Allah's Associates: Islamic Idolatry & Autolatry

[LuisDantas]

So, is it a common Muslim view that God as no associates, but lots of subjects?

The difference being that a subject is ultimately under God's power even if he does not insist on using such power at all times, while an associate would have some degree of autonomy from God?

 

[interminable]

Especially being uncreated.

1) An uncreated source is necessarily responsible for its output.

2) For example: the first Singularity is necessarily responsible for the contents of the Universe. The Singularity does not exist apart from the Universe, but rather acts as the source.

3) There either is no "before", i.e. time is an illusory function for parts within the whole- or said vindication was a potential force.

Not sure what I got is true or not

How can something that is uncreated be responsible for something????
Clearly it is nothing and nothing doesn't exist to be responsible for something


In all probability u consider "noting" as an existence while it's not true

I'm curious to know what u mean both by vindication

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Especially being uncreated.

1) An uncreated source is necessarily responsible for its output.

An uncreated source causes a hole in the 'everything has a First Cause' argument. If one thing can exist without having a First Cause then there's no reason to assume anything else had to have a First Cause - and every claim to the contrary is special pleading. In other words, If God doesn't have to have a First Cause, neither does the Universe.

2) For example: the first Singularity is necessarily responsible for the contents of the Universe. The Singularity does not exist apart from the Universe, but rather acts as the source.

I don't think anyone calls the Singularity 'God' except maybe pantheists. Even then...

3) There either is no "before", i.e. time is an illusory function for parts within the whole- or said vindication was a potential force.

So God can't be said to have existed before creating the Universe - meaning he has existed only as long as the Universe and space-time, meaning he didn't create anything - which renders the Universe as a self-initiating phenomenon.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I'm curious to know what u mean both by vindication

Sorry, I meant to respond before now but it slipped my mind. In this context I get the impression @Sleeppy defines 'vindication' as meaning to verify, to prove etc. So an uncreated God vindicates proves that the Universe was created as well as the notion that everything that exists must have a cause. Except God for some reason. Do you see why I have a problem with this position?

 

[interminable]

Sorry, I meant to respond before now but it slipped my mind. In this context I get the impression @Sleeppy defines 'vindication' as meaning to verify, to prove etc. So an uncreated God vindicates proves that the Universe was created as well as the notion that everything that exists must have a cause. Except God for some reason. Do you see why I have a problem with this position?

Sir
It's a common mistake in western countries
Who has told that everything needs a cause
Nope
It's >>>>everything that is created needs a cause
So let me explain

According to infinite regress there must be an independent being that hasn't been created by anything else that we call it First cause
This cause should be unlimited
Because if isn't unlimited something(B) should limit him OK??
So if something(B) can limit the first cause it means (B) existed before the first cause and this can't be because we considerd that before the first cause noting was existed

So why first cause should be unlimited and immaterial?
If he was not unlimited he should be combined from particles
Having particles means that there is a time when he wasn't existed because everything that has particles gradually becomes a complete and it's true form is shaped
So we know that there isn't a time that first cause wasn't existed because first cause is himself creator of time and space
If we consider that there is a time that first cause wasn't existed it means he originated from nothing and it's impossible

That's why we can conclude that two unlimited things can't be existed
There is only one unlimited thing

So universe needs a cause since it's from matter and every matter before it's complete form wasn't existed

 

[interminable]

So, is it a common Muslim view that God as no associates, but lots of subjects?

The difference being that a subject is ultimately under God's power even if he does not insist on using such power at all times, while an associate would have some degree of autonomy from God?

I wish I could understand u
U know my English isn't good enough
So please make it easier
Unfortunately English words have more than one meaning so it's hard to specify

Sorry

 

[LuisDantas]

I wish I could understand u
U know my English isn't good enough
So please make it easier
Unfortunately English words have more than one meaning so it's hard to specify

Sorry

I welcome and thank you for your good will. I'm sorry I failed to be clear the first time.

I will try again.

It seems to me that Muslims nearly always see the avoidance of idolatry and autolatry as a very important matter. To put it in a few words, it is important for Muslims to be sure to worship the one, true God.

