Generational “curses” and stigmas

[Northwest]

As an outsider looking in, I am putting this thread up for some insight.

Abrahamic tradition does not hold one to be responsible for others’ deeds. Islam is no exception: one is not held responsible for the sins of one’s ancestors, but only one’s own.

However, it is also acknowledged that the cumulative actions of one’s forebears can lead to certain inborn tendencies, as shown in the dynamics of alcoholism among certain demographics.

Of course, there is a dispute as to the degree to which one’s actions can affect one’s genome, and the role of woo in distorting matters has not aided understanding.

Still, if one is born into a family with a “generational curse”—be it diabetes or addictions—even if one is not responsible for one’s ancestors’ behaviour, one can still feel stigmatised relative to people who did not belong to a lineage with the said “curse.”

One can, perhaps, better oneself, but remain at a disadvantage, in absolute terms, relative to others who were not born into one’s lineage and its attendant problems. In other words, one’s best would still be less than the worst (or best) of the others.

Has anyone grappled with this dilemma and its attendant, complicated emotions?

[Meedy]

I got a little confused but Well I can think of Mohammad Ibn Abu Bakr, he was loyal to Imam Ali where was his father was not.  Generally when there is discussion about Abu Bakr, there is little discussion about the differences between him and his son who was loyal to Imam Ali. So due to his father actions, he is not mentioned that often.

[Abu Hadi]

On 1/18/2022 at 12:20 PM, Northwest said:

As an outsider looking in, I am putting this thread up for some insight.

Abrahamic tradition does not hold one to be responsible for others’ deeds. Islam is no exception: one is not held responsible for the sins of one’s ancestors, but only one’s own.

However, it is also acknowledged that the cumulative actions of one’s forebears can lead to certain inborn tendencies, as shown in the dynamics of alcoholism among certain demographics.

Of course, there is a dispute as to the degree to which one’s actions can affect one’s genome, and the role of woo in distorting matters has not aided understanding.

Still, if one is born into a family with a “generational curse”—be it diabetes or addictions—even if one is not responsible for one’s ancestors’ behaviour, one can still feel stigmatised relative to people who did not belong to a lineage with the said “curse.”

One can, perhaps, better oneself, but remain at a disadvantage, in absolute terms, relative to others who were not born into one’s lineage and its attendant problems. In other words, one’s best would still be less than the worst (or best) of the others.

Has anyone grappled with this dilemma and its attendant, complicated emotions?

The deeds of your ancestors do affect you, but they don't determine your ultimate reward or punishment, i.e. heaven and hell. 

That is the bottom line, the short version. This is a complex topic, even in Islamic Theology, similar to the topic of free will. 

From what I have read, each person has a range of 'goodness' or 'badness' they can attain. This range is constrained by things like level of education, family background and upbringing, deeds of their ancestors, etc. As long as the person reaches the level of more than 50% goodness within the range that they have, they can attain paradise. In other words the 'goodness' of their good is greater than the 'badness' of their bad. Some people reach 50/50 and they will be judged by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and their fate isn't clear. The ones with less than 50% goodness will be exposed to punishment from Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), whether that is the ultimate punishment in hell, punishment in this life, or in the barzakh(intermediate realm between death and the Day of Judgement). Some will ultimately make it to Paradise after they undergo this punishment. Some will never get there, it depends on what they did. 

That is why we say the Holy Prophet Muhammad(p.b.u.h), and the Imams((عليه السلام)), and the Prophets all had pure lineage. In other words, their direct biological ancestors, (mother, father, grandfather, grandmother, great...) were all on the right path, i.e. they followed the Prophet of their time and were not idol worshippers. So their 'range' or potential for goodness at birth was much higher than the normal person. When they fulfilled that potential, they were rewarded with being chosen by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) to be a Prophet or Imam. 

When we fulfill our potential for goodness within the range we were given, we will also receive our reward. We may not be a Prophet or Imam, may not be able to feed 10,000 orphans or save a whole nation from destruction (as Prophet Yunus did) but we can do many good acts which we have the ability to do, and thus fulfill our potential for goodness. 

Edited January 20, 2022 by Abu Hadi

[Northwest]

On 1/20/2022 at 7:06 PM, Abu Hadi said:

The deeds of your ancestors do affect you, but they don't determine your ultimate reward or punishment, i.e. heaven and hell. 

That is the bottom line, the short version. This is a complex topic, even in Islamic Theology, similar to the topic of free will. 

From what I have read, each person has a range of 'goodness' or 'badness' they can attain. This range is constrained by things like level of education, family background and upbringing, deeds of their ancestors, etc. ... 

