"those who believe and do good works" - 2:62 and 3:21
-
Peace Nadeem
Let me explain to you. The Quraan instructs man to believe and be righteous for example the verses you quoted above 3961 and 2177. Now these are instructions to mankind and not to Iblis who was rejected from the Garden. Satans doom is sealed. Whereas Adam repented since he disobeyed but Satan was arrogant and challenged God to lead man astray.
I am bit intrigued by your comparison of Psychopaths with rejecters and hypocrites in earlier post. So I was wondering whether, if psychopaths can claim insanity in this world because they are mentally not sound will God be unfair to them in the hereafter?
-
Hi Warner,
Thanks for the explanation -)
It is no surprise to me that the instructions in the quran are ment for mankind, since the whole book itself is addressed to us.
However, I also believe that there are basic rules, that have no need to be stated anywhere, for one to understand that they should be followed. Not being arrogant is one of them. No one needs to tell me, or write to me "Dear Nadeem, don't be arrogant." for me to understand that I shouldn't be. Though in some moments I do forget. However, all in all, God gave me the ability to repel arrogance and I assume that He wants me to use that ability.
I believe that this is the case with satan. He had the ability to repel arrogance. If he didn't have this ability, then God has put a burden on his soul to much for his soul to lift by asking him to "submit" or "prostrate" - which does not sound like something God would do. Doesn't the quran say so?
Please do not pay to much attention to whether or not Satan had a "soul", try to focus on the principle of God instead.
But I think we're drifting away from the point by discussing the characteristics of satan. Which is that satan knew, he had the highest level of belief in all those items in part a, yet he was sentenced to hell. He was arrogant.
Therefore, I argue, that mere belief* wont cut it. I'm not saying that belief has nothing to say, It can be a great motivator for doing good deeds, to which I'll testify to, but in the end, I believe all that matters is whether or not the good deed was done. If one truly was a believer, one will have them done.
I believe, that we can claim or unclaim whatever we want, we can call ourselves muslim, hindu, kafir, christian and so on, but it won't matter to god. I argue that what is in our hearts and minds, is expressed by our actions, and that it is our actions that form what is truly in our heart and minds.
We can claim that we have the love of god in our hearts, as the hypocrits did when they went on slaying the prophets. But from their actions we knew what they really believed, what they themselves did not know that they believed.
I'm not trying to compare you and me and our beliefs to the beliefs of the hypocrits. No. I am trying to show that what we have in our hearts, is not what is said from our tongues, but what is done in our deeds.
Do we agree?
*belief as in simply acknowledging the existence of something.
I am bit intrigued by your comparison of Psychopaths with rejecters and hypocrites in earlier post. So I was wondering whether, if psychopaths can claim insanity in this world because they are mentally not sound will God be unfair to them in the hereafter?
Ok. That is a valid question. But I don't have any valid answer, as of yet. I'll try to study the case, and then hopefully bring more insights.
Nadeem
-
Hi Brother Warner,
Here is something that might help you answer your question
http//www.slate.com/id/2099203/Reading that article, can one really miss the resemblance between a kafir as described in the quran, and a psychopath?
A quote from the article
In popular usage, almost any crazy killer is a "psychopath." But in psychiatry, it's a very specific mental condition that rarely involves killing, or even psychosis. "Psychopaths are not disoriented or out of touch with reality, nor do they experience the delusions, hallucinations, or intense subjective distress that characterize most other mental disorders," writes Dr. Robert Hare, in Without Conscience, the seminal book on the condition. (Hare is also one of the psychologists consulted by the FBI about Columbine and by Slate for this story*.) "Unlike psychotic individuals, psychopaths are rational and aware of what they are doing and why. Their behavior is the result of choice, freely exercised." Diagnosing Harris as a psychopath represents neither a legal defense, nor a moral excuse. But it illuminates a great deal about the thought process that drove him to mass murder.An article that sheds doubts about the above
http//news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1524500.stmHere is more articles if you are intrested.
http//www.hare.org/links/media.htmlNadeem
-
Peace Nadeem
Appreciate the excellent links you have posted.
Quote Nadeem
Therefore, I argue, that mere belief* wont cut it. I'm not saying that belief has nothing to say, It can be a great motivator for doing good deeds, to which I'll testify to, but in the end, I believe all that matters is whether or not the good deed was done. If one truly was a believer, one will have them done.
Although I am agreement with some of the point you made , I simply said do not bring Satans analogy as a believer (or for that matter Adam or some of the prophets) because Satan never denied God. There was no question of belief. He did not submit. When you know something for certain and you are witness it is a fact and a forgone conclusion.
