What makes something good?

[Alpha Dude]

How did he know it was a test? What made him so sure it was God speaking to him?

He was a Prophet of God and Prophetic dreams are wahy (revelation).

 

[Eliphaz]

He was a Prophet of God and Prophetic dreams are wahy (revelation).

How did he know he was a Prophet of God?

Well of course we know the answer: because God spoke to him. So we are back to the question of how Ibrahim knew it was God speaking to him.

 

[Alpha Dude]

How did he know he was a Prophet of God?

Well of course we know the answer: because God spoke to him. So we are back to the question of how Ibrahim knew it was God speaking to him.

It is unimaginable that an Almighty being would send revelation upon a man without the man coming to know who the revelation is from.

 

[Hugo]

It is unimaginable that an Almighty being would send revelation upon a man without the man coming to know who the revelation is from.

If God is all powerful I cannot see that it can be unimaginable? Indeed there is a famous story in the Bible where a donkey speaks when he see the angel of the Lord. There are many other stories where God uses all sort of people to further his message. Can we set limits to how God works or his goodness?

 

[Alpha Dude]

Of course, a God can send messages without letting them know if we think about the attribute of All Powerful.

However, in the context of my discussion with Eliphaz, where God is choosing a man as a Prophet to spread his message, it is unimaginable that God would send messages to him yet not let him know who it is from. It is unimaginable that God would order Ibrahim to sacrifice his son, yet not let Ibrahim know that it was indeed God that sent the order.

 

[Hugo]

Of course, a God can send messages without letting them know if we think about the attribute of All Powerful.

However, in the context of my discussion with Eliphaz, where God is choosing a man as a Prophet to spread his message, it is unimaginable that God would send messages to him yet not let him know who it is from. It is unimaginable that God would order Ibrahim to sacrifice his son, yet not let Ibrahim know that it was indeed God that sent the order.

Well you might be right but we all get messages all the time in our heads so it is not obvious to me how we know this one is from God and that one is not - do you see the point? In Abraham's case he had visitors but he still had to somehow know? I suppose what I am saying is that anyone can say they have had a revelation and that it was God that spoke to them but on its own that would generally be an entirely private thing so it is others in a way that have to decide if it can be considered a revelation; not just because one person says so.

But in terms of this thread is your point that any revelation is good as long as we can know it is from God?

 

[Eliphaz]

It is unimaginable that an Almighty being would send revelation upon a man without the man coming to know who the revelation is from.

But the message you call revelation could come from any number of sources. For instance, as Muslims you believe in metaphysical beings called Jinn who are capable of both good and evil and who are also capable of communicating with us. We know that Jinns can imitate dead people, that they can perform magic and such. How do you know it is not the Jinns behind the revelation?

As Hugo has said, we all have dreams, hear voices inside our head. What criteria can the one who recieves these messages use to determine whether it is from God? This takes us back to the argument that morality (i.e. good and evil) is subjective because revelation from the Almighty is a subjective experience.

 

[Alpha Dude]

I suppose what I am saying is that anyone can say they have had a revelation and that it was God that spoke to them but on its own that would generally be an entirely private thing so it is others in a way that have to decide if it can be considered a revelation; not just because one person says so.

Oh yeah, of course. We have to look at the impact their words have had and deduce their credibility based on their lifestyles and evaluate the message to see if it makes sense.

But in terms of this thread is your point that any revelation is good as long as we can know it is from God?

Yes. I would say that.

For instance, as Muslims you believe in metaphysical beings called Jinn who are capable of both good and evil and who are also capable of communicating with us. We know that Jinns can imitate dead people, that they can perform magic and such. How do you know it is not the Jinns behind the revelation?

The example of jinns is not a coherent one. If we are to believe in jinns, it means we believe in Islam hence of course it was a revelation from God that was given to Ibrahim Alaihe Salam.

However, I do understand your point. Like I said in my above reply to Hugo, we have to assess those people who claim revelation from God and scrutinise them, their lifestyles and the impact that they have had, in order to ascertain whether what they said is true and possible.

 

[Eliphaz]

Oh yeah, of course. We have to look at the impact their words have had and deduce their credibility based on their lifestyles and evaluate the message to see if it makes sense.

Yes. I would say that.

The example of jinns is not a coherent one. If we are to believe in jinns, it means we believe in Islam hence of course it was a revelation from God that was given to Ibrahim Alaihe Salam.

