You're missing the step before where you are starting (remember that she is a student so needs to be able to answer exam questions... Why does God tell you... or am I confusing things)

As for answering your initial question, I am not a scholar. But the way I read it, God being good means that goodness is a quality of God and not something that He (swt) created afterwards.

MakeMeRawr_7TeenF wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

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!

And how do you feel about Islam "not allowing for such questions"?

Islam permits such questions - and they have been discussed in the Science of Kalam - theology for centuries by the Mutakallimeen (theologians).

I think the notion of God being Good is a red herring - noone actually knows what that means though it is repeated a lot...

The notion of right/wrong is different from notions of benefit/harm - the former determine if there is reward/punishment in the hereafter whilst the latter consider the reault of an action (consequentialism) in this life - sometimes the two overlap, sometimes they don't - however, the west often uses the latter to determine right/wrong, often with some rubbish results - we simply use Quran/Sunnah to determine right/wrong, ie God says so...

Anonymous1 wrote:

I think the notion of God being Good is a red herring - noone actually knows what that means though it is repeated a lot...

So you think that the words from that hadith have a different meaning?

Or are you simply taking this position because I took the other one? (that was one of the reasons I wanted you to go first... I have this niggling doubt that you are simply saying the opposite instead of being yourself...)

MakeMeRawr_7TeenF wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

Islam permits such questions - and they have been discussed in the Science of Kalam - theology for centuries by the Mutakallimeen (theologians).

I think the notion of God being Good is a red herring - noone actually knows what that means though it is repeated a lot...

The notion of right/wrong is different from notions of benefit/harm - the former determine if there is reward/punishment in the hereafter whilst the latter consider the reault of an action (consequentialism) in this life - sometimes the two overlap, sometimes they don't - however, the west often uses the latter to determine right/wrong, often with some rubbish results - we simply use Quran/Sunnah to determine right/wrong, ie God says so...

Wow those are some pretty bold things you just said.
Just to clarify:

-Are you suggesting that GOD may not be Good?
-"The notion of right/wrong is different from notions of benefit/harm" Are we not supposed to believe though, that what is Halal is beneficial to us and what is Haraam is detrimental?
-And Ahh but I thought Islam was intentionalist? Our actions are judged on our intentions, not by the potential consequences, so surely we should be more focused on those? I thought Islam was our 'way of life'?
-"the west"? I find that rude.

I'm not saying God may not be Good - I'm saying the description in the hadith is very general and should remain very general - to try using it in a specific discussion is meaningless. That's why I asked, if someone is trying to connect it to how we determine good/bad actions, what relevance does it have? What does it mean? Aside from repeating God is good, and not bad, they can't provide any more elaboration as none exists! God's attributes are beyond knowing and understanding in a detailed way... Thus the discussion requires separate texts or reasoning - rendering the introduction of the hadith suspect.

Halal/Haram is not equivalent to benefit/harm - otherwise one is saying the halal/haram is driven by the principle of utilitarianism which it isn't (what would the need of revelantion be if such a principle worked? Man could simply apply the principle without need for revelation!) Thus consider Ali's comment, if we followed benefit/harm (or reason) we would wipe the bottom of our feet when doing mas for wudu - instead we wipe the top! Small amounts of alchohol would be allowed as it is beneficial but it is all haram, small and large quantities etc

It is incorrect to argue Islam is intentionalist or consequentialist as both generalisations are wrong. Thus Ghazali's famous comment, haram does not become halal by intention but halal can become haram by intention. In some matters (worships for example) intention is important as well as action (arkaan of a ritual) and in other matters it is irrelevant (eg talaq, sales contracts etc). In some matters consequences are important (eg saving life of a pregnant woman) but in others not (eg prohibition of pork or praying salat even though one may lose sales).

I too find the west rude - their way of life generally driven by the crude utilitarian principle is digusting, backward and disgraceful! Just look at the number of foetuses they slaughter every year and they are complaining about honor killings in the Muslim world? Abortions are little more than honor killings en masse - unless they do it for fun!

Anonymous1 wrote:

Just look at the number of foetuses they slaughter every year and they are complaining about honor killings in the Muslim world? Abortions are little more than honor killings en masse - unless they do it for fun!

This is an interesting point.

It does not make the former (honour killings) right and I doubt they abort for fun (the fun bit is before then, and that is them incorrectly trying to come to terms with the consequences of the fun) nor is a potential life equal to a living person (when the mothers life is in danger, the jurists have AFAIK said that the fetus can be aborted), but it is something to ponder over.

