Is it bad to like Islamic spirituality?

[IgnatianPhilo]

Firstly one would have to Define what is considered “legitimate spirituality”

Fortunately, that is why we have Gods Word to guide us, as we have not the ability to choose what is of God and What is not and what is Legitimate. God Doeth as He Willeth.

If we apply Gods Word with Justice and then judge fairly the answer will be apparent in a positive way.

If we condemn Islam for any reason, then also look at Christianity with the same judgement. What one finds is that man in all religions has fallen short of True Service to God and Humanity as called for in their Scriptures.

It is also interesting that the majority of the People that will find Flaw with a New Message/Messenger are the People of the Books that have preceded the Latest Message.

I have just read the Koran again, so many wonderful teachings, so many teachings that challenge our thought. A great and Mighty Book Indeed. One can get a great appreciation of Muhammad by contemplating what the Koran is Telling Humanity.

God Bless and Regards Tony

The problem isn’t the people following, but the contents of the practice, theology and spirituality itself. Legitimacy implies some sort of rightness, that it is grounded and defensible. I have already laid out the Christian reason for why I think Islamic spirituality cannot be defended from a Christian perspective. To which I have not gotten much a response to, because certain elements have not been identified to examine.

For instance, can you name an element in Islam that surpasses Christianity? As a bahai you must believe this, so I would like one spiritual practice that Islam has that surpasses what Christianity has in order for the Christian to look upon it with favour.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

That spirituality of other religions contains in it many false elements as well as some true ones. For instance, at it’s core Islamic spirituality is not centered on Jesus as God. The Muslim who is faithful and knows his theology worships God apart from Jesus Christ. How does one religion whose basis is a rejection of the true God entail any legitimacy? Only certain elements of practice retain any value but since they are disconnected with the true God they don’t seem to have any value in the end.

The argument, from a Christian perspective that Islamic spirituality, is legitimate, can only work if the Muslim is ignorant of his or her theology regarding God and does not know much about God. In which case, are they even Muslim?

Which to me seems that Roman Catholic teaching about non Roman Catholics is pretty much a ‘both/and’ situation.

You have Nostra Aetate saying that there is validity in non-Christian beliefs and praxis. AND you have teachings as you state above.

So which is it?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Which to me seems that Roman Catholic teaching about non Roman Catholics is pretty much a ‘both/and’ situation.

You have Nostra Aetate saying that there is validity in non-Christian beliefs and praxis. AND you have teachings as you state above.

So which is it?

Am I Roman Catholic?

 

[Servant19]

For instance, can you name an element in Islam that surpasses Christianity? As a bahai you must believe this, so I would like one spiritual practice that Islam has that surpasses what Christianity has in order for the Christian to look upon it with favour.

For over 600 years of existence, Christianity failed to eliminate idol worship from the Arabian region.

Muhammad came and idol worship in that region has been banished forever, and indeed intense devotion to monotheism has been brought about.

There is no point in talking about the less important things Islam has brought to the world, this surpasses all achievements.

.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

For over 600 years of existence, Christianity failed to eliminate idol worship from the Arabian region.

Muhammad came and idol worship in that region has been banished forever, and indeed intense devotion to monotheism has been brought about.

There is no point in talking about the less important things Islam has brought to the world, this surpasses all achievements.

.

How is that a spiritual element which is superior to Christianity? Here’s an equally flawed argument, for centuries Islamic countries and people were closer to China than anyone in the west had been, yet Muslims never made inroads into China. Christians however in the modern day, in a secular state which discriminates against them and persecutes them have become a significant presence. Therefore, Christianity is spiritually superior to Islam? I don’t think so.

The spread of a particular religion isn’t really related to the spirituality of said religion. Islam spread from the beginning via the sword, Christianity spread from the beginning via the word. The topic is the spiritual practices in a religion, whether or not elements in a certain religion is something the Christian can like. I would argue that anyone element we might find in Islam is done better in Christianity, be it devotion, fasting, worship and the like.

 

[Servant19]

How is that a spiritual element which is superior to Christianity? Here’s an equally flawed argument, for centuries Islamic countries and people were closer to China than anyone in the west had been, yet Muslims never made inroads into China. Christians however in the modern day, in a secular state which discriminates against them and persecutes them have become a significant presence. Therefore, Christianity is spiritually superior to Islam? I don’t think so.

