Personal Identity and the Soul
-
Hi,
If I lose my legs in an accident I will have like 50% (I have giant legs) body left but I think I will still have 100% nafs.
oh and my legs will have 0% nafs
You can laugh and joke all you want on this, but you have missed the point entirely. The point is that you are "alive". Whether you have 1 limb or half a limb. And as long as you are alive, you are alive through a body.
-
So when we are all resurrected before God in bodily form, then what? Will our bodies then exist eternally in either of the places He has ordained for us? Trying to understand your thinking here.
Peace. )
Refer to the Quran. It's not clear in what form we'll be resurrected, but the hints point toward the same earthly body. And yes, the Quran does suggest that the next life is eternal (in either of the two resting places mentioned).
-
Refer to the Quran. It's not clear in what form we'll be resurrected, but the hints point toward the same earthly body. And yes, the Quran does suggest that the next life is eternal (in either of the two resting places mentioned).
I thought you would say this but I wanted to make sure. Thanks. I'll look into it more.
-
Only God is eternal, neither paradise no hell are eternaland the Qur'an says it repeatedly, our destiny is to God, the eternal, after death presumbly, since nohing is eternal but God we will cotinue to evolve in every sense. We do not know how our bodies will be after, we only know what we are told of paradise and the fire, but life will continue till we do devolve to God. We are not eternal but our evolution will continue till we devolve to God.
About the legs, I wouldn't worry, surely God knows how to give us anything He gave us to start with and even things He did not give us before if He wans to give us then. He speaks again and again and uses the simil of the plants and the barren earth and then how it revives. Just to show that we may ot know how to do it but He des, just as He did know how to do it for the first time.
Salaam
-
You can laugh and joke all you want on this, but you have missed the point entirely. The point is that you are "alive". Whether you have 1 limb or half a limb. And as long as you are alive, you are alive through a body.
Hi,
The only joke was about my legs the rest was serious.
RED That is what I am also saying. Here on this earth a soul can only live through a body. Thus I do not believe people who say they can talk with dead people.
The example is only to show that our body is not our soul, they are 2 different things. -
Just to share
In images, I see the situation like this... be it sensible or outrageous.
We are souls who need to go through a worldly life, perhaps for test/growth/redemption.
God pairs a soul with a body as a perfect match, that we are born into. Our souls need the misery our bodies come with (temper, DNA, heritage, looks, capacities, weaknesses... and this includes that od the brain aswell=IQ, social skills, scholarly aptitude etc etc).
Therefore, our parents are matched for us.
Of course, this is hard to accept as there is much horrendous things that happen to children, but hey, I don't claim my theory/idea to be perfect or complete. However, I do believe there is MUCH more purpose to things that happen than we tend to be willing to accept.Peace
-
Just to share
In images, I see the situation like this... be it sensible or outrageous.
We are souls who need to go through a worldly life, perhaps for test/growth/redemption.
God pairs a soul with a body as a perfect match, that we are born into. Our souls need the misery our bodies come with (temper, DNA, heritage, looks, capacities, weaknesses... and this includes that od the brain aswell=IQ, social skills, scholarly aptitude etc etc).
Therefore, our parents are matched for us.
Of course, this is hard to accept as there is much horrendous things that happen to children, but hey, I don't claim my theory/idea to be perfect or complete. However, I do believe there is MUCH more purpose to things that happen than we tend to be willing to accept.Peace
Hi,
Thx!!! Exactly my thoughts.
RED I think I have an idea what you have in mind, if it is what I have in mind then I totally agree with you
-
If Igo by Qur'an, human beings are a unit, not to separate things, humans eolve, evolve all the time. Just like moth are something and the they are something else, it is still the same thing,not that before it was a a worm and a moth and then one dies and the moth lives on. Same with humans. I donot get from hte Qur'n that there are two different things paired and that they can break away like in a divorce.
May be thi thig ofwoul ad body come from some greek philosophy which sipped ito christianity and then into generalthought islam icluded. Be it as it may I do ot find that it agrees with the Qur'an. And also I do not finnd that it is beautiful. It seem rather disruptive.
