FOLLOW US:

Books and Documents
Spiritual Meditations (01 May 2012 NewAgeIslam.Com)
The Indivisible God
By Manzoorul Haque, New Age Islam
01 May 2012
In the interest of buying peace, man has often tried to accommodate as many gods as possible. But does this approach sustain critical enquiry? Pressed a little more, the multi-god believer shrugs off his shoulders and proceeds to declare himself an atheist. From multi-god to no-god in such a swift motion, gives away the veneer that the man in question was wearing to hide his lack of seriousness about these issues. He turns out to be the bogus ideologue ab initio.
Then he insists that everybody must be equally spurious in matters religious – spuriousness according to him is akin to modernity, by some strange logic.
On the other hand the idea of an indivisible and lone God is the only idea that can exist; if at all the idea of God exists. People who project, that multiplicity of God(s) is an idea, that can satisfy human intelligence - are actually making light of the religious pursuit of mankind.
What is the whole idea of a God? If God is a rare being to be found hidden in some groove so that man should immediately bow down to him on coming to find him, the question does arise, why this funny antic and on what rational grounds? And of course there can be no limit to the number of such Gods, as every rodent living or dead (since God cannot die) can be ascribed that status simply on the whim of a person choosing to do so. This result we are getting by divorcing the the idea of God from the stature of God. But if you try to visualize the stature of God, you will have to concede that He cannot be the one who has created one fourth of this world and left the remaining for other Gods to do.  It is easy to say that the world was created by none (not even one God), because we do not know for sure who created it, but to say that half of it was created by one God and the other half by another God is simply illogical.  If a God can create half, he can as well create full, because obviously He does not create it by manual labor needing additional hands, but by a process. There cannot be two processes working simultaneously to create this world. Indeed science finds the existence of only one set of laws which are part of the same one process. So the possibility of there being more than one God does not exist.
Of course little reflection on the question of God also reveals his absence in the hitherto known parts of the universe. The distance of the outer periphery of the universe is so great that placing God beyond the universe may render him totally inaccessible, and divorced from this world. His control over the subsisting processes of the movement and growth of the universe will become questionable. Perforce we have to conclude that He cannot be a material being or of the likeness of anything in this universe – which allows Him to be all-pervasive.
These logical views of God are accepted and projected in Quran and that is what makes Quran so outstanding – and not because it contains formula for the best antibiotic as some scholars are trying to propagate. Indeed those projecting Quran as the ultimate book of science are doing the ultimate damage to the great philosophical religion of Islam.
URL: http://newageislam.com/spiritual-meditations/manzoorul-haque,-new-age-islam/the-indivisible-god/d/7189


TOTAL COMMENTS:-   5
  • I am not a stickler of grammar. But quite apparent mistake in language leaves a bad taste. I found some well-meaning editorial hands having exercised their scissor to render my language a bit un-rhythmic. I had written “To Mr. Mohiuddin sb, for whose faith in the written word, I have a great admiration, I have to say”. An extra ‘for’ has been added at the end without removing it from the beginning of the sentence. Normally the use of ‘for’ at the end is considered more stylish, but here in this particular sentence I had felt placing it in the beginning as more fluent. Next, I had written, “My effort to understand Islam will be a naught if I discard this method”. The more extensive use is of expression “will come to a naught” but in that case ‘be’ has to go. Here again, I had deliberately written ‘will be a naught’ to convey my mood and emphasis. ‘Will be a naught’ is more emphatic than ‘will come to a naught’. But please don’t get deterred from exercising your editorial scissor. It’s actually a great help to writers. Let me point out where I need help most. I am not a professional typist. I fully depend on my computer to correct the spelling mistakes. But sometimes the spell-check does not work, and sometimes it works so well that it substitutes the mistake with another word. And now with age I seem not to be able to detect a mistake. So please look for such devils.
    By Manzoorul Haque - 5/3/2012 12:38:12 AM
  • I was away from New Age Islam, because other ground level engagements have kept me tied down. I don’t write these days. Only sometimes I take to my laptop when the pressure to express crosses the critical limit of my ability to be indifferent.I guess I owe a few replies on this website.

    To Mr. Mohiuddin sb, for whose faith in the written word, I have a great admiration for, I have to say that I would consider it bad manners to say “our path is the only path”, because it will be totally out of context for me.

    To Mr. Sadaf, I must thank for encouraging me to pull me out of my shell. A write-up which I had put in cold storage, I am shortly posting under the caption “Towards Mughle Azam”, which Insha Allah will have the effect of raising the platform of discussion. I don’t believe in stereotypes. My replies so far have only been to question the stereotyped objections against Islam and Muslims, which lack depth.

