Innate Sense Of Good And Bad
this was a similar question but not quite the thing that I wanted to ask. I’m not saying a person innately doing a good as a sudden reflex and not remembering God while doing. my question was that the way Ghamidi Sahab said in that lesson that according to Quran, the real aim of doing any action which is considered as good or refraining from bad, should only be Allah’s pleasure and displeasure. now this gave me a notion in my mind (maybe I understood wrong) that if some good deed action is done for any other reason primarily then it’s sinful. as Ghamidi Sahab further explains that any other aim is ‘Alaish/Impurity’. if this thing is just talking about what is ideal and what is less ideal but not sinful then it’s understandable but if it means that it’s sinful (as mentioned above) then all actions mentioned below are sinful but we don’t see any condemnation of it in religion. – a farmer feeding and taking care of his animals, with intention to get a good supply of meat and milk or a good price for it – a man refraining from telling lie to a boss as his boss of discovers it would kick hin out of company – any professional service we give for other’s benefit but primarily for earning money ie doctor that treats a wealthy patient only if he agrees to pay, else he refuses. – a person avoiding punching a man while arguing because of fear of getting multiple on his own face – a man avoids sin because of the innate harm in that action. he avoids opium because of health harms. The example of farmer is a very strong one as every farmer primary is doing it for this purpose and cattle farming is very old. I would like @Irfan76 or @UmerQureshi to clear my confusion if I’m understanding wrong.
So according to you, if a person’s primary aim of doing a particular act at a particular time is even something other than pleasure of Allah then still it’s okay as long as there’s an intention of pleasing Allah as well present. the reason for me saying that the primary aim of doing actions mentioned above is something other than Allah is because if that factor/benefit (money, milk and meat) was not present then at that particular instance the person wouldn’t have done it. like the doctor and farmer. just as İrfan Sahab told one day that the measure to check for primary aim is if that benefit is taken out then the particular act wouldn’t happen, and if we even ask that farmer for the motive for his cattle farm, he would link it to some material gain (money, milk, meat, skin) and then his happiness that results from using or consuming that material gain. what I understood from Ghamidi Sahab excerpt was that if at a particular act at a particular instance is done with primary aim of something other than Allah then it’s sin (maybe I understood wrong) let’s see what @Irfan76 says about this and whether I understood right what Ghamidi Sahab said or I misunderstood.
@Irfan76 so sir if a person while doing other worldly good acts for example has a primary intention of some other worldly benefit, and not of Allah (the intention of Allah is either not present or is there but at a secondary or tertiary level) and I’m saying that the worldly benefit is primary because if that benefit was not present at that time the person wouldn’t perform that worldly good act. so to conclude sir I want to ask 2 things. a worldly good act of taking care of animals for good supply of milk and meat 1) such worldly good act can be done with a primary intention of worldly benefit, even if pleasing Allah is secondary intention. This is okay. 2) such worldly good is done at a particular time with ONLY intention of worldly benefit. there’s no intention of pleasing Allah even at a secondary level. This thing is okay too and permissible. so these both cases 1 and 2 are allowed because it’s not worship ritual. the worldly good act can be like the taking care of animal or like treating a friend good in order to have strong relationship with him, aiming for more worldly benefit that would come when the bond is strong (example when in difficulty, that friend would come and help me). these both cases 1 and 2 (even the one without pleasure of Allah intention) are allowed right sir?
what do you think?
@Irfan76 I’m sorry for this long answer sir, but I just want your help in this matter, I’ll explain you what happens with me Ghamidi Sahab said in his excerpt talking about doing moral good aim should be none other than pleasure of Allah. and that if there’s someone who has “badle ki khwaahish”, then this is alaish…. he further added a momin keeps fixing and removing his all ‘Alaish’ with Tawbah. This made me feel is Ghamidi Sahab saying that a person doing a good act expecting the other person to return the favor someday. Ghamidi Sahab says it is alaish (again 2 possibilities, maybe he used it in the sense that such intention would not be very virtuous and would be an impediment in the perfect reward from Allah for his act. so it’s an alaish in this sense…. Or maybe he used it in the sense that it’s sinful that’s why it’s alaish)… but further on because he used words like ‘cleanising with tawbah’ why does it need to be corrected with Tawbah? Tawbah is done for sins. so does he mean it is sin? At first, I was constantly in that dilemma what if Ghamdi Sahab meant otherwise, I was just looking for evidence which put me in relief that he was not saying it in sense that it’s is sin. and that when he used alaish he would have only meant that it’s an impediment to the perfect reward (but not sinful). because whole professional service world works in this principle that they do these things i.e. services for money. majority of services are good moral things. so how can Ghamdi Sahab say that to be sin? this thing put me in ease that he must have not said it is sin. [an act is moral good, only along with it’s intention of benefiting others] But later I realized, that the money we get in professional service, is only for the our actions. not for our [action + good intention]. even if we tell the person paying us “we didn’t have intention to benefit you, we were just doing because of being forced to”, he would still give us money for our actions. So I thought possibly maybe ghanidi Sahab that’s why doesn’t say professional services to be Haram, because in professional service, we get paid for only work.. not good act [work + intention to benefit]. But in returning favors the other person does considers our action along with our intention to benefit him, before doing something for us in return. here we can say he gives us something on our doing good moral action towards him. same is the case with me trying to nurture love in someone’s heart for me (because there’s many worldly benefits if he loves me ). and for this purpose I do good favors on him, so that he remembers my action+good intentions towards him and he develops love for me. before, there was this thought that how can Ghamdi Sahab say this to be sin? there’s no way. because whole professional world was and is working on same principle…. but now, with realization of he difference above, that professional service doesn’t fall under the same principle. again the previous dilemma arose… what if Ghamdi Sahab means that we doing a good to someone [action + intention of benefit] only so that our this good [action +intention to benefit] be considered by receiving party and they do something in return. or we do this so that they develop for us and we want their love as it brings us worldly benefit (worldly helping, companionship, mind easing). Then comes the second phase, which is when I say to myself “suppose even if Ghamdi Sahab meant this to be sinful, this is what ghamidi Sahab said. Ghamidi Sahab is not an authority. Quran is an authority and there is nothing that I found, in Quran regarding this” Then thoughts start coming that “If Ghamdi Sahab said thisz he’s a Quranic scholar not you, maybe he looks it in an angle that you don’t, what if you miss something but it is in his sight” in summary sir, there are 2 points of my concern. 1) is determining if Ghamdi Sahab meant it or not, what I am thinking. 2) constant dilemma that if Ghamdi Sahab meant it to be Haram, then even though the discussion with İrfan Sahab brought this principle out that it’s not sinful. what if Ghamdi Sahab sees something that we don’t, what if what if what if. what if he sees in Quran something that we didn’t, as he’s a bigger scholar. this what if doesn’t let me rest properly, sir . looking at my problem can you suggest me, what do o do sir?