Eternity hellfire clarification

[Hussein radi]

I am having difficulty comprehending someone being punished for eternity for a limited amout of time, lets say 100 years. If you use math you will find out that any number divided by infinity equals zero. Therefor, mathematically god is punishing humans for their limited life which has a value of 0. I need some help and clarification about this subject.

[Masuma]

Asalamu Alikum Wr Wb!

LOL! where did God say to use maths in this?


It's only a warning that God will punish the disbelievers for eternity. But why not highlight the good points too. That God will reward believers for eternity for only some good deeds done??? Isn't He the most merciful?! :statisfie

[Hussein radi]

God created math and used to create the universe, the Quran it self has math.

[Masuma]

Look at this in this way.

The life of the hereafter is for eternity (infinity).

This, our very life is for a few years, (100 years as you supposed)

So dividing this life's years with the eternal, infinite life would again give zero.

So that means we didn't live? :D

It's LOL question!

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Hussein radi]

But why must it be infinity, why cant it be finite amount of time. We disobeyed god for a finite amount of time so it seems only fair for god to punish us for a finite time.

[Hussein radi]

btw, Your Avatar is disturbing.

[Masuma]

God created math and used to create the universe, the Quran it self has math.

Oh no! did I offend you in any way brother? imsad I was just trying to help!

What I meant was that maths and science are so imperfect and have many limitations. We can't just explain or define everything in the world or universe. Sometimes, the whole theories can be flawed. One logical reason cuts the other. And leaves a person totally confused (if you can understand what I mean)

And again sorry :embarrass if I offended you in any way!

[Hussein radi]

I was never offended, and it will take much more than that to offend me.

[Masuma]

btw, Your Avatar is disturbing.

You mentioned it on purpose right? To cause offence I guess? But still I don't mind. :D

Yeah it is creepy. But I love it. Don't know why...:D

But why must it be infinity, why cant it be finite amount of time. We disobeyed god for a finite amount of time so it seems only fair for god to punish us for a finite time.

Yeah this is a question I asked myself alot. But still don't have a good explanation. But you know what, when I think of the punishment, always Allah's mercy overwhelms me with hope. Why don't people highlight the good points that Allah would reward us for eternity for only some of the good deeds done in this very life...?

[Hussein radi]

Its just the idea of infinity in hellfire really scares me, sometimes i wish it wasn't true.

[Hussein radi]

Why don't people highlight the good points that Allah would reward us for eternity for only some of the good deeds done in this very life...?

I think its because Hellfire is much more influential than paradise.

[Masuma]

Its just the idea of infinity in hellfire really scares me, sometimes i wish it wasn't true.

Oh my! Wait a sec, I think I've one more point.

The people who'll be burning in hell, they won't be those guilty of pardonable sin. Allah has put seal on some peoples' heart so that they'll never learn. No matter you give them thousand centuries or two thousand centuries or eternity; they would still not accept truth. And as Allah knows even the future, so He knows that these people would never learn. Therefore a punishment for eternity is justified.

So do you agree :happy: ?

I think its because Hellfire is much more influential than paradise.

No no. That is only YOUR view. I think that people try to portray God as unjust or biased etc and that is why they do this.

But you know what- we both can be wrong. :D So I would not draw my own conclusions here.

[Hussein radi]

So do you agree ?

If that what god says then i agree. I think god's wisdom is so beyond us that we will never be able to understand it. there are things that we must accept even if we don't fully comprehend them.

[-Elle-]

salam,

I am not sure whether this is the right thread or not, but I think it's strongly related..inshAllah it will be of help

http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...-religion.html

[Hussein radi]

I am not sure whether this is the right thread or not, but I think it's strongly related..inshAllah it will be of help

Thank you for the support

[cat eyes]

I am having difficulty comprehending someone being punished for eternity for a limited amout of time, lets say 100 years. If you use math you will find out that any number divided by infinity equals zero. Therefor, mathematically god is punishing humans for their limited life which has a value of 0. I need some help and clarification about this subject.

the disbelievers will be the only ones that will remain in the hellfire. the believers will end up in jannah inshallah. but we should use this time now to seek as much knowledge as we can.. and keep away from sin. suffer in this life and enjoy in the next.. this is how you should look at things. the only reason why people ask these questions because there imaan is weak.

i'm not saying my imaan is super but i try to find out why Allah has said such things and look at the interpretations behind it

[Hussein radi]

the only reason why people ask these questions because there imaan is weak.

I do admit my imaan is weak ): .

[aadil77]

But why must it be infinity, why cant it be finite amount of time. We disobeyed god for a finite amount of time so it seems only fair for god to punish us for a finite time.

When did Allah say believers will be punished for eternity?

That punishment is only for disbeleivers, if they were given the opportunity to live for eternity they would disbeleive for eternity

Also do not question Allah's justice, he is most just and He does not ask for much to avoid eternal hellfire

What do you suggest would happen to disbelievers after they have been punished for a finite time?

[Hussein radi]

What do you suggest would happen to disbelievers after they have been punished for a finite time?

Do everything in their power to avoid going back in there. you do mean punished in hell right?

[Neelofar]

Salaamz! =D

I'm not sure whether thers any math involved in saying that God will punish individuals for eternity..it literally means eternity - forever [only Allah S.W.T has divine knowledge of how long tht is]

P.S - An33za i looovvveee ur style of writing! :D putz a smile on my face :P now, its bk to watching wimbledon! :D

[Masuma]

If that what god says then i agree. I think god's wisdom is so beyond us that we will never be able to understand it. there are things that we must accept even if we don't fully comprehend them.

Yeah there are some very mind boggling things and things we can't comprehend. But these are the things WE can't comprehend not that they are ill-logical :)

With the advancement of science and technology, we have understood many things but still a whole new world of things are still unexplained!

That point which I mentioned makes sense to me. That these disbelievers would never learn no matter how much time you give them! Therefore they will be punished for eternity.

Salaamz! =D
P.S - An33za i looovvveee ur style of writing! :D putz a smile on my face :P now, its bk to watching wimbledon! :D

:embarrass thanx sister! :D may Allah bless you!

Do everything in their power to avoid going back in there. you do mean punished in hell right?

Brother, what if among these disbelievers there are some who would never learn? Who would still keep disobeying God? This is beacause, on some people's heart, there is a seal!

[Masuma]

I am having difficulty comprehending someone being punished for eternity for a limited amout of time, lets say 100 years. If you use math you will find out that any number divided by infinity equals zero. Therefor, mathematically god is punishing humans for their limited life which has a value of 0. I need some help and clarification about this subject.

Lets try to understand it through one example.
In history, many wars were fought and people died. But at that time, the overall population was less than that at present. So even a few number of people dying would equal a large number of people in this age.

Same way, the amount of sins done in this short life are equal to a large number of sins in an eternal life. By scaling method. I guess.

Its just so hard to explain. I hope that you may understand what I mean. imsad

[Hussein radi]

Lets try to understand it through one example.
In history, many wars were fought and people died. But at that time, the overall population was less than that at present. So even a few number of people dying would equal a large number of people in this age.

Yes i think i understand. Even though they lived a finite amount of time, the sins they accumulated are sufficient for god to send them to hell.

[Ramadhan]

Even with threat of being punished of eternity and rewards of living in heaven for eternity, many people still disbelieve.

Can you imagine if there is no threat of being punished in hell?

Humans are given freewill, but are also equipped with intelligence, fitrah and guidance.
Each of us are given enough time in this world to submit to Allah SWT and worship him, and He is Most Just, Most Merciful and Most Gracious.

[aadil77]

Do everything in their power to avoid going back in there. you do mean punished in hell right?

I think you're a bit confused, do you know what happens in the afterlife? Its either heaven or hell, a disbeliever cannot go to heaven

[-Elle-]

Sheikh Abdur Raheem Green, "Do Good People Go to Hell?"

Four part series, watch it inshAllah.

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2FIYV9QL88
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGfIgkrP7KU
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpPLEpSLL1U
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_0Nne99Te8

Each part is from 8 to 10 minutes, so it's not long. InshAllah it will be helpful.

[Lynx]

you can't divide a number by infinity because infinity isn't a number. it's a concept.

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/62486.html

[Maryan0]

When did Allah say believers will be punished for eternity?

That punishment is only for disbeleivers, if they were given the opportunity to live for eternity they would disbeleive for eternity

Also do not question Allah's justice, he is most just and He does not ask for much to avoid eternal hellfire

What do you suggest would happen to disbelievers after they have been punished for a finite time?

I've always wondered about this question too but I think this is a good answer. Maybe Allah knows in his infinite wisdom that if these disbelievers were to be given an infinite amount of time they would still continue to disbelieve. Allah guides those who seek guidance.
Salam

[tango92]

you can't divide a number by infinity because infinity isn't a number. it's a concept.

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/62486.html

hmm? sure you can, the result of dividing by any extremely large number is effectively 0

[Salahudeen]

You have to remember paradise is also infinite even though our life is only 60 years if we are lucky. And I remember hearing that the value of 1 good deed is worth much more, like when you do 1 good deed allah multiplies it for you and when you do a bad deed it stays as a single bad deed.

Allah the most merciful has given his slaves lots of opportunities to do good also, just look at the 5 daily prayers alhamdulilah, there's 5 good deeds for you all ready if you do them :) and you will get the reward of 50 prayers.

and also look at the other good deeds that you can perform, giving to charity, going on hajj, you have all these opportunities to do good and build up your account.

prepare for the day you will be handed your book, fill it up with lots of good deeds, rush to the obediance of Allah and run away from his disobediance. Make sincere repentance often as this will remove your bad deeds, Allah will replace the bad deeds with good deeds if you make sincere tawbah.

It's natural to be afraid of the hell every believer is, and this is also a mercy in a way cos it deters you from disobeying Allah, and his paradise is also a blessing cos it gives you motivation to do good deeds. And remember Allah loves us 70 times more than our own mother, and he gets happy at the slave who repents. sorry if this was off topic.

[syed_z]

Asalaam O Alaikum...to every one.. im new here.. and i would like to add what Quran says regarding our brothers question... Whether the People of the Fire would Burn in Hell for Eternity or if the Ones who do burn in Hell for Eternity, why does Allah (Swt) make them burn for Ever in the Hereafter, because the time they spend doing there bad deeds was in their lifetime, which was limited... ?

Do correct me if im wrong regarding the question which i understood.. so any ways..

It is mentioned in Surah Al Anaam Verses 128

....(But) He will say : The Fire shall be your abode, therein to abide - unless God wills it otherwise. Verily your Sustainer is Wise, All Knowing!"


"Unless God Wills otherwise".. means according to many Muslim Theologians that Unless Allah (swt) has Mercy on them and ends their suffering in Hell. So the Blissful life of Paradise is Eternal and forever, BUT the suffering of the Fire is not Forever and is only Limited, depending on the Evil that the people of the fire committed in this Life....

In a well Authentic Tradition The Apostle of Allah (saw) said "(on the day of Judgment), those who deserve Paradise will enter Paradise, and those who deserve Fire, the fire. Thereupon God, the Sublimely Exalted, will say, 'Take out (of the fire) every one in whose heart there was as much of Faith (or, in some versions, "as much good") as a grain of a mustard seed!' And so they will be taken out of it, already blackened, and will be thrown in to the River of Life; and they will come to life (sprout) as a herb sprouts by the side of the stream: and did you not see how it comes out yellow and budding?"

(Bukhari, on the authority of Abu Said al-Khudri (r.a), in Kitab Al-Iman)


And so it shows, that Truly Allah (Swt) is The Most Gracious and All Merciful! He would give the ones who disobeyed, all their lives, the suffering of fire, BUT even them He (swt) would let them enter paradise and NOT suffer forever, as many and most of them would at least have some goodness in their hearts.... which is true, every Human does have some goodness in their hearts, even though they might not be good throughout most of their lives...


Also another Important point to mention here is that...there would be many who would suffer for very long time... and that is also explained in the Quran as to why would that happen...


"Hence, on Ressurection Day they shall bear the full weight of their burdens, as well as some of the burdens of those ignorant ones whom they have led astray :oh, how evil the load with which they shall be burdened." (Al Quran 16:25)

..so the ones who initiated any thing, like any evil in the society and however many people become part of that evil and do it, that person will not only gain the Sin of his own doing, but ALL those who followed his example, he would bear the burden of their evil acts as well..... and so this would Double His Suffering...

so yes there is not an Eternal Suffering in its literal sense, but there is a time where Allah (Swt) does forgive .. BUT He does Whenever He wills...He is the Best Judge!

[Masuma]

Asalaam O Alaikum...to every one.. im new here.. and i would like to add what Quran says regarding our brothers question... Whether the People of the Fire would Burn in Hell for Eternity or if the Ones who do burn in Hell for Eternity, why does Allah (Swt) make them burn for Ever in the Hereafter, because the time they spend doing there bad deeds was in their lifetime, which was limited... ?

Do correct me if im wrong regarding the question which i understood.. so any ways..
..........................

Brother, are you a scholar? :statisfie So far you've answered all questions just so perfectly!

Now I wanted to ask that people who commit shirk; they'll never enter paradise, right? This is because Allah himself says that He would never forgive those who commit shirk! So I think these people will burn in hell for forever!

But Allah knows best!

[Muslimeen]

But why must it be infinity, why cant it be finite amount of time. We disobeyed god for a finite amount of time so it seems only fair for god to punish us for a finite time.

All muslims who are unfortunate enough to enter hell will be punished for a limited amount of time, until they are cleansed of their sins, then they will enter jannah. The disbelievers on the other hand, those who died in disbelief will be punished for an eternity. The reasoning as per Anwar Al Awlaki is quite simple. The disbelievers only stopped their disbelief because death came to them, if death did not come to them then they would have continued to disbelieve for an eternity. Therefore their punishment is for an eternity, seems fair to me.

[syed_z]

Asalaam O Alaikum to all brothers/sisters...


Sister Aneeza, Hope your doing fine... i am not a scholar... definitely NOT! I wish i was :)... but its just i have been reading in to Islam a lot so that why you can say i just know a little bit...BUT even then all mistakes and errors are from me and Allah (Swt) and His Rasool (saw) are innocent of it...


Well actually see many people, whom we see as committing acts of Shirk are not committing Consciously...and they are Not Mushriks in literal sense... like for example... this Hadith mentioned in the Sahih Books....

"Shirk is like a Black ant crawling on a Black stone on a Dark Night.."

... with this Hadith, which i heard sometime ago, its true, that there is many times a Shirk, which does make many fall in to it, while actually, they are not aware of it. Or the people are committing Shirk, but do not do it Consciously!

For example... In Surah Al Anaam Verse

(6:22) For one day We shall gather them all together, and then We shall say unto those who ascribed Divinity to anything beside God: "Where, now, are those beings whom you imagined to have a share in God's Divinity ?"

... now many of us think that these are just Idols or Actual Partners with God in those peoples thoughts and minds, whom they used to invoke with God... But that NOT true...

the "beings" whom Allah (Swt) calls upon also include... Our Desires, whom we Obey and disobey Allah (Swt)... it also includes our Wealth and children, whom we think as being as sufficient enough to help us throughout this Worldly life, without putting trust in Allah (Swt)... the word "beings" also include those Ideologies, or Isms as have been spread throughout this Modern age in which we live, like Communism, Socialism, Democracy, Capiatlism, whose Principles are in direct contradiction to the teachings of Quran and Sunnah (Shariah), whom many would have accepted whole heartedly as "divine Guidance" given by those "great" thinkers... while actually, they are not able to solve problems of mankind, individually as well as on collective level as the Law of Allah (Swt) can do...


.... the word "beings" also include, those Saints and Imams whom we think to possess Semi Divine qualities and are able to influence their decisions in the Heavens and Earth, whom we Invoke for help.... as We cannot do that either, because every day we say in our Prayers... Iyyakana Budu Wa Iyya Kanas Taeen (You Alone we Worship and You Alone we Seek for Help)....

... so all of the above is also included in Shirk, which can make us equivalent to associating Partners without us even knowing... as Muhammad (Saw) reminded us... that Shirk can be so unrecognizable that of like... black ant on a black stone on a Dark night...... unable for many in the World, to recognize... so Allah (Swt) knows us Better than ourselves, and knows that, if there is any punishment what type do we deserve...

Also it is that unknowingly the Sin of Shirk which many would committ and NOT Consciously ... like all the People mentioned above, DO Commit Shirk BUT do NOT Deny the Existence of One God COMPLETELY.... they do Believe in the Supreme Power to be Only Allah (Swt)... but they are mixing their Beliefs, which is definitely Denied by Quran....and so when Allah (Swt) would gather them and ask, as mentioned in the above Verse, they would say...

(6:23) Whereupon in Utter confusion, they will only (be able to) say; "By God, our Sustainer, we did not (mean to) ascribe divnity to anything beside Him!"

so the reason why they would say that to Allah (Swt) is because , while all this time, they were thinking that they were not corrupting the Concept of Oneness of God... while actually they were... so what is their Punishment, Allah (Swt) knows best...

Again for me , i would hold on to those words....



The Fire shall be your abode, therein to abide - unless God wills it otherwise. (6:128)


"Unless God wills otherwise"... whom does God forgive and take out of the Fire, from among them and who He lets suffer.. Allah (swt) knows best...



And one more Important thing to mention here is that... Allah (swt) says in the Quran...6:131-132

"Allah does not destroy a community for its wrong doing so long as its people are still unaware of the Truth (right and wrong)"

".. for all shall be judged according to their conscious deeds - and your Sustainer in NOT unaware of what they do."



.. so many people whom we see worshiping Idols clearly committing Shirk, and then think they are bound to go to hell when they die, we are NOT sure if they are going to hell, because may be they did NOT receive the Message of Allah (Swt) yet, and they died... may be they were so isolated in Mountains and jungles, deserts... that they did not hear about Islam.... or even if they did, they did received distortedly... so Allah (Swt) knows best...

[Masuma]

Asalaam O Alaikum to all brothers/sisters...
...................

Walikum Usalam Wa Rehmatullahi Wa Barakatuh!

Jazakamullahu khair dear brother for responding! :satisfie

Brother, then what type of Shirk Allah will never forgive?

4:48 Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed.

4:116 Allah forgiveth not (The sin of) joining other gods with Him; but He forgiveth whom He pleaseth other sins than this: one who joins other gods with Allah, Hath strayed far, far away (from the right).

Because Allah says it so clearly in Quran that Shirk is the most heinous sin which He will never forgive!

[Hussein radi]

So Allah forgives all sins except shirk? Does that mean Allah will forgive deists?

[syed_z]

Walikum Usalam Wa Rehmatullahi Wa Barakatuh!

Jazakamullahu khair dear brother for responding! :satisfie

Brother, then what type of Shirk Allah will never forgive?



Because Allah says it so clearly in Quran that Shirk is the most heinous sin which He will never forgive!

Asalaam O Alaikum sister…Hope you and Yours are doing Fine :)

Well sister the words of the Quran are connected to each other, i.e the Verses are connected to one another….


The Ayaats which you quoted above, if we study them in Isolation, then it seems like NO ONE who does any kind of Shirk, will EVER be forgiven…


But then since the suffering of those who do shirk is The Fire, i.e Hell, then What does Allah (swt) say about Hell ? How long will the inhabitants of Fire suffer in it ?



If you try to analyze this Verse which I quoted before…


The Fire shall be your abode, therein to abide - unless God wills it otherwise. (6:128)


Unless God Will Otherwise……. If you try to read words of Allah (swt), when He refers to the people of Fire, He does not discriminate and say, its All of them EXCEPT MUshriks… No Allah (Swt) does not say that...... rather Allah (swt) refers to ALL people of the Fire which Include Mushriks, Disbelievers, Evil persons etc . So Allah (swt) Might will to take many out of the Fire, after Some time whenever He Knows is right, and that includes people of all Crimes, whether Mushriks or Non Mushriks….

So this is How i see it... and since Allah (swt) knows best How many of Them Were Committing Shirk Consciously ... it is His Judgment that will be the Best....



(6:57)The decision is only for Allah, He declares the truth, and He is the Best of judges."

[syed_z]

So Allah forgives all sins except shirk? Does that mean Allah will forgive deists?

Do you mean deists as ones who follow Deism ?

[Al-Indunisiy]

God created math and used to create the universe, the Quran it self has math.

:sl:

Oh Please, don't make Quran and it's tafsir into something like the Gematria.

[Insecured soul]

I am having difficulty comprehending someone being punished for eternity for a limited amout of time, lets say 100 years. If you use math you will find out that any number divided by infinity equals zero. Therefor, mathematically god is punishing humans for their limited life which has a value of 0. I need some help and clarification about this subject.

they died in disbelief lets say when they were 60 years old, so why not allah just punish them for 60 yrs and then admit them in paradise?

the answer is that if they were 100 yrs old still they would have disbelief.... even 200 yrs and........till eternity they would have disbelived..... hence they wil be punished for eternity

[DuncG]

It's always appeared to me that Hell, as a concept, is unjust. If you punish someone justly then that means the punishment has to be proportionate to the crime committed. But an eternal punishment can never be put into proportion - the only thing it would fit is an eternal crime, which isn't possible. We are finite beings that can only commit a limited number of crimes before we die. So, to follow the point of the OP: how is infinite punishment justified for finite crimes?

I don't find the answers given so far in this thread particularly persuasive.

Regarding disbelievers being punished for eternity, this amounts to punishing someone for what they will do, rather than what they have done, which is again unjust. But it's actually worse than this: it is not possible to disbelieve for eternity because it is not possible to exist for eternity (you can never 'complete' an eternity) - so never-ending punishment is disproportionate. There is a further problem here if it is true that God has 'put a seal on the heart' of a disbeliever - how is it then the disbeliever's fault? Why should they be punished by God for something God has done?

