If God is the Same then Why is God Different?
Saima Shah April 19, 2009
#26 Posted by philosopher on April 20, 2009 7:38:14 am
Re: # 25 in addition to that;
Sometimes later, i would discuss other issues and questions that u have raised in your article such as"If God is the Same then Why is God Different?" this kinda quetsion is the result of the misunderstood concept of the "oneoness" of God.Quran has never suggested this "oneness" in the mathmatical or analogicalsense.more on it tomorrow.
Sometimes later, i would discuss other issues and questions that u have raised in your article such as"If God is the Same then Why is God Different?" this kinda quetsion is the result of the misunderstood concept of the "oneoness" of God.Quran has never suggested this "oneness" in the mathmatical or analogicalsense.more on it tomorrow.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#25 Posted by philosopher on April 20, 2009 7:22:23 am
saimashah
(((The idea that there is an external God, a man in the sky is a myth created to restrict the masses journey towards enlightenment.)))
It wasn't the result of the idea of "an external God" or the socio-political manifestation of the Religion rather it was the immediate implication of the derivative thinking which has direct relation with the authoritarianism in the social realm. This "analytical"(in the technical sense)thinking always manifests itself self in the institution of clergy.
About 200 years after the advent of Islam, Muslim thinking came under the influence of the Aristotelian laws of logic and the propositional form of reasoning.The Muslim mindset responded to it in two significant ways,(a) the response of the philosophers was conflicting to the categories of the propositional logic for being the deductive in nature, whereas Islamic thinking in the first 200 years was inductive in its epistemological perspective.
That's why the Muslim philosophy received only that part of Aristotelian logic which was relevant in the formalization of epistemological structure and rejected its view of the formal construction of the so called attributes of God and constructing a "coherence theory of truth" in view of the allegorical cum categorical structure of the Quranic language dealing with the existential and phenomenological truths of the transcendental reality.
b) the theological response which was traditionally(judo-christian tradition) deductive in nature grabbed it with both hands and converted the entire existential structure of the Quranic language into propositional statements which was based on the modus pones of the Aristotelian laws of thought. This paradigm was used to justify to construct the formal(in the Aristotelian sense) view of the attributes of substance and was used as an "objectively" justified ethical system of the ruling elite.On the intellectual level it was the result of the fear of the "chaos" in the Muslim world which it witnessed just after the demise of the Holy Prophet(pbuh).The whole structure of jurisprudence was based on this methodology and the formal nature of the theological construction had to be there all the time to justify the political manipulation of the different Ideological tendencies.
Theologian being completely unaware of the difference b/w existential and formal truths, termed every alternative view as being heretic and even kufar(unislamic).
But fortunately, it is one of the characteristic of Islamic religion that it has always shown a living awareness of contemporary intellectual issues.So this formal construction of the attributes of the substance was bound to be countered and that's exactly what Muslim philosophers did(imam ghazali, ibn arabi ,ibn Rushd).Ever wondered why Ghazali is so much maligned by the Non-technical minds who are completely clueless of his original work and even the basic tenets of the incredibly complex philosophical issues?
If the response of the muslim philosophers was primarily epistemological in nature, the response of the muslim sufis and mystics was even more profound. The sufi methodology was phenomenological(in the philosophical sense) and existential in nature.The fallacy of the theological approach which had converted the
non-propositional structure of the Quranic epistemology into the propositional statements, was countered by the sufis and mystics on the basis of the existential discourse of the Quranic language and its distinction between the allegorical and categorical statements.
One of the most important distinction in this regard was between the "Belief" and Imaan. Quran doesn't only deal imaan as an existential truth and phenomenological methodology to comprehend the mystery of it also made a very important distinction between "islam" and "imaan" as well. Belief and Islam are two propositional terms whereas the Imaan is a non-propositional term.The sufi methodology was primarily was based on this distinction of the two forms(in the literal and ordinary sense) languages dealing with the two different universes of discourse.
It so happens that certain notions become the inevitable categories of thought through which other things are seen.The formal categories borrowed by the Greek laws of thought became so strongly the inevitable categories of the masses and the political thinking that it was impossible to comprehend the above mentioned difference unless you are deeply indulged in the Philosophical activity and have a highly perceptive and sophisticated mind and methodology to deconstruct the formal structure of those categories.
Based on these categories the political and theological thinking totally rejected the sufi's methodology for the comprehension of the transcendental universe of discourse. Because of this formal nature of the muslim theological structure, the Islamic theology had always been seen in the light of the logically derivative outcome of the attributes of the substance by all kinds of anti-islam tendencies and orientalist image of islam.
