth creation, then He reproduceth it, then unto Him ye will be returned.
[Yusufali 30:11] It is Allah Who begins (the process of) creation; then repeats it; then shall ye be brought back to Him.

And this "Yabda" & Yu'eed" has been repeated several times in Qur'an.
 

11 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

You see, illusion is not a description for creation. Illusion IS creation and creation IS illusion.  That is the meaning of creation, Illusion.  It is what it is.  I don’t see what is puzzling about this.  I am not denying creation or the act of creation.  I am simply telling you what it is.

What is illusion? You must have any definition of this term? It can be "deceptive appearance" or "misinterpreted perception" or even "false things". Can we apply these meanings to the things which have been created with truth (bil Haqq)? 

وَهُوَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضَ بِالْحَقِّ
 

11 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

The hereafter is hayawan because the hereafter is when things appear as they really are (as nothing but God’s theophany).  To see the illusion as illusion is what the “hereafter” is all about.  As the Qur'an says: “Eyes on that day shall be piercing”

Well, in a sense, we can say that this limited worldly life & everything too here is nothing but God's theophany. These are created with truth/ by truth so the question here is again the same, Why they be considered as illusion & what is illusion? 
.
There is a famous saying of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) where he said if all the veils have been removed, no change will occur to my certitude (Yaqeen). 

How would you interpret this? 

11 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) says that the perfection of declaring God’s unity is to divest Him of attributes.  Is Imam Ali (عليه السلام) going against Qur'an (wherein the Qur'an describes God with son many attributes)?  

Do you think he means that God is not the Creator? While in his manajat the same Imam (عليه السلام) praying like that:

Master, O my Master! You are the Khaliq and I am the makhlooq, who else can have mercy on makhlooq except the Khaliq!
Master, O my Master! You are the Rabb and I am the marboob, who else can have mercy on marboob except the Rabb!
Master, O my Master! You are the Qawi and I am the da'eef, who else can have mercy on da'eef except the Qawi! 

Now here is another hadith:
 

Quote

Someone asked the Imām (‘a) concerning the Oneness of God. The Imām (‘a) replied, “Oneness has four meanings; two of them can be applied to God while the other two cannot be applied to Him. The two inapplicable meanings are as follows:

1. Numerical oneness because in numerical oneness, any notion of two, three, etc. is impossible; and

2. Oneness of genus, such as the human beings that belong to the same species; such oneness does not also hinder multiplicity and plurality.

And the two applicable meanings [of oneness] are as follows:

1. God’s uniqueness in Essence and Attributes, and

2. The indivisibility and inseparability of the Essence of God

(Shaykh al-Ṣadūq, Al-Tawḥīd, section (bāb) 3, ḥadīth 3.)

And here is the version of your quoted hadith with explanation:
 

Quote

And the perfection of believing in His Oneness is to regard Him as Pure, and the perfection of His purity is to deny Him attributes.”

The Imām (‘a) has then said that the corollary of belief in attributes which are separate from the Essence is belief in a kind of polytheism and divisibility of the Divine Essence, which is a product of ignorance of the Divine Station:

“Thus, whoever attaches attributes to Allah recognizes His like, and whoever recognizes His like regards Him as two, and whoever regards Him as two recognizes parts for Him, and whoever recognizes parts for Him mistook Him.”

 

Edited by Logic1234

Share this post


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

I think we are entering into sensitive area :). And I have no option but to take the help of scripture to answer these questions. So according to the words of God:
 

To understand these divine words, I further take help of the divinely appointed teachers, how they have interpreted it:

Muhammad Bin Yaqoub from Ahmad Bin Idrees, from Muhammad Bin Abdul Jabbar, from Safwan Bin Yahya, who said,

