[Islam] 11a - Contents of the Qur'an: More on God

[Cat of Ulthar]

I figured I'd continue these here... If General Kay does not object.

11a – The contents of the Qur’an: More on God

God is both the ruler and the judge of mankind. People are only his slaves and they should never forget that (a popular Arabic name is ‘Abd-Allah): slave of God. In times of distress, people can turn to God for help, and he may give them mercy or get angry with them, however, he is always just.

The nature of God

- Unity.
There is no God except God (Muslim profession of faith). God is the maintainer of justice. God has not engendered and has not been engendered. This last is an attack on the heathens, who venerated the daughters of God, and on the Christians, who say Jesus is the son of God. The Muslim view is that Mary begot a son through God, but that was not God’s son. God did not engender Jesus, but he was created by God in Mary, like all people are created by God in their mothers’ wombs. Jesus was a prophet.
Muhammad also did not hold with the idea of the Trinity: God is one, not three, nor one third. He does not need sons and ghosts to help him. Sometimes the Trinity is even regarded as polytheism.
Some scholars have argued that Muhammad’s interpretation of the Trinity was incorrect, that he assumed that it was God-Mary-Jesus. However, this is not likely. The Qur’an does emphasise that Mary was human and reproaches the Christians for worshipping her like a Goddess, but the Trinity is not mentioned in this context. It is more likely that these verses were directed at the Mary-cult.

- Transcendence
God exists above all else. He is exalted, above time and space, not perceptible.
However, 99 attributes of his are mentioned in the Qur’an, and those are called the 99 beautiful names of God; the hundredth being “God” (Allah) itself.
And he even gets attributed some human body parts, bits of the Qur’an speak of God’s hand or his eyes. Some scholars insist those are to be taken literally, others argue that they must be symbolic.

[BOZ]

God is both the ruler and the judge of mankind. People are only his slaves and they should never forget that (a popular Arabic name is ‘Abd-Allah): slave of God.

wow. but i guess that shouldn't be surprising, and does explain a whole lot.

[Northcott]

I regret to say that I missed most of your earlier chapters on this. Where is this info coming from, Cat? Is this your summary from the years of Arabic study you've done, or is this from some kind of "Q'ran for Dummies" book that your publisher's working on? :)

God is both the ruler and the judge of mankind. People are only his slaves and they should never forget that (a popular Arabic name is ‘Abd-Allah): slave of God. In times of distress, people can turn to God for help, and he may give them mercy or get angry with them, however, he is always just.

There's troublesome implications in that. Though it would fit with the "big computer simulation" theory! :D

There is no God except God (Muslim profession of faith).

That's probably why Jesus, Buddha, and Thor didn't invite him to the last poker game.

God is the maintainer of justice.

Extra troubling considering the slavery notion above.

God has not engendered and has not been engendered.

Okay, that I can grasp. In fact, when one considers:
God exists above all else. He is exalted, above time and space, not perceptible.

...then it makes perfect sense. That which is without limitation, which is infinite, which cannot be limited by time or space, would quickly enter into a mind-breaking mobius loop of existence. But then that all falls apart when it starts into this stuff:

Muhammad also did not hold with the idea of the Trinity: God is one, not three, nor one third.

So God is above time and space, and thus not perceptible -- but he couldn't possibly be three different beings and be one being at the same time. That's a pretty basic self-contradiction. Any idea what the theological work-around for this is?

He does not need sons and ghosts to help him.

Somebody flunked their beginner's course in Christianity. I once heard a really snotty little Pentecostal sneer at the idea of saints -- God doesn't need help, so saints don't exist. My FSM can beat up your FSM! How's about FFS -- For fuck sakes, people! If you're going to claim that the divine is unknowable, don't go making fucking absolutist statements in the next breath about what is and isn't.

Sometimes the Trinity is even regarded as polytheism.

A big ol' red "F" on those papers!

The Qur’an does emphasise that Mary was human and reproaches the Christians for worshipping her like a Goddess, but the Trinity is not mentioned in this context. It is more likely that these verses were directed at the Mary-cult.

Which is really, really funny when you consider the veneration granted Muhammad.

And he even gets attributed some human body parts, bits of the Qur’an speak of God’s hand or his eyes. Some scholars insist those are to be taken literally, others argue that they must be symbolic.

And again -- if God is beyond descriptions steeped in time and space, how then could his eyes possibly be described?

This last is an attack on the heathens, who venerated the daughters of God, and on the Christians, who say Jesus is the son of God. The Muslim view is that Mary begot a son through God, but that was not God’s son. God did not engender Jesus, but he was created by God in Mary, like all people are created by God in their mothers’ wombs. Jesus was a prophet.

So we are not God's children -- we're his slaves. Interesting.