I do not believe in Jinns, but I was just implying that if you do, then you must at least be open to the possibility that they could have falsely communicated to men by pretending to be God.

However, I do understand your point. Like I said in my above reply to Hugo, we have to assess those people who claim revelation from God and scrutinise them, their lifestyles and the impact that they have had, in order to ascertain whether what they said is true and possible.

[Mod edit]

Furthermore, how do we "assess" the people who recieve revelation. Are we not using our individual subjective perceptions to decide? Is therefore the whole concept of revelation not a subjective matter?

 

[Alpha Dude]

I do not believe in Jinns, but I was just implying that if you do, then you must at least be open to the possibility that they could have falsely communicated to men by pretending to be God.

That is illogical and circular reasoning. Islam pretty much tells us about jinns. It's absurd to be open to the possibility that something contained in a revelation could have been the cause of the revelation, thereby negating my belief in what's contained therein in the first place!

[Mod edit]

First of all. I don't like the way you've phrased that. It's offensive, rude and disrespectful. You've placed a deliberate negative and insulting spin on the life of a revered Prophet among muslims. Don't do that again. It's behaviour like this, in the guise of 'intellectual crititique', that causes muslims to be defensive of their faith and harms discourse. I hope you get infracted for it. You could have phrased it in a much more diplomatic and non-offensive manner. In fact, your case is worse. You are an apostate, you know muslims, therefore you ought to know just how much muslims get offended by such stuff and if you were sincere, you would have been uninsulting about it.

Nonetheless. The Prophet Muhammad Sallalahu Alaihe Wasalam said Ibrahim Alaihe Salam spoke no lie during his entire life, save 3. Those too, only out of genuine and sincere necessity. If he hadn't bended the truth in the case of his wife, the people would have taken her away from him. Haram becomes halal when it is a case of life or death. We are allowed to eat pork if we are dying of hunger.

The other bending of truths were for the purpose of directing the people toward God. They weren't for petty, trivial, wordly things.

Incidentally, how many lies do most people speak in an entire lifetime? From childhood to death?

Another issue is that you're looking at the case of Ibrahim Alaihe Salam in isolation. We muslims do not base our faith on what was revealed to Ibrahim Alaihe Salam. They lived in a different time. His message was specific to his people and his time. Some rules were different than they are now. Islam as revealed to Prophet Muhammad Sallalahu Alaihe Wasalam is for all of mankind. We are convinced that the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was indeed a Prophet and we base our faith on his life. Not on the life of Ibrahim Alaihe Salam. What we know of Ibrahim Alaihe Salam is what has been revealed through Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him.

From what I know, Sarah, upon her be peace, told him to marry Hajar, upon her be peace. Hence, your accusation of adultery (as you have alluded to) holds no water. It's baseless.

As to the issue of leaving them and sacrificing, we don't look at these things in isolation. Like I said, we base our faith on what Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him brought. Hence, if we accept that he was a Prophet, then automatically we accept Ibrahim Alaihe Salam was a Prophet too.

And hence, in light of believing Ibrahim Alaihe Salam was in contact with a Divine being, what happened during the tests that were placed upon him make sense. Furthermore, none of the participants complained. Ishmael Alaihe Salam told his father to sacrifice him! Why would he do that, if he wasn't convinced of his father's Prophethood?!

Furthermore, how do we "assess" the people who recieve revelation. Are we not using our individual subjective perceptions to decide? Is therefore the whole concept of revelation not a subjective matter?

This kind of questioning, I like to think of as intellectual nonsense.

If somebody came to you and said 'I have 5 fingers on each hand' and you saw it with your own eye, you should use your mental capacity and accept that it is true. Any sane person would. Likewise, if a person who has been seen as trustworthy in all matters throughout his entire life and brings to you a revelation and a dose of miraclous events, any sane person would accept it.

Allah (swt) has proven his existence, through his creation, and has done so definitively. The matter is just that it takes a sincere heart to recognise and, more importantly, accept, the writing on the wall. When Allah says in the Qur'an, "And from His signs is x,y,z.." "And in a,b,c their are signs...";, all these created things are pointed to as signs of His existence and His majesty. And they are defintive. It only takes sincere reflection upon them to reach that conclusion. Due to the fact that the matter is so plain, the disbelievers have no excuse and are destined to hell on count of their rejection.