Anonymous1 wrote:

MakeMeRawr_7TeenF wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

Islam permits such questions - and they have been discussed in the Science of Kalam - theology for centuries by the Mutakallimeen (theologians).

philosophers. or people who speak. logisticians. but yes, can be used for theologians, but I think we normally use scholars etc for theology.

Anonymous1 wrote:

MakeMeRawr_7TeenF wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

I think the notion of God being Good is a red herring - noone actually knows what that means though it is repeated a lot...

The notion of right/wrong is different from notions of benefit/harm -

...
-"The notion of right/wrong is different from notions of benefit/harm" Are we not supposed to believe though, that what is Halal is beneficial to us and what is Haraam is detrimental?...

...Halal/Haram is not equivalent to benefit/harm - otherwise one is saying the halal/haram is driven by the principle of utilitarianism which it isn't (what would the need of revelantion be if such a principle worked? Man could simply apply the principle without need for revelation!) Thus consider Ali's comment, if we followed benefit/harm (or reason) we would wipe the bottom of our feet when doing mas for wudu - instead we wipe the top! Small amounts of alchohol would be allowed as it is beneficial but it is all haram, small and large quantities etc...

I take issue with the understanding here.

We (by that meaning Muslims in general and not a "royal we") DO think that halaal/Haraam has correlation to benefit and harm. The question si wether we can always see it or not, and also if short term thought etc will override it.

As an example, with the prohibition of alcohol, the qur'an even uses the balance between good and bad in the reasoning - it says that the harm overweighs the good.

Hadhrat Ali's comment is not directly relevant as that is not an issue of benefit/harm, but one of where we do what we are told but logic generally suggests the opposite, but even then it does not suggest in any way that it is harmful.

You wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

MakeMeRawr_7TeenF wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

Islam permits such questions - and they have been discussed in the Science of Kalam - theology for centuries by the Mutakallimeen (theologians).

philosophers. or people who speak. logisticians. but yes, can be used for theologians, but I think we normally use scholars etc for theology.

I would disagree - the Arabic for philosophers is falasifa and logician is manteeq and aalim is scholar - as I said, mutakallimeen are the theologians.

You wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

MakeMeRawr_7TeenF wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

I think the notion of God being Good is a red herring - noone actually knows what that means though it is repeated a lot...

The notion of right/wrong is different from notions of benefit/harm -

...
-"The notion of right/wrong is different from notions of benefit/harm" Are we not supposed to believe though, that what is Halal is beneficial to us and what is Haraam is detrimental?...

...Halal/Haram is not equivalent to benefit/harm - otherwise one is saying the halal/haram is driven by the principle of utilitarianism which it isn't (what would the need of revelantion be if such a principle worked? Man could simply apply the principle without need for revelation!) Thus consider Ali's comment, if we followed benefit/harm (or reason) we would wipe the bottom of our feet when doing mas for wudu - instead we wipe the top! Small amounts of alchohol would be allowed as it is beneficial but it is all haram, small and large quantities etc...

I take issue with the understanding here.

We (by that meaning Muslims in general and not a "royal we") DO think that halaal/Haraam has correlation to benefit and harm. The question si wether we can always see it or not, and also if short term thought etc will override it.

As an example, with the prohibition of alcohol, the qur'an even uses the balance between good and bad in the reasoning - it says that the harm overweighs the good.

Hadhrat Ali's comment is not directly relevant as that is not an issue of benefit/harm, but one of where we do what we are told but logic generally suggests the opposite, but even then it does not suggest in any way that it is harmful.

You can take exception - this is one of the problems with modernist thought, the attempt to bring in utilitarianist causalism into Islam.

The Sharia cannot be reduced to such crude and vulgar philosophies, that are mocked even by western philosophers and Islamic mutakallimeen (with exceptions like the Mutazalites entertaining them like you!).

The verse of alcohol does not prohibit it for benefit/harm reasons, it states a fact that there is some naf' in it ie benefit, however the ithm sin is greater than any benefit. Sin implying problems in this life and the hereafter.

However that aside, permission to seek benefit (eg profit in business, protection for Muslims etc) is the moral decision - mubah - you need to prove it is based on a utilitarian criteria and you cannot as there is no text that articulates how Allah determines right/wrong - maybe you can provide such texts...

