Isn’t Islam an idol worshiping religion?

[K.Venugopal]

According to the dictionary, an Object is "a material thing that can be seen and touched." So no.

The subject-object I have talked about is not the subject-object of grammar or as defined by the dictionary in a limited way. It is the subject-object differentiation spoken of by philosophers. I have given links to this elsewhere in this thread. Please refer. You will then appreciate that the word "object" is used not only for "a material thing that can be seen and touched."

On the Mystical side, Allah is not only outside ofusbut is outside ofeverything.

The word “everything” will have to include Allah. It cannot be said that only objects constitute everything.

An "object" in the sense of idolatry, refers to a created object in existence.

Not only are created objects in existence but the creator is also in existence. Can it be otherwise? Then the question to ask is is there anything common to everything in existence and if so what? I would say what is common is life.

An infinite being such as Allah cannot be contained in finite existence, and thus is outside of existence.

Existence is not finite (not the existence of individual forms - but existence itself). Existence is infinite.

If Allah is outside of existence, he cannot be an object, which is by nature extant.

How can Allah be outside of existence? Is He non-existent?

 

[K.Venugopal]

K.Venugopal has just mixed up his personal beliefs that's all.

I am not bringing in anybody's beliefs. Belief or faith need not be questioned. I am only trying to get to the logic of things.

 

[K.Venugopal]

He gives life and causes death

What is common between us and Allah is the life. Life pervades all existence including Allah.

 

[Gharib]

Dear Gharib: Good to discuss with you again after long time. Does Islam say Allah is omnipresent?

Answer my first question then after I will answer this one.

If you suddenly think that maybe you were wrong in your assumption it's fine to say you were wrong. I'm not here to bite your head off or to claim some sort of victory. It's only about what's right.

 

[Smart_Guy]

What does that make the rest of us??

It is what the rest of us make of themselves.

I honestly don't think it matters at all if some so called Muslims keep killing each other claiming the other side is not Muslim.

But that's another subject and we are not supposed to hijack the thread. My apologies to the OP.

 

[Gharib]

It is what the rest of us make of themselves.

I honestly don't think it matters at all if some so called Muslims keep killing each other claiming the other side is not Muslim.

But that's another subject and we are not supposed to hijack the thread. My apologies to the OP.

I didn't ask about one side killing another side. I was just surprised to see 'orthodox' Muslim. It's not common for Muslims to say I'm conservative, or liberal or orthodox or secular etc. You either follow the commands of Allah, the commands of his Prophet, the teachings of the Sahaba and of the Madhhabs or you don't.

How exactly are you different to any other Muslim?

 

[Smart_Guy]

I didn't ask about one side killing another side. I was just surprised to see 'orthodox' Muslim. It's not common for Muslims to say I'm conservative, or liberal or orthodox or secular etc. You either follow the commands of Allah, the commands of his Prophet, the teachings of the Sahaba and of the Madhhabs or you don't.

How exactly are you different to any other Muslim?

I don't see myself different than other Muslims (maybe except for being a native Makkan), I only don't use the sectarian naming on myself. Some Muslims don't follow the teachings of the companions, yet we can't say they are not Muslims. At some point I very much wont to, but I don't because it would be wrong.

There was nothing special in calling myself orthodox. It is just to keep myself away from sectarian discrimination.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Islam says Allah is outside us. That which is outside us is an object. Thus a call to worship Allah is a call to worship an object. Idol worship is worship of objects.

The logic that applies is that of creator and creation. The existence of the creator is a matter of opinion, the existence of the creation is a matter of fact. So we believe in Allah, and we can see His creation.

It is idol worship when a creation is worshipped, instead of the creator.

You must choose in reaching the conclusion whether or not Allah exists, from the availble alternatives that Allah exists, and that Allah does not exist. Expressing emotions with free will, thus forming an opinion. That is how Allah is not considered as object.

Neither are you as being the owner of your decisions, your soul, an object. Same thing, who you are as being the owner of your decisions is a matter of opinion.

 

[Salek Atesh]

The subject-object I have talked about is not the subject-object of grammar or as defined by the dictionary in a limited way. It is the subject-object differentiation spoken of by philosophers. I have given links to this elsewhere in this thread. Please refer. You will then appreciate that the word "object" is used not only for "a material thing that can be seen and touched."

Idol: "an image or other material object representing a deity to which religious worship is addressed"

Note "material object". The type of "object" refered to in the concept of an "idol" is not that of a subject-object relationship, but is referring to an object of the definition "a material thing that can be seen and touched."

To be idolatry, it must be a material object, not the "object" in a sentence structure.

It is linguistically incorrect to assert that the "object" referred to by an idol means the same as the "object" meant by sentence structure definitions.

Existence is not finite (not the existence of individual forms - but existence itself). Existence is infinite.

You and I use different metaphysical definitions of "existence", which is the cause of confusion.