The spread of a particular religion isn’t really related to the spirituality of said religion. Islam spread from the beginning via the sword, Christianity spread from the beginning via the word. The topic is the spiritual practices in a religion, whether or not elements in a certain religion is something the Christian can like. I would argue that anyone element we might find in Islam is done better in Christianity, be it devotion, fasting, worship and the like.

So to you it is a competition?

Spiritual commandments are one in all the major global religions.

Please show me one unique spiritual concept in Christianity.

.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

So to you it is a competition?

Spiritual commandments are one in all the major global religions.

Please show me one unique spiritual concept in Christianity.

.

I don’t know what gave you the impression that it is a competition. As for unique spiritual concepts, what good is spiritual practice if the foundation is wrong? Namely the theology which forms the base for it? That’s been my point from the beginning, how can Islam hold an appeal to the Christian when it’s very foundation for its own practice is a denial of the true God? Fasting, prayer and the like mean little if the ideas behind those actions are false.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Had some time and checked in. But I’m afraid to say too much here…

I think a unique christian concept will be difficult to find. All religions have pretty much the same basic foundation.

I think what IgnatianPhilo is trying to say, and I agree with him, is that in Islam the foundation is wrong because every other religion has peace and good will toward men as a basis and tries to instill in man a desire to follow God, to follow the good, to follow the perfect, to follow the light, as I like to call it. A light that illuminates the soul of man and thus nears his spirit to God’s spirit.

Instead muslims are following a man, prophet??, that was violent and plainly tells his followers to kill the infidel. Everyone who is not a muslim is an infidel! That’s a lot of people. I wonder how many mulims believe in their heart that this should be done? Or at least eradicated in some way. Forced to give up the infidel’s religion and accept Islam, for example. Why don’t the moderates speak up against the extremists? Could it be out of fear?

Also, I feel that they are not SPIRITUAL but are just following a lot of rules and regulations. Bowing down at the right time and all that. This, unfortunately, is also done by many catholics who are believing in a form of religiosity but have no closeness of spirit with God.

Hope I don’t get knocked off again!

Fran

 

[josie_L]

This is the sort of bigotry which makes me hesitant to participate in threads on Islam. We can offer thoughtful and critical assessments of their religious thought without comparing their account of God to a drunk driver.

Although, the analogy is harsh (and not extremely apt), I believe what Elizium was trying to convey overall is true, i.e., that their God is not a God of reason/logos, but one based on pure will, hence, He can overturn, contradict and/or change dependent upon His will, whatever He may.

 

[Servant19]

Although, the analogy is harsh (and not extremely apt), I believe what Elizium was trying to convey overall is true, i.e., that their God is not a God of reason/logos, but one based on pure will, hence, He can overturn, contradict and/or change dependent upon His will, whatever He may.

Isn’t that what Christianity has done to the Abrahamic God though Josie?

Circumcision is a critical aspect of Jewish commandments after all…

.

 

[Servant19]

I don’t know what gave you the impression that it is a competition.

I think when you use the words “superior” and “better” you are competing with other religions.
Just like when one sporting team is “superior” or “better” than the other team.

As for unique spiritual concepts, what good is spiritual practice if the foundation is wrong? Namely the theology which forms the base for it? That’s been my point from the beginning, how can Islam hold an appeal to the Christian when it’s very foundation for its own practice is a denial of the true God? Fasting, prayer and the like mean little if the ideas behind those actions are false.

If you call the quotations from the Quran below a “denial” then I am unsure as to how you define the word “denial”:

*“Behold! the angels said, 'Oh Mary! God gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him. His name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honor in this world and the Hereafter, and in (the company of) those nearest to God. He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. He shall be (in the company) of the righteous… And God will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel" *Qur’an 3:45-48.

O Jesus the son of Mary! Recount My favour to thee and to thy mother. Behold! I strengthened thee with the holy spirit, so that thou didst speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. Behold! I taught thee the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel and behold! thou makest out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, by My leave, and thou breathest into it and it becometh a bird by My leave, and thou healest those born blind, and the lepers, by My leave. And behold! thou bringest forth the dead by My leave. And behold! I did restrain the Children of Israel from (violence to) thee when thou didst show them the clear Signs, and the unbelievers among them said: ‘This is nothing but evident magic.’ Quran 5:110

I would still be interested to hear you answer the question about who is more truthful, Christ or Krishna?

