Skip to main content

Infinity and its relation to good and evil

http://www.sufism.org/society/articles/GoodAndEvil.htm


Q: One thing that helps me is that the Qur'an and hadith have lots of references to timelessness. Where God gives time, and this infinity defines not just the linear time that we're on, seen and unseen, but beyond the seeming events, and infinity includes all possibilities. So instead of just our lives being a linear sequence of events, some good and some bad, it's really a multi-dimensional continuum of all possibilities. We just happen to be sitting in one arbitrary spot. It's almost like you have a picture that's black and white. And it's not like there's presence and absence of good in one particular spot, and it just happened to reach an uncomfortable spot. It's not important whether it's opposite is included or not in the picture. I don't know if this is making sense. But the infinity completely negates good and evil.

William Chittick: I would, in your discussion, I would object to the word "arbitrary." It's a very un-Islamic idea. There's nothing arbitrary.

Q: It could be this, it could be that…

WC: No, it couldn't. It couldn't. It could not. That's precisely the point. It's taqdir, it's God, it's measured out. Measured out exactly the way it happens. That's the whole point. Don't say [lau], don't say if. Say [taqdir]. [Qadar]. God has measured it out exactly that way. He has destined it. This is the way it had to happen. It's why the prophet said: The good is in what happens. Whatever happens is the good. There is nothing arbitrary about anything, except in our perception of things. The nafs has this perception which sees things arbitrarily because it can't grasp the whole picture. But the man of spirit sees that everything is in its proper place.

Comments

  1. Anonymous2/22/2006

    Excellent article. MashaAllah, may Allah be pleased with Rumi and the teacher in the article. I am interested in the concept of the relativity and apparently-calculated approach of Evil discussed in this text. It provides much food for thought.

    Here are two parts that I find myself questioning:

    "In conclusion, to will evil is only reprehensible when it is willed for its own sake. But when it is willed for the sake of a good, then it is not reprehensible."

    This seems to be a dangerous concept, no? It's the idea that evil based on good intentions is not reprehensible. Perhaps, in the eyes of God, this may be correct (wAllahu Alim). However, it just doesn't sit well with me.

    "He knows we can only know and love Him if we we're faced with evil." Is this true? I wonder what the sources are for this type of conclusion. I'm sure there are those who are not faced with evil and "know and love Him". Remember, the three mind types described by Imam Jawziyah (May Allah bless him): repentance, patience, and gratefulness. While "evil" falls into patience and repentance, I feel that it has no place in gratefulness (except to maybe express thankfulness for the absence of evil).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sadia2/25/2006

    COnsider this very typical example: If a woman endures emotional abuse in a relationship (abuse is evil), but she chooses to remain in the relationship for the sake of her children (children's emotional stability, good), then the woman is allowing evil to continue (though, let's assume she has the power to leave, etc.) for the sake of a good (i.e. her children).
    the intention here is good, but if the woman's well being means anything, then she should leave. or so says oprah.

    the idea is really that evil exists so that we can recognize the bounties and goodness of Allah talla.

    and how does evil fall into patience and repentence?

    i think i want to give you rights to writing on the sadiablog. i think you should have this power.

    i had a conversation about gujurat today at work. apparently their food is sweet and sour at the same time. oh the excitement!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Not Friendship (Revised)- Repost

It is difficult to be merely a friend to a boy who seems more suitable as a husband than a friend. To reduce a potential life partner to a friend is immature and selfish. Friendship is the not the greatest type of relationship, but it is the safest. Friendship allows you to be intimate without the messiness of other things, like physical attraction, etc. Between friends, there is a warm permanence, a fuzziness that can be called appreciation and gratitude. There is also comfort and trust. Friendship is great if only for the possibility that one can know the beauty of another human being. The possibility of that is worth the difficulty of all else. But sometimes friendship is not enough. Sometimes, to reduce someone to friend when he should be much more is an affront to the opportunity God has presented before you. It is like saying to him, I know that we are amazing together, but we should be friends because I am a dumbass. To reduce him to friend also precludes the possibility of love...
7 comments
Read more
Malcolm Gladwell. "Getting In: The Social Logic of Ivy Leage Admissions" http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_10_10_a_admissions.html Major themes: 1. Passion is a significant contributor to success. 2. High intelligence means little without discipline and passion. "Bowen and Shulman write about the characteristics that make athletes more coveted by Ivy League schools: One of these characteristics can be thought of as drive--a strong desire to succeed and unswerving determination to reach a goal, whether it be winning the next game or closing a sale. Similarly, athletes tend to be more energetic than the average person, which translates into an ability to work hard over long periods of time--to meet, for example, the workload demands placed on young people by an investment bank in the throes of analyzing a transaction. In addition, athletes are more likely than others to be highly competitive, gregarious and confident of their ability to work well in groups (on teams). I ...
6 comments
Read more

Re: Your Inquiries

"You confuse yourselves with your actions, even with your thoughts. You barely understand that in order to be, it should not be necessary to act, and that the world changes you far more than you change it." (Malraux, The Temptation of the West, 1961 ) The world consists of wonderful people who enter and exit your life. When you let them enter, your breaths seem more thoughtful, your behaviors more scrutinized, your ideas challenged, and sometimes your brain orgasms from happiness. But when these individuals leave, you experience equally significant things like confusion and hurt. It seems okay to let someone in, someone trustworthy, good, honest, and not concern yourself with the end. As things exist in your mind, there is no harm. Intellectual promiscuity, then, is not so bad. To have intimate, intelligent conversations into the morning is not troubling, either. Sometimes when good people enter, it is not necessary to act, or specifically to resist. When people enter, their ...
6 comments
Read more