Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
ترجمة: بسمة مغازة جي مزامنة الترجمة على الفيديو: فراس منصوري Translation to English: Basma MAGHAZAJI Subtitle: Firas MANSOURI
All praise is due to Allah. We praise Him, seek his help and ask for His forgiveness.
We seek refugee with Allah. Whenever Allah allows anyone to go astray, none can guide.
I bear witness that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is His messenger and His servant.
I bear witness that he was trustee in revealing the truth.
May Allah bless his glorious family, his companions and those who trace his guidance honestly till the doom day.
I advise you, brothers and sisters and I, to fear Allah and be obedient to Him.
And I warn you and myself not to disobey Him and not to violate His commandments so as He says whoever does good deeds,
it is for his own good. And whoever commits evil, it is for his own bad end.
Your God is never to be unfair with you, worshipper.. Dear Muslims, brothers and sisters, Allah the Al-mighty says:
In the name of God the most Merciful and Compassionate: (In the name of Allah, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful)
(58) And rely upon the Ever-Living who does not die, and exalt [Allah] with His praise.
And sufficient is He to be, with the sins of His servants, Acquainted -
(59) He who created the heavens and the earth and what is between them in six days
and then established Himself above the Throne - the Most Merciful, so ask about Him one well informed.
(60) And when it is said to them, "Prostrate to the Most Merciful," they say,
"And what is the Most Merciful? Should we prostrate to that which you order us?" And it increases them in aversion.
(61) Blessed is He who has placed in the sky great stars and placed therein a [burning] lamp and luminous moon.
(62) And it is He who has made the night and the day in succession for whoever desires to remember or desires gratitude.
(63) And the servants of the Most Merciful are those who walk upon the earth easily,
and when the ignorant address them [harshly], they say [words of] peace,
(64) And those who spend [part of] the night to their Lord prostrating and standing [in prayer]
(65) And those who say,"Our Lord,avert from us the punishment of Hell. Indeed,its punishment is ever adhering;
(66) Indeed,it is evil as a settlement and residence."
Brothers and sisters:He who created the heavens and the earth and what is between them in six days
and then established Himself above the Throne - the Most Merciful,
so ask about him one well informed , And when it is said to them,
"Prostrate to the Most Merciful," they say,"And what is the Most Merciful?
Should we prostrate to that which you order us?" And it increases them in aversion.
Then after one verse God says: And the servants of the Most Merciful ,
the phrase "THE MOST MERCHFUL" is repeated more than once in short context ,
any believer want be surprised by this Very obvious repetition,
as I did not know a religion other than Islam who defines God repeatedly as being the most merciful.
Islam emphasizes on this attribute "most merciful" in many occasions and in different places,
and this is for a certain goal which is spreading the meaning of mercy to be deep rooted in the mind of the believer
and then implementing this idea in his actions, God says to his Prophet Mohammed (Peace be Upon Him):
"We send you a mercy for all whole universe ", in the beginning of every Sora in The Holly Qur'an (except for one) we say
(In the name of Allah, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful)
and in the first Sora in The Holy Qur'an , the one we read in every prayer God says:
( 1 ) In the name of Allah, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful. ( 2 ) [All] praise is [due] to Allah, Lord of the worlds -
( 3 ) The Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful, This is very obvious
the emphasis on God being most merciful, but this attribute is being argued by the atheist.
In philosophy there is a construction called the incoherent trio. It is a construction of three sentences,
if two of the sentences are true the third one will be false, for this reason it is called the incoherent trio.
The incoherent trio in our case is as the following:
- The first sentence is that, God is all mighty and capable; He can do anything he wants,
- God is the most merciful , most compassionate, He is the symbol of goodness in the world ;
these two sentences are compatable but the one which contradicts these two sentences
and which the argument is about : - The fact that evils do exist in the world,
either the natural evil represented by natural disasters and pains
which caused by different diseases or theethical evil represented by sins and crimes.
The sins and crimes are committed by man freely, i.e., by his own free will.
Because man is a free creature he can do what he wants and part of his doings is evil.
Yet, the most dangerous evil is the one committed by tyrant rulers because their evil may lead people thoroughly to a mass destruction.
There is a third type of evil referred to by the German philosopher (Leibniz) called metaphysical evil.
Metaphysical evil means that all beings including Man suffer from certain flaws which means they are imperfect.
Man can be better than that but in fact he suffers from flaws in some aspects of his personality.