Quote Nadeem
I also believe that there are basic rules, that have no need to be stated anywhere, for one to understand that they should be followed. Not being arrogant is one of them. No one needs to tell me, or write to me "Dear Nadeem, don't be arrogant." for me to understand that I shouldn't be
Sorry Nadeem. Although you feel the basic rules need not be stated anywhere and no one needs to tell you, God states all basic rules in the Quraan including not being arrogant. Are you telling God no need to state basic rules anywhere and is God included in ?no one needs to tell me? not to be arrogant.
Quote Nadeem
I believe, that we can claim or unclaim whatever we want, we can call ourselves muslim, hindu, kafir, christian and so on, but it won't matter to god. I argue that what is in our hearts and minds, is expressed by our actions, and that it is our actions that form what is truly in our heart and minds
When we call our selves Hindu or a Christian we have to act like one. If you call your self a Christian, you have to follow Jesus and the disciples and the Bible. And accept all that is in it are inspired and Jesus is son of God or God or whatever. Then if you call your self a Hindu you must follow the Vedas, Puranas, etc and accept the 10,000 Gods. Other wise you are just a liar or a hypocrite. I used to call my self superman (used to believe in it sometimes too, ha) when I was 3 years old but I guess no body took me seriously other than my mum.
If you call yourself a Muslim you must believe that the Quraan is inspired to the Prophet and believe in one God and submit to Him by following the Quraan.
Also,
There is nothing wrong if a person says he believes, if it is the truth and it is from his heart and his actions reflect his belief.
And
I explained in another post above how and why a believer can end up in the fire and even Ahmed was in agreement with that.
-
I think the answer is a little bit of both. The "feeling good" effect of "doing good" is certainly selfish in it's essence. Afterall, who doesn't want to feel good. But I think this is the built-in consequence of acting in harmony with the divine - just as feeling guilty, angry, jealous, etc, is a built-in consequence of acting out of harmony.
Peace Tay
I don?t agree.
All these feelings have evolved because they serve our selfish interests (the interests of our genes) , via reciprocal altruism.reciprocal altruism is a form of altruism in which one organism provides a benefit to another in the expectation of future reciprocation ().
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruismOf course genes themselves have no conscious desire to reproduce or to obey Hamilton's logic about inclusive fitness. Instead, they spread themselves by coding instructions for the building of bodies, which in higher organisms include specialized organs called brains. Brains have evolved by natural selection to give their possessors pleasurable feelings from certain activities?including the taking of nourishment, having sex, and being in the company of friends and family?that are important for reproductive success. Genetic propensities toward altruism are expressed only through the indirect mechanism of the brain, which until recently knew nothing of genes. If we are inclined to help our close relatives, including our children, it is because our brains typically derive happiness from assisting our loved ones, just as our brains tend to make us feel guilty whenever we withhold such assistance.
http//www.nybooks.com/articles/894See also http//web.mit.edu/~9.00/www/handouts/10recip.pdf
IMHO, our natural altruism is not sufficient, and to be genuinely altruistic, we need to believe in God.
Peace
-
Peace JM,
I respect your opinion JM but I do not consider a scientific definition enough to alter the understanding of what's being discussed. Just because science has a name for it, doesn't mean it's not something more than meets the eye or the predisposition of scientists to make everything fit into the evolutionary cycle on a "functional advantage" basis. These people would have you believe that art was invented due to some sort of sexual eminence over competing males - kinda like a peacock spreading it's feathers.
If we are inclined to help our close relatives, including our children, it is because our brains typically derive happiness from assisting our loved ones, just as our brains tend to make us feel guilty whenever we withhold such assistance.
See, science measures the effects, and often mistakes it for the cause. The same is being done with scientific research on near-death experiences in Canada. They're manipulating parts of the brain and recording what the patient is "experiencing", which often is exactly the same as those who've witnessed the near-death experience. Thus, these scientists conclude that what people witness and feel is not something "out there" but a creation of the brain, yet they fail to take into consideration that the creation of the brain is actually the effect of the near-death experience, not the cause.
This is like saying someone just sprinted a 1/4 mile and his heart is racing. Then the scientists find other ways to make the heart race to the same exact speed in a controlled laboratory environment, and thus conclude that it wasn't the sprinting that caused the heart to race, it was the heart.
IMHO, our natural altruism is not sufficient, and to be genuinely altruistic, we need to believe in God.
My conclusion is that natural altruism is simply the name given to our God-given inborn compass. Of course this will be amplified by further contemplation, but not nullified for lack of it.
Peace,
Tay -
I'm not trying to compare you and me and our beliefs to the beliefs of the hypocrits. No. I am trying to show that what we have in our hearts, is not what is said from our tongues, but what is done in our deeds.
Do we agree?
Yes.
By the way, the insights I have developed in this post (http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=5261.0) have been based by the same reasoning path as you.