Based on this methodology was another complicated and extremely vague view of the Ethical interpretation the religion.This view served as the double edged sword. On the one hand the ethical system was derived from the attributes(which were formally constructs) and given the "objective" validity which led to the problem i have quoted from your article.However the ethical view of the Quran doesn't claim to be objective in that sense. Moralities in the Quran are nothing but the guiding principles as the part of the broader epistemological paradigm of the Quran.(more later on this particular issue)
On the other hand, the sufi methodology(with few exception like, ibn-e-Arabi, Ali hajveri and maulana Rumi etc) which was comparatively much relevant paradigm got misled by this ethical paradigm in the final analysis. It divorced itself from the social activity which was necessary to get rid of the delusion caused by the solitary contemplation.
It won't be relevant to mention another problem with the logic,though a slightly different one from the academic debates, that if a person is not a doctor he would never claim to be one but there is huuuuuuuuuge problem with logic i.e everybody on this planet considers himself a logician.There are many complex psycho-social factors behind which deserve a special consideration,but this approach denies every distinction in the realm of knowledge with such ease and confidence that even a the great logician won't dare to reject them(out of fear of being insulted off course),no matter how complex philosophical technicalities it carries.
This is the reason why you would see people giving judgments on these highly philosophical of which they have got absolutely no clue of.
P.S: this is obviously not an exhaustive post on these issues.It is impossible to discuss these incredibly complex intellectual issues in one post,however given the time and energy i would like to explain these points in a detailed artilce sometime soon.A few days back i had typed an article on these issues but got it deleted just when i was going to submit it.I couldn't save a copy of it on my PC.It wont be a surprise for those who know the kind of lazy ass i am.
More later
(((The idea that there is an external God, a man in the sky is a myth created to restrict the masses journey towards enlightenment.)))
It wasn't the result of the idea of "an external God" or the socio-political manifestation of the Religion rather it was the immediate implication of the derivative thinking which has direct relation with the authoritarianism in the social realm. This "analytical"(in the technical sense)thinking always manifests itself self in the institution of clergy.
About 200 years after the advent of Islam, Muslim thinking came under the influence of the Aristotelian laws of logic and the propositional form of reasoning.The Muslim mindset responded to it in two significant ways,(a) the response of the philosophers was conflicting to the categories of the propositional logic for being the deductive in nature, whereas Islamic thinking in the first 200 years was inductive in its epistemological perspective.
That's why the Muslim philosophy received only that part of Aristotelian logic which was relevant in the formalization of epistemological structure and rejected its view of the formal construction of the so called attributes of God and constructing a "coherence theory of truth" in view of the allegorical cum categorical structure of the Quranic language dealing with the existential and phenomenological truths of the transcendental reality.
b) the theological response which was traditionally(judo-christian tradition) deductive in nature grabbed it with both hands and converted the entire existential structure of the Quranic language into propositional statements which was based on the modus pones of the Aristotelian laws of thought. This paradigm was used to justify to construct the formal(in the Aristotelian sense) view of the attributes of substance and was used as an "objectively" justified ethical system of the ruling elite.On the intellectual level it was the result of the fear of the "chaos" in the Muslim world which it witnessed just after the demise of the Holy Prophet(pbuh).The whole structure of jurisprudence was based on this methodology and the formal nature of the theological construction had to be there all the time to justify the political manipulation of the different Ideological tendencies.
Theologian being completely unaware of the difference b/w existential and formal truths, termed every alternative view as being heretic and even kufar(unislamic).
But fortunately, it is one of the characteristic of Islamic religion that it has always shown a living awareness of contemporary intellectual issues.So this formal construction of the attributes of the substance was bound to be countered and that's exactly what Muslim philosophers did(imam ghazali, ibn arabi ,ibn Rushd).Ever wondered why Ghazali is so much maligned by the Non-technical minds who are completely clueless of his original work and even the basic tenets of the incredibly complex philosophical issues?
If the response of the muslim philosophers was primarily epistemological in nature, the response of the muslim sufis and mystics was even more profound. The sufi methodology was phenomenological(in the philosophical sense) and existential in nature.The fallacy of the theological approach which had converted the
non-propositional structure of the Quranic epistemology into the propositional statements, was countered by the sufis and mystics on the basis of the existential discourse of the Quranic language and its distinction between the allegorical and categorical statements.
One of the most important distinction in this regard was between the "Belief" and Imaan. Quran doesn't only deal imaan as an existential truth and phenomenological methodology to comprehend the mystery of it also made a very important distinction between "islam" and "imaan" as well. Belief and Islam are two propositional terms whereas the Imaan is a non-propositional term.The sufi methodology was primarily was based on this distinction of the two forms(in the literal and ordinary sense) languages dealing with the two different universes of discourse.
It so happens that certain notions become the inevitable categories of thought through which other things are seen.The formal categories borrowed by the Greek laws of thought became so strongly the inevitable categories of the masses and the political thinking that it was impossible to comprehend the above mentioned difference unless you are deeply indulged in the Philosophical activity and have a highly perceptive and sophisticated mind and methodology to deconstruct the formal structure of those categories.
