The Instigator
Dimmitri.C
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
seaapple
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Is Allah Pure Act?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/7/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,298 times Debate No: 33372
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (32)
Votes (0)

 

Dimmitri.C

Con

Within this debate I will maintain the position that Allah (i.e., the Islamic God) is not Pure Act, where 'Pure Act' is understood in relation to a Being who's essence is devoid of all potentiality (i.e., God). Accordingly, I will argue that Allah is substantially deficient in kind and so not Pure Act, granted the Qur'an emphatically states that Allah is not omnibenevolent and so morally imperfect. For as the Qur'an typifies in Surat Al-Baqarah 2:190; Surat Ar-Rum 30:45, and so forth, Allah does not love the subject who lacks a particular quality of virtue. More specifically, Surat Al-Baqarah states: “Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.” [emphasis mine] Likewise, Surat Ar-Rum states: “That He may reward out of His bounty those who believe and do good works. Lo! He loveth not the disbelievers (in His guidance).” [emphasis mine]

Hence, the main contention of my argument implicates Allah's Being as substantially deficient in kind. For if Allah is not morally perfect, where 'moral perfection' is understood as a quality constitutive of a purely actual Being, what follows is that Allah is not God.

Consequentially, the standard for this debate is that there are to be no new arguments included within the conclusion. Furthermore, reference to any other religion, i.e., Christianity or Judaism, will be marked as irrelevant. For the main focus of this debate is the contention: "Is Allah Pure Act?" Moreover, primary arguments will be made in Pro's initial response, while subsequent rounds will include rebuttals only. I will make no further argument subsequent to what I have written within this introduction. As such, no new arguments are to be made that are irrelevant to the main contention of this debate subsequent to the opening round. And finally, I wish for this debate to be respectful, sincere and cordial. So, please, no ad-hominem attacks.

I look forward to debating whoever accepts this debate. Good luck!
seaapple

Pro

I accept this debate because I'm a Muslimah my dear opponent. I'll prove to you that you are wrong. May I begin by giving you the exact meaning of the surahs. The first surah you stated is Surah Al-Baqarah 2:190 > "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors." < What Allah means in this surah is that we can fight people who oppress us but we shouldn't be cruel to them. We just fight them to uphold the truth. 'Fight in the way of Allah' clearly stated that Allah wants us to fight like his way, which is without any hostilities. The second surah is Surah Ar-Rum 30:45 > "So that Allah may, out of His bounty, reward those who believe and act righteously. Verily He does not love the unbelievers." < That is, all human beings have been created on the nature that none but One Allah is their Creator and Lord and Deity. You should be steadfast on this nature. If you adopt the attitude of independence, you will be following a way opposed to your nature, and if you serve and worship another besides Allah, then you will be working against your nature.

Both surahs stated that Allah wants us to live in his path because it is true than anything else. He doesn't want us to lost in our way by following other religions.

Now you already know the explanation of the surahs, I want to know why you said Allah is not pure act? What pure act has to do with both of the surahs? May you explain all of these questions in details? I am sorry if maybe I didn't answer all your questions or anything else. It's because it's hard to understand thoroughly what you're saying.
Debate Round No. 1
Dimmitri.C

Con

Thank you for your response, Seaapple. Below you will find my explanation and subsequent rebuttal to the points you have made.

Accordingly, your exegesis of Surah 2:190 would be relevant if I had focused my argument on the issue of war and oppression with respect to the Qur'anic passages referenced. Likewise, your exegesis would be relevant if I had questioned whether or not one can exist
independent from Allah yet allthewhile exist in a coherent state proper to human nature. However, both of your responses to the verses I have quoted, do not pertain to the argument I have made. As such, your response thus far is irrelevant.

Specifically, the argument I advanced relates to the nature of Allah's Being relative to the two verses, among many others taken from the Qur'an, I have quoted. Namely, if Allah is not omnibenevolent (c.f., "Lo! He loveth not the disbelievers!") insofar as Allah does not love the unbeliever and transgressor, what follows is the conclusion that Allah is a mixture of both potentiality and actuality. This much follows granted the potentiality of moral perfection inherent to Allah's Being would remain unrealized if Allah is not all-loving. Accordingly, if Allah is not morally perfect, insofar as He is not omnibenevolent, Allah would only differ in degree and not in kind from human beings. Therefore, Allah is substantially deficient, being composed of both potentiality and actuality, alike human beings who love and hate imperfectly, rather than pure actuality, of which God is by nature.

Nevertheless, you have wasted your opening round by asking questions you should have been ready to answer prior to accepting this debate, questions I have already answered in the introduction of this debate.

Consequentially, the focus of this debate pertains to the nature of Allah. Specifically, is He perfect? If yes, then if He is not all-loving, as the Qur'anic passages I have quoted typify, in what sense can Allah be considered God as a mixture of potentiality and actuality? Simply put, can Allah be considered perfect if Allah does not love those who lack a specific type of virtue? I hope my clarification helps. Nevertheless, you have neither responded to my argument nor made relevant points. So I urge voters to vote for me.

I look forward to your response,

Dimmitri
seaapple

Pro

Thank you for your response. I guess you didn't quite understand with my explanations on both surahs. What I mean is that, in overall, both of the surahs prove that Allah is perfect. This is because Allah doesn't want His believers to be lost in the wrong path. You said that Allah is not perfect because He does not love the unbelievers and transgressors. Now I want to ask you. If you are a God, perhaps, do you like the unbelievers and transgressors? Of course not, right? Therefore your point about Allah is not perfect is somehow misleading. I can give you more proofs other than in both surahs about how perfect Allah is. But not in this round.