In every justice system people are punished for what they did or were imminently planning to do. I don't think people 'plan to disbelieve', so why are people punished for their future unbelief? This is even worse than a 'thought crime' because they haven't yet had the thought of unbelief that they will have in the future! Punishing people for holding an opinion is bad enough, punishing people for opinions they will hold is even worse.

Regarding God forgiving someone in Hell at some indeterminate future point: there's nothing 'revealed' that says God will forgive everyone. God may never 'will' to have someone released from Hell, so I do not see how that excuses the apparent possibility that some people will be punished for eternity. If some unbelievers are forgiven and others not, then this simply looks capricious, rather than an enactment of justice.

[Masuma]

I don't find the answers given so far in this thread particularly persuasive.

Brother no one is here to persuade anyone. We are just giving our opinions. If you disagree, you may.

It's always appeared to me that Hell, as a concept, is unjust. If you punish someone justly then that means the punishment has to be proportionate to the crime committed. But an eternal punishment can never be put into proportion - the only thing it would fit is an eternal crime, which isn't possible.

No you don't understand!

Even if these people were given an eternal life, they would still have disbelieved!!!! Makes all sense in the world! :)

God, Who has created us, would know even what will happen in future so as He know already that these people would never believe, so punishment is justified.

We are finite beings that can only commit a limited number of crimes before we die. So, to follow the point of the OP: how is infinite punishment justified for finite crimes?

These "finite crimes" are enough to last one an eternity!

But understand that there are degrees of "crimes". A crime of lower degree will not receive punishment for eternity. And did you honestly read all of the posts?

Regarding disbelievers being punished for eternity, this amounts to punishing someone for what they will do, rather than what they have done, which is again unjust.

Haven't they already DONE disbelieve?

But it's actually worse than this: it is not possible to disbelieve for eternity because it is not possible to exist for eternity (you can never 'complete' an eternity) - so never-ending punishment is disproportionate.

You clearly didn't read all of the posts. :)

There is a further problem here if it is true that God has 'put a seal on the heart' of a disbeliever - how is it then the disbeliever's fault? Why should they be punished by God for something God has done?

Good question!

It is actually these people who have brought it upon themselves! It is because of their actions that God put seal on their hearts!

In every justice system people are punished for what they did or were imminently planning to do. I don't think people 'plan to disbelieve', so why are people punished for their future unbelief?

I don't understand. People just do it. They just simply disbelieve! :hmm:

Regarding God forgiving someone in Hell at some indeterminate future point: there's nothing 'revealed' that says God will forgive everyone. God may never 'will' to have someone released from Hell,

And how do you know that? You are also just assuming things up! And I think I read it somewhere that Go would forgive many after their prescribed punishment.

For example those people who once in their whole life truly bear witness to Allah's unity and accepting Prophet Muhammad as Allah's messenger will be forgiven after receiving their punishment.

[DuncG]

An33za,

Thanks for your reply.

Even if these people were given an eternal life, they would still have disbelieved!!!! Makes all sense in the world!

God, Who has created us, would know even what will happen in future so as He know already that these people would never believe, so punishment is justified.

I still don't see why this makes sense - I endeavoured to address this point in my previous post. Saying that if these people had eternal life they would still disbelieve is just admitting that you're punishing someone for what they would do rather than what they have done. Please can you demonstrate how it is just to punish somebody for something they have not done.

On a similar note, perhaps you could also justify why it is proper to punish someone for being a disbeliever at all? Disbelief is just an opinion - you're not causing other people to die, or suffer pain, or be in fear for their lives or well-being just by entertaining an opinion. This appears to be the worst 'sin' in Islam, yet I have found no reasonable case as to why disbelief is worse than murder, rape, genocide, robbery, assault etc.

These "finite crimes" are enough to last one an eternity!

How is that just? As I pointed out previously, justice relies on the punishment being proportionate to the crime committed. An eternal punishment is not in proportion to a finite crime. You obviously believe that punishing someone for eternity is ok, but I haven't seen any justification - any reasoned argument - as to why this should be the case.

Haven't they already DONE disbelieve?

Sure, and if disbelieving is worthy of being punished (see above) then you should be punished for a time that is proportionate to the length of time that you disbelieved. Eternity is not proportionate to any finite time of transgression.

You clearly didn't read all of the posts.

Please could you point out which post addresses my point that as it's impossible to exist for eternity then never-ending punishment is disproportionate.

It is actually these people who have brought it upon themselves! It is because of their actions that God put seal on their hearts!

Which actions? Is it because they disbelieve that God then decides to place the seal so that they cannot believe? At what point does God decide to do this and why? Surely there would be some people who disbelieve who would, later in life, believe and thus not need to be punished so severely - isn't this just pre-judgement from God? Of course, perhaps God only places seals on people that it already knows will never believe, but in that case why bother putting the seal in place? It appears that by placing a seal God is already condemning them to eternal torture and thus effectively judging them before they've even died!

And how do you know that? You are also just assuming things up! And I think I read it somewhere that Go would forgive many after their prescribed punishment.

I wouldn't presume to 'know' anything about God - note my use of the word 'may' in that statement you were quoting. Have you read any statement that says God will forgive everyone, believer and unbeliever alike, after some finite time? God may well forgive someone after their prescribed punishment, but that's not much comfort for someone who's been prescribed for punishment for eternity. Being forgiven 'after eternity' is the same as saying that it'll never happen!


(P.s. My apologies for not replying to you on the 'Prove Allah Exists' thread - I didn't have time before the thread was locked and I can't PM you until I have 50 posts done.)

[جوري]

God isn't unjust to the people.. what people think or 'feel' of who ought to be punished or not is in fact irrelevant.. we can all state our grievances on the day of recompense.. but I don't see why any atheist should worry or feel injustice toward such a day when they don't believe it is to take place all together? Is it a desperate ploy to work on the emotionality of others? I simply don't see how it is of consequence otherwise since no man's judgment lies with another man!

[Masuma]

An33za,
I still don't see why this makes sense - I endeavoured to address this point in my previous post. Saying that if these people had eternal life they would still disbelieve is just admitting that you're punishing someone for what they would do rather than what they have done. Please can you demonstrate how it is just to punish somebody for something they have not done.

Now first of all I want to clear a few things up. The eternal torture in hell would be the punishment of those who do SHIRK (associating partners with Allah). So can "disbelievers" be also included in this category? :-\ I don't know. The verses of the Quran says

4:48 Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed.

4:116 Allah forgiveth not (The sin of) joining other gods with Him; but He forgiveth whom He pleaseth other sins than this: one who joins other gods with Allah, Hath strayed far, far away (from the right).

But even Shirk can be forgiven by Allah (swt) through repentance. But if a person dies doing shirk and never even repented, then he will burn in hell for eternity!

So I feel like I should be the last person having this discussion as I'm not much knowledgeable.

And about justification, we have already tried to clear that point and my answer still remains same that the person would never have learned even if they were given a life of eternity. Allah knows it as He can see our future too, so therefore the punishment is justified.

Please could you point out which post addresses my point that as it's impossible to exist for eternity then never-ending punishment is disproportionate.

Look, the problem is that I find many posts addressing this point but YOU don't! :hmm:
Like for example, this and many other posts clearly answers it all IMO.

All muslims who are unfortunate enough to enter hell will be punished for a limited amount of time, until they are cleansed of their sins, then they will enter jannah. The disbelievers on the other hand, those who died in disbelief will be punished for an eternity. The reasoning as per Anwar Al Awlaki is quite simple. The disbelievers only stopped their disbelief because death came to them, if death did not come to them then they would have continued to disbelieve for an eternity. Therefore their punishment is for an eternity, seems fair to me.

On a similar note, perhaps you could also justify why it is proper to punish someone for being a disbeliever at all? Disbelief is just an opinion - you're not causing other people to die, or suffer pain, or be in fear for their lives or well-being just by entertaining an opinion. This appears to be the worst 'sin' in Islam, yet I have found no reasonable case as to why disbelief is worse than murder, rape, genocide, robbery, assault etc.

No, Allah says that SHIRK is the worst crime in Islam. But I don't know about "disbelieving". It is also a crime but don't know if it is the worst crime or not. People who do SHIRK will be punished for eternity but disbelievers are also punished. I don't know the reason as i told you before that I'm not that knowledgeable. Allah has said it and so it'll be. If someone more knowledgeable replies then it is much better as this is a very good question and I would like to know too! :)

Which actions? Is it because they disbelieve that God then decides to place the seal so that they cannot believe?

Now again I on't know much. This is because in Quran, Allah puts seal on peoples' heart for various crimes. It's not that only the disbelievers have a seal on their heart but people who do some other kind of transgression also has it.

Now about "putting seal on the hearts", I would suggest that we should discuss it latter as this topic is just so vast! We can deal with one topic at a time.

At what point does God decide to do this and why? Surely there would be some people who disbelieve who would, later in life, believe and thus not need to be punished so severely

No you don't understand! If these people are later going to believe in their life, then why should they be punished at all?! I've also said it above that if people would repent, Allah would forgive them for sins as heinous as Shirk!

The people who we are talking about here, are those who are ignorant and so stubborn that they would NEVER EVER believe! And Allah knows it already!

- isn't this just pre-judgement from God? Of course, perhaps God only places seals on people that it already knows will never believe, but in that case why bother putting the seal in place?

I don't think we are understanding the meaning of "putting seal on someone's heart" correctly. :-\
Maybe this would help.
People say that good happenings are from Allah and when something bad happens to them, they blame each other. But Allah says that whatever happens to a person is what is from Allah.
So these people, though their own crimes have brought it upon themselves, but still Allah says that it is from Him; that Allah has put seal on their heart.

Now if I had known more verses of the Quran, I could have explained it better in their light but I don't know more. Maybe the other brothers or sisters here would help? :statisfie

I wouldn't presume to 'know' anything about God - note my use of the word 'may' in that statement you were quoting. Have you read any statement that says God will forgive everyone, believer and unbeliever alike, after some finite time?

Yeah i read it in one post in this thread

It is mentioned in Surah Al Anaam Verses 128

....(But) He will say : The Fire shall be your abode, therein to abide - unless God wills it otherwise. Verily your Sustainer is Wise, All Knowing!"


"Unless God Wills otherwise".. means according to many Muslim Theologians that Unless Allah (swt) has Mercy on them and ends their suffering in Hell. So the Blissful life of Paradise is Eternal and forever, BUT the suffering of the Fire is not Forever and is only Limited, depending on the Evil that the people of the fire committed in this Life....

That is why i am sincerely suggesting you to read all other posts here. InshAllah that would help.

And some other verses

39:53-55 Say: "O my Servants who have transgressed against their souls! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah. for Allah forgives all sins: for He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Turn ye to our Lord (in repentance) and bow to His (Will), before the Penalty comes on you: after that ye shall not be helped. And follow the best of (the courses) revealed to you from your Lord, before the Penalty comes on you - of a sudden while ye perceive not!


4:17-18 Allah accepts the repentance of those who do evil in ignorance and foolishness and repent soon afterwards; it is they to whom Allah will forgive and Allah is Ever All Knower, All Wise. And of no effect is the repentance of those who continue to do evil deeds until death faces one of them and he says: "Now I repent;" nor of those who die while they are disbelievers. For them We have prepared a painful torment.

Peace!

[DuncG]

An33za,

Thanks again for the detailed response.

Ok, I understand that there may be orders of severity for different crimes. I believe I read at some place on this board that disbelief was the worst crime, but I don't think it really affects the principle of the argument if shirk is worse. At the end of the day, shirk is also an opinion and so falls under the same point I made in my previous post: that I don't see how it can be worse than all those crimes that cause death and gratuitous physical suffering.

And about justification, we have already tried to clear that point and my answer still remains same that the person would never have learned even if they were given a life of eternity. Allah knows it as He can see our future too, so therefore the punishment is justified.

Yes, this does seem to be the sticking point. If you're happy accepting that as a justification then that's good for you, but I simply cannot see how this avoids punishing someone for what they haven't done. For example, if the same standard was applied across the board, would anyone get out of Hell? I've read in the other posts that some muslims will be in Hell for a limited amount of time to pay for the crimes that they committed, after which they will be released. However, if you used the same principle to ask 'what if they lived forever?' then surely they would, over the course of eternity, commit an infinite amount of crimes similar to the ones they are being punished for in Hell after their finite lifetime. Therefore, if the same standard is applied, they should also be punished for eternity for the things that they would do.

So why does this double-standard exist? Why look to the eternal future of an immortal unbeliever or person committing shirk, yet not to the eternal future of a believer that has committed crimes worthy of punishment?

This applies equally to the point by Muslimeen that you quoted. It is also true that muslims that sin only stop sinning when death comes to them, therefore they should receive a similar eternal punishment.

But the post by Muslimeen does not address why it is just to punish someone for something they haven't done. If someone arrested you today and imprisoned you for a crime that you would commit if you lived to 178 years of age, then I think that you would agree that was unjust. If you believe someone should be continually punished for a crime that was only stopped when they died, then you are already accepting that punishing someone for things they haven't done is ok - but you haven't explained why it's ok. That's the explanation I'm looking for and it's not in any of the posts in this thread, as far as I can see.


Regarding God putting seals on peoples' hearts, I agree that we should leave that for a future discussion. There's all sorts of complications with predestination that would follow from that, which would derail too much.


Regarding that passage from syed_z that you quoted - unfortunately I don't see where it says that 'God will forgive everyone, believer and unbeliever alike, after some finite time', as I asked about previously. Saying that 'you will abide in Hell unless God wills it otherwise' does not say that God will ever will that - it only means that God might will it. God might will to forgive an unbeliever or someone who commits shirk, but there's nothing I've read that states categorically that God will definitely forgive these sins. As I also pointed out earlier, if God forgives some unbelievers and not others, then this simply looks capricious and therefore unjust.

Lastly, the verses you quoted at the end appear to be more about repentance than forgiveness - the forgiveness appears to be conditional on repentance. This doesn't really address what happens to unbelievers who die without repenting or people who commit shirk that may have repented to the wrong deity. Indeed, 4:17-18 makes clear that disbelievers are going to receive a 'painful torment' - there's no mention of whether this is finite or infinite.


I know, as you say, that you are no expert on these theological points, so it would be good if others could also comment. But I'd like to ask these questions anyway as a means to exploring the ethical foundations of Islam.

[Muslimeen]

An33za,

This applies equally to the point by Muslimeen that you quoted. It is also true that muslims that sin only stop sinning when death comes to them, therefore they should receive a similar eternal punishment.

But the foundation is there. He believed in Allah, even though he was a sinner. To understand this you need to understand how great a GIFT this Imaan(Faith in Allah) is, how valuable it is in the eyes of Allah. A person can loose everything in his life, parents, wife, children, wealth, house, cars, clothes and even his food, but that is just a very small loss. Loose your Imaan and you have lost everything. A king without Imaan is a pauper and a begger with Imaan is a King. Allah does not descriminate on ones skin colour, age, sex, financial status or anything material of this world. All Allah asks of us is to believe in him and do righteous deeds. That is all, I don't think this is asking for too much. In fact Allah will even ask the disbelievers on the day of Judgement, "if they are prepared to ransom themselves with the whole capacity of the earth in gold?" They will reply, "Yes". Allah will say to them, "I asked you for much less than that". But they did not accept.

“Indeed, those who disbelieve and die while they are disbelievers – never would the (whole) capacity of the earth in gold be accepted from one of them if he would (seek to) ransom himself with it. For those there will be a painful punishment, and they will have no helpers.” (Quran 3:91)

An33za,
But the post by Muslimeen does not address why it is just to punish someone for something they haven't done. If someone arrested you today and imprisoned you for a crime that you would commit if you lived to 178 years of age, then I think that you would agree that was unjust. If you believe someone should be continually punished for a crime that was only stopped when they died, then you are already accepting that punishing someone for things they haven't done is ok - but you haven't explained why it's ok. That's the explanation I'm looking for and it's not in any of the posts in this thread, as far as I can see.

When you write an exam you are given only 2 or 3 hours to complete. If you pass it in that time well and good, you can go on and live a successful life. If you fail too bad, you can go on living as an illiterate for the rest of your life. You surely cannot accept Allah to give them life for an eternity, Allah in his infinite wisdom knows the condition of every persons heart. Though there will be varying stages in Jahannam where every person even the disbelievers will be treated according to their evils.

Some things are best left in the hands of Allah, his decision and decree will come to pass. None has the power to change that. If he has decided they will burn forever then for me that is right. They should indeed burn forever, they are his creation, he will do with them as he pleases. You tend to harbour on the fact that Allah is unjust, but here is a story I heard of what Allah asked Noah (AS) to do after he prayed to Allah to destroy his people because of their disbelief. I am writing it out of memory so please excuse any errors of omissions.

After Allah destroy the people of Nuh (AS), Allah asked him to build clay pots for him. Nuh (AS) started to build these pots, with great care and pride, because it was for Allah. After he was done building these pots very happy with himself and really admiring how beautiful they looked. He presents them to Allah. Allah then commands him to break them, it is the command of Allah so he has no choice, but does this with a very heavy heart. As he breaks them he starts to weep, he had taken so much time and trouble to build them at the first, now he has got to break them.
Upon seeing this Allah asks Nuh (AS), "Why are you crying" he replies "Because you asked me to break the pots that I have built with so much dedication and hard work" Allah replies "Oh Nuh, you are crying over clay pots, which cannot help anyone, they are lifeless, but I destroyed my creation who had life, because you asked me to, even though they did not believe in me, they were still my creation, imagine how much pain I must have felt in destroying them."

Allah does not take pleasure in punishing or destroying anyone. If you find yourself in the fire of Hell for an eternity, you have no one to blame but yourself. So the sooner you accept this reality the better. May allah guide us. Ameen.

[syed_z]

@DuncG

Regarding that passage from syed_z that you quoted - unfortunately I don't see where it says that 'God will forgive everyone, believer and unbeliever alike, after some finite time', as I asked about previously. Saying that 'you will abide in Hell unless God wills it otherwise' does not say that God will ever will that - it only means that God might will it. God might will to forgive an unbeliever or someone who commits shirk, but there's nothing I've read that states categorically that God will definitely forgive these sins. As I also pointed out earlier, if God forgives some unbelievers and not others, then this simply looks capricious and therefore unjust.

So from where I see sister Aneeza has already said many times to you to look at all posts… which you did not do… so I guess we have to Post it again… we can for you to help you understand… but you should also cooperate while asking questions…

So I posted this…

It is mentioned in Surah Al Anaam Verses 128

....(But) He will say : The Fire shall be your abode, therein to abide - unless God wills it otherwise. Verily your Sustainer is Wise, All Knowing!"


"Unless God Wills otherwise".. means according to many Muslim Theologians that Unless Allah (swt) has Mercy on them and ends their suffering in Hell. So the Blissful life of Paradise is Eternal and forever, BUT the suffering of the Fire is not Forever and is only Limited, depending on the Evil that the people of the fire committed in this Life....

In a well Authentic Tradition The Apostle of Allah (saw) said "(on the day of Judgment), those who deserve Paradise will enter Paradise, and those who deserve Fire, the fire. Thereupon God, the Sublimely Exalted, will say, 'Take out (of the fire) every one in whose heart there was as much of Faith (or, in some versions, "as much good") as a grain of a mustard seed!' And so they will be taken out of it, already blackened, and will be thrown in to the River of Life; and they will come to life (sprout) as a herb sprouts by the side of the stream: and did you not see how it comes out yellow and budding?"

(Bukhari, on the authority of Abu Said al-Khudri (r.a), in Kitab Al-Iman)

Since Quran mentions....


(16:44) We raised the Messengers earlier with Clear Signs and Divine Books, and We have now sent down this Reminder upon you that you may elucidate to people the teaching that has been sent down for them and that the people may themselves reflect.


So Muhammad (Saw) was the expounder of the Quran and so he explained in a Hadith which i have quoted above which explains that HOW those people will be saved....and what types of People will be saved... meaning those who have to have ATLEAST a dot of goodness, and the Verse where Allah (swt) says .."Unless Allah Wills Otherwise"...does not differentiate about the ones who committed Shirk or not... niether does the Hadith... so this should make it clear for you...

believe I read at some place on this board that disbelief was the worst crime, but I don't think it really affects the principle of the argument if shirk is worse. At the end of the day, shirk is also an opinion and so falls under the same point I made in my previous post: that I don't see how it can be worse than all those crimes that cause death and gratuitous physical suffering.

Please Refer to Post #34..... help yourself can't repeat it sorry :)

For example, if the same standard was applied across the board, would anyone get out of Hell? I've read in the other posts that some muslims will be in Hell for a limited amount of time to pay for the crimes that they committed, after which they will be released. However, if you used the same principle to ask 'what if they lived forever?' then surely they would, over the course of eternity, commit an infinite amount of crimes similar to the ones they are being punished for in Hell after their finite lifetime. Therefore, if the same standard is applied, they should also be punished for eternity for the things that they would do.

So why does this double-standard exist? Why look to the eternal future of an immortal unbeliever or person committing shirk, yet not to the eternal future of a believer that has committed crimes worthy of punishment?

This applies equally to the point by Muslimeen that you quoted. It is also true that muslims that sin only stop sinning when death comes to them, therefore they should receive a similar eternal punishment.

