Peace, one and all…
‘For the goodness that is proper to God is not the moral opposite of evil, rather it is situated on a different plane altogether, that of al-Haqq, the absolutely Real, the only ‘opposite’ to which is unreality or nothingness. Thus, whils goodness is at one with the pure positivity of the Absolute, evil derives solely from a negative capacity to negate the Real, the Good. In other words, goodness is identified in its essence with the Creator, while evil is a modality of the created’
R. Shah-Kazemi, Justice and Remembrance, p.75-76)
August 7, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Ma’shallah, a interesting post
August 7, 2008 at 9:47 pm
beautiful.
August 8, 2008 at 11:11 am
Salaams Redwan,
It is indeed an interesting passage.
August 8, 2008 at 11:12 am
Salaams Shadduli,
Welcome to my online home. Allah bless you always. It is a profound and beautiful passage in a very profound book.
Abdur Rahman
August 8, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Peace, Abdur Rahman,
From this very wise passage I have learned the reason behind a deep instinct that I have told you about already. When we make positive statements about religion we can use the al-Haqq (or Platonic) limitless goodness of God as a touchstone of their absolute truth.
When we make negative statements about the religion of others, we cannot protect ourselves from spite, or envy, or ignorant error, in the same way because the negativity and therefore the contingency of the content is a barrier to comparing it with the positive and eternal.
I try to stick to and explore positive truths about religion. I hope to gain a little wisdom with the blessings I receive every day as my beard whitens, and love to share good things, but it is neither God’s will nor my desire that I should undermine or libel the faith of any believer.
As an example, may I use your blog, where I can cause no offence, to witness to my belief in the absolute unity of that which we call “God” or “Allah”, which sadly (if privately) estranges me from almost all Christians.
Four centuries after Jesus, the “Holy Trinity” was adopted as the best answer to a genuinely pressing problem for the Greeks, whose dominant philosophy saw the world of appearance as a shallow façade overlying substance or reality. This is related to the passage under discussion and to an attempt to bridge the gap between the eternal and the contingent. Hardly anyone has thought in their terms for over fifteen centuries, but on the chessboard of theology such a move once made cannot be retracted. The three-fold name is mostly a formality today, compared with its freshness when the Prophet (peace on his name) criticised it, but still dearly loved by many good people who could never begin to explain it. They respect its antiquity and those who first held it. I respect their sincerity.
But who should better understand the nature of the Prophet Jesus than the Prophet Mohammad (peace on his name) who as I understand the Koran asserted his entirely flesh and blood humanity and mortality?
My Koran is the Penguin Classics translation by Dawood bought in 1979, and there I found early support as I discovered my Unitarianism the hard way: “So believe in Allah and his apostles and do not say ‘Three’…..Allah is but one God. Allah forbid that he should have a son!” (4.171: Women).
I offer this as an example of positive discourse. If I am wrong, you or anyone else is most welcome to correct me.
Peace and God’s blessing on you and your people.
Jim
August 11, 2008 at 10:33 am
Peace Jim,
Thank you for your interesting thoughts. I like your perspective on things and would certainly value talking more fully with you.
I have found the book this passage comes from to be a real eye-opener. It has enabled me to give form to a great number of ideas that I’d been fumbling towards. I find this particular passage inspiring because, apart from anything else, it is a really interesting take on the issue of evil.
Although I’ve not come from exactly the same position as you, I certainly do agree with much of what you say. Indeed, as I experienced it, my own journey began with a strong feeling that I was simply tired of defending one position, without looking for and thinking through the positive wherever it might be found.
I have found that when people of different faiths talk they are often using very different ‘languages’ of meaning, even when they are speaking the same tongue. Any progress that I might have made (which comes from God) has solely been through trying to listen to what the other person is really trying to say, rather than what I think they’re saying. More subtly, of course, to speak another’s language requires patience and respect – in other words, it means that I must come into a relationship with that other person.
Peace and God’s blessings be with you and yours.
Abdur Rahman
August 14, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Salaam Abdur Rahman,
The author has managed to conjure a universe of errors in a single paragraph. That is quite an accomplishment.
“For the goodness that is proper to God [...]“.
It is not for the contingent being to make determination as to what is or is not “proper” to ALLAH. The hairy biped can be either up-Right or uppity. It is “proper” for the devotee of ALLAH to be up-Right.
“[A]l-Haqq, the absolutely Real, the only ‘opposite’ to which is unreality or nothingness [...]”
If one says something “is” then s/he is saying that something is existing. The Absolutely Real has no “opposite”. ALLAH IS ONE.
“[T]hus, while goodness is at one with the pure positivity of the Absolute, evil derives solely from a negative capacity to negate the Real, the Good.”
If someone says something has the “capacity to negate” something else, then s/he is saying that something has power over that other something. My LORD IS The Most HIGH, and HE Has Power over all things, and *nothing* has power over HIM.
“[I]n other words, goodness is identified in its essence with the Creator, while evil is a modality of the created.”
The only “modality” of the created that is proper for the creature to be concerned with is that of Belief or un-Belief, Surrender or rebellion.
/& Salaam
August 14, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Salaams again Joubin,
Thank you once again for your thought-provoking insights. I value them and thank you for offering them. Jazak Allah.
I understand your points and agree with them, but perhaps they are more questions of language than substance? What I mean is that I don’t think that the author is using them in quite so hard and fast a way as they might be understood. I don’t think he is trying to set up mental/intellectual alternatives/opposites as much as he is trying to separate goodness (as an attribute of God) and evil, which is an attribute of the created.
Perhaps I’m wrong. At least, that was how I took his words. I do see the points you’re making and in the final analysis, as you say, ‘the only “modality” of the created that is proper for the creature to be concerned with is that of Belief or un-Belief, Surrender or rebellion’.
An interesting discussion to be sure though.
Ma’as salama,
Abdur Rahman