Satan is not a mumin. He is a real kafir.
Why ? Because a mumin is not someone who merely believe in the existence of God, it is someone who fear God and fear what shall happen to him in the hereafter. As a direct consequence, a mumin will be a good-doer.
A kafir is someone who knows iman in God implies, but he will ungratefully reject God as his (only) source of guidance, and thus, he will become an evil-doer.Some useful links
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=6221.msg96769#msg96769
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=5831.0
See http//www.altmuslim.com/perm.php?id=1676_0_25_0_C44Between theses 2 extremes cases, there are the jahileen (ignorant). Their hearts are not yet sealed, and they should be invited to the way of God with wisdom and goodly exhortation.
There are many atheists today that don?t believe in the existence of God. But the main reason for that is that their concept of god is flawed. So, they are not kuffar, but jahileen.
Peace
-
Peace Tay,
I am not sure you have got my point.
The evolutionist paradigm is that the genes of an organism are selected if they contribute to more replications of the organism (survival, reproduction).
Eating and drinking is good for survival. So, the genes which favor the drives which favor eating and drinking (hunger and thirst) have been selected
In the same way, reciprocal altruism (tit-for-that) is good for survival. So, the genes which favor the drives which favor reciprocal altruism have been selected.
Among these drives, there are liking, anger, gratitude, sympathy, guilt, shame, generosity, honor? and maybe some God-awareness.So, we are naturally, to some extent, generous and compassionate.
What I am saying is that this natural and inborn disposition (and the good deeds that can go along) is not enough.
We need, to be genuinely good doers, to genuinely believe in God and in the hereafter.Helping your fellows can be in your interest, because it gives you a good reputation, and this reputation will give you the feedback of your good deeds; your fellow will help you in return. This is a perfect example of reciprocal altruism, and this is for that kind of altruism that we are genetically predisposed.
But, there is a higher level of good working helping the poor (who may not be able to help you in return), or fighting the oppressors (when you are dead, you get no feedback) ; for this higher lever of good doing, belief in God is necessary.
Do you know why the nations who do not uphold Islam are eventually destroyed? This is because they have not been able to develop a real solidarity (the kind of solidarity that only a sincere belief in God results in) between its members. Such a nation becomes vulnerable to almost everything attacks of the enemies, internal plots, natural disasters?etc.. and eventually, it get destroyed. This lesson is what God repeats with multiples examples in the Quran.
Peace
-
Peace JM,
I do understand your point, I just don't agree that being naturally generous and compassionate is removed from believing in God. I think allowing these natural attributes to prosper is, in action, believing in God. As for taking it to a higher level, ie. fighting oppression and helping the poor, I don't see an outward belief in God as the defining attribute with which this level can be attained - because if that's the case, then it's not helping for the sake of helping(with it's built-in rewards), but helping for the sake of a reward in the afterlife.
I think what you're portraying is that doing good must always come with a reward. And I agree. But I think the reward is always built-in, not something to be "paid" later.
I don't think the many great people in this world who fought oppression and poverty did so for a later reward, but they did so because their energy in compassion was so acute and refinied and clear, that they really had no choice. Most of us can get there with practice. The more compassion we allow ourselves to feel, the more acute it will become.
Do you know why the nations who do not uphold Islam are eventually destroyed? This is because they have not been able to develop a real solidarity (the kind of solidarity that only a sincere belief in God results in) between its members. Such a nation becomes vulnerable to almost everything attacks of the enemies, internal plots, natural disasters?etc.. and eventually, it get destroyed. This lesson is what God repeats with multiples examples in the Quran.
It seems every nation has been eventually destroyed.
Peace,
Tay -
Peace all,
Let me make this plain and simple. Think of belief is a registration at say a university. Now at many unis you can attend daily lectures for free without having to be registered. You can boast around with the knowledge you attained throughout the year and get lots of attention but at the end of the term your left with no degree and no one is going to accept you. Same is with belief and good deeds. First register yourself wth GOD and then your good deeds count. Now consider this carefully. Why would GOD send one who has done good deds but not believed in Him to heaven or reward him ultimately? Who is the one who created and grants heaven? If a boss has prepared an ultimate reward for his workers for doing well in the job and say those workers do the job but they don t respect the boss' authority nor himself. Logically the boss is going to just pay him the usual salary and then disown him. He would never eat or drink or inite such a person privately. To every action there is a reaction. If you dont respect GOD what makes you think youll enter heaven where people would be close to GOD. This is just silly. GOD Bless! -
Peace "enquirer",
Peace warner and all. The beliefs/theories are things like a single day of judgement,pork being forbidden,the quran being unchanged literally for 1400 years,the jinns being made from fire etc,etc...In other words,they are not proven,but believed because people think that god/quran wants/expects them to believe in them...
