Whence Then is Evil?

Has any one ever wondered about the following:

If a book (the Qur’an in this situation) is meant to be from God/Allah, why do two individuals of equivalent intelligence always come up with different interpretations of the text?

There are many contradictions in the Quran; the only people unable to see them are those completely brainwashed and have lost the ability to think rationally. They come up with all sorts of historical/non-historical justifications for these such as the arabic language/literary peculiarities etc. nothing substantial or scientific; perhaps they are not aware of this concept.

There are literally billions and billions of galaxies and star systems in our “known� universe; supposedly we are talking about a creator that is well beyond the confines of any material boundaries; why would such a “person� even care about what goes on in individual hearts and minds on a teeny weeny planet! Why would he be upset about, for example, a woman showing off a bit of skin or someone not observing some ritual exactly how it was prescribed; when there are literally hundreds of such, very contradictory, rituals in Islam amongst the sects; not to quote countless other similar examples.

If the “Loh-e-Mahfouz� was the first thing created with the deeds of all living things and their fate already prescribed, what the hell is the meaning of “the free will�?!

If a ruler of my country wanted me to abide by ceratin rules, I would expect them to be laid down explicitly and clearly for all to understand. Otherwise, I would think they were unjust in prosecuting me for misgivings; why are there so many ambiguities as to what the “true Islam� is; that definition is certainly not unanimous by anyone’s standards as we all know; the interpretations are so varied and far apart at times that it is mind boggling!

According to the Quran, Allah gave his blessings to the Bani Israel but they betrayed his trust many a times, so he went off them completely and chose a different people for revival of his “Only and True Message�! Are we thinking that an omniscient and omnipotent God, with the inherent knowledge of everything, transcendent through the confines of time, made a mistake!! Then he tried to correct it by chosing arabia for his chosen messanger! How odd!!

Prayer is such a contradictory term, don’t you think. If all is already decided, does God change his mind if we were to grovel before him and grants us our desires as a reward; very confusing!!

The only answers I ever got for these as a child, and many other similar questions, was that we CANNOT work out God’s will and he is the only one who does; what the hell are we doing with our assess up in the air five times a day then!!

All of the above seem to be the desires of the needy and not fullfilled “persona� (to quote Al-Razi); Is it that we have created this “persona� is OUR OWN IMAGE rather than the other way around?

Is our “conflict� with the rest of the world sheer paranoia “they are out to get us�!! and the only reason we cannot accept this is our inherent “sense of pride� so deeply indoctrinated that we cannot listen to reason.

The reason I am talking about the Islamic context here is because that is my background and I wish to discuss the very foundations of this faith. It is all very well to hide behind the “good aspects� of Islamic history and ignore the other “less desirable� aspects, but the question is what it is all based on; without foundation, there is nothing left. I criticise any dogma based on “faith� and th other so-called faiths are no exception to this; however, I prefer people from those cultures to comment on their own cultural heritages.

Problem with being “moderate� is that moderation, whatever it might mean, harbours and nurtures extremist elemnts. Extremists to me mean people who are trying to follow their “faiths� down to the last letter. This Sufism etc have nothing to do with what Islam actually is; it is a digression from the mainstream. Sufis were always at the fringes of mainstream society and their ideas of “Sulha-e-kul� etc have nothing to do with the message of Islam; though I do admit it can make Islam a bit more palatable!

If we had all the “knowledge/Ilm� in the Quran, why would we strive for more; the whole idea of “the completeness� of “Deen/way of life� is not compatible with modernity of any kind, however that is defined. Of course we can cherry pick and find quotes to justify absolutely anything that WE WANT TO; that itself is the biggest weakness of religious dogma; interpretable with vast differences of opinions between individuals of equivalent intelligence!

Surely, they can't ALL be true!!!

IF there were no EVIL, would GOOD still mean anything ? And for what would you exercise your so-cherished free will?