 

[K.Venugopal]

The logic that applies is that of creator and creation. The existence of the creator is a matter of opinion, the existence of the creation is a matter of fact. So we believe in Allah, and we can see His creation.

It is idol worship when a creation is worshipped, instead of the creator.

You must choose in reaching the conclusion whether or not Allah exists, from the availble alternatives that Allah exists, and that Allah does not exist. Expressing emotions with free will, thus forming an opinion. That is how Allah is not considered as object.

Neither are you as being the owner of your decisions, your soul, an object. Same thing, who you are as being the owner of your decisions is a matter of opinion.

I agree with you there are matters of faith that need not be questioned. Nor have I questioned it. To you your faith and to me mine. What I am trying to understand is the logic of certain assumptions. Whether you worship the creator or the created - in both cases the worshiped is considered to be outside the worshiper. Worship of whatever is outside the worshiper is tantamount to idol-worship. The worshiper is the subject. Only in worship of the subject would there be no idol-worship. Because there the worshiper and the worshiped are one and the same.

 

[K.Venugopal]

Idol: "an image or other material object representing a deity to which religious worship is addressed"

Note "material object". The type of "object" refered to in the concept of an "idol" is not that of a subject-object relationship, but is referring to an object of the definition "a material thing that can be seen and touched."

To be idolatry, it must be a material object, not the "object" in a sentence structure.

It is linguistically incorrect to assert that the "object" referred to by an idol means the same as the "object" meant by sentence structure definitions.



You and I use different metaphysical definitions of "existence", which is the cause of confusion.

Is Allah within you or outside you? The objects of creation are also outside you. In both cases something outside you is worshiped. Therefore both the modes of worship are similar - only the object changes.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I agree with you there are matters of faith that need not be questioned. Nor have I questioned it. To you your faith and to me mine. What I am trying to understand is the logic of certain assumptions. Whether you worship the creator or the created - in both cases the worshiped is considered to be outside the worshiper. Worship of whatever is outside the worshiper is tantamount to idol-worship. The worshiper is the subject. Only in worship of the subject would there be no idol-worship. Because there the worshiper and the worshiped are one and the same.

It is error, because one could consider the existence of oneself as a worshipper as a matter of fact (no matter that it is illogical), and therefore it would be idolworship. So is the criterium inside or outside, or is the criterium matter of opinion or matter of fact, or are the criteria both inside and opinion, or outside and fact? etc.

There is temptation to consider the existence of Allah and the soul as fact, because then one doesn't have to muster up the emotion necessary to form an opinion, sustain faith. So consider where you stand in regards to this temptation.

Do you consider the existence of yourself as being the owner of your decisions, your soul, as a fact, or as an opinion?

 

[Salek Atesh]

Is Allah within you or outside you? The objects of creation are also outside you. In both cases something outside you is worshiped. Therefore both the modes of worship are similar - only the object changes.

The "object" in that case (Allah) cannot be classified as an idol, because it is not a physical object, as requisite for the definition of "idol." You are trying to do things with the English language that are not possible. You are treating the word "object" within the definition of "idol" as if it was the same word as its homonym, when the only context applicable to "object" in the definition of "idol" is "a material thing that can be seen and touched". This is linguistically incorrect.

Jewish law forbids the consumption of bats, referring to the winged mammals. This does not mean they cannot, if they somehow find a way, eat a wooden baseball bat. Homonyms are not equivalent (especially homonyms that are not rendered in their original language).

Based on the definition of the word "idol", Allah would have to be a physical object, not a semantic object, to be an "idol". Physical is in the definition of idol. Allah is by no religion's definition (at least no religion that refers to God as "Allah") "physical".

 

[Salek Atesh]

Is Allah within you or outside you? The objects of creation are also outside you. In both cases something outside you is worshiped. Therefore both the modes of worship are similar - only the object changes.

The other major problem with your thesis is the use of English words and translations in trying to define things like "object" and "idolatry". I'm an English speaker learning Persian, so I'm by no means an expert on this, but from what I can tell from research, the Arabic translated as "idolatry" is "širk" which has the definition of "worship or deification of any being other than Allah." So the very definition of the širk specifically omits the worship of Allah. Thus, even if the English definition "idolatry" could be equated with worship of Allah (to which I still think is linguistically false and a bad application of homonyms as if they were synonyms as well), it would not fit the Arabic širk which is the Islamic concept (I assume) you were indicating when using the word "idolatry."

Arabic speakers feel free to correct any mistakes I have made. As I said, I don't speak Arabic and used Google to find the Arabic word translated to English "idolatry".

 

[gnostic]

How Muslims revered the Qur'an, amount to idol worship.

How Muslims elevated Muhammad, is nothing more than hero-worship.

Hero-worship is the same as idol worship, but in this case the focus of idolatry is a person.

