It's good cuz God said it is. If God didn't tell us what was good or not, we wouldn't be able to judge either.

good because it is commanded by God, as far as I know.

MakeMeRawr_7TeenF wrote:

But then are you saying it wasn't good before? it became good when God commanded it? So is it good purely by virtue of the fact that God commanded it?

i dont think there is a concept of 'before' or 'after' with God. He (swt) exists outside time.

Also, as far as my understanding is, 'Goodness' and 'what God enjoins as Good' are one and the same. There is no possibility that He would enjoin something as 'Good' when it is in fact evil.

I'm aware how the argument then continues, but I don't think the Islamic concept of God is open to these criticisms or paradoxes.

Ya'qub wrote:

, 'Goodness' and 'what God enjoins as Good' are one and the same.

that's what i meant

MakeMeRawr_7TeenF wrote:

"Does God command the good because it is good, or is it good because it is commanded by God?"

Deep stuff. It almost makes my head explode thinking about it too deeply.

I just wanted to post up a hadith though - its not to do with this exactly, but the level after: "Allah the Almighty is good and accepts only that which is good"

That is the opening of the tenth hadith in the collection of 40 by Imam Nawawi - you can read the full 40 here or here or jsut about this single hadith here (but the translation here uses different words).

To complicate matters, God also did create evil (does it have to be the opposite of good? could it not simply be the absense of good? like a vacuum).

But going back to the hadith, the bit that goes "God is good" (or pure) hints that pureness/goodness is a quality of God (as opposed to a creation) and thus it would come first.

MakeMeRawr_7TeenF wrote:

I'm aware how the argument then continues, but I don't think the Islamic concept of God is open to these criticisms or paradoxes.

'not open to them'?[/quote]

i.e. the criticism are not applicable.

The Islamic concept of God is flawless, whereas the Judeo-Christian concept has inconsistencies.

MakeMeRawr_7TeenF wrote:

Ya'qub wrote:

i.e. the criticism are not applicable.

The Islamic concept of God is flawless, whereas the Judeo-Christian concept has inconsistencies.

If it's flawless why isn't it open to criticisms it can refute?

no, what i meant, is that criticisms would be based on misunderstanding of the principal, rather than any problem in the concept itself.

Don't see the relevance of the hadith to be honest - what does it mean when it says God is good?

That it is an inherrent quality of God and not something that has been created?

But that would be open to dispute depending on how the word is translated etc.

//That it is an inherrent quality of God and not something that has been created?
But that would be open to dispute depending on how the word is translated etc.
//

What do you mean inherent quality of God?

Anonymous1 wrote:

What do you mean inherent quality of God?

One of the 99 Names of Allah (swt). Or at least one of the names which is to be understood literally about God, and metaphorically about humans.

Some of the names are human qualities, and are to be understood metaphorically about God.

Ya'qub wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

What do you mean inherent quality of God?

One of the 99 Names of Allah (swt). Or at least one of the names which is to be understood literally about God, and metaphorically about humans.

Some of the names are human qualities, and are to be understood metaphorically about God.

You've not answered my question and have substituted "You's" replies with another label.

What do you mean inherent quality of God?

Anonymous1 wrote:

Ya'qub wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

What do you mean inherent quality of God?

One of the 99 Names of Allah (swt). Or at least one of the names which is to be understood literally about God, and metaphorically about humans.

Some of the names are human qualities, and are to be understood metaphorically about God.

You've not answered my question and have substituted "You's" replies with another label.

What do you mean inherent quality of God?

Read al-ghazzali's book on the 99 Names of Allah (swt). That explains better than I can. I don't want to confuse myself or others by answering when I'm not sure how to express myself adequately.

That's my point - hadith are quoted with a meaning implied by the poster - but when asked what it means, they cannot explain... What relevance does such a hadith have to the discussion?

Anonymous1 wrote:

That's my point - hadith are quoted with a meaning implied by the poster - but when asked what it means, they cannot explain... What relevance does such a hadith have to the discussion?

I didn't quote any ahadith. I just (tried) to answer YOUR question. What are you on about?

The questions was part of a sequence of posts - maybe you should read the thread before jumping into the middle of it...