Thus, the argument made by atheists, unbelievers and even some Muslims who have certain doubts is that:
How can God be most merciful, compassionate and capable and at the same time,
the universe is full of all types of evil?
I believe that evils referred to by all disputants can be divided into three main kinds: - The natural evil. - The ethical evil. - The metaphysical evil.
I disagree with (Leibniz) concerning the metaphysical evil. The concept contradicts with itself; since all beings including man,
and this is also in metaphysical philosophy, have been created by the perfect all mighty God,
by nature they would be limited metaphysically and consequently they would be imperfect and suffer from certain flaws.
Man can never be perfect. At least he is imperfect because eventually he has a beginning and ending in terms of time.
Moreover, all beings in reality world are in need. As they have the attribution of being created,
they always need God to depend on. This fact cannot be avoided as long as there is creation; as long as God creates, all creatures would be imperfect.
Eventually, the metaphysical evil mentioned by (Leibniz) has no meaning.
On the contrary this imperfection might represent good, for creating man with all the good he has and little evil that might trespass him is better than nothingness.
The great Greek philosopher Aristotle speaking about all types of beings and their relation with goodness and evil, divided them into five categories:
1- Creatures of absolute goodness. 2- Creatures of great deal of goodness with little evil.
3- Creatures of little deal of goodness and great evil. 4- Creatures of equal amount of goodness and evil.
5- And creatures of absolute evil. Then Aristotle (the father of philosophers) declared that; the last three categories do not exist.
There is no creatures of absolute evil, nobody can proof that such creatures ever exist.
Moreover, there is no creatures of equal amount of goodness and evil or creatures of little goodness and great evil.
What do exist in our real life is creatures of absolute goodness or of great deal of goodness and little evil,
this is what reason or philosophy reaches to, or at least it is the opinion being adopted by Aristotle and his followers. This categorization is important in our discussion.
Hence, doubts and suspicions within this incompatible trio as atheists argued comes from the fact that universe is full of pains, disasters and evils.
This fact absolutely contradicts with the saying that God is most merciful, compassionate and good
or if You want to believe that God is merciful it will contradicts with the saying that God is all mighty and capable,
God is merciful but he is incapable of stopping all these types of evils which universe drawn in.
if you want to believe that God is most merciful and compassionate then you must ignore the fact that world is full of evil.
On the other hand, believers in all religions believe that this trio is compatible, how? They believe that God is most merciful,
most compassionate, good and mighty yet there are all types of evils all over the world and there is an explanation for this evil.
An explanation which does not contradict with the fact that God is most merciful, good, mighty and capable.
Of course this is one of the most argumentative philosophical questions.
This problem gives the atheists one of their most powerful argument to deny the existence of God. They argued that God or The creator must be defined as the most merciful,
compassionate, powerful and capable; moreover, he represents goodness and righteousness, but because universe is full of evils and disasters thus God is not merciful,
as a result, there is no God. God whom we believe in should be most mighty and merciful and it is proofed that he is not merciful as pains, evils and disasters full the universe
thus, where is God? God is only a hypothesis which believers calls for and believes in, but, does not really exist. I will discuss this problem,
briefly, from a new general point of view without discussing all proofs and disproves
because of the shortage of time as it is a very complicated philosophical subject which has been discussed wildly. The question whether
God is being evil or incapable of vanishing evils from universe is a theological question of conviction science in all religions (Jewish, Christian and Islam). It is a question of ethical philosophy,
metaphysical philosophy or anthology as it refers to the concept of analyzing existence. Avicenna, Saint Augustine,
Thomas Aquinas and the Arabic philosopher Abu Hammed Al-gazeli (Al- gazel) try to define evil by analyzing existence.
Thus it is an anthological and ethical subject which is been discussed in two types of philosophy from three. Philosophy is of three main types anthology (part of metaphysics),
epistemology and axiology (the philosophical study of value), this issue has been discussed in two types of philosophy anthology and axiology
but I think it can be discussed within the third type of philosophy as well, the epistemology.
It can be discussed within epistemology; I will proof that when I speak about comparing worlds and the best world
that may exist according to Al-gazel's theory and Leibniz, thus it can be discussed according to epistemology.
This subject is complicated; it is a philosophical and theological issue. I would like to simplify and clarify this subject as the following:
(this classification is not found in Islamic conviction but the meaning is correct thus we can use it).
In the Western theology (Jewish and Christian) there are two types of theology: 1- Natural theology.