That is apparently the main reason why I have been told on occasion that the God of the Qur'an definitely has no associates, or more recently, that the Qur'an should not be mistaken for a connection to God.

I sincerely believe that there is a language issue happening here. In English, saying that Muslims associate with God by connecting to him through the teachings of the Qur'an would not suggest deviation from proper monotheism. Or at least that is how I understand it.

But maybe not. Languages are often subtle things. My previous post meant to ask whether the relationship between a Muslim and God is somewhat comparable to that of an employer or leader and his subjects - people who are expected to recognize his authority and follow his orders and fulfill his expectations to the best of their abilities.

The will of God and the will of people of course don't always align perfectly. Again according to Islam and the Qur'an as I understand then, that would be so because God chooses to allow people free will, and definitely not because people are inherently capable of challenging God's Will.

That connects to the matter of choosing the correct words previously:

To be a subject of someone means that obedience is expected. By contrast, an associate would have some degree of equal footing and would not necessarily owe respect and obedience to he who he associates with.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Sir
It's a common mistake in western countries
Who has told that everything needs a cause
Nope
It's >>>>everything that is created needs a cause
So let me explain

According to infinite regress there must be an independent being that hasn't been created by anything else that we call it First cause
This cause should be unlimited
Because if isn't unlimited something(B) should limit him OK??
So if something(B) can limit the first cause it means (B) existed before the first cause and this can't be because we considerd that before the first cause noting was existed

So why first cause should be unlimited and immaterial?
If he was not unlimited he should be combined from particles
Having particles means that there is a time when he wasn't existed because everything that has particles gradually becomes a complete and it's true form is shaped
So we know that there isn't a time that first cause wasn't existed because first cause is himself creator of time and space
If we consider that there is a time that first cause wasn't existed it means he originated from nothing and it's impossible

That's why we can conclude that two unlimited things can't be existed
There is only one unlimited thing

So universe needs a cause since it's from matter and every matter before it's complete form wasn't existed

The problem with this argument is there's no basis (philosophical or otherwise) for assuming either that God is uncreated or that he is the First Cause that made us. God could have been thought into being by something far older. It could just as easily be what the Chinese call Tao (or 'the way'). Holy texts just assume he is and a religion's holy text is only an authoritative source for members of that religion. To the rest of us it doesn't carry much weight. Secondly, there's no reason to assume God is unlimited because the Universe consists of a finite (albeit inconceivably vast) space. If you still insist God is unlimited then it follows that he exists both within and without the Universe and pantheists are not wrong when claiming that 'everything is God' because technically everything is.

Also, there's no reason to assume the existence of only one 'First Cause'. It all begs the question that a) The One God (Allah/Yahweh/whatever people call him) is being entirely honest and; b) that this god has neither the capability nor motive of lying to us.

The position relies too heavily on unfounded assumptions. Indeed, Aristotle, an ancient Greek who argued for the existence of a single First Cause quoted the Iliad to summarise his position: "The rule of many is not good; one ruler let there be." In other words; one First Cause is better than multiple First Causes (for some unspecified reason; usually theological convenience).

The infinite regress doesn't actually state anything of the kind; only those who seek to avoid the infinite regress would have us believe that there is a creator to whom the regress conveniently does not apply.

 

[interminable]

I welcome and thank you for your good will. I'm sorry I failed to be clear the first time.

My pleasure

It seems to me that Muslims nearly always see the avoidance of idolatry and autolatry as a very important matter. To put it in a few words, it is important for Muslims to be sure to worship the one, true God.

That's correct
God in the holy Quran reprimands intensely those who believe someone or something else alongside will God in divinity and holy Qur'an implies that the creator is only God

That is apparently the main reason why I have been told on occasion that the God of the Qur'an definitely has no associates, or more recently, that the Qur'an should not be mistaken for a connection to God.

It's a little unclear for me
What does connection here mean?
Maybe has a special meaning I wonder

I sincerely believe that there is a language issue happening here. In English, saying that Muslims associate with God by connecting to him through the teachings of the Qur'an would not suggest deviation from proper monotheism. Or at least that is how I understand it.

