christianity...?

[faye]

i found al-ghazali's 'niche of lights' online, last night and he uses the word aspect (wajh) seemingly in the same context as i was using it. is that the correct translation from arabic, do you think?
beautiful thinking. i would like to read al-ghazalis books instead of reading online.
who do you favour, to explain the muta'zilah view?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

wajh literally means face,I think the translator as interpolating his own notions into the translation. when we refer to Wajh we're referring to the "dhat" or "essence" of God; it comes from the verse "wa kul shay halik illah wajhu"
( translation :"and everything perishes except his face" ) implying that Wajh is the real existence and everything else doesn't truly exist.

It kind of relate to he Qabbalistic Notion of the " Vast Face" of the Ain Soph

The Mu'tazilah view is that this means that all relational things or "accidents" are not God because they perish but rather God's "applied" power; that's why all things perish but he does not because he is the Necessary Being. This also means that everything perishes as do some of the "relational" attributes; attributes which only become known by way of they relate to objects or accidents/events. The essential attributes; the stuff that represent the absoluteness of allah(swt) are his "Dhat" and that which isn't is not his dhat.

[Alchemist]

The Mu'tazilah view is that this means that all relational things or "accidents" are not God because they perish but rather God's "applied" power; that's why all things perish but he does not because he is the Necessary Being. This also means that everything perishes as do some of the "relational" attributes; attributes which only become known by way of they relate to objects or accidents/events. The essential attributes; the stuff that represent the absoluteness of allah(swt) are his "Dhat" and that which isn't is not his dhat.

Why is this explanation suppose to be a "Mut'zaliah" view?
Is there another view in Islam that says otherwise?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

yes actually; the Asharite view which Ghazzali espoused surmised that the attributes of God are coeternal with God.

[faye]

ok. so accidents means events. i was curious about 'accidents' being used.
i don't view anything as perishing or as an accident. i think what we consider matter/form/reality is a temporary manifestation for one particular life experience, but can be transformed by the creator.
look, here's alchemist. i saw him slowly slinking in to this thread. took a coupla days ;-)

[faye]

the translation for 'the niche for lights' that i was reading is translated by w.h.t. gairdner.
so much of muslim, pagan and middle eastern myths etc are translated by europeans. people who can misinterpret and project their own beliefs into the works. i have been trying to find these books with muslim translators but unable to, with this one.
it is good that they respected these philosophers, though.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

That's unfortunately one of the sad realities of our times that Muslims themselves have lost/forgotten/become disaffected from their own intellectual heritage that we rely on external translations. Our own scholarship's reluctance to teach us the reality behind all of this stuff also nurture's the problem

anyways I'm on a tangent.

[faye]

not many actually do such deep contemplation anymore. look how the guys on here are so dependent upon the photos, videos and uploading quotes, to speak for them. because they can do that, they delude themselves that they ACTUALLY KNOW this knowledge.
the deep contemplation in the days of al-ghazali is extremely admirable as they didn't have all the media to tell them how and what, to think.

[Zirey]

RTR, Randolph,

It was never my intention to launch a debate or to counter all blasphemy against my cherished beliefs, but to share information here or correct a misconception there. This is why my replies were brief and focused on fewer points than perhaps you would have liked.

As long as our approaches to truth remain fundamentally different, there is not much of a chance, humanly speaking, of our coming to an agreement. Christians believe that finite, fallible, human reason is subordinate to God's Word. That is why we are open to mysteries that surpass human reason. God's ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts, but as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are His thoughts higher than ours.

[Alchemist]

yes actually; the Asharite view which Ghazzali espoused surmised that the attributes of God are coeternal with God.

You just said that the attributes of God are coeternal with God:

The essential attributes; the stuff that represent the absoluteness of allah(swt) are his "Dhat" and that which isn't is not his dhat....

when we refer to Wajh we're referring to the "dhat" or "essence" of God; it comes from the verse "wa kul shay halik illah wajhu"
( translation :"and everything perishes except his face" ) implying that Wajh is the real existence and everything else doesn't truly exist

Please elaborate.

Maybe my english is no good.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

You just said that the attributes of God are coeternal with God:



Please elaborate.

Maybe my english is no good.

well there are a distinction between the essential attributes, meaning characteristics of the Absoluteness of God (eternal, self sufficient, infinitely existing) etc etc) vs. the Relational Attributes (creator, protector, destroyer etc etc); you're right I should have clarified what I meant, my apologies.

[faye]

i wondered what the import was about jesus as god, and it finally came to me. saying that jesus is god, from the religious point of view (not mine) is like a competative thing that their jesus is more better than your mohammad.
is that what this was about?