But the post by Muslimeen does not address why it is just to punish someone for something they haven't done. If someone arrested you today and imprisoned you for a crime that you would commit if you lived to 178 years of age, then I think that you would agree that was unjust. If you believe someone should be continually punished for a crime that was only stopped when they died, then you are already accepting that punishing someone for things they haven't done is ok - but you haven't explained why it's ok. That's the explanation I'm looking for and it's not in any of the posts in this thread, as far as I can see.

1st of all brother i would like to thank you for asking that Question...


What you said regarding Muslims IF were allowed to Live forever, and they would continue doing crimes and there fore their Punishment should also be for eternity, just as how Allah (Swt) judges a disbeliever or a Mushrik (one who commits Shirk) and sentences them to Hell forever.... so the Hadith Mentioned above of those being brought out of hell the ones, who have even a goodness equivalent to an extent of a Dot will be taken out.... that includes Muslims and Non Muslims... so this should explain...

2nd Point that i would like to make... that Not the mushriks and Not the Disbelievers, rather the Hypocrites (Munafiqs) will be in the LOWEST depth of the Hell Fire.. as Quran speaks....


(4:145) Verily the Hypocrites Shall be in the Lowest Depth of the fire, and you will find none who could them. (146) But excepted shall be they who repent and live righteously....


So the one to be in the Lowest Depths, which means lowest and there is NO lower than this one, would be those Muslims, who pretend to be with Muslims and are not Just pretending and living and with in their Hearts they are NOT actual believers... now what is a the criteria to be a Hypocrite... Muhammad (Saw) clearly mentioned their Characteristics and Quran explains them, but that another Discussion...don't want to go there... but you can ask questions if youd like to to... so my point was to tell you that Muslims who are just Muslim by Name does not entitle them to A Paradise forever....because Quran Addresses the Muslims, else where that just how Kafirs (Disbelievers) can fail in the Test of their Lives Muslims and Believers can ALSO!...


(8:25)And beware of that temptation to evil which does not befall only those who are bent on denying the Truth (i.e Disbelievers, Kafirs), to the exclusion of the others; and God is severe in Retribution.

by Allah (swt) saying... Temptation to Evil (i.e Tests and Trials).....since this Life is nothing but a Test for all Mankind, Allah (Swt)/God admonishes the Muslims as well, that BE AWARE... just as how the Disbelievers disbelieved and have gone astray from the path, you TOO will be led astray in this Test of life, if you do not remain Conscious of God, and therefore do NOT think that just because you have accepted Islam or born or raised in a Muslim family, you are entitled to Jannah (Paradise)... it is only God Consciousness at all times, for a person that can save them from Eternal Hell fire or Suffering in Hell fire because then one does good at all times...so that should Clarify the Muslims not getting a Privilege if they do crimes or acts, like Disbelievers...

This doesn't really address what happens to unbelievers who die without repenting or people who commit shirk that may have repented to the wrong deity. Indeed, 4:17-18 makes clear that disbelievers are going to receive a 'painful torment' - there's no mention of whether this is finite or infinite.

These Verses do NOT mention only Believers Repenting... they mentions about Muslims and Non Muslims Repenting... as the Verses say... those who do evil deeds... meaning Allah/God is the Most Just... He only punishes them if they have done Evil deeds...



Quran mentions ....

".. for all shall be judged according to their conscious deeds - and your Sustainer in NOT unaware of what they do." (6:132)


DuncG you did not look at post #34... i mentioned this Verse as well it explains How Allah (swt) deals with Justice...

if you have more Questions ask... Insha Allah (If Allah Wills) we brothers/sisters can answer for you ... :)

[Masuma]

But I'd like to ask these questions anyway as a means to exploring the ethical foundations of Islam.

No, no! There lies the whole problem! If you really want to explore the ethical foundations of Islam, then please ask scholars and knowledgeable people. We here on this forum, only presents our views to others which can be wrong too.

In this way what if you'll get a wrong picture of the whole thing?! :exhausted
So I suggest to just take it as our opinion and not the final binding words. :)

Ok, I understand that there may be orders of severity for different crimes. I believe I read at some place on this board that disbelief was the worst crime,

Yeah so we need to confirm that too. Also that what punishment disbelievers will get? Will it also be an eternal punishment for them or not? And whether disbelieving can be considered as Shirk?

but I don't think it really affects the principle of the argument if shirk is worse. At the end of the day, shirk is also an opinion and so falls under the same point I made in my previous post: that I don't see how it can be worse than all those crimes that cause death and gratuitous physical suffering.

As I told you before, that this question is really good and I myself would like to know why. I have yet to read the following posts of my scholar brothers here :statisfie, maybe they've already clarified it?!

And just adding my opinion; I think that Shirk is a worst crime because it is a clear cut rebellion against the Lord of all worlds!!! Astaghfirullah! Allah, who has created everything would not stand this association of partners with Allah. I mean it makes sense to me that someone who invites you to his home, takes so much perfect care of you that you yourself is overwhelmed by his generosity; and then when the time comes for you to leave, instead of thanking him, you start thanking other people or even trees and rocks! How angry it would make your host?!

Yes, this does seem to be the sticking point. If you're happy accepting that as a justification then that's good for you, but I simply cannot see how this avoids punishing someone for what they haven't done.

I'm so tired, m sorry! :( But i am simply repeating myself over and over again!
"These people HAVE done shirk and they would love to CONTINUE doing Shirk if they are given the chance. These people would never want to GIVE UP shirk no matter what!

For example, if the same standard was applied across the board, would anyone get out of Hell? I've read in the other posts that some muslims will be in Hell for a limited amount of time to pay for the crimes that they committed, after which they will be released. However, if you used the same principle to ask 'what if they lived forever?' then surely they would, over the course of eternity, commit an infinite amount of crimes similar to the ones they are being punished for in Hell after their finite lifetime. Therefore, if the same standard is applied, they should also be punished for eternity for the things that they would do.

Now note that we are talking about MUSLIMS here. A Muslim by definition means one who submits his/her will to Allah.

Now note that no human is perfect. Everyone of us do so many mistakes in our lifetime and latter repent for it (or not).

Same is the case with Muslims. Yes Muslims too commit many crimes in their life but do they commit SHIRK?

If they commit Shirk, and don't repent for it till death approaches them, then they would TOO burn in hell for eternity!

But if these Muslims did some OTHER type of crime, less severe than SHIRK, then as the verse says, "Allah can forgive all other crimes except Shirk if He wills". :statisfie

So the eternal punishment is for those who DO SHIRK! The "things" that these Muslims did, they will be punished according to the severity of their crimes!

So why does this double-standard exist? Why look to the eternal future of an immortal unbeliever or person committing shirk, yet not to the eternal future of a believer that has committed crimes worthy of punishment?

No double standards!"These crimes worth of punishment" will be definitely taken in account but it is ONLY Shirk (as far as I know) which is worthy of eternal punishment.

Now I think that we should be asking question as to

"Why Shirk and disbelieving considered such a big crime in Islam?"

And I too would love to know the answer.

But the post by Muslimeen does not address why it is just to punish someone for something they haven't done.

Now I am this ------> :skeleton:

These people HAVE already DONE shirk and they love keep on doing it.

I would try to give an own-made example but I think it won't work.

Now there is a rapist who has raped 50 girls and he would keep wanting to continue doing it. He has many times been warned but he won't stop! He has plans to NEVER EVER give it up as he has never been caught.

One day he makes a plan to find a new catch but fortunately he was accidentally trampled, crushed and squashed like a filthy bug by a trolley. So what do you think he should be punished for? Yeah he SHOULD be punished for the 50 rapes he did but what about those he was PLANING to do? What about this feeling that he would NEVER EVER give this up???

So an eternal is totally justified!

Regarding that passage from syed_z that you quoted - unfortunately I don't see where it says that 'God will forgive everyone, believer and unbeliever alike, after some finite time', as I asked about previously

No what I wanted to clarify was this that God will forgive people for the crimes that they did if He wills, except Shirk.

So when Allah is forgiving someone, then that automatically makes it a "finite" punishment because the person is no more going to suffer.

4:48Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed.

4:116Allah forgiveth not (The sin of) joining other gods with Him; but He forgiveth whom He pleaseth other sins than this: one who joins other gods with Allah, Hath strayed far, far away (from the right).

Saying that 'you will abide in Hell unless God wills it otherwise' does not say that God will ever will that - it only means that God might will it. God might will to forgive an unbeliever or someone who commits shirk, but there's nothing I've read that states categorically that God will definitely forgive these sins.

Yeah I know. It is funny...duuno why but it is! ;D Look, I can only say that Allah will forgive many people, like one statement which I quoted before where Allah is forgiving a person who truly recited Shahadah in his/her life.

I know you are asking about the "surety" of God forgiving but I don't have any. I think no one has. But know that brother, Allah is the most merciful! You don't realize it now because you are an Atheist, but you can at least TRY. And look at it this way.

You are living in a Earth which belongs to Allah;the very air you are breathing is made by Allah. Your EVERYTHING is actually Allah's possession! And you are DENYING even His existence?! If He wants it, He can surely take it from you but don't you realize that He has still not taken everything back?! And He is still keep giving you chances to come back to Him?!

And to tell you the truth, you have so far been questioning about God's justice but you know what I feel? I feel YOU (Atheists, Agnostics etc) to be the most unjust person in reality!

As I also pointed out earlier, if God forgives some unbelievers and not others, then this simply looks capricious and therefore unjust.

God didn't ask these "others" to commit Shirk?! God even warned them over and over again against it! But these people didn't listen! Some unbelievers who are forgiven were those who committed OTHER type of crimes, NOT shirk!

Lastly, the verses you quoted at the end appear to be more about repentance than forgiveness - the forgiveness appears to be conditional on repentance. This doesn't really address what happens to unbelievers who die without repenting or people who commit shirk that may have repented to the wrong deity.

Yes I think that there is a condition for forgiveness and that is "through repentance".
Now I also need to confirm whether Allah forgives without repentance or not?!

And I don't know whether it addresses to "what happens to unbelievers who die without repenting", because as I said before, I don't know what is the punishment of unbelievers but this totally addresses to "people who commit shirk that may have repented to wrong deity". These people will burn in hell for forever!

Indeed, 4:17-18 makes clear that disbelievers are going to receive a 'painful torment' - there's no mention of whether this is finite or infinite.

Yeah totally! But I only got hold of one verse of the Quran. :embarrass And so I posted it. There would be many many verses explaining this further (of whether it is a finite punishment or infinite) and I have yet to read them. :embarrass

And yeah I'm sorry for saying that I'm tired! You can ask as many questions as you want brother! :)

[DuncG]

Thanks to those that have replied to my points. Unfortunately I've got to be away for a few days, so I hope to get back to you early(ish) next week. Have a good rest-of-week and a nice weekend!

[Asiyah3]

It's always appeared to me that Hell, as a concept, is unjust.

Peace,

You don't believe in hell. Why waste your time on the punishment or it's justice?

[DuncG]

Muslimeen,

But the foundation is there. He believed in Allah, even though he was a sinner. To understand this you need to understand how great a GIFT this Imaan(Faith in Allah) is, how valuable it is in the eyes of Allah. A person can loose everything in his life, parents, wife, children, wealth, house, cars, clothes and even his food, but that is just a very small loss. Loose your Imaan and you have lost everything. A king without Imaan is a pauper and a begger with Imaan is a King. Allah does not descriminate on ones skin colour, age, sex, financial status or anything material of this world.

So in what way does this justify eternal punishment for disbelievers and only limited punishment for believers? How do you go from ‘you didn’t believe such-and-such, therefore you deserve eternal punishment’, to ‘you did believe such-and-such, therefore you’ll have only a limited punishment? Why is justice predicated on belief in this significant case, rather than on the crimes committed that brought pain/suffering/death to others?

All Allah asks of us is to believe in him and do righteous deeds. That is all, I don't think this is asking for too much. In fact Allah will even ask the disbelievers on the day of Judgement, "if they are prepared to ransom themselves with the whole capacity of the earth in gold?" They will reply, "Yes". Allah will say to them, "I asked you for much less than that". But they did not accept.

Well, I’m sure if you were offered all the gold in the world you wouldn’t become an atheist or a member of another religion. This appears to be a point of principle – you can’t simply buy someone else’s honest change of opinion. That looks like a trick question to me – anyone who accepts the gold obviously doesn’t value their own personal integrity.

If he has decided they will burn forever then for me that is right. They should indeed burn forever, they are his creation, he will do with them as he pleases.

Well, this appears to be an Appeal to Authority, rather than a reasoned explanation of why something is or is not just.

It’s not just eternal punishment that appears unjust here – doing as you please with something you create isn’t always justified: a builder, in some cases, cannot burn down the building that he has created, especially if there are other people in it. This also appears to imply a certain lack of responsibility – if we could create independent, sentient life forms, would we really be justified as treating them however we wanted? (This issue has been explored in some depth in dozens of science fiction novels regarding artificial intelligences, for example.)

You tend to harbour on the fact that Allah is unjust, but here is a story I heard of what Allah asked Noah (AS) to do after he prayed to Allah to destroy his people because of their disbelief. I am writing it out of memory so please excuse any errors of omissions.

Well, the justifiability of God’s punishment is the subject of this thread and it’s a subject that interests me greatly as it affects the way people generate their ethical systems and how they approach justice.

Unfortunately I cannot see much justice involved with the story you provided. It appears more as an appeal from God for Noah to empathise with God’s pain and recognise that the loss of some pots isn’t a huge deal in the grand scheme of things. There are no explanations there as to why certain actions are justified.

Allah does not take pleasure in punishing or destroying anyone. If you find yourself in the fire of Hell for an eternity, you have no one to blame but yourself.

I can’t really accept that when it’s not us who make the rules. In Islam it appears that it is God that prescribes the law and the consequent punishments for transgression. God designed the system and therefore shoulders a significant responsibility for its consequences. As I’ve pointed out, eternal punishment for finite crimes doesn’t appear to have a reasoned justification – it is clearly disproportionate punishment.

[DuncG]

Syed_Z,

Thanks for your detailed response.

"Unless God Wills otherwise".. means according to many Muslim Theologians that Unless Allah (swt) has Mercy on them and ends their suffering in Hell. So the Blissful life of Paradise is Eternal and forever, BUT the suffering of the Fire is not Forever and is only Limited, depending on the Evil that the people of the fire committed in this Life....

Unfortunately I still don’t see how the limited nature of Hell can be derived from the statement ‘… unless God wills otherwise …’ This is a conditional statement that in no ways declares that God will decide to have mercy on all of those that are committed to Hell. If God is going to have mercy (eventually) on everyone, then why is eternal punishment even mentioned or considered at all?

In a well Authentic Tradition The Apostle of Allah (saw) said "(on the day of Judgment), those who deserve Paradise will enter Paradise, and those who deserve Fire, the fire. Thereupon God, the Sublimely Exalted, will say, 'Take out (of the fire) every one in whose heart there was as much of Faith (or, in some versions, "as much good") as a grain of a mustard seed!' And so they will be taken out of it, already blackened, and will be thrown in to the River of Life; and they will come to life (sprout) as a herb sprouts by the side of the stream: and did you not see how it comes out yellow and budding?"

So what about those that have not even as much ‘good’ or ‘faith’ as a grain of a mustard seed? This statement implies that those people will not be forgiven.

These statements that you’ve quoted and similar ones that I’ve read in this thread make it clear that some, but not all, people will be released from Hell. However, this misses the point of this thread: some people will not be released and will therefore receive an eternal punishment. Now, it may be a tiny minority of people that receive eternal punishment, but the questions still stands regardless: how is eternal punishment justified for limited, mortal humans that can only commit a limited amount of crimes in their lives? Why is the punishment infinitely disproportionate to the transgressions?

If you believe that all those that enter Hell will, after some finite time, be forgiven and removed, then this question doesn’t apply to you. Perhaps it would make an interesting subject for a poll on the forum: who here believes that some will be punished in Hell for eternity?

What you said regarding Muslims IF were allowed to Live forever, and they would continue doing crimes and there fore their Punishment should also be for eternity, just as how Allah (Swt) judges a disbeliever or a Mushrik (one who commits Shirk) and sentences them to Hell forever.... so the Hadith Mentioned above of those being brought out of hell the ones, who have even a goodness equivalent to an extent of a Dot will be taken out.... that includes Muslims and Non Muslims... so this should explain...

Again, as above, this addresses those that will be released from Hell, not those that will not. I think what would help here is if you could clarify whether you believe if anyone will suffer an eternal punishment.

Regarding the discussion of shirk, hypocrites etc. and the position of these crimes on the scale of punishment – I agree, it is another whole topic. It would be interesting to go over this in future to investigate the justifications for why some of these crimes are considered worse than others, but I think it would be better not to derail this thread at present.

[DuncG]

An33za,

If you really want to explore the ethical foundations of Islam, then please ask scholars and knowledgeable people. We here on this forum, only presents our views to others which can be wrong too.

In this way what if you'll get a wrong picture of the whole thing?!
So I suggest to just take it as our opinion and not the final binding words.

Sure, I appreciate that. But, at the end of the day, any ideology is only as good as the understanding of its proponents. I’m unlikely to ever have any interaction with islamic scholars, but getting a general understanding of what muslims believe and how they form their ethical basis is what’s important to me.

These people HAVE done shirk and they would love to CONTINUE doing Shirk if they are given the chance. These people would never want to GIVE UP shirk no matter what!

Ok, so do you believe it’s justified to punish someone for something they’ve only thought of doing as if they’ve actually done it? Do you really consider thinking and doing as equivalent actions that merit identical punishments? If you do, please can you explain how thinking about an action and committing that action cause the same amount of suffering and thus merit equivalent punishment.

Now note that we are talking about MUSLIMS here. A Muslim by definition means one who submits his/her will to Allah.

Now note that no human is perfect. Everyone of us do so many mistakes in our lifetime and latter repent for it (or not).

Same is the case with Muslims. Yes Muslims too commit many crimes in their life but do they commit SHIRK?

If they commit Shirk, and don't repent for it till death approaches them, then they would TOO burn in hell for eternity!

But if these Muslims did some OTHER type of crime, less severe than SHIRK, then as the verse says, "Allah can forgive all other crimes except Shirk if He wills".

So the eternal punishment is for those who DO SHIRK! The "things" that these Muslims did, they will be punished according to the severity of their crimes!

This appears to contradict what Syed_Z was talking about with regard to having goodness equivalent to a mustard seed. That appears to make clear that even those who do commit shirk will be forgiven if they’re even slightly good. The only way that these two statements would not contradict is if every person who commits shirk does not have a trace of goodness in them.

But I don’t see how your comments above address my point of the double standard. Unbelievers will be punished for unbelieving when they were alive and also for the unbelieving they would have committed when they were dead, according to your justification for eternal punishment. Believers will only be punished for the crimes they committed while alive, it appears. This doesn’t have anything specifically to do with shirk.

No double standards!"These crimes worth of punishment" will be definitely taken in account but it is ONLY Shirk (as far as I know) which is worthy of eternal punishment.

Well, sure, if disbelieving is only worthy of limited punishment then that double standard does disappear. However, it’s simply replaced with the double standard of punishing those who commit a limited amount of shirk in their lifetime for eternity, while not punishing for eternity those that commit a limited amount of any other crime.

These people HAVE already DONE shirk and they love keep on doing it.

I would try to give an own-made example but I think it won't work.

Now there is a rapist who has raped 50 girls and he would keep wanting to continue doing it. He has many times been warned but he won't stop! He has plans to NEVER EVER give it up as he has never been caught.

One day he makes a plan to find a new catch but fortunately he was accidentally trampled, crushed and squashed like a filthy bug by a trolley. So what do you think he should be punished for? Yeah he SHOULD be punished for the 50 rapes he did but what about those he was PLANING to do? What about this feeling that he would NEVER EVER give this up???

So an eternal is totally justified!

As I’ve asked you above, this again comes back to whether thoughts should be punished as if they were actions. Personally I can’t see how this is justified. Punishment should be meted out in order to provide justice, where justice is required to ‘compensate’ someone else for the suffering/death/material loss they have experienced as a result of the crime. Thinking about something, no matter how evil that something would be if it was actually acted out, simply does not impact anyone else – there is no need for ‘compensation’.

What you’re effectively saying above is that this rapist should receive a limited punishment for the limited number of rapes that he committed. But then he should be punished eternally for the infinite number of rapes he would like to commit if he got the opportunity (regardless of the fact that infinite crime is physically impossible). Thus, you’re effectively admitting here that thinking about something is actually worse than committing the criminal action! I do not see how this is reasonable.

So when Allah is forgiving someone, then that automatically makes it a "finite" punishment because the person is no more going to suffer.

Sure, I recognise this. I’m interested in those that are not forgiven, as I’ve described in my post to Syed_Z, above.

Thanks again for taking so much time to address my points.

[DuncG]

muslimah,

You don't believe in hell. Why waste your time on the punishment or it's justice?

Because up to ~1.8 billion people on this planet do believe in the islamic Hell and I think it forms an important part of their concept of justice and punishment. I think studying the ethical foundations of an ideology is immensely important because it directly influences how the followers of that ideology behave towards other people (including how they enact their own judicial systems).

That being said, do you have a justification as to why eternal punishment is merited for some people?

[Asiyah3]

muslimah,



Because up to ~1.8 billion people on this planet do believe in the islamic Hell and I think it forms an important part of their concept of justice and punishment. I think studying the ethical foundations of an ideology is immensely important because it directly influences how the followers of that ideology behave towards other people (including how they enact their own judicial systems).

That being said, do you have a justification as to why eternal punishment is merited for some people?