Finally, right/wrong is related to reward and punishment in the hereafter - one can cite many examples that show one can gain benefits from right or wrong actions and harms from right or wrong benefits. The example of Imam Ali is one such example as is alcohol - the fact you have to start creating exceptions to your weird theory goes to prove you have problems and have to arbitrarily introduce exceptions so your rule isn't a general rule

oh yes, modernist thought where I am the one that is not using (semi)modern secular authors to make up my mind!

The verse of alcohol does not prohibit it for benefit/harm reasons, it states a fact that there is some naf' in it ie benefit, however the ithm sin is greater than any benefit. Sin implying problems in this life and the hereafter.

Which is exactly what I said - that the harm outweighs the benefit. Point one to me.

the fact you have to start creating exceptions to your weird theory goes to prove you have problems and have to arbitrarily introduce exceptions so your rule isn't a general rule

Which exceptions?

However that aside, permission to seek benefit (eg profit in business, protection for Muslims etc) is the moral decision - mubah - you need to prove it is based on a utilitarian criteria and you cannot as there is no text that articulates how Allah determines right/wrong - maybe you can provide such texts...

Just because we do not understand it it does not mean it does not exist. "but it is possible you dislike a thing which is good for you, and that you love a thing which is bad for you, But Allah knows and you know not" which implies that there is such a balance.

You wrote:

oh yes, modernist thought where I am the one that is not using (semi)modern secular authors to make up my mind!

Oh yes, EnglishModernists who use computers built on theory produced by secularist kuffars when he should according to the arbitrary criteria he sets, expect citations from classical scholars for it! Distinguish between normative and positive - positive matters do not require or need revelation - the human senses and reason!

You wrote:

The verse of alcohol does not prohibit it for benefit/harm reasons, it states a fact that there is some naf' in it ie benefit, however the ithm sin is greater than any benefit. Sin implying problems in this life and the hereafter.

Which is exactly what I said - that the harm outweighs the benefit. Point one to me.

Not it is not exactly what you said - you argued for material harm (short term, long term etc) - whilst the Quran uses a term that also incorporates spiritual harm - something humans cannot determine without revelation!

You wrote:

the fact you have to start creating exceptions to your weird theory goes to prove you have problems and have to arbitrarily introduce exceptions so your rule isn't a general rule

Which exceptions?

The rule of mas during wudu for example!

You wrote:

However that aside, permission to seek benefit (eg profit in business, protection for Muslims etc) is the moral decision - mubah - you need to prove it is based on a utilitarian criteria and you cannot as there is no text that articulates how Allah determines right/wrong - maybe you can provide such texts...

Just because we do not understand it it does not mean it does not exist. "but it is possible you dislike a thing which is good for you, and that you love a thing which is bad for you, But Allah knows and you know not" which implies that there is such a balance.

So where in this verse does it indicate God's criteria for determining right/wrong???

Anonymous1 wrote:

...positive matters do not require or need revelation - the human senses and reason!...

Can you please post this but in the fitrah topic please?

The rule of mas during wudu for example!

I don't see any exception for it as wiping the top of the foot has no harm.

So where in this verse does it indicate God's criteria for determining right/wrong???

It doesn't, but it uses words to the effect of "good for you" and "bad for you" ie benefit and harm.

besides, if there was no such thing, scholars would not have wasted ink describing the benefits of the halaal while warning against the harm.

Do you consider the Islamic requirements when it comes etc to sexual relations to be not an issue of benefit/harm where we consider the premarital/extra marital sexual relations to be of actual harm to society and to individuals?

You wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

...positive matters do not require or need revelation - the human senses and reason!...

Can you please post this but in the fitrah topic please?

Determining the fitrah is a positive matter - we can do it without revelation.
Determining morality is a normative matter - revelation is essential and it cannot be done without revelation.

You wrote:

The rule of mas during wudu for example!

I don't see any exception for it as wiping the top of the foot has no harm.

The point of Imam Ali's citation is that if the hukm was built according to a criteria of benefit/harm, it would have asked us to wipe the bottom of the shoe where dirt gathers and not the top. Contradicting your take on how the Islamic rules are built.

You wrote:

So where in this verse does it indicate God's criteria for determining right/wrong???

It doesn't, but it uses words to the effect of "good for you" and "bad for you" ie benefit and harm.

So what relevance does it have to our discussion??? Many verses mention khair and sharr - they don't help us at all in determining what is right or wrong as a moral criteria.

Are you clear on what we are discussing? Your points seem all over the place...

besides, if there was no such thing, scholars would not have wasted ink describing the benefits of the halaal while warning against the harm.