 

[Hugo]

If somebody came to you and said 'I have 5 fingers on each hand' and you saw it with your own eye, you should use your mental capacity and accept that it is true. Any sane person would. Likewise, if a person who has been seen as trustworthy in all matters throughout his entire life and brings to you a revelation and a dose of miraclous events, any sane person would accept it.

So why do sane people reject it and rejected it at the time if it is so obviously true and in terms of this thread good? I think you are using circular reasoning here, you have decided that God must exist because a person is trustworthy so by a logical extension anyone who is trustworthy and says they have a revelation must be accepted? Such faulty reasoning was known in ancient Greek times and is summed up in the memorable line by Socrates "Is what is holy holy because the gods approve it, or do they approve it because it is holy."

However, to get the thread back on track I want to add a word on vagueness. One can be vague in logic because whilst in mathematics something can be either true or false with no middle ground in life generally there are plenty of grey areas. In fact vague ideas and concepts, concepts that are borderline cases play a hugely important role in our lives every day. Its easy to see that we have cold days and chilly days but these are not exact measures. So one might ask why do people all the time use words whose meaning is difficult to pin down. Indeed one line in artificial intelligence is that 'intelligent agents' will only be useful once they manage to use vague concepts.

So in judging what is good we are I would argue necessarily or perhaps instinctively vague and this might be because our emotions are central in making any judgement and that cannot be avoided as far as I can see. So oddly or paradoxically we can hide simple things by being precise so instead of saying "it was a fine day" which is vague but meaningful we say instead "A barometric low hung over the Atlantic and moved eastwards towards a high-pressure area over Russia......"

So I wonder in our assessment of good what part vagueness has, does it make us cover up things so that something sounds good for example, or can we try to be precise but it becomes another way of being vague? If you want to look at this further try Kees Van Deemter's book "not exactly: in praise of vagueness" ISBN 9780199 545902

So finally a question. In Islam (or any religion) one superposes that we want precision but it is unattainable and one might argue the more one seeks for minute exactitude the less accessible the religion becomes and the more its adherents rely on blind acceptance and I conjecture here that that is not good because that is not how we are made. In this context then is the Qu'ran or the Bible precise or vague? I would of course argue they are both vague if for no other reason than they use words and concepts and these are for the most part intrinsically vague. I rejoice in this vagueness because it means we have to work hard and search the scriptures to find out what God is saying so in a way vagueness is a kind of virtue, it is a good

 

[Alpha Dude]

So why do sane people reject it and rejected it at the time if it is so obviously true and in terms of this thread good? I think you are using circular reasoning here, you have decided that God must exist because a person is trustworthy so by a logical extension anyone who is trustworthy and says they have a revelation must be accepted? Such faulty reasoning was known in ancient Greek times and is summed up in the memorable line by Socrates "Is what is holy holy because the gods approve it, or do they approve it because it is holy."

I didn't say only base our acceptance on trustworthiness.

I also said we have to look at the impact their words have had and deduce their credibility based on their lifestyles and evaluate the message to see if it makes sense. We also take into consideration their miracles.

 

[Hugo]

I didn't say only base our acceptance on trustworthiness.

I also said we have to look at the impact their words have had and deduce their credibility based on their lifestyles and evaluate the message to see if it makes sense. We also take into consideration their miracles.

This is fair enough as a set of shall we say principles but in terms of recognising what might be good do you apply this everywhere not just is Islamic circles? For example, the apostle Paul was trustworthy, had a huge impact, led an exemplary life style, worked tirelessly in the spread of the gospel, was involved in miracles and his message was coincident with the rest of the Bible? Do you therefore accept his message and recognise him in the same way for example you recognize prophet Mohammed?

 

[Ramadhan]

This is fair enough as a set of shall we say principles but in terms of recognising what might be good do you apply this everywhere not just is Islamic circles? For example, the apostle Paul was trustworthy, had a huge impact, led an exemplary life style, worked tirelessly in the spread of the gospel, was involved in miracles and his message was coincident with the rest of the Bible? Do you therefore accept his message and recognise him in the same way for example you recognize prophet Mohammed?

There is no way you can ask a true muslim to accept and honor a man who elevated another man (even if he is a prophet) he'd never met into lesser god.

can you imagine a situation where a muslim who had never met prophet Muhammad SAW but then changed many of his teachings and elevated him SAW into a lesser god?
in a true Islamic state (khilafah), he would have been killed for heresy.

