Alawite Islam?

[SalamKhan]

I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut here as we have very few Muslims who participate at CAF.

Can you answer my question about Assad, if he is an Alawite, how is he viewed by
other Muslims in the Middle East - especially the Sunni and Shia?

It is difficult to tell what Muslims in Syria actually think about Assad. This stems from something I’d rather not get into here, because it’s a completely different topic for another time.

 

[PseuTonym]

It is not even an issue of whether they are Muslims with some heterodox beliefs, as is the case with the Twelver Shiahs or the Mutazilites.

What beliefs of the Mu`tazilites are considered heterodox? I have read a bit about their beliefs and was impressed by some of what I read. In Western civilization, there is acknowledgement of value in contributions from before Christianity existed. It would be very strange if the Greek and Roman Empires made no contribution whatsoever to human wisdom until after the birth of Christ. After all, it wasn’t until the 1800s that people finally started to fill in some of the gaps in Euclid’s Elements, such as by formulating Pasch’s postulate.

 

[SalamKhan]

What beliefs of the Mu`tazilites are considered heterodox? I have read a bit about their beliefs and was impressed by some of what I read. In Western civilization, there is acknowledgement of value in contributions from before Christianity existed. It would be very strange if the Greek and Roman Empires made no contribution whatsoever to human wisdom until after the birth of Christ. After all, it wasn’t until the 1800s that people finally started to fill in some of the gaps in Euclid’s Elements, such as by formulating Pasch’s postulate.

The Mu`tazilites were diverse, although they held some common heresies, which are the following (but not limited to):

1. They were Qadaris, i.e. they denied predestination and did not believe that Allah is the creator of evil.
2. They were Jahmis, i.e. they denied the pre-eternality of the Qur’an.
3. They were Muatilla, i.e. they denied the attributes of Allah by stripping them of their real meanings, although they give the explanation that the attributes of Allah are identical to His entity; they also denied the beatific vision.

 

[thephilosopher6]

…Allah is the creator of evil.

Interesting, I did not know Muslims believe God created evil.

In Christianity, evil is devoid of God, it is the absence of his goodness, so evil is not something God could have created.

 

[SalamKhan]

Interesting, I did not know Muslims believe God created evil.

In Christianity, evil is devoid of God, it is the absence of his goodness, so evil is not something God could have created.

The Mu`tazilites also held this privation, or metaphorical view of evil, in order to escape attributing incapability to Allah. However, privation is an incorrect analogy. One still feels the effect of coldness for example, so coldness cannot simply be the absence of heat. A better example would be if one were to drink poison, the effect of poison, obviously comes from the presence of poison.

 

[PseuTonym]

One still feels the effect of coldness for example, so coldness cannot simply be the absence of heat.

You could be cold because you are standing in a shadow. Isn’t a shadow an absence?

In physics today, coldness is explained as an absence of heat.

In fact, a feeling of coldness does not necessarily indicate any difference in temperature. A metal object in a room might feel cold to the touch simply because metal is a good thermal conductor. Because heat from your finger is conducted into the metal more efficiently than into the air, the metal feels colder than the room-temperature air, but the metal may have exactly the same temperature as the air in the room.

Of course, the effect of touching the metal may be to cool your finger a bit. However, that feeling of coldness doesn’t tell you anything about the temperature of the metal. Touching it actually heats the metal if it was previously colder than your hand, so after you touch the metal, the metal will be slightly warmer than the surrounding air.

 

[thephilosopher6]

The Mu`tazilites also held this privation, or metaphorical view of evil, in order to escape attributing incapability to Allah. However, privation is an incorrect analogy. One still feels the effect of coldness for example, so coldness cannot simply be the absence of heat. A better example would be if one were to drink poison, the effect of poison, obviously comes from the presence of poison.

But coldness is the absence of heat, the colder something is, the less energy there is which is what produces heat. Absence creates the feeling of privation, that is, the feeling that a certain thing simply is not present. So with evil, there comes the “feeling” that goodness is not present. Darkness (another anology used for privatio boni) is also the absence of something, the more dark there is the less photons there are. Nothing new is coming into existence, rather something is being taken away. Darkness is the result of that. Your idea is a fundamental misunderstanding of privation.

 

[SalamKhan]

Both of you attempted to address my argument that although coldness may be the absence of heat, we nonetheless feel the effect of coldness, which does not take place due to absence. Either way, if this analogy applied, then in your view, evil does not really exist. This has major implications for your theology. Such as your doctrine of original sin, for example, you must assert that inheriting guilt is inheriting the absence of something, or explaining how one became guilty in the first place.

Neither of you attempted to address my argument of drinking poison, which I stated was a better example. Moreover, you do not take into consideration the existence of certain diseases and illnesses that are not simply caused by absence of good health, but that one who is healthy may easily be effected just as much as an unhealthy person. Finally, you do not consider as to whether the human intellect can define good and evil, or whether only the creator of good and evil define can good and evil.

 

[thephilosopher6]

Both of you attempted to address my argument that although coldness may be the absence of heat, we nonetheless feel the effect of coldness, which does not take place due to absence. Either way, if this analogy applied, then in your view, evil does not really exist. This has major implications for your theology. Such as your doctrine of original sin, for example, you must assert that inheriting guilt is inheriting the absence of something, or explaining how one became guilty in the first place.