“He cannot be questioned as to what He does, while they will be questioned”

[al-Anbiya’ 21:23]

[Lynx]

“He cannot be questioned as to what He does, while they will be questioned”

[al-Anbiya’ 21:23]

you know, if you had someone on the brink of conversion to Islam, and the only thing stopping him was an explanation of the eternal hellfire thing, and you provided that verse as justification, you'd have an unsatisfied potential convert? that verse only works as justification if you are already muslim ;p

i know what you;re getting at though and i think essentially your answer is the best one. the question is sure a tough one and it represents one of the hurdles that islam as a coherent system has to face.

[Asiyah3]

you know, if you had someone on the brink of conversion to Islam, and the only thing stopping him was an explanation of the eternal hellfire thing, and you provided that verse as justification, you'd have an unsatisfied potential convert? that verse only works as justification if you are already muslim ;p

I wasn't trying to make Da'wah. But thanks.

i know what you;re getting at though and i think essentially your answer is the best one. the question is sure a tough one and it represents one of the hurdles that islam as a coherent system has to face.

I personally don't have any problem with good being rewarded and evil punished.

[syed_z]

So what about those that have not even as much ‘good’ or ‘faith’ as a grain of a mustard seed? This statement implies that those people will not be forgiven.

These statements that you’ve quoted and similar ones that I’ve read in this thread make it clear that some, but not all, people will be released from Hell. However, this misses the point of this thread: some people will not be released and will therefore receive an eternal punishment. Now, it may be a tiny minority of people that receive eternal punishment, but the questions still stands regardless: how is eternal punishment justified for limited, mortal humans that can only commit a limited amount of crimes in their lives? Why is the punishment infinitely disproportionate to the transgressions?

Again, as above, this addresses those that will be released from Hell, not those that will not. I think what would help here is if you could clarify whether you believe if anyone will suffer an eternal punishment.

Sure DuncG....


See your making the same mistake which you made before..... as i had told you please refer to post #31... but you didn't if you would have, then you would not be posing the question as to why Would the TIny minority who dont even have a dot of a goodness will be punished for ever...... also your question is answered by the Quran as to why some people would burn in Hell for longer or some may even burn forever , even though their life time compared to the hereafter is shorter.... and so logically they should suffer for shorter time.... okay since you did not read post #31...


Now lets see whether all our actions stop when we die OR are there are actions for which we do get blessings or get cursed even after we die ? Good or Bad ? Yes we do...


and so a good Person also keeps getting blessings in the Unseen World, when he/she enters after performing such actions which still continue in this world after he is gone...

Narrated Abu Huraira (r.a) Allah's Messenger (saw) said "When a person is dead, his deeds cease except for three:
a) Deeds of continuous Sadaqah (any act of charity), eg. an orphan home (orphanage) or a well for giving water to drink.
b) Knowledge with which mankind benefits.
c) A righteous pious son/daughter who begs Allah to forgive his (or her) parents."

(Sahih Muslim Book of Wasaya (Wills and Testaments)


so even if a person does initiate a good deed or something very beneficial for mankind, which benefits them in any way even though that person left, they would still keep getting blessings of their good deed even though they are in the Spiritual World.... now the same case applies for those who initiate an evil deed in the society, or any immoral activity or any evil which continues even if the person has left the world.... and so thats why i posted this in post#31...

Also another Important point to mention here is that...there would be many who would suffer for very long time... and that is also explained in the Quran as to why would that happen...


"Hence, on Ressurection Day they shall bear the full weight of their burdens, as well as some of the burdens of those ignorant ones whom they have led astray: oh, how evil the load with which they shall be burdened." (Al Quran 16:25)

..so the ones who initiated any thing, like any evil in the society and however many people become part of that evil and do it, that person will not only gain the Sin of his own doing, but ALL those who followed his example, he would bear the burden of their evil acts as well..... and so this would Double His Suffering...

so now comin back to your Question.... How come those people who lived in their lives for limited number of years, will be suffering in Hell for unlimited time ?.... so if some one initiated an evil of Alcoholism in a particular society... no matter how many people follow that evil deed and however many people use it and abuse it and however much domestic violence is increased and people suffer and families are destroyed.... that person who initiated it, will carry his own burden as well as the burden of others..... this is why the minority which you speak of will suffer , because their evil would be of so enormous , that they might be made to suffer forever....

Similar the case of Prostitution, whoever initiated it in a society, for example some one initiated Prostitution in any country, and after he left the world, people followed his idea and continued doing it, and it weakened the soceities moral level... the ones who started it, would bear the burden of all those Pimps and Prostitutes who would initiate and the pimps also would inturn bear the burden of the sin of the Prostitute, as well as all those pimps whom one of them trained how to be one..... and this is how the burden of evil deeds are made to be borne by those who are part of the cycle of these Evils.... BUT if any one in the cycle repents to Allah (Swt) before their death, asks for forgiveness then all their evils Allah (Swt) will forgive , and even though they might have commited big crime, Allah (Swt) would STILL forgive them if they repent truly from the heart.... this is the Mercy of God...


so this is how a person would get punished for unlimited because of initiating during his limited life, some big evil whose effect will continue in this world, and he died without repentance....

[Lynx]

I wasn't trying to make Da'wah. But thanks.

i know you were just pointing out ur own personal belief and how it's justified to your ownself. i was just messing a little.

I personally don't have any problem with good being rewarded and evil punished.

I would hope no one does!

[Asiyah3]

i know you were just pointing out ur own personal belief and how it's justified to your ownself. i was just messing a little.

Okay. However, I cannot by any means guide people to Islam. Allah alone is the one that guides whom wills.

I would hope no one does!

I hope so too though it seems like some people in this thread do. :x

[DuncG]

muslimah,

“He cannot be questioned as to what He does, while they will be questioned”

[al-Anbiya’ 21:23]

Well, this effectively stops any form of rational enquiry into how islamic punishments are justified. I would hope that the punishments inherent in any ethical system would be justified on reasonable grounds so that it is clear to everyone why the punishment is just. If you simply have to accept them at face value then that undermines one of the central pillars of a justice system (that the perpetrator understands why they have received a punishment of a certain magnitude due to the severity of their crime).

As Lynx has pointed out, I certainly find such a situation to be unsatisfactory.

I hope so too though it seems like some people in this thread do.

I can't help but feel that this point may have been directed at me - please correct me if I'm wrong. But what I'm investigating here is the rationale behind the magnitude of the punishment (infinite, in this case) - I am not at all against punishing people for their crimes. As pointed out above, though, what I do want to learn about is the justification for the punishment.

[DuncG]

syed_z,

See your making the same mistake which you made before..... as i had told you please refer to post #31... but you didn't if you would have, then you would not be posing the question as to why Would the TIny minority who dont even have a dot of a goodness will be punished for ever...... also your question is answered by the Quran as to why some people would burn in Hell for longer or some may even burn forever , even though their life time compared to the hereafter is shorter.... and so logically they should suffer for shorter time.... okay since you did not read post #31...

Well, in post #31 you stated the following:

"..so the ones who initiated any thing, like any evil in the society and however many people become part of that evil and do it, that person will not only gain the Sin of his own doing, but ALL those who followed his example, he would bear the burden of their evil acts as well..... and so this would Double His Suffering...

so yes there is not an Eternal Suffering in its literal sense, but there is a time where Allah (Swt) does forgive .. BUT He does Whenever He wills...He is the Best Judge! "


When I read this previously it appeared to be clear that an eternal punishment was not forthcoming. Doubling someone's punishment does not make it infinite and you clearly pointed out that "there is not an Eternal Suffering in its literal sense".

Now, according to your latest post, it appears that you do think some people will suffer for eternity - regardless of how small this minority may be. As it's the subject of this thread and the point that concerns me most, I am only interested in those that receive an eternal punishment - I can quite understand how finite punishments can be justified.


Regarding the continued punishment of someone due to the deeds of others that follow their example, the issue here is that you're punishing someone due to what someone else has done. Should the first person who steals be punished for all other thefts after that? Likewise with murder? One problem with chains of punishment such as this is that where should the line be drawn? At what point do the acts of some future person stop being your responsibility? The passages you quote do not make that particularly clear. The other issue has to do with responsibility itself. We are all responsible for our own actions, first off. We should also be responsible for the acts of others where we've coerced, tricked or encouraged them to commit them (encouraging a child to steal in reward for some sweets etc.). But once this direct involvement in the act is no longer applicable, I fail to see how punishing someone for another’s actions is justified. Should the initial sword-maker be punished for every consequent death by the sword?

But regardless, I still see the biggest problem here is that even with these additional responsibilities the total crimes will not be infinite. We come back to the same original issue: how is infinite punishment justified against finite crimes?

I’ve thought about crimes that have long-lasting impacts (that produce a huge amount of suffering that extends beyond the life of the criminal) and the worst I can think of is if one were to release a previously eradicated virus back into the human population (say smallpox, for example). This would undoubtedly cause a huge amount of suffering and death and would deserve an extremely severe punishment. But yet, the amount of suffering it would cause would still be finite (inoculations would be repeated, or, in extremis, only those naturally resistant would survive and the virus would eventually become impotent) – once the same amount of suffering has been inflicted on the criminal in Hell, what justification remains to continue the punishment for eternity?

[جوري]

But regardless, I still see the biggest problem here is that even with these additional responsibilities the total crimes will not be infinite. We come back to the same original issue: how is infinite punishment justified against finite crimes?

You should take that with the creator on the day of recompense? a crime is in fact not finite, it leaves an endless trail and ramifications that your mind couldn't possibly conceive.
Your presence here on this earth x 1 days takes millions of physiological and biochemical processes that you don't even bat an eyelash thinking of, let alone of the seasons, the senses, the world around you, and not only denying praise to the one who bestowed such blessings upon you x a life time but go further and make a life out of debarring men from the way of God thinking that is all so trivial and expecting to rewarded for that which you don't even believe ..
The psychology of the kaffir can be best elucidated from these few verses from the Noble Quran:


74:11 (Asad) LEAVE Me alone [to deal] with him whom I have created
74:12 (Asad) and to whom I have granted resources vast, -
74:13 (Asad) and children as [love's] witnesses,
74:14 (Asad) and to whose life I gave so wide a scope:

74:15 (Asad) and yet, he greedily desires that I give yet more!
74:16 (Asad) Nay, verily, it is against Our messages that he knowingly, stubbornly sets himself [7]
74:17 (Asad) [and so] I shall constrain him to endure a painful uphill climb!
74:18 (Asad) Behold, [when Our messages are conveyed to one who is bent on denying the truth,] he reflects and meditates [as to how to disprove them] –
74:19 (Asad) and thus he destroys himself, [9] the way he meditates:
74:20 (Asad) yea, he destroys himself, the way he meditates!
74:21 (Asad) and then he looks [around for new arguments], -
74:22 (Asad) and then he frowns and glares,
74:23 (Asad) and in the end he turns his back [on Our message], and glories in his arrogance
74:24 (Asad) and says, "All this is mere spellbinding eloquence handed down [from olden times]!
74:25 (Asad) This is nothing but the word of mortal man!"

________________

the one who created you, is well acquainted with your psychology, and what you deserve... you are in fact lucky to be judged by God and not of humans, I personally think an eternal suffering isn't enough for some of what many of you do to your fellow man, but that both your life and after life should be grievous!


all the best

[DuncG]

τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ,

... a crime is in fact not finite, it leaves an endless trail and ramifications ...

In which case every crime should be punished with infinite suffering in order to be just. Is this really what you believe? There are certainly consequences that follow on from crimes, but these aren't always consequences that cause suffering. Should someone be rewarded for committing a crime that goes on to have good consequences? (Murdering someone today who would go on to instigate genocide in the future, for example.) The other problem here is the intent that goes with the crime - the explicit difference between murder and manslaughter. Such further consequences are not intended by the perpetrator unless they are obvious - do you believe it is just to punish someone for the unintended consequences of their actions? Once you go down this path then even legal, innocent actions may be cause to have you punished if they inadvertently lead to the suffering/death of others. Where do you draw the line?

... I personally think an eternal suffering isn't enough for some of what many of you do to your fellow man, but that both your life and after life should be grievous! ...

Are you sure you're ok? How did you manage to get to a position where you believe another human deserves more than eternal suffering? Not only is it irrational to think there is 'more than eternity', but that is possibly the most overly vindictive statement I've ever read. It's worse than the eternal punishment of which I can still see no reasonable justification. When you consider this statement in greater depth I hope you will come to a realisation that you're over-reacting somewhat.

For my part, I wish that your life is as free from suffering and as content as possible.

[Sister Unknown]

Are you sure you're ok? How did you manage to get to a position where you believe another human deserves more than eternal suffering? Not only is it irrational to think there is 'more than eternity', but that is possibly the most overly vindictive statement I've ever read. It's worse than the eternal punishment of which I can still see no reasonable justification. When you consider this statement in greater depth I hope you will come to a realisation that you're over-reacting somewhat.

For my part, I wish that your life is as free from suffering and as content as possible.

You are basing justice on emotions. Hell is a result of your deeds, my friend. Or do you really think that we believe Gos would create all this in vain?

[جوري]

In which case every crime should be punished with infinite suffering in order to be just.

The punishment for crimes committed in the here and now against your fellow man do have their own prescribed penalty, the punishment can be an expiation of the sin or merely justice served for this life and an example to others if the perpetrator is unrepentant.. Whether punishment should perpetual torture or not is between s/he who committed the crime and their maker (see a theme here?)

Is this really what you believe?

see above reply!

There are certainly consequences that follow on from crimes, but these aren't always consequences that cause suffering.

It isn't a matter of suffering or not, it is a matter of justice- and justice is prescribed.. the same way your body handles an infection.... Your body doesn't want an antibiotic that is lenient, an antineoplastic that barely works, an anti-viral that is useless.. it is you or the bad guys.. if you have a difficulty recognizing that, then frankly you are quite the hypocrite..I'd give you two days exactly under severe duress and see if you can't go for the strongest medicine you can find to handle the job!

Should someone be rewarded for committing a crime that goes on to have good consequences? (Murdering someone today who would go on to instigate genocide in the future, for example.)

That is a rhetorical question that needs you to focus on your own country's laws... in fact I feel that for instance the animal who killed Dr. Marwa and her unborn child, should also receive the death penalty, and eternity in hell.. but he gets off with life (with three square meals and health insurance) probably that regular hard working folks aren't able to afford and a possibility of parole.. Is that justice? I don't personally think so.. is his crime infinite.. I think so.. Dr. Marwa was an exemplary pillar of her community, she was a daughter to a father who died shortly after her of a broken heart, a husband who ended up in the hospital because the police was trying to subdue him instead of the killer, an orphan son and a daughter that never made and God only knows what her contributions would have been to mankind.. So you can see that if justice was left to our personal devices, or vigilante type we not only think that eternity in hell isn't sufficient for he and his should be made to pay for his crimes in worse fashion.. the fashion of the instigator!

The other problem here is the intent that goes with the crime - the explicit difference between murder and manslaughter. Such further consequences are not intended by the perpetrator unless they are obvious - do you believe it is just to punish someone for the unintended consequences of their actions? Once you go down this path then even legal, innocent actions may be cause to have you punished if they inadvertently lead to the suffering/death of others. Where do you draw the line?

See above reply with detailed real life example and not some concoction of your psyche.. ultimately if you believe in God, then you'll also believe that God is just for so is one of God's greatest attributes!

Are you sure you're ok?

I am in sinus rhythm at a rate of 65bpm, BP of 110/70, temp 98.3 and I feel OK.. thanks for asking!

How did you manage to get to a position where you believe another human deserves more than eternal suffering?

I have clarified that in paragraph number 2!

Not only is it irrational to think there is 'more than eternity', but that is possibly the most overly vindictive statement I've ever read. It's worse than the eternal punishment of which I can still see no reasonable justification. When you consider this statement in greater depth I hope you will come to a realisation that you're over-reacting somewhat.

Again, see previous comment.. and No, I am not over-reacting, but I think you are.. hope you take your exasperation down a few notches, and as stated in my original post, if you have a a particular grievance about the punishment of a God you don't even believe in, then take it out on the day of recompense (should there be such a day from your point of view) instead of working over time to sway others into your rather emotionally charged sentiments?

For my part, I wish that your life is as free from suffering and as content as possible.

Thanks..

all the best

[aadil77]

I am in sinus rhythm at a rate of 65bpm, BP of 110/70, temp 98.3 and I feel OK.. thanks for asking!

;D bloody hell sis, do you live in a hospital?

[DuncG]

Sister Unknown,

You are basing justice on emotions.

How so? I have made the point a number of times in this thread that I see a just punishment as one that is proportional to the crime in order to engender a reasonable level of recompense. By virtue of the eternal nature of suffering in hell for some people it is clear that Islam does not agree, in all cases, with this principal of proportional retribution. There is obviously a difference in what is meant by justice and I'm interested in exploring that point.

[DuncG]

τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ,

Whether punishment should perpetual torture or not is between s/he who committed the crime and their maker ...

So, are you saying that the only person who can justify eternal punishment is God? If this is true then the answer to my query is that Islam has no revealed or derived justification for why eternal suffering is a just punishment. In which case it appears to be an article of faith. I'd like to know if this is really what you mean as you do endeavour to justify eternal suffering by other examples.

It isn't a matter of suffering or not, it is a matter of justice...

Justice is sought where someone has purposefully, or through negligence, caused another person suffering/death/loss of possessions. You appear to justify eternal punishment by saying that crimes have infinite consequences - consequences that are 'bad', or, in other words, that cause others to suffer. So, the issue of justifying eternal punishment rests squarely on the matter of suffering, as do all issues of justice.

That is a rhetorical question that needs you to focus on your own country's laws...

No, it is not a rhetorical question. If you are justifying eternal punishment because of the claim that a crime has infinite consequences then you have to justify why the good consequences are not counted as mitigating factors. You also have the difficulty of demonstrating how any crime can generate infinite consequences in order to justify eternal punishment.

...is his crime infinite.. I think so ...

Ok, so why do you believe the crime in this case was infinite? Was infinite suffering/death generated that was deserving of eternal punishment?

So you can see that if justice was left to our personal devices, or vigilante type we not only think that eternity in hell isn't sufficient for he and his should be made to pay for his crimes in worse fashion.. the fashion of the instigator!

I do not see how punishing him in the manner in which he committed this crime (stabbing him to death - a finite action) would be a 'worse fashion' than torturing him for eternity. Please could you clarify this in greater detail as you appear to believe that the prescribed punishment of eternal suffering is not justice enough, in certain cases.

[جوري]

So, are you saying that the only person who can justify eternal punishment is God? If this is true then the answer to my query is that Islam has no revealed or derived justification for why eternal suffering is a just punishment. In which case it appears to be an article of faith. I'd like to know if this is really what you mean as you do endeavour to justify eternal suffering by other examples.

1- God isn't a person, so I am not sure where you derive some of your conclusions.
2- I have no idea what you mean by said statement ''If this is true then the answer to my query is that Islam has no revealed or derived justification for why eternal suffering is a just punishment.'' Islam is to submit ones will to God, so your premise and conclusion are faulty at best.
3- Going back to point, I have no reason to 'justify' eternal punishment under any circumstance, it is again something between the individual and their creator, as such you must state your grievances on said day if you in fact believe in said day, until then I really have no reason to humor a dialogue that you have based on a hypothetical!

Justice is sought where someone has purposefully, or through negligence, caused another person suffering/death/loss of possessions. You appear to justify eternal punishment by saying that crimes have infinite consequences - consequences that are 'bad', or, in other words, that cause others to suffer. So, the issue of justifying eternal punishment rests squarely on the matter of suffering, as do all issues of justice.

We are not speaking of crimes against your fellow man although that indeed might also play a part in your final destination, we are speaking of crimes against God, and yourself when in a state of kuffr. And again, I don't have to 'justify' the infinite consequences..

No, it is not a rhetorical question. If you are justifying eternal punishment because of the claim that a crime has infinite consequences then you have to justify why the good consequences are not counted as mitigating factors. You also have the difficulty of demonstrating how any crime can generate infinite consequences in order to justify eternal punishment.

Who said the good isn't counted? Let me Quote the noble Quran:
99:7 Then shall anyone who has done an atom's weight of good, see it!
99:8 And anyone who has done an atom's weight of evil, shall see it.

Perhaps when you see your life laid out in deeds before you on said day you'll have a better understanding of divine justice, but it isn't my job to justify it for you, I have in fact laid out in my original post, some of the infinite blessings afforded you x a lifetime, which not only are you unaware of, but if aware of, are neglectful or denying their bestow from a benevolent God all together..

Ok, so why do you believe the crime in this case was infinite? Was infinite suffering/death generated that was deserving of eternal punishment?

See previous paragraph!

I do not see how punishing him in the manner in which he committed this crime (stabbing him to death - a finite action) would be a 'worse fashion' than torturing him for eternity. Please could you clarify this in greater detail as you appear to believe that the prescribed punishment of eternal suffering is not justice enough, in certain cases.

I have in fact stated, that it is a lucky thing for some that their judgment doesn't lie with fellow humans, as to why it would be a 'worse fashion' it only means that he has no chance for repentance, for so long as there is life there is hope that he can redeem himself, and that is something I personally feel he isn't entitled to!

all the best

[syed_z]

A Question to DuncG ...

Were you asked before you were put in your Mother's Womb ? Then how could you have a choice to be anything you want, as you move towards the Tomb ? I need the answer to this Question before you ASK any other Question...

God created you for your own benefit, He is Self Sufficient, Sustainer of All...

[جوري]

A Question to DuncG ...

Were you asked before you were put in your Mother's Womb ? Then how could you have a choice to be anything you want, as you move towards the Tomb ? I need the answer to this Question before you ASK any other Question...