I also would like to know what is a unique spiritual concept in Christianity that was not found in the religions before it.

.

 

[josie_L]

Isn’t that what Christianity has done to the Abrahamic God though Josie?

Circumcision is a critical aspect of Jewish commandments after all…

No, as this has nothing to do with who God is in essence, i.e., is He a God of rationality, i.e., reason and logos, or a God of pure will, wherein, anything including the laws of science are subject to change simply because of His willing it? And therein lies the difference between our understanding of who God is, i.e., according to Muslims, God can decide to overturn gravity and every other natural law if it is His will. In other words, there is no other underlying principal, i.e., no natural law, all, in fact, is as a cause of God’s willing it and nothing is about rational order or reason/logic.

If you need a better explanation of what I’m saying, then read this:

One of the chief differences concerns the question of whether God is a reasonable being who has created a rational world. Although Christians believe that God acts in accordance with reason, Muslims believe that God is not bound by the rules of reason because that would restrict His freedom. Instead, Muslims believe that God is PURE WILL. And pure will implies ARBITRARINESS. The almost complete reliance on the example of Muhammed partly explains the arbitrary and sometimes cruel nature of Islamic law. But Muhammed was not alone in his capriciousness. In the Koran, Allah Himself is not consistent. As a result, Muslims do not expect His actions and His laws to be reasonable, to make sense. Thus, although Christians and Muslims believe in submitting to God’s will, there is a difference. When a Christian says, “it’s God’s will”, he is expressing a belief that God’s will is reasonable, meaning for our ultimate good. When a Muslims says, “It is the will of Allah”, he means something like, “God is going to do what he wants to do”; it doesn’t matter if it doesn’t make no sense. We have no right to expect God to be reasonable." In the Islamic view, God has absolute freedom. He is a bit like Nietzsche’s “superman”, who is above categories such as good and evil, or rational and irrational and simply exults in exercising His will.

In Islam there is very little sense of an objective rational order and, consequently, little sense that God or God’s laws should conform to a rational order. In “The Closing Of The Muslim Mind”, Robert Reilly sets out in detail the consequences that follow upon the conception of God as pure will:

It also means that the moral “obligations” that God sets upon man do not originate from reason . . . God can command what is evil to be good, or good to be evil.

Evil is simply what is forbidden. What is forbidden today could be permitted tomorrow without inconsistency.

Sheikh Nabhani . . . always taught that there was no such thing as morality in Islam; it was simply what God taught. If Allah allowed it, it was moral.

books.google.ca/books?id=Tt5rqiCP1p8C&pg=PA145&lpg=PA145&dq=Muslims+view+God+as+pure+will&source=bl&ots=rdE8GmNtkr&sig=uXyhmhLemZo7eH0O_axFxep2sJc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAmoVChMI8czcpOrvyAIVkrgeCh1l7QDU#v=onepage&q=Muslims%20view%20God%20as%20pure%20will&f=false

Please continuing reading as you will find what is written quite elucidating.

 

[Servant19]

No, as this has nothing to do with who God is in essence, i.e., is He a God of rationality, i.e., reason and logos, or a God of pure will, wherein, anything including the laws of science are subject to change simply because of His willing it? And therein lies the difference between our understanding of who God is, i.e., according to Muslims, God can decide to overturn gravity and every other natural law if it is His will. In other words, there is no other underlying principal, i.e., no natural law, all, in fact, is as a cause of God’s willing it and nothing is about rational order or reason/logic.

If you need a better explanation of what I’m saying, then read this:

Please continuing reading as you will find what is written quite elucidating.

Thankyou Josie, however there are two perspectives to consider here.

Firstly, how can one seriously say Christianity does not profess a God of will who can overturn natural law, when it is the central tenet of Christianity to believe that Jesus has existed physically, yes physically, for the past 2000 years in a place, occupying physical space? To any objective observer, this is not a God of rationality.

Secondly, when you express “No, as this has nothing to do with who God is in essence” you are implying that God can be known in His essence which is against a de fide teaching of Catholicism, which expresses that God, in His essence, is incomprehensible to even the blessed in heaven, never mind us mere mortals on earth.

.

 

[Elizium23]

Thankyou Josie, however there are two perspectives to consider here.

Firstly, how can one seriously say Christianity does not profess a God of will who can overturn natural law, when it is the central tenet of Christianity to believe that Jesus has existed physically, yes physically, for the past 2000 years in a place, occupying physical space? To any objective observer, this is not a God of rationality.

