Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Asharis Don't Believe That There is a Real Distinction Between Good and Evil

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Asharis Don't Believe That There is a Real Distinction Between Good and Evil

    This has seriously come as a surprise to me. I keep learning new things about the absurd beliefs of Asharis. First, I thought it was only about Allah's names and attributes and not using Ahaad hadeeth in Aqeedah. Then i find out that Asharis don't really believe in the reality of cause and effect. And now....... I find out that Asharis don't believe that there is really good and evil. What they believe to be good and evil is what Allah has said. So basically according to them, if Allah says raping a baby is something good, then that means that it is good. That means that it is possible that Allah could order Shirk and condemn Tawheed, however Allah didn't.

    Asharis fall right into the trap of Euthyphros dillema.


    Wooooooow unbelievable and these people actually think that they are intellectual.

  • Bassam Zawadi
    replied
    Please note the distinction between:

    - Knowing something is good or evil

    and:

    - What makes something good and evil


    Of course whatever Allah says is good would be good because He would only tell us something is good if it really was the case.

    Leave a comment:


  • aminn
    replied
    I find out that Asharis don't believe that there is really good and evil. What they believe to be good and evil is what Allah has said.
    "Therefore, when Allah decrees something, then with certainty that which He decrees is going to realize what is best for His Creation. Whether we accept His law as good because we define good and evil as “whatever Allah says is good or evil” or because we realize from our faith in Allah’s all-encompassing knowledge and perfection that Allah’s determination of what is good and evil is necessary in conformity with what is inherently good and evil, in the final outcome, we will arrive at the same result "

    http://en.islamtoday.net/artshow-416-2995.htm
    Last edited by aminn; 08-04-2010, 11:43 AM. Reason: found the citation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bassam Zawadi
    replied
    Here is a section that also talks about how Asharis believe that it is possible for Allah to reward disbelievers and punish believers and that it could still be considered "good" if Allah willed it:

    يجوز عند الحبشي والأشاعرة أن يعذب الله الكفار..

    يزعم الحبشي أنه يجوز عقلاً أن يعذب الله المطيع الذي لم يعص لكن ذلك غير جائز شرعاً [الدليل القويم 14].

    وهذه معدودة من غرائب هذه الفرقة لأنهم يصرحون بجواز أن يعذب الله المطيعين: الأنبياء والأولياء وأن يُدخِل الكفار الجنة لأنه متصرف في ملكه، وهو لا يُسأل عما يفعل. وهذا الذي قاله هو في الحقيقة معتقد الأشاعرة.

    فقد نقل الزبيدي عن النسفي أن الأشاعرة يرون جواز تخليد الكفار في الجنة وتخليد المؤمنين في النار عقلاً وإن كان ورد الشرع بخلافه [إتحاف السادة المتقين 2/185 نظم الفرائد 30 وانظر الروضة البهية 32 – 33 إتحاف السادة المتقين 2/9].

    وقد صرّح الفخر الرازي بقول عجيب حين تناول تفسير قوله تعالى: ( إِنْ تُعَذِّبْهُمْ فَإِنَّهُمْ عِبَادُكَ وَإِنْ تَغْفِرْ لَهُمْ فَإِنَّكَ أَنْتَ الْعَزِيزُ الْحَكِيمُ ) [الآية 118 من سورة المائدة]، وافترض السؤال التالي: كيف جاز لعيسى أن يقول: (وإن تغفر لهم). والله لا يغفر الشرك؟ قال: « يجوز على مذهبنا من الله تعالى أن يُدخَلَ الكفارَ الجنة، وأن يُدخل الزّهاد والعبّاد النار ». قال: وقوله: ( إِنَّ اللَّهَ لا يَغْفِرُ أَنْ يُشْرَكَ بِهِ ) [الآية 48 من سورة النّساء] نقول: إن غفرانه جائز عندنا" [التفسير الكبير للرازي ص12/ 136].

    أهذه عقيدتكم الصحيحة وفرقتكم الناجية أن يسوغ في عقولكم المريضة أن يعذب الله الأنبياء والأولياء ويدخلهم النار. بينما يدخل الكفار الجنة!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • Bassam Zawadi
    replied
    http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showp...3&postcount=10

    Leave a comment:


  • Bassam Zawadi
    replied
    http://islamtoday.net/bohooth/artshow-86-113964.htm

    Leave a comment:


  • al-boriqee
    replied
    okay

    here is the start of it

    Socratus asked some greek dude (forgot name) this question -

    Does God love an action because it is intrinsically 'good' or is an action 'good' because God loves it?

    Leave a comment:


  • Abu Yunus
    replied
    Salam.

    El-hamdulillah.

    May Allah reward your sincere efforts in the Din.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bassam Zawadi
    replied
    Based on that, wouldn't it have been more correct to say that Shirk is bad because it relates to the very nature of God Himself, rather than saying it is bad in and of itself?
    Perhaps your right that my wording may have misled some people, but now you know what I mean.

    Salam

    Leave a comment:


  • Abu Yunus
    replied
    Wa alaikum us-salam.

    May Allah forgive us in this blessed month of Ramadan and increase us in what is good.

    Amin.

    Leave a comment:


  • al-boriqee
    replied
    I don't think none of you truely know the deep dark sea of this topic as nearly well as Bassam.

    I know Bassam well enough to know that all of you are mere tadpoles in even discussing with him on theis topic, WHY>

    because this debate between good and evil is a mountainous debate amongst the philosophers which has also taken root in the ahlul-kalaam groups due to their connection to the creedal importation of greek philosophy.

    when I get a chance, I'll bring some of the super kalaami stuff that has been debated over. The basic essence of the debate is

    "Are good thing intrinsically good or is it good on the basis that God said so and is evil intrinsically evil or is it evil only because God declared it so"

    this is the single point that resulted in hard core philosophical polemics in the whole of the greek philosophical world which I think as well spilled over to the world of kalaam and even into hindu philosophy.

    asalamu alaikum

    Leave a comment:


  • Abu Yunus
    replied
    In that thread ("Euthyphro on Morals") you said, "Our moral values and duties are determined by God’s commands, but these commands are not arbitrary because they are expressions of the very nature of God Himself, which is immutable, necessary, non-contingent and is THE GOOD".

    Based on that, wouldn't it have been more correct to say that Shirk is bad because it relates to the very nature of God Himself, rather than saying it is bad in and of itself?

    I liked your answer to the dilemma, by the way.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bassam Zawadi
    replied
    http://www.dorar.net/enc/firq/336
    http://www.dorar.net/enc/firq/338

    Leave a comment:


  • Bassam Zawadi
    replied
    I said this:

    This was discussed in detail under the thread "Euthyphro on Morals".

    Leave a comment:


  • Abu Yunus
    replied
    How did you avoid it?

    You said, "Shirk is not bad ontologically because Allah chose to say so, rather it is actually bad in and of it self".

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X