2- Dogmatic theology. Natural theology means what human mind can realize things apart from the help of revelation.
One of the main issues discussed in natural theology is the existence of God. Human mind reaches to this fact by itself without the help of revelation.
On the contrary believing in revelation that is sent by God, is part of believing in the existence of God,
thus how can we approach realizing God existence? By our minds. We cannot ever approach this fact but by our minds and not by revelation.
First, human mind leads him to the necessity of believing in the existence of God meaning that the existence of God is necessary, it is of vital importance.it is of vital importance.
For this reason it is said that God should exist which means that the existence of God is a necessity.
You cannot explain the existence of universe logically without believing in God existence, this is the natural theology. The second type of theology is the dogmatic theology.
- Dogmatic theology refers to the issues which cannot be explained or realized by mind only .
These issues are realized with the help of revelation, for example; believing in Trinity in Christianity is a dogmatic theology,
most researchers studying the names and characteristics of Mighty God in Islamic conviction is part of dogmatic theology.
The mind by itself cannot acknowledge God characteristics as being compassionate, merciful,
reducer, lifter, consolatory, ignominious, wise, expert, kind...etc , mind can recognize
some of these characteristics but not all of them. Nevertheless, researchers and experts in
the west agreed that there are no clear boundaries to distinguish between natural theology
and dogmatic theology as the two types of theologies are highly interfere with each other;
one cannot say that natural theology ends on this point where dogmatic theology begins.
Some may argue that there are some characteristics of God which can be recognized by the mind
only like His wisdom, His creativity and innovation as He creates universe from nothingness,
or the idea that the material is ancient as Aristotle and Islamic philosopher claimed.
All these subjects can be recognized by the mind.
Moreover, mind can recognize the Divine Providence and God handling of the whole universe,
but there are certain characteristics of God that are mentioned through revelation and impossible to be recognized by mind only.
Not to mention, issues of hereafter, hell and paradise and The Resurrection,
all these subjects are above the recognition of mind, although they do not contradict with mind perception,
but need revelation to be acknowledged. If these issues are proved by revelation,
then the mind may believe in them, thus they are part of dogmatic theology.
Now, the subject we are discussing,evils spreading all over the universe and the relation between
Mighty God and all types of evil is it part of natural theology or dogmatic theology?
This is also another problem, why? It represents a problem because as we say before,
atheists argue if God is whole mighty and especially compassionate. There is no doubt the characteristic of mightiness by which God created the whole universe is part of natural theology,
on the other hand, there is doubt that God is especially compassionate relates to natural theology ,
thus this characteristic is between the two types of theology although it may tend to be part of the dogmatic one.
Pay attention; this point is very important in our argument, because if it was proved that this universe is truly full of evils,
pains and injustice which cannot be justified by human mind, this does not contradict God mightiness, it does eliminate the concept of God existence,
thus, the necessity of His existence, God may exist with all His Mightiness but without being compassionate, God
who, for certain reason wants to torture people in life , this is according to the mind argument and not to religion.
The mind never doubts the existence of God, if this issue is still an argumentative one till this moment, then
it should be discussed away from the argument of God being good and compassionate. Each one is a different issue.
Be aware from the atheist argument in which they may mix the two issues under one allegation to deny God existence.
They say that God in whom I believe should be whole mighty and especially compassionate,
thus, I tried here to distinguish between the rang to which the mightiness of God relates to and the scope to which the compassionate of God relates to ,
most probably, as we mentioned before, that the compassionate of God is part of dogmatic theology because we knew this characteristic of God
through revelation, through religious texts like Qur'an in which this idea is mentioned repeatedly as God say: "Our Lord,
You have encompassed all things in mercy and knowledge (7) "Al-Gaffer" This entire universe emerged from God mercy and compassionate: He who created the heavens
and the earth and what is between them in six days and then established Himself above the Throne - the Most Merciful "THE MOST MERCIFUL",
he did not say "THE GREAT" or "THE CREATOR" or "THE OMNISCIENT" but he said
"the most merciful so ask about him one well informed", hence, this universe is part of God compassionate and mercy.
These sayings are part of religion theology or revelation theology, that is to say dogmatic theology and not natural theology.
Now why this idea is of a great importance? It is highly significant since when discussing evils, it is inevitable
to redefine the concept of the mercifulness of God within the perspective of the dogmatic theology concept rather than the natural theology concept.