That is why we say the Holy Prophet Muhammad(p.b.u.h), and the Imams((عليه السلام)), and the Prophets all had pure lineage. In other words, their direct biological ancestors, (mother, father, grandfather, grandmother, great...) were all on the right path, i.e. they followed the Prophet of their time and were not idol worshippers. Their 'range' or potential for goodness at birth was much higher than the normal person’s.

@Abu Hadi (with a nod to @Ashvazdanghe)

My gist is that, in the West, there is a prevailing belief in egalitarian forms of meritocracy. According to this viewpoint, individuals are born with a tabula rasa (“blank slate“) and each has the same potential as another. Within this paradigm the only factors that prevent individuals from achieving the same high potential are a) a lack of effort and/or b) a lack of opportunity. In the West people who subscribe to this worldview would probably look askance at the notion that even their best efforts to do good would fall short compared to those of, say, the Ahl’ al-Bayt simply due to circumstances of birth and lineage. They would probably call the notion an intellectual remnant of the caste-system or its equivalent. If they are told to do good but also notified that their efforts would fall short of some standard due to innate incapacity, they would probably develop envy or self-hatred that would give way to either a) asceticism (monasticism) or b) licentiousness (Epicureanism). Basically, they would object to the notion that circumstances of birth and lineage should have such an impact on one’s potential and thus fate, at least in this world, hence condemnation of certain forms, mainly “aristocratic,” of so-called “ableism.”

On a related note, I am uncertain as to whether illegitimate children, for instance, are capable of meriting Paradise based on their deeds. I am aware that they are not permitted to lead prayers, assume visible positions in (Islamic) society, or eat “willy-nilly,” so to speak. If they are automatically barred from Paradise based on the circumstances of their birth, then that would tend to give greater weight to fate vs. free will. It would also indicate that the illegitimate offspring would suffer some deprivation in the next world on account of their parents’ zina, or would otherwise lack the innate moral capacity to choose goodness. In that circumstance the parents’ act(s) would have coloured the offspring’s entire being from birth. What do ahadith indicate?

[Abu Hadi]

6 hours ago, Northwest said:

@Abu Hadi (with a nod to @Ashvazdanghe)

My gist is that, in the West, there is a prevailing belief in egalitarian forms of meritocracy. According to this viewpoint, individuals are born with a tabula rasa (“blank slate“) and each has the same potential as another. Within this paradigm the only factors that prevent individuals from achieving the same high potential are a) a lack of effort and/or b) a lack of opportunity. In the West people who subscribe to this worldview would probably look askance at the notion that even their best efforts to do good would fall short compared to those of, say, the Ahl’ al-Bayt simply due to circumstances of birth and lineage. They would probably call the notion an intellectual remnant of the caste-system or its equivalent. If they are told to do good but also notified that their efforts would fall short of some standard due to innate incapacity, they would probably develop envy or self-hatred that would give way to either a) asceticism (monasticism) or b) licentiousness (Epicureanism). Basically, they would object to the notion that circumstances of birth and lineage should have such an impact on one’s potential and thus fate, at least in this world, hence condemnation of certain forms, mainly “aristocratic,” of so-called “ableism.”

On a related note, I am uncertain as to whether illegitimate children, for instance, are capable of meriting Paradise based on their deeds. I am aware that they are not permitted to lead prayers, assume visible positions in (Islamic) society, or eat “willy-nilly,” so to speak. If they are automatically barred from Paradise based on the circumstances of their birth, then that would tend to give greater weight to fate vs. free will. It would also indicate that the illegitimate offspring would suffer some deprivation in the next world on account of their parents’ zina, or would otherwise lack the innate moral capacity to choose goodness. In that circumstance the parents’ act(s) would have coloured the offspring’s entire being from birth. What do ahadith indicate?

These are good questions. Here is my attempt to answer them. 

The idea of 'tablulu rasa', the way I understand it, is that people are born without culture, without ethnicity, without gender (because gender is culturally defined as opposed to sex which is biologically defined), without attachment to certain ideas which might be popular in their society, etc. This is talking about someone's mental state. Yes, we as Muslims also believe this. What I am talking about, regarding lineage, is a spiritual state and not a mental state. The mind is the 'tablulu rasa' at birth and can be affected or 'written' by the society we live in. 

We, as Muslims, believe that the main driver of human behavior is this spiritual state (also called qalb in Arabic. It is sometimes referred to as 'spiritual heart') not the mental state. The mind and body are only servants that carry out what the spirit dictates to them. The spirit or 'ruh' is you, the real you. The non physical 'you' that existed before you were born and entered your physical body and mind at a certain point and will exit your physical body and mind upon death. Your 'ruh' or spirit existed in the loins of your father, your father's father, his father's father, etc, back to Adam(peace be upon him) who's loins contained the entire human population till the Day of Judgement, in spirit form. Your spirit traveled from one ancestor to another until you were born, at which point it entered the body you are currently in. 

