M: "Glorified be God who is above committing evil."
A: "No, glorified be God in whose dominion nothing occurs without God's permission."
M: "Does God will that God be disobeyed?"
A: "Could God be disobeyed against God's will?"
M: "If God denies me guidance and decrees my perdition, does God commit a good or an
evil act?"
A: "If God denies you something that belongs to you, then God commits an evil act. But if God denies you something that belongs to God, then God simply singles out for God's mercy whomever God pleases."
The problem of evil, especially human suffering, exercised classical Muslim theologians as much it does Western philosophers, theologians and scientists today. The issue then was basically the same as it is now: If God is All-Good and All-Powerful, how do we explain the existence of evil? The theological school known as Mu'tazilism emphasized God's all-goodness and argued that since God is All-Good, God cannot be the source of evil. Rather, it is humans who inflict suffering on other humans, entirely on their own. In fact, the Mu'tazilites argued, beyond the original act of creation, humans are not at all dependent on God to do what they do but actually create their own acts! By contrast, the Ash'arite school emphasized God's All-Powerfulness and argued that if God did not control all the affairs of the universe, something other than God could bring about things that went against God's will. For them, whatever occurs had to occur because God willed it. Otherwise, God would be neither All-Powerful, in complete control, nor, ultimately, God.
Both schools sought to absolve God of responsibility for evil. The Mu'tazilites did this by placing evil human acts entirely outside God's power and wholly in the hands of humans (which left them to explain things like earthquakes, floods and cancer). The Ash'arites, meanwhile, argued that if God is truly the All-Powerful Owner of the universe, God must be able to do with creation as God pleases, and no one can sit in judgment over what God does with God's own "property." In fact, the Ash'arites accused the Mu'tazilites of fudging the issue by falsely privileging the human perspective on what actually constitutes good and evil. They denied that humans were the center of some objective moral universe and pointed out that every moral judgment that humans might make could be matched by an opposite judgment by other humans. In this context, human suffering might be evil from the perspective of humans. But this would be no more an objective basis for indicting God than would be the argument of plants and animals against humans for eating them!
Of course, such arguments did not satisfy everyone. The founder of the Traditionalist school once asked rhetorically: If God is wholly unconnected to evil, what role can God play in lifting it? The Maturidite school, meanwhile, went even further. Not only did its founder accept that God could create evil, he actually turned evil's existence into a proof of God's existence! According to him, had the universe come into being on its own, it would have produced nothing that jeopardized its integrity or well-being. Thus, the very existence of evil implies autonomous choice on the part of something that stands outside the system -- God. Yet, while God can, according to the Maturidites, create evil and human suffering, God cannot and does not create evil that does not ultimately serve a wise purpose.
In all of this, Muslim theologians never isolated a single attribute of God (All-Powerful, All-Good, All-Wise, All-Merciful) as the sole basis of God's actions. While Mu'tazilites privileged God's all-goodness, this was tempered by their recognition of God's wisdom, power, autonomy, patience and other attributes. Ash'arites appear stoic in privileging God's all-powerfulness, but only if they are seen as negating God's goodness, mercy, justice and other attributes. In fact, when Ash'arites speak of God's ability to do whatever God pleases, they are only speaking of what God can do. What God actually does will be based not solely on God's brute power but on the total composite of God's attributes. The same applies to Traditionalists and Maturidites.
This strikes me to be perhaps among the most important differences between classical Muslim and many modern, non-Muslim Western discussions on evil and suffering. While the latter seem to isolate a single attribute -- all-goodness, all-lovingness, all-powerfulness -- and decide the issue on that basis alone, the former simply emphasize a single attribute but cling to a more complex composite of divine "character." In this light, the mere existence of evil and suffering could not dispose of the God question. For even if every instance of human suffering could tell us something about the existence and nature of God, every instance of human happiness and well-being must tell us something of equal proof-value about the nature and existence of a complex, multifaceted Creator.