 

[Hugo]

There is no way you can ask a true muslim to accept and honor a man who elevated another man (even if he is a prophet) he'd never met into lesser god.

can you imagine a situation where a muslim who had never met prophet Muhammad SAW but then changed many of his teachings and elevated him SAW into a lesser god?
in a true Islamic state (khilafah), he would have been killed for heresy.

Let us be clear here this is your opinion and I am certain that you have never studied the letters of Paul else it would be impossible to come to such an erroneous conclusion so you are offering nothing but hearsay and that is never a good idea.

However, the point about the post was that Alpha Dude set some standards for men who might receive revelation and Paul meets those standards. If they are standards at all, they cannot just apply to Muslims can they?

 

[جوري]

Let us be clear here this is your opinion ?

It isn't only his opinion & I doubt rendering this a personal persuasion will do anything productive to counter-act that. else I'd start with the Jehovahs..

The BIGGEST Blunder of the Church for the past 2000 years! ​

Expect to be shocked!​

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword" (Hebrews 4:12b)​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Just as Judas was indwelled by Satan to betray Jesus, Paul was indwelled by Satan to destroy Christianity! Paul taught ANOTHER Gospel! Why else did Constantine and the Pagan leaders take out the books of the disciples and put in Paul's! To lead YOU away from the truth and into a FALSE Gospel![/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Tribe Of Benjamin
[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Gen. 49:27 "Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf: in the morning he shall devour the prey, and at night he shall divide the spoil." Who was from the tribe of Benjamin? Paul![/FONT]​

Where The Churches Went Wrong:
The Deception of the Ages - by Sherry Shriner
​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Want to know the real Kingdom of God? Read it Here, undistorted, unpolluted, and uncontaminated.. [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]http://www.justgivemethetruth.com/kingdom-of-God.htm[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]The Apostle Paul was a Deceiver! A Judas in the camp! Click Here[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Those who opposed Paul, followed Jesus![/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Led by James and Peter, the early church rejected Paul as a fraud. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]The Problem With Paul [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] Paul built his own following preaching [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]ANOTHER Gospel. [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]In contrast to the truth he abolished the law and called it a curse (when Jesus came to fulfill it) and Paul replaced it with a distorted perception of grace, he replaced works with laziness and no fruit, and he replaced a life of faith and works with a 30 second salvation prayer and a false sense of eternal security. He gave a license to sin mentality and encouraged discrimination. God does not discriminate! How can you learn to hear His voice and follow Him if all you need to do is say a 30 second prayer of salvation? Yes, Salvation is mandatory, but it's not the end to the means. It's only the beginning! If you want to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven (later) then you must learn to live in it now! The Kingdom of God is within us! [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] The Bible Codes [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Confirm that Paul was a Judas, a Deceiver![/FONT]​

"...it is...a fact of history that St. Paul and his successors added to,..., or imposed upon, or substituted another doctrine for...the plain...teachings of Jesus..."
H.G. Wells (1866-1946)​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] [/FONT]​

There were 12 Apostles. ​

And Each one of the Names of the 12 Apostles are written on the Gates of the New Jerusalem.​

Paul's Name is NOT one of them!​

Yahweh told me in so many words, "Tell them there were only 12 Apostles." Why? Because if people can't understand that, they'll never get anything else! It's that simple!​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]

Can you prove Paul was an apostle? No! The simple answer is NO. You cannot prove he was an apostle when there's mountains of evidence against him! Why doesn't this mountain of evidence exist against any of the others? Until you or somebody can affirmatively prove that Paul was a genuine apostle, it would be wrong for any follower or pastor of Yahshua to follow, preach or quote Pauline doctrine.​

Matthias replaced Judas. Not Paul!!​

October 18th, 2008​

Scott McQuate​

Blueprint for Bondage​

​

Scott McQuate on TheEdgeAm.com​

​

​

Listen to how the manipulation and takeover of the early church led to what we have today, the Great ***** of Babylon and her daughters...the utterly apostate Paul-worshipping churches of America​

[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]

Yahushuah hand-picked His disciples who then became apostles because they witnessed His death and resurrection and had walked with Him during His ministry on earth. Did He handpick Paul? No! Paul claimed himself he was an apostle! The "road to Damascus story" was a lie! There were NO witnesses to verify Paul's claims! Why couldn't he produce just ONE soldier to verify his "Damascus road" story! Yahushua said by 2 or 3 witnesses is His Word established...where are Paul's witnesses, especially since he made such bold claims?? Why does the KJV hide the document of the Jerusalem letter of Paul's excommunication from the church by James and Peter and instead doctor up passages to make it appear they accepted Paul??​

