Topic: Prophets don't sin before Prophethood? Not even desire sin?

[Chrono]

That is accepting the idea that prophets only act for the sake of the public, so they would not need to have any sincerity but just make sure they are not caught sinning.

Allâh describes prophets as virtuous and virtue starts in the heart. Virtue does not happen by the mere absence of sin and apparent compliance with duties.

Is it not also virtuous in Islam to desire to sin, yet to fight against that desire and avoid committing the sin?

I don't see this as an insult to the station of Prophethood. It doesn't effect the Risalah. All it means is that Prophets, like all other human beings, may be afflicted with bad desires, and, like all other human beings, have to use the strength within them to rebel against these desires. As implied, conquering the desires and not acting upon them is a high point of virtue. Considering all this, is the mere argument from perspective of virtue enough to disprove that Prophets may not desire to commit major sins?

[alurdumaaniyy]

You are getting into subtleties which are beyond my only knowledge or ability.

What I do know is that prophets are put in situations similar as ours (such as unlawful sex being offered to them) but they are unable to opt for the sin.

Beyond the question of virtue is the question of reliability which comes from impeccability and infallibility. If they were too commonly human we would not be able to always rely on them.

There is no doubt that for the rest of us, we do feels impulses to commit evil and resisting them is rewardable.

On the other hand prophets do not reach prophethood by merit and their refraining from great and abject sins is the result of their status.

Beyond this I would be speculating and going beyond my own limits. You may find that wise for yourself too.

[Chrono]

You are getting into subtleties which are beyond my only knowledge or ability.

What I do know is that prophets are put in situations similar as ours (such as unlawful sex being offered to them) but they are unable to opt for the sin.

Beyond the question of virtue is the question of reliability which comes from impeccability and infallibility. If they were too commonly human we would not be able to always rely on them.

There is no doubt that for the rest of us, we do feels impulses to commit evil and resisting them is rewardable.

On the other hand prophets do not reach prophethood by merit and their refraining from great and abject sins is the result of their status.

Beyond this I would be speculating and going beyond my own limits. You may find that wise for yourself too.

The reason why I brought this up originally is one reason and one only: Shi'ites, and many recent Sunnites too, deny that Prophets are able to desire major sins. Not only that, but they tend to label with blasphemy anybody who even doubts about this.

This is absurd. It has no basis in the Islamic texts and their apparent meanings, nor in the sound mind. It is totally arbitrary - the result of the whims and predilections of scholars who should know better.

The purpose of the topic is to ascertain whether or not I'm mistaken in my assumptions, and there really is an actual intellectual/textual basis for these claims. To the present moment I still cannot see one.

[alurdumaaniyy]

My inability to go further and my lack of knowledge does not prove there is not an explanation.

Your inability to see it does not prove that either.

I know what I shall do 'in shâ'a-llâh: I intend to seek patiently and not to overestimate myself.

[Chrono]

My inability to go further and my lack of knowledge does not prove there is not an explanation.

Your inability to see it does not prove that either.

I know what I shall do 'in shâ'a-llâh: I intend to seek patiently and not to overestimate myself.

But doesn't this mean that you are, in effect, believing in something (and even declaring those who reject it as blasphemers) without any known proof? Doesn't this strike you as dodgy, from a purely intellectual perspective?

[alurdumaaniyy]

Relying on more knowledgeable (and definitely more intelligent in my case) than yourself is morally perfectly fine. I do that with builders and GPs and you would want me to refuse to do that with religion. What on earth do you think religion is, a café for philosophical intellectuals?

As for a purely intellectual perspective, thank God I left that years ago. Actually can I remember trying anything more vain? Does anyone do it in the first place?

As for proof, it comes through the scholars of the Community from Qour'ân, Sunnah, ijmâ^ and qiyâs. That is  a lot more reliable than people who think themselves to be freelance intellectuals.

When people ask me questions I cannot answer, I save my soul, my honour and the trust which was put in me my saying: "I do not know, seek you answer from more knowledgeable".

[alurdumaaniyy]

I have now known many spiritual conmen whose method consists in confronting people with details and intricacies which they cannot grasp yet. They have no proof (intellectual or textual) and yet they aim at confusing the poor souls who meet them, either to recruit or just to destroy.

[Chrono]

Relying on more knowledgeable (and definitely more intelligent in my case) than yourself is morally perfectly fine. I do that with builders and GPs and you would want me to refuse to do that with religion. What on earth do you think religion is, a café for philosophical intellectuals?

You do that with builders and doctors. Difference is, there's a far greater amount of concurrance and agreement among the leaders of these professions as to how it is meant to be done! You could go to a doctor in Germany, France, America, Italy, Britain, Israel, and any advanced country, and you can be relatively certain that they'll all give you more or less the same quality and level of treatment, consultation and diagnosis. Generally speaking, there are no issues with having to be concerned with the methods and knowledge of doctors; it's a given that they all went through the same process, and are held up by the same standards. The same can be said for builders.

Religion is NOT like that. It is rare to find even two leaders of religion in total agreement, giving the same judgments, speaking the same word. Religion, unlike the aforementioned two things, is not regulated by the government or any other greater earthly authority. You CAN'T just say "I trust", and assume yourself to be safe. Au contraire, when matters of religion are concerned, you have to KNOW[/u]. That is, unless you are willing to be sorely wrong as a result of blind following.

As for a purely intellectual perspective, thank God I left that years ago. Actually can I remember trying anything more vain? Does anyone do it in the first place?

Coming to your own conclusions rather than laying 100% trust on a Sheikh is more valuable to you.