Do you consider the Islamic requirements when it comes etc to sexual relations to be not an issue of benefit/harm where we consider the premarital/extra marital sexual relations to be of actual harm to society and to individuals? [/quote]

Just taking some advice from another topic where you advise me to read the qur'an (thank you by the way, it is great advice and inshallah we all should act on it more):

[qs:5:5]

It starts "the GOOD THINGS have been made lawful upon you" so I would say there is some link between benefit and harm. Another verse talking about harm:

[qs:2:195]

so now we have both the principle that what is good has been made halaal for us along with telling us not to do (forbidding?) what is bad for us.

Hmmmm I think you're discussing a different issue.

There are two issues:
- what is the criteria used to determine something is halal/haram
- is there benefit/harm in something halal and are there benefits/harms in haram

In the first issue we don't use benefit/haram to determine if something is halal/haram unless a text asks us to do that. Halal/haram (right/wrong) are determined by texts - even if one was to consider there to be considerable material benefit in a matter and the texts state them to be haram they are haram (eg pork - commercial and personal benefit in this industry but it is haram). And vice versa. One can only conclude that halal/haram determin reward/punishment and pleasure/anger of Allah in the akhira, spiritual benefit/harm if you like...

Is there material benefit in what is halal - usually, but not always - eg sacrificing one's life is materially harmful but is halal as it will result in spiritual reward in the akhira.
Is there material harm in haram? Often but not always - eg eating pork or using its bristles for brushes or drinking small amounts of alcohol etc

You wrote:

Just taking some advice from another topic where you advise me to read the qur'an (thank you by the way, it is great advice and inshallah we all should act on it more):

[qs:5:5]

It starts "the GOOD THINGS have been made lawful upon you" so I would say there is some link between benefit and harm.

What are the good things? You are concluding beneficial things but the verse does not state that - it implies good things are those that are permitted by Allah - confirming my point!

You wrote:

Another verse talking about harm:
[qs:2:195]
so now we have both the principle that what is good has been made halaal for us along with telling us not to do (forbidding?) what is bad for us.

God is asking us to do good - what is good? You are arguing that which is beneficial - but the verse does not state that.
Good is what God has made halal or ordained - praying, fasting, jihad, sadaqah, marriage etc Confirming what I have said above.

Anonymous1 wrote:

What are the good things? You are concluding beneficial things but the verse does not state that - it implies good things are those that are permitted by Allah - confirming my point!

and

Anonymous1 wrote:

Good is what God has made halal or ordained - praying, fasting, jihad, sadaqah, marriage etc Confirming what I have said above.

the logic used in the verse is the other way around - what is good has been made halaal, which is different from your suggestion.

It is not saying that is is good because it is halaal, but that it has been made halaal because it is good.

and the second verse is telling people to not harm themselves - making harmful things haraam or close to it. This is the argument people use when classifying cigarettes as either makruh or haraam - that they are harmful for you.

You wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

What are the good things? You are concluding beneficial things but the verse does not state that - it implies good things are those that are permitted by Allah - confirming my point!

and

Anonymous1 wrote:

Good is what God has made halal or ordained - praying, fasting, jihad, sadaqah, marriage etc Confirming what I have said above.

the logic used in the verse is the other way around - what is good has been made halaal, which is different from your suggestion.

It is not saying that is is good because it is halaal, but that it has been made halaal because it is good.

Regarding the verse, God does not explain what is defined as or meant by "Good" (A bit like his mentioning of his attributes) - it is used only in a general sense or what he has permitted and made good to previous nations - you're trying to extract a criteria from a term that does not indicate any criteria other than good is what God has always ordained. He is now permitting (making halal) much of that for Muslims.

However, if you persist with your interpretation, what is Good? How do we recognise it? Do we have a criteria? No. If there is one, tell me - I can dump revelation and use that as revelation is quite confusing, saying this is good, this is not, putting general rules, making exceptions etc etc et
You'll find that we can only say that good is that what God has ordained.
detailed.

You wrote:

the second verse is telling people to not harm themselves - making harmful things haraam or close to it. This is the argument people use when classifying cigarettes as either makruh or haraam - that they are harmful for you.

The second verse is stating do not destroy yourselves with your own hands - not materially harm yourselves as you've understood, but, do not harm yourselves on the day of judgement by not spending in the way of Allah - your interpretation is not tenable at all if you read the full verse...

mirena32 wrote:

i would love to read more from you on this

On what? Your question is a little ambiguous...

it is spam, not a real person asking you a question.