[Darkfire]

I'm going to have to disagree a little with Cat over the term 'Abdullāh' as I've seen to more commonly translated as 'servent of God' and it is used to illustrate a muslim's servitude and humility before God.

[BOZ]

So we are not God's children -- we're his slaves. Interesting.

isn't that basically what children are, anyway? ;)

[Varaj]

I'm going to have to disagree a little with Cat over the term 'Abdullāh' as I've seen to more commonly translated as 'servent of God' and it is used to illustrate a muslim's servitude and humility before God.

I've always heard it your way as well Darkfire. Abd literally means slave but in the context of abd-allah means servant of Allah, but servant has much stronger meaning in Arabic than in English.

Abd (Arabic: عبد) is an Arabic word meaning one who is totally subordinated; a slave. It appears in many common Arab names indicating submission to God. For instance Abd-Allah means "servant of Allah" It also means "worshipper of Allah". Abd also refers to slaves in Arab society, mainly made up of imported African slaves, yet many were from the Caucasus Mountains as well as Eastern Europe. Some of the latter eventually became known as the Mamluk ruling class, having procured education and military training at an early age. Abd: (Arabic Countries) This term, literally "slave" in Arabic, is used as a slur against Blacks and persons of mixed African descent. The name Abd is cognate with Hebrew "Obed", meaning "servant, worshipper".[1]

[Northcott]

Interesting -- the evolution of language hand in hand with the evolution of theology and/or culture?

[Cat of Ulthar]

I regret to say that I missed most of your earlier chapters on this. Where is this info coming from, Cat? Is this your summary from the years of Arabic study you've done, or is this from some kind of "Q'ran for Dummies" book that your publisher's working on? :)

Read your forums dammit!:p I posted all this at the last NTL. I saved them though, so I could repost them all in one big thread, or just send them to you.
These are the notes of my Introduction in Islamology course I had at university, by prof. dr. Harald Motzki.

So God is above time and space, and thus not perceptible -- but he couldn't possibly be three different beings and be one being at the same time. That's a pretty basic self-contradiction. Any idea what the theological work-around for this is?
The Unity of God is the most important dogma in Islam. It is essential that you do not try to split him into multiple facets or say there are more like him. I do not know exactly why this is so important, Darkfire? Do you know?

Somebody flunked their beginner's course in Christianity... If you're going to claim that the divine is unknowable, don't go making fucking absolutist statements in the next breath about what is and isn't.
That is not so strange, you can say that most of the divine is unknowable, but we know for sure that X, Y and Z, because he told us so. There is no contradiction in that.

Which is really, really funny when you consider the veneration granted Muhammad.
There is veneration granted Muhammad? Certainly, a lot of respect, and he is seen as an exemplary human being, but not as something halfway to the divine, as the saints are in Christianity. I reckon it is a matter of how you define veneration.

I've always heard it your way as well Darkfire. Abd literally means slave but in the context of abd-allah means servant of Allah, but servant has much stronger meaning in Arabic than in English.

I think the difference between slave and servant here is merely that one sounds nicer than the other, but if you look at the implications: God has absolute power over everything man does, feels, or even thinks, I think "slave" is still too liberal a word to describe it...

[Varaj]

I think the difference between slave and servant here is merely that one sounds nicer than the other, but if you look at the implications: God has absolute power over everything man does, feels, or even thinks, I think "slave" is still too liberal a word to describe it...

Makes sense.

[Darkfire]

Slavery vs servant

I agree with both you that in Arabic 'servant' is closer to 'slave' than it is in English, but at the same time slave has several very negative connotations, like being oppresive, which I don't think apply to the phrase 'abd-allah'

The singleness of God

The most basic answer you're going to get is 'because its a truth repeatedly mentioned in the Qur'an and as muslims we need to actively ensure that no changes occur to the message revealed to us'

On a different level though. I've heard arguments along the lines of this concept being so predominant in Islam so that it stood apart from the current faiths. Another argument, and one I tend to favour, is that it in Islam a muslim's connection to God is personal and without any obstacles, the presence of other facets/personalities pollutes the ability to interact with the divine so in Islam this element is removed entirely.

[Northcott]

These are the notes of my Introduction in Islamology course I had at university, by prof. dr. Harald Motzki.

Cool. I still wanna find a book called "Islam for Dummies", though. I figure I can start a war if I mail a copy to Osama, with a note reading: "From Mahmoud, with love." (Mahmoud, President of Iran, for others who -- like me -- can never remember his bloody name)


The Unity of God is the most important dogma in Islam. It is essential that you do not try to split him into multiple facets or say there are more like him. I do not know exactly why this is so important, Darkfire? Do you know?

Well, beyond it's being important to not split divinity, even dealing with the internal theological structure, it just seems odd to me: Allah cannot be confined by petty mortal concepts of time and space, he is all and he is infinite -- BUT DON'T YOU DARE SAY THAT HE CAN BE REPRESENTED BY THREE FACETS AT ONCE! It's just logically inconsistent, is all.