In order not to contradict with ourselves, and discuss issues in a disciplinary method,
we have to discuss the concept of the mercifulness of God according to the dogmatic theology.
It would be so difficult or rather impossible to approach the idea of God existence in a step or two, by proving the mercifulness and capability of God.
This cannot be done simply by sticking only to the philosophy of natural theologies,
a trap usually atheists and doubters fall in. This mixing up of concepts, being merciful and capable at the same time, leads them to this misconception. It came from ignorance rather than arrogance.
This is also an important introduction for today's discussion which we should bear in mind. Now, thirdly, how did this issue been treated in terms of theology and in terms of philosophy;
in general this issue has been treated in two perspectives; philosophical and educational. I will summarize the most famous philosophical views; some denies the existence of evil at all by itself in reality.
To explain this in a simple way; we know that the concept of evil is ethical, therefore it is relative. Being relative would weaken its reality. I am not claiming that ethics is thoroughly unreal.
The attributions in the universe are divided into (2) categories; real attributions, and unreal ones.
Water, wood, Man and sky are an existed real attributions.
In contrast when we say heavy water, water as explained is real existed attribution while heavy is not.
Heavy is an attribution in relation with you or another being living in water. Earth is big in relation to the Moon, yet it is also too big in relation to a watermelon. It is also too small compared with the Sun.
The human mind will work for concepts as big and small in relation to relativity to apprehend such concepts.
To return back to our concept of evilness, snakes and scorpions are real existence based on our previous definition.
The poison of the snake relatively evil rendered to our mind that snake itself is evil yet for the snake it is a necessity for its existence.
Based on the previous argument, poison, snake, and scorpion are real attributions yet poison, snake, and scorpion being as evil attributions is unreal. They are additional and relative attributions.
Without the mind which would apprehend them by processing through comparing and contrasting, there would be no existence of such attributions.
Philosophers have treated this issue through this argument. The rational philosophers, Aristotle have paved their way for that,
then Saint Augustine, Avicenna, Al Gazali and Tomas the Aquinas and others, have all agreed briefly that evils are not existents.
Based on that, they define evils as inexistent intrinsic in themselves or defected intrinsic as been explained by Avicenna in his 4-part famous book Metaphysics, Signs and Stimulations.
By this contrastive and relative view, it is true to say that something can be evil and good at the same time just as we have say that a thing is small and big.
If those attributions have a materialistic existence, then we cannot describe an existent by two attributions at the same time (being evil and good at the same time).
Yet, since they are additional attributions; it is explainable to call an intrinsic as good and other as evil.
It is the way used by philosophers to explain such deep issues. They are not utilizing what the commoners' simply say; that there is an evil to treat it psychologically or emotionally.
They argued that evil is inexistent you have and should resist by positive existent efforts. Blindness for Man is evil yet contrastively it is good for the enemy of Man.
Blindness by itself is inexistent intrinsic or, specifically a defected intrinsic.
The same argument would be applied for darkness. There is no meaning for darkness by itself. It is the disappearance of light. Similarly, if we place our hand in
the path of light flood will cause a shadow and shadow by definition is the disappearance of light. For man, darkness represents evil. Yet darkness is nonexistent.
Ignorance is also evil, yet it is unreal and inexistent. It is defined as the absence of knowledge. Knowledge is available and can be learned,
yet for a person who has no luck of such knowledge would keep him illiterate and hence, ignorant. The same approach has been applied for all other evils. Contrastively,
some people discuss this issue psychologically rather than philosophically, or half psychological half philosophical like Max Sheller or Mel Brash for instance;
they claim that this approach is theoretically convincing but in reality there is evil in this world.
They argued that there are pains and aches suffered by human beings that no one can deny.
This will lead us to the second psychological approach for treating evils which look to the universe as a one entity, one mind, and one spirit,
Aristotle is one of its founders. Science has proved it true and there is a new evidence everyday proving its validity. Quantum mechanics is amazingly backing up this theory.
The view that this universe is one entity, mind and spirit because it is the outcome of a one creator.
Behind all these abundant diversities, differentiations and contradictions, there is a unity of spirit in this universe and a unity in the logic overshadowing the world.
This reflects that there is a one unique innovative creator of this universe.
In Quantum mechanics, there is a concept called entanglement which assert that an existent body in one place in this universe has a body
which has a relation with him at the edge of the universe, what happens to the first one will affect the other,
though, there is no materialistic relation between them. I have explained this idea in regard to Belkees throne in Soraat Al Namil.