You don’t know what natural law is then.

Secondly, when you express “No, as this has nothing to do with who God is in essence” you are implying that God can be known in His essence which is against a de fide teaching of Catholicism, which expresses that God, in His essence, is incomprehensible to even the blessed in heaven, never mind us mere mortals on earth.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

39 In defending the ability of human reason to know God, the Church is expressing her confidence in the possibility of speaking about him to all men and with all men, and therefore of dialogue with other religions, with philosophy and science, as well as with unbelievers and atheists.

40 Since our knowledge of God is limited, our language about him is equally so. We can name God only by taking creatures as our starting point, and in accordance with our limited human ways of knowing and thinking.

41 All creatures bear a certain resemblance to God, most especially man, created in the image and likeness of God. The manifold perfections of creatures - their truth, their goodness, their beauty all reflect the infinite perfection of God. Consequently we can name God by taking his creatures" perfections as our starting point, “for from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator”.15

42 God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God–“the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable”–with our human representations.16 Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God.

43 Admittedly, in speaking about God like this, our language is using human modes of expression; nevertheless it really does attain to God himself, though unable to express him in his infinite simplicity. Likewise, we must recall that “between Creator and creature no similitude can be expressed without implying an even greater dissimilitude”;17 and that "concerning God, we cannot grasp what he is, but only what he is not, and how other beings stand in relation to him."18

Catholic Encyclopedia:

The finite mind is not capable of comprehending the Infinite so as adequately to describe its essence by any single concept or term; but while using a multitude of terms, all of which are analogically true, we do not mean to imply that there is any kind of composition in God. Thus, as applied to creatures, goodness and justice, for example, are distinct from each other and from the nature or substance of the beings in whom they are found, and if finite limitations compel us to speak of such perfections in God as if they were similarly distinct, we know, nevertheless, and are ready, when needful, to explain, that this is not really so, but that all Divine attributes are really identical with one another and with the Divine essence.

 

[TonyBS]

Originally Posted by Catholic Encyclopedia
The finite mind is not capable of comprehending the Infinite so as adequately to describe its essence by any single concept or term; but while using a multitude of terms, all of which are analogically true, we do not mean to imply that there is any kind of composition in God. Thus, as applied to creatures, goodness and justice, for example, are distinct from each other and from the nature or substance of the beings in whom they are found, and if finite limitations compel us to speak of such perfections in God as if they were similarly distinct, we know, nevertheless, and are ready, when needful, to explain, that this is not really so, but that all Divine attributes are really identical with one another and with the Divine essence…

This also from the Pen of Baha’u’llah, which will show that to like a Faith Spiritually, including Islam, we must look at what is written. The Koran has much like this as well.

O Salmán! All that the sages and mystics have said or written have never exceeded, nor can they ever hope to exceed, the limitations to which man’s finite mind hath been strictly subjected. To whatever heights the mind of the most exalted of men may soar, however great the depths which the detached and understanding heart can penetrate, such mind and heart can never transcend that which is the creature of their own conceptions and the product of their own thoughts. The meditations of the profoundest thinker, the devotions of the holiest of saints, the highest expressions of praise from either human pen or tongue, are but a reflection of that which hath been created within themselves, through the revelation of the Lord, their God. Whoever pondereth this truth in his heart will readily admit that there are certain limits which no human being can possibly transgress. Every attempt which, from the beginning that hath no beginning, hath been made to visualize and know God is limited by the exigencies of His own creation—a creation which He, through the operation of His own Will and for the purposes of none other but His own Self, hath called into being. Immeasurably exalted is He above the strivings of human mind to grasp His Essence, or of human tongue to describe His mystery. No tie of direct intercourse can ever bind Him to the things He hath created, nor can the most abstruse and most remote allusions of His creatures do justice to His being. Through His world-pervading Will He hath brought into being all created things. He is and hath ever been veiled in the ancient eternity of His own exalted and indivisible Essence, and will everlastingly continue to remain concealed in His inaccessible majesty and glory. All that is in heaven and all that is in the earth have come to exist at His bidding, and by His Will all have stepped out of utter nothingness into the realm of being. How can, therefore, the creature which the Word of God hath fashioned comprehend the nature of Him Who is the Ancient of Days?

Regards Tony

 

[Servant19]

You don’t know what natural law is then.

