In this comparative religion section I thought it might be useful to talk over the notion of what it might mean to say something is good as it seems a useful idea and it would be interesting to see if Muslims have a different notion of it to others. To begin the discussion I will just outline some loose ideas and you may like to comment on those before perhaps getting into specifics.
1. Definition - the word good (in English) takes up quite a space in a dictionary with a wide span of meaning:
Good - "having desirable or positive qualities, agreeable or pleasing"
Good - "morally admirable or excellent or suitable
Good - "deserving of respect" etc.
2. For our purposes here I shall use a definition that is common in philosophy and that is that a 'good' is something we might want to create, keep preserve because it brings or adds value; meaning that which is worth having. In this thread the concern is about goods that can be achieved by action meaning we set out to do, get, or hold on to them. It is understood that in the world there are many valuable things, of which perhaps the most important is love, which are simply not within our power to acquire or preserve (except indirectly)
3. Since we are speaking of goods and their value then we are into the realm of judgement because logic alone cannot help us decide if something is good or bad and we have to rely essentially on our emotions. For example, it sounds logical to set criteria and use those criteria to judge if something is bad or good but it is obvious the setting of criteria itself involved judgements.
4. So how can we decide if something is bad or good? Well I will suggest three ways but it is understood here that one can offer personal opinions only and in general you cannot speak for everyone. It follows that you cannot base an argument for a good on the basis that you consider it to be that but of course you can argue that it is for you good or bad or you may be just indifferent.
a. Use dogma, that is some one or something tells us; for examples the Qu'ran or the Bible. But dogma alone seems unsatisfying to the human mind and we need to ask why. b. We use the notion of value and ask if the 'thing' is worth creating, keeping or preserving c. This is really an extension of b but we attempt to be logical by agreeing on criteria
5. Lastly, I want to speak about absolutes. In mathematics for example we can in principle always decide if something is true or false, there can be no grey areas. Also if I say I have 3 sons and two daughters there doubt but if I say that bird in the bush is grey and that other one is not but there will always be shades of grey where we can't decide - that is the concept of 'grey' is necessarily vague. Language itself of course is vague, in a way that is the beauty of it. Science itself has almost built into it vagueness as concepts and theories are always on the move.
A starter topic to demonstrate the principles?
Is music good or bad might be a place to start as its been debated hotly in this board but not as far as I can see in the term I have outlined and mostly in terms of dogma but what few seem to be aware of is that judgement and hence a sense of values was needed to get that far. Music is a good place to start as it is everywhere and it exists in many thousands of forms and science tells us we are almost built for it. So if I pick on say Mozart then to me his work is good, it brings joy and happiness and sometimes melancholy, it is social and brings people together and also helps us through difficulties and those I would class all these things as 'goods', worth creating, worth preserving. Therefore I am willing to exert some effort to get this music and share it with others.
You may have a different view or you may like to consider say books or art or football or cooking or religion or apostasy or philosophy or psychology so let's here what you have to say and an argument that supports it.
I would say that something is "good" if it 1) brings glory to God, or 2) benefits society, or 3) selfless acts. Any of those three could be labeled "good."
The problems I have with the three you suggested is that a) religious dogma, does not necessarily give any glory to God. It can become easy for someone to become dogmatically correct, but lacking in God's love for others or complacent in the acts. b) subjective. By whose standards? Which of course, leads to why you said point c) is related to b). So: c) the problem with agreed upon standards is that they are not necessarily "good." If the masses accept homosexuality it doesn't mean that it is a good thing.
Anyone who even participates in such a discussion is wasting their time.
Why? There's so much angles that you can look at a thing from, that it's obvious we'll never reach a unified conclusion, ESPECIALLY when we know that there will be issues which we accept based on faith.
So i can assure you, this thread will just bring about useless emotional and heated debate, with final words being like "I believe it's good because I believe my religion is correct", and others discouraging this and saying we should argue logically. But what's the point when our religion is preferred even over our own desires?
I would say that something is "good" if it 1) brings glory to God, or 2) benefits society, or 3) selfless acts. Any of those three could be labeled "good."
If I may say so you are missing the point. For example a self-less act might be good but how are we to decide that it was selfless. In the same way how are we to decide the something is a benefit, how are we to decide that something brings glory to God? That is what my post was trying to outline.
The problems I have with the three you suggested is that a) religious dogma, does not necessarily give any glory to God. It can become easy for someone to become dogmatically correct, but lacking in God's love for others or complacent in the acts. b) subjective. By whose standards? Which of course, leads to why you said point c) is related to b). So: c) the problem with agreed upon standards is that they are not necessarily "good." If the masses accept homosexuality it doesn't mean that it is a good thing.