Based on these categories the political and theological thinking totally rejected the sufi's methodology for the comprehension of the transcendental universe of discourse. Because of this formal nature of the muslim theological structure, the Islamic theology had always been seen in the light of the logically derivative outcome of the attributes of the substance by all kinds of anti-islam tendencies and orientalist image of islam.
Based on this methodology was another complicated and extremely vague view of the Ethical interpretation the religion.This view served as the double edged sword. On the one hand the ethical system was derived from the attributes(which were formally constructs) and given the "objective" validity which led to the problem i have quoted from your article.However the ethical view of the Quran doesn't claim to be objective in that sense. Moralities in the Quran are nothing but the guiding principles as the part of the broader epistemological paradigm of the Quran.(more later on this particular issue)
On the other hand, the sufi methodology(with few exception like, ibn-e-Arabi, Ali hajveri and maulana Rumi etc) which was comparatively much relevant paradigm got misled by this ethical paradigm in the final analysis. It divorced itself from the social activity which was necessary to get rid of the delusion caused by the solitary contemplation.
It won't be relevant to mention another problem with the logic,though a slightly different one from the academic debates, that if a person is not a doctor he would never claim to be one but there is huuuuuuuuuge problem with logic i.e everybody on this planet considers himself a logician.There are many complex psycho-social factors behind which deserve a special consideration,but this approach denies every distinction in the realm of knowledge with such ease and confidence that even a the great logician won't dare to reject them(out of fear of being insulted off course),no matter how complex philosophical technicalities it carries.
This is the reason why you would see people giving judgments on these highly philosophical of which they have got absolutely no clue of.
P.S: this is obviously not an exhaustive post on these issues.It is impossible to discuss these incredibly complex intellectual issues in one post,however given the time and energy i would like to explain these points in a detailed artilce sometime soon.A few days back i had typed an article on these issues but got it deleted just when i was going to submit it.I couldn't save a copy of it on my PC.It wont be a surprise for those who know the kind of lazy ass i am.
More later
#24 Posted by shoaib_daniyal on April 20, 2009 5:38:22 am
Cheema saab,
What is this 'personal God' thing? How is it different from the plain vanilla product?
Also, you dissapoint me Cheema saab. I thought you, of all people, would tear into this article. :P
One lecture of Dawkin (I remeber one where he really goes after how cruel 'Yahweh' is) would be enough for this line: God is a metaphor for a person’s concept of their highest self
Shoaib
What is this 'personal God' thing? How is it different from the plain vanilla product?
Also, you dissapoint me Cheema saab. I thought you, of all people, would tear into this article. :P
One lecture of Dawkin (I remeber one where he really goes after how cruel 'Yahweh' is) would be enough for this line: God is a metaphor for a person’s concept of their highest self
Shoaib
#23 Posted by samar1982 on April 20, 2009 5:04:42 am
even akcheema ji has no answer. i have found myself. i akcheema ji likes he can discuss with me.
#22 Posted by samar1982 on April 20, 2009 5:01:33 am
nb ji, i had been,(but not now), so perturbed by this question before that i could go to anyone. but none has any answer. i have found its answer now. i raise this question to peepul just to tease them. ha ha.
#20 Posted by akcheema on April 20, 2009 3:22:09 am
Re: # 19
like I said ... it was an assumption .. I may be wrong in making that assumption ... only Saima can elaborate her position to clarify
as for my 'atheism' ... I always thought when one says it, it is quite self-explanatory in itself ... the rest is simple detail ... I have always maintained that believing in a 'supernatural' god(s) is quite a retarded idea ... and retards are welcome to their delusions as long as they keep it to themselves (in political terms)
like I said ... it was an assumption .. I may be wrong in making that assumption ... only Saima can elaborate her position to clarify
as for my 'atheism' ... I always thought when one says it, it is quite self-explanatory in itself ... the rest is simple detail ... I have always maintained that believing in a 'supernatural' god(s) is quite a retarded idea ... and retards are welcome to their delusions as long as they keep it to themselves (in political terms)
#19 Posted by boowhoo on April 20, 2009 3:16:39 am
[coming around to MY point of view ]
I donot know what your point of view is apart from the your stating that you are an atheist?
I donot know what your point of view is apart from the your stating that you are an atheist?
#18 Posted by akcheema on April 20, 2009 3:06:15 am
Re: # 17
[And what is your point of view?]
about what?? ... apart from what I wrote before ...
[And what is your point of view?]
about what?? ... apart from what I wrote before ...
#17 Posted by boowhoo on April 20, 2009 2:55:49 am
Re: # 16 I am new and just read her "al-lah" article. There is movement, but the precise direction is something which I am yet to discern.
And what is your point of view?
And what is your point of view?