So this is why we say 'The deeds of your ancestors affected you'. They affected 'you', meaning your spirit, which is the real you. How exactly those deeds affected your spirit we don't know, but we know they did have some effect. You are uniquely 'you' not only because your body and mind are unique, but your spirit is also unique, bearing the cumulative effects (good and bad) of your lineage. That is what I was talking about, as far as 'range' 

So your mind might be a 'tabulu rasa' but your spirit isn't. Now, we don't believe the same things the Christians believe, i.e. 'original sin', that the sin of Adam  (we don't believe it was a sin, btw, because there was no Divinely dictated Law at that time) affects all his progeny so that they are doomed to hell except if they .... We believe every baby is born without sin. That is why most people love to be around babies, because we are in proximity to the most 'pure' soul that we will probably ever encounter in this world. We also believe that the goal of this realm of existence is to 1) Recognize who your Creator is and 2) Obey Him(s.w.a) and not disobey him and if you disobey him to ask for forgiveness. The result of doing this (i.e. fulfilling the purpose of this realm of existence) is the reward of Paradise, which is eternal. Every single human being has the ability to fulfill the purpose of their being placed in this world and thus get Paradise. 

Now the process we go thru to acheive step 1 and step 2 are very different. If you were born of a very pure lineage, and thus started out with a more pure spirit vs others, you may be asked to do things as part of this obedience that are very difficult and which most people could not do. The example which we Shia bring up is the example of Imam Hussein((عليه السلام)) at Karbala. He had to stand by and watch his entire family be slaughtered in the most brutal way, and not lose hope or not lose faith in the mercy of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). None of us had spirits that were pure enough to endure this test, so we weren't given it. The result of the action of Imam Hussein((عليه السلام)) was that the real Islam, the Islam of Prophet Muhammad(p.b.u.h) and al l the other Prophets was saved from destruction at the hands of the Umayyad thugs and criminals. We are given easier tests, although they might seem hard to us. 

So when people say, 'A baby can achieve anything, they are not constrained by their lineage', that is mostly true. We can all fulfill the goal of our existence and gain Paradise, which , IMHO, is the only thing that actually is worth achieving anyway. 

The thing about 'illegitimate children' is exaggerated by some Muslims, unfortunately. There are two issues here. First, and 'illegitimate child' or 'walad zina'(Arabic) is a child who was born to a women who had no religiously sanctioned relationship with the father at the time of conception. If there was any sort of 'marriage' type of relationship between the mother and father at the time of conception that was accepted according to their religious tradition (whether that is Christian (any denomination), Jewish, Muslim, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, etc) then the child is not illegitimate. Second issue, even if the child is illegitimate, there are only two things they cannot do, that I know of, from a Fiqh(Islamic Legal) point of view. They cannot lead Congregational Prayers (according to Sayyid Sistani and most other marjaa), they cannot be Marjaa Taqleed (Islamic scholar worthy of emulation). Other than that, there is no other restrictions on them. They can become good people and reach the highest levels of Paradise. BTW, the vast majority of Muslims who are of legitimate birth also never do either of those things. So they are not a requirement and not doing them will not hinder anyone in their journey to Paradise. 

Also, for some reverts to Islam who do not know whether their mother or father had this type of relationship at the time of your conception, you can assume they did unless you have 100% solid evidence that they didn't. 

 

Edited January 24, 2022 by Abu Hadi

[Northwest]

On 1/24/2022 at 5:29 PM, Abu Hadi said:

So this is why we say 'The deeds of your ancestors affected you'. They affected 'you', meaning your spirit, which is the real you. How exactly those deeds affected your spirit we don't know, but we know they did have some effect. You are uniquely 'you' not only because your body and mind are unique, but your spirit is also unique, bearing the cumulative effects (good and bad) of your lineage. That is what I was talking about, as far as 'range' 

So your mind might be a 'tabulu rasa' but your spirit isn't. Now, we don't believe the same things the Christians believe, i.e. 'original sin', that the sin of Adam (we don't believe it was a sin, btw, because there was no Divinely dictated Law at that time) affects all his progeny so that they are doomed to hell except if they...

Now the process we go thru to acheive step 1 and step 2 are very different. If you were born of a very pure lineage, and thus started out with a more pure spirit vs others, you may be asked to do things as part of this obedience that are very difficult and which most people could not do. ... None of us had spirits that were pure enough to endure this test, so we weren't given it. ... We are given easier tests, although they might seem hard to us. 