I am sorry for my lateness and I am looking forward for your next response.
Debate Round No. 2
Dimmitri.C

Con

Thank you for your response, Seaapple. Below you will find my objections to what you have written thus far.

Firstly, you are placing the cart before the horse. God is perfect insofar He is omnibenevolent, being as such morally perfect, because God is pure act; that is to say, because God is maximally great, God is not lacking in any of His attributes (e.g., God is wholly just, merciful and loving). However, within your most recent response you've simply affirmed the conclusion of my argument (i.e., Allah is substantially deficient in kind), by agreeing with me.

Nevertheless, you haven't offered demonstrative proof of Allah as
pure act in light of His lack of love for those who lack a specific virtue. Rather, you've simply questioned whether or not God would love the unbelievers alike the transgressors only to conclude that because I might not love them that then certainly Allah would not.

Thus far I find your most recent response facile and logically fallacious. Certainly, your conclusion accomplishes nothing other than begging the question as well as demonstrates that you agree with my conclusion; namely, Allah is not morally perfect and so the Islamic God is substantially deficient in kind. For to
simply agree that Allah does not love the unbeliever because the unbeliever is an unbeliever tells us nothing about Allah as pure act, especially when you've affirmed the central thesis to my argument.

Secondly, your exegesis of the Surahs I quoted has little to nothing to do with what I have argued thus far. I am not concerned with whether or not one is justified in pursuing a
just war. My concern is strictly related to the consequence of the multitude of statements which detail Allah's lack of love for those who lack a specific virtue. As such, your exegetical responses are strictly irrelevant to the debate.

Consequentially, you have not disputed my argument in any sense. You've only questioned whether or not I as God would love the unbelievers, which is already evident granted I have argued that for God to be God, God must essentially be morally perfect, of which entails omnibenevolence. You at best, in your response, have agreed with my conclusion that Allah is substantially deficient in kind by stating that Allah does not love the unbeliever and transgressor. Further, you've called into question my exegetical rendering of the two aforementioned Surahs. However, your calling into question and subsequent explanation of these verses is strictly irrelevant to the nature of this debate. If your exegesis were relevant you would have called into question the Arabic for the word "love" (Ar. 'Yuhibbu'). However, you did not choose to take this route. Instead, you took it upon yourself to speak about whether or not
just war is justified, and so forth.

Nonetheless, you haven't disputed any of my points specifically, except for agreeing with my conclusion and arguing about an irrelevant exegetical matter. And now that the next round is the conclusory round, you are incapable of introducing any new arguments, apart from objecting to what I have already argued. I believe you've wasted your responses.

Thank you for your most recent response and for spending the time to type down your thoughts.

Regards,

Dimmitri
seaapple

Pro

seaapple forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Dimmitri.C

Con

Dimmitri.C forfeited this round.
seaapple

Pro

seaapple forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Dimmitri.C 4 years ago
Dimmitri.C
Seaapple, it's fine. Don't worry.
Posted by seaapple 4 years ago
seaapple
I'm so sorry for being late. Uggh!! I guess I'm not a good debater after all. Sorry.
Posted by Dimmitri.C 4 years ago
Dimmitri.C
Seaapple, will you be responding?
Posted by seaapple 4 years ago
seaapple
Sola.Gratia.
I know that some Muslims killed Christians. But Christians killed Muslims too. It means that some of the believers of each religion does not comply with what were taught to them. it simply wasn't the fault of the religion itself. Islam doesn't ask its believers to follow the wrong path. It's a peace religion.
Posted by seaapple 4 years ago
seaapple
Sorry for the late response. I was a bit busy lately. Wait for my post in a second. Okay? :)
Posted by Dimmitri.C 4 years ago
Dimmitri.C
Seaapple, will you be responding soon?
Posted by makhdoom5 4 years ago
makhdoom5
lol.
no need to talk about that.
i am also human being. ALLAH is all alone sustainer and care taker of world. no body dare to kill any other body if he dont let.
he is supreme.
i do not complain not christain but jews, hindu, buddist, communist, famminist, athiest, etc etc.
so many kills muslim.
sole arguemnt we are on right path.
coz wrong could not be allay of wrong. and always there are two parties good and bad.
good is always together and bad is always together.
thing about it.
Posted by Dimmitri.C 4 years ago
Dimmitri.C
Sola.Gratia, right. I think it would be a good idea to create a thread in a forum for your topic interest.
Posted by Sola.Gratia 4 years ago
Sola.Gratia
I understand that your not Islamic, but my questions are genuinely asked for a purpose.. I really wanna know is all.. Not because I'm Islamic but ecause I wanna know why they believe something and say that it's not what it seems but really it is.. But I'll leave the comments section and maybe start up a forum about the topic Im addressing.. That way it's not interfering with your debating.. :)

Sorry about that..
Posted by Dimmitri.C 4 years ago
Dimmitri.C
Sola.Gratia, your concern isn't relevant to my debate. Simply put, I am asking the question: "Is Allah Perfect?" I don't believe Allah, the Islamic God, to use Anselmian categories of thought, is perfect in any maximal degree, or in Thomistic terms, that Allah is pure actuality. My argument establishes that Allah is a composite instance of a particular kind, being a mixture of both potentiality and actuality rather than pure actuality.
No votes have been placed for this debate.