Muslim theologians summed up this dual reality in the notion of living life between the two poles of hope and fear -- hope that the irresistible choices of an all-powerful God would be ultimately tempered by mercy, compassion and love, and fear that they might not. Of course, the very notion of fear is a major problem for religious discourse today, as "organized religion" has so notoriously used it to exploit and subjugate believers. But just because one is paranoid does not mean that one is not being followed. In the end, we are all afraid, if not of God, death, and eternal damnation then of the earthly Hell of loveless objectification, disrespect and nobodyness, a fear that can subject us to régimes of fantasy and exploitation no less debilitating, and no less blasphemous, than religious tyranny and treachery.
But is theology in the end really a match for the brutalities and disappointments of life -- an earthquake, the death of a child, 9/11, the betrayal of a friend, spouse or sibling, the seemingly schizophrenic turning of one's entire society against one? In these moments, it seems to matter little whether one is a Mu'tazilite, Ash'arite, Maturidite or Traditionalist. For, while good theological answers may empower one to understand catastrophe, understanding alone is rarely enough to neutralize the pain of loss or regret. What I need here is solace and reconciliation with the fact of my creatureliness; the courage, honesty and dignity to acknowledge that I am not in control; yet the insight and fullness of soul to see in the enormity of what has happened that I am just as eligible for enormous good as I am for enormous tragedy. Here my reach is ultimately for something "outside the system," something capable of breaking all the rules, of defying the laws of probability and chance -- for me! This is the beginning of the theological impulse.
Yet, while, the theological impulse, however crude, may be the beginning of my relationship with God, it is only the beginning. And I must be careful not to mistake the menu for the meal. Whether I emphasize God's goodness or justice, God's power or wisdom, these mental abstractions will only take on concrete meaning for me in the context of my actual relationship with God. Ultimately, if the real goal of theology is to promote a living relationship with God and not simply to paint a pretty picture of God, perhaps the real value of what it has to say about evil and suffering resides not so much in how it mars or enhances idealized images of God but in how it enriches or impoverishes the human relationship with God.
For a more detailed look at Muslim theology, see my On the Boundaries of Theological Tolerance in Islam (Oxford, 2002) or, especially on suffering, my Islam and the Problem of Black Suffering (Oxford, 2009).
Mu'tazili - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ash'ari - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is always something that bothered me...I think Mark Twain said it best:
the vast bulk of the Creator's affliction-inventions are specially designed for the persecution of the poor. You could guess this by the fact that one of the pulpit's finest and commonest names for the Creator is "The Friend of the Poor." Under no circumstances does the pulpit ever pay the Creator a compliment that has a vestige of truth in it. The poor's most implacable and unwearying enemy is their Father in Heaven. The poor's only real friend is their fellow man. He is sorry for them, he pities them, and he shows it by his deeds. He does much to relieve their distresses; and in every case their Father in Heaven gets the credit of it.
- Albert Schweitzer
The one below it however should and for some reason the it won't accept the flag. Attacking all Muslims just because they are Muslims is a clear violation of the HP comments rules.
Evil is the opposite of the greek word for love, "Agape". Take a look at 1 Corinthians 13. Evil is all the things that love is not. Evil is not patient, it is not kind, it is jealous, boastful and arrogant.It is ugly, selfish and revengeful.It rejoices in filth, and it is dependant on lies.
As for Misfortune, Allah is considered the primary source. He does not "let" events happen because he is malevolent. Rather, He causes all events to happen. As harm and suffering are temporary conditions in what will turn out to be a very short and forgettable life, there's really no "problem of suffering". When we are judged according to the content of our souls, the suffering we experience amounts to nothing more than long-division on a difficult math exam.
If God is all-knowing, doesnt he know if we'll pass or fail? If so, why hurt those who he knows will pass?
My personal reading is that the criticism Islam and Muslims are currently receiving in the West is a healthy sign, in that, it is forcing the Muslims to re-examine sources of their religion and reform it.
The Sufi movements are but some of these reformist movements in the West. These Sufi movements are different in many ways from the Sufi movements of yester-years, in that they tend to be intellectual, more spiritual and less political.