Re: # 242

Kaal ji, thank you for the flattering courtesy ! In fact I have reached the age of enlightenment when , according to Ghalib, the Great:

“Bazeecha e ittifaal he dunia mere aage
Hota he shabo roz tamaasha mere aage
Ik khel he aourange Sulemaan mere nazdeek
Ik baat he ehjaaze Mssiha mere aage�

About Ghalib’s poetry, Allama Iqbal had said that it is the most valuable heritage of Muslim culture in India, which would be understood after a century. What you call ‘the group of regular/normal Muslims’, who are devoid of any rational thinking, call him and any one who thinks like him as ‘Satra bhatra’and usually ignore him. Thanks to the internet, especially the 'chowk'that such matters could be discussed seriously with the thinking people like you.

Surprisingly, the advent of globalization and the surge of IT which should have, as a matter of course, advanced liberalism, resulted instead in the spread of religion, and that too the extremist, violent and fanatic type of Wahabi Islam resulting in rejection of Khuda, a liberal and charitable god, in favor of a revengeful Wahabist Allah.

teshah ji, you are a very strange person (in a very good way, for me). I can't figure out how you must be conversing with any group of regular/normal Muslims :)

It's much easier to understand ideologies and religions - no matter how complex - than it is to figure out human beings. There is so much to learn :)

Re: # 240
kaal

Thank you dear! I have found the answer as I expected from you. The question now is why khuda which is a natural answer and complement of 'khud' (self) becomes Allah, a supernatural obscurantist thing, sitting in the heavens (excuse me, like Altaf Hussain in London) and sending messages through angels to selcted persons to divide humanity into believers and non-believers (here Altaf has an advantage over Him that he can use direct dialing).
I wonder if the Persians have not disowned their khuda in favour of Allah either. How thought provoking! I will have to think over it. So more later on.

Regards.

teshah sahib, you pose some of the trickiest challenges (recall the issue of "why faith may achieve more than knowledge" - I never got back to answer that either).

Khuda is almost a secular God - I agree. This God seems very easy to accept, even in absence of faith. There is a connection (at least, seems to me) between khud, khudee, and khuda...That may be just my hallucinations (since I don't know any Persian), but it resonates with a certain tradition I know reasonably well, and the concept of Khuda fits in very well.

Allah is an entirely different matter. My own guess is that Allah will entirely replace Khuda everywhere except in Iran. Iranians have to figure out who they are. They are in quite a dilemma....

Ha! Why would anyone likhao rappat against a person whom one deeply likes and admires. Aur akbar allahabadi chahe ghar pe hon yaa thaane mein, aazad hi rahenge :)

Just didn't see it, teshah ji. Will come back soon and respond a bit later. Best regards. Kind regards.

Kaal has perhaps gone to a Police Station to get a 'rappat' (FIR) registered against me as detractors had done against Urdu poet, Akbar Allahabadi, as complained by him in his famous couplet:

"Raqibon ne rappat likhwaai ja ja ke thane mein
Kih Akbar nam leta he khuda ka is zamaane mein".

kaal

Where have you gone dear Kaal?

Re: # 234

Kaal

Thank you dear for your valuable response. I personally feel no difference between Allah and Khuda used as symbols for some superhuman power. But Allah which was a mere national god (Rabbe Kabah) of Arabs was upgraded by Islam to a god for the entire universe through Arabian conquests and spread of Islam as a result thereof. As for Khuda it being a creation of Persian civilization does not carry any religious or national label. The matter perhps requires a deeper study by persons like Gill and Hood Bhai.

You say:

"If Muslims are willing partners, then why are they doing this? You see, I have never accepted that Muslims are any less intelligent or any more gullible than anybody else. So if we take those explanations out, what remains?"