That is not so strange, you can say that most of the divine is unknowable, but we know for sure that X, Y and Z, because he told us so. There is no contradiction in that.

But if X, Y, and Z are rooted in basline mortal concepts of time and space, then suddenly Allah is indeed limited in scope. That's a great contradiction, and why the notion of "description of God as a metaphor" makes more sense than those who interpret it literally. But then, those who go for literal interpretations tend to be a tad on the fanatic side of things, and rationality really isn't a calling card of that subset.

There is veneration granted Muhammad? Certainly, a lot of respect, and he is seen as an exemplary human being, but not as something halfway to the divine, as the saints are in Christianity. I reckon it is a matter of how you define veneration.

Not all Christian sects believe in saints. :) And those that do believe in them do not label them as demi-gods, or halfway to the divine. The belief is that they were far holier than Joe Average, and so grew closer to the truth of God. When people pray and invoke a saint, the notion is that they're not praying to the saint, but praying for the saint to intercede upon their behalf -- it's a fine line, but an important one.

As for Muhammad's veneration -- just look at the murderous furor that errupted in Europe over some tasteless cartoons. Labelled by many as an insult or an attack upon Islam. The man is held to be night flawless, in spite of having practices that would be considered deviant and abhorrant in modern society. I'd call that veneration.

I think the difference between slave and servant here is merely that one sounds nicer than the other, but if you look at the implications: God has absolute power over everything man does, feels, or even thinks, I think "slave" is still too liberal a word to describe it...

Save for the notion of free will, which changes the demarcation between slave and servant. A slave does not choose to serve: a servant does.


Another argument, and one I tend to favour, is that it in Islam a muslim's connection to God is personal and without any obstacles, the presence of other facets/personalities pollutes the ability to interact with the divine so in Islam this element is removed entirely.

This stance makes the most sense to me, both in terms of consistency of theology, and in the notion of fostering a more tolerant, moderate faith. When people start to give slavish devotion to the spiritual interpretations of others, particularly when preaching an "us vs. them" philosophy, the world gets very ugly.

[Darkfire]

As for Muhammad's veneration -- just look at the murderous furor that errupted in Europe over some tasteless cartoons. Labelled by many as an insult or an attack upon Islam. The man is held to be night flawless, in spite of having practices that would be considered deviant and abhorrant in modern society. I'd call that veneration.


No offence Northcott but some of those cartoons were an insult to the muslim world and depending on the intention behind the paper which initially published them it could be construed that they were also an attack.

But thats a discussion for another time/thread.

[Varaj]

No offence Northcott but some of those cartoons were an insult to the muslim world and depending on the intention behind the paper which initially published them it could be construed that they were also an attack.

But thats a discussion for another time/thread.

Why do you have to "Peace be upon him" or "Peace be upon him and his family" if there isn't veneration.
I call serious bullshit on Muhammad not being venerated.

[Darkfire]

Guess it depends on which definition of veneration you use

1 : to regard with reverential respect or with admiring deference
2 : to honor (as an icon or a relic) with a ritual act of devotion

The first is what muslims should do with the memory of the Prophet, the second is what we should avoid. Not that the second doesn't occur, people have always found it easier to worship the immediate than the divine.

[Darkfire]

And for Northcott Islam for Dummies (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Islam-Dummies-M-Clark/dp/0764555030/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/026-1397989-4234854?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189092169&sr=8-1) ;)

[Varaj]

Guess it depends on which definition of veneration you use

1 : to regard with reverential respect or with admiring deference
2 : to honor (as an icon or a relic) with a ritual act of devotion

The first is what muslims should do with the memory of the Prophet, the second is what we should avoid. Not that the second doesn't occur, people have always found it easier to worship the immediate than the divine.

How can you claim that the ritual phrase that must be said when ever you say his name isn't a ritual act of devotion?

Oh yeah tell me what Rushdie's crime was?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_veneration_for_Muhammad

[Northcott]

No offence Northcott but some of those cartoons were an insult to the muslim world and depending on the intention behind the paper which initially published them it could be construed that they were also an attack.

But thats a discussion for another time/thread.

No offense taken, man. I wouldn't be peeking in this thread if I weren't up for learning something new, and when it comes to that mess over the cartoons I missed much of it. I was in a pretty grim headspace at the time, and barely even noticed that screaming match, never mind looking into it. So anything you want to say to clarify the matter from your POV is cool with me. Curiosity abounds.

On the topic of veneration: I think that both instances apply to the way the memory of Muhammad is preserved. My hunch is that, like people of any other belief system, the people of Islam are prone to getting tangled in the mortal issues surrounding a faith, rather than examining it on a deeper level. One more trap that allows a philosophy to be used as a tool of extremism, rather than exploration of the world.