Anonymous1 wrote:

The questions was part of a sequence of posts - maybe you should read the thread before jumping into the middle of it...

Stop being so sarcastic and confrontational please. It is very unislamic. I haven't been rude like other people have to you - I dont appreciate u being rude to me.

I had read the posts above, but I didn't give any commentary on any hadiths. i'm not qualified to. You asked what someone meant by a term, and I answered what I thought he might mean.

When u asked for more information, I pointed u to something which I feel can explain it better than I can.

Now can you please learn some adhab. Please. For your own sake.

That is my nasiyyah to you. If you dont feel you are being rude or aggressive to people, you are simply mistaken.

I promise this is my heartfelt advice to you - because most of your posts show good knowledge and understanding, sound logic, and steadfastness to stand up for what you believe in.

But if you carry all this knowledge without acting on it (i.e. by having a good, Islamic character), then there is a danger that you may become little better than a donkey carrying books.

Ya'qub wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

The questions was part of a sequence of posts - maybe you should read the thread before jumping into the middle of it...

Stop being so sarcastic and confrontational please. It is very unislamic. I haven't been rude like other people have to you - I dont appreciate u being rude to me.

I had read the posts above, but I didn't give any commentary on any hadiths. i'm not qualified to. You asked what someone meant by a term, and I answered what I thought he might mean.

When u asked for more information, I pointed u to something which I feel can explain it better than I can.

Now can you please learn some adhab. Please. For your own sake.

That is my nasiyyah to you. If you dont feel you are being rude or aggressive to people, you are simply mistaken.

I promise this is my heartfelt advice to you - because most of your posts show good knowledge and understanding, sound logic, and steadfastness to stand up for what you believe in.

But if you carry all this knowledge without acting on it (i.e. by having a good, Islamic character), then there is a danger that you may become little better than a donkey carrying books.

I have not been rude to you - if you choose to read that into a statement that was typed as advice that is your choice - however don't offload your insecurities onto others please.

I could accuse you of insulting me by analogising me to a donkey with books, I have justification - but I don't as I understand the sincere and valid point you are making - valid, but in your case, mistaken.

I have criticised others, no doubt - only on points where I think it is appropriate.

For example, if someone is foolish enough to defend kufr belief systems like democracy or british identities, have never read or researched it with any rigour, is unable to respond to academic citations and belittle scholars and academics - then utilise problematic logic which is exposed when applied to a few simple examples, they should accept the conclusion. They should not play politics and divert issues with "are you calling me a hindu!" "oh my god I'm being called a hindu" etc!

Anonymous1 wrote:

//That it is an inherrent quality of God and not something that has been created?
But that would be open to dispute depending on how the word is translated etc.
//

What do you mean inherent quality of God?

Since I assume you are going to correct me any, lets get on with it.

What should I have meant and why was I wrong?

(you may also notice these words in my first post: "its not to do with this exactly, but the level after" take that as you wish.)

(one of the three links were also to a commentary on the hadith)

Anonymous1 wrote:

For example, if someone is foolish enough to defend kufr belief systems like democracy or british identities, have never read or researched it with any rigour, is unable to respond to academic citations and belittle scholars and academics - then utilise problematic logic which is exposed when applied to a few simple examples, they should accept the conclusion. They should not play politics and divert issues with "are you calling me a hindu!" "oh my god I'm being called a hindu" etc!

Lets keep that out of here as it will merge many discussions into one. Personally, I think you were more than adequately refuted. I assume you have an opposing view and whoever stumbles across and reads what was posted are entitled to their own view too.

You wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

//That it is an inherrent quality of God and not something that has been created?
But that would be open to dispute depending on how the word is translated etc.
//

What do you mean inherent quality of God?

Since I assume you are going to correct me any, lets get on with it.

What should I have meant and why was I wrong?

You cite texts willy nilly, most of them without any Arabic, or actual relevance.

In this case I thought I'd take a different approach and give you the opportunity of explaining how that text has any relevance to the discussion at hand... I'm getting the impression you interpret divine texts according to the english translations, google to find someone who kind of agrees, cut and paste their general explanaion where possible, and where it doesn't exist if my questions are specific enough - you get stuck...

You wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

For example, if someone is foolish enough to defend kufr belief systems like democracy or british identities, have never read or researched it with any rigour, is unable to respond to academic citations and belittle scholars and academics - then utilise problematic logic which is exposed when applied to a few simple examples, they should accept the conclusion. They should not play politics and divert issues with "are you calling me a hindu!" "oh my god I'm being called a hindu" etc!

Lets keep that out of here as it will merge many discussions into one. Personally, I think you were more than adequately refuted. I assume you have an opposing view and whoever stumbles across and reads what was posted are entitled to their own view too.

There was no refutation - the core problem with your argument to reconcile democracy with Islam is to change democracy sufficiently from its definition rendering a reconciliation not of democracy but of something else to Islam, and then calling the result democracy! If you do the same with any belief system you reconcile it to Islam.

Maybe you can justify this perverted methodology - or maybe you can't as it is a core element of modernist thought

Anonymous1 wrote:

You cite texts willy nilly, most of them without any Arabic, or actual relevance.

I assume you did not click the links... especially this one which I provided in the same post. It comes with arabic, translation and commentary.

It is a good idea to make sure your allegations are not unfounded before making them. The sign of a mu'min or something.

I still don't see your analysis...

There was no refutation - the core problem with your argument to reconcile democracy with Islam is to change democracy sufficiently from its definition rendering a reconciliation not of democracy but of something else to Islam, and then calling the result democracy! If you do the same with any belief system you reconcile it to Islam.

that is how the Islamic methodology works. read up on your history it has been done like this time and time again, from the time of the prophets, to the sahabahs, to the people after them. You even when explaining the way of the prophet accepted this (but later decided to use it as a platform to throw insults).

Maybe you can justify this perverted methodology - or maybe you can't as it is a core element of modernist thought

Smile all you like but you know that according to your definition a "modernist" is a kaafir, so politeness does not make the term any less offensive. I guess I will be able to ask for redress in the court of God where your semantic meanderings will be meaningless. No point asking you to be reasonable and decent.

I have not used any perverted methodology, but you have been caught jumping between "everything is allowed unless forbidden" and "everything is forbidden unless allowed" when it suited you. I think I more than adequately answered your points using either method. You are free to disagree, others are free to make up their own minds.

You wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

You cite texts willy nilly, most of them without any Arabic, or actual relevance.

I assume you did not click the links... especially this one which I provided in the same post. It comes with arabic, translation and commentary.

Yes I read the link - it doesn't answer the question - just playing around with more labels, stating Allah has "attributes" of ... - what do the attributes of Allah mean?

Maybe you can answer it here...or maybe you can't given the number of times I've asked for an answer...

You wrote:

that is how the Islamic methodology works. read up on your history it has been done like this time and time again, from the time of the prophets, to the sahabahs, to the people after them. You even when explaining the way of the prophet accepted this (but later decided to use it as a platform to throw insults).

Nope Islamic methodology does not work like that - maybe you can cite where the Muslims reconciled Islam to the Mushirk system of Mecca like you are doing?

You wrote:

Maybe you can justify this perverted methodology - or maybe you can't as it is a core element of modernist thought

Smile all you like but you know that according to your definition a "modernist" is a kaafir, so politeness does not make the term any less offensive. I guess I will be able to ask for redress in the court of God where your semantic meanderings will be meaningless. No point asking you to be reasonable and decent.

Maybe you can cite where I stated a modernist is kaafir? You repeating that statement doesn't mean I said it...

You wrote:

I have not used any perverted methodology, but you have been caught jumping between "everything is allowed unless forbidden" and "everything is forbidden unless allowed" when it suited you. I think I more than adequately answered your points using either method. You are free to disagree, others are free to make up their own minds.

Maybe you can show where I have argued these 2 principles - or maybe you can't I don't actually believe either one.

MakeMeRawr_7TeenF wrote:

OH FOR GOODNESS' SAKES

Will you just answer the question?

Or go away? I really wanted to get proper answers for this but for some reason it keeps being swerved.

The Answer to your question is as per Ghazali's elaboration, God says what is right/wrong. There is no moral criteria other than that.

The interesting question is, what does right/wrong mean? Answer that and everything makes sense - leave that vague, you have potential paradoxes!