Go spends a lot of words in the Qur'an time and time again to point to us how we will be brought back to life and when He does He is not speaking of two separate things with existence of their own, the naf, if it is the nafs what some of you call soul, is not that I can see a separate thig, ut as the head isot a separate thig even if e can speak of the head itsef as a separate thing, or the mind. Se separate concepts i our understanding but that does not mean that anything we consider separately is something indeed separat, how do you separate the mind from the emotions? Somepeople do, in fact suffr because their are split i th natural born character between both, but that doe nnot make them into two separate indeendent entities.
Salaam
-
Peace hawk99,
I'd like to have members facts/speculation and input What is the ruh? How is it different from the nafs?
peaceIn my view, you can find the best explanation of ruh and how it is different from nafs in chapter 3 of the book "Islam A challenge to religion" by G.A Parwez.
-
Peace Taro Hiroshi,
Peace hawk99,
In my view, you can find the best explanation of ruh and how it is different from nafs in chapter 3 of the book "Islam A challenge to religion" by G.A Parwez.
I've never read the book. Have you read it? Can you briefly summarize the view(s) presented? )
-
Peace Comrox,
I've never read the book. Have you read it? Can you briefly summarize the view(s) presented?
Yes, I have read it some years ago. In my view, Islam A challenge to religion, is one of the greatest books ever written about Quranic islam. Therefore I deeply recommend reading it. I also recommend some other great books by G.A Parwez such as "Book of Destiny" "Quranic Permanent Values" and "The Qur'anic System of Sustenance." In my view, G.A Parwez has also written some excellent articles such as "Only one question" and "Why do we lack character."
According to Parwez there is a difference between Ruh and Nafs. G.A. Parwez claims that the word nafs has been wrongly translated as soul and spirit. He claims that word nafs should be translated as self/personality. And self/personality is something which can grow or decline based on our deeds. For example, if someone does good deeds his nafs (self/personality) will grow. But if someone does wrong deeds, his nafs (self/personality) will decline. With regards to Ruh, this Quranic term means divine energy according to G.A parwez. The Ruh (divine energy) allows man to choose and act freely. Thus Ruh (divine energy) is connected to free choice/will. Keep in mind that this brief summary is based on my interpretation of Parwez views. Thus, it might contain errors. Also, keep in mind that no Scholar has the final word regarding Quranic terms/concepts. The Quranic is a dynamic text, and as human knowledge increases, we will get a more correct (reality-based) interpretation of its terms/concepts. One should not accept anything blindly, in my opinion. And I think it's a good decision to verify what one reads about the Quran. Also, I believe that the teacher of the Quran is Allah, not humans. Thus, I think the God is the one who can give us the best explanation of Quranic terms/concepts.
-
Peace Taro Hiroshi,
Peace Comrox,
Yes, I have read it some years ago. In my view, Islam A challenge to religion, is one of the greatest books ever written about Quranic islam. Therefore I deeply recommend reading it. I also recommend some other great books by G.A Parwez such as "Book of Destiny" "Quranic Permanent Values" and "The Qur'anic System of Sustenance." In my view, G.A Parwez has also written some excellent articles such as "Only one question" and "Why do we lack character."
According to Parwez there is a difference between Ruh and Nafs. G.A. Parwez claims that the word nafs has been wrongly translated as soul and spirit. He claims that word nafs should be translated as self/personality. And self/personality is something which can grow or decline based on our deeds. For example, if someone does good deeds his nafs (self/personality) will grow. But if someone does wrong deeds, his nafs (self/personality) will decline. With regards to Ruh, this Quranic term means divine energy according to G.A parwez. The Ruh (divine energy) allows man to choose and act freely. Thus Ruh (divine energy) is connected to free choice/will. Keep in mind that this brief summary is based on my interpretation of Parwez views. Thus, it might contain errors. Also, keep in mind that no Scholar has the final word regarding Quranic terms/concepts. The Quranic is a dynamic text, and as human knowledge increases, we will get a more correct (reality-based) interpretation of its terms/concepts. One should not accept anything blindly, in my opinion. And I think it's a good decision to verify what one reads about the Quran. Also, I believe that the teacher of the Quran is Allah, not humans. Thus, I think the God is the one who can give us the best explanation of Quranic terms/concepts.
