Question for Muslims about God

[SalamKhan]

This question is coming from myself as a lapsed Muslim, and more for Muslims of the Ash`ari Creed.

Now, Muslims reject the Christian Doctrines of the Incarnation and the Divine Sonship of Jesus Christ because they claim it is beneath the Divine Dignity and Divine Majesty of God to (i) become man and (ii) beget a Son.

However, the Ash’ari school, whilst believing in the Divine Justice of God, reject the Mu`tazilite emphasis of the Divine Justice of God. According to the Ash’ari school, God is under no obligation, and can reward the wicked and punish the righteous if He so wishes.

So my question is, if God is under no obligation to abide by His Justice, then is He not also under no obligation to abide by His Dignity and Majesty, and can He not also become a man and beget a Son if He so wishes?

Thanks in advance for any answers.

 

[jlhargus]

mark

 

[drac16]

I don’t know about the intricacies of each sect, so my answer may not be that good

In the dunya, we see Allah’s 99 names being acted upon all the time. We see His wrath, like when He seals someone’s heart, but we also see His mercy, like when He guides someone to the truth. He gives and takes; those are connected to His 99 names as well. The reason we don’t die as soon as we’re born is because He acts out of mercy when He sustains us. He does act out His wrath, but not all the time. He often is merciful even to the people that deserve it the least.

Does God have to behave in a wrathful way? of course. That’s because His sense of justice is perfect. A sin deserves a punishment. He pours out wrath not on innocent people, but only on law breakers. There is not a single person in Hell who is innocent. God could send us all to Hell and He would be justified in doing so because we’ve all broken His laws.

That’s the relationship between God’s actions and God’s names. He acts according to His names. He would be justified in punishing everyone, but He often acts more mercifully than wrathfully. As I said before, He’s merciful even to people who don’t deserve it. Islam is not about a God that wants to take from you – it’s about a God who wants to give to you.

Even when He does act out wrathfully, His names of mercy are still present, though. He is merciful by His very nature. He is also One (al-Ahad) by His very nature. He can’t become more than One Divine Person because that would by nature not be possible. It’s like if God can create a rock so heavy He can’t lift. He can’t do that which is by definition impossible. It’s not possible for Him to become a man because a man is needy, while God on the other Hand is Self-Sufficient. One can’t be needy and self-sufficient at the same time. That’s a big problem I have with Christianity-- it associates human frailties to God.

Since a man is bound to make mistakes, that cannot be associated with God because God is incapable of mistakes. I suppose God could make a Son in the sense of being a thing that ought to be worshiped, but that would be a lesser deity. It could never reach the same status as God because God has always been the supreme God. Indeed, the Qur’an says: “Say, [O Muhammad], "If the Most Merciful had a son, then I would be the first of [his] worshippers’”.(surah 43:81)

If God told us to worship another entity, I would do it, but since He hasn’t, I only worship Him.

 

[Ontheway]

Forgive my ignoraInce, but who gave Allah his 99 names? Also, do these 99 names set a limit on his nature? Is he confined be these 99 attributes?

 

[drac16]

Forgive my ignoraInce, but who gave Allah his 99 names? Also, do these 99 names set a limit on his nature? Is he confined be these 99 attributes?

Wikipedia has a good article as to what the names are, what they mean and some scriptural references. Just scroll down about one third of the page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Islam

Some names Allah has due to His nature and some are names denoting His actions. Take ‘Ar-Rahman’ and ‘Ar-Raheem’ for instance. They are both derived from the arabic word ‘Rahma’, which means ‘mercy’. Ar-Rahman has a passive meaning and Ar-Raheem has an active meaning. Basically, Ar-Rahman means that He is merciful by nature and always has been. Ar-Raheem means that He is merciful based on what He does (He does merciful acts).

There are some disagreements about Allah’s 99 names, to the extent that some say that there are over 99 names. Regardless of that, I think the point I made in my initial post still stands.

 

[TheAtheist]

So my question is, if God is under no obligation to abide by His Justice, then is He not also under no obligation to abide by His Dignity and Majesty, and can He not also become a man and beget a Son if He so wishes?

Thanks in advance for any answers.

A.) Not a Muslim
B.) But I have a few Muslim friends and i’m interested in religious traditions, mainly on the behavior and mental states of those who consider themselves to be religious.

I asked a very similar question way back when, and I got an answer in the following sense:

To split God up in a manner a la the Trinity (yes yes i know the Catholic-Orthodox continuum don’t consider it “splitting” but it sure does look like that to all of us who aren’t) is in their opinion, a violation of God/Allah’s al-tawhid, or Divine Unity.

You’ll notice that this is a foundational sentiment for them - its right smack dab in the Shahada and emphasized/re-emphasized throughout their holy book.