God created you for your own benefit, He is Self Sufficient, Sustainer of All...

You know that is an excellent query.. and the only way to answer a conjecture is with another!
He conjectures that it is unfair be punished eternally for a finite lifetime, however using the same token he should acknowledge his part in the universe and that we are not finite beings but were created for eternity and that life is but a brief test for our eternal existence, that worshiping God above all else is in fact the sole purpose of existence. He can't expect a justification of a conjecture (which he clearly doesn't believe) without having to equally defend why he has fallen out of this covenant and by choice..


:w:

[DuncG]

τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ,

2- I have no idea what you mean by said statement ''If this is true then the answer to my query is that Islam has no revealed or derived justification for why eternal suffering is a just punishment.'' Islam is to submit ones will to God, so your premise and conclusion are faulty at best.
3- Going back to point, I have no reason to 'justify' eternal punishment under any circumstance, it is again something between the individual and their creator, as such you must state your grievances on said day if you in fact believe in said day, until then I really have no reason to humor a dialogue that you have based on a hypothetical!

The entire point about this thread goes back to the OP and the issue that eternal punishment for a finite amount of time (and therefore crime committed) is apparently unjust. If you don't feel the need to justify eternal punishment, then that's fine - I would just like to know what justifications there are and see if I agree with those justifications. As you keep repeating that it should be 'taken up with the creator' then it appears to me that you don't know the justification for it and think that the best course of action is to talk to the entity that dictated the punishment. As that's rather a hypothetical course of action, I'll keep it on the back-burner for the time being - the practical conclusion being that, as far as you're aware, there is no justification for eternal punishment.

Perhaps when you see your life laid out in deeds before you on said day you'll have a better understanding of divine justice, but it isn't my job to justify it for you, I have in fact laid out in my original post, some of the infinite blessings afforded you x a lifetime, which not only are you unaware of, but if aware of, are neglectful or denying their bestow from a benevolent God all together..

So, are you saying here that because people are in receipt of 'infinite blessings' that this justifies them being eternally punished if they transgress? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that someone has been given an 'infinite blessing' and yet is unaware and neglectful of that fact. How does this neglect constitute an infinite crime that is worthy of eternal punishment? As I asked previously, and which you appear to think this sentiment justifies, where is the infinite suffering/death generated by this transgression that corresponds to the resulting punishment? Does God suffer infinitely?

I have in fact stated, that it is a lucky thing for some that their judgment doesn't lie with fellow humans, as to why it would be a 'worse fashion' it only means that he has no chance for repentance, for so long as there is life there is hope that he can redeem himself, and that is something I personally feel he isn't entitled to!

Thanks for clearing that up - I was under the impression that we were solely considering the punishment assuming that no repentance/forgiveness had been proffered.

[DuncG]

syed_z,

Those two questions appear to be rhetorical - none of us, obviously, ever had any choice in existing and being human. However, please explain how it's relevant to the topic of justifying eternal punishment, as I'd rather not derail from the subject of the thread.

[aadil77]

τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ,


So, are you saying here that because people are in receipt of 'infinite blessings' that this justifies them being eternally punished if they transgress? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that someone has been given an 'infinite blessing' and yet is unaware and neglectful of that fact. How does this neglect constitute an infinite crime that is worthy of eternal punishment? As I asked previously, and which you appear to think this sentiment justifies, where is the infinite suffering/death generated by this transgression that corresponds to the resulting punishment? Does God suffer infinitely?

Hello DunG, first theres some things that god has willed that we can never really explain, the fact is there are always going to be people that will go to hell and others to heaven. Second you talk about finite crimes which incur an infinite punishment, the fact is that some people will remain ignorant of the truth even if they had all the time in the world - so if they were to live eternally their sins would be infinite. Third you don't end up in heaven by doing nothing, so even if you were to recieve a finite punishment in hell you wouldn't be allowed in heaven cause you've disbelieved all your life hence earnt nothing to qualify entry to paradise.

[aadil77]

syed_z,

Those two questions appear to be rhetorical - none of us, obviously, ever had any choice in existing and being human. However, please explain how it's relevant to the topic of justifying eternal punishment, as I'd rather not derail from the subject of the thread.

His questions are relevent, because if you think about it, this is the way god has created the world, He made you and you have no choice but to play by His rules and live by His system. You have no say in what is Just and what is Unjust, just like you had no say in being created.

[جوري]

[QUOTE=DuncG;1352800]

The entire point about this thread goes back to the OP and the issue that eternal punishment for a finite amount of time (and therefore crime committed) is apparently unjust. If you don't feel the need to justify eternal punishment, then that's fine - I would just like to know what justifications there are and see if I agree with those justifications. As you keep repeating that it should be 'taken up with the creator' then it appears to me that you don't know the justification for it and think that the best course of action is to talk to the entity that dictated the punishment. As that's rather a hypothetical course of action, I'll keep it on the back-burner for the time being - the practical conclusion being that, as far as you're aware, there is no justification for eternal punishment.

The 'justification' has been already been offered you, in order for you to accept or understand eternal punishment, you should by the same token understand that this is something you've agreed to before hand!

So, are you saying here that because people are in receipt of 'infinite blessings' that this justifies them being eternally punished if they transgress? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that someone has been given an 'infinite blessing' and yet is unaware and neglectful of that fact. How does this neglect constitute an infinite crime that is worthy of eternal punishment? As I asked previously, and which you appear to think this sentiment justifies, where is the infinite suffering/death generated by this transgression that corresponds to the resulting punishment? Does God suffer infinitely?

How can you not be aware? if you are truthfully not aware than no punishment shall befall you:

No Punishment until a Messenger has been sent

Written by Ibn Kathir Friday, 10 November 2006 No Punishment until a Messenger has been sent
Allah tells us that out of His justice, He does not punish anyone until He has established proof against him by sending a Messenger to him, as He says:

[تَكَادُ تَمَيَّزُ مِنَ الغَيْظِ كُلَّمَا أُلْقِىَ فِيهَا فَوْجٌ سَأَلَهُمْ خَزَنَتُهَآ أَلَمْ يَأْتِكُمْ نَذِيرٌ - قَالُواْ بَلَى قَدْ جَآءَنَا نَذِيرٌ فَكَذَّبْنَا وَقُلْنَا مَا نَزَّلَ اللَّهُ مِن شَىْءٍ إِنْ أَنتُمْ إِلاَّ فِى ضَلَـلٍ كَبِيرٍ ]
(Every time a group is cast therein, its keeper will ask: "Did no warner come to you'' They will say: "Yes, indeed a warner did come to us, but we belied him and said: `Allah never sent down anything (of revelation); you are only in great error.''') (67:8-9) And,
[وَسِيقَ الَّذِينَ كَـفَرُواْ إِلَى جَهَنَّمَ زُمَراً حَتَّى إِذَا جَآءُوهَا فُتِحَتْ أَبْوَبُهَا وَقَالَ لَهُمْ خَزَنَتُهَآ أَلَمْ يَأْتِكُمْ رُسُلٌ مِّنكُمْ يَتْلُونَ عَلَيْكُمْ ءَايَـتِ رَبِّكُمْ وَيُنذِرُونَكُمْ لِقَـآءَ يَوْمِكُمْ هَـذَا قَالُواْ بَلَى وَلَـكِنْ حَقَّتْ كَلِمَةُ الْعَذَابِ عَلَى الْكَـفِرِينَ ]
(And those who disbelieved will be driven to Hell in groups, till, when they reach it, the gates thereof will be opened. And its keepers will say, "Did not the Messengers come to you from yourselves - reciting to you the verses of your Lord, and warning you of the meeting of this Day of yours'' They will say: "Yes,'' but the Word of torment has been justified against the disbelievers!) (39:71) And,
[وَهُمْ يَصْطَرِخُونَ فِيهَا رَبَّنَآ أَخْرِجْنَا نَعْمَلْ صَـلِحاً غَيْرَ الَّذِى كُـنَّا نَعْمَلُ أَوَلَمْ نُعَمِّرْكُمْ مَّا يَتَذَكَّرُ فِيهِ مَن تَذَكَّرَ وَجَآءَكُمُ النَّذِيرُ فَذُوقُواْ فَمَا لِلظَّـلِمِينَ مِن نَّصِيرٍ ]
(Therein they will cry: "Our Lord! Bring us out, we shall do righteous good deeds, not (the evil deeds) that we used to do.'' (Allah will reply:) "Did We not give you lives long enough, so that whosoever would receive admonition could receive it And the warner came to you. So taste you (the evil of your deeds). For the wrongdoers there is no helper.'') (35:37) There are other Ayat which indicate that Allah will not make anyone enter Hell except after sending a Messenger to them. No Punishment until a Messenger has been sent
Allah tells us that out of His justice, He does not punish anyone until He has established proof against him by sending a Messenger to him, as He says:

[تَكَادُ تَمَيَّزُ مِنَ الغَيْظِ كُلَّمَا أُلْقِىَ فِيهَا فَوْجٌ سَأَلَهُمْ خَزَنَتُهَآ أَلَمْ يَأْتِكُمْ نَذِيرٌ - قَالُواْ بَلَى قَدْ جَآءَنَا نَذِيرٌ فَكَذَّبْنَا وَقُلْنَا مَا نَزَّلَ اللَّهُ مِن شَىْءٍ إِنْ أَنتُمْ إِلاَّ فِى ضَلَـلٍ كَبِيرٍ ]
(Every time a group is cast therein, its keeper will ask: "Did no warner come to you'' They will say: "Yes, indeed a warner did come to us, but we belied him and said: `Allah never sent down anything (of revelation); you are only in great error.''') (67:8-9) And,
[وَسِيقَ الَّذِينَ كَـفَرُواْ إِلَى جَهَنَّمَ زُمَراً حَتَّى إِذَا جَآءُوهَا فُتِحَتْ أَبْوَبُهَا وَقَالَ لَهُمْ خَزَنَتُهَآ أَلَمْ يَأْتِكُمْ رُسُلٌ مِّنكُمْ يَتْلُونَ عَلَيْكُمْ ءَايَـتِ رَبِّكُمْ وَيُنذِرُونَكُمْ لِقَـآءَ يَوْمِكُمْ هَـذَا قَالُواْ بَلَى وَلَـكِنْ حَقَّتْ كَلِمَةُ الْعَذَابِ عَلَى الْكَـفِرِينَ ]
(And those who disbelieved will be driven to Hell in groups, till, when they reach it, the gates thereof will be opened. And its keepers will say, "Did not the Messengers come to you from yourselves - reciting to you the verses of your Lord, and warning you of the meeting of this Day of yours'' They will say: "Yes,'' but the Word of torment has been justified against the disbelievers!) (39:71) And,
[وَهُمْ يَصْطَرِخُونَ فِيهَا رَبَّنَآ أَخْرِجْنَا نَعْمَلْ صَـلِحاً غَيْرَ الَّذِى كُـنَّا نَعْمَلُ أَوَلَمْ نُعَمِّرْكُمْ مَّا يَتَذَكَّرُ فِيهِ مَن تَذَكَّرَ وَجَآءَكُمُ النَّذِيرُ فَذُوقُواْ فَمَا لِلظَّـلِمِينَ مِن نَّصِيرٍ ]
(Therein they will cry: "Our Lord! Bring us out, we shall do righteous good deeds, not (the evil deeds) that we used to do.'' (Allah will reply:) "Did We not give you lives long enough, so that whosoever would receive admonition could receive it And the warner came to you. So taste you (the evil of your deeds). For the wrongdoers there is no helper.'') (35:37) There are other Ayat which indicate that Allah will not make anyone enter Hell except after sending a Messenger to them.

But that isn't really the case, surely you can't use that as a defense at this stage!.. however. in order for you to accept the premise of eternal punishment and argue against it, you must also consider in the same picture the premise of having agreed to this life and to Godly worship.. So you are really in no position to argue against one without accepting the other. You can't come and say what justification is there for an eternal hell (when obviously) considering your way of life, you don't believe in such a thing but at the same time dismiss, that this is a contract each soul held in beginning of creation! You either don't believe in both, or you believe in both, but not argue against one without the other!

Thanks for clearing that up - I was under the impression that we were solely considering the punishment assuming that no repentance/forgiveness had been proffered

In this particular fellow's case, I hope he offers no repentance, I hope he rots in this life and receive a most grievous punishment in the hereafter!

all the best

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam

Its just the idea of infinity in hellfire really scares me, sometimes i wish it wasn't true.

if u are scare of hell fire ( and u / we should be ) , then don't commit any major sin. InshaAllah we will be in Paradise .

Slaves have no rights to challenge God or raise questions like that why our Master will punish us forever in hell for disobeying Him . God gave us clear warnings; if one dares to give no attention to that , let him /her face the result.

And Allah knows Best.

[syed_z]

His questions are relevent, because if you think about it, this is the way god has created the world, He made you and you have no choice but to play by His rules and live by His system. You have no say in what is Just and what is Unjust, just like you had no say in being created.

Salaam :)... and in addition to what you said Brother, Adil, that Allah (swt) did not need us yet, He created us for our Own Good...and people forget to realize and iNshAllah in my next post you'll see why they do such.. why do they keep raising Million questions about some facts...

[syed_z]

syed_z,

Those two questions appear to be rhetorical - none of us, obviously, ever had any choice in existing and being human. However, please explain how it's relevant to the topic of justifying eternal punishment, as I'd rather not derail from the subject of the thread.

1st of All May Allah's Mercy be upon all Brothers/sisters who have taken the time to explain DuncG


Since you don't have a choice then , who gives you the permission to argue.... you have asked about infinite punishment, but you don't ask about the Mercy of Allah..... you don't ask about How much Mercy does Allah wants to bestow upon His Creation.... It is said in the Words of Prophet Muhammad (saw)...


Abu Huraira (r.a) said that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: If a believer were to know the punishment (in Hell) none would have the audacity to aspire for Paradise (but he would earnestly desire to be rescued from Hell), and if a non-believer were to know what is there with Allah as a mercy. none would have been disappointed in regard to Paradise. (Sahih Muslim)

What people like you should ask NOT only of Punishment, but also Mercy of Allah, for His Mercy Outweighs His Wrath, and it is because of His Mercy that the Whole Universe came in to being... sad that you are so concerned about the Punishment of the One , while you don't want to know anything or even a little about the Most Merciful's Mercy, which is why He created the entire Creation in the Universe.....


So , the Question i asked was to get an answer, and so i did, i see that you were NOT asked either before entering this World like all of us, so i don't know what Choice do you really have ? Allah (swt) says clearly that there are 2 ways He has given and it is up to us to go the right way by following His guidance or go the Wrong way by rejecting...


(Chapter of Man Verse #3) Verily We have shown him the way: (and it rests with him to prove himself) either be grateful or ungrateful.

So its up to you accept His offer or Reject, as he has given you the free will so you do not say after you die, i was not aware of it ....


Difference between a Muslim who Submits his Will to God and a Non Muslim (Atheist or other) who does not Submit his Will to God...

This should explain something which makes us difference and makes us accept what makes for you very difficult to, as this is the only option left for me to tell you because i see that this is the only reason why we differ as to whether God's Eternal Punishment or Eternal Blessings are good or no....

Most of the Western People, based on their upbringing in a Secular environment, are used to think about everything around them, the world and the Hereafter based on their Pure Reasoning which is connected to our desires and emotions of the self and our ego. They use Pure reasoning to see whether such and such is right or wrong. Whatever their Pure Reason tells them, they accept and whatever they cannot establish or come to the conclusion, they reject. An Example is, Same Sex Marriage, if we see that a relationship between a Man and a Woman is right, but a man and a man is not right, or a woman and a woman, is unnatural, but if we question the relation based on Pure Reasoning, then we can say, "What is wrong if a man desires a man, and a woman desires a woman, because man and woman can desire each other, and so can a man and a man desire each other. The desire is inside of us, and whatever we desire, we should be allowed to do it ?"

Based on pure reasoning we can come to the conclusion, that Man and a Man if they like each other, is also nothing wrong, its natural, inside of us. But since we decide everything based on our Pure Reason, which in turn is connected to our desires and emotions, we ignore the facts that there is also an Unseen World, which has negative beings (devils), who can affect our minds and bodies, and make us have the wrong desire. But wait, the pure reasoning, was NOT able to come to that conclusion what is a wrong desire and what is a right desire, because Pure reasoning is connected to our desires and our own feelings, which uses External Observation to view the world and determine a Way of Life! And therefore even though the West has followers of Christian faith, yet there are Legalized Same Sex Marriages, and now even Gay Churches!

My point of explaining the above is, that your questioning is based on your Pure Reason. BUT in the case of a Muslim, our Reasoning is guided by a Higher Source of revelation and A Higher source of Guidance. For a Muslim Revelation told us , Gambling is Illegal, for a Muslim revelation told us Hijab is necessary, for a Muslim Revelation told us, do NOT torture even your enemies and don't be the ones to initiate a War or Battle, for a Muslim Revelation INFORMS our Reason what is Right and What is Wrong!

It is not for us that we questioned, argued and if felt like it, accepted it, NO! We Questioned, listened carefully, and accepted it, because it is the Truth! The Unseen world and whatever is in it Paradise, Hell, Jinns, Angels, CANNOT be explained by External observation only, and thebest way for us is to Submit to the Al Mighty ....


Now for a Muslim His reasoning is informed by Revelation and for a Disbeliever, his way of life is informed by his Pure Reason, while he completely forgets that....

HAS THERE (not) been an endless span of time before man when he was not yet a thing to be thought of ? (Chapter of Man Verse #1)


I would suggest that, we have explained DuncG enough, it is upto him to read the Quran and understand, if he does not, up to him , we should pray May Allah Guide him and leave it to Allah, and i think that there is no more point in arguing with the fellow... thank you .. Salaam...

[DuncG]

aadil77,

... theres some things that god has willed that we can never really explain ...

Sure, I understand that this could be the case and, if so, it ends any discussion as no justification for eternal punishment can be verified.

Second you talk about finite crimes which incur an infinite punishment, the fact is that some people will remain ignorant of the truth even if they had all the time in the world - so if they were to live eternally their sins would be infinite.

I've covered this justification a number of times in my earlier responses. It boils down to punishing people for things they have not done, which, in my opinion, is unjust (barring those things that are being actively planned but were interrupted). People do not live eternally, thus any 'if' clause is irrelevant to how they should be judged. For example, a similar situation would be a thief in prison: if he were free at that time he would most likely be committing further thefts - should he then be punished for those thefts that he did not commit but would have done if he were not incarcerated? According to your reasoning he should be.

Third you don't end up in heaven by doing nothing, so even if you were to recieve a finite punishment in hell you wouldn't be allowed in heaven cause you've disbelieved all your life hence earnt nothing to qualify entry to paradise.

It would make for an interesting topic to discuss where then you would exist, but I'd rather not go down that road here where the subject is the justification of eternal punishment.

He made you and you have no choice but to play by His rules and live by His system.

The other day I watched the film "No Country for Old Men" wherein one scene there is a psychopath all alone in a store with the cashier. The psychopath tosses a coin and tells the cashier to call it - if he gets it right he wins 'everything' (i.e. his life). In this case the cashier had no choice but to play by the psychopath's rules and live (or die) by that system. I have a hard time seeing how your explanation avoids this problem of the weak merely being forced to play to the tune of the powerful.

If your justification for eternal punishment is simply 'these are the rules, live with it' then I consider that a very poor justification - it essentially amounts to a fallacious Argument to Authority.

[DuncG]

τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ,

The 'justification' has been already been offered you, in order for you to accept or understand eternal punishment, you should by the same token understand that this is something you've agreed to before hand!

Well, some justifications have certainly been put forward and I've critiqued them where I see further faults. But for you to say I've already agreed to the punishment of eternal suffering is nonsense. What evidence do you have for this hypothetical agreement? Is this simply accepted as an assertion in order to support the other assertion that eternal punishment is just? But even given the fact that I've agreed, does that make something just? People agree to all sorts of dodgy contracts all the time (sometimes under duress, sometimes through trickery) - that doesn't make those contracts fair.

How can you not be aware? if you are truthfully not aware than no punishment shall befall you: ...

I'm not sure where you're going with this next section - I wasn't making a point about not being aware of Hell or eternal punishment. This entire discussion is predicated on the assertion that eternal punishment could be someone's fate and how this fate is then justified. My question to you, in light of your justification regarding 'infinite blessings' was why does neglecting a blessing justify punishing that person for eternity? What exactly is it about neglecting a blessing that is then deserving of infinite torment?

The passages you quote regarding being sent to Hell if you'd heard the message are not justifications in themselves. They are more like warnings and thus appear to constitute emotional manipulation rather than a reasoned explanation as to why the punishment is correct. They are telling you that you simply have no choice but to play by the rules once you've been told them - they do nothing to explain why those rules are just.

But that isn't really the case, surely you can't use that as a defense at this stage!.. however. in order for you to accept the premise of eternal punishment and argue against it, you must also consider in the same picture the premise of having agreed to this life and to Godly worship.. So you are really in no position to argue against one without accepting the other. You can't come and say what justification is there for an eternal hell (when obviously) considering your way of life, you don't believe in such a thing but at the same time dismiss, that this is a contract each soul held in beginning of creation! You either don't believe in both, or you believe in both, but not argue against one without the other!

A defence for what? I'm asking about the islamic concept of justice as it relates to eternal punishment - I'm purely after knowledge about how islam approaches issues of justice, especially with regard to such a lynchpin doctrinal subject as Hell. This issue of a contract has arisen fairly late in the discussion, but as mentioned above, I don't see how it immediately leads to something being just. Finite crimes are still being punished by eternal punishment - whether or not you've agreed to it doesn't enter into it, as far as I can see. No justice system fundamentally relies on the consent of the convicted.