This gets nearer to what I was saying but here you are implying that motive or attitude is a part of deciding if something is good and I think that is unsound. It would imply that the same act can be good in one event but bad in another and that does not seem to make any sense. For example, for a person of faith the command to love the lord your God with all your heart and soul does not become a bad command because I lack love?
Of course it is subjective, how can it be anything else? No matter what standards you use they will always be a matter of judgement, even the decision as to whether the standards are good or bad is a judgements and our emotions not logic will play the most significant part. Here you show your own sense subjectivity by deciding that popularity does not mean a thing is good but I would guess that in other cases you would side with popularity. So what we are dealing with here is not simple and there are traps for the unthinking everywhere.
Try to take an example such as Music or something you feel deeply about and argue a case in the ways I suggested or ways you feel might me more appropriate that way you will get a feel for how hard this is to do and in so doing perhaps enlighten the rest of us on the notion of good.
Is music good or bad might be a place to start as its been debated hotly in this board but not as far as I can see in the term I have outlined and mostly in terms of dogma but what few seem to be aware of is that judgement and hence a sense of values was needed to get that far. Music is a good place to start as it is everywhere and it exists in many thousands of forms and science tells us we are almost built for it. So if I pick on say Mozart then to me his work is good, it brings joy and happiness and sometimes melancholy, it is social and brings people together and also helps us through difficulties and those I would class all these things as 'goods', worth creating, worth preserving. Therefore I am willing to exert some effort to get this music and share it with others.
I don't believe there's any possible common ground on this topic given present company. Muslims that reject the value of music will always reject it regardless of there being an objective or applicable reason to reject it. They simply believe that as it is considered impermissable that it is absolutely invalid to engage in it, or consider it beneficial (or moral). There is no breaking down that barrier. It is not one rooted in reason, but obedience to authority. Those that refer to this as their reason (no pun intended) for not engaging in said activities even take time to imply praise towards those more steadfast and consistent in their obedience and unwillingness to falter.
Now, I am aware that many Muslims explain that they are obedient and unquestioning towards Allah because of specific things regarding his character (his wisdom, might, position), or because of the proclaimed perspective that Allah always does things for a reason. I have observed however that these are always declared in hindsight. If it to be taken seriously, that everything Allah does is good and that consequently unquestionable faith in everything Allah decrees is necessary - we only know that things are a certain way. We are no closer to understanding why certain things are right or wrong and I have had Muslims interacting with me even admit such being the case. Whilst insisting that there is a reason behind why certain things are halal and haraam - they claim not to know it (sometimes declaring it is impossible to know it) instead opting to entirely trust the possibility that there is. This is, frankly not endearing to a secular observer and it comes across as completely arbitrary and faith-based.
"I know how to fight
I know how to sing
I know the way"
If I may say so you are missing the point. For example a self-less act might be good but how are we to decide that it was selfless. In the same way how are we to decide the something is a benefit, how are we to decide that something brings glory to God? That is what my post was trying to outline.
I wasn't missing the point. You asked what makes something good, and those are my answers to the question. To evaluate the value or something, or how good it is, those are things I believe are important. You may disagree, but it doesn't mean that I have missed the point of the question.
Often, we do not know if an act is selfless, but it has been my experience in life that the true motivations of the heart often come out in time. An act may appear good, but once the motive is revealed then the truth is known and can soil the entire act. The heart of a person is important in determining what is good or not.
How do we know if something brings glory to God? Sometimes it is obvious (as with motives of the heart), but sometimes it takes time to discover. A good tree bears good fruit, and a bad tree bears bad fruit, ...you will know a tree by its fruit (Matthew 7:17-20). Bringing glory to God can be accomplished through a number of ways.... it could be through the acts, through the talent, through the object, etc. All creation brings glory to God, because it was created by God and he has determined it is good. Man can look at creation and see the wonders of God in it. It reflects his power, his love, his creativity, etc.
Determining if something is good, is not something that should be done in haste.
format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo
[COLOR="black"]This gets nearer to what I was saying but here you are implying that motive or attitude is a part of deciding if something is good and I think that is unsound. It would imply that the same act can be good in one event but bad in another and that does not seem to make any sense. For example, for a person of faith the command to love the lord your God with all your heart and soul does not become a bad command because I lack love?
I do believe that the motive/ attitude of the heart is important. And yes, it does mean that something can be good in one context and not good in another. The man who tells his wife she is beautiful, because he loves her, has done something good with a pure motive. The man who tells his wife she is beautiful, out of his guilt feelings because he is in secret having an affair, has not done something good. His motives have nullified his act, and when his wife discovers the affair all those words she thought were from love are discovered for what they were. Or how about the man on a date who tells the woman she is beautiful simply because he wants sex from her. There is no good in that.