It is the foundation of what we called now as Teleportation physics. It is absolutely the greatest break through the physicist have achieved.
This would promise the possibility of immediate body transportation, including organisms, from one point in the universe to another, may be in a 15 billion light year distance.
Entanglement as a complex principal has been explained in a pack of hard cover books.
Philosophers have understood the entanglement of this universe and existence fundamentally; I have called it consolidation of the universe, yet not within this scientific depth and level.
If some existent seems unnecessary, a parasite annoying or eccentric in regard to you, or even to itself, yet in regard to its role within the entire system might be of necessity.
René De Cart, the great French philosophers and mathematician, says that if something looking at individually, seems evil when will be viewed as good when looked at in whole.
For example the smallest part in a machine mightbe of no importance by itself yet it might be of great significance in terms of the whole machine, without it the whole machine might be unable to operate.
Philosophers confirm that everything in nature has its role.
When you view it in relation to itself you may deny or condemn it yet you will accept it when you view it within the framework of the whole system.
Just like the light and shadows in an artistic painting, both are valuable for the beauty of that painting. Yet there are certain objections for that view which have no foundation in reality but purely emotional.
Dostoyophisky,a writer and a philosopher, has said through his leading character, Ivan, in his master piece Karamazof Brothers; even though this universal factory has achieved the most incredible,
complete and beautiful innovations, I reject that the price would be a one tear shed by a child.
It is an emotional and poetic notion and not a proven or convictive one.
This is my argument against this notion which I assume you will like; I said to Ivan, and to his inventor and master Destoiophisky himself, why you reject that Mr. Ivan?
You reject that for the sake and to be faithful to your human conscious. This conscious is the son of this whole Universe entity. Who invented this conscious? And from what it consists?
It is the outcome of the struggle between evil and good, lightness and darkness, suffering and satisfaction,
pain and relaxation. Through the observation, investigation and persuasion of those contradictions,
this rejected human conscious emerges. Without those existences, there will be no conscious and you will not reject by consequence.
Pay attention, there are contradictions; you are the son of this universe, structure, wholeness, or system in its consolidations.
Moreover, you are the assertion of its consolidation. The voice of your conscious certifies the persistence of this system.
Maybe someone will present an emotional argumentative discussion rather than scientific by declaring that
this is a disastrous philosophical approach, A Nazis or Fascist philosophy, a philosophy of eradication or Totalitarian philosophy.
When you ask why you are saying so? By following this logic people like Stalin and Hitler have slaughtered and purged millions of people. For them it is a matter of statistics;
we finished the 2nd million, so let's started with the 3rd million. It is a fearful notion that it is allowable for Hitler, Stalin, or other totalitarian likes who borrows such logic to achieve their ideology,
build their regime and fulfill the dream by smashing the skulls of millions of natives and foreigners.
It is true, for Stalin, Hitler or others, having no problem in doing such deeds; it had happened and will happen. Yet,
I say who gave you the impression that religions agree on demonstrating the act of God? How can, by any means, a ruler or a citizen, play the role of God as to grant someone to live or die.
Who gave the right for *** or Kaddafi to kill half of their people because they have the power? You are not a God yourself. You will be killed by one single bullet; you are lying to yourself and the mind.
It is not allowed for anyone to play the role of God. Simply speaking, this oppressive argument is devoid of objectivity. No one has the permission to play the role of God.
We use this logic to justify the deeds of God. In fact God has no need to justify his actions. It is a bad behavior from our side to justify his deeds, but we need to have an approach in regard to God's actions.
The human mind needs to approach the wisdom of God's actions and not by equivalences. It is impossible for the human mind
to apprehend the deeds of God by using analogy concept. If we could so, then we are Gods ourselves,
to know and understand exactly the way that God thinks which is impossible even for prophet Mohammed.
To spare the time for explaining the educational approach, it says briefly that without pains, disasters, and agonies,
life would not have grown and developed. Through the struggle of evil and good, life has been ethically developed.
As being part of this struggle, Man would ethically grow. The human who has no instinct, cannot speak about virtue. The 80- year old man who has no instinct cannot speak regarding *** instinct.
Yet, a young man with an overwhelmed instinct has the priority to speak about fearing God to prevent his indulgence in sins.
This ethical and spiritual life is the outcome of the struggle between evil and good, lightness and darkness, right and wrong.
