Scientific American Issue, August 1999
asif_...@hotmail.com
On pages 81-87 there is an article on a disease the scientists
are chasing that is claiming lives of people in Malaysia.
Half-through the article they state that the host of the virus is
the swine. Subhan'Allah, this just shows the truth of the Quran
and may indicate that the evils of pig meat.
naturally the authors point out that since the malaysian army
is mainly comprised of Muslims, so they refuse to go to
pig farms and kill them. They write this in the very typical
condescending way that indicate our ways are somehow
inferior. If they only knew...
This article is just another in a long line of proofs that
we should simply follow what the prophet(pbuh) said and we will
be insha'Allah be forgiven.
Salaam to all Muslims
Asif (not holding my breath for the day when they finally determine
that alcohol is actually bad for one)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Mo
or is it already too late ?..
Sadiqi Az-Zindiki
for their perversion which he created, as it is based partially on genetics
and other genetic factors.
And Allah didn't like the Native Americans, probably because they were
idolators, so he sent with the European filth that came ashore illnesses to
wipe them out.
And you know what, Allah hates evil doing infants and senile elderly people,
which is why he likes to kill them with influenza and makes them more
susceptible to it.
And Allah sends Earthquakes in Iran and Afghanistan because he hates the
UnIslamic nature of both regimes....
And Allah...
While I am glad to see that you are reading a highly informative magazine,
the conclusion that swine-borne viruses vindicate Allah's reasoning behind
the pork ban are tenuous and weak.
Muslims get ill just like the rest of humanity, and if God is the one who
created those illnesses, among others, I extend my middle finger towards
him. I rather see it as evidence of the universe's indifference towards our
human conceits.
Dmitry Guller
These are just some thoughts that I had upon reading your post.
All different world views possess characteristics that might be deemed
problematic or even paradoxical, depending on the satisfaction by which they
are explained. One of religion's paradoxes is the problem of evil and
suffering. This notion is cited by atheists and unbelievers to justify their
refusal to believe in God, because (they reason) a benevolent and just God
would not promote and cause suffering to exist in the universe that He
created. Thus, they conclude, religious claims to a Supreme Being must be
false, because they so radically contradict our personal experiences of the
world.
As simple as this argument appears, it is loaded with theoretical
assumptions both about the Deity and about the universe in general. Although
there is not enough time to go into the details of this perennial problem,
it is enough to say that this argument would undercut all world views,
including the scientific one that dominates this age, and portrays what
Mackie, in his *Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong*, called the "companions
in the guilt" argument. In short, the argument states that if one party uses
an argument against another, but the argument is shown to undercut their
position, as well, then their position is also undermined.
This is relevant here because there are perennial paradoxes of empirical
science, as well. One of the most well-known is the problem of free will. In
short, it states that if we live in a world that is supported by a causal
nexus, then there is no place for the freedom to choose between possible
alternatives, because what we choose was (in some sense) determined by the
previous causes that led up to our decision, and there is no identifiable
point where "we" make the decision. Now, there are others, but this one
should suffice to make my point.
Now, if you are to be rigorous in your argument, then you must admit that
the fact that the scientific paradigm also has a perennial paradox that
seems to be born out of the very assumptions of empirical science, then you
must also reject your perspective, as well. (Obviously, if you reject
empirical science as a means to knowledge of the universe, then this
argument does not apply to you). So, it seems that the scientific viewpoint
is compromised by the very presence of the parasite that they argued made
the religious point of view so unconvincing and problematic.
The interesting part about this situation is that the Islamic perspective on
the problem of evil is interesting, because our conception of Allah is
different from the Judeo-Christian conception of God; and that different
conception does not allow us to fall prey to the problem of evil and
Euthyphro's paradox in Plato's *Euthyphro*.
In the *Euthyphro*, Plato has Socrates ask: "Is that which is holy loved by
the gods because it is holy, or is it holy because it is loved by the gods?"
(*Euthyphro* 9e). In other words, Socrates wants to know whether (a) it is
the mere fact that the Deity calls X "good" that makes it good, or (b) if
the Deity calls X "good", because it is (in fact) good. This problem plagued
Christian theologians like St. Thomas Aquinas, because they identified God
and the Good as the same in essence, and so God's Nature is Good and all
that comes into being from Him is also good. Thus, they accepted (b) rather
than (a). Indeed, St. Augustine, in his *Confessions*, argued that evil does
not even exist, but rather all things are good from different perspectives,
and that the key is to align oneself with the correct perspective and see
the good in all things.
However, St. Augustine's answer is unsatisfactory, because human suffering
is not an illusion, and it takes discipline to alter one's perceptual
faculties to see the world as he would like us to see it. Indeed,
brainwashing oneself to think that black is white does not mean that black
is, in fact, white. So, for the majority of mankind, evil does exist and it
does plague their lives. Even St. Thomas Aquinas's claim is compromised by
the obvious existence of evil in the world, and it is his conception of the
Deity that is most hammered by the problem of evil.
