Whence Then is Evil?

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.

Re: # 228

nasah

Muslim God, named Allah, cannot possibly face extinction as it stands on the dialectics of 'Nafi, Isbat' (negation and confirmation) as per the most perfect formula for existence of 'La Ila Ilillah' (There is no God but God) as a Punjabi poet,Sultan Bahu, says:

"Nafi Isbaat da panrhi milaya har rag har jaai hoo"

( He gets his nourishment both from negation and confirmation)

Muslim God is a species that -- unlike the Christian and Jewish species -- has stopped evolving and may be awaiting an asteroid to go for mass extinction.

Beta Release

Its good! They are improving it fast. They have re-introduced interact index which was badly needed. Thanks. The site also seem to have stabilized.

Re: # 225

philosipher

Thank you dear for your illuminating reply. I have read all your posts got impressed with your insight. But as Iqbal said:

"Aql charaghe raah he manzil nahien"

Or:

"Gaah meri niga-e-tez cheer gaei dile wajud
Gaah ulajh ke reh gai mere touhimaat mein"

We have but to bow down to that reality which is beyond existence/non-existence, 'La illa ilillah', whic Iqbal calls 'Haqiqate Muntazir' (a reality, a truth in waiting but never making itself manifest).

But why we keep on searching for it to the end of our life?

Re: #224 Posted by teshah on

((((From where this idea comes, that is the question which defies my comprehension. If you call it a wish of the creator born of his instinct in genes then will it not also be 'Mattahe gharoor', a fraud, all Maya?")))))

teshah sahib

You are right, existence (being) is one of the most important and complex philosophical issues. And I have discussed this issue exhaustively in various posts on this board. You can read #182. As for as concept of 'Maya' is concerned, I don't think this view can only be traced in Hinduism. This concept (if we can call it) can be traced from early Greek philosophy to even 20tgh century philosophical movement.


Ok here is my #182

(((((Re: # 180

khurram

((((If Universe exists because God is observing it, then who observes God?)))

When we talk about material objects being dependent on our (or for that matter God’s) perception or observation, we are not asserting some sort of ``existence`` of those ``objects``. All we are saying is that it is merely the reflection of our senses or `consciousness`. Even when we talk about the `existence` of God we don’t consider God a material being. God, in that sense, is ultimate consciousness (mind, observer) and He is the ``cause`` of that idea (of existence of material) in human minds. The problem arises because of the usage of the term ``existence`` without describing it.

NOTE: Anybody who is looking into it.... this is by no means an exhaustive answer to his question. Existence` is an incredibly complex philosophical issue and it’s impossible to discuss it here.)))))))

So in that case, you are right that world(matter) would be merely an illusion or ‘Maya’. Dear teshah this article is already a whipped horse. You can read my interacts and if you have any question in mind it will be a great honor for me to answer that.

Regards.

Itis alright dear,but I expected your valued sober comments on the question raised in my post # 209 as reproduced hereunder:

"As for creation in abstract, I cannot understand any creation without the creator having first its idea somewhere. From where this idea comes, that is the question which defies my comprehension. If you call it a wish of the creator born of his instinct in genes then will it not also be 'Mattahe gharoor', a fraud, all Maya?"

Ghalib had also raised a somewhat similar question in his couplet quoted hereunder:

"Nah tha kuchh to khuda tha
Nah hota kuchh to khuda hota
Daboeya mujh ko hone ne
Nah hota mein to kia hota?"

It is the question of 'being' which has been baffling the human mind finding no answer whatsoever. What does your philosify say in this respect? I would welcome your sober comments which I value much.

As for the beta chowk I am getting used to it now and they are perhaps also improving it. But I agree with you that it is not that chowk which we all loved. It still needs lot of improvement.

teshah sahib

Thanx for accepting my apology and your kind response.

Well...this beta thing....its just a pathetic effort of chowk(late) staff to meet the ''challenges'' of the 21st century.

This format is just a load of crap. it sucks big time. It's a great pain to be on chowk these days.This is not the chowk we all love.

Hope everything is good at your end

Regards

To hell with this beta