Even the technical and scientific life, wars has an undeniable role in the technical progress for humans.
Chemical weapons have been developed during WW1, while the nuclear bomb has been developed during WW2,
as they said WW1 was the wars of chemists, while WW2 was the war for physicists and God knows for WW3, maybe the wars of crazy people.
Even though wars have their calamities, yet they have their roles in terms of progress.
Leibniz, influenced by Dekart, says that what seems to be evil maybe necessity in terms of scientific progress. Hegel says that pain and agony are necessities for the ascendancy of Man.
We cannot ascend by sleeping but by tears, wars, blood, and pain. Alfred Demorest, the French playwrite in the 19th century, writes in his works that Man is a trainee, and pain is his tutor.
Ali, the Imam, May peace be upon him, the nephew of Prophet Mohammed, says in al Nahej that the wild tree
is stronger and the grown greens are softer. He also says; Wild plants are better fuel and last longer when on fire.
The concept of Fitna (dissension) in the wholly Quran came from placing raw gold into fire to separate pure gold from the false. Man also will suffer Fitna (dissension)
when dissent in the furnace of agony, pain, dilemmas, wars, death and the lost of their loved ones so as to be examined.
This is in brief the approach of the educational school by psychologists and mystical scholars.
In our attempt to approach the mercifulness of God in his creations and actions,
we will un doubtfully find the wisdom, and rightness in all of his actions or righteous as been described in the language of Al Mutazella*.
Yet pay attention that we are deceived to and by language. Language in its primitive stages has been set for communication and as a reference for the reality of the surrounding universe.
So it is highly efficient when conducting this task (communication). When I say bring me the cup, all listeners including a child will understand that.
Yet when discussing the concept of evilness and goodness between two individuals, as it is very complex,
it may take hours with no agreement, since evil and good are not tangible realities like a cup, a chair or any other tangible existent.
Language when first invented has been used to refer to the tangible existent realities. It has been developed later on by the human mind which has the potentials and gifts
that qualifies it to deal with metaphysical concepts. It is the mind that seeks for the existence of God. It is the same mind which aspires enthusiastically for approaching
and communicating with God since the beginning of early civilizations. Yet we may be deceived by the notion that the mercifulness of God is nearly the mercifulness of human beings. This is not true;
in fact it is impossible, that the mercifulness of God has any relevance with our mercifulness, maybe there are slight similarities in a way or another
but still the mercifulness of God differs from the mercifulness of human beings as far as God differs from man.
Some people think that God cannot be described or imagined because of His ambiguous essence, no, that is not true.
As a matter of fact, we can't speak about God essence unless speaking about His attributes and His actions.
His attributes, His names and His actions are ambiguous even to scholars of religion, let alone to ordinary people.
To understand the names, the attributes and the actions of God is not, simply, by reading the meaning of them in a dictionary
or by reading them as they are mentioned in Holly Quran , it is very important to think about them
and try to understand their meanings by comparing and approaching these attributes and actions to those of man. Briefly,
to simplify this idea, we say this man is merciful, the Prophet used to deal with people mercifully and kindly, I am merciful, you are merciful but THE MERCIFUL is God and only God. On the other hand,
only God is specialized by being ESPECIALLY MERCIFUL. Musalamah "the liar" called himself THE ESPECIALLY MERCIFUL of AL-YAMAMA;
he was an unbeliever and a liar for only God is ESPECIALLY MERCIFUL and only God is THE MERCIFUL.
Now, what are the manifestations of mercy, how do we identify mercy? It is impossible to embrace all the identification of "mercy",
thus, it is better to speak about its manifestations. One of the manifestations of mercy is agonized, when you have mercy upon someone, you sympathized with his agony perhaps you cry,
shedding tears accordingly, prophet Mohammed (PEACE BE UPON HIM), said "This is mercy" referring to tears,
when the prophet cried on Sa'ad Bin Aby Waqas (one of his relatives) death and on his son (Ibrahim) death,
people commented surprisingly " Prophet of God, are you crying! " he answered "this is mercy, and only hardhearted people are deprived from being mercy " .
Accordingly, we cry, agonize and take pity on someone all these are part of mercy or mercifulness. These are the manifestations of mercy.
But does God agonize? Impossible, does he cry? Impossible, pain and gentleness are human characteristics as human is imperfect in his nature.
Sympathizing with others, taking pity on others andbeing gentle all these qualities characterize humanity, but they are imperfection to be related to Mighty God.