[DuncG]

syed_z,

... you have asked about infinite punishment, but you don't ask about the Mercy of Allah...

That's because this thread is about infinite punishment. I see no good reason to derail it on to another topic. If what you are saying is that God's mercy justifies eternal punishment then I cannot see how that is connected - being merciful would suggest that no eternal punishment would be possible.

So , the Question i asked was to get an answer, and so i did, i see that you were NOT asked either before entering this World like all of us, so i don't know what Choice do you really have ?

What does choice have to do with justifying eternal punishment? I'm well aware that, given the assertion of Hell, you're not going to have a choice about eternal punishment if you're deserving of it. I want to know how the punishment is justified from an islamic perspective. If it's the simple case that that is what is written, therefore that is what's believed, then fine.

My point of explaining the above is, that your questioning is based on your Pure Reason. BUT in the case of a Muslim, our Reasoning is guided by a Higher Source of revelation and A Higher source of Guidance.

Well, I'm a bit confused about your alleged example of a 'pure reason' line of reasoning - it doesn't actually follow any logical form so it looks like a strawman, as far as I can make out. I agree that reason is linked to emotion, I don't think humans are capable of fully separating emotion away from assessing the world, whether theist or atheist. So that appears to be a moot point. You appear to be under the misconception that those from a secular background (theist and atheist alike) only accept things when we 'feel' like it. Whereas I'm sure some people do behave in this manner all of the time and almost all of us behave like that some of the time, it is not accepted as reasonable grounds to believe something.

However, arguing that you have a 'higher' source of revelation or guidance just begs the question: how did you reason that the source was 'higher' before you accepted the assertion that it was 'higher'? If there was no time when you did not accept this assertion, then there was no point at which you used a line of reasoning to reach it - thus, again, it produces a fallacious Argument to Authority.

But what reasoning is actually involved in revelation? Revelation is the offering of assertions about the world that are not available by any other means. How can you even apply reasoning to them? You can't deduce or infer a revelation, otherwise it would be possible to arrive at that knowledge by another means and thus it wouldn't be revelation any longer. Revelation, by definition, implies that no reasoning was involved in its production - it is simply a set of assertions that is either accepted or rejected. The ones who accept them are those that 'feel' they are true, so feeling and emotion are used by a theist in a similar manner to how an atheist would use them, in certain circumstances.

... for a Disbeliever, his way of life is informed by his Pure Reason, while he completely forgets that....

HAS THERE (not) been an endless span of time before man when he was not yet a thing to be thought of ? (Chapter of Man Verse #1)

I'm not sure what your point here is, as far as I'm aware the span of time before my existence was not endless (about 13 billion years, but this isn't endless) and it's a fact that I'm not prone to forgetting. But even so, what relevance does it have?


Anyway, that's probably enough of a derail for now - I wanted to reply in some detail because you've obviously put effort into your response to my queries and I don't want to just brush it off when you're taking such time to respond. I appreciate, too, that it may well be frustrating to discuss such a topic with someone who approaches the Universe from a completely different paradigmatic perspective, especially when our epistemological methods are probably so different. I am asking questions because I want to explore and I'm very grateful for any answers that I receive. There were some that I asked you in post #63, so if you do decide to take this topic up again, I'd be happy to read your thoughts on those.

[جوري]

Well, some justifications have certainly been put forward and I've critiqued them where I see further faults.

The faults you see are subjective, and as such dismissed~!

But for you to say I've already agreed to the punishment of eternal suffering is nonsense. What evidence do you have for this hypothetical agreement? Is this simply accepted as an assertion in order to support the other assertion that eternal punishment is just? But even given the fact that I've agreed, does that make something just? People agree to all sorts of dodgy contracts all the time (sometimes under duress, sometimes through trickery) - that doesn't make those contracts fair.

To critique a hypothetical with even more hypotheticals, should by the same token be dismissed. Is it simply the vocation of an atheist to weave a web on nonsense? I accept the premise that God is Just, and that takes care of the byways you have created, as they paint an unjust God!

I'm not sure where you're going with this next section - I wasn't making a point about not being aware of Hell or eternal punishment. This entire discussion is predicated on the assertion that eternal punishment could be someone's fate and how this fate is then justified. My question to you, in light of your justification regarding 'infinite blessings' was why does neglecting a blessing justify punishing that person for eternity? What exactly is it about neglecting a blessing that is then deserving of infinite torment?

The better question should be, why should you be awarded infinite blessings, and by blessings in quotes, I mean everything that sustains your life per day x a lifetime without focusing on the extras by way of aesthetics.. for instance paying $400,000 for Elaprase if you were born missing that enzyme which I guarantee you are not even aware of, of billions like it in your system which function for you around the clock of their own volition no thanks to you! The fact that you exist already testifies to your agreement:
In Soorah Al-A'raaf, Verses 172-173; Allah explained that when He created Adam, He caused all of Adam's descendants to come into existence and took a pledge from them saying, Am I not your Lord? To which they all replied, " Yes, we testify to It:'

but if that doesn't suit you or skeptical of the blessing in quotes but eager with questions of 'why me' when afflicted then please don't come wasting our time on a hypothetical hell-- if you accept a hypothetical hell, then accept a hypothetical oath!

This unfortunately the world you find yourself in, you can't escape it, and these are the themes it is built around.. try as you may to escape you are very much subject to the human condition, and even your atheism hasn't taken you very far into abstraction, in fact you still fall within the curve only on the opposite fancying contempt for creation an accolade.

The passages you quote regarding being sent to Hell if you'd heard the message are not justifications in themselves. They are more like warnings and thus appear to constitute emotional manipulation rather than a reasoned explanation as to why the punishment is correct. They are telling you that you simply have no choice but to play by the rules once you've been told them - they do nothing to explain why those rules are just.

See previous responses, obviously no reply is suitable for you, and that echos your own emotive and reactive state!

A defence for what? I'm asking about the islamic concept of justice as it relates to eternal punishment - I'm purely after knowledge about how islam approaches issues of justice, especially with regard to such a lynchpin doctrinal subject as Hell. This issue of a contract has arisen fairly late in the discussion, but as mentioned above, I don't see how it immediately leads to something being just. Finite crimes are still being punished by eternal punishment - whether or not you've agreed to it doesn't enter into it, as far as I can see. No justice system fundamentally relies on the consent of the convicted.

See previous responses!

If you have questions beyond that, or would like to wrap yourself around the concept of a 'Just God' then again, take it out on the day meant for it, if there is such a day by your standards. We can't begin to understand the nature of the divine, and as such will not reduce ourselves to the atheist agenda because in honesty and totality, God exists outside of the creation, laws of physics, time, and our concept of 'Justice'
my personal feelings on the matter, I have testified to above. I think very poorly of Non-Muslims and believe wholeheartedly if left to their devices, i.e even without a governing body (and by this I mean societal rules) then they'd turn into animals and turn everyone along with them into an animal like a mass hysteria the sort that gives us millions of dead one shot without moral compunction or remorse!
all the best

[DuncG]

τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ,

The faults you see are subjective, and as such dismissed~!

I'm sure you'd like to think so. But such bald assertions count for nothing in reasoned argument. I have demonstrated how the justifications given continue to break the principle of justice that is delivering a punishment that is proportional to the crimes committed. There's nothing subjective about that.

To critique a hypothetical with even more hypotheticals, should by the same token be dismissed.

Lol, it was you that raised the hypothetical contract as a form of justification. If you don't like hypotheticals, you shouldn't use them! But by the above statement I can see that you do agree that supporting a hypothetical with further hypotheticals can be dismissed.

I accept the premise that God is Just, and that takes care of the byways you have created, as they paint an unjust God!

Thankyou for admitting that. By accepting that assertion you make any further discussion moot as any actual analysis of the justness of certain God-derived punishments is automatically negated by the assertion. Of course, this is the same problem of supporting one hypothetical with another.

The better question should be, why should you be awarded infinite blessings ...

Regarless of whether it's a 'better' question or not, it's not the subject of the thread. Let's try the question again and see if I get a relevant answer: What exactly is it about neglecting a blessing that is then deserving of infinite torment?

The fact that you exist already testifies to your agreement:
In Soorah Al-A'raaf, Verses 172-173; Allah explained that when He created Adam, He caused all of Adam's descendants to come into existence and took a pledge from them saying, Am I not your Lord? To which they all replied, " Yes, we testify to It:'

This is hypothetical. And it doesn't address the point I raised previously that agreeing to a punishment doesn't make it just.

but if that doesn't suit you or skeptical of the blessing in quotes but eager with questions of 'why me' when afflicted then please don't come wasting our time on a hypothetical hell-- if you accept a hypothetical hell, then accept a hypothetical oath!

You appear to be projecting, I haven't asked a single 'why me?' question in this entire thread. I am asking about the concept of justice in islam and how it relates to eternal punishment, I have no need to consider being in any personal 'danger' of affliction by hypotheticals. However, your insistence that once you accept one hypothetical then you should accept another is very revealing - once you've accepted one bald assertion, accepting more is just straightforward, eh?

...obviously no reply is suitable for you ...

Actually a reply that addresses my criticisms in a rational manner based on a common conception of the principles of justice would be great. However, it appears that there is no common conception of the principle of justice, which in itself is an interesting observation.

If you have questions beyond that, or would like to wrap yourself around the concept of a 'Just God' then again, take it out on the day meant for it, if there is such a day by your standards.

I'm here to ask questions. If you don't like questions being asked, then I suggest you don't answer them.

We can't begin to understand the nature of the divine, and as such will not reduce ourselves to the atheist agenda because in honesty and totality, God exists outside of the creation, laws of physics, time, and our concept of 'Justice'

If God is honestly 'beyond our concept of justice' then there is absolutely no reasoning that can be applied to this topic. I find your position rather dichotomous in this regard - on one hand, as here, you insist that there's no way to assess the justice of Hell, yet on the other you attempt to justify it by way of 'infinite blessings' and the like. Which is it?

I think very poorly of Non-Muslims and believe wholeheartedly if left to their devices, i.e even without a governing body (and by this I mean societal rules) then they'd turn into animals and turn everyone along with them into an animal like a mass hysteria the sort that gives us millions of dead one shot without moral compunction or remorse!

There there. Take a deep breath. Now go and make yourself a nice cup of tea and relax on the sofa in front of the TV or with a good book for a while - it sounds like you need it.

[جوري]

I'm sure you'd like to think so. But such bald assertions count for nothing in reasoned argument. I have demonstrated how the justifications given continue to break the principle of justice that is delivering a punishment that is proportional to the crimes committed. There's nothing subjective about that.

You've done nothing but post your opinion and expecting that others play along-- responses aren't borne of the same mindset that created them!

Lol, it was you that raised the hypothetical contract as a form of justification. If you don't like hypotheticals, you shouldn't use them! But by the above statement I can see that you do agree that supporting a hypothetical with further hypotheticals can be dismissed.

Not at all, you are arguing against something that you don't believe in. How can you argue against injustice of eternal hell, if you don't believe in it... those that believe in an eternal hell also believe in a just God!

Thankyou for admitting that. By accepting that assertion you make any further discussion moot as any actual analysis of the justness of certain God-derived punishments is automatically negated by the assertion. Of course, this is the same problem of supporting one hypothetical with another.

You can't analyze something that is beyond your scope of knowledge-- and thank you for admitting that!

Regarless of whether it's a 'better' question or not, it's not the subject of the thread. Let's try the question again and see if I get a relevant answer: What exactly is it about neglecting a blessing that is then deserving of infinite torment?

What would you have it deserve?

This is hypothetical. And it doesn't address the point I raised previously that agreeing to a punishment doesn't make it just.

Not at all, firstly as I don't even understand your concept of 'justice'!

You appear to be projecting, I haven't asked a single 'why me?' question in this entire thread. I am asking about the concept of justice in islam and how it relates to eternal punishment, I have no need to consider being in any personal 'danger' of affliction by hypotheticals. However, your insistence that once you accept one hypothetical then you should accept another is very revealing - once you've accepted one bald assertion, accepting more is just straightforward, eh?

And I have answered that amply, your dissatisfaction with the response is your problem to keep!

Actually a reply that addresses my criticisms in a rational manner based on a common conception of the principles of justice would be great. However, it appears that there is no common conception of the principle of justice, which in itself is an interesting observation.

Again, we don't know what your concept of 'justice' is, furthermore I don't find your queries 'rational' to meet them on a level. I find nothing more absurd than an atheist arguing an ancillary religious detail.. it is as if someone who has never taken a course of physics comes in arguing against one of its laws....

I'm here to ask questions. If you don't like questions being asked, then I suggest you don't answer them.

you mean you are here to ask non-questions and expect a response that caters to your thought processes!

If God is honestly 'beyond our concept of justice' then there is absolutely no reasoning that can be applied to this topic. I find your position rather dichotomous in this regard - on one hand, as here, you insist that there's no way to assess the justice of Hell, yet on the other you attempt to justify it by way of 'infinite blessings' and the like. Which is it?

Both-- There is nothing in the rule book against that!

There there. Take a deep breath. Now go and make yourself a nice cup of tea and relax on the sofa in front of the TV or with a good book for a while - it sounds like you need it.

Nah, that is the atheist life-style, I am headed off to work in 20 mins can't expect to butter ones bread for just 'being' and call it justice.. So many of you out there with a false sense of grandiosity it halts us all from seeking any other form of entertainment although I am glad it only lasts for five minutes, I am not sure how much longer you can sustain these platitudes while passing them off as worth our while!
..

all the best

[aadil77]

aadil77,
Sure, I understand that this could be the case and, if so, it ends any discussion as no justification for eternal punishment can be verified.

I've covered this justification a number of times in my earlier responses. It boils down to punishing people for things they have not done, which, in my opinion, is unjust (barring those things that are being actively planned but were interrupted). People do not live eternally, thus any 'if' clause is irrelevant to how they should be judged. For example, a similar situation would be a thief in prison: if he were free at that time he would most likely be committing further thefts - should he then be punished for those thefts that he did not commit but would have done if he were not incarcerated? According to your reasoning he should be.

It would make for an interesting topic to discuss where then you would exist, but I'd rather not go down that road here where the subject is the justification of eternal punishment.

The other day I watched the film "No Country for Old Men" wherein one scene there is a psychopath all alone in a store with the cashier. The psychopath tosses a coin and tells the cashier to call it - if he gets it right he wins 'everything' (i.e. his life). In this case the cashier had no choice but to play by the psychopath's rules and live (or die) by that system. I have a hard time seeing how your explanation avoids this problem of the weak merely being forced to play to the tune of the powerful.

If your justification for eternal punishment is simply 'these are the rules, live with it' then I consider that a very poor justification - it essentially amounts to a fallacious Argument to Authority.

Not really mate, if you had faith in Allah the Al-Mighty you would know that just in the same way He has created you He has blessed you with everything you have, everything you earn and everything you will have. From this you'd learn that He is not only your Creator but also your Provider, He has given you everything necessary for survival, He's given you all the necessary tools to be obedient to Him and hence be successful in the next life also. From this faith in god you build trust in Him and you'll know the He is Most-Just and All-Knowing, hence you won't have to worry about justification for His commands you'll know that He knows better than us and deals with His creatures justly. Again you can only accept this when you have faith in the Al-Mighty, since you're an atheist that seems unlikely, but its not impossible just look around you think about the world, how we have everything to survive and earn a living etc.

I've attached a picture below it has all the names of Allah, His qualities.

[Hiroshi]

Strangely, the name in the Qur'an for "Hell" is Jahannam which is derived from Greek "Gehenna" and Hebrew "Gei-Hinnom" meaning: "The Valley of (the sons of) Hinnom". This was the location of a rubbish dump to the south and south-east of Jerusalem.

[aadil77]

Strangely, the name in the Qur'an for "Hell" is Jahannam which is derived from Greek "Gehenna" and Hebrew "Gei-Hinnom" meaning: "The Valley of (the sons of) Hinnom". This was the location of a rubbish dump to the south and south-east of Jerusalem.

what about jannah? is it the location of a garden in jerusalem? :rollseyes

[Sister Unknown]

Of course, sister language of the two!

[جوري]

Strangely, the name in the Qur'an for "Hell" is Jahannam which is derived from Greek "Gehenna" and Hebrew "Gei-Hinnom" meaning: "The Valley of (the sons of) Hinnom". This was the location of a rubbish dump to the south and south-east of Jerusalem.

as hell is of different levels, it has many names, and not some 'dump' in south east Jerusalem!

The Names of Hell-Fire
Jahannam:
“Truly Jahannam (the Hellfire) is lying in wait.”
[an-Naba, 78: 21]
Latha:
“By no means! For it is Latha (the fire of Hell) burning away right to the skull.”
[Ma’arij, 70: 15-16]
Al-Hutamah: (Crusher which Smashes or Breaks to Pieces):
“By no means! He will certainly be thrown into al-Hutamah. And what will make you understand what al-Hutamah is? It is the fire of Allah, kindled to a blaze, which mounts right to the hearts.”
[al Humazah, 104: 4-7]
Sa’eer (the Burning Fire):
“…a group in Paradise and a group in Sa’eer.”
[ash-Shura, 42: 7]
Saqar:
“Soon will I cast him into Saqar. And what will explain to you what Saqar is? It permits nothing to endure and it leaves nothing alone, darkening and changing the color of man.”
[al Muddaththir, 74: 26-29]
Al-Jaheem (The Fierce Fire):
“And al-Jaheem will be brought out before those straying in evil.”
[ash-Shu’ara, 26: 91]
Al-Hawiyah (The Pit)
“But he whose scales are light – his home will be a pit. And what will make you understand what that is? (It is) a fire, blazing fiercely.”
[al Qar’iah, 101: 8-11]



Zamhareer a freezing hell



I wouldn't post in here anything you find on the web as a fact!


all the best

[DuncG]

τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ,

You've done nothing but post your opinion and expecting that others play along-- responses aren't borne of the same mindset that created them!

I've posted my opinion as it relates to the principle of justice where the punishment is proportional to the crime committed. Hardly 'nothing but'. Do you agree that the punishment should be proportional to the crime committed or not? If you don't, then our concepts of justice are fundamentally different, which is something I'd be interested in knowing.

Not at all, you are arguing against something that you don't believe in. How can you argue against injustice of eternal hell, if you don't believe in it... those that believe in an eternal hell also believe in a just God!

I am arguing against a concept that I perceive violates the principle of proportionate punishment, I don't have to believe a concept in order to argue against it. If you beleive that God is just then it should be possible to explain why the punishments God decrees are just. If you believe that this justification is only known by God then the discussion becomes moot. However, from what you say further in your response it appears that you want to believe simultaneously that the justification is and is not only known by God.

You can't analyze something that is beyond your scope of knowledge-- and thank you for admitting that!

You're welcome. But you're holding the simultaneous positions that the justification I'm interested in is both within and beyond the scope of knowledge. So long as there's at least part of your bifurcated opinion that thinks it's possible to know the justification for disproportionate punishment, then we have something to talk about.

What would you have it deserve?

A punishment that is proportionate to the level of suffering/death/loss incurred by the alleged crime, of course. This 'breaking of the contract' or 'neglection of the blessing' appears to be a crime against God, in your opinion. For it to be a crime there must some way in which God suffers or incurs some form of loss. Now, I have a hard time imagining how an invulnerable, omnipotent, omniscient, perfect being can suffer in any way, shape or form. But this is why I've asked you if God suffers infinitely - because, by the principle of proportionate punishment, the only way for infinite punishment to be justified is for the suffering the crime causes to be infinite.

'Breaking the contract' is covered in the paragraph below. As for 'neglecting a blessing' you have not yet provided any justification for why this should be punished at all, let alone infinitely. A blessing is another word for a gift - should you punish someone for rejecting or neglecting a gift? The moment you punish someone for not accepting a gift, it no longer becomes a gift. That's more like coercion: 'Take this and do what I tell you to do with it, or you'll suffer.'

Not at all, firstly as I don't even understand your concept of 'justice'!

Well, do you understand the principle of proportionate punishment? It appears obvious to me that murderers should be punished more harshly than robbers and robbers more harshly than thieves, etc. In some manner I believe this principle is also implicitly expressed in the punishments for sharia law - the punishments differ with respect to the alleged severity of the crime. So, this is why it's important that you answer my question as to whether you accept the principle of proportionate punishment. If you do, then signing a contract where you agree to be punished disproportionately for a certain crime that you commit still does not make the punishment just because the principle is still being violated.

Both-- There is nothing in the rule book against that!

This is the point at which you admit that infinite punishment can both be and not be justified, as mentioned above.

[DuncG]

aadil77,

Not really mate, if you had faith in Allah the Al-Mighty you would know that just in the same way He has created you He has blessed you with everything you have, everything you earn and everything you will have.

Do you mean it's not really an Argument to Authority? I can't see how it isn't, if I had faith then I would be tacitly admitting the Argument to Authority - I would be unquestioningly accepting assertions from an external source that I would have to unquestioningly believe is true. Such blind acceptance goes against rational thought - for an assertion to be accepted it should be possible to verify it's truth independently of the authored source. If this can't be done then, at most, the assertion should only be tentatively accepted and any further conclusions based on that assertion also only tentatively held.

From this faith in god you build trust in Him and you'll know the He is Most-Just and All-Knowing, hence you won't have to worry about justification for His commands you'll know that He knows better than us and deals with His creatures justly.