So when people say, 'A baby can achieve anything, they are not constrained by their lineage', that is mostly true. We can all fulfil the goal of our existence and gain Paradise, which, IMHO, is the only thing that actually is worth achieving anyway.

@Abu Hadi

Based on this, if one’s spiritual lineage is less than pure, yet one aspires to the same level of purity as the Ahl’ al-Bayt, then the knowledge that one’s best efforts will still fall short may actually serve as a form of discouragement. Furthermore, the knowledge that one cannot fully “expurgate” the evil aspects of one’s cumulative spiritual lineage may lead to a sense of shame and/or stigma. If one has a desire to do good and be able to achieve a higher spiritual level than one’s innate capacity allows, then if one fails one may feel a sense of shame or even self-hatred that leads to detestation and self-abnegation. After all, the motivation to aim higher decreases if one already knows that one’s best efforts will fall short of one’s aims, simply because one’s “range” of potential does not enable one’s capacity to reach the desired height(s).

Recently I was reading Robert T. Kiyosaki’s Rich Dad, Poor Dad (Scottsdale, AZ: Plata Publishing, 2017). On p. 263 the author notes that by limiting or lowering one’s expectations one subconsciously sets oneself up for fatalism and underachievement. In business he advises against this approach and its attendant mentality. If religion, on the other hand, already tells you that your “range” of potential is inherently limited, and that only a minority of humans have and will ever be able to attain a full spiritual potential, then in effect the religion is removing one’s motive and incentive to put in effort. In effect it encourages an aristocratic, caste-like mindset in which only a certain number of individuals are predestined by God to be fully purified in their spiritual lineage and thus have the capacity to reach man’s spiritual zenith.

On 1/24/2022 at 5:29 PM, Abu Hadi said:

The thing about 'illegitimate children' is exaggerated by some Muslims, unfortunately. ...

Second issue, even if the child is illegitimate, there are only two things they cannot do, that I know of, from a Fiqh(Islamic Legal) point of view. They cannot lead Congregational Prayers (according to Sayyid Sistani and most other marjaa), they cannot be Marjaa Taqleed (Islamic scholar worthy of emulation). Other than that, there is no other restrictions on them. They can become good people and reach the highest levels of Paradise.

If I recall correctly, there was an old thread on this Web site in which some people stated that both Shia/Sunni ahadith indicated that illegitimate children were barred from Paradise. Unfortunately, I have been unsuccessfully looking for this thread, but can no longer find it. I am not of illegitimate birth, fortunately, but the fact that illegitimate children cannot lead congregational prayers or become worthy scholars already suggests that they cannot “reach the highest levels of Paradise,” at the very least, solely due to circumstances of birth. I do agree that zina should be stigmatised, but I do have some problems with the offspring, as opposed to the parents, bearing some of the stigma. This doesn’t seem to be particularly meritocratic, in that it places greater weight on the offspring’s birth vs. his character.

In effect it is one of the obstacles that might complicate my reverting to Islam, were reversion attempted. Perhaps the problem lies in the fact that Islam is not a moralistic (pietistic) Deen, unlike many Western iterations of Christianity (especially Protestant) and certain sects within Judaism. On the one hand Islam seemingly prescribes uniformity and unity in piety, up to and including outward manifestations such as ritual, dress, and diet, which tend to become standardised, e.g., the Iranian Shia women wear dark chadors, the men turbans, and so on, so that local “flavours” of Islam take on a centralised form. On the other hand, the seemingly “levelling” tendencies inherent in all this are countered by caste-like tendencies that add an “aristocratic” flavour, e.g., the centrality of lineage/birth over personal merit.

[VoidVortex]

 

Quote

If I recall correctly, there was an old thread on this Web site in which some people stated that both Shia/Sunni ahadith indicated that illegitimate children were barred from Paradise. Unfortunately, I have been unsuccessfully looking for this thread, but can no longer find it. I am not of illegitimate birth, fortunately, but the fact that illegitimate children cannot lead congregational prayers or become worthy scholars already suggests that they cannot “reach the highest levels of Paradise,” at the very least, solely due to circumstances of birth. I do agree that zina should be stigmatised, but I do have some problems with the offspring, as opposed to the parents, bearing some of the stigma. This doesn’t seem to be particularly meritocratic, in that it places greater weight on the offspring’s birth vs. his character.