Now, the Islamic conception of Allah is different, because we make no claims
to know His Essence or Nature, because He is transcendent above our human
conceptions. For us, we accept (a) rather than (b). We have no access to
immutable Forms to assess whether what Allah calls "good" is (in fact) good,
because it is He who determines what is a fact to begin with. Thus, our
knowledge comes from what He calls "good" and "evil" and not from some
standard that we apply to His decrees. What that means is that we do not
come with predetermined ideas about what "good" and "evil" are, and then see
if His declarations match out preconceived notions, but rather accept what
He decrees as "good" and "evil" as (in fact) good and evil. So, for us, we
accept that the suffering in the world comes from Him, and do not sugar-coat
the issue.
Thus, we accept that good and evil exist in the world, and that they both
come from Him. We do not limit Him by claiming that He is compelled to do
only good things, because He is free from all needs and restrictions. He has
chosen a purpose for His creation and the means by which that end will be
established and the rules by which those means are conducted according to.
There are no transcendent standards, independent of Him, that He refers to,
like the Demiurge of Plato's *Timaeus*. So, unlike Aquinas, we do not claim
that He is limited to doing only good in His acts, but rather that He can do
whatever He wants. Thus, what He calls "good" is (in fact) good, and what He
calls "evil" is (in fact) evil, precisely because He says it is so.
That means that Muslims generally reject the formulation of the argument
about the problem of evil. We do not believe that Allah must do what is
good, as if the Good is some "outside" entity that He must conform to.
Rather by His creative fiat, He determines what is Good and Evil, and is not
constrained by them. In other words, Islamic theology is not at all harmed
by the problem of evil, because our conception of the Deity is different
from the Judeo-Christian conception.
Now, this explanation obviously has problems of its own, but (I think) the
problem of evil is not one of them. However, the problem of free will is
doomed to be present by any conception of the empirical world as one that is
determined by causal laws, and how one can escape from that conception is
beyond me. Whether you want to deny free will altogether or restrict free
will to the Noumenal Self is your decision, but Muslims do not have a
problem with evil like you have a problem with free will.
But I could be wrong, and I probably am.
Take care,
DG.
GF Haddad
Dmitry Guller wrote in message <7ncrn0$4ku$1...@waltz.rahul.net>...
> Indeed, St. Augustine, in his *Confessions*, argued that evil does
>not even exist, but rather all things are good from different
perspectives,
>and that the key is to align oneself with the correct perspective and see
>the good in all things.
>
>However, St. Augustine's answer is unsatisfactory, because human
suffering
>is not an illusion, and it takes discipline to alter one's perceptual
>faculties to see the world as he would like us to see it. Indeed,
>brainwashing oneself to think that black is white does not mean that
black
>is, in fact, white. So, for the majority of mankind, evil does exist and
it
>does plague their lives. Even St. Thomas Aquinas's claim is compromised
by
>the obvious existence of evil in the world, and it is his conception of
the
>Deity that is most hammered by the problem of evil.
It is true that the problem of evil is one that Christian theologians have
been unable to resolve. What they propose comes dangerously close to
manicheism, namely that it is not God that creates evil or death but some
other force. (They have a similar problem with free will and divine
foreknowledge.)
In order to avoid this Saint Augustine - in his _Confessions_ and also in
a famous chapter of his _City of God_ conveniently denies that evil or
death had positive existence, claiming that they were only "the negation"
of good and life. But it is evident that they do have positive existence
since a characteristic of what exists is that its effects can be seen and
felt, and we see and feel the effects of evil and death every day - may
Allah protect us.
So they exist, and therefore must have a creator, and if that creator is
not Allah, then Allah has a partner! which is rejected. Therefore, it is
Allah who creates life and death, as He said in Sura {Tabarak al-ladhi bi
Yadihi al-Mulk}.
Further, evil is foreordained by Him, just as good is, although adab and
high conduct with Allah Almighty dictate that we attribute to Him only the
good. This is taught to us in many passages of the Qur'an such as saying
{Bi Yadika al-Khayr} "In Thy Hand is all the good" and, more generally,
{kullun min `indillah} - {al-amru kulluhu lillah} "All is from Allah" and
"The Commandment is all His" i.e. including evil, but without unbecoming
specific attribution, rather we attribute evil to our own souls, or the
attribution of the boy's forgetting to the devil's act in Sura al-Kahf, at
the same time knowing that everything is from Allah and returns to Him.
An anecdote about the two Doctors is their relativist justification of
prostitutes as the necessary evil of a society in which the high
marriageable-worth (i.e. hymen) of maids had to be indirectly preserved
from the devalorisation inflicted by lustful men, through the provision of
what they called "the sewers under the palace... unless they are there,
then filth ascends into the palace halls." Hence the legalization of
prostitution in many parts of medieval Christian Europe and its inclusion
into the municipally taxable professions in many areas.
As for the problem of free will, I believe the Buti translations I posted
will help answer some of the basic questions and Allah knows best.
>But I could be wrong, and I probably am.
Thank you for this disarming lesson.
AltWay
Indeed, St. Augustine, in his *Confessions*, argued that evil does
not even exist, but rather all things are good from different
perspectives, and that the key is to align oneself with the correct
perspective and see the good in all things.