No scientist or philosopher ever said that God does agonize, grief or cry. Angles do not cry not to mention Mighty God Himself .
Someone may ask here "so what remains from God mercifulness or what does God mercifulness mean?" "How can we believe in God mercifulness while you deprived the word from its implied meaning? ",
"you said He is the most merciful while He does not agonize for our pains or shed tears how is that?", as if you are saying, for example, that this judge is fair while he is bias to one of his disputes,
where is his fairness in this case! Where is the credibility of this judge? In the same way, where is the credibility of God mercifulness?! I would say; no, pay attention,
the case is different concerning the meaning of mercifulness , you may be mercy without showing any compassion, like giving a poor man amount of money
helping him to live for the whole next year without begging, here, this poor man will consider you merciful. This leads us to a very important question which is:
what is the essence meaning of this noble value (mercy or mercifulness when speaking about God)? The essence of mercy or mercifulness ( according to the Arabic scholar Abu Hamed Al- Ghazaly),
is meeting the needs of the person who is in pain and the one who suffers; in this way we are trying to accomplish the meaning of this highly noble value, otherwise,
if the essence meaning of mercy is to agonize with the person and to cry because of his pains ,
in this case we are sympathizing with the person to relief ourselvesourselves and not to help the suffering person himself.
And this is related to the theory of mirror neurons, which is very important to be considered here. The theory means briefly that I sympathize with the person
and cry for his agony to be relieved from my own agony as I feel sad when I watch him suffering. Accordingly, God does not agonize with us or cry for our pains but,
at the same time, not only He meets our needs , but also He creates us in the best shape and image and creates the whole universe with all its accurateness and beauty, isn't true that
the happy people and those who live in a good shape is much more than those who agonized? And the happy times in our lives are much more than those of the pain?
I think that even, the Arabic scholar, Abu Hamed Al-Ghazaly, did not give the exact meaning of the essence of mercy, as the essence of mercy is represented by the existence itself.
This is a philosophical principle mentioned by Aristotle, Avicenna, Al-Farabi, Bin- Rushed and Saint Augustine, for this reason God said in Holly Qur'an:
"(59) He who created the heavens and the earth and what is between them in six days and then established Himself above the Throne
- the Most Merciful " God creates you from nothingness, He gives you the chance to build the whole universe,
this is the essence of mercy, not only that, but also He prepared the whole universe to simplify your living.
Thus, we said, what is remaining from God mercifulness? It remains its essence, which is the desire to meet the needs of people in agony,
and more than that, it is to prepare appropriate conditions in the whole universe makeing our living in it ,possible and easier.
What is more important here is that, we should admit, humbly, that the characteristics of God are still ambiguous to us. These characteristics are as ambiguous as the essence of God Himself .
This fact, was the reason after the journey made by the great Arabic religious scholar and philosopher Hamed Al-Ghazaly in which
he tried hard, for more than ten years, to recognize the real essence of God, to recognize God as an ultimate truth.
Very few try to do what this scholar did, do you know why? Because their belief are based on what are written in books only, which they repeat without even understanding
or studying or discussing them thoroughly. They never dig deep and ask the questions they are asked today by atheist
and try to search for the answers of these theological questions. Unlike this great scholar who searched for more than ten years
without reaching to a convincing answer to his one question, the real essence of Mighty God. For this reason I called from years ago for the slogan
"belief is a real privilege". Belief is not a matter of imitation, most of believers, not only Muslims, but also believers of other religions such as Christians and Jewish, are imitators,
i. e. , they follow the religion of their fathers, forefathers and the society they were raised up in,
without understanding the real essence of religion. This is not a real belief; a real belief is a privilege, what does privilege means?
It means that a few amounts of people reach the real belief. To proof my saying, I can assure you that the questions we are discussing now came to the mind of every man,
but most of people whom these questions worried are too lazy to listen to this lecture.
Although they asked these big philosophical questions, they do not have time to search for their answers by listening to a one hour lecture,
let alone to read a book of 500 pages in order to reach for convincing answers. Thus, their belief is not true.
The one who wants to reach an answer should search like Hamed Al-Ghazaly did. We believe in God, in the same time, we try to reach to the ultimate truth
and to understand the real essence of Mighty God by continuous searching, as God says in Holly Quran: "My God is on the straight path" "On the straight path"
means that one, metaphorically speaking, walks slowly, step by step to the ultimate truth and to the real belief.