Hi Elizium,

Josie provided an understanding of what she sees as “natural law” by stating “gravity” as part of this definition. The God of Islam can overturn gravity if He wills, just as much as the God of Christianity (they are the same God). The God of Islam can also resurrect a human body and allow it to exist in some space for 2000 years without anyone knowing, as does the God of Christianity (they are the same God)

Maybe you can offer your understanding of “natural law” if it is different to Josie’s?

This God, of course “could” do all these things, but does He ACTUALLY do these things or not? I guess it is open to dialogue…

The quote you provided from the CCC is wonderful reading and is exactly what I was pertaining to. How can we honestly say that the “essence of God” is defined differently in Islam, when there is no definitive knowledge of the “essence of God” anywhere to be found in any religion?

.

 

[josie_L]

Hi Elizium,

Josie provided an understanding of what she sees as “natural law” by stating “gravity” as part of this definition. The God of Islam can overturn gravity if He wills,

You are still not grasping what I mean when I say that God is pure will, i.e., pure will as defined by Islam means that God’s will is not based on rationality or goodness or any of the other attributes that Christians associate with God, because according to Muslims (and the philosophical underpinnings associated with Islamic theology) God cannot be hindered by such attributes. To Muslims, God must be completely free to assert His will, even if it means contradicting Himself in the process. This means that God can act irrationally according to Islam, and that God can even commit evil if He so wishes (He transcends concepts such as good and evil). This is completely anathema to the concept of God in Christianity, which attributes to God, not only goodness (at all times), but rationality as well. This is why, in fact, Pope Benedict XVI said what he said during the Regensburg address:

The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. “God”, he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death…".[4]

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature.[5] The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.[6] Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practise idolatry. w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg.html

The other point that I would like to mention, is that according to Islam, God is the first and ONLY cause, in other words, it exists because God wills it so, and only because God wills it, however, Saint Thomas Aquinas argued that:

“whoever answers the question, why wood got hot, because God has willed it so, answers appropriately, if he intends to carry back that question to the PRIME cause; but inappropriately, if he intends to exclude all other causes.”

"Aquinas said that the latter position "is the mistake of those who believe that all things follow, without any rational plan, from God’s pure will."

Even Maimonides, a famous Jewish rabbi expounded that the Moors (Muslims) were wrong, by stating that it makes no difference to the law of the Moors whether fire heats or cools, unless God [directly] wills it so.

The quote you provided from the CCC is wonderful reading and is exactly what I was pertaining to. How can we honestly say that the “essence of God” is defined differently in Islam, when there is no definitive knowledge of the “essence of God” anywhere to be found in any religion?

We know as Christians that God is the logos, but what is defined as logos, well according to Pope Benedict XVI, it is:

“In the beginning was the λόγος”. This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts, σὺν λόγω, with logos. Logos means both reason and word - a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God."

w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg.html

There is no equivalent to this in Islam because God is pure will, and thus, transcends rationality, and can even act irrationally, hence, according to our scriptures and theology there are many differences in how we perceive and understand who and what God is.

It would be behoove you to learn more about the philosophical underpinnings regarding Islamic theology, because it has caused in many ways the many problems that exist in the Islamic world today. You may want to read “The Closing Of The Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide created the Modern Islamist Crisis”, by Robert Reilly, it’s worth the read.

 

[Servant19]

You are still not grasping what I mean when I say that God is pure will, i.e., pure will as defined by Islam means that God’s will is not based on rationality or goodness or any of the other attributes that Christians associate with God, because according to Muslims (and the philosophical underpinnings associated with Islamic theology) God cannot be hindered by such attributes. To Muslims, God must be completely free to assert His will, even if it means contradicting Himself in the process. This means that God can act irrationally according to Islam, and that God can even commit evil if He so wishes (He transcends concepts such as good and evil). This is completely anathema to the concept of God in Christianity, which attributes to God, not only goodness (at all times), but rationality as well. This is why, in fact, Pope Benedict XVI said what he said during the Regensburg address:

The other point that I would like to mention, is that according to Islam, God is the first and ONLY cause, in other words, it exists because God wills it so, and only because God wills it, however, Saint Thomas Aquinas argued that:

Even Maimonides, a famous Jewish rabbi expounded that the Moors (Muslims) were wrong, by stating that it makes no difference to the law of the Moors whether fire heats or cools, unless God [directly] wills it so.

