Eternity hellfire clarification

[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!

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:

[SIZE=-1][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[/SIZE]

 

[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.