The same meaning can be derived from the Quran verse: "Oh God, lead us to the straight path" Why "lead us "if we are, already, on the straight path?
This means we are on the beginning of the path. Belief is a journey of life, it is a continuous process prolonged for the rest of your life,
and this is if you take it seriously. Under this saying "belief is a privilege" we call everyone to find his own copy of belief,
i. e. his own copy of belief which he reached to through his own spiritual experience, like the Arabic scholar Abu Hamed Al-Ghazaly.
Every person should have his own real experience in which he suffers and sacrifices some of his material and moral gains to approach Mighty God.
There is no doubt that Abu Hamed Al-Ghazaly understands the concept of God mercifulness much deeper than we do, let alone Abu-Baker, Omer, Ali and the Prophet Mohammed (BPUH).
The ordinary man does not really understand what God mercifulness means, for as soon as he faces any simple problem like losing,
for instance, say 1000 Euro in his business he begins complaining, arguing God by saying,
why me, why this is happening to me ,later on he goes to pray ,here he never knew the meaning of God mercifulness or what really belief means.
We need to understand the characteristics of God through a spiritual experience, through our special copy of belief as it is not a matter of argument.
One may say that needs a lot of time, I say yes it is a long and complicated path and this is what belief means.
Belief is not only a lesson of philosophy or physics that you learn from your tutor only.
At the same time ,it is not as Christians think that it is absurd and unreasonable , part of belief is reasonable but the other is spiritual,
and this is the meaning of the prayer "God lead us to the straight path. " Last but not least,
I told you that I will contribute in solving the problem of evil by proving that evil has epistemological roots, how? Those who mentioned the best existence of the worlds,
it is impossible to say that there is a world which is better than this one by being devoid of evil, pains and sufferings. This isn't true.
This saying from a philosophical point of view is absurd, and I will prove that. Max Sheller, the German philosopher, said once,
I am not convinced by justifying the feel of pain as an alarm to treat ourselves, God, if he ever exists, can create an alarm he would never treat his wounds and diseases, without pain.
Here, I answered him by saying God knows that man is a very lazy creature, and if there isn't for this pain
thus God out of his mercifulness creates pain alarm. Like the mother who opens her son's mouth, by force,
to pour the sour medicine into it as treatment, while the child thinks that his mother is being rude to him.
Max saying is far from being scientific. Now, why comparing between the two worlds is absurd?
They compare between this world which they recognized its imperfection, deficiency and chaos with another perfect world.
Firstly, how do they recognize the imperfection and chaos of the world? Many scholars and philosophers couldn't submit a suggestion to improve the form of the universe,
this is impossible; scientists are only trying to know how this universe operates, let alone to improve it.
Thus, it is out of pride and arrogance by atheist to say that they see this universe as being imperfect and chaos,
many facts were recorded as deficiencies in universe then were proved to be translations of God wisdom in the universe.
Secondly, the other universe which we should think about, who is going to create it?
The imagination of an atheist or a philosopher or an agnostic who is the son of this universe in its circumstances and conditions! His conscious as well is the son of this universe.
Thus, who is going to create a whole new universe is not a perfect God capable of sponsoring it,
but it is the imagination of a mind who cannot even understand this universe let alone to create and sponsor another one.
As a matter of fact this atheist is only aiming to improve the copy of man into a perfect one,
to create a man without any pains, sufferings or disabilities without thinking of other billion creatures living in the universe.
This is really unrealistic, unscientific and non philosophical comparison between a universe that we did not clearly understand and a universe
to be created by a mind of a man who born in this universe, as a result the other universe will not be another one, it will be the same.
Accordingly, this comparison is impossible. For this reason, from a philosophical point of view, only one thing is left for us, and that is to be humble
and try to understand this universe. Wiliam Crocks, the scientists who discovered radiation and some of the most important discoveries of 20th century, says
" one of the most rare characteristics which helps me in continuing my studies and researches on my discoveries is being humble,
as I recognized how ignorant I am" , when he confessed his ignorance he was able to learn. To pretend being wiser than God himself
and being able to create another universe in which there is a better version of man, is an inappropriate arrogance
that does not suit any real scientist or philosopher, as the comparison between these two universes is impossible to be done.
ترجمة: بسمة مغازة جي مزامنة الترجمة على الفيديو: فراس منصوري Translation to English: Basma MAGHAZAJI Subtitle: Firas MANSOURI