Maybe I'm an automated robot providing all these answers and not a real robot... how would you know?

Or how do you know you are not in a dream... and you are confusing reality with the dream...?

I was talking about mirena32, letting you know that that was by a spam bot.

On the topic at hand though, it seems you are willing to read into verses when it suits you (by "harm is meant spending" which is not clear and well, people to not harm themselves is a clear ruling from the qur'an) but when it doesn't suit you, you play ignorance ("how am I supposed to know what it means by good? its not clear blah blah").

In different discussions you use opposing arguments, which leads to a couple of questions: Are you:

1. a single person,
2. serious about your views, or just being polemic?

You should be fine at uni - there may be people who act all superior but you do not have to surround yourself by them - there will be other more down to earth people too.

(and as a general observation, know-it-alls rarely know it all. Especially me, I know very little.)

MakeMeRawr_7TeenF wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

Maybe I'm an automated robot providing all these answers and not a real robot... how would you know?

Or how do you know you are not in a dream... and you are confusing reality with the dream...?

You're such a strange person.

You just think everyone's stupid and no-one's ever done philosophy and you're this amazing new novelty come to 'show us the light'

I think it's bad of you to think that you can just use big words and philosophical concepts that you think no one will know (Just in general, i remember you mentioning epistemology too and a couple of other things) And they're barely related to anything being said, you just want to show off.

People talk on subjects they don't understand and often make ignorant claims - when corrected, instead of defending their ideas which they cannot, they have to attack the accuser. I'm amused to see you resorting attacks on someone for using "big words" or technical terms. It is indicative of an inferiority complex - if you're not sure of research out there, you should start doing some reading rather than blaming someone for your ignorance. And maybe uni will open up your thinking... but then again, with an attitude opposed to thinking it probably won't...

I do wonder if you have any friends. (not throwing an insult as I am not one of the more social people, but you seem to take attacking people to a whole new level.)

Anonymous1 wrote:

And maybe uni will open up your thinking... but then again, with an attitude opposed to thinking it probably won't...

I don't like swearing. But I think its necessary sometimes.

You are acting like a horrible bitch and I feel sorry for your associates if you act like this in real life,

This is a sincere, 17 year old young woman asking genuine questions and seeking intellignetly-put across answers/suggestions, and you divert her topic to suit ur petty arguments with other people when she pleads to to move ur virtriol somewhere else, you put her down as if she is a piece of shit.

YOU ARE THE PIECE OF SHIT

Now fuck off or learn some humanity.

Wastegash

Now now people, I think we can be nicer than this.

We don't need to stoop to the lowest common denominator no matter how... good and needed it may seem.

There is a point in the two posts, one of a person who was genuine in asking questions an wanting to learn but was instead used as a football and abused by anon1, but well.. erm...

I think we can be nicer. (but that leads to the topic of tolerating intolerance that we have a topic on too...)

I stand by my post. I would very much like anon to take offence, and then seriously question who someone hand-n-heart has never been so intentionally rude (if at all) to another Muslim has suddenly been SOOO angry about the way an (obviously 'intelligent' and well-read) Muslim can CONVERSE with other Muslims.

I am just shocked, because I felt that I could blame much of the ills on the Muslim world on lack of education or excess of luxury.

Without knowing anything much about you, I doubt you are either of these extremes... yet the way you view Islam seems to be the EXACT way that the BNP et al view it.

It makes me lose hope.

You have been out of order over and OVER again. You are a SNAKE in the way you dodge accusations and questions and issues that don't fit in with ur very specific and narrow world view.

You seem to be more concerned with WHO said something, rather than the words they ACTUALLY said.

Truth comes from everywhere. But it seems for you it flies out of your tongue.
I have no idea what ur agenda is and I couldn't give a flying ********; it just seems suspicious and leaves a horrible taste in my mouth after reading almost every one of your posts.

Have you agreed with ANYTHING ANY of these earnest Muslims have said?

It seems that the first word you learned as a child was 'no' and you haven't really improved in that respect, you have just discovered more sophisticated and tongue-twistingw ways of saying no.

And is it because you honestly disagree? No, it's because( for one reason or another), you have become a moany old lady (in your own words age is subjective) who hates the world.

I would fell pity but ur too much of a disagreeable person.

May Allah (swt) guide us all to the Right Path, forgive our mistakes, weaknesses and ARROGANCE.

Ameen.