Yeah this is not deviation

But maybe not. Languages are often subtle things. My previous post meant to ask whether the relationship between a Muslim and God is somewhat comparable to that of an employer or leader and his subjects - people who are expected to recognize his authority and follow his orders and fulfill his expectations to the best of their abilities.

Yeah
We try to do our best to be a good slave for him
Since he's a creator we are completely dependent and have nothing from ourselves so every perfection we gain is by God's leave Without it we can't do anything
We try to remember him all the time
Mystics say God should be your ultimate love
And even u should not spend a second without his remembrance
And the reward is himself; an unlimited existence that is completely benign and is all power although it's not obligation to be a mystic

The will of God and the will of people of course don't always align perfectly. Again according to Islam and the Qur'an as I understand then, that would be so because God chooses to allow people free will, and definitely not because people are inherently capable of challenging God's Will.
That connects to the matter of choosing the correct words previously:

To be a subject of someone means that obedience is expected. By contrast, an associate would have some degree of equal footing and would not necessarily owe respect and obedience to he who he associates with.

Yes it's true
هُوَ اللَّهُ الْخَالِقُ الْبَارِئُ الْمُصَوِّرُ لَهُ الْأَسْمَاءُ الْحُسْنَىٰ يُسَبِّحُ لَهُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الْحَكِيمُ
He is Allah, the Creator, the Inventor, the Fashioner; to Him belong the best names. Whatever is in the heavens and earth is exalting Him. And He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise. (24)

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ أَنتُمُ الْفُقَرَاءُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَاللَّهُ هُوَ الْغَنِيُّ الْحَمِيدُ
O mankind, you are those in need of Allah, while Allah is the Free of need, the Praiseworthy. (15)

Sir please consider that there are lots of verses in the Qur'an that are in the plural form grammatically

For example God says : WE take your souls

In these cases Angeles are doing God's orders so they aren't associates
Regarding this fact everything in this world can be a servant for God since their powers aren't theirs

 

[interminable]

The problem with this argument is there's no basis (philosophical or otherwise) for assuming either that God is uncreated or that he is the First Cause that made us. God could have been thought into being by something far older. It could just as easily be what the Chinese call Tao (or 'the way'). Holy texts just assume he is and a religion's holy text is only an authoritative source for members of that religion. To the rest of us it doesn't carry much weight. Secondly, there's no reason to assume God is unlimited because the Universe consists of a finite (albeit inconceivably vast) space. If you still insist God is unlimited then it follows that he exists both within and without the Universe and pantheists are not wrong when claiming that 'everything is God' because technically everything is.

Also, there's no reason to assume the existence of only one 'First Cause'. It all begs the question that a) The One God (Allah/Yahweh/whatever people call him) is being entirely honest and; b) that this god has neither the capability nor motive of lying to us.

The position relies too heavily on unfounded assumptions. Indeed, Aristotle, an ancient Greek who argued for the existence of a single First Cause quoted the Iliad to summarise his position: "The rule of many is not good; one ruler let there be." In other words; one First Cause is better than multiple First Causes (for some unspecified reason; usually theological convenience).

The infinite regress doesn't actually state anything of the kind; only those who seek to avoid the infinite regress would have us believe that there is a creator to whom the regress conveniently does not apply.

There is such a thing in islamic philosophy

This is a law in philosophy:
Every effect not only needs to its complete cause to be existed but also needs it to continue to exist.
Look
In my previous posts I repeated this several times that we are dependent and without God's will we can't do anything This is because of above mentioned law

More explanation

We (except for first cause) comparing to existence and none existence are equal and this possibility will never leave us and something or someone (first cause) must bring us to existence (in this level we haven't been existed yet) so when first cause creates us this possibility is still with us and will remain for ever

This is called in the language of some philosophers as the فقر وجودی

In this case first cause doesn't have the possibility to be existed or not because if he has such thing he himself needs another thing or someone to bring him to existence

So first cause is the only creator and continues to be an independent existence and we continue to be dependent for ever

From this points it becomes clear that first cause is the only thing that we can call a God because except for him everything else is dependent

About lie
We tell lie for some reasons
weakness fear of lose, earning something better and so on

None of these reasons can be said about god Simply because he is all power all knowing
He has everything why should tell lie???