Comment :-
This problem can probably be solved as follows :-
According to the Quran Allah made all things good. Whatever good befalls man
it is from Allah and whatever evil befalls him comes from himself (4:79).
The Universe was made for a purpose and all things in it have a function
with respect to that purpose. It is the purpose which defines what is good
or bad. That which flouts the purpose or ceases to fulfil it suffers,
degenerates and is destroyed. This leaves those things which do fulfil the
purpose. The destruction of that which does not fulfil the purpose is also a
good thing because otherwise it would cause chaos and because it releases
materials and energy for new constructions which will fulfil the purpose.
e.g. See 14:19, 35:16 etc.
We must distinguish between Objective and subjective values. Objectively,
there is no evil. But human beings judge things according to how they affect
themselves. Whatever causes us suffering is regarded as evil and whatever
gives us pleasure we call good. This polarity was created when they partook
of the Fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil. Human beings are required to
transcend this pair of opposite and flee unto Allah, the Unity (51:49-50).
We ought to adopt the objective values i.e judge by what Allah has given.
This is surrender. There is a difference between what is really beneficial
to us and what is only thought to be beneficial. When we injure ourselves we
suffer pain. We dislike pain. But pain is an indicator that we have injured
ourselves. Without it we might die. But because of pain we are led to do
something beneficial. Therefore pain is good.
An objection could be raised that Good has no meaning except in contrast
with evil. Therefore, to say that the Universe is all good has no meaning.
But the verse 4:79, does make the contrast. In effect it tells us that the
Real World is good and our subjective judgements are bad. In other words we
know about the goodness of God as a contrast to the evil produced by our
subjective judgements. It is these also which lead to evil behaviour -
behaviour which is not in accordance with our nature as made by Allah - or
vice versa.
In a sense the scientific attitude transcends the pair of opposites in that
it makes no moral judgements - there are only facts. But this attitude seems
wrong and cuts out much knowledge. If there is a purpose and all things have
a function, then we must know what this function is. It is only in medicine
that we recognise a state of health and a state of disease. This is because
we recognise that the various organs do have a function with respect to the
whole. There is no reason whatever for believing that this principle does
not extent tothe whole universe.
Before someone objects, I have noticed the objective polarity between the
state of disease and health. The pair of opposites do exist in nature -
electrons/positrons, matter/antimatter etc. But they do co-operate and
complement each other and do combine. It is also to our own advantage that
we wish to cultivate health and avoid disease. Thus, even an objective value
system is relative to man. We must, therefore, distinguish between a
subjective and an objective value system (both refer to man) and both are
distinguished from the Absolute value system - i.e the purpose and judgement
of Allah. Ultimately Surrender (Islam) means accepting the Absolute system.
H. S. Aziz
--
_ ___ _ _____________________________________________
|_| | | | | |_| \ / /
| | |_ | |/\| | | | /... Read "The Alternative Way" and "Views"
_______________________/ ... ...... on www.argonet.co.uk/education/haziz
______________________/ .............
Dmitry Guller
1. I object to your characterization of good and bad to be relative to
teleological notions. You argue that X is good, iff it fulfills some
relevant purpose P. This concept appears to be riddled with infinite
regression. This is because there are various purposes, P1, P2, P3, . Pn,
where n can be any integer. Now, you must decide which of these various
purposes are good for us to follow, because some will (obviously) contradict
one another. However, in order to do that, you must follow your principle,
which means that: Pn is good, iff it fulfills some relevant purpose P.
However, that "relevant purpose P" must also be good, and so the argument
proceeds ad infinitum, without any possibility of being resolved.
Thus, your principle is not sufficient, although it might be necessary, as a
determination of what is good. In other words, there must be more to it than
simply saying "it is the purpose which defines what is good or bad", because
that is not enough, because one must have non-regressing notion of a "good
purpose" in order to prevent absurdity.
2. As for your argument that pain is good, because it fulfills a certain
function, this is also suspect. You argue that the fact that pain leads to
something good means that it is good itself. This is dubious reasoning,
because it would lead to several paradoxical conclusions. For example, I
murder someone and take their money. I take the stolen money and donate it
to a charity. Donating money to charity is good. Therefore, murder and
robbery is good. There are numerous such examples that follow your
reasoning, which is of the following form:
1. If X leads to Y, which is good, then X is good.
2. I commit X;
3. X leads to Y;
4. Y is good.
5. Therefore, X is good.
As you can see, this argument is invalid, because premise (1) is not
universally true.
3. As for the "scientific attitude" being free from value-judgements and
only consisting of facts, I would suggest that you read Thomas Kuhn's
*Structure of Scientific Revolutions*, which argues that much scientific
research is social and value-laden in character. Hilary Putnam argues that
the fact-value dichotomy is nonsensical, because facts presuppose values,
and vice versa. Jean E. Hampton, in her *Authority of Reason*, argues that
even instrumental reasoning must presuppose some conception of the human
good, which is a value-judgement, in order to be effective. So, this logical
positivist assumption is being dismantled in current philosophical debates,
and is by no means authoritative any longer.
However, I could be wrong, and I probably am.
Take care.