#16 Posted by akcheema on April 20, 2009 2:48:46 am
Re: # 15; BW
[why do you find the idea of a personal god aliean and naive?]
because it never came 'naturally' to me even as a child
[You seem to be agreeing with Saima Shah's statement regarding god and personal metaphor, yet you go on to contradict yourself.]
NO ... what I am saying is that she (might be) coming around to MY point of view (rather than the other way around) ... clearly she isn't there yet! ... as evident in her previous article on 'al-lah' that I checked out since posting here ... so yes my theory about Saima was based on an assumption (yet hope remains!)
[why do you find the idea of a personal god aliean and naive?]
because it never came 'naturally' to me even as a child
[You seem to be agreeing with Saima Shah's statement regarding god and personal metaphor, yet you go on to contradict yourself.]
NO ... what I am saying is that she (might be) coming around to MY point of view (rather than the other way around) ... clearly she isn't there yet! ... as evident in her previous article on 'al-lah' that I checked out since posting here ... so yes my theory about Saima was based on an assumption (yet hope remains!)
#15 Posted by boowhoo on April 20, 2009 2:42:21 am
Re: # 14 akcheema, why do you find the idea of a personal god aliean and naive? You seem to be agreeing with Saima Shah's statement regarding god and personal metaphor, yet you go on to contradict yourself.
There is something which does not add up here?
There is something which does not add up here?
#14 Posted by akcheema on April 20, 2009 2:31:14 am
[God is a metaphor for a person’s concept of their highest self.]
overall a good and thought provoking article Saima ... well written with a 'balanced' viewpoint which is hard to find at times
as an ardent atheist, I can't say I had an 'internal desire' to be looking for anything! if there was ever any indication of a 'search', it was 'provoked' by the society I lived in rather than 'internal' so I'd have to disagree on that. But I do think I had to reconcile this growing up with societal pressure to come to a sort of 'external (or outwardly)' balance ... mostly for 'display' in an attempt to conform if you will
as for a 'personal god' of religion (any), I fully subscribe to the Einsteinian notion that, "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."
... the feeling (quite positive)I get from your article is that you may not be far of that state of mind yourself!
overall a good and thought provoking article Saima ... well written with a 'balanced' viewpoint which is hard to find at times
as an ardent atheist, I can't say I had an 'internal desire' to be looking for anything! if there was ever any indication of a 'search', it was 'provoked' by the society I lived in rather than 'internal' so I'd have to disagree on that. But I do think I had to reconcile this growing up with societal pressure to come to a sort of 'external (or outwardly)' balance ... mostly for 'display' in an attempt to conform if you will
as for a 'personal god' of religion (any), I fully subscribe to the Einsteinian notion that, "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."
... the feeling (quite positive)I get from your article is that you may not be far of that state of mind yourself!
#13 Posted by boowhoo on April 20, 2009 1:59:56 am
Well assembled arguments. It could have been put totgether better though.
However, such an article coming from a muslim! I do hope you know what you are doing? Many others who have said this, have not managed to get away. Please be careful!
However, such an article coming from a muslim! I do hope you know what you are doing? Many others who have said this, have not managed to get away. Please be careful!
#12 Posted by Dash_Dot on April 20, 2009 1:04:35 am
Saima Shah:The answer to this question came after many years of searching. God is same because we humans are the same, and different because each of us thinks that he or she is different from others or wants to be better than others. .... God is a metaphor for a person’s concept of their highest self. The idea that there is an external God, a man in the sky is a myth created to restrict the masses journey towards enlightenment.
Welcome to the Hindu view of things Saima Shah! I am yet to read the rest of the article. But thisfirst paragraph caught my eye, and the ret should be as interesting. though what would be more interesting is to see
(a) the rest of the article
(b) the brick-bat and Bouquets and the curve-balls and the fatwas making their way towards you after this....
Welcome to the Hindu view of things Saima Shah! I am yet to read the rest of the article. But thisfirst paragraph caught my eye, and the ret should be as interesting. though what would be more interesting is to see
(a) the rest of the article
(b) the brick-bat and Bouquets and the curve-balls and the fatwas making their way towards you after this....
#11 Posted by nkg on April 19, 2009 11:32:42 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- SureshM: Re: # 36 God Bless... Uneven Democracy : The
- SureshM: Re: # 59 "kuwait... I Want Jinnah's Pakistan
- ahmedmadani: Re: # 35 this... Uneven Democracy : The
- jayp: Re: # 55 Good muslim... I Want Jinnah's Pakistan
- jayp: Re: # 53 thanks madani... I Want Jinnah's Pakistan
- Pardesi: Breaking News for ahmedmadani... Uneven Democracy : The
- a_r_j_u_n325: #94 Posted by... The Strange Case of
- a_r_j_u_n325: #95 Posted by... The Strange Case of