Unfortunately I didn't find any source in English all are in Persian and I tried to translate as much as I could

 

[Sleeppy]

Sorry, I meant to respond before now but it slipped my mind. In this context I get the impression @Sleeppy defines 'vindication' as meaning to verify, to prove etc. So an uncreated God vindicates proves that the Universe was created as well as the notion that everything that exists must have a cause. Except God for some reason. Do you see why I have a problem with this position?

Vindicate

to clear, as from an accusation, imputation, suspicion, or the like: to vindicate someone's honor.


Geez. Context clues?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Vindicate

to clear, as from an accusation, imputation, suspicion, or the like: to vindicate someone's honor.


Geez. Context clues?

So I wasn't wrong.

 

[Sleeppy]

We're saying much the same thing except:

I say, God knows all things. He does not delay, or even use/require judgement. Rather, everything is His, and He does not judge what He created and sustains.

To say that God knows all things, but also makes judgements, is counter-intuitive, or contradictory @interminable.

 

[Sleeppy]

So I wasn't wrong.

The cause, or source, vindicates the effect.

Ex: The examination of Universal laws, specifically the expansion of the universe, energy conservation, etc. vindicate (or prove) the Singularity idea.

The Singularity idea vindicates (or removes and reserves blame) for Universal law and expansion.

Any source, especially any singular "uncreated" ( uncaused or unaffected) source, reserves authority of its effect(s).

So, yes. You're slightly wrong:

The Singularity idea does not prove the Universe's existence; but it must facilitate the Universe's existence.

An uncreated, singular Creator idea does not prove creation; but it must facilitate creation.

The distinctions being:

If the Universe exists, is expanding, and conserves energy, etc.,THEN Universal energy observably originates from a single all-encompassingly dense point.

If the Universe was created, and originated from a single Creator, THEN all Universal energy, or authority, originates from this all-knowing, all-encompassing source.

 

[interminable]

We're saying much the same thing except:

I say, God knows all things. He does not delay, or even use/require judgement. Rather, everything is His, and He does not judge what He created and sustains.

To say that God knows all things, but also makes judgements, is counter-intuitive, or contradictory @interminable.

I told u it's not a real judgement like we do
So what's your problem???

Look there are two issue here

Sometime u say god knows everything and doesn't need to judge at all
Great! U are right

Sometimes he himself says I will judge u so u can't say he won't judge us


In this case we are talking about something that God has said and we can't say it can't be

Besides this issue isn't a big problem and can be settle by mutual understanding

 

[Sleeppy]

I told u it's not a real judgement like we do
So what's your problem???

Look there are two issue here

Sometime u say god knows everything and doesn't need to judge at all
Great! U are right

Sometimes he himself says I will judge u so u can't say he won't judge us


In this case we are talking about something that God has said and we can't say it can't be

Besides this issue isn't a big problem and can be settle by mutual understanding

There are problems here.

1) The Quran is suggesting that not only does Allah judge His own creation, He delays.
2) The Quran is suggesting that Allah's creation intercedes on the behalf of Allah's creation.
3) The Quran is suggesting that Allah takes associates on Judgement Day, accepting intercession, on behalf of His own creation.
4) The Quran is suggesting that Allah's pride and glory be shared with these associates, due to their intercession between Allah and His own creation.


None of this a problem for you? Then mutual understanding is very limited.

 

[Sleeppy]

The will of God and the will of people of course don't always align perfectly. Again according to Islam and the Qur'an as I understand then, that would be so because God chooses to allow people free will, and definitely not because people are inherently capable of challenging God's Will.

That connects to the matter of choosing the correct words previously:

To be a subject of someone means that obedience is expected. By contrast, an associate would have some degree of equal footing and would not necessarily owe respect and obedience to he who he associates with.