Interesting. I'll have to read it. I'll have to read through this thread again too and think through this and hopefully I'll come to my own conclusion, insha'allah.
Of course God is the teacher. But if we are all receiving guidance, then why this division? ;D
-
I think it is very clear that naf is not what in christianity is called soul. I agree with the quote in that aspect.
As to the ruh infused inhumanity, I remember Pazuzu saying that it wasthe capacity to evolve into what it is, like to develop speech and become from bashar to insaan.
In th Qur'an we see in the Qur'an when somebody is infused a ruj from God, it enables the person to carry out some spcific task or mission.Salaam
-
nafs is the controller of an individual , in humankind human nafs is the main character that leads everything related to human being and his actions,
whereas about body our soul told us what to eat, the requirements of body is seperate from soul and connected with it same time , example if we steal something for eating , we did it for body but soul is responsible. we dnt know how our own body behave and looks like , and if something wrong happen to our body how we will gona repair or replace it , we are confused in every aspect, nothing we know fullly about our seen things as well as hidden things. for me human being is a pair of neg and positive like everything else , our bodies and characters are two sides of a pair, we dnt really understand fully, we have been given limited knowledge
and about ghualam ahmed pervaiz, i used to listen him alot and i like him as well , his concepts about quran are very different from traditional people but again , when i study some interpretation of quran regarding chapter 27 sunra naml i feel something fishy i go through it and find a clear contradiction of language with lot of interrpretation, due to which i decided not to beleive anybody untill research the things by our ownself , its a safe way, and its not a rocket science to understand or research something speacially in this era when everyhting is in hand and in our finger tips,
peace
-
nafs is the controller of an individual
Agreed, my speculation is as follows, the nafs is us, the personality, the ego, what
drives us, that which will be judged. The ruh is the life force that animates us. The body
is the vehicle or housing in which the nafs exist in the earthly physical reality, for instance
if we humans lived in another physical environment our bodies would be different but the
nafs would be the same. -
Agreed, my speculation is as follows, the nafs is us, the personality, the ego, what
drives us, that which will be judged. The ruh is the life force that animates us. The body
is the vehicle or housing in which the nafs exist in the earthly physical reality, for instance
if we humans lived in another physical environment our bodies would be different but the
nafs would be the same.yeh exactly hawk, you describe it in more easy way, i agree,
God bless you -
Last week I witnessed an interesting and revealing event (at least from my perspective).
I used to think that there are no good or bad/evil babies/toddler.. all human children are neutral..
Toddler, fresh from the oven, not much of life experience.. there couldn't be a bad/evil toddler as such there isn't any good toddler either as comparison.Watching a bunch of toddler playing on the playground, I saw a distinctive attitude in one toddler..
He doesn't mind when other toddler grabbed his toys. (while other toddler usually cry or at least try to grab it back).. he just grab another toy.. another toddler approached him and again grab his toy.. and he just grab another toy.... and then another toddler approached him (to take his toy).. and this "good toddler" just hand over his toy to the approaching toddler..This distinctive toddler has a good "soul"... at least compared to the other (normal) toddler..
At early age, he seems to have a good control of his self/ego and show a very strong empathy towards others.. stronger compared to the other toddler..I mentioned this to a (Buddhist) friend of mine, and his remark is interesting..
"Inside that good toddler is an "old" soul... the soul who has incarnated many times, more than the other toddler, and has learn his lesson well on what's the most important thing in life"Just sharing...
-
Dogs do that too. May be they are older souls. Or may be they are more aware of the environment because practically it is less work to grab something else than to quarrl for the one thing.
Salaam
Could be.. but I haven't saw that in dogs yet.. have you?
It shows that there are more than merely the physical body and/or brain which determine one's character and attitude..
Back to the specific toddler, he did deliberately hand out his toy to others..
As if he understood giving is more noble than taking.. loving is more noble than hating... (expressed by crying on toddler)
The thing which even most adult do not understand. -
Last week I witnessed an interesting and revealing event (at least from my perspective).
I used to think that there are no good or bad/evil babies/toddler.. all human children are neutral..
Toddler, fresh from the oven, not much of life experience.. there couldn't be a bad/evil toddler as such there isn't any good toddler either as comparison.Watching a bunch of toddler playing on the playground, I saw a distinctive attitude in one toddler..