We know as Christians that God is the logos, but what is defined as logos, well according to Pope Benedict XVI, it is:

There is no equivalent to this in Islam because God is pure will, and thus, transcends rationality, and can even act irrationally, hence, according to our scriptures and theology there are many differences in how we perceive and understand who and what God is.

It would be behoove you to learn more about the philosophical underpinnings regarding Islamic theology, because it has caused in many ways the many problems that exist in the Islamic world today. You may want to read “The Closing Of The Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide created the Modern Islamist Crisis”, by Robert Reilly, it’s worth the read.

Dear Josie,

Thankyou for this elaboration on a perspective that I struggle to understand.

In my studies of the Quran, God is merciful, forgiving, loving, compassionate, and even the more personal term “tender” (raouf) is used in the Quran, amongst other things which are the same as the God of the OT.

These are His clear and evident active attributes. I would appreciate if you can provide some Islamic Scriptural sources for your assertions?

It may be that you are referring to “Gods essence”, a concept in Islam which is known to TRANSCEND all His active attributes, and is beyond love, mercy, tenderness etc, however this concept is formally recognized in Catholicism, where it is known as Deus a Se, but the active attributes are not negated in this Reality.

However I would like to read the Scriptural sources for these conclusions you make.

Thankyou

.

 

[josie_L]

Dear Josie,

Thankyou for this elaboration on a perspective that I struggle to understand.

In my studies of the Quran, God is merciful, forgiving, loving, compassionate, and even the more personal term “tender” (raouf) is used in the Quran, amongst other things which are the same as the God of the OT.

These are His clear and evident active attributes. I would appreciate if you can provide some Islamic Scriptural sources for your assertions?

It may be that you are referring to “Gods essence”, a concept in Islam which is known to TRANSCEND all His active attributes, and is beyond love, mercy, tenderness etc, however this concept is formally recognized in Catholicism, where it is known as Deus a Se, but the active attributes are not negated in this Reality.

However I would like to read the Scriptural sources for these conclusions you make.

Thankyou

.

First, these are not conclusions I MADE, these are the conclusion of Islamic theology/thought and discourse throughout the millennia, i.e., if you look at the philosophical debates during the early medieval era you will find the likes of Muslim theologians, such as Al-Ghazali, Al-Ash’ari . . .etc., arguing about the nature of God and His creation. This will help you in your quest to understand the philosophical underpinnings behind Islamic theology.

Second, if there are scriptural sources, I’m sure you can find them well enough, however, my argument is NOT that these conclusions can be found in scripture alone, but more importantly in the Islamic schools of thought/theology of the early medieval era. It is during this time frame wherein Islam was influenced by the philosophies, thought/theology of Al-Ash’ari, and then later of Al-Ghazali (it is their theology which reigned supreme and was embraced by the Sunni Arab world).

 

[Servant19]

First, these are not conclusions I MADE, these are the conclusion of Islamic theology/thought and discourse throughout the millennia, i.e., if you look at the philosophical debates during the early medieval era you will find the likes of Muslim theologians, such as Al-Ghazali, Al-Ash’ari . . .etc., arguing about the nature of God and His creation. This will help you in your quest to understand the philosophical underpinnings behind Islamic theology.

Second, if there are scriptural sources, I’m sure you can find them well enough, however, my argument is NOT that these conclusions can be found in scripture alone, but more importantly in the Islamic schools of thought/theology of the early medieval era. It is during this time frame wherein Islam was influenced by the philosophies, thought/theology of Al-Ash’ari, and then later of Al-Ghazali (it is their theology which reigned supreme and was embraced by the Sunni Arab world).

if you are referring to philosophies of Al-Ghazali then it refers to Gods ESSENTIAL attributes. These attributes are not expressed in creation, but are rather expressed through Gods active attributes.

The concept is found in Catholicism but has been elaborated more fully in Islam and even more so in the Baha’i Writings.

An analogy which may help you understand this uses her sun. In its essence, the sun has essential attributes of intensity, violence, destruction, yet these attributes are manifested in its active attributes on earth with the loving qualities of heat and light.

Hope this helps clarify how Catholicism and Islam when studied fully are not in disagreement on the nature of God. One must always discern that there is a difference between God in His essence (Deus a Se) and His affiliated essential attributes, and ***Deus pro nobis *** which is the concept of God for us which explores His “active” (rather than essential) attributes.

.