Why Would Anyone, In Their Right Mind, Commit Kufr?
i m not psychology expert. in my humble opinion, arrogance is due to pride while suicidal is due to desperation. Punishment is due to reason that before coming into this world, he already accepted Allah as rab.
This is closer to how I also understood this as well but I faced a few problems then: 1. Doesn’t not having 100% Itmam-e-Hujjat implies that the definition of “truth has been made clear to everyone” might be a bit incorrect? It seems to be more about “some evidence has been provided” and “some truth has been made available” rather it is up to people of Prophet to investigate in given time because Allah isn’t going to spoonfeed anyone, right? i.e adjustment of how we define these things is needed? 2. And it also seems to imply that kafir isn’t someone that “knowingly reject the truth” but rather someone that was “neglectful” of the provided evidence by the Rasool? In order word, the idea that Allah is punishing kafir for his “open rebelliousness” as Ghamidi Sahab suggest is problematic because kafir has the conclusion that Rasool isn’t from Allah because their version of Itmam-e-Hujjat hasn’t been met? i.e kafir seems to genuinely think that Allah’s court isn’t really happening. (It also raises the question whether eternal punishment is valid for neglectfulness rather than open rebelliousness but I think that is minor issue, since Allah knows best how to punish). 3. If original question can’t be applied to kaffir that rejected Prophets due to lack of 100% Itmam-e-Hujjat then it certainly can be applied to Iblis right? I.e Doesn’t Iblis rebelling against Allah right in front of Him shows that he wasn’t thinking straight and hence punishing him might be unjust? Also you may refer to the example of King and the traitor I gave to Ahsan Jalal above for elaboration, i.e how do you think you would respond to that example?
@Sid Also one more thing, the assumption is not that human will always act rational in face of evidence but rather they will always act rational in face of absolute certainty of an absolute failure i.e what does a kafir have to gain if he is convinced that he will go to eternal Hell for rejecting Allah. I mean even in recent Itmam-e-Hujjat, no one seems to rejected Islam when the punishment by the sword was made clear because it was obvious to the kafir that if he reject the truth, he will face absolute death so no matter how arrogant and irrational he may be thus he didn’t openly rebel against Allah. But as soon as Prophet PBUH passed away, many people became apostate because the certainty of punishment was gone. So the original assumption was that Itmam-e-Hujjat makes truth clear, meaning the certainty of Hell has been made clear to the kafir henceforth why any kafir, no matter how arrogant or irrational, would pick Hell? Because that is absolute failure, he knows he can’t win through Itmam-e-Hujjat, right? Thus showing signs of mental instability if he still decides to pick a fight with Allah and invalidates the idea of punishing such people, yes? But you counter-arguing that personal certainty isn’t part of the Itmam-e-Hujjat package is a response to the assumption in the end. So it’s good, I just wanted to clarify the assumption.
1. Hmm okay, I was trying to lead up to another question with the understanding of kufr but I think we can discuss that in a new question. 2. Free will isn’t the focus. Your example of junk food is an example of a normal circumstance e.g consuming junk food does not always lead to bad consequences, there are people who consume a lot of junk food but can be fit, in fact some people are built fitness plan around this so people can be fit and consume junk food, chance of failure varies. Same is case with being rude with people, since we have chance of being forgiven for the sin or as you argue the reason for being rude can be greater than the sin hence why some people may do this. Now let me give you an example of a abnormal circumstance. Consuming a strong poison (one with 100% death rate) leads to death, yes? Is there any sane person that consume poison happily? Why? Is it because he is aware that consuming poison leads to certain death? If a sane person consumes poison then he is either: 1. Unaware/mistaken about the consequences of drinking poison and hence needs guidance. 2. Or is suicidal/mentally unstable hence needs help. What Iblis did is not consuming junk food, he is consuming poison. Free will isn’t the issue, problem is that he used his free will in way that an insane person would. Insanity deserves punishment? 3. The example of King and traitor is parallel to Allah and Iblis. What reason does Iblis has that is worth more than eternal Hell? Is believing in said reason be considered sane? 4. The dictionary definition you quoted doesn’t seem to deny that stubbornness isn’t about genuinely believing one is right. It can include both your definition of being wrong in face of being proven wrong and that one believes that he is right being the reason why they are choosing to do wrong. 5. Do you have an example of a murderer denying clear cctv footage in front of him? Don’t you think that a such murderer genuinely believes that if he deny strong enough, he can convince the authorities that he is innocent hence not a case of him knowing that he can’t win, he seems to be betting on a slim chance he can win the denial game since their authority are flawed humans, not All-Knowing flawless God that can’t be defeated nor deceived like in the case of Iblis?
Of course the notion of Muslim eventually ending up in Jannah is wrong BUT Muslims who knowingly sins genuinely believe this. This is why they can easily be “sarkash” and in a way, you could see that this way of reasoning show some level of sanity since they genuinely believe (no matter how wrong/baseless) they can avoid a perfect failure (like eternal Hell) as the false belief of eventual Jannah removes their seriousness toward sarkash. People may warn them but I assume, they will never genuinely label themselves as sarkash and as such, calling them sarkash is not right in my opinion, if they openly admit that they are sarkash and happily embrace eternal Hell then I argue (as originally) that they must be insane or mistaken, who openly wants eternal Hell? Regarding Adam (sws) and Iblees, the only difference in case of Adam (sws) was the presence of repentence and absence of ‘Sarkashi’ in front of Allah. EXACTLY! This is what I am arguing. We and Adam (sws) are the same, we at the best, can be sarkash “behind Allah’s back” but what about Iblis. He is being sarkash in front of Allah, his case is entirely different and it is, as I argue, abnormal. Qur’an says that he argues that “Allah, why should I prostrate to Adam (sws) when I am made of fire, he is of earth?” But from where I am standing, he seems to be saying: “Oh Allah, BURN ME IN HELL, I love eternal Hell! Please Please, put me in eternal Hell” Sounds sane? You can, again argue, some Muslims do this everyday. Yes, just like Adam (sws), but this is absence of “sarkashi” in front of Allah as you highlighted. Iblis seems insane or mistaken to happily do the act that will give him eternal Hell (which is totally unavoidable in his case because Allah is in front of him, there is no room for doubt like you and I) but nothing to gain but in face of such mistake or insanity, punishment shouldn’t be given, right?