He doesn't mind when other toddler grabbed his toys. (while other toddler usually cry or at least try to grab it back).. he just grab another toy.. another toddler approached him and again grab his toy.. and he just grab another toy.... and then another toddler approached him (to take his toy).. and this "good toddler" just hand over his toy to the approaching toddler..This distinctive toddler has a good "soul"... at least compared to the other (normal) toddler..
At early age, he seems to have a good control of his self/ego and show a very strong empathy towards others.. stronger compared to the other toddler..I mentioned this to a (Buddhist) friend of mine, and his remark is interesting..
"Inside that good toddler is an "old" soul... the soul who has incarnated many times, more than the other toddler, and has learn his lesson well on what's the most important thing in life"Just sharing...
Maybe the toddler was exceptionally observant and had good parents/role models that he learned from. I know that even when I was really young, I was really aware of my surroundings and other people. I was also really sensitive. Maybe this is a part of who I truly am, or maybe this had to do with the fact that I went through some pretty traumatic experiences when I was an infant, I don't know.
Maybe the toddler you spoke about does have an "old soul" as your friend mentioned, and he has "seen" more than the others.
Maybe it has something to do with this study
The study, published in Psychological Science, was broken into two experiments involving a total of 112 three-year-old children, an equal number of boys and girls, split into teams of two. In both experiments, two children were left alone in an observation room. Each child had to work with his or her partner to get a rewardfour identical gummy bears, four identical stickers, or four of another prizethat was trapped at the back of a long, transparent box. When the kids simultaneously pulled on each end of a rope, they could bring the prizes to the front of the box and grab their reward through a hole. If only one kid pulled the rope, the prizes remained out of reach.
Sometimes the box had two holes, one on either side, enabling each child to pull out two prizeseasy and fair. But even when the box had only a single hole, the child who got to the reward first shared it equally with his partner in the vast majority of cases, more than 70 percent of the time.
In roughly 80 percent of these cases of cooperation, the sharing was passive, meaning that one child took what was fairtwo prizesand left the other two for his or her teammate. Other times, one child would take two prizes and actively give two to the other child, or would tell that child to collect his or her fair share if he or she neglected to do so at first.
Rarely was there any arguing, and physical conflicts were almost nonexistent.
This was all generally true regardless of what the prize was (though in the first experiment, the researchers found that children were more likely to share gummy bears than stickers).That's the explanation of the study, and then the author of the article goes on to suggest an explanation for kids' different sharing habits
According to the studys authors, the answer might lie in the fact that the kids had to work together in order to earn their reward. Only by collaborating were they able to get their prizes, and their collaboration evoked their burgeoning sense of fairness.
The situation of peers jointly collaborating toward a mutual outcome might exemplify the fundamental context in which a sense of equality emerges, write the authors, who were led by Felix Warneken, a psychologist at Harvard.
In other words, this type of cooperation encourages kids to recognize that other people have a right to enjoy the same rewards and privileges that the kids want for themselves.
The researchers note that previous research has found that chimpanzees wont share their spoils in the same way, which makes them less likely to want to work together in the first place.
Humans, by contrast, seem to possess a strong propensity for fairness that encourages them to cooperate rather than compete over limited resources, trusting that theyll benefit in the end. And now theres evidence that this propensity can be demonstratedand perhaps nurtured furtherthrough collaborations that take place when were hardly more than toddlers.
The present study, write the authors, suggests that competition over resources is mitigated in human children by an emerging sense of equal sharing of the spoils, which enables successful collaboration.Source http//greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/does_sharing_come_naturally_to_kids
Maybe the toddler you witnessed understood the need to collaborate.
Could be.. but I haven't saw that in dogs yet.. have you?
It shows that there are more than merely the physical body and/or brain which determine one's character and attitude..
Back to the specific toddler, he did deliberately hand out his toy to others..
As if he understood giving is more noble than taking.. loving is more noble than hating... (expressed by crying on toddler)
The thing which even most adult do not understand.I think children are a lot more "pure" and "good" than most adults sometimes. I wonder why that is. I wonder why our "personal identity" changes that way as we grow older. Are children more "pure" inside?