To answer your question......... it is not the command to love God that becomes a bad command. It is your act that becomes the bad act. How can a person love God with all their heart if they have no love? It is the same like loving the spouse in the previous example. If you have no love for God, then none of your actions with regard to that are good actions. Without love for God, one cannot rightfully pray, worship, etc. How can someone express love if they have no love? I liken it to the previous example with the spouse simply because our relationship with God is like a marriage. He is the husband and we are the spouse. If we are unfaithful to him, then our acts towards him are not good.
format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo
Of course it is subjective, how can it be anything else? No matter what standards you use they will always be a matter of judgement, even the decision as to whether the standards are good or bad is a judgements and our emotions not logic will play the most significant part. Here you show your own sense subjectivity by deciding that popularity does not mean a thing is good but I would guess that in other cases you would side with popularity. So what we are dealing with here is not simple and there are traps for the unthinking everywhere.
No, I would not side with popularity in other cases. I have never been one to go with the crowd. Popular opinion means very little to me in any circumstance.
Anyone who even participates in such a discussion is wasting their time. Why? There's so much angles that you can look at a thing from, that it's obvious we'll never reach a unified conclusion, ESPECIALLY when we know that there will be issues which we accept based on faith.
So i can assure you, this thread will just bring about useless emotional and heated debate, with final words being like "I believe it's good because I believe my religion is correct", and others discouraging this and saying we should argue logically. But what's the point when our religion is preferred even over our own desires? Let's see if what i say comes into effect.
This is an interesting post as it is in a way the first to attempt to say if something is good or bad. Here the arguments is based on there being no value, no benefit, nothing worth preserving and that it is impossible to reach a conclusion. So here we have an argument essentially about choice and Qattada advices you to choose not to participate because he feels it is a waste of time.
In terms of faith then I have already said a way to choose good or bad is based on dogma, someone or something tells you how to choose. If someone wants to go down this path then that is a matter for them and I would not want to interfere if that is what make them feel comfortable.
The trouble I suppose is that life is full of decisions and it is no possible to have a kind of right and wrong answer for everything and be dragged down by always having to ask someone. Even the founding fathers of Islam did not I think take that view but sought via Istihad to find a reasoned answer or at least to explain in some way the rationale.
On the matter of dogma it is easy if I just take the question of music to find reasoned arguments from scholars and often they reach different conclusions so it seems to me that we at least must read these arguments and test them and in that way we will end up knowing what we accept and believe. I cannot see as some do that this dishonours the scholars put in fact is respectful. Surely, anyone is pleased when others read their work?
So whilst I see that Qatada might be right it does not seem a good principle in general to says let's not discuss anything because we might never reach consensus. It is not necessary that we have to end up agreeing but only perhaps that we end up appreciating other points of view and that in my book would be a good in and of itself.
If something is pleasing to Allah, then it is good. An example of this would be the willingness of Ibrahim to sacrifice his son.
If something is displeasing to Allah, then it is evil. An example of this is the refusal of Abu Talib, the Prophet's () uncle, to become a Muslim even though the following things were true of him:
He knew that Islam was the truth (which he made clear)
He helped the Prophet a great deal throughout the tribulations he faced from the other tribes of Makkah who wanted him to stop preaching his message of pure monotheism.
I've deliberately chosen interesting examples here to illustrate that morality isn't always what we might expect.
"I spent thirty years learning manners, and I spent twenty years learning knowledge."
If something is pleasing to Allah, then it is good. An example of this would be the willingness of Ibrahim to sacrifice his son. If something is displeasing to Allah, then it is evil. An example of this is the refusal of Abu Talib, the Prophet's () uncle, to become a Muslim even though the following things were true of him:
He knew that Islam was the truth (which he made clear)
He helped the Prophet a great deal throughout the tribulations he faced from the other tribes of Makkah who wanted him to stop preaching his message of pure monotheism.
I've deliberately chosen interesting examples here to illustrate that morality isn't always what we might expect.
I have no problem with the general proposition here only that it might not always be as cut and dry as you imply. In the case of Abraham we read that although he accepted the command to sacrifice he reasoned that God would find a way out because otherwise the promise that all nations would be blessed through Abraham could not be fulfilled so one might argue that what please God was really the faith that underpinned the willingness.
In the second case I have difficulty because Abu Talib seems to have done more than most others who claimed to be Muslim and nothing that looks like evil or bad. It would seem illogical that God would judge what otherwise would be a good act as evil just because they were not Muslim, it sounds unjust and injustice is not good is it? I am puzzled?