I, in my non-belief, can only speculate that this was a direct reaction to the Polytheistic environment that Islam grew up in.

I guess you could change the question to “Why can’t God violate his/her/its own Unity?”

Perhaps he can, but in practical terms to a Muslim, he won’t - what would the point be?

From their perspective, the Qur’an (being the literal word of God), already affirms again and again the Unity of God.

 

[SalamKhan]

Forgive my ignoraInce, but who gave Allah his 99 names? Also, do these 99 names set a limit on his nature? Is he confined be these 99 attributes?

The concept of the 99 Attributes (Names) is found in Hadith (Tradition), however, there have been compiled variant lists, which is why the Athari school, in the form of the modern day Salafis, consider all lists to be innovations.

In Islam God is One numerically, as opposed to in Christianity where God is One in essence. However, this created a problem for the Muslims when Islam came into contact with Christianity. Muslims believed that God is One numerically, but at the same time believed that there are distinct uncreated Divine attributes (Names) in God’s essence, and sometimes worshiped God by these Names. Their Christian opponents pointed out the hypocrisy of Muslims for rejecting the Holy Trinity as polytheism, yet accept that there are distinct attributes in the essence of a God who they believe is numerically One.

This influenced the Muslims to revise their own doctrines in order to defend them against the attacks of their Christian opponents. The Mutazilite school held that God is One in essence, and that His essence in unknowable, they believed the attributes are distinct from God's essence and reduced the Names to a sort of demiurgic level; similar to the Essence-Energies division believed by the Eastern Orthodox. The Ashari school began as a reaction to the Mu`tazilite school, they contested that God’s essence in knowable, and held fast to the beliefs that God is One numerically and that the Names are distinct in God’s essence; but if I’m not mistaken they held the distinct attributes to a modalistic point of view.

 

[SalamKhan]

One can’t be needy and self-sufficient at the same time. That’s a big problem I have with Christianity-- it associates human frailties to God.

The Church has already dealt with this issue in Ecumenical Councils preceding Islam. The answer to your problem, is the Hypostatic Union.

Since a man is bound to make mistakes, that cannot be associated with God because God is incapable of mistakes.

Many Muslims believe that Muhammad was the most perfect man in existence. Likewise, Christians believe that Jesus Christ was the most perfect man in existence.

I suppose God could make a Son in the sense of being a thing that ought to be worshiped, but that would be a lesser deity. It could never reach the same status as God because God has always been the supreme God.

That is the Arian heresy, The Son was reduced to a lesser deity, which is polytheism. There is only one, eternal, indivisible, Divine essence, and so if God begat a Son, His Son would be eternally begotten and God Himself.

Indeed, the Qur’an says: “Say, [O Muhammad], "If the Most Merciful had a son, then I would be the first of [his] worshippers’”.(surah 43:81)

If God told us to worship another entity, I would do it, but since He hasn’t, I only worship Him.

So it’s not a matter of whether God can beget a Son, but whether God did beget a Son. And the answer to this, can be found in Divine Revelation, which must be historical; it either happened or it did not. And anything contrary to the truth, is by that very fact, false.

What does the claim that Jesus Christ Himself founded the Catholic Church, and gave Her divine authority to teach, mean to you?

 

[MartinJordan]

That is the Arian heresy, The Son was reduced to a lesser deity, which is polytheism. There is only one, eternal, indivisible, Divine essence, and so if God begat a Son, His Son would be eternally begotten and God Himself.

This is certainly a matter wherein the Islamic view doesn’t seem to want to trace Christianity from it’s roots. Jesus was not made.

So it’s not a matter of whether God can beget a Son, but whether God did beget a Son. And the answer to this, can be found in Divine Revelation, which must be historical; it either happened or it did not. And anything contrary to the truth, is by that very fact, false.

How about considering whether it’s Holy or not Holy that God begat a Son?

MJ

 

[Ontheway]

Wikipedia has a good article as to what the names are, what they mean and some scriptural references. Just scroll down about one third of the page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Islam

Some names Allah has due to His nature and some are names denoting His actions. Take ‘Ar-Rahman’ and ‘Ar-Raheem’ for instance. They are both derived from the arabic word ‘Rahma’, which means ‘mercy’. Ar-Rahman has a passive meaning and Ar-Raheem has an active meaning. Basically, Ar-Rahman means that He is merciful by nature and always has been. Ar-Raheem means that He is merciful based on what He does (He does merciful acts).

There are some disagreements about Allah’s 99 names, to the extent that some say that there are over 99 names. Regardless of that, I think the point I made in my initial post still stands.

Yes, but my question has more to do with the origin of the names. If the Koran contains the words of God and it includes his names, then he himself assigned these names. If, however, the names were given by the faithful as a way to describe him, then they area a product of their own imagination. If he is Ar-Rahman, for example, then is this his own description?