Overstepping the problem.

1) Can an all-powerful God maintain all authority, while relinquishing authority?

2) God allowing free will, does not negate its inherent function: to challenge God's will, or knowledge.

3) Every agent of free will becomes a source apart from the Creator, or God, i.e. will is created apart from God.

4) Because will is created apart from God, every source of free will also becomes a source of ignorance and subversion for a supposed all-knowing, all-powerful God.

 

[interminable]

There are problems here.

1) The Quran is suggesting that not only does Allah judge His own creation, He delays.

Sir if u wanna insist on this issue I wanna add another question
Does God know about our fate before our creation or not????
The answer is yes (although I don't know how) so why did god create us??? According to your statements he knows everything so he shouldn't have created us for this corporeal world instead he should have directly sent us to heaven or hell
Am I wrong??????

The answer to this question is simple
GOD does whatever he wants
And in my previous posts I repeated this several times that some criminals and pagans will say to god : u didn't test us so how do u want to punish us???

And to answer your question I told that some unbelievers say in the day of judgement that we didn't do anything bad
And god will ask their foots and hands and they will say everything
God knows everything but some human beings won't accept their faults so god says I will judge

Besides this judgement isn't like ours
I don't know why u insist on that

2) The Quran is suggesting that Allah's creation intercedes on the behalf of Allah's creation.
3) The Quran is suggesting that Allah takes associates on Judgement Day, accepting intercession, on behalf of His own creation.

They are not associates since they have no power from themselves they are mere good slaves that God wants to respect
Look
God has the right to forgive his bad servants so to show evildoers his grace upon good slaves he will allow some people to intercede

Since this will be done by his leave it's not association
البقره
اللَّهُ لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ الْحَيُّ الْقَيُّومُ لَا تَأْخُذُهُ سِنَةٌ وَلَا نَوْمٌ لَّهُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَا فِي الْأَرْضِ مَن ذَا الَّذِي يَشْفَعُ عِندَهُ إِلَّا بِإِذْنِهِ يَعْلَمُ مَا بَيْنَ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَمَا خَلْفَهُمْ وَلَا يُحِيطُونَ بِشَيْءٍ مِّنْ عِلْمِهِ إِلَّا بِمَا شَاءَ وَسِعَ كُرْسِيُّهُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ وَلَا يَئُودُهُ حِفْظُهُمَا وَهُوَ الْعَلِيُّ الْعَظِيمُ
To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. Who is it that can intercede with Him except by His permission?

4) The Quran is suggesting that Allah's pride and glory be shared with these associates, due to their intercession between Allah and His own creation.


None of this a problem for you? Then mutual understanding is very limited.

Sir the most important thing that u have to consider is that God is omniscient and omnipotent so everything else is dependent on his power so what is the problem if he wants to make believers greater before the eyes of unbelievers

These issues are soluble just need to be contemplated

 

[Sleeppy]

Sir if u wanna insist on this issue I wanna add another question
Does God know about our fate before our creation or not????
The answer is yes (although I don't know how) so why did god create us??? According to your statements he knows everything so he shouldn't have created us for this corporeal world instead he should have directly sent us to heaven or hell
Am I wrong??????

God is the only Creator. He knows, and is the source of knowledge. You rightly say Allah has no associates, but then you blaspheme the truth by saying that His creation creates anything outside of God's authority.

Before the Quran was written, Hell was a place on Earth. The ancients sacrificed their own children, in fire, to Molech (who's name means 'King'). And now, the ancient worship of Molech exists with Allah, and with YHVH, so that the descendants of these ancients sacrifice their brothers and children to hellfire, in God's name.

Before the Quran was written, all of the prophets agreed, that Heaven itself, and that the kingdom of God houses the Earth. And now, the creation of God thinks that it can steal the Earth away from God's hands in Heaven.

We we're created so that we can gain wisdom, through experiencing the knowledge of good and evil. We were not created so that God would gain knowledge, but so that we gain knowledge, little by little, from God's infinite knowledge.



I'll get to your other questions later.