But again, this short-circuits the reasoning process. If you're happy accepting a bald assertion as absolutely true, then of course you do not desire any further explanation. Your blanket acceptance rejects the necessity of reasoning through why the assertion is true.

But I cannot see how what you've stated negates the point that one simply has to accept that eternal punishment is just in order to agree that it's just. Even if accepting this assertion can only be carried out by accepting a succession of prior assertions, similarly on faith, that still doesn't make it reasonable.

Thanks for the picture, I'd be interested in discussing the qualities at some point, but I think it goes beyond the remit of this thread (apart from the quality of being 'The Just').

[جوري]

I've posted my opinion as it relates to the principle of justice where the punishment is proportional to the crime committed. Hardly 'nothing but'. Do you agree that the punishment should be proportional to the crime committed or not? If you don't, then our concepts of justice are fundamentally different, which is something I'd be interested in knowing.

It isn't disproportionate when you have taken an oath for a chance at an eternal life, everything thereafter will carry that weight with it!

I am arguing against a concept that I perceive violates the principle of proportionate punishment, I don't have to believe a concept in order to argue against it. If you beleive that God is just then it should be possible to explain why the punishments God decrees are just. If you believe that this justification is only known by God then the discussion becomes moot. However, from what you say further in your response it appears that you want to believe simultaneously that the justification is and is not only known by God.

Sure you do, I can't argue that strawberry ice cream tastes disgusting when I have never had it and because all I know and love is Vanilla.. an abstract thought is difficult for you I understand, you have stated your grievance against something you don't even believe in, we have given you a detailed reply which includes other things you don't believe in, if you are unhappy with that, then you must deal with that on your own private time!

You're welcome. But you're holding the simultaneous positions that the justification I'm interested in is both within and beyond the scope of knowledge. So long as there's at least part of your bifurcated opinion that thinks it's possible to know the justification for disproportionate punishment, then we have something to talk about.

And that has been given you. Others not holding on to your position doesn't denote that the reply isn't without merit. Your opinion of justice and punishment is based on a hypothetical and an apriori judgment-- don't be surprised then when others come in with different principles and ideals than yours!

A punishment that is proportionate to the level of suffering/death/loss incurred by the alleged crime, of course. This 'breaking of the contract' or 'neglection of the blessing' appears to be a crime against God, in your opinion. For it to be a crime there must some way in which God suffers or incurs some form of loss. Now, I have a hard time imagining how an invulnerable, omnipotent, omniscient, perfect being can suffer in any way, shape or form. But this is why I've asked you if God suffers infinitely - because, by the principle of proportionate punishment, the only way for infinite punishment to be justified is for the suffering the crime causes to be infinite.

Those are all physical things pertaining to the physical laws, and the physical punishment of the physical world. We are speaking of a sin against God and against your own soul, which isn't bound by those laws!

'Breaking the contract' is covered in the paragraph below. As for 'neglecting a blessing' you have not yet provided any justification for why this should be punished at all, let alone infinitely. A blessing is another word for a gift - should you punish someone for rejecting or neglecting a gift? The moment you punish someone for not accepting a gift, it no longer becomes a gift. That's more like coercion: 'Take this and do what I tell you to do with it, or you'll suffer.'

See above reply!

Well, do you understand the principle of proportionate punishment? It appears obvious to me that murderers should be punished more harshly than robbers and robbers more harshly than thieves, etc. In some manner I believe this principle is also implicitly expressed in the punishments for sharia law - the punishments differ with respect to the alleged severity of the crime. So, this is why it's important that you answer my question as to whether you accept the principle of proportionate punishment. If you do, then signing a contract where you agree to be punished disproportionately for a certain crime that you commit still does not make the punishment just because the principle is still being violated.

well do you understand the term visceral, spiritual and sinning against that which isn't palpable?

This is the point at which you admit that infinite punishment can both be and not be justified, as mentioned above.

And I still hold on to that position, so we are not going beyond this point!

all the best

[DuncG]

τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ,

It isn't disproportionate when you have taken an oath for a chance at an eternal life, everything thereafter will carry that weight with it!

I don't see how that follows at all. If I sign a contract to enter a competition where I can win a million bucks and I fail, does that mean I owe the organisers a million bucks? This idea that's it's somehow a 'chance at an eternal life' appears to reduce existence down to a game, or even a bet: "Let's have a wager - if you can live by these rules I'll give you eternal paradise, but if you fail to, I get to give you eternal torture." It makes the outcome completely subjective on the willingness of the 'player' to enter into such a dodgy deal. Thus, there's no reference to whether it happens to be just or not, which is a severe drawback of contracts, as I've pointed out previously.

Sure you do, I can't argue that strawberry ice cream tastes disgusting when I have never had it ...

No, if this were true then all political debate on new policies would be impossible. Any newly-proposed legislation would have those that didn't believe in it, who would then argue against introducing it - they don't believe the concept of the legislation but still argue against it by means of inference (or rhetoric if they have no objective reasons to deny its validity). Similarly, a person could infer that strawberry ice cream tastes disgusting if they've tried strawberries and found that they're disgusting.

... don't be surprised then when others come in with different principles and ideals than yours!

Well that's exactly what I'm looking for - to see if the islamic principles of justice are different to the common principles of justice. At the moment it looks like you do agree with the principle of proportionate punishment, judging by your opening statement in your last post. However, you still haven't stated categorically that you do agree with this principle, so I'll ask again: do you think that a just legal system should punish criminals in proportion to the severity of the crime they have committed?

Those are all physical things pertaining to the physical laws, and the physical punishment of the physical world. We are speaking of a sin against God and against your own soul, which isn't bound by those laws!

Once again, you're flipping back to your other position where the 'justness' of Hell cannot be justified because it's bound by different laws that none of us have an idea about. By this sentiment there must be 'physical-justice', which is the one everyone has some idea about and includes such principles as proportionate punishment, and 'non-physical-justice' of which noone has a clue. By this standard, the only justice that means anything, then, is 'physical-justice' - the conclusion being that Hell is thus unjust by 'physical' criteria.

You still also haven't explained how God suffers non-physically in a manner that justifies punishing someone 'sinning' against it. Is this just another weird facet of non-physical-justice?

As for committing a crime/sin against your own 'soul', how does that work? Your 'soul' is yourself, how can you be both perpetrator and victim? If someone cuts their hand off and goes to the police asking for justice against themselves for being a victim of crime I think they'd be sent to a little padded cell pretty quickly. However, am I correct in assuming that this is another strange little way in which non-physical-justice appears to be completely at odds with physical-justice?

well do you understand the term visceral, spiritual and sinning against that which isn't palpable?

Term or terms? Please put whatever term(s) you're talking about in inverted commas.

Do you understand the principle of proportionate punishment?

And I still hold on to that position, so we are not going beyond this point!

Well, I'm not going to stop you holding on to the illogical position of simultaneously believing a proposition and its inverse, but it doesn't make for good discussion as you just vacillate between the positions, as noted above. Considering you're so quick to condemn others on this board when you perceive them to be arguing irrationally, why do you not hold yourself to the same standard?

[جوري]

I don't see how that follows at all. If I sign a contract to enter a competition where I can win a million bucks and I fail, does that mean I owe the organisers a million bucks? This idea that's it's somehow a 'chance at an eternal life' appears to reduce existence down to a game, or even a bet: "Let's have a wager - if you can live by these rules I'll give you eternal paradise, but if you fail to, I get to give you eternal torture." It makes the outcome completely subjective on the willingness of the 'player' to enter into such a dodgy deal. Thus, there's no reference to whether it happens to be just or not, which is a severe drawback of contracts, as I've pointed out previously.

I don't understand how a game enters into this, I am utterly bored with your analogies and inane conclusions. This is the world you find yourself in and these are the themes it runs on, once you find an alternate existence with a different reality that exists outside of the confines of this life, death, marriage, greed, work, envy, love, etc. can you come reducing things down to a game!

No, if this were true then all political debate on new policies would be impossible. Any newly-proposed legislation would have those that didn't believe in it, who would then argue against introducing it - they don't believe the concept of the legislation but still argue against it by means of inference (or rhetoric if they have no objective reasons to deny its validity). Similarly, a person could infer that strawberry ice cream tastes disgusting if they've tried strawberries and found that they're disgusting.

It doesn't matter the means whether they find strawberries disgusting because they tasted it and didn't like or because they simply prefer Vanilla, it is subjective under either circumstance and such are your assumptions on 'good' or 'justice' or whatever else!

Well that's exactly what I'm looking for - to see if the islamic principles of justice are different to the common principles of justice. At the moment it looks like you do agree with the principle of proportionate punishment, judging by your opening statement in your last post. However, you still haven't stated categorically that you do agree with this principle, so I'll ask again: do you think that a just legal system should punish criminals in proportion to the severity of the crime they have committed?

It depends on the crime, which part of that did you find difficult to understand before? in this case we are talking of the soul which is an eternal entity and God who is also eternal!

Once again, you're flipping back to your other position where the 'justness' of Hell cannot be justified because it's bound by different laws that none of us have an idea about. By this sentiment there must be 'physical-justice', which is the one everyone has some idea about and includes such principles as proportionate punishment, and 'non-physical-justice' of which noone has a clue. By this standard, the only justice that means anything, then, is 'physical-justice' - the conclusion being that Hell is thus unjust by 'physical' criteria.

See previous replies!

You still also haven't explained how God suffers non-physically in a manner that justifies punishing someone 'sinning' against it. Is this just another weird facet of non-physical-justice?

God doesn't suffer, you really need to work on your reading, comprehension and deductive reasoning!

As for committing a crime/sin against your own 'soul', how does that work? Your 'soul' is yourself, how can you be both perpetrator and victim? If someone cuts their hand off and goes to the police asking for justice against themselves for being a victim of crime I think they'd be sent to a little padded cell pretty quickly. However, am I correct in assuming that this is another strange little way in which non-physical-justice appears to be completely at odds with physical-justice?

Again, see previous post!
[QUOTE]

Well, I'm not going to stop you holding on to the illogical position of simultaneously believing a proposition and its inverse, but it doesn't make for good discussion as you just vacillate between the positions, as noted above. Considering you're so quick to condemn others on this board when you perceive them to be arguing irrationally, why do you not hold yourself to the same standard?

Always a pleasure having an atheist define the terms.. why don't you enjoy life which is 'disproportionally' short in comparison to how much of it you'll spend 6 feet under in lieu of wasting your time and ours on an Islamic forum?

all the best

[DuncG]

τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ,

This is the world you find yourself in and these are the themes it runs on, once you find an alternate existence with a different reality that exists outside of the confines of this life, death, marriage, greed, work, envy, love, etc. can you come reducing things down to a game!

I'm not reducing things down to a game, I was making an analogy to see if I could understand your point as it relates to justice. You appear to be making out that justice is subjectively determined due to the 'contracts' we sign and I disagree.

It doesn't matter the means whether they find strawberries disgusting because they tasted it and didn't like or because they simply prefer Vanilla, it is subjective under either circumstance and such are your assumptions on 'good' or 'justice' or whatever else!

Of course taste is subjective, pointing that out doesn't address the issue that you can argue against something because you don't believe it. Usually there are pretty good reasons for not believing something - do you have to believe the Earth is flat before you can argue against it?

It depends on the crime...

Right, so Islam only agrees with the principle of proportionate justice some of the time. Let me guess: the principle only holds when we're dealing with physical-justice and is irrelevant when dealing with non-physical-justice, right?

...in this case we are talking of the soul which is an eternal entity and God who is also eternal!

Which doesn't really justify punishing something for eternity - this merely makes justice subjective to the qualities of that which is to be punished. No doubt this is also due to non-physical-justice that noone understands.

See previous replies!

Your previous replies do not address the issue of this difference in physical and non-physical justice. If you think justice is objective then there is only one form of justice, I imagine that you probably think the non-physical-justice is the one that is actually objective. In which case, we're in a situation where 'real' justice is actually unknown and cannot be known, which makes it impossible to come to any conclusions about justice, including thinking that non-physical-justice is objective...

God doesn't suffer...

So how can God be wronged, then? How is it possible to commit a crime against God? If God does not suffer then there is no basis on which God needs to seek recompense through justice. Does this simply require another bald assertion that cannot relate to our reason because it's part of non-physical-justice?

Again, see previous post!

Again, your previous post does not address the subject of how you can commit a crime against yourself. You just assert, you do not explain.

Always a pleasure having an atheist define the terms...

Lol, you think it was me who defined the operation of classical negation? I'm flattered. Unfortunately that's not the case. You hold that both A (infinite punishment can be justified) and ~A are true, which is fundamentally illogical.

... wasting your time and ours on an Islamic forum?

Do you honestly think it's a waste of time for me to ask questions about Islam and try to understand what its proponents think?

[جوري]

I'm not reducing things down to a game, I was making an analogy to see if I could understand your point as it relates to justice. You appear to be making out that justice is subjectively determined due to the 'contracts' we sign and I disagree.

That is your poor understanding of what is written-- and it makes it utterly pointless to engage you!

Of course taste is subjective, pointing that out doesn't address the issue that you can argue against something because you don't believe it. Usually there are pretty good reasons for not believing something - do you have to believe the Earth is flat before you can argue against it?

This has nothing to do with a flat object, or objects all together, but you have in fact cemented my point, why argue particulars of something you all together don't believe in, and when the time comes give us your own take on concepts?

Right, so Islam only agrees with the principle of proportionate justice some of the time. Let me guess: the principle only holds when we're dealing with physical-justice and is irrelevant when dealing with non-physical-justice, right?

No, not right, and I have quoted amply from the Quran, that one will only be dealt with justly by a just God, and that if you don't believe in that (doubly so) but should you find yourself in that position, then you can direct your grievances directly!

Which doesn't really justify punishing something for eternity - this merely makes justice subjective to the qualities of that which is to be punished. No doubt this is also due to non-physical-justice that noone understands.

Do you enjoy circuitousness? Your desire to impose your own subjective opinion, to combat what you believe to be equally subjective opinions, will take neither of us anywhere!

Your previous replies do not address the issue of this difference in physical and non-physical justice. If you think justice is objective then there is only one form of justice, I imagine that you probably think the non-physical-justice is the one that is actually objective. In which case, we're in a situation where 'real' justice is actually unknown and cannot be known, which makes it impossible to come to any conclusions about justice, including thinking that non-physical-justice is objective...

How did you make such an inference, that non-physical justice is objective? I have neither addressed the objectivity nor the subjectivity of it.. in fact I'll go so far to say I wouldn't discuss worldly physical justice with you, since I am not standing on the same platform as you. I question the integrity and soundness of your moral system all together to take it with you to the next level.. This is exactly the point on the road where we part ways!

So how can God be wronged, then? How is it possible to commit a crime against God? If God does not suffer then there is no basis on which God needs to seek recompense through justice. Does this simply require another bald assertion that cannot relate to our reason because it's part of non-physical-justice?

Again, an inference you have posed and expect an answer to, I never said God is wronged, and let me quote directly from the Quran:

[Pickthal 2:57] - they wronged Us not, but they did wrong themselves.


Precisely why any discussion with you is a moot point.
1- you don't believe in God
2- You have a skewed concept of justice that is confined to about the 10% of the population that you represent and even within your atheist community your opinions surely differ
3- you have absolutely no understanding of an entire system of jurisprudence which you are trying to gauge on a most sophomoric level
4- you have your own subjective opinion of what justice and morality is
5- you are apt at non-sequiturs and points that have absolutely no relevance to what preceded them or what I have personally written and expect that somehow the replies should draw from your desired understanding of what was written rather than what is actually written
6- you enjoy circuitousness and endless inane drivel as if your dear life depended on it, which takes us all back to post one.. pls. note that your unhappiness with the responses doesn't mean that a sound response wasn't given.. if you can't wrap your mind around that, then simply take it to a forum with like minded individuals since that is all we have to offer you here and you are becoming more of a gadfly than an inquirer with each subsequent repetitive post!

Do you honestly think it's a waste of time for me to ask questions about Islam and try to understand what its proponents think?

Some people in my humble opinion do more good as antaomical gifts to others than fully functional human beings, how you yourself like to use your time is your own business, but you should define an end point so you are not walking aimlessly expecting that others should go along for the accompaniment because you are too good to be true-- again in my humble opinion wasting your own time isn't as much of a crime as wasting mine.. and this will be my last post to you on the subject!

all the best

[DuncG]

τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ,

That is your poor understanding of what is written-- and it makes it utterly pointless to engage you!

Well, I've addressed your point about contracts and explained why I don't think it's just. If you're not interested in addressing my criticism other than with bald assertions, then I agree that there's little to engage with there.

This has nothing to do with a flat object, or objects all together, but you have in fact cemented my point, why argue particulars of something you all together don't believe in, and when the time comes give us your own take on concepts?

You've totally missed the point, again. You think people shouldn't argue against things they don't believe in, yet I've made it very clear, using a simple example, that this is usually a reasonable position to take. Your attitude that nothing should be addressed by anyone who doesn't believe it would wipe out all debate and critical discussion across every subject.

No, not right, and I have quoted amply from the Quran, that one will only be dealt with justly by a just God...

But you said previously that a proportionate punishment is only forthcoming dependent on the crime committed. Some crimes receive a disproportionate punishment. So, how is this difference justified? I believe your answer will be something along the lines that we can't understand the 'justness' of the eternal punishment of some crimes because that is something only God knows - i.e. non-physical-justice.

Also, simply saying a 'just God' allows you to equivocate - you think there is justice as relates to the physical and justice as relates to the non-physical. So you should more accurately state it to be a 'non-physically-just' God.

Your desire to impose your own subjective opinion, to combat what you believe to be equally subjective opinions, will take neither of us anywhere!

No, what's not taking us anywhere is your inability to address the points made against your position. Saying that we are eternal beings and thus are deserving of eternal punishment means that you are making justice subject to the qualities of the being that is to be punished, rather than the significance of the crime committed. I see this as a poor reason to break the principle of proportionate punishment, but again, your reason to break that principle is because there is non-physical-justice that we are ignorant of.

How did you make such an inference, that non-physical justice is objective?

As far as I understand it, Islam asserts that God is absolutely (and therefore objectively) just. Is this incorrect, in your view?

... I never said God is wronged ...

In post #95 you clearly state, "We are speaking of a sin against God..." A sin is another word for a crime and if you commit a crime against someone you wrong them. Perhaps the term 'sin' means something completely different from 'crime' to you.

[Pickthal 2:57] - they wronged Us not, but they did wrong themselves.

And you still haven't explained how this can be grounds for punishing someone at all, let alone for eternity. You cannot be both victim and perpetrator of a crime, as I've previously pointed out. If you abuse yourself then, across the world, you're generally treated as having a psychological disorder rather than as a criminal.

2- You have a skewed concept of justice that is confined to about the 10% of the population that you represent and even within your atheist community your opinions surely differ

Complete rubbish. The principle of proportionate punishment is implicitly included in every moral and legal system I've come across, except in the case of certain religions - and then only in the case of certain alleged crimes. Crimes are always scaled according to their perceived severity and punishment administered in proportion.

3- you have absolutely no understanding of an entire system of jurisprudence which you are trying to gauge on a most sophomoric level

The part I'm trying to engage with concerns the justification for breaking the principle of proportionate punishment as in the case of eternal punishment. You haven't mentioned a system of jurisprudence that covers that - merely said that it's beyond our understanding and must thus be part of non-physical-justice. What is there to guage?


The rest of your post is just irrelevant personal attack, so you'll understand that I won't bother addressing it. Thankyou very much for the discussion, though, it's been interesting to a certain extent.

Take care.

[جوري]

Well, I've addressed your point about contracts and explained why I don't think it's just. If you're not interested in addressing my criticism other than with bald assertions, then I agree that there's little to engage with there.

And I have asserted that your explanation is based on an apriori judgment and can be therefore dismissed as nothing more than a hysterical emotion.

You've totally missed the point, again. You think people shouldn't argue against things they don't believe in, yet I've made it very clear, using a simple example, that this is usually a reasonable position to take. Your attitude that nothing should be addressed by anyone who doesn't believe it would wipe out all debate and critical discussion across every subject.

I think what you call a 'critical discussion' is nothing more than vain discourse, and again, you should define for yourself what you seek for a conclusion so as to not waste your time and that of others!

But you said previously that a proportionate punishment is only forthcoming dependent on the crime committed. Some crimes receive a disproportionate punishment. So, how is this difference justified? I believe your answer will be something along the lines that we can't understand the 'justness' of the eternal punishment of some crimes because that is something only God knows - i.e. non-physical-justice.

Again, by whose standard do we measure this incongruity between crime vs. punishment?

Also, simply saying a 'just God' allows you to equivocate - you think there is justice as relates to the physical and justice as relates to the non-physical. So you should more accurately state it to be a 'non-physically-just' God.

No, what's not taking us anywhere is your inability to address the points made against your position. Saying that we are eternal beings and thus are deserving of eternal punishment means that you are making justice subject to the qualities of the being that is to be punished, rather than the significance of the crime committed. I see this as a poor reason to break the principle of proportionate punishment, but again, your reason to break that principle is because there is non-physical-justice that we are ignorant of.

Again, your desire for a different set of responses doesn't negate the points made, nor does it render one unable to clarify them. It is nothing more than cognitive conservatism on your end.. and ultimately questions this visceral in nature should be answered by the punish-er!
Personally I can't fathom anything worse than a kaffir, and certainly kuffr is a gateway for all sorts of other lowly crimes

As far as I understand it, Islam asserts that God is absolutely (and therefore objectively) just. Is this incorrect, in your view?

I have said so much and repeatedly!