They'll Never Publicly Release or Adopt the Dead Sea Scrolls because they PROVE PAUL WAS A LIAR!​

[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica] [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica] And since Paul was a Pharisee, and Yahushua specifically and emphatically warned us to be wary of the leaven of the Pharisees, it is an extraordinarily implausible and outrageous to assert that this murdering Pharisee could possibly be an apostle of Yahushua without supplying overwhelming affirmative proof of such a preposterous claim! Until you can prove Saul-Paul was a valid apostle, I respectfully remind you that it is a major sign of disrespect to Yahushua to continue to follow, preach or quote Pauline doctrine. Seriously, think about it. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]

Yahuah created the Garden of Eden. And in it He placed both the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Why? To Test Adam and Eve and their faithfulness to His commands to seek Him only and stay away from evil. He allowed His own creation, in His own garden, to become corrupted.
And He did the same thing with His Word. He allowed corruption to enter into it, to test His people and their faithfulness to follow His commands and to seek Him for guidance and the truth in all things.
And once again, man has failed. This time they refuse to even believe or see that corruption exists. Just as Eve was deceived, they've bitten into the same apple.
Yahuah calls the last days churches *****s. The *****s of Babylon. Why? Because they are filled with corruption, deceptions and lies. And 90% of them or more are based on the false apostle Paul and his blasphemous teachings that lead people away from the truth.

​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]

Yahushua, Jesus said, "did not I call 12 of you disciples, yet one of you is a devil?"​

He called Judas one of His own, even though He knew Judas was a devil from the serpent seedline and would betray him. ​

[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]

Just as Paul is from the serpent seedline, and has infiltrated Christianity to corrupt it.​

[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica] [/FONT]

King James was a homosexual mason, 33rd degree. He hired Sir Francis Bacon to translate the KJV. Sir Francis Bacon, also a 33rd degree mason, was also known as Shakespeare. The Pauline doctrines would become dominant in the New Testament. Why? Because Paul was one of them. Steeped into Mithraism and the occult teachings of Rome, he had successfully infiltrated the early church.
"Has He not said?" You can hear the hissssss in Pauline teachings as he rewrites what the apostles taught who had walked and talked with Jesus, Yahushua.

Books Written by Paul and his 'disciples'
Mark, Luke, Acts, Romans, I & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillippians, Colossians, 1&2 Thessalonians, 1&2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, (and no one knows who wrote Hebrews).
Paul's disciples were not Yahushua's Disciples and Apostles! The Names of Yah's were...
Peter, James, John, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, Simon and Judas the brother of James (not the Judas Iscariot who betrayed Yahushua). Now who look replaces Judas, the one who betrayed Yahushuah....
Act 1:26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
Matthias replaced Judas Iscariot....NOT PAUL!
And who are Mark, Luke, Timothy, etc...? They were NOT Disciples of Yahushua they were disciples of Paul's! And even they LEFT PAUL and abandoned him because after following him for a while, realized what an apostate liar he was! Don't t hink so? Read the KJV! Satan doesn't even hide it, it's all right there for folks to read who will bother to do so!
It's even Luke who declares the qualifications to even be an apostle! They were NOT apostles and NEITHER WAS PAUL! He didn't qualify to be an apostle because PAUL didn't walk or even know Yahushua when He was alive on earth. A Qualification to be an APOSTLE!
Wake Up People!!
​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Solomon's Secret [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]The origins of Christianity and Judaism -
What the Early Church Really Believed [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Paul or Jesus?[/FONT]
Paul and Ananias - You have to read this​

Paul, James, and the Dead Sea Scrolls ​

The Excommunication of Paul​

Paul, Apostle or Heretic? ​

The Synagogue of Satan ​

13 Apostles?​

The Role of Women in Paul's Church​

Paul the False Apostle​

Is Paul a Liar​

Paul the Coward​

Did Peter Endorse Paul?​

Who was the 12th Apostle?​

Why the Apostles Rejected Paul​

Who wrote the book of Hebrews​

The Law Was Replaced by Grace??​

The Law was a Curse?​

The Role of Women in Yahushua's Teachings​

Paul was the Founder of Paulianity​

PAUL...TRUE FOLLOWER OF JESUS...
OR SUBVERTER OF THE FAITH OF JESUS AND FOUNDER OF A NEW RELIGION?​

Church Myths: Church of Jesus or Paul?​

Paul and the Origins of Christianity

The Torah vs. The Talmud - A Comparative Look
​

http://www.justgivemethetruth.com/

I am amazed at the clarity with which this branch of christianity views saul/paul and exposes him for what he is!