    Mr. Shahid is a new face here but I have gone through some of his comments. I would request him to persist, because it is important for him to persist. His contributions will be highly appreciated by a lot of persons who visit this website. Let me clarify to him that I have not left out ‘the group who argue in favour of contemplation and observation of natural phenomena to get to God’, because I have written my piece while being firmly rooted in that group. I guess there is a method called ‘phenomenology’ which helps us to advance our understanding of things by the study of phenomena. Of course the holy Quran itself exhorts us to follow this route. My effort to understand Islam will be come to naught if I discard this method because the other means is to meditate and reach God directly through Communion.

    Most sufis have taken that route in their lives but I am not a sufi. In this respect, technically speaking, a genuine sufi seems to have an upper hand over us, phenomenologists or scientologists; because the prophet himself had reached God through meditation (when I say reaching God, let me make clear the colloquial use of the language here, because in truth, man can never reach God. It is God who reaches His seeker because He alone is capable of breaking the barrier).

    Lest I should be misunderstood about sufis, I have to add that I see a sufi as a stand-alone piece who cannot be networked. To my mind, there may be ‘sufis’, but there cannot be sufiism -which means a disciple or a descendant of a sufi, being a sufi, (this simply cannot work on the theory of probability), or khanqah sort of thing etc. The concept of a ‘sufi’ therefore is largely of an academic or conceptual value for me (follow a seeker of truth, run away from one who has found it).

    Mr. Shahid makes an interesting observation about ‘religion’. Obviously he has some serious take on the issue. I would become lengthy if I tried to untangle this but in an unpublished (lying in cold storage for last ten years) novel of mine (“A man of no consequence”) some of the questions relating to the true nature of religion have been discussed. In due course Insha Allah I will share those ideas, which rather float freely within the context of the novel without any fixedness (deliberate use of word because of its rhyming with wickedness).

    However while discussing high ideas I do not lose sight of the ground reality. I have therefore always advised restraint while demolishing the idols, and so have profusely advised against throwing the baby with the bath-tub. This however is no guarantee that one day I will not be faced with a fatwa for asking a simple question, if that turns out to be inconvenient. But this is a professional hazard of being a Muslim and we should learn to live with it.


    By Manzoorul Haque - 5/2/2012 2:46:38 PM
  • Interesting and cogent arguments.
    I however would have said ‘Nature’ rather than ‘stature’ of God for the mere fact that- ‘ If a God can create half, he can as well create full’ suggests that even in creating half His stature was ‘relatively’ high but the fact that He can create ‘full’ gives Him the infinite stature, and infinity ‘ ‘ is a scientific and Quranic, Luqman 31-27 concept.

    “Indeed those projecting Quran as the ultimate book of science are doing the ultimate damage to the great philosophical religion of Islam”.
    In the above quote there are two issues.
    One is that it leaves out a group of people who argue that Quran is NOT a book of science, ala text book of Science but IS a book replete with references to ‘natural phenomena’ that need to be ‘contemplated and observed’—that is scientific ology—to gain some idea of the Creator, we call God, for lack of any other word, that the religionist have perpetuated for ‘religion’ and that brings in the second issue.

    Philosophical religion of Islam—If it is philosophical then it can not be a ‘religion’ as religion is dogmas of Churches—each unto itself—where as by this definition Islam is NOT a religion! That is a dilemma that mankind has been incapable of shaking off, thanks to the limitation of language and tyranny of religion!

    @ Sadaf-- please oh please! exclude me from the list of such august company of scholars!!
    By Rashid - 5/1/2012 9:38:45 PM
  • Much to my joy, I find Mr. Manzoorul Haque to be back with us with his brilliant writings. I actually got initiated into writing comments, following his writings. So I am happy to see him back and welcome him and hope to see even more engaging conversations now; arguments and counter-arguments. I hope he too will be glad to find many commentators who are relatively new on this website, (or so I think) but with high caliber like Dr. Adis Duderija, Mr. Mohammad Yunus and Mr. Rashid with their incisive and great writings which at least I am not able to match with my limited skills and thus unable to appreciate their inputs sufficiently.
    By sadaf - 5/1/2012 4:40:33 PM
  • Mr. Haque writes well. Our path indeed is logical and credible. But we should never say that our path is the only path.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 5/1/2012 12:08:13 PM

Compose Your Comments here:

Name
Email (Not to be published)
Comments
Fill the below text
 
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the articles and comments are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect that of NewAgeIslam.com.
Content