In the second case I have difficulty because Abu Talib seems to have done more than most others who claimed to be Muslim and nothing that looks like evil or bad. It would seem illogical that God would judge what otherwise would be a good act as evil just because they were not Muslim, it sounds unjust and injustice is not good is it? I am puzzled?[/COLOR]
Well, he said it himself:
format_quote Originally Posted by Uthman
If something is pleasing to Allah, then it is good. An example of this would be the willingness of Ibrahim to sacrifice his son.
If something is displeasing to Allah, then it is evil. An example of this is the refusal of Abu Talib....
With all that, he has defined 'good' only in terms of obedience or disobedience. The terms 'unjust' or 'just' (if he is true to what he stated in the above) can have no meaning beyond obedience to Allah. What he means when he goes on further to state that "morality isn't what we might always expect" is that he is referencing that to other, many things he believes may appear to be immoral. He is almost conceding that his moral understanding may appear to be counter-intuitive.
"I know how to fight
I know how to sing
I know the way"
In the case of Abraham we read that although he accepted the command to sacrifice he reasoned that God would find a way out
Do you know if this is this to be found in the Islamic narrative? Or just in the Biblical narrative?
format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo
In the second case I have difficulty because Abu Talib seems to have done more than most others who claimed to be Muslim
I'm not sure that's true. Some of the Prophet's () companions also supported him a great deal, perhaps even more so than Abu Talib did, throughout the many hardships that he faced in delivering his message of pure monotheism and submission to one all-powerful deity.
format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo
It would seem illogical that God would judge what otherwise would be a good act as evil just because they were not Muslim
I think you have misunderstood. I did not claim that Allah judged Abu Talib's support for the Prophet () to be an evil act. I said that, despite making it clear that he knew the Prophet () was indeed a Prophet and that Islam was the truth, he still refused to become a Muslim, preferring instead to follow the polytheistic and idolatrous traditions of his forefathers. This was evil and, because of this, Abu Talib is destined to eternal punishment in the hereafter, although he does have the lightest punishment in Hell if that's any consolation to him.
Last edited by Uthman; 03-16-2010 at 11:31 PM.
"I spent thirty years learning manners, and I spent twenty years learning knowledge."
I think the only objective way of deciding if an act is "good" is if it benefits others. As such, acts like prayer, fasting and pilgrimage can in my mind not be seen as good despite bringing inner tranquility to the one who performs them. The Muslims argue that their book is the only objective example of moral guidance but to be honest such a perspective is in itself subjective to whether you are convinced by the arguments put forth for Islam.
Greetings Hugo, [COLOR=Black] Do you know if this is this to be found in the Islamic narrative? Or just in the Biblical narrative?
It is definitely in the Biblical narrative but I cannot say if is anywhere in Islamic writings. Obviously as you say Abraham was obedient but all I was adding was that that obedience was generated by faith in a promise and Isaac though not the first born physically was regarded as the son of the promise.
I'm not sure that's true. Some of the Prophet's () companions also supported him a great deal, perhaps even more so than Abu Talib did, throughout the many hardships that he faced in delivering his message of pure monotheism and submission to one all-powerful deity.
I think you have misunderstood. I did not claim that Allah judged Abu Talib's support for the Prophet () to be an evil act. I said that, despite making it clear that he knew the Prophet () was indeed a Prophet and that Islam was the truth, he still refused to become a Muslim, preferring instead to follow the polytheistic and idolatrous traditions of his forefathers. This was evil and, because of this, Abu Talib is destined to eternal punishment in the hereafter, although he does have the lightest punishment in Hell if that's any consolation to him.
Yes, I think I understood that his sin if we can call it that would be regarded as shirk but his acts of support and kindness where of themselves good. It is an interesting point though to consider in what way intention or attitude colours or effects whether an act is good or bad. I can see that the right intention and the right attitude may in themselves be good or bad but how or why must we distinguish that from that act itself. My feeling is that an act can still be good no matter what the intention or attitude.
One thought though troubles me here and that is in Islamic theology as implied by your comments on punishment is that one builds up credit with God by actions but its obvious or at least possible that one can do good deeds and lead a holy life without being Muslim or anything else and indeed a non-Muslim may outstrip a Muslim in this regard so if God judges us on our actions what value or good is it to be Muslim since the standard is the same for all?
I think the only objective way of deciding if an act is "good" is if it benefits others. As such, acts like prayer, fasting and pilgrimage can in my mind not be seen as good despite bringing inner tranquility to the one who performs them. The Muslims argue that their book is the only objective example of moral guidance but to be honest such a perspective is in itself subjective to whether you are convinced by the arguments put forth for Islam.