As Iqbal had stated in his couplet quoted by me the people being by nature idol worshippers they are generally prone to rely more on tangible idols than on abstract symbols like Allah or Khuda. They have even made Allah, called Rabe-Kaabah, an Idol now in the shape of Kaabah with the 'Black stone', called'Hajre Aswad'. It is not the lack of intelligence that they worship idols but the dominance of 'Nafs' (greed or fear?) which makes them do all this. Allah by its historical background being more amenable to this ritualiusm than Khuda is becoming popular all over the world these days. In fact Khuda is almost a secular god, not requiring any obscurantist ritualism which has made it unpopular these days of religious extremism and hate-grouping, so much so, that according to a news report, a Presidential candidate of America has advocated bombing of the sacred places of Islam to put an end to all this. The ultimate war seems to be at hand now.

One more thing, teshah ji, I would request you to count out (for now at least): the evil outsider. I know you don't think like that, but that is the Islamic equivalent of the non-Islamic secularist argumen (which is, Muslims are all personally stupid and incapable of thinking - obviously not true, either).

teshah ji, I know those things and fully agree with you :)

Up until recently, the thought that Khuda could be considered almost 'unIslamic" would have gotten any person laughted out of a room. That was such an absurd proposition.

But now Khuda is being thrown out. By Muslims, themselves, willingly.

Aand this is the big thing to which i would request your attention: Is media doing it all on its own, or are Muslims willing participants in this process? :)

If Muslims are willing partners, then why are they doing this? You see, I have never accepted that Muslims are any less intelligent or any more gullible than anybody else. So if we take those explanations out, what remains?

Re: # 232

kaal ji

What is this what you call "a deeper and very Islamic understanding of what Khuda is and what Allah is"? Will you elaborate, please? For your information even the National Anthem of Pakistan mentions 'Khuda' insted of 'Allah' as:

"Sayeaa khudaae zuljalaal" but Zia could not change it. I just opened 'Kulyaate Iqbal' ad random (page 340) and saw khuda mentioned in his couplet:

"Buton se tum ko ummeedein 'khuda' se nowmeedi
Bataa to sahi aur kaafri kia he".

Allama Iqbal, in your view, did not have deeper understanding of Islam that he held those who had no hope in Khuda as infidel.

No dear it is the 'krishma' of media, especially the electronic one which made Allah so popular.

For your further information I may tell you that the name of Allah was not introduced by Islam but it is an Arabic name for God which was popular even among the pre-Islamic Arabs as the very name of the Prophet's father was Abdullah, meaning (the slave of Allah).

teshah ji

IMO, the amazingly quick replacement of Khuda by Allah has to do with a deeper and very Islamic understanding of what Khuda is and what Allah is. Zia's and Mullahs' role was limited even in Pakistan, and that replacement is proceding apace even in India and the US.

Some 'Muslims' will insist on calling Allah khuda or even Ishwar, but their numbers are small and will go down continuously.

Re: # 230

Kaal

Sorry! It should have been 'There is no god but God' instead of 'There is no God but God's to assuage your religious proclivities. As for Allah it is specifically Arabic name for god not necessarily an Islamic one. In our part of the world the name 'Khuda', a Persian version of God, is more popular. Zia, the usurper, tried to popularize Allah, the Arabic name of God, over the government media, to gain favour of the Mulla and the Saudi rulers and surprisingly he was successful to a large extent in doing so. Today, people in Pakistan say 'Allah Hafiz' instead of usual 'Khuda Hafiz',to beseech Allah to protect them but with what results. They are being blown away in the very name of Allah by suicide bombers, another result of so called pseudo-Jehadist culture introduced by Zia with the help of American and Saudi Dollars.

In any case, I think for scientific discussions the use of a somewhat secular term for god, like God, in English and 'Khuda', in Urdu would be more appropriate.

teshah sahib, I always felt the correct form must be "There is no God but Allah," not "There is no God but God."

There is not God but God is a very petty property. That is true for anyone and anybody - like there is no kaal but kaal, or there is no teshah but teshah.


That demeans Allah who is the only true God, according to Islam.