Just my two cents, the illegitimate children thing has been addressed here: Question 15: Why Illegitimate Children Are Kept Away From Some Posts? | Philosophy of Islamic Laws | Al-Islam.org

Quote

If I recall correctly, there was an old thread on this Web site in which some people stated that both Shia/Sunni ahadith indicated that illegitimate children were barred from Paradise.

the above is misinterpreted 

Quote

cannot lead congregational prayers or become worthy scholars

Both of these are external appearances, a worthy scholar could be corrupt like yazid and a prayer leader could be an unjust individual(in private). Inner purity of the heart is what will be judged. I do think it would be unfair if they were barred from reaching the peaks of spirituality due to the actions of their parents, and I would not understand if God barred them, but I think he would not as he is all just. I think this question should be asked to sheikh sekaleshfar as he has studied spirituality extensively. You can email him by finding his website or his facebook and ask him.

[Northwest]

On 2/7/2022 at 5:58 PM, Northwest said:

@Abu Hadi

Based on this, if one’s spiritual lineage is less than pure, yet one aspires to the same level of purity as the Ahl’ al-Bayt, then the knowledge that one’s best efforts will still fall short may actually serve as a form of discouragement. Furthermore, the knowledge that one cannot fully “expurgate” the evil aspects of one’s cumulative spiritual lineage may lead to a sense of shame and/or stigma. If one has a desire to do good and be able to achieve a higher spiritual level than one’s innate capacity allows, then if one fails one may feel a sense of shame or even self-hatred that leads to detestation and self-abnegation. After all, the motivation to aim higher decreases if one already knows that one’s best efforts will fall short of one’s aims, simply because one’s “range” of potential does not enable one’s capacity to reach the desired height(s).

Recently I was reading Robert T. Kiyosaki’s Rich Dad, Poor Dad (Scottsdale, AZ: Plata Publishing, 2017). On p. 263 the author notes that by limiting or lowering one’s expectations one subconsciously sets oneself up for fatalism and underachievement. In business he advises against this approach and its attendant mentality. If religion, on the other hand, already tells you that your “range” of potential is inherently limited, and that only a minority of humans have and will ever be able to attain a full spiritual potential, then in effect the religion is removing one’s motive and incentive to put in effort. In effect it encourages an aristocratic, caste-like mindset in which only a certain number of individuals are predestined by God to be fully purified in their spiritual lineage and thus have the capacity to reach man’s spiritual zenith.

If I recall correctly, there was an old thread on this Web site in which some people stated that both Shia/Sunni ahadith indicated that illegitimate children were barred from Paradise. Unfortunately, I have been unsuccessfully looking for this thread, but can no longer find it. I am not of illegitimate birth, fortunately, but the fact that illegitimate children cannot lead congregational prayers or become worthy scholars already suggests that they cannot “reach the highest levels of Paradise,” at the very least, solely due to circumstances of birth. I do agree that zina should be stigmatised, but I do have some problems with the offspring, as opposed to the parents, bearing some of the stigma. This doesn’t seem to be particularly meritocratic, in that it places greater weight on the offspring’s birth vs. his character.

In effect it is one of the obstacles that might complicate my reverting to Islam, were reversion attempted. Perhaps the problem lies in the fact that Islam is not a moralistic (pietistic) Deen, unlike many Western iterations of Christianity (especially Protestant) and certain sects within Judaism. On the one hand Islam seemingly prescribes uniformity and unity in piety, up to and including outward manifestations such as ritual, dress, and diet, which tend to become standardised, e.g., the Iranian Shia women wear dark chadors, the men turbans, and so on, so that local “flavours” of Islam take on a centralised form. On the other hand, the seemingly “levelling” tendencies inherent in all this are countered by caste-like tendencies that add an “aristocratic” flavour, e.g., the centrality of lineage/birth over personal merit.

^ @Abu Hadi Do you have any thoughts on the above? I would love to hear your input once more.

[Abu Hadi]

On 2/7/2022 at 11:58 AM, Northwest said:

@Abu Hadi

Based on this, if one’s spiritual lineage is less than pure, yet one aspires to the same level of purity as the Ahl’ al-Bayt, then the knowledge that one’s best efforts will still fall short may actually serve as a form of discouragement. Furthermore, the knowledge that one cannot fully “expurgate” the evil aspects of one’s cumulative spiritual lineage may lead to a sense of shame and/or stigma. If one has a desire to do good and be able to achieve a higher spiritual level than one’s innate capacity allows, then if one fails one may feel a sense of shame or even self-hatred that leads to detestation and self-abnegation. After all, the motivation to aim higher decreases if one already knows that one’s best efforts will fall short of one’s aims, simply because one’s “range” of potential does not enable one’s capacity to reach the desired height(s).

 

First, what you have to realize is that noone has the ability to reach the level of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)), as far a spiritual purity. Not me, not you, not anyone, even if they were sayyid born into a family of prominent ulema and marjaa'. The Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)) are a special creation of Allah, although they are human beings, noone can reach their level. This should be very clear from the outset. There is lots of evidence for this in both Quran and Hadith, and I can present if you have doubts regarding this. 