Perhaps, we will see an Americanized version of Islam in a few decades, an Islam that will then influence the islams that exist in the Muslim world!
Which is...?
Watch this....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVP-Uw0pzGc
Peace/Salaams/Shalom
God obviously isn't trying to prevent death.
In all likelihood he is the primary cause of death, for a multitude of reasons.
But death causes suffering.
Obviously, human suffering is *not* a cosmic priority, any more than pain during childbirth is a cosmic priority. Mothers don't hold the pain of childbirth against their children- they can't even REMEMBER it. How are we going to hold the suffering of 73 years against an eternal creator of all things, who in most cases assures us our suffering is important to our development, and doesn't ultimately count against us?
1000 years ago, Islam faced a fork in the road to the future. One option was laid out by Al-Ghazali and the other was represented by Avicenna and Averroes. Al-Ghazali won out, but also Europe began to take on the direction laid out by Avicenna and Averroes, which was a combination of Greek and Indian thought. Europe would eventually move towards Science, while Islam would stay with the problem of ascertaining "God's Will". Al-Ghazali was so disturbed by Avicenna's statement which was in line with Aristotle and Indian thought that the world/existence has no beginning nor end, that he issued a fatwa which would cause Avicenna's life to be endangered. If there were no beginning to existence then what use for a Creator/God?
Al-Ghazali once wrote that when a ball of cotton and fire are brought together, it is not the fire which burns the cotton, but God who burns the cotton.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avicenna
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averroes
Many thanks for pointing it out! I will research this area later.
The moon is facing the sun, right. So one side of it is illuminated by the light emanating from the Sun, but on the other side is darkness caused by the lack of light.
Evil is the like that. Let me elaborate further:
Every human is endowed with two inner entities: 1) Self, which is individualized, and 2) Soul, which is constant in every human being and is a Divine Spark that reflects all the good attributes and qualities of the Divine Essence.
The self when it is completely facing towards the soul, is illuminated like the moon is from the light emanating from the sun, but on the other side is darkness. So when the self turns away from the light emanating from the soul, it is in darkness (there are degrees of darkness).
Evil is simply the dark side of the self that is not getting light from the soul.
In other words, evil is merely absence of good, which has the real existence.
No human being's self is completely in the dark for the light emanating from the soul is very powerful.
So every human being's self reflects some light and some darkness, depending on how much the self is pointing towards the soul and is in alignment with it.
The way to turn away from darkness is to move away from the lower tendencies of the self. The light is always there, one doesn't have to seek it per se.
Religion is about faith, and faith alone. Everything else----and you're dealing with the real world of facts, logic, cause, effect, and consequences. \In the real world, what goes up, must come down. (Unless it's in orbit of course).
Thinking and religion are oil and water. They don't mix.
Not true in case of Islam, the Qur`an often invites humankind to reflect and reason.
Other than those few minor details, it seems a very reasonable religion.
Constraining reason to 'acceptable' axioms can mean one does a great deal of thinking but departs the actual field of what reason can know... or never really gets there.
It may not be reason or science to try justifying hatred, bigotry, climate denial or claims contrary to what's repeatably-observable, but it *occupies the same brain-space.*
This is where we get the problems, really.
Also, perhaps, there should be less insistence one way or another about what is miscible, and more attention to what we're cooking with both ingredients. ;)
Intelligence and the ability to reason are gifts from God.
Peace/Salaams/Shalom
Job 19:26-27 "Even after my skin is destroyed, yet from my flesh I shall see God; whom I myself shall behold, and whom my eyes will see and not another.
Matthew 5:28 :"Therefore you are to be perfect, as your Heavenly Father is perfect,"
That seems to be a major difference in the Muslim paradise and the Christian heaven. --What we long for.
Muslims have the houri.
We have the God of Light. ""What we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life." 1 John 1:1
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-national/alert-children-s-toys-contain-hidden-message-promoting-islam