 

[Neglected Lighthouse]

The story as you've heard it was that Satan worshiped God for six thousand years, then came a day he was commanded by God to bow to the first human Adam he could not and he argued that it would be against monotheism and that I only bow to God and not his creation furthermore he said I am better than Adam since you created me from smokeless fire but him from earth and then God said you are rejected! In other words God likes to be worshiped the way he wants to be worshiped not the way anyone else wants to worship him!

Now let me make an important distinction, worshiping God does not mean being impressed and in awe of the beauty, power, magnanimity and etc of God, rather obedience to his will and commands and if not for obeying making love with your wife and appreciating her beauty would also count as a lesser worship! After all God does not care much if you are not in awe of his might, knowledge and beauty, if he directly showed you, you would be anyway and eventually you will be for sure anyway!!! ...but he cares if he is obeyed or not obeyed because it is only through obedience that he can judge who is better and thus reward accordingly. Obedience in Islam has many dimensions, one is praying towards Ka'ba because this is what he wanted and in so doing he is obeyed.

One of the most important titles of our prophet is عبدالله which tells us much...and in Quran it is said the purpose behind creation is willing obedience!

Also the history of Ka'ba and Prophet Abraham ع is as important, who built it and why it was built!? The removal/braking of the idols from inside Ka'ba by prophets of God etc... Each of the steps in performing Haj are important in showing the difference between real worship and fake worship. Fake worship is the worship Satan offered God for six thousand years!!!

Finally the relationship between Imam of time and Haj in Shiite interpretation of Islam which I may discuss later God willing.

 

[K.Venugopal]

Based on the definition of the word "idol", Allah would have to be a physical object,not a semantic object, to be an "idol".Physical is in the definition of idol. Allah is by no religion's definition (at least no religion that refers to God as "Allah") "physical".

Man's worship is not limited objects. And idols are not limited to physical objects. Idols can also be mental objects. In fact the English word idol is derived from the Latin word idolum which also means image. The word Allah is a sound form. Sound when compared to soundless is material. Logic – not faith – demands it be so.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Man's worship is not limited objects. And idols are not limited to physical objects. Idols can also be mental objects. In fact the English word idol is derived from the Latin word idolum which also means image. The word Allah is a sound form. Sound when compared to soundless is material. Logic – not faith – demands it be so.

But when you say somebody is "hateful", then in principle that statement says as much about who you are as being the owner of your decisions, as it does about the person you are calling "hateful".

That is because you can only reach the conclusion that person is "hateful" by choosing the conclusion.

You reveal your own emotions by which you choose, in talking about the emotions of somebody else, with which emotions they choose.

So the terms "hateful" is both about you yourself and the other as being the owner of their decisions.

The same principle applies in religion. You reach the conclusion God exists by choosing it, so your faith in God says as much about yourself as it does about God.

So by choosing the words are "outside", but what is worshipped remains "inside" the spiritual domain.

 

[Salek Atesh]

Man's worship is not limited objects. And idols are not limited to physical objects. Idols can also be mental objects. In fact the English word idol is derived from the Latin word idolum which also means image. The word Allah is a sound form. Sound when compared to soundless is material. Logic – not faith – demands it be so.

You'll use English and Latin, yet ignore the Arabic?? Again, even if you can twist English and Latin words around to make it fit, it isn't shirk, which I'm fairly certain is the Islamic concept you meant by "idolatry", as that is what "shirk" is translated to.

The Latin roots of the word don't mean anything contextually. Words change over time and loose their original meanings. The Latin "ater" for "color" is derived from Indo-Eurpoean "hehtr" meaning "fire", but you cannot use the word's origins to insist Latin "ater" means "fire", that would be stupid. Regardless of what the root word of idolum means, idol in the modern English language, specifically refers to physical images or physical objects. Idol | Define Idol at Dictionary.com

The English word (again if you insist on using that language) is (once again) defined as "an image or other material object representing a deity to which religious worship is addressed." It's roots do not change the fact that it means, explicitly, a material object. You shouldn't even be using the English definition, as I'm still guessing you are referring to shirk and you have not corrected me on this. But if you must use English, then the definition necessitates material object. This isn't religious or theological, it is simply the rules of language.

But the other problem with your working definition of "idol" is it becomes broad and meaningless. It can be argued that anything is a mental object, ultimately. So "idol" becomes anything that is worshipped. And thus every religion is idolatry. Language generally works on a consensus. And the majority of people do not agree with you on what constitutes the definition of the English word "idol".

 

[K.Venugopal]

Dear Salek Atesh: When I brought up this subject of idol-worship in Islam I have in no way indicated that Muslims make material idol of Allah and worship it as the Hindus do of their Gods. What makes the idolatry case against Islam valid would be understood only if it is accepted that Islam is a dualistic religion. The only non-dualistic religions existing are within the folds of Hinduism which is very much also a dualistic religion.