 

[drac16]

Yes, but my question has more to do with the origin of the names. If the Koran contains the words of God and it includes his names, then he himself assigned these names. If, however, the names were given by the faithful as a way to describe him, then they area a product of their own imagination. If he is Ar-Rahman, for example, then is this his own description?

They are a product of God’s own choosing. He mentioned all of the names in the Qur’an. We believe that every word in the Qur’an [in arabic] is God’s revealed speech. We don’t believe that the Qur’an is Muhammad’s thoughts and opinions.

 

[Bballer32]

They are a product of God’s own choosing. He mentioned all of the names in the Qur’an. We believe that every word in the Qur’an [in arabic] is God’s revealed speech. We don’t believe that the Qur’an is Muhammad’s thoughts and opinions.

Just another question regarding the names.

Does each individual name then denote both action AND essence? For instance, in Christianity, we say that God is both merciful and Mercy. He is loving and Love. God exists and Go is Existence.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[SalamKhan]

How about considering whether it’s Holy or not Holy that God begat a Son?

MJ

As God is Love, it is appropriate for Him to eternally beget a Son (whom He loves), otherwise it would mean God was once without Love.

 

[MartinJordan]

As God is Love, it is appropriate for Him to eternally beget a Son (whom He loves), otherwise it would mean God was once without Love.

Then "God with us " (Emmanuel) clearly makes sense that the Son came down from Heaven who is Emmanuel (Jesus) still one God in his Essence (to be Worshipped Eternally )

MJ

 

[Ontheway]

They are a product of God’s own choosing. He mentioned all of the names in the Qur’an. We believe that every word in the Qur’an [in arabic] is God’s revealed speech. We don’t believe that the Qur’an is Muhammad’s thoughts and opinions.

This Islamic source states just the opposite of what you are saying:

"The list of 99 Beautiful Names as described on this page is one of the most commonly available lists of 99 Beautiful Names which have been given to us by Islamic tradition. Many of the most widely circulated lists of the Beautiful Names are nearly identical, often differing by only one or two Names.

The Qur’ān does not specify any particular list of Beautiful Names or any particular number of Beautiful Names… the various lists of Beautiful Names have been given to us as tools to help us keep the glory of Allah in constant remembrance through the use of these convenient and well-known lists of Beautiful Names."

wahiduddin.net/words/99_pages/app_c_origins.htm

Thus, it seems that the names have been given by the faithful and are not part of the Quran.

 

[drac16]

This Islamic source states just the opposite of what you are saying:

"The list of 99 Beautiful Names as described on this page is one of the most commonly available lists of 99 Beautiful Names which have been given to us by Islamic tradition. Many of the most widely circulated lists of the Beautiful Names are nearly identical, often differing by only one or two Names.

The Qur’ān does not specify any particular list of Beautiful Names or any particular number of Beautiful Names… the various lists of Beautiful Names have been given to us as tools to help us keep the glory of Allah in constant remembrance through the use of these convenient and well-known lists of Beautiful Names."

wahiduddin.net/words/99_pages/app_c_origins.htm

Thus, it seems that the names have been given by the faithful and are not part of the Quran.

The writer of that article is wrong. They don’t come from tradition. You obviously did not read the link I provided you with. It gave references [in the Qur’an] for all the names.

 

[Duke_of_St_Paul]

As God is Love, it is appropriate for Him to eternally beget a Son (whom He loves), otherwise it would mean God was once without Love.

Is not water a sign of his love, that which sustains life? When it rains, is that not love?

Why does God need to beget in order to love? Are not the signs of his love all around us, and have not his signs been present since the beginning?

 

[Ontheway]

The writer of that article is wrong. They don’t come from tradition. You obviously did not read the link I provided you with. It gave references [in the Qur’an] for all the names.

I consulted the link you provided and even looked at the Quran quotes that are provided by the links. I chose one and found this:

“He is Allah , the Creator, the Inventor, the Fashioner; to Him belong the best names. Whatever is in the heavens and earth is exalting Him. And He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.”

The question I have is this: are these Allah’s words? Is Allah saying this, or is someone else talking about Allah?

 

[drac16]

I consulted the link you provided and even looked at the Quran quotes that are provided by the links. I chose one and found this:

“He is Allah , the Creator, the Inventor, the Fashioner; to Him belong the best names. Whatever is in the heavens and earth is exalting Him. And He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.”

The question I have is this: are these Allah’s words? Is Allah saying this, or is someone else talking about Allah?

They are only Allah’s words in arabic. An english translation is only an attempt to render God’s words.

 

[Ontheway]

They are only Allah’s words in arabic. An english translation is only an attempt to render God’s words.

Is the meaning different in Arabic? Is the English version a mistranslation?