In post #95 you clearly state, "We are speaking of a sin against God..." A sin is another word for a crime and if you commit a crime against someone you wrong them. Perhaps the term 'sin' means something completely different from 'crime' to you.

No a sin and a crime are two separate entities else they would not be two separate words
This is your own ailing definition in an attempt to steer the topic to your level of word play!
a sin= a transgression against the will of God.. a crime is simply breaking the law of your state.. look them both up in the dictionary!

And you still haven't explained how this can be grounds for punishing someone at all, let alone for eternity. You cannot be both victim and perpetrator of a crime, as I've previously pointed out. If you abuse yourself then, across the world, you're generally treated as having a psychological disorder rather than as a criminal.

Actually that isn't true, and in England up to very recently last century an attempt at suicide was ironically enough punishable by death... until such a time you can create (not procreate) ex nihilo as I understand you have difficulty with certain definitions --can you then come and speak to me of the concept of victim rather than a perpetrator.. be that as it may and I have no desire for more byways, if someone were truly psychologically inept and non calculating then they are exempt from punishment.. We are speaking of rational, thinking adults (of age) who knowingly, consciously and freely of their own volition deny the existence of their creator and his endless blessings upon them, thereby breaking the oath they have taken to worship God alone!

Complete rubbish. The principle of proportionate punishment is implicitly included in every moral and legal system I've come across, except in the case of certain religions - and then only in the case of certain alleged crimes. Crimes are always scaled according to their perceived severity and punishment administered in proportion.

Again, this goes back to definitions of sins vs. crimes.. society now rewards homosexuals of sorts, you may not see it as a crime, just two fools getting bent and teaching 5 year olds about all sorts of love in 'with tango make three' but that is in fact a sin against God.. if you desire to live a life outside of the religious moral code, you are certainly free to do so, but don't come complaining or arguing against your perceived unfairness in all of this..
someone may have studied 'very hard' for a test and ends up with a 79% which is a failing a grade (if we take 80% to be passing), while someone else may have studied 'equally hard' and gotten a 98%.. now you may believe that this is unfair but if you are given an advance warning, material to study and you signed up for the course, don't go around asking everyone on your perceived unfairness, or how 79% percent is close to 80% can't lower the cutoff point to meet with your expectations with whatever outcome might ensue from such a failure-- Luckily actually God is more forgiving than my example here.. but I am hoping this is down to a level that you can understand!

The part I'm trying to engage with concerns the justification for breaking the principle of proportionate punishment as in the case of eternal punishment. You haven't mentioned a system of jurisprudence that covers that - merely said that it's beyond our understanding and must thus be part of non-physical-justice. What is there to guage?

See previous detailed responses!

. Thankyou very much for the discussion, though, it's been interesting to a certain extent.

Take care.

all the best

[DuncG]

τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ,

And I have asserted that your explanation is based on an apriori judgment and can be therefore dismissed as nothing more than a hysterical emotion.

Oh dear, this is wrong on so many levels.

1. Just because something is a priori does not mean it is 'nothing more than a hysterical emotion'. If you're going to ask me to look up dictionary definitions, kindly follow your own advice.
2. You can assert that my explanation is a priori as much as you want, but that won't make it true. My explanation is a posteriori based on my experiences and knowledge gathered of moral and ethical systems.
3. For someone like yourself, that requires a number of a priori bald assertions to even start saying what is and is not just, to complain that a priori statements are hysterically emotional is laughable. Once again, you clearly demonstrate that you hold others to a different standard than you hold yourself.

I think what you call a 'critical discussion' is nothing more than vain discourse, and again, you should define for yourself what you seek for a conclusion so as to not waste your time and that of others!

As you failed to address my point I can only conclude that you accept that you can still argue against something that you don't believe in.

But no thanks, defining the conclusion before entering a discussion is the ideologue's method. I'm not interested in a priori concluding what the outcome is and then twisting all evidence to match that - that would be irrational and destroy any chance of learning something new.

Again, by whose standard do we measure this incongruity between crime vs. punishment?

It's not an incongruity between crime and punishment - it's an incongruity between finite punishment and infinite punishment. The standard I'm measuring against is the principle of proportionate punishment, for the umpteenth time...

You also here repeat one of my paragraphs without using the quote function - did you forget to write a comment in?

Again, your desire for a different set of responses doesn't negate the points made, nor does it render one unable to clarify them. It is nothing more than cognitive conservatism on your end.. and ultimately questions this visceral in nature should be answered by the punish-er!

If you're able to clarify your points, that would be greatly appreciated. As for accusing others of cognitive conservatism when, in the same sentence, you then retreat to your stance of ignorance and claim that justification can only come from God ... well, double-standards again.

I have said so much and repeatedly!

Ok, I'm really doubting that it's possible to have a sane dialogue here. You said in post #99 that, "I have neither addressed the objectivity nor the subjectivity of it [non-physical justice - i.e. the justice of God]." Yet here you are claiming that you've repeatedly pointed out that God is objectively just - which obviously implies an objective justness.

You have clearly admitted that you hold to an illogical position, repeatedly held others to standards you don't apply to yourself and now appear to be vacillating between positions from one post to the next.

No a sin and a crime are two separate entities else they would not be two separate words ... a sin= a transgression against the will of God.. a crime is simply breaking the law of your state.

A stone and a rock. Go look up the word 'synonym'.

Well, firstly I don't see how it's possible to transgress against the will of God. Is it not a principle in Islam that everything occurs by the will of God? But regardless, it is contradictory to claim that the will of an omnipotent being can be transgressed. Whatever such a being wills must come to pass by virtue of the quality of omnipotence. So, that appears to be an illogical definition that you're using.

Furthermore, crimes are judged as such based on the suffering/death/loss incurred by the victim. If you're honestly saying that a sin is different from a crime, then on what basis are certain actions judged to be sins? We've established that God cannot suffer/die/lose anything, so that's obviously not the basis on which something is defined as a sin. Plus the above paragraph makes it clear that it's impossible to transgress the will of an omnipotent being, so that can't be the basis. So what is this basis? Or are you ignorant of the basis and this is just another a priori (aka emotionally hysterical, allegedly) concept that your ideology simply has to assert?

Actually that isn't true, and in England up to very recently last century an attempt at suicide was ironically enough punishable by death...

Yes, I'm well aware of that and the repeal of that law serves to make my point. After all, it was only because of the prior religious ideology that the law existed in the first place. That law could not justify why a person could be both victim and perpetrator of a crime, and neither can you thus far.

We are speaking of rational, thinking adults (of age) who knowingly, consciously and freely of their own volition deny the existence of their creator and his endless blessings upon them, thereby breaking the oath they have taken to worship God alone!

So it comes down to being punished eternally for holding an opinion. An opinion that doesn't transgress God's will because, if God willed it, the opinion would change. What is the basis for punishing this opinion, let alone for eternity? Same question as above, in effect. Even admitting this 'oath' has taken place - it's part of physical justice to punish oath-breakers. Why are you now taking part of physical justice and applying it to non-physical justice, contrary to your earlier point to me that I couldn't judge the unjustness of eternal punishment based on physical justice? Once again, you appear to be changing the rules on how you evaluate this whole issue.

Again, this goes back to definitions of sins vs. crimes ...

No it doesn't. You've gone off on an irrelevant tangent in this whole section. The point that you previously made was that my 'opinion' of justice was only shared by 10% of the population and it was moot to argue with someone holding that position. However, as I've explained that the principle of proportionate punishment is inherent in almost all legal and moral systems, it is obvious that your claim was in error.

See previous detailed responses!

Why? Which previous 'detailed response' even mentions this system of jurisprudence relating to eternal punishment that you've spoken of?

[جوري]

Oh dear, this is wrong on so many levels.

Wow you really need a hobby!

1. Just because something is a priori does not mean it is 'nothing more than a hysterical emotion'. If you're going to ask me to look up dictionary definitions, kindly follow your own advice.

In which way exactly?

2. You can assert that my explanation is a priori as much as you want, but that won't make it true. My explanation is a posteriori based on my experiences and knowledge gathered of moral and ethical systems.

Does 'post priori' make what you say more factual in your opinion?

3. For someone like yourself, that requires a number of a priori bald assertions to even start saying what is and is not just, to complain that a priori statements are hysterically emotional is laughable. Once again, you clearly demonstrate that you hold others to a different standard than you hold yourself.

I don't see it as laughable at all. I have never shoved in your face that these are absolute truths without you having to subscribe first to a belief. If you subscribe to set belief by whatever method, then that comes with a set of principles and tenets are derived that aren't subjects to your addendums!

As you failed to address my point I can only conclude that you accept that you can still argue against something that you don't believe in.

More drivel!

But no thanks, defining the conclusion before entering a discussion is the ideologue's method. I'm not interested in a priori concluding what the outcome is and then twisting all evidence to match that - that would be irrational and destroy any chance of learning something new.

That is exactly what you do. You twist the written words to match your desired conclusions, it is a wonder at all the sort of intellectual bankruptcy that must plague you to project your ills on those who choose to reply to you!

It's not an incongruity between crime and punishment - it's an incongruity between finite punishment and infinite punishment. The standard I'm measuring against is the principle of proportionate punishment, for the umpteenth time...

Your standards are non-standards by theological count 'for the umpteenth time'

You also here repeat one of my paragraphs without using the quote function - did you forget to write a comment in?

probably but it must not have been worth a reply to begin with!

If you're able to clarify your points, that would be greatly appreciated. As for accusing others of cognitive conservatism when, in the same sentence, you then retreat to your stance of ignorance and claim that justification can only come from God ... well, double-standards again.

'for the umpteenth time' the position has been clarified, you seem to have a sort of mental veil with certain concepts, I can't somehow abridge the physical/time continuum to put these in terms that are more suited for your personal taste!

Ok, I'm really doubting that it's possible to have a sane dialogue here. You said in post #99 that, "I have neither addressed the objectivity nor the subjectivity of it [non-physical justice - i.e. the justice of God]." Yet here you are claiming that you've repeatedly pointed out that God is objectively just - which obviously implies an objective justness.

I wish you'd have come to that conclusion sooner indeed, as to why is beyond me, also why you choose to add words to push this charade in the direction of your choosing is equally a conundrum!
I haven't claimed that God is 'objectively' just. I have asserted that God is 'just' period!

You have clearly admitted that you hold to an illogical position, repeatedly held others to standards you don't apply to yourself and now appear to be vacillating between positions from one post to the next.

How would you personally apply logic here? if I said I have a very painful migraine caused by engaging you, how would you logically prove that to be so? further from there how would you prove that the migraine is indeed caused by you and not TTP or giant cell arteritis or a simply the idopathic sort?
Two things you should learn from this hopefully.
1- There is no headacheometer
2- in order for you to establish the truth of a headache and its etiology you have to have some baseline understanding of medicine
if you don't have the instrumentation, nor do you have the fund of empirical knowledge to apply here, then what the hell are you doing wasting your time and worse yet mine?



I think beyond this is a clear waste, and I am actually sorry that I have been baited by a gadfly all together!

all the best

[DuncG]

Thε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ,

I'll be away for the next few days so will get back to you at the beginning of next week. Have a good weekend!

[DuncG]

τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ,

In which way exactly?

Ok, here's the dictionary definition for you, from the World English Dictionary:

a priori
1. logic relating to or involving deductive reasoning from a general principle to the expected facts or effects
2. logic known to be true independently of or in advance of experience of the subject matter; requiring no evidence for its validation or support

Does 'post priori' make what you say more factual in your opinion?

Where does the phrase 'post priori' come from? An a posteriori judgement has to be based on facts, by definition.

I have never shoved in your face that these are absolute truths without you having to subscribe first to a belief. If you subscribe to set belief by whatever method, then that comes with a set of principles and tenets are derived that aren't subjects to your addendums!

How can something be 'absolutely true' yet also entail someone engaging their subjective 'belief' in it? If it's absolutely true, then it's true whether or not it's believed. I am well aware that tenets can be derived from a set of beliefs, but that's not the point. The point is that those beliefs are accepted a priori, which, by your definition, would make that an 'emotionally hysterical' descision. This is why it is laughable for you to describe a priori statements like this - you entertain them just as much as anyone else.

That is exactly what you do. You twist the written words to match your desired conclusions ...

Not at all, as demonstrated above in our discussion about crime vs. sin. Of course, at the beginning of any discussion with someone, I'm bound to use the definition of a word that I commonly use until someone else describes how they use the term. How could it be otherwise? But then, as with your definition of sin, I'm happy to engage using the term as you've defined it and I asked further questions regarding your ideology using that definition. I'm well aware that we both take up contrary positions prior to starting a discussion, but that's actually one of the best ways to fully explore a topic.

Your standards are non-standards by theological count 'for the umpteenth time'

Yet you do not know the standards of theological count. Again, you are retreating to the position that eternal punishment cannot be justified.

I haven't claimed that God is 'objectively' just. I have asserted that God is 'just' period!

Well, I asked you if you thought God is absolutely (and therefore objectively just) and you said that you've said "so much and repeatedly!" Clear as crystal, above. What you really mean, according to your previous complaint about me referring to physical 'laws and punishments', is that God is just in a non-physical manner of which we have no comprehension. This is thus an a priori belief of yours that is not open to any examination, physical, reasonable or otherwise. If you agree that this is the case, then fair enough.

How would you personally apply logic here?

Well, very simply. If you take the position that both a statement and its inverse is true you need to realise that this is illogical. You then need to resolve this paradox yourself and decide one way or another.

The paradox you have claimed (post #95) to adopt is that infinite punishment can both be justified and not be justified. So, are you going to be logical and come down on one side or the other, or are you going to continue to hold this paradoxical position?

I think beyond this is a clear waste ...

Why, because you can't answer my questions that point out further paradoxes in your position?

[جوري]

Ok, here's the dictionary definition for you, from the World English Dictionary:

a priori
1. logic relating to or involving deductive reasoning from a general principle to the expected facts or effects
2. logic known to be true independently of or in advance of experience of the subject matter; requiring no evidence for its validation or support

Indeed, and your point being? I used the term to define exactly that, or did you want to see it splayed out in full?

Where does the phrase 'post priori' come from? An a posteriori judgement has to be based on facts, by definition.

and what in your thought process here is exactly based on facts? you are building a subjective opinion based on something that is essentially based on tenets of faith!

How can something be 'absolutely true' yet also entail someone engaging their subjective 'belief' in it? If it's absolutely true, then it's true whether or not it's believed. I am well aware that tenets can be derived from a set of beliefs, but that's not the point. The point is that those beliefs are accepted a priori, which, by your definition, would make that an 'emotionally hysterical' descision. This is why it is laughable for you to describe a priori statements like this - you entertain them just as much as anyone else.

Some beliefs are indeed hysterical and perpetuate mass hysteria (I won't get into that on the account I am fasting and after a long day of work am in no mood for you) but what I do find most hysterical is an ignoramus gauging a topic completely outside his sphere of expertise!
unwilling to accept certain tenets which are visceral in nature, yet argues against them with equally emotive and illogical beliefs!

Not at all, as demonstrated above in our discussion about crime vs. sin. Of course, at the beginning of any discussion with someone, I'm bound to use the definition of a word that I commonly use until someone else describes how they use the term. How could it be otherwise? But then, as with your definition of sin, I'm happy to engage using the term as you've defined it and I asked further questions regarding your ideology using that definition. I'm well aware that we both take up contrary positions prior to starting a discussion, but that's actually one of the best ways to fully explore a topic.

You explore the topic with someone who is interested in you or your nonsense. I have in fact given you the dictionary definition and not 'lily's definition' of sins vs. crimes.. if you desire to make them synonymous then like that of your grievances against eternal punishment, should be taken up by the folks at meriam webster!

Yet you do not know the standards of theological count. Again, you are retreating to the position that eternal punishment cannot be justified.

Indeed, no one can claim to speak for the divine. I have already explained in totality that the soul is not ephemeral and a sin against your soul is the equivalent of an estrangement from God, inasmuch as your soul is eternal so is your oath to fulfill your duties toward your creator in this brief life, whatever other concoctions of your mind you create surrounding that, is your own problem, this is the stand point from a theological point of view!

Well, very simply. If you take the position that both a statement and its inverse is true you need to realise that this is illogical. You then need to resolve this paradox yourself and decide one way or another.

I have no idea what this drivel denotes and don't care for you to elucidate your points further!

The paradox you have claimed (post #95) to adopt is that infinite punishment can both be justified and not be justified. So, are you going to be logical and come down on one side or the other, or are you going to continue to hold this paradoxical position?

why not quote me in lieu of telling me what you have deduced, since your judgment isn't the most sound encountered!

Why, because you can't answer my questions that point out further paradoxes in your position?

Yeah, that must be it, you found me out oh astute atheist!

all the best

[DuncG]

τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ,

Indeed, and your point being?

The point being that something that is a priori is not necessarily 'hysterically emotional', as you previously made out.

and what in your thought process here is exactly based on facts? you are building a subjective opinion based on something that is essentially based on tenets of faith!

Well, the fact that the principle of proportionate punishment is implicit in every moral system developed and used by humans is evidence for its soundness as a principle of justice. Sure, everyone could be wrong on this point, but I've seen no argument in this thread against the principle. Indeed, the whole point of this thread rests on that principle.

unwilling to accept certain tenets which are visceral in nature, yet argues against them with equally emotive and illogical beliefs!

Well, being visceral is hardly reasonable grounds for accepting the tenets you propose. But I'm not even sure that most of the assertions you've put forward even warrant the term visceral - they're part of your doctrine and as such are only 'felt' after they've been taught. But please expand on why you think the principle of proportionate punishment is 'emotive' and 'illogical'. I haven't read anywhere why you think this to be the case - it does appear to be one of your visceral reactions that you haven't explained yet.

...if you desire to make them synonymous...

As pointed out to you, I've addressed the point using the definitions you like to use. The dictionary definitions can both be considered 'transgressions' and thus can be interpreted as synonymous. The qualitative difference between a criminal transgression and a transgression 'against your own soul', that necessitates a different, apparently unknowable, justice, remains unexplained.

Indeed, no one can claim to speak for the divine.

But you do, as noted by the statements directly following this one! You have not 'explained' at all - making theological assertions is not 'explanation'. You accuse others of concocting, but that is all that your theology appears to do. You still haven't answered how you can transgress against yourself (or your 'soul'). Why is it the 'equivalent of an estrangement from God'? These are simple assertions that lack any rational foundation, as far as I can make out.

why not quote me in lieu of telling me what you have deduced...

Why not go back to post #95, as referenced, and check it for yourself? Or would that be too much trouble? If you're too lazy to bother, then don't bother. After all, if you're not actually willing to pay attention to the threads of this conversation then you're not really worth the time.

Yeah, that must be it, you found me out oh astute atheist!

Hiding behind sarcasm won't answer my questions or respond to the flaws in your ideology that I perceive. If you're going to answer me on a discussion board, then at least have the maturity to discuss, even if you still can't resist spattering your posts with pointless, petty insults.

[جوري]

The point being that something that is a priori is not necessarily 'hysterically emotional', as you previously made out.

Indeed, however, I am yet to find that applicable to you!

Well, the fact that the principle of proportionate punishment is implicit in every moral system developed and used by humans is evidence for its soundness as a principle of justice. Sure, everyone could be wrong on this point, but I've seen no argument in this thread against the principle. Indeed, the whole point of this thread rests on that principle.

again, we are not speaking of crimes we are speaking of sins against ones mortal soul.. how many times must we go over this in your opinion?

Well, being visceral is hardly reasonable grounds for accepting the tenets you propose. But I'm not even sure that most of the assertions you've put forward even warrant the term visceral - they're part of your doctrine and as such are only 'felt' after they've been taught. But please expand on why you think the principle of proportionate punishment is 'emotive' and 'illogical'. I haven't read anywhere why you think this to be the case - it does appear to be one of your visceral reactions that you haven't explained yet.

See reply number two which has been clarified multiple times prior!

As pointed out to you, I've addressed the point using the definitions you like to use. The dictionary definitions can both be considered 'transgressions' and thus can be interpreted as synonymous. The qualitative difference between a criminal transgression and a transgression 'against your own soul', that necessitates a different, apparently unknowable, justice, remains unexplained.

They are not in fact synonymous, it is the same as if you were stating that contentedness and acceptance are the same thing. Sin is an estrangement from God's when you have broken God's laws!

But you do, as noted by the statements directly following this one! You have not 'explained' at all - making theological assertions is not 'explanation'. You accuse others of concocting, but that is all that your theology appears to do. You still haven't answered how you can transgress against yourself (or your 'soul'). Why is it the 'equivalent of an estrangement from God'? These are simple assertions that lack any rational foundation, as far as I can make out.

That is in fact the dictionary's definition yet again, so this is yet another concept you must take out with the good folks at word web, after you've taken the previous up with meriam webster, if they can withstand your platitudes.. if all of that fails, might I merely suggest you enroll in some basic classes on language, etymology before you take the leap forward to religion and philosophy!

Why not go back to post #95, as referenced, and check it for yourself? Or would that be too much trouble? If you're too lazy to bother, then don't bother. After all, if you're not actually willing to pay attention to the threads of this conversation then you're not really worth the time.

Are you too lazy or do you exempt yourself from clarifying your own bromides before projecting your miserable existence and failure unto others? if you had something of substance to impart then share it, I am not here to do your homework for you or deduce as your whims dictate!

Hiding behind sarcasm won't answer my questions or respond to the flaws in your ideology that I perceive. If you're going to answer me on a discussion board, then at least have the maturity to discuss, even if you still can't resist spattering your posts with pointless, petty insults.

what petty insults are those? or do you find the term atheist offensive?