all the best

 

[جوري]

Now to answer your original Q. 'Good' is what Allah swt declares to be good and bad is all that Allah swt. prohibited. If you are not sure then it is best to avoid it rather than render your own interpretation!

"The lawful is clear, and the unlawful is clear. But between the two are ambiguous matters not known to many people. Whosoever avoids these matters, has preserved his honour and his religion intact. But whosoever falls into them shall fall into the unlawful, in the fashion of a shepherd who grazes his flock around a sanctuary, so that he is near to violating it. Assuredly, every king has a sanctuary, and God's sanctuary on this earth is composed of his prohibitions."

 

[Hugo]

Now to answer your original Q. 'Good' is what Allah swt declares to be good and bad is all that Allah swt. prohibited. If you are not sure then it is best to avoid it rather than render your own interpretation!

"The lawful is clear, and the unlawful is clear. But between the two are ambiguous matters not known to many people. Whosoever avoids these matters, has preserved his honour and his religion intact. But whosoever falls into them shall fall into the unlawful, in the fashion of a shepherd who grazes his flock around a sanctuary, so that he is near to violating it. Assuredly, every king has a sanctuary, and God's sanctuary on this earth is composed of his prohibitions."

This is you interpretation but such statements in no way really help us to discover what principles there are to decide what is good which is really the theme of this thread. Surely it is acceptable to ask why God said A was good and B was bad, we are rational human beings after all. In any case there are a million and one things that Allah has not pronounced on and in the next 100 years there will be a million more so as a practical guide to everyday living this is helpful but limited. Has God really made us so that we have to look up in some big book what is good and what is bad, with no God given conscience to guide us?

 

[Skavau]

This is you interpretation but such statements in no way really help us to discover what principles there are to decide what is good which is really the theme of this thread. Surely it is acceptable to ask why God said A was good and B was bad, we are rational human beings after all. In any case there are a million and one things that Allah has not pronounced on and in the next 100 years there will be a million more so as a practical guide to everyday living this is helpful but limited. Has God really made us so that we have to look up in some big book what is good and what is bad, with no God given conscience to guide us?

This is irrelevant. It has to be irrelevant. If you take seriously the notion that actions are moral and immoral based on and because of God's blessing or contempt then any reasoning for their position becomes meaningless. It would in fact, contradict the claim that God arbitrates and controls all moral affairs.

Indeed even if someone could give reasons for why God declares certain things permissable and impermissable they have already made the biggest concession - that they only accept these things as true because God says so. The reasoning employed for their validity only has resourcefulness in apologetics and as a sidenote.

It is a morality of obedience and disobedience.

 

[Hugo]

This is irrelevant. It has to be irrelevant. If you take seriously the notion that actions are moral and immoral based on and because of God's blessing or contempt then any reasoning for their position becomes meaningless. It would in fact, contradict the claim that God arbitrates and controls all moral affairs.

This may be so but how is one to know in a given case? We can look at scripture and say stealing is bad because it says so but is taking a digital picture, an action good or bad - we cannot find the answer to that in scripture can we? Secondly, if God arbitrates and controls all moral affairs he is to be blamed when an immoral act occurs. Your reasoning such as it is only has value if you accept that God exists and he has given us moral laws - it follows that your way of telling wrong from right is useless to those who do not believe as you do.

Indeed even if someone could give reasons for why God declares certain things permissable and impermissable they have already made the biggest concession - that they only accept these things as true because God says so. The reasoning employed for their validity only has resourcefulness in apologetics and as a sidenote. It is a morality of obedience and disobedience.

This is very weak reasoning, there are any number of things in life where I accept something but do it without understanding. The point is that it is better to understand when that is possible rather that think that it is better to be blind. In any case if you look at Islamic law it did not come about blindly and answers to moral question were answered sometimes from the Qu'ran but its obvious that the Qu'ran or hadith does not legislate on everything so that vast majority of Islamic law came about by consensus and reasoning.