Just take one look at where resigning your intellect gets you: you end up in a situation in which you give more importance to remaining part of a "group" and remaining a follower of a "Sheikh" than to questioning each and every word they tell you! The truth is, it's MUCH more important to question than to remain part of a "group". The "group" holds you back! Between you and honest, free thought is... the "group"! Can you imagine how many ridiculous things you could start to believe as a result? Things such as, the totally erroneous and false historical claim that King Solomon and Pharoah ruled over the whole earth? Don't you feel ashamed intellectually at acccepting such twaddle?

As for proof, it comes through the scholars of the Community from Qour'ân, Sunnah, ijmâ^ and qiyâs. That is a lot more reliable than people who think themselves to be freelance intellectuals.

As far as correct knowledge in Islam goes, I agree with you. The question is whether or not the so-called "proofs" that a certain Sheikh may use for his evidence are really correct proofs. That takes more knowledge to decipher.

When people ask me questions I cannot answer, I save my soul, my honour and the trust which was put in me my saying: "I do not know, seek you answer from more knowledgeable".

When somebody asks you why you believe something and why you make Takfir of people who don't believe it, you are able to answer: "I don't know"? My friend, that is an absurdity if I ever knew one, and you know it too.

I have now known many spiritual conmen whose method consists in confronting people with details and intricacies which they cannot grasp yet. They have no proof (intellectual or textual) and yet they aim at confusing the poor souls who meet them, either to recruit or just to destroy.

My aim is one thing, and one thing only: intellectual honesty. I cannot deceive myself. I can't allow myself to believe something that doesn't settle in my heart and mind. I cannot permit myself to believe in things that I know to be fictional, that I know to be incorrect scientifically, historically, and so on and so forth. THIS is my methodology. If you really feel content that blindly following an individual will ensure the accuracy of your beliefs, then so be it. But I DON'T.

[alurdumaaniyy]

You do that with builders and doctors … it's a given that they all went through the same process, and are held up by the same standards. The same can be said for builders.

Don’t you start me on building and medicine, their processes and standards or even government regulation.

It is rare to find even two leaders of religion in total agreement, giving the same judgments, speaking the same word ... You CAN'T just say "I trust", and assume yourself to be safe.

There you are, builders and doctors again.

Au contraire, when matters of religion are concerned, you have to KNOW.

You certainly have to know a minimum and preferably a lot. As for the claim that “you have to KNOW”,

it is either an absolute statement, in which case it is an absolute nonsense which is neither feasible nor even tried by anybody I know

or its reach is limited and then the issue is to determine how far necessary knowledge goes

That is, unless you are willing to be sorely wrong as a result of blind following

Ah “blind following”, the big low level rhetorical expression! Have you noticed it is always other people who blindly follow? We are always the enlightened ones, aren’t we?

Knowing your limits is the very start of knowledge. Even Socrates knew that that the only thing he knew was that he did not know.

Coming to your own conclusions rather than laying 100% trust on a Sheikh is more valuable to you.

No sheikh is worth 100% trust. We are all covered by the hadîth whose meaning is : “For every man, we take some of his words and we leave some, except for the Messenger of Alllâh”. Do not mistake recognising one’s incompetence with “blind following”. Most people I hear using the “blind following” theme do so for comfort and reassurance.

Just take one look at where resigning your intellect gets you …end up …”group" … follower … "Sheikh" … "group" … "group" … "group"! …

Is this what you actually tell yourself for comfort? I can see how pleasant it would be to think I and others have  just resigned ourselves to be bleating sheep terrified of the freelance intellectual wolf (no disrespect meant to either animals).

Things such as, the totally erroneous and false historical claim that King Solomon and Pharoah ruled over the whole earth? Don't you feel ashamed intellectually at acccepting such twaddle?

There you are, now we are going to have to go into the actual meaning of “ruling over the earth” or even “over the whole earth”. Once we have established how figurative they are, we will have to go into the sources, their level of reliability, comparison with similar texts, translation, etc.

As for the question: “Don't you feel ashamed intellectually at acccepting such twaddle?” I don’t know, who said it in the first place?

When somebody asks you why you believe something and why you make Takfir of people who don't believe it, you are able to answer: "I don't know"? My friend, that is an absurdity if I ever knew one...

That is exactly what I was talking about! Putting pressure on me to make a pronouncement on an issue I do not know about. The method is common, but how honest is it?

If you have not understood by now that I do not have an answer for the very fine detail you want and that you should ask more knowledgeable than me, I really do not know what to do.

… and you know it too.

Actually, my very point is that I no not know the issue.

My aim is one thing, and one thing only: intellectual honesty. I cannot deceive myself. I can't allow myself to believe something that doesn't settle in my heart and mind. I cannot permit myself to believe in things that I know to be fictional, that I know to be incorrect scientifically, historically, and so on and so forth. THIS is my methodology. If you really feel content that blindly following an individual will ensure the accuracy of your beliefs, then so be it. But I DON'T.

Well, well, well, you don’t need anyone to flatter you, do you? That was the equivalent of parading in the middle of the battlefield with honour robes and feathers. I thought I had gone over the top by mentioning "honour", but you have actually won.

Now do not underestimate yourself: you are as able as anyone to deceive yourself. Self deception is not the result of an intellectual flaw or stupidity, it is an emotional problem, an ego thing. People who manage neither to deceive nor to lie to themselves are not particularly intelligent, neither is intellectual capacity a protection against delusions.

Avoiding self deception and delusions once is no guarantee for the future for the ego will try again.