I tend to agree with this because if acts of prayer, fasting or pilgrimage don't manifest themselves in the life of a believer other than inwardly then that feels like they are of littler value because nothing has changed.
I also agree that any view of the Qu'ran or the Bible or any scripture for that matter as a moral guide is subjective. The fact that we can agree that certain moral standpoints are good and to be valued is in an objective sense no more than popularity or convenience within a certain community.
One final point is that often it seems to me that moral conformance is no more than cultural following. For example, Muslim and Christians say would probably easily agree on the 10 commandments as moral responsibilities. But sadly (to me) some go far beyond that to say as a simple example that woman wearing a headscarf is a moral act and therefore good? Let me be clear here, if a woman want to wear a headscarf then that is for her to decide but to say it is a moral act is entirely a subjective judgement
If something is pleasing to Allah, then it is good. An example of this would be the willingness of Ibrahim to sacrifice his son.
Taking this analogy a step further, if God had asked Ibrahim to sacrifice his whole family would that have been "good" also? What about his entire tribe? Of course this is presuming that God was just bluffing, as per the story, to test Ibrahim's alliegance. But it begs the question, is killing right under any circumstances? Does killing benefit anyone apart from possibly the one who commits the act?
Taking this analogy a step further, if God had asked Ibrahim to sacrifice his whole family would that have been "good" also?
What about his entire tribe? Of course this is presuming that God was just bluffing, as per the story, to test Ibrahim's alliegance.
I think you misunderstand the concept of a God, if you have to ask such a question. God is almighty and full of ultimate wisdom. Anything he asks is bound to be good. No matter what.
The problem you have, is that since you don't accept God to exist in the first place, you'll look for the effects of the good in this world. Whereas not all acts have wordly benefits.
But it begs the question, is killing right under any circumstances? Does killing benefit anyone apart from possibly the one who commits the act?
A married couple have their first son and they are on their way home from the hospital. A crazy man known to inject random people with rabies tries to grab the baby out of the pram. The father without hesitation takes out his gun and aims it directly at the man's head and shoots him dead.
The killing benefited the couple in question. Killing is justified when there is an unjust situation. Killing for sport is not.
I think you misunderstand the concept of a God, if you have to ask such a question. God is almighty and full of ultimate wisdom. Anything he asks is bound to be good. No matter what.
The problem you have, is that since you don't accept God to exist in the first place, you'll look for the effects of the good in this world. Whereas not all acts have wordly benefits.
I think where we disagree is over the definition of good. I think you see good as obedience to the Higher Power whereas I see that as simply obedience.
A married couple have their first son and they are on their way home from the hospital. A crazy man known to inject random people with rabies tries to grab the baby out of the pram. The father without hesitation takes out his gun and aims it directly at the man's head and shoots him dead.
The killing benefited the couple in question. Killing is justified when there is an unjust situation. Killing for sport is not.
Yes but there are always special cases. A better example would be a person who is terminally ill and suffering extreme inescapable pain. Killing them at their own request would actually be an act of mercy. But we both know here you are playing with semantics and what I am talking about is murder, genocide, or in the case of Ibrahim, infanticide.
So I would ask you again, is the example of infanticide justifiable as "good" under any circumstances? If so, is, by extension, genocide justifiable as "good" under any circumstances?
I think where we disagree is over the definition of good. I think you see good as obedience to the Higher Power whereas I see that as simply obedience.
Okay.
I wasn't playing semantics. From your question, it seemed you were talking about killing in general, as you said killing under any circumstance. I didn't realise you meant specifc to the case of murder.
So I would ask you again, is the example of infanticide justifiable as "good" under any circumstances? If so, is, by extension, genocide justifiable as "good" under any circumstances?
Infanticide is haram. Murder is haram. So, no. It is not good under any circumstance.
However, it was a commandment for the Prophet Ibrahim Alaihe Salam to follow, as a special test for him alone. Hence good, only for him.
I wasn't playing semantics. From your question, it seemed you were talking about killing in general, as you said killing under any circumstance. I didn't realise you meant specifc to the case of murder.
Infanticide is haram. Murder is haram. So, no. It is not good under any circumstance.
However, it was a commandment for the Prophet Ibrahim Alaihe Salam to follow, as a special test for him alone. Hence good, only for him.
How did he know it was a test? What made him so sure it was God speaking to him?
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
To evaluate the value or something, or how good it is, those are things I believe are important. You may disagree, but it doesn't mean that I have missed the point of the question.
) uncle, to become a Muslim even though the following things were true of him:
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks