I would not say that animals have souls. Rather, I would say that animals are souls.
What was the nature of Jesus' (alayhi salam) birth?
- Thread starter MustafaMc
- Start date
- Replies 321
- Views 49K
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | vBulletin 4 php 8.0 patch
I would not say that animals have souls. Rather, I would say that animals are souls.
- Qatada -
Spread this Avatar!
- Messages
- 11,349
- Reaction score
- 2,692
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
:salamext:
The Ruh [soul] is an individual entity which Allah created, and once made - it would live forever. Either in Paradise, or Hell as it's final destination. The Ruh/soul lives in different body forms, i.e. we live with bodies of this world in this life, but we will have new body forms in Paradise or Hell. But the Ruh [soul] will be our same soul.
Allah knows best.
Peace.
[FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]نفس [/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]- Nafs - the 'Self'. [/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif][plural [/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]نُّفُوسُ [/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]- Nufoos.][/FONT]
[FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]
Nafs has many derivatives[/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif];
Anfaas [/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]أنفاس [/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]- breaths.
Nafas [/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]نفس [/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]- take a breath.
[/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]mutaNafisoon [/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]متنفسون [/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]- competing in the spirit of healthy competition.[/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]
All [/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]these derivatives have the basic idea of[/FONT] [FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]'back and forth'[/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif].
[/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]
[/FONT] [FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]I.e. In a competition, you compete one against the other. When you breathe - you breathe in and out. Etc.[/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]
The Nafs is always going back and forth in different states[/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif], so once it is in a state of desire, if it fulfills that desire it might move into a state of embarrassment, then it might repent, then it might go back to a righteous character, then it might incline to a false desire once more.
www.linguisticmiracle.com/noon.html
[/FONT]
The Nafs is usually associated with the Soul in the Body, and it going through altering states of emotion and desire.[/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]نفس [/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]- Nafs - the 'Self'. [/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif][plural [/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]نُّفُوسُ [/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]- Nufoos.][/FONT]
[FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]
Nafs has many derivatives[/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif];
Anfaas [/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]أنفاس [/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]- breaths.
Nafas [/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]نفس [/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]- take a breath.
[/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]mutaNafisoon [/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]متنفسون [/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]- competing in the spirit of healthy competition.[/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]
All [/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]these derivatives have the basic idea of[/FONT] [FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]'back and forth'[/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif].
[/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]
[/FONT] [FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]I.e. In a competition, you compete one against the other. When you breathe - you breathe in and out. Etc.[/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]
The Nafs is always going back and forth in different states[/FONT][FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif], so once it is in a state of desire, if it fulfills that desire it might move into a state of embarrassment, then it might repent, then it might go back to a righteous character, then it might incline to a false desire once more.
www.linguisticmiracle.com/noon.html
[/FONT]
The Ruh [soul] is an individual entity which Allah created, and once made - it would live forever. Either in Paradise, or Hell as it's final destination. The Ruh/soul lives in different body forms, i.e. we live with bodies of this world in this life, but we will have new body forms in Paradise or Hell. But the Ruh [soul] will be our same soul.
Allah knows best.
Peace.
- Qatada -
Spread this Avatar!
- Messages
- 11,349
- Reaction score
- 2,692
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
:salamext:
Animals have souls, but they will be ressurected on Judgment Day for the Justice to be settled between all creation. After that, they will turn to dust. And the disbeliever will wish, if only I was dust.
http://www.islamicboard.com/miscellaneous/25241-do-animals-go-any-type-jannah.html#post414876
Animals have souls, but they will be ressurected on Judgment Day for the Justice to be settled between all creation. After that, they will turn to dust. And the disbeliever will wish, if only I was dust.
http://www.islamicboard.com/miscellaneous/25241-do-animals-go-any-type-jannah.html#post414876
nafs----Do animals have it?---It is an interesting question---because we also have to take into consideration how the level of "free-will" effects our understanding of nafs. For example, in the Quran, it is mentioned that the birds pray to God, though humans cannot understand/see it. However, the level of free-will that a bird has is vastly lower than that of humans. Birds are bound by (God-given) instincts and so the role that nafs were to play in birds would be different than that of humans. So,.... do I think animals have nafs?---I don't know, but I feel it is very possible that animals have nafs.
Surah 3, verse 185, and Surah 21, verse 35 speak of the nafs experiencing death. I will look up the other verses---such as the one that speaks of the nafs leaving the body when we are alseep.
ruh----The Quran mentions "ruh" (spirit) and it also mentions "Ruh-al Qudus" (holy spirit) (Judaism=Ruach hakodesh). In Judeo-Islam, the ruh al-qudus/ruach hakodesh refers to the "spirit of prophesy/prophethood" and in Islam, this is understood as the angel Gabriel. However, some scholars use the words "ruh" and "ruh-al-qudus" interchangeably, as a reference to the Angel Gabriel. --but in my opinion, this can cause a bit of confusion.....a note of interest----apparently, in the Quran, nafs has a gramatical plural form but ruh/ruh al-Qudus does not. With this in mind---it is interesting to speculate on Surah 78, verse 38. "ruh" mentioned here could be Angel Gabriel, or the "spirit that animates"........
another concept of ruh/spirit is that it is the (God-given) instinct that turns us to the One God. Because all living things have ruh---all have the capacity to turn to God. In the case of humans, the gift of free-will makes this a decision we can choose or reject.
With regards to discussion about ruh, I want to mention Surah 17, verse 85
"they ask thee concerning the spirit. Say: The spirit is by command of my lord, and of knowledge you have been given but little"
apparently, God, in his wisdom, may feel that details of "ruh" other than what is already mentioned in the Quran, are of no benefit to human knowledge........
Surah 3, verse 185, and Surah 21, verse 35 speak of the nafs experiencing death. I will look up the other verses---such as the one that speaks of the nafs leaving the body when we are alseep.
ruh----The Quran mentions "ruh" (spirit) and it also mentions "Ruh-al Qudus" (holy spirit) (Judaism=Ruach hakodesh). In Judeo-Islam, the ruh al-qudus/ruach hakodesh refers to the "spirit of prophesy/prophethood" and in Islam, this is understood as the angel Gabriel. However, some scholars use the words "ruh" and "ruh-al-qudus" interchangeably, as a reference to the Angel Gabriel. --but in my opinion, this can cause a bit of confusion.....a note of interest----apparently, in the Quran, nafs has a gramatical plural form but ruh/ruh al-Qudus does not. With this in mind---it is interesting to speculate on Surah 78, verse 38. "ruh" mentioned here could be Angel Gabriel, or the "spirit that animates"........
another concept of ruh/spirit is that it is the (God-given) instinct that turns us to the One God. Because all living things have ruh---all have the capacity to turn to God. In the case of humans, the gift of free-will makes this a decision we can choose or reject.
With regards to discussion about ruh, I want to mention Surah 17, verse 85
"they ask thee concerning the spirit. Say: The spirit is by command of my lord, and of knowledge you have been given but little"
apparently, God, in his wisdom, may feel that details of "ruh" other than what is already mentioned in the Quran, are of no benefit to human knowledge........
the verse referring to nafs and sleep is Surah 39, verse 42
@ hiroshi
Is Surah 29:57 relevant here? "Every soul (nafs) shall have a taste of death:"
The soul dies when the body dies. ----Yes surah 29 verse 57 also refers to the soul experiencing death----It is my understanding, from the Quran, that the soul does not die at the death of the physical body.(refer to surah 39, verse 42---for further discussion) At judgement, our physical bodies will be resurrected......
@ hiroshi
Is Surah 29:57 relevant here? "Every soul (nafs) shall have a taste of death:"
The soul dies when the body dies. ----Yes surah 29 verse 57 also refers to the soul experiencing death----It is my understanding, from the Quran, that the soul does not die at the death of the physical body.(refer to surah 39, verse 42---for further discussion) At judgement, our physical bodies will be resurrected......
Could it be that the soul (nafs) is the unseen innate part of us that tends toward the enjoyment by the body of this dunya and therefore leads to our attachment to it? This brings to mind the part of surah At-Takathur where we will be questioned about the delights we enjoyed. Could the spirit (ruh) be the part of us that seeks out the Divine and strives to control the unlimited desires of the nafs for physical pleasures to only that which has been allowed by Allah (subhana wa ta ala)? Could the ruh be the part that also leads us to worship Allah (swt)? If that was the case, then Brother Qatada's "back and forth" makes sense in the struggle between the nafs and the ruh for control over the mind and body of the human. Could the enjoyment of this dunya as induced by the nafs lead to a strong attachment to this dunya such that the angel needs to rip the nafs out of the body? Likewise, if the ruh is able to control the nafs and enabling the person to see that these pleasures are mere illusion of the moment, then he is less attached to this dunya and the angel easily slips the nafs out of the body? Or, could the ruh be that inner 'Voice of God' that gives us an innate sense of right and wrong consciousness and gives us the ability to submit to Allah (swt) and do what is right through controlling the nafs?
I hope that I have not mis-spoken as I fear that I am approaching the limits of my ability to understand per ayat 17:85 that Brother Siam so kindly pointed out. Allah (swt) knows best!
I hope that I have not mis-spoken as I fear that I am approaching the limits of my ability to understand per ayat 17:85 that Brother Siam so kindly pointed out. Allah (swt) knows best!
The discussion of nafs and ruh is relevant to the thread in the creation of Adam and Jesus (pbut) the Quran tells us that Allah (swt) breathed of His spirit into Adam and then into Mary. Christians see Jesus as the embodiment of Allah (swt) in human form and what I am seeing is that the likeness of Jesus is that of Adam. I still come back to our existence being that of our nafs and ruh dwelling within the body with one leading the body toward enjoying this world and the other leading toward worshiping Allah (swt). The submission or lack thereof of our nafs to the ruh in controlling the body according to the direction of Allah (swt) as revealed in the Quran and the Sunnah determines if we tread on the Straight Way that leads to Paradise or not. Again Allah (swt) knows best.
"Could the spirit (ruh) be the part of us that seeks out the Divine and strives to control the unlimited desires of the nafs for physical pleasures to only that which has been allowed by Allah (subhana wa ta ala)? Could the ruh be the part that also leads us to worship Allah (swt)? If that was the case, then Brother Qatada's "back and forth" makes sense in the struggle between the nafs and the ruh for control over the mind and body of the human."
----This would be the Judeo-Islamic view, however, if I could add some nuance..........
Think of the "ruh" as the spirit or force of life----our body is made of the same elements as that of the earth (carbon-based, what the Quran calls clay). One could say, our body functions according to our biochemical and electrical interactions (you could explain this part a lot better than I could). What makes this heap of biochemistry alive is "ruh"-- a pure force of good from God (that's a personal understanding). God made all creation in Goodness. Someone explained this aspect of ruh as the likeness of a compass that points north, likewise the ruh is a compass that points us towards the One God.
nafs on the other hand is fascinating complicated.......
I mentioned the 3 levels of nafs according to the Quran (Sufis have more levels)
The first level is the egoic level or the "animal self" ---it is about desires and it is neccessary for humans to feel "desire' such as hunger, sleep, etc in order to intereact with, and survive in the world. However, "desires" can become excessive----and therefore they need to be managed.
The Second level is the transegoic level or the higher self.----interestingly, it is translated as the self doubting/self reproaching soul. This is when we move beyond the level of desires and contemplate on our "self", its existence and purpose. Descartes said something like---"I think therefore I am". Al-Ghazzali explains it better...."doubt is to find truth---those who do not have doubt, cannot think and those who cannot think cannot find truth" In Judaism, we fluctuate between these two levels of soul (Yetzer hara and Yetzer hatov), and I think we can apply this to our nafs as well. (nafs ammara and nafs lawwama)
The Third level of soul is nafs mutmainna, the highest level---it may be similar to what Buddhists call Nirvana (Judaism=Neshama). It refers to a state of peace achieved through submission to God's will. ----from what I understand, this is a state some of us might be able to achieve on earth, but if not, our nafs ("we") will be in this state in paradise.
(any clarifications, additions and/or corrections on this issue will be appreciated)
----This would be the Judeo-Islamic view, however, if I could add some nuance..........
Think of the "ruh" as the spirit or force of life----our body is made of the same elements as that of the earth (carbon-based, what the Quran calls clay). One could say, our body functions according to our biochemical and electrical interactions (you could explain this part a lot better than I could). What makes this heap of biochemistry alive is "ruh"-- a pure force of good from God (that's a personal understanding). God made all creation in Goodness. Someone explained this aspect of ruh as the likeness of a compass that points north, likewise the ruh is a compass that points us towards the One God.
nafs on the other hand is fascinating complicated.......
I mentioned the 3 levels of nafs according to the Quran (Sufis have more levels)
The first level is the egoic level or the "animal self" ---it is about desires and it is neccessary for humans to feel "desire' such as hunger, sleep, etc in order to intereact with, and survive in the world. However, "desires" can become excessive----and therefore they need to be managed.
The Second level is the transegoic level or the higher self.----interestingly, it is translated as the self doubting/self reproaching soul. This is when we move beyond the level of desires and contemplate on our "self", its existence and purpose. Descartes said something like---"I think therefore I am". Al-Ghazzali explains it better...."doubt is to find truth---those who do not have doubt, cannot think and those who cannot think cannot find truth" In Judaism, we fluctuate between these two levels of soul (Yetzer hara and Yetzer hatov), and I think we can apply this to our nafs as well. (nafs ammara and nafs lawwama)
The Third level of soul is nafs mutmainna, the highest level---it may be similar to what Buddhists call Nirvana (Judaism=Neshama). It refers to a state of peace achieved through submission to God's will. ----from what I understand, this is a state some of us might be able to achieve on earth, but if not, our nafs ("we") will be in this state in paradise.
(any clarifications, additions and/or corrections on this issue will be appreciated)
Last edited:
"could the ruh be that inner 'Voice of God' that gives us an innate sense of right and wrong consciousness and gives us the ability to submit to Allah (swt) and do what is right ".---
----I would agree with that---interestingly "ruh", "ruach (Judaism), Qi (Chineese), prana (Indian) is understood as "wind", "breath", or "God's breath"....... makes for an interesting image......
----I would agree with that---interestingly "ruh", "ruach (Judaism), Qi (Chineese), prana (Indian) is understood as "wind", "breath", or "God's breath"....... makes for an interesting image......
Brother Siam, what you wrote is very interesting. Could the level of the nafs that a person achieves in his life be related to how he is judged with those who receive their books in the left hand (nafs ammara), in the right hand (nafs lawwama), and those brought near to Allah (swt) (nafs mutmainna)? Are we born with that level of nafs or do we achieve it through our life experiences and choices?
Why do you think that Christians see Jesus (alayhi salam) as the embodiment of Allah (subhana wa ta ala)? Surely he was different from us (virgin birth, speaking as a baby, creating a bird, raising the dead, healing the sick), but he is still a human. They make up a complicated and unintelligible formula of Jesus (as) being fully human and fully God. Is it a part of human nature to want to worship others who attain that highest level of nafs that they see is so far above their level is seen as being "God-like"?
Why do you think that Christians see Jesus (alayhi salam) as the embodiment of Allah (subhana wa ta ala)? Surely he was different from us (virgin birth, speaking as a baby, creating a bird, raising the dead, healing the sick), but he is still a human. They make up a complicated and unintelligible formula of Jesus (as) being fully human and fully God. Is it a part of human nature to want to worship others who attain that highest level of nafs that they see is so far above their level is seen as being "God-like"?
- Qatada -
Spread this Avatar!
- Messages
- 11,349
- Reaction score
- 2,692
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
:salamext:
The Nafs -according to my understanding- is not an Individual Entity. It is just the Soul while in the body.
The Ruh is an Individual Entity. The physical body is also an individual entity, which comes to life when a Soul is breathed into it.
Now to the 'breathing of the soul' into the body.
Anyone who says that 'God literally breathed a soul into Adam's body from in His ownself.' They will have to prove that this is what really happened.
We know according to Islamic texts that Allah/God creates the soul, and Angels then breathe the souls into the human embryo. And scholars have clearly commented that an Angel came to give Mary the good news of a son, and then the Angel breathed into her [Mary] the Spirit which Allah created for Jesus.
The Nafs -according to my understanding- is not an Individual Entity. It is just the Soul while in the body.
The Ruh is an Individual Entity. The physical body is also an individual entity, which comes to life when a Soul is breathed into it.
Now to the 'breathing of the soul' into the body.
Anyone who says that 'God literally breathed a soul into Adam's body from in His ownself.' They will have to prove that this is what really happened.
We know according to Islamic texts that Allah/God creates the soul, and Angels then breathe the souls into the human embryo. And scholars have clearly commented that an Angel came to give Mary the good news of a son, and then the Angel breathed into her [Mary] the Spirit which Allah created for Jesus.
Brother Qatada perhaps you can comment on these two ayat. The Pickthall translation of 15:29 is, "So, when I have made him (Adam) and have breathed into him of My Spirit, do ye fall down, prostrating yourselves unto him." and 21:91 "And she who was chaste, therefore We breathed into her (Mary)(something) of Our Spirit and made her and her son a token for (all) peoples." However, Muhsin Khan did not interpret ruh in either case as spirit, but rather as soul.
- Qatada -
Spread this Avatar!
- Messages
- 11,349
- Reaction score
- 2,692
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
Yeh i meant Ruh is soul.
This is what scholars of IslamQA said;
The fact that ‘Eesa (peace be upon him) is a Word from Allaah and a spirit created by Him, as is indicated in the texts of the clear Revelation, does not mean that he is part of Allaah who emerged from Him and is connected to His essence: glorified and exalted be Allaah far about what the wrongdoers say.
(...)
The phrase “a spirit created by Him (or from Him)” is used only of the Messiah because he was breathed into his mother by Angel Jibreel/Gabriel – peace be upon, and she became pregnant with him from that breath.... He is distinguished from them by the fact that his mother became pregnant with him from this breathing in of the spirit, hence he is called a spirit from Him. See Daqaa’iq al-Tafseer, 1/324 ff.
http://islamqa.com/en/ref/10683/
The example of Adam is similar to Jesus. How did the Ruh [soul] enter Adam? I'm not fully sure. However, we're certain that it isn't a 'part' of Allah. Rather, the Ruh [soul] is a creation of Allah.
This is what scholars of IslamQA said;
The fact that ‘Eesa (peace be upon him) is a Word from Allaah and a spirit created by Him, as is indicated in the texts of the clear Revelation, does not mean that he is part of Allaah who emerged from Him and is connected to His essence: glorified and exalted be Allaah far about what the wrongdoers say.
(...)
The phrase “a spirit created by Him (or from Him)” is used only of the Messiah because he was breathed into his mother by Angel Jibreel/Gabriel – peace be upon, and she became pregnant with him from that breath.... He is distinguished from them by the fact that his mother became pregnant with him from this breathing in of the spirit, hence he is called a spirit from Him. See Daqaa’iq al-Tafseer, 1/324 ff.
http://islamqa.com/en/ref/10683/
Last edited:
Grace Seeker
IB Legend
- Messages
- 5,343
- Reaction score
- 617
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Christianity
Re: Who is the founder of Christianity?
What I have found written by Muslims on this topic may be of interest to you:
Soul In Islamic Philosophy
The Nature of Soul: Islamic and Scientific Views
Mind, Self, Soul, Spirit, and Happiness from an Islamic Perspective
The Journey of the Soul
Perhaps the article that spoke most clearly to me was ISLAMIC CONCEPT OF HUMAN NATURE. The author does clarify that among Muslim theologians there is not agreement whether nafs and ruh signify the same or different things. But as I read the article, I believe it more strongly supports the idea that there is a difference between nafs and ruh and qalb. On the whole I understand a picture where human nature is compositionally the almagam of these disparate AND created elements. Nevertheless, when speaking of the ruh he writes:
Sure. If there is no unity between them, then the matter is settled. Jesus is just a teacher, a servant of God, and nothing more.
Of course, that is not the Christian understanding. It is the incarnation that makes the situation different.
Remember, for the Christian, even though most Muslims don't recognize this next statement, we begin with a belief that God is one. That is where we begin, we don't actually begin with a preconceived idea that Jesus is God, but that God is one. So, when God ultimately reveals that he does come to dwell among us by taking on flesh and incarnating himself in the world, we've got to wrestle with how that meshes with our basic understanding that there is only one God. Did God leave the world, as some Muslims like to question Christian views, unattended while he was on earth? Did God humiliate himself by becoming a human being? Is this just another theophany, a manifestation of a God who is really somewhere else?
All these, and many more questions, were what the early church had to wrestle with. They had a faith that began with its foundation surely rooted in the Jewish Shema: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one" (Deuteronomy 6:4). But then they had an experience where they believe that God had also come to dwell with them in the person of Jesus. (Of course, Muslims don't believe that the original followers of Jesus actually felt this way, and that it was only later Christians that made this change.) And so, somehow, even if it is hard for the human mind to understand how, these two truths had to be reconciled to each other.
Now, some of have said that there is only the one truth (God is one) and not two (that God also incarnated himself in the person of Jesus). If that is the position that one takes, then the discussion is closed right there. But for those who did hold that both were true, and I believe that the original disciples did indeed reach and teach that conclusion, then one finds themselves wrestling with the how question. Since you fail to see that it could be true, you don't have to wrestle with it, you can simply reject it. But the Church did have to wrestle with it. The how is not made clear in scripture, only that it was so. The next 300 years of church history focused on how those two contrasting truths could be held at the same time. The end result of that discussion was the Nicene creed. But, in reality, we see that the discussion still goes on.
Now, if I understand your question correctly, you've also asked how it is that I myself am able to reconcile those two truths that I hold in tension. In answering, I'm not saying that my way of understanding is THE right or best way, only that it works for me. I doubt that it would even work for all others who in the end hold the same beliefs as I do. It is just my way of processing these thoughts and I don't present it as anything more than that.
1) I find that God is bigger than anything that I can possibly imagine. His ways are not my ways. So, just because something is excluded from my experience, does not allow me to exclude it from the realm of God's.
2) I don't believe that I can, or should even attempt, to put God in a box. Now, I have to be careful, because any thought about God, any attempt to define him, is actually me doing just that -- saying what size, shape, form of a box that God fits into. Therefore, I have to hold in tension already, that I am both trying to understand the God who cannot be defined, but my very attempts at understanding him are to define the undefinable. So, I learn to live with paradox.
3) A part of the revelation of God to humankind does indeed include paradox as well. He is almighty and wills certain things for our lives, but he limits himself by granting us free will to make decisions for ourselves even in opposition to his own will for us. He is all-loving, but his love sometimes manifests itself in chastisement. He is omniprescent, but his holiness means that he cannot abide sin and will not allow it in his presence. These are cases where I find two different truths about to be true, and though they are oppositional to each other, I nonetheless hold both of them to be true. How can they both be true at the same time? I don't know. But I believe they are. So, I learn to live with the tension of what I know to be true with regard to God are sometimes oppositional to each other and are yet both true; even if I don't fully understand how it can be so, it can still be that it is.
4) God is known to me to be one. There is no God but God. All other gods are but illusions. No other god, no other being is able to create or to forgive sins or to do anything more than mimic that which God himself is able to do. And yet, Jesus is shown to be able to do these things. Is this because Jesus is acting by virtue of the power of God flowing through his life? In cases of healings and other miracles, probably exactly this -- God makes his power available to Jesus, just as he would sometimes work through others. But in other areas, such as the forgiving of sins, this is something that I understand only God can do, and to make such a statement if one is not God is commit blasphemy. As I understand that Jesus did indeed do make such a statement, then Jesus was declaring himself to be God. His statement was either that of a blasphemer or, if he was not committing blasphemy, he truly was God.
5) And while no where in the Gospel record does Jesus explicity say, "I am God."; it contains many instances where Jesus either says or by his actions does things that are the equivalent to making that very statement.
6) Additionally, virtually all other first century Christian writings (both canonical and non-canonical materials) declare Jesus to be God.
7) So, I am left with two declarative truths, that there is only one God and that Jesus is God. If I am going to accept the other teachings of the church, and especially the other teachings of Jesus himself as being true, then I believe that I cannot seperate out from them that which I don't understand and declare it to be untrue. Rather, though it may not understand how it is true, I accept that it is. As is often said to me, "Allah knows best."
Now, I may have misunderstood your statement. Rather than asking how it was that I arrived at being able to accept two oppostiional truths as true, perhaps you were asking how, having accepted them as both true, I was able to reconcile them both at the same time within my own mind. If so, I apologize for the unnecessary long-winded response above. But, I'll save entering into a second one until I know that is what you are seeking.
