The Sharing Group Discussion on the Inconsistent Triad

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ 

Sister Asmaa Mahmud asked this, on The Sharing Group, on the 06^th April 2020: “Does anyone know how this works?”

Brother Terence Kenneth John Nunis: It is a classic theodetical argument, and easily addressed.  The first supposition is the definition of evil.  The assumption here is that our perspective is aligned with an Omnipotent, Eternal Divine.  In the same manner that a parent denying the child a cookie is evil, the context is a matter of perspective. 

For example, think of the worst thing that one person could do to hurt another, not just murder, but degradation of the worst kind, and then death.  For us, that is evil.  It has caused an irrevocable loss.  Thus, the implementation of justice is to poorly approximate that loss caused by the perpetrator, and we have creative means of administering the death penalty.  Now, consider an Omnipotent God.  What has the victim lost that God cannot return?  Time?  Life?  Wealth?  Nothing is beyond His Power.  And that is why we have Judgement and Requitement.  All will be Addressed by His Ultimate Justice. 

None of this, of course argues that evil is not felt, or wrongs do not exist.  We have all been victims and oppressors to a degree.  What we go through in this world is but a moment.  All our joys and pains here, are but the blink of an eye.  And then we will die, and leave this world behind, and wake up, as if it was a vivid dream, and all that pain, and all that joy, will be echoes. 

Arguments such as this approach theodicy from a materialist perspective, as if this world, this life, is the be all and end all.  As such, they have the first page of a comprehensive novel, and they are complaining about the plot, and disparaging the Author. 

Brother Michael Ball: I heard from a shaykh, he said that after seeing the genocide in Bosnia and Kosovo, it was like watching a person setting fire to beautiful flowers that people loved to look upon.  Even though some people hate to see them go, that pruning will bring about a growth that was never seen before.  A similar type story is told by Shaykh Muzhaffar Uzak al-Jirrahi (q.s.) about Muswthafa Kamal Ataturk’s purges. 

Brother Terence Kenneth John Nunis: After more than a half a century of Communism, the Muslims of the Balkans had all but forgotten Islam, save for a few.  And then the civil war in the former Yugoslav republics began.  When the Serbs and others came, they never asked who was a good Muslim, who was a practising Muslim.  If they looked Muslim, if their name sounded Muslim, they were killed. 

Those who survived, at first, they fought for their lives, and then, they fought for their families, and finally, they fought for their heritage.  And in that process, they rediscovered their religion, and Islam came back.  Even in the greatest tragedy, there is still some good in it. 

Our religion, is a religion of hope.  Our shuyukh are meant to be merchants of hope.  We sell hope, but no one is buying.  The price is nothing, but no one is buying.  People are busy feeling miserable, since misery is a comfort upon the nafs, whereas hope requires seeing good beyond ourselves, and striving to nurture it.  This is why the Prophet (s.a.w.) said, that if we are planting a tree, and we see the Day of Judgement approaching, plant it.  This is part of our husn azh-zhan, good thoughts, of Allah (s.w.t.). 

Brother Nick Hobbs: Apophatic theology; God is good but it is not identical to human goodness. 

Brother Michael Ball: Brother Nick Hobbs, from a Shi’ah perspective, apophatic theology is good as long as it maintains integrity with the concept of our understand of predestination. 

Brother Nick Hobbs: Brother Michael Ball, it seems to surface in one form or another in most religious traditions.  But I agree it seems to dovetail with predestination. 

Brother Gary Dargan: The problem as posed overlooks an important point.  God is not evil.  The trolley has a driver and the switchman does not have to make a choice or be held to account for it.  It is the driver who has the choice: To stop or continue.