We should aspire to get as close as we can to that level though. The ability to ascend spiritually toward that level is something that we all have the ability to do. Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) does not only judge someone based on their spiritual level, but on the amount of effort they put in and the amount of progress they made, no matter what level they started off with. So, for example, it is very possible for someone who was born into a non muslim family, if they convert to Islam, path of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)) and strive and make good efforts to ascend in their spiritual state to surpass someone who was born into a Muslim family, a sayyid , and knowledgeable about the religion, if this person didn't extend much effort to improve themselves and ascend spiritually and were satisfied with the facts of their lineage. The person born into a non muslim family can reach a higher level of paradise. 

At the same time, that doesn't automatically mean that someone who was born into a non muslim family and accepted Islam voluntarily (i.e. reverted) 'Will' reach a higher level of paradise than someone born into a muslim family who only does the wajib (prayer, fasting, hajj, khums, tawhid). There are those who revert to Islam and then 'rest on their laurels' and don't ever reach those levels. There are some who do. It depends on the individuals effort

One cannot fully 'expurgate' oneself from one's spiritual lineage. We are a product of our environment as well as our family and lineage. At the same time, the most important aspect of who we are is what we do with the amount of knowledge, lineage, guidance from Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), and other resources such as time, health, wealth, etc that we are given. What we do with these gifts that we are given is the main factor that determines our spiritual level, not our 'spiritual dna' or 'spiritual lineage'. 

 

[Abu Hadi]

On 2/7/2022 at 11:58 AM, Northwest said:

 

Recently I was reading Robert T. Kiyosaki’s Rich Dad, Poor Dad (Scottsdale, AZ: Plata Publishing, 2017). On p. 263 the author notes that by limiting or lowering one’s expectations one subconsciously sets oneself up for fatalism and underachievement. In business he advises against this approach and its attendant mentality. If religion, on the other hand, already tells you that your “range” of potential is inherently limited, and that only a minority of humans have and will ever be able to attain a full spiritual potential, then in effect the religion is removing one’s motive and incentive to put in effort. In effect it encourages an aristocratic, caste-like mindset in which only a certain number of individuals are predestined by God to be fully purified in their spiritual lineage and thus have the capacity to reach man’s spiritual zenith.

 

Some parts of this comparison fit, some don't. Everyone understands what material wealth is, it is one of the 'dhaheri' or evident aspects of this world. So to make such a statement about wealth is more logical in the sense that in this world, you have the possibility to become as rich as Elon Musk or Bill Gates, or a poor homeless person or anything between. These are all possibilities. A good portion of it depends on your individual efforts, but a good portion of it also depends on other things which are outside of your control, like luck, the zip code you grew up in, the people that you came in contact with, or didn't come in contact with, etc. I've heard a few presentations by Kiyosaki and I agree with him to a point, but I also think he is leaving out alot of information. 

People tend to gravitate toward simple solutions. Just work harder, wake up earlier, save more money, etc. All those things are good to do, but there are lots of people who do all of those things and are still not rich. But anyway, thats a little off the subject. 

The part that doesn't fit is the 'batini' aspect of spiritual existence. (Batini means hidden, or that fact that we can't directly experience it in this world). We exist simultaneously in the Dhaher, or apparent world and in the Batin or hidden world, i.e. the spiritual world. Many of the rules that apply in the Apparent world do not apply in the Batini, or spiritual world. We had an existence in the spirtual world (sometimes called Alim Al Dhar in Islamic literature) before we came into the present world. Our existence in that world affects our existence in this world. We took a pledge with Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) before we came into this world that we would recognize and acknowledge His(s.w.a) existence while we were in this world, thru studying evidence he has placed in his apparent creation (apparent in this world), and that if guidance came to us from Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) we would follow it. As long as we exit this world, into the next one, having fulfilled that pledge to the best of our ability, our destination is Paradise, and our stay in the Barzakh (the intermediate world) will be a pleasant and good one. 

How the 'quality' and 'quantity' of this pledge is different for different individuals and how this is affected by our existence in the previous world (alim al Dhar) is something that is hidden from us in this world, We will eventually know it, though. At the same time, that is the role of faith, Iman. We don't know everything, but we know enough to know that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) exists, is real, and is Most Gracious, Most Merciful, and that Muhammad(p.b.u.h) is the Messenger of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). If we cling to what we know (the previous statement), then that's enough to make it to Paradise and the other things will become apparent in time. That what it means to have Iman, or Faith. 