Yes, I was saying what you thought I said in post #7: That my understanding of the teaching of Islam with regard to the soul is that "our souls existed before we were conceived and that the soul joined our bodies during pregnancy." I wasn't necessarily trying to imply in my statement that said souls were themselves eternal and uncreated in nature, only that they pre-existed the body. I believe that I have read both views expressed by different Muslim writers. As to what the Qur'an and hadith actually teach on the topic, I haven't done a personal study to ascertain what my view of which of those two Islamic views seems to me to align itself with what the Prophet (pbuh) taught. I doubt if very many Muslims would care how a non-Muslim interprets Islamic scriptures.
What I have found written by Muslims on this topic may be of interest to you:
Soul In Islamic Philosophy
The Nature of Soul: Islamic and Scientific Views
Mind, Self, Soul, Spirit, and Happiness from an Islamic Perspective
The Journey of the Soul
Perhaps the article that spoke most clearly to me was ISLAMIC CONCEPT OF HUMAN NATURE. The author does clarify that among Muslim theologians there is not agreement whether nafs and ruh signify the same or different things. But as I read the article, I believe it more strongly supports the idea that there is a difference between nafs and ruh and qalb. On the whole I understand a picture where human nature is compositionally the almagam of these disparate AND created elements. Nevertheless, when speaking of the ruh he writes:
If it is indeed Allah's own spirit that is breathed into the human body, is that not saying that there is something of the divine in each human being? As a Christian, I have no problem with this idea, but I wonder how that is received and understood in Islam?
Sure. If there is no unity between them, then the matter is settled. Jesus is just a teacher, a servant of God, and nothing more.
Of course, that is not the Christian understanding. It is the incarnation that makes the situation different.
Remember, for the Christian, even though most Muslims don't recognize this next statement, we begin with a belief that God is one. That is where we begin, we don't actually begin with a preconceived idea that Jesus is God, but that God is one. So, when God ultimately reveals that he does come to dwell among us by taking on flesh and incarnating himself in the world, we've got to wrestle with how that meshes with our basic understanding that there is only one God. Did God leave the world, as some Muslims like to question Christian views, unattended while he was on earth? Did God humiliate himself by becoming a human being? Is this just another theophany, a manifestation of a God who is really somewhere else?
All these, and many more questions, were what the early church had to wrestle with. They had a faith that began with its foundation surely rooted in the Jewish Shema: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one" (Deuteronomy 6:4). But then they had an experience where they believe that God had also come to dwell with them in the person of Jesus. (Of course, Muslims don't believe that the original followers of Jesus actually felt this way, and that it was only later Christians that made this change.) And so, somehow, even if it is hard for the human mind to understand how, these two truths had to be reconciled to each other.
Now, some of have said that there is only the one truth (God is one) and not two (that God also incarnated himself in the person of Jesus). If that is the position that one takes, then the discussion is closed right there. But for those who did hold that both were true, and I believe that the original disciples did indeed reach and teach that conclusion, then one finds themselves wrestling with the how question. Since you fail to see that it could be true, you don't have to wrestle with it, you can simply reject it. But the Church did have to wrestle with it. The how is not made clear in scripture, only that it was so. The next 300 years of church history focused on how those two contrasting truths could be held at the same time. The end result of that discussion was the Nicene creed. But, in reality, we see that the discussion still goes on.
Now, if I understand your question correctly, you've also asked how it is that I myself am able to reconcile those two truths that I hold in tension. In answering, I'm not saying that my way of understanding is THE right or best way, only that it works for me. I doubt that it would even work for all others who in the end hold the same beliefs as I do. It is just my way of processing these thoughts and I don't present it as anything more than that.
1) I find that God is bigger than anything that I can possibly imagine. His ways are not my ways. So, just because something is excluded from my experience, does not allow me to exclude it from the realm of God's.
2) I don't believe that I can, or should even attempt, to put God in a box. Now, I have to be careful, because any thought about God, any attempt to define him, is actually me doing just that -- saying what size, shape, form of a box that God fits into. Therefore, I have to hold in tension already, that I am both trying to understand the God who cannot be defined, but my very attempts at understanding him are to define the undefinable. So, I learn to live with paradox.
3) A part of the revelation of God to humankind does indeed include paradox as well. He is almighty and wills certain things for our lives, but he limits himself by granting us free will to make decisions for ourselves even in opposition to his own will for us. He is all-loving, but his love sometimes manifests itself in chastisement. He is omniprescent, but his holiness means that he cannot abide sin and will not allow it in his presence. These are cases where I find two different truths about to be true, and though they are oppositional to each other, I nonetheless hold both of them to be true. How can they both be true at the same time? I don't know. But I believe they are. So, I learn to live with the tension of what I know to be true with regard to God are sometimes oppositional to each other and are yet both true; even if I don't fully understand how it can be so, it can still be that it is.
4) God is known to me to be one. There is no God but God. All other gods are but illusions. No other god, no other being is able to create or to forgive sins or to do anything more than mimic that which God himself is able to do. And yet, Jesus is shown to be able to do these things. Is this because Jesus is acting by virtue of the power of God flowing through his life? In cases of healings and other miracles, probably exactly this -- God makes his power available to Jesus, just as he would sometimes work through others. But in other areas, such as the forgiving of sins, this is something that I understand only God can do, and to make such a statement if one is not God is commit blasphemy. As I understand that Jesus did indeed do make such a statement, then Jesus was declaring himself to be God. His statement was either that of a blasphemer or, if he was not committing blasphemy, he truly was God.
5) And while no where in the Gospel record does Jesus explicity say, "I am God."; it contains many instances where Jesus either says or by his actions does things that are the equivalent to making that very statement.
6) Additionally, virtually all other first century Christian writings (both canonical and non-canonical materials) declare Jesus to be God.
7) So, I am left with two declarative truths, that there is only one God and that Jesus is God. If I am going to accept the other teachings of the church, and especially the other teachings of Jesus himself as being true, then I believe that I cannot seperate out from them that which I don't understand and declare it to be untrue. Rather, though it may not understand how it is true, I accept that it is. As is often said to me, "Allah knows best."
Now, I may have misunderstood your statement. Rather than asking how it was that I arrived at being able to accept two oppostiional truths as true, perhaps you were asking how, having accepted them as both true, I was able to reconcile them both at the same time within my own mind. If so, I apologize for the unnecessary long-winded response above. But, I'll save entering into a second one until I know that is what you are seeking.
Last edited:
Grace Seeker
IB Legend
- Messages
- 5,343
- Reaction score
- 617
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Christianity
Looking back quickly at what others have written, I think I may be closer to the Islamic understanding of the soul than that expressed by Hiroshi. However, I would probably want to discriminate between soul and spirit and not use them as being identical in meaning, even though I recognize that this is not always the case with certain Christian writers.
Re: Who is the founder of Christianity?
How do you reconcile this view with Acts 3:13, "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go."? This verse distinguishes between God and Jesus as His servant.
I personally say that when I am not 100% sure that what I said is correct and if I erred, then "Allah knows best." The point is that I have used logic and Biblical verses to make distinctions between God and Jesus, but I haven't read a reply where logic is used to show they are one and the same.
Yes, I agree as it doesn't make sense that Allah (swt) can be divisible with a part, even the tiniest part, residing in Adam, or Jesus, or any other created thing. We don't believe that Allah (swt) is present every where at once except in His knowledge.
Re: Who is the founder of Christianity?
I would like to clarify my position on certain points.....
From my understandiing, "ruh" IS NOT part of God---my suspicion is that it is for this reason the Quran does not eleborate on the "ruh" in case we make this mistake. It is a FORCE created by God for a purpose. That, this "force" may contain aspects/properties of the creative force of God, does not make "ruh" God or part of God----We must be careful not to fall into shirk. All creation comes from God and will go back to God.
It is also my understanding that the "ruh" is a singularity-----that is, the Quran does not have a plural for it. This makes for interesting speculation, as your "ruh" could be the same singularity as mine......?.......or some such. Nafs on the other hand has a plural---and so, each of us has an individual nafs. This is our "identity"--what we understand as the "I". (self-awareness). My understanding of nafs is that our spiritual progress is in our hands---we decide our spiritual destiny. This choice is a gift from God.(see surah 91 verses 7 to 10)
nafs ammara (Surah 12, verse 53), nafs lawwama (surah 75, verse 2), nafs mutmainna (surah 89 verse 27)
These levels of nafs also correspond to the levels of spirituality-----that is Islam (first level) Iman (second level) and Ihsan (third level)
Islam=submission to God's will, which translates into following the 5 pillars and obeying his laws
Iman=when faith enters the soul---faith=the use of one's intellect and reason to arrive at conviction.
Ihsan=when we understand that we are in God's presence, that he sees and knows all that we do as if he is standing besides us at all times. (strong God-awareness)
Though it is correct that many scholars use "ruh" and "nafs' interchangeably---it is my opinion that they have different roles/functions.
Qalb---Al Gazzali has some intersting ideas on this. "we" are the nafs. "we" interract with the world through processing input from the world through our body. Al-Gazzali divides this into two aspects the Aql (intellect) and the Qalb(heart)----(---not biological). The heart deals with instinctive/intuitive understanding, while the intellect deals with understanding through reason and logic. Both are important in our attempts to understand the Divine.
Prophet Jesus(pbuh)----Christians have misunderstood because they cannot see beyond the "phenomenon"----to the Divine power/force that created the "phenomenon". They have also misunderstood the Torah.
1) why virgin birth?----In Judaism, a child is considered a Jew only if the mother is Jewish. Without a Jewish mother, Prophet Jesus (pbuh) would not have been considered a Jew and the Quran promises that the prophets will be from among the people so they will be recognized.
2) Why no father?----because Prophet Jesus (pbuh) was an unmistakable sign from God. Therefore, though a mother was necessary in order to prove his Jewishness, a father was not---and thus his birth could not be rejected by the Jews on some pretense...(though some did anyway)
3) Further as a sign from God, he strenghtened Prophet Jesus (pbuh) with the "Ruh al-Qudus" (Holy spirit) from birth, thus Prophet Jesus(pbuh) was able to speak and make birds out of clay and breathe into them, and they would become alive....etc....etc
4) why is he called "masih" in the Quran instead of rasul/nabi?----because he was to be the last Prophet to the Jews.