Neither of you attempted to address my argument of drinking poison, which I stated was a better example. Moreover, you do not take into consideration the existence of certain diseases and illnesses that are not simply caused by absence of good health, but that one who is healthy may easily be effected just as much as an unhealthy person. Finally, you do not consider as to whether the human intellect can define good and evil, or whether only the creator of good and evil define can good and evil.

First of all, Latin Catholic theology does not hold onto original guilt, this is rather the Reformed position adopted from St. Augustine; and as great as a theologian he was, he wasn’t always correct. Besides, you’re gonna have to ask Calvinist to define “guilt.”

We assert only the consequences, not the guilt, is inherited from Adam. Original sin the absence of sanctifying grace in a person, the Catholic encyclopedia says:

“…Original sin is the privation of sanctifying grace in consequence of the sin of Adam. This solution, which is that of St. Thomas, goes back to St. Anselm and even to the traditions of the early Church, as we see by the declaration of the Second Council of Orange (A.D. 529): one man has transmitted to the whole human race not only the death of the body, which is the punishment of sin, but even sin itself, which is the death of the soul [Denz., n. 175 (145)]. As death is the privation of the principle of life, the death of the soul is the privation of sanctifying grace which according to all theologians is the principle of supernatural life. Therefore, if original sin is “the death of the soul”, it is the privation of sanctifying grace.”

Now, second, in regards to your example of poison, there is nothing objectionable about it, I might agree with you it is a better example, but not in the way you may think.

Now, third, as to your objections:

Lack of good health is just that, the lack of good health. When somebody has a disease of any kind, nobody says they’re in good health. Good health is lacking when there simply is no health, not matter how the person becomes unhealthy. Does a perfectly healthy person who caught the AIDS virus still have health? Has the heroin addict who is severely malnourished never had health (unless they were born unhealthy)? Health is in the state of being healthy, a person with cancer surely is not a healthy person and thus lacks health. Again, you are misunderstanding privation.

As for goodness, it [goodness] is a fundamental attribute of God, and without it God would not be God. It is not something that can be relatively defined, not even by God. Because goodness is a fundamental attribute of God, there can be no evil of God, and so this evil is not something of God but something absent of God.

Edit: The root of your objections seem to be calling for an “absolute” privation, in the sense that whatever object you have in mind was never there in the first place.

 

[SalamKhan]

Lack of good health is just that, the lack of good health. When somebody has a disease of any kind, nobody says they’re in good health. Good health is lacking when there simply is no health, not matter how the person becomes unhealthy. Does a perfectly healthy person who caught the AIDS virus still have health? Has the heroin addict who is severely malnourished never had health (unless they were born unhealthy)? Health is in the state of being healthy, a person with cancer surely is not a healthy person and thus lacks health. Again, you are misunderstanding privation.

As for goodness, it [goodness] is a fundamental attribute of God, and without it God would not be God. It is not something that can be relatively defined, not even by God. Because goodness is a fundamental attribute of God, there can be no evil of God, and so this evil is not something of God but something absent of God.

You have misinterpreted what I actually said. In this context of certain diseases and illnesses, my point was that lack of good health follows the disease, not the other way around, which is the position of privation.

1. What is evil?
2. Does it have a beginning?

 

[thephilosopher6]

You have misinterpreted what I actually said. In this context of certain diseases and illnesses, my point was that lack of good health follows the disease, not the other way around, which is the position of privation.

1. What is evil?
2. Does it have a beginning?

Yes, exactly, lack of good health follows the disease, and one can be healthy at first, but unhealthy following a disease. The disease causes the lack of good health. When some has a disease, they are deprived of good health.

Adam and Eve began as healthy.
They lost that health when they ate the fruit.
They now lack health.

---

Your poison analogy is good, but it presupposes an “absolute” privation.

---

Also, now you’re just side stepping the issue which has been fully addressed already by privatio boni.

 

[prodromos]

If most Muslims consider Alawite to not be true Islam, how do the people of Syria and other ME leaders feel about Assad who worships a minority and controversial
(Some would say) religion?

Most Syrians love Assad and the vast majority do not care for Sharia Law. The Western media paints a completely false picture of Assad and the conflicts in Syria. Syria was a prosperous and stable country until the West started meddling in their affairs.

 

[SalamKhan]

Yes, exactly, lack of good health follows the disease, and one can be healthy at first, but unhealthy following a disease. The disease causes the lack of good health. When some has a disease, they are deprived of good health.

Adam and Eve began as healthy.
They lost that health when they ate the fruit.
They now lack health.

---

Your poison analogy is good, but it presupposes an “absolute” privation.

---

Also, now you’re just side stepping the issue which has been fully addressed already by privatio boni.

My position is that lack of good health follows the transmission certain diseases, which you agreed with, and therefore contradict your position of privation, which I have mentioned is considering the transmission of certain diseases to follow lack of good health.

As for my first question (“what is evil?”), I already know that you believe it is the privation of goodness, so that isn’t what I’m asking for. Now please, answer both questions.

 

[thephilosopher6]

My position is that lack of good health follows the transmission certain diseases, which you agreed with, and therefore contradict your position of privation, which I have mentioned is considering the transmission of certain diseases to follow lack of good health.

As for my first question (“what is evil?”), I already know that you believe it is the privation of goodness, so that isn’t what I’m asking for. Now please, answer both questions.

How does it contradict? There is no contradiction at all. I really don’t see your point at all.

Both those questions are answered in privation. Your questions are side stepping it.

You’re not even making sense, it’s like you’re looking for some kind of logical inconsistency that simply isn’t there.