[Northwest]

13 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

First, what you have to realize is that no one has the ability to reach the level of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)), as far a spiritual purity. ... The Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)) are a special creation of Allah ... There is lots of evidence for this in both Quran and Hadith, and I can present if you have doubts regarding this.

@Abu Hadi

I am familiar with these aspects of (Shia) Islam. My point is (per Kiyosaki), Wouldn’t the fact that one cannot match or surpass the Ahl’ al-Bayt’s level reduce one’s incentive or motivation to try? According to Kiyosaki if one already is told or convinces himself that he cannot achieve a certain level in business his overall incentive and/or motivation tends to wither. If, hypothetically, (Shia) Islam told the people that anyone could reach/exceed the Ahl‘ al-Bayt’s level of spiritual purity with the right effort and opportunity, wouldn’t the average believer be more motivated to put in greater effort? In the West people are motivated to excel in a profession or field or endeavour because they believe they can be just as great as the leaders thereof.

13 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

We should aspire to get as close as we can to that level though. The ability to ascend spiritually toward that level is something that we all have the ability to do. Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) does not only judge someone based on their spiritual level, but on the amount of effort they put in and the amount of progress they made, no matter what level they started off with. So, for example, it is very possible for someone who was born into a non muslim family, if they convert to Islam, path of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)) and strive and make good efforts to ascend in their spiritual state to surpass someone who was born into a Muslim family, a sayyid, and knowledgeable about the religion, if this person didn't extend much effort to improve themselves and ascend spiritually and were satisfied with the facts of their lineage.

See the above. If lineage, as you admit, matters insofar as one’s spiritual potential or “ceiling” is concerned, then the incentive/motive for someone who is not born into the line of a sayyid, eminent scholar, et al. to improve himself spiritually is lower, especially if one is already told that the line of the sayyid, scholar, et al. is spiritually better off in terms of starting-point and range of potential are concerned. From a Western perspective the focus on lineage inadvertently tends to place greater emphasis on the overriding role of caste, family, race, etc. in setting parameters for one’s range of spiritual potential. Per Kiyosaki societies that place more emphasis on birth vs. merit tend to be more nepotistic and less successful overall.

13 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

'rest on their laurels'

To some extent I think this may well apply to both those “born” into pious families and those “born” into non-Muslim or nonobservant families. Even in the West many successful people place great emphasis on their biological DNA. For instance, Donald Trump has talked of his family’s “good genes.” Royal families also follow a similar approach. This poses a problem for those with less-than-ideal DNA who must compete with their genetic superiors under the kind of “libertarian”/“free-market” parameters that people such as Kiyosaki advocate, in which economics is fully privatised and means-tested. In practice, the genetic component ends up nullifying the competitive, “free-market“ dynamic by posing barriers to entry.

13 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

One cannot fully 'expurgate' oneself from one's spiritual lineage. We are a product of our environment as well as our family and lineage.

But one might well wish/love to do so, if one is born into a less-than-“prestigious” spiritual lineage. Genetics exerts too much power over our own capacities and choices.

[Abu Hadi]

I think this thread has run it's course. I will just say one final thing. Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has created us and the universe in such a way that it operates within certain parameters; with certain rules and limitations. How we 'feel' about these rules and parameters doesn't change them. They exist regardless of how we feel. For example, If someone jumps off a cliff and then says 'Well I don't like the fact that there is gravity', they will hit the ground just as hard and fast and with the same consequences as someone who does 'like' gravity. 

It is a great mercy for us that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has shown us, thru Quran and Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)), and familiarized us with the path to gain spiritual purity. Without this guidance, noone, from the first to the last, would have ever been able to do this. In the famous line of the Dua it say, 'Oh Allah, without your guidance, (the hidaya) we would have never been guided'. So showing gratitude for this fact, that we received guidance, is the first step on the spritual journey of purification of the soul. Showing ingratitude, because we don't know everything about how this guidance works (at this point in our existence) is the first step in the opposite direction, toward spiritual impurity. 

So the logical response to these facts would be, 'How can I maximize my benefit on the spiritual journey that I am on, regardless of how I feel about how the universe is set up'. Then try to maximize it. There are very good reasons that the universe and existence is set up the way it is. In time, everyone will fully realize why. In the mean time, try to maximize your benefits from the way the system is set up. That seems logical to me. 

Edited February 14, 2022 by Abu Hadi

[Northwest]

11 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

I think this thread has run it's course. I will just say one final thing. Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has created us and the universe in such a way that it operates within certain parameters; with certain rules and limitations. How we 'feel' about these rules and parameters doesn't change them. They exist regardless of how we feel.

