All action, by all people, occurs within the scope of Allah (swt), shaitan is as much a servant of Allah (swt) as we all are, we just exist in different levels of acknoweledgement of this fact. That is why Imam Ghazzali defined the truest measure of disbelief as being whether or not an individual, when confronted with the evidence, called the Prophet (sws) a liar.

Mohammed (sws) was a perfect human being, not in that he had an absence of error, but that he had is possessing of no imperfection of intention, which in Islam is the measure of sin.

The above two are important ways in which Christianity and Islam differ. For Christians, many assume that God somehow does not control satan, and that the fall of humankind was a rebellion against God. For Muslims, a rebellion against God is impossible, for one cannot rebel against an all powerful being. We perform actions within the scope of Allah's (swt) creation, but not outside the Divine Will of God. Thus sin is willed by God (as shown in a hadith that refers to humankind being erased were it not to sin) as it is a reflection of one of His divine names: the Rahmen, as mercy cannot occur without action that deserves mercy.

The Christian conception of Christ is of a being without error and without sin, yet a being that questions his fate 'forsaken me', a 'part' of the 'one' that prays to himself.

The idea that God or Islam could be 'evil' is illogical. As 'evil' is not an 'objective' concept. If we accept that Allah (swt) is the one God, and the submission to this fact is the perfection of humanity, then it follows that what is not submission is evil, and what is, is good.

Similarly if one denies this fact, and creates his or her own gods and prophets, what is not alligned with that world view will be evil in turn. So yes, Islam could be 'evil' if 'evil' is defined as being that which a non Muslim is not.

rintrah 

yes tallow...  gotta agree with that.

Quote:


I'm sorry, this misunderstanding must be me not expressing myself correctly. My argument was intended to emphasise that 'evil' is a subjective word and therefore when it is not defined adequately, anyone can say anything around it and will be valid.

What I did was define evil and then said whatever I wanted.

Am I expressing myself clearly here?

Quote:


This was my point, rather than 'for example
"We know that Allah (swt) exists because the Qu'ran tells us so. And we know that the Qu'ran is true because it is the word of Allah (swt)."

Obviously there must be choice in order for their to be any value in belief. Given a choice between belief or disbelief, I choose belief and all that follows. I believed the debate in this thread was around 'evil' as expressed in the title. I intended to express my problems with an argument based around a word so subjective and not defined by the creator of the thread. If we are to debate evil, then how can we do so without being given an understanding of what exactly to the poster 'evil means'.

I am Muslim, I believe in Allah (swt) I have no proof that God exists and do not desire proof, that is not the point. I can argue on the internal validity of Islam under that assumption, I cannot argue upon the assumption itself. I though this was a discussion forum about Islam, not about more broadly the existance of God.

Anything I state about the Deen is coming obviously from the assumption of Shahada: I testify there is no God but God and Mohammed is His final Messenger. My explanation of the idea of Shaitan and choice in my particular Islamic world view was done with this assumption, I am a Muslim after all, how debate should follow is around the internal validity of what I have said, rather than simply saying well 'God doesn't exist and Mohammed (sws) isn't His messenger', as that somewhat defeats the purpose.

Apologies in advance if I am not making myself clear, if I say anything wrong I ask yourself and the Creator for forgiveness, God knows and I know not.

Quote:


I would say that the question of the use of the word evil is one of the minor points I made, the major ones I posited have not been adressed. For the purposes of this I will re post my statments without the seemingly controversial point about evil:

Quote:

Quote:

Indeed.. as I've previously stated: the idea of evil is a subjective idea, if you ask people what constitutes 'evil' in their minds, you will have as many definitions as you will individuals. So for some people Islam could be evil, similarily for some people giving candy to children is evil, or crossing the street without saying 'heeby jeeby 1-2-threeby' could be evil. Without a definition of what 'evil' is, we are merely fumbling in the dark...

like that dark under the bridge.

Quote:


As far as I can see we are not looking at what is evil or good according to Islam, for then the question would be 'is Islam evil according to Islam'. If I am wrong I am welcoming of correction.

I will however answer your question regardless: a suicide bombing of a civilian target violates various Muslim legal positions on warfare. Suicide and more importantly the killing of civilians is classified as an unlawful act. If we consider that which is unlawful as being 'evil' then yes, such an act IS evil.

Simply because such individuals call themselves Muslims and believe that they do something for the sake of God does not mean they do it as Muslims of for the sake of God. We cannot know what lies within their hearts, so we must look at what the consensus of the majority of both Muslims and Muslim scholars say on the issue. The four Sunni madhabs see such an act as Haram, and they represent the vast majority of Muslims.

It is not the place of everyday Muslims to be forced to justify the acts of their misguided brothers, for doing so is akin to demanding every Christian justify the Spanish Inquisition. Long has it been that evil has become more palatable when wearing the cloak of religion. This does not mean that said cloak is evil, merely that the one wearing it is doing so unjustly.