Even if you follow 1736 to verify these 'beliefs',i dont see how these beliefs can be verified until they happen? Or can they?
Many people believe things because they feel not believing in them will cause them to be lesser or bad muslims,so they believe out of pressure and fear,not because they have verified the beliefs and found them to be correct...JK- I think weve discussed this before. First of all let me make it clear that im not amongst those who believe under pressure by any means. Infact ive disowned the corrupt sunni teachings and went against my own family. On the other hand im also against many of the western thoughts. So this is out of qs. Now it is true we can only establish faith in anything based on probability. Yes everything in life including the rainfaall, scientific discoveres, big bang are based on probability. Now once the Quran has been proven WITH HIGH PROBABILITY to be the word of GOD which it has been 1) through the numerical code-19 which is STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT and the overall probability after all connections is far greater than 99.9999% that it is the Word of GOD or less than one chance in a million that it's not the word of GOD. DNA tests used for identifying the father of the child usually have probabilituies in the order of 99.9994..% and no one would deny fathehood after this result is confirmed so why this bias towards Quran. 2) The Quran has other mathematical features like symmetry of words known as nusemantics eg Jesus and Adam both occur 25 times and the similiarty s given in a verse and in that exact verse both have occured the 7th time. Too much of a coicidence is it. The see and land ratio of the arabic words bahr(sea) and barr/yabas(dry land) come out exactly as discovered. The word shahr(month) occurs 12 times, yaum(day) 365 times and yaumain/ayaam(two days/days) 30 times. Another coincidence? 3) Scientific foreknowledge in clear terms. Consider 2130 and check the translatuons even be4 the discovery of the big bang(infact its not a bang like a grenade or conventional explosion since there was no sound coz no matter and the Quran states this by merely saying that heavens and earth were joined and then parted or separated which is exactkly what happened). All this gives the Quran high probability of being GOD's Word and therefore even if i do not yet know that Jinns are made from fire, the Quran says smokeless fire i.e. most likely plasma, but this high probability proven Book tells me they are i would be stupid to not believe it. I hope this is clear now. GOD Bless!
-
Peace JM,
I do understand your point, I just don't agree that being naturally generous and compassionate is removed from believing in God. I think allowing these natural attributes to prosper is, in action, believing in God.
Could you explain this sentence? What is the intuition behind it ?
Does it have a Quranic basis?As for taking it to a higher level, ie. fighting oppression and helping the poor, I don't see an outward belief in God as the defining attribute with which this level can be attained - because if that's the case, then it's not helping for the sake of helping(with it's built-in rewards), but helping for the sake of a reward in the afterlife.
I think what you're portraying is that doing good must always come with a reward. And I agree. But I think the reward is always built-in, not something to be "paid" later.
What is the built-in reward for fighting (at the cost of one?s life) the oppressor?
And do you think that to believe in God is useless?
I don't think the many great people in this world who fought oppression and poverty did so for a later reward, but they did so because their energy in compassion was so acute and refinied and clear, that they really had no choice. Most of us can get there with practice. The more compassion we allow ourselves to feel, the more acute it will become.
I don?t agree.
The belief in an ultimate justice in the hereafter can be so deeply internalized in one?s mind (often by the education of the parents) that it can become nearly unconscious.Obeying rules in order to obtain rewards and avoid punishments doesn?t seem very moral.
Moral judgments explicitly prescribing this strategy are classified at the lowest stage in Kohlberg?s sequence. Conformity also doesn?t seem very moral in and of itself. Most people believe that to qualify as moral, a behavior must spring from an internal source.
Morality involves obeying internalized rules and abiding by internalized principles when no one is watching. Exemplars of morality such as Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Christ suffered great costs to uphold their beliefs. To fully account for morality, we need to account for the development of mental mechanisms that induce people to resist the
temptation to advance their interests at the expense of others when they could get away with it.
Psychologists have advanced two main explanations for the intrinsic motivation to behave morally. The first is based in learning theory. In essentially the same way that pets can be trained to resist temptation and to obey rules when no one is there to reward or punish them, people can be trained to develop moral habits through conditioning and vicarious learning (Aronfreed, 196. The second explanation is based in identification with others and the development of perspective-taking abilities. Scholars from a wide array of theoretical traditions (e.g., Aronfreed, 1968;Freud, 1926; Higgins, 1987; ohlberg, 1984; Mead,1932 ) have advanced the idea that the mental mechanisms that give rise to moral judgments and moral behaviors?often called conscience or superego?contain cognitive representations of others.
In effect, people internalize mental representations of others who direct their behavior and hold them accountable, even thought the others are not physically present.
http//www.sfu.ca/psyc/faculty/krebs/publications/The%20Evolution%20of%20Morality.pdfPeace