@Abu Hadi

Just to clarify: I have never claimed to be a believer, Shia, or so on. My problem is that I have always been reluctant to accept limitations, but rather seek to both probe and question them. This is also why I question, at least to some degree, established “science” on matters such as evolution, heliocentric theory, and vaccines. Healthy skepticism about established science and religion is healthy, so I also do the same in regard to religion. Maybe it’s arrogance, but I call it independence, in the sense that I do not really trust any established source in toto, but it religious or secular. Some aspects of religion are true, but others may well be false or incomplete. The same goes for the science of the day. Yet both religious and “scientist” absolutists tend to abhor nuance and ambiguity.

I have noticed that people who grow up in religious households tend to accept limitations more unhesitatingly than those who grow up in comparatively irreligious or skeptical households. In such a setting one is obliged to simply accept external conditions that are imposed rather than reflect on or challenge them. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing per se, but it does reflect a different worldview and corresponding mindset. It is the “tough-love” approach, and it can expedite certain valuable skills. Were you, for instance, brought up in a household in which you were told to accept certain decisions by authority-figures as absolute and irrevocable, regardless of how one felt or thought about them? In other words, was this kind of “faith-based” approach adopted, based on loyalty/sanctity?

11 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

For example, If someone jumps off a cliff and then says 'Well I don't like the fact that there is gravity', they will hit the ground just as hard and fast and with the same consequences as someone who does 'like' gravity.

Gravity hasn’t actually been proven to exist. Like evolution, it is a theory. So we don’t know why we tend to hit the ground after jumping. Gravity may well be an illusion.

This doesn’t mean that gravity does not exist, but there are also convincing, alternative explanations, as the link illustrates. Science is open to different possibilities.

11 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

So showing gratitude for this fact, that we received guidance, is the first step on the spiritual journey of purification of the soul. Showing ingratitude, because we don't know everything about how this guidance works (at this point in our existence), is the first step in the opposite direction, toward spiritual impurity.

“I can’t tell you how this procedure works, but I ask you to trust/put faith in it.”

Maybe my mentality, then, is too “scientific” and “skeptical,” or at least ambivalent, in regard to certain spiritual matters. If one were, say, approaching this matter as a scientist, one would not simply assert that one should accept guidance without understanding its background. A scientific theory does not operate on this basis. For example, if one were to seek a medical specialist to address a specific issue, one would not simply trust the medical specialist on the basis of something that is obscure. After all, science and religion address different realms.

Obviously, specialists cannot tell you everything about how a procedure works, because their daily duties do not allow them sufficient time to do so, but the basis for their procedure can be objectively, that is, physically, researched or studied, if one were so inclined, whereas spiritual matters cannot be verified using the same criteria. Both science and religion involve esotericism, but at least the former can be objectively tested, even if some individual scientists become arrogant and assume that “their” theory is fact rather than theory.

Whereas scientific experiments can be replicated and tested (being “data-driven”), religious practices involve a degree of personal subjectivity, and also cannot be subject to the same stringency. Religion deals with things that are not empirical, though at times science and religion may meet at an interface, i.e., metaphysics. Religion deals with the concept of the sacred and thus requires unconditional acceptance, regardless of empirically based understanding, or even rival versions of subjectivity. By contrast, true science is never absolutist.

Science, as opposed to scientism, can be corrupted by money and personal egos, but the process itself is as objective as is humanly possible, whereas that of religion is not per se. See, for instance, the common religious notion of “natural” disasters being Divine punishment for certain sinful behaviours or practices. Yet religion does not explain why some “sinful” areas such as Las Vegas are relatively immune to phenomena such as earthquakes that are often regarded as signs of Divine displeasure. This inconsistency may trouble a prospective seeker.

At least this is how it all seems to me.

11 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

There are very good reasons that the universe and existence is set up the way it is. In time, everyone will fully realize why. In the mean time, try to maximize your benefits from the way the system is set up. That seems logical to me.

The irony is that many religious sects have their own interpretation of how the universe/existence is set up and probably offer similar responses to inquirers: simply accept (our received interpretation of) the order and try to work within the system. As I implied earlier, religion, like scientism (as opposed to the scientific method), is based on received wisdom. Given that religious beliefs cannot be empirically tested, there is no purely objective way to choose between the various sects, and decide which is likely closest to the spiritual truth, if one were so inclined, for the sake of the argument, to seek it. Ultimately the religious response is predicated more on an emotional appeal to loyalty/authority/sanctity (“preaching to the choir”) than on empirically demonstrating proof of a claim to Divine revelation/approval/sanction. This approach isn’t always or even entirely bad per se, but it is not scientific in the sense of empirical or objective. After all, religion deals with another realm or definition of Reality that cannot be empirically measured or detected per se. But on a daily basis this approach, if consistently applied, would not be beneficial to our survival and “progress” as a species.