‘I said to Abu Al-Hassan (asws), ‘Inform me about the Will of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and the will of the creatures?’ He (asws) said: ‘The will of the creatures – It is the conscience, and it leads to the act. And as for Allah (azwj) the High, His (azwj) Will – it is His Invention. It is not other than Him, because He does not narrate, and does not speculate, and does not think, and these are the Attributes, which are away from Him, and these are the qualities of the creatures.
Allah"s (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) Will and the Action are not different, Saying to it: “Be!”, so it comes into being [36:82]. This is without the Word, and speaking by the tongue, and not by speculation, and not by thinking, and not by mood to do that, as He (azwj) has no moods. Therefore Glory be to Him in Whose Hand is the Dominion of all things, and to Him you shall be returning [36:83]

Whether Allah begin to do anything? Here is what Qur'an says:
 

And this "Yabda" & Yu'eed" has been repeated several times in Qur'an.

Can you kindly explain how that is supposed to answer my question?  

11 hours ago, Logic1234 said:

What is illusion? You must have any definition of this term? It can be "deceptive appearance" or "misinterpreted perception" or even "false things". Can we apply these meanings to the things which have been created with truth (bil Haqq)? 

وَهُوَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضَ بِالْحَقِّ
 

What He created with the truth is not itself the truth.  The verse proves that creation is illusory. It’s illusion is sustained, if at all because of what it was created with (namely, the Truth)

11 hours ago, Logic1234 said:

Well, in a sense, we can say that this limited worldly life & everything too here is nothing but God's theophany.

Yes.  But the hearts see this in this world.  And the heart in the hereafter is none other than your paradise.  

11 hours ago, Logic1234 said:

There is a famous saying of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) where he said if all the veils have been removed, no change will occur to my certitude (Yaqeen). 

Yes.  This statement proves my point even more.  I am staying that the creation is not just a theophany of God but it can also be a veil.  This is another name for illusion.  An illusion is real and false.  It is real in as much as it exists but is false in as much as it doesn’t exist.  

11 hours ago, Logic1234 said:

How would you interpret this? 

Do you think he means that God is not the Creator? While in his manajat the same Imam (عليه السلام) praying like that:

Master, O my Master! You are the Khaliq and I am the makhlooq, who else can have mercy on makhlooq except the Khaliq!
Master, O my Master! You are the Rabb and I am the marboob, who else can have mercy on marboob except the Rabb!
Master, O my Master! You are the Qawi and I am the da'eef, who else can have mercy on da'eef except the Qawi! 

Now here is another hadith:

As I mentioned before, the creator/creation duality does have its place within non-dualism.

So these statements of the Imam support what I have to say.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/29/2019 at 12:18 AM, eThErEaL said:

Can you kindly explain how that is supposed to answer my question?  

We cannot in anyway limit the God in space & time. He Himself is Al-Awwal & He is Al-Aakhir. Everything which seems to have a beginning, its beginning is because of Him only & to Him belongs to the end. He is the sole owner of everything (Lahu ma fis-samawate wama fil ard). He Himself is eternal so do His acts. It is our acts which begins, but that too require His approval and that is what we mean when we say "Insha Allah". 

On 9/29/2019 at 12:18 AM, eThErEaL said:

What He created with the truth is not itself the truth.  The verse proves that creation is illusory.

There are creations which have been mentioned as truth (Haqq), for instance Qur'an, Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), Deen (Islam) etc. Secondly, The creation considered as the words of God, can we call the words of God as illusion?

قُلْ يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ قَدْ جَاءكُمُ الْحَقُّ مِن رَّبِّكُمْ 
10:108

So every Prophet was illusion & the miracles he displayed were illusion too? I consider them & know them as "Baiyyenaat". 
 

On 9/29/2019 at 12:18 AM, eThErEaL said:

Yes.  This statement proves my point even more.  I am staying that the creation is not just a theophany of God but it can also be a veil.  This is another name for illusion.  An illusion is real and false.  It is real in as much as it exists but is false in as much as it doesn’t exist.  

Well I can say that since "veil" itself is a creation, therefore veil itself is a theophany of God and not the illusion. 

 

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...