In order to force the man-made concept of "son of God" onto the bible----they have re-interpreted the old testament with "prophesies" and other doctrines such as "original sin" etc to make the bible force-fit into their trinity doctrine. From the perspective of Judaism, Masih (Moshiac) is a human being---not "son of God." There is no "original sin" doctrine in Judeo-Islam, making the whole (Christian) reason for the crucifixion obsolete.
Why is it important that the crucifixion not happen?----because the Torah promises that God wil not allow a true Prophet to be killed, but a false prophet must be killed/stoned(?) by the Jews (Deuteronomy---I think). Therefore, the claim by the Christians that Prophet Jesus(pbuh) was crucified/killed---makes him into a "false Prophet" and to get around that---they needed to make him a "son of God".
I would like to clarify my position on certain points.....
From my understandiing, "ruh" IS NOT part of God---my suspicion is that it is for this reason the Quran does not eleborate on the "ruh" in case we make this mistake. It is a FORCE created by God for a purpose. That, this "force" may contain aspects/properties of the creative force of God, does not make "ruh" God or part of God----We must be careful not to fall into shirk. All creation comes from God and will go back to God.
It is also my understanding that the "ruh" is a singularity-----that is, the Quran does not have a plural for it. This makes for interesting speculation, as your "ruh" could be the same singularity as mine......?.......or some such. Nafs on the other hand has a plural---and so, each of us has an individual nafs. This is our "identity"--what we understand as the "I". (self-awareness). My understanding of nafs is that our spiritual progress is in our hands---we decide our spiritual destiny. This choice is a gift from God.(see surah 91 verses 7 to 10)
nafs ammara (Surah 12, verse 53), nafs lawwama (surah 75, verse 2), nafs mutmainna (surah 89 verse 27)
These levels of nafs also correspond to the levels of spirituality-----that is Islam (first level) Iman (second level) and Ihsan (third level)
Islam=submission to God's will, which translates into following the 5 pillars and obeying his laws
Iman=when faith enters the soul---faith=the use of one's intellect and reason to arrive at conviction.
Ihsan=when we understand that we are in God's presence, that he sees and knows all that we do as if he is standing besides us at all times. (strong God-awareness)
Though it is correct that many scholars use "ruh" and "nafs' interchangeably---it is my opinion that they have different roles/functions.
Qalb---Al Gazzali has some intersting ideas on this. "we" are the nafs. "we" interract with the world through processing input from the world through our body. Al-Gazzali divides this into two aspects the Aql (intellect) and the Qalb(heart)----(---not biological). The heart deals with instinctive/intuitive understanding, while the intellect deals with understanding through reason and logic. Both are important in our attempts to understand the Divine.
Prophet Jesus(pbuh)----Christians have misunderstood because they cannot see beyond the "phenomenon"----to the Divine power/force that created the "phenomenon". They have also misunderstood the Torah.
1) why virgin birth?----In Judaism, a child is considered a Jew only if the mother is Jewish. Without a Jewish mother, Prophet Jesus (pbuh) would not have been considered a Jew and the Quran promises that the prophets will be from among the people so they will be recognized.
2) Why no father?----because Prophet Jesus (pbuh) was an unmistakable sign from God. Therefore, though a mother was necessary in order to prove his Jewishness, a father was not---and thus his birth could not be rejected by the Jews on some pretense...(though some did anyway)
3) Further as a sign from God, he strenghtened Prophet Jesus (pbuh) with the "Ruh al-Qudus" (Holy spirit) from birth, thus Prophet Jesus(pbuh) was able to speak and make birds out of clay and breathe into them, and they would become alive....etc....etc
4) why is he called "masih" in the Quran instead of rasul/nabi?----because he was to be the last Prophet to the Jews.
In order to force the man-made concept of "son of God" onto the bible----they have re-interpreted the old testament with "prophesies" and other doctrines such as "original sin" etc to make the bible force-fit into their trinity doctrine. From the perspective of Judaism, Masih (Moshiac) is a human being---not "son of God." There is no "original sin" doctrine in Judeo-Islam, making the whole (Christian) reason for the crucifixion obsolete.
Why is it important that the crucifixion not happen?----because the Torah promises that God wil not allow a true Prophet to be killed, but a false prophet must be killed/stoned(?) by the Jews (Deuteronomy---I think). Therefore, the claim by the Christians that Prophet Jesus(pbuh) was crucified/killed---makes him into a "false Prophet" and to get around that---they needed to make him a "son of God".
Grace Seeker
IB Legend
- Messages
- 5,343
- Reaction score
- 617
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Christianity
Actually, this is the best argument that I have heard given by a Muslim against the Trinity. But, it begins with an assumption that I don't make, namely that Allah is not present everywhere.
I'll have to get back to you on the other comments and questions later.