Good and Evil in Religious Philosophy and in the Holy Qur’an

Zainun Kamal

Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta

Keywords: Philosophy, Islam, Good, Evil, Qur'anic

Abstract: We must understand very well about the difference between engaging in religion and thinking about it. The

former is like enjoyment; the latter is like contemplation. A young man, for example, loves a girl; feeling of

love is called enjoyment, whereas thinking about loving is called contemplation. So religion is dedication or

contentment, while philosophy is a thinking or contemplation. Consider these two alternatives: (1) God is not

powerful; (2) God is not all-good. I need some additional premises connecting the terms ‘good’, ‘evil’ and

‘omnipotent’. These additional principles are that good is opposed to evil, in such as way that a good thing

always eliminates evil as far as it can, and there are not limited to what an omnipotent thing can do. This paper

shows that a decent all-powerful thing takes out insidiousness totally and afterward the suggestions that a

decent supreme thing exists, and that malicious exists, are unique.

1 INTRODUCTION

The word of philosophy comes from Greek

word, which is a compound of two words “philien”

meaning love and “sophos” meaning wisdom.

Therefore, philosophia means love of wisdom. The

word of “falsafa” is an Arabicization derived from

philosophia. (Harun, 1983)

There are many and various definitions of

philosophy. According to W.P. Montagne,

“philosophy is the attempt to give reasoned

conception of the universe and of men’s place in it”.

J.A. Leigthton said that “a complete philosophy

includes a word-view, or reasoned conception of the

whole cosmos, and a life-view or doctrine of values,

meanings and purposs of human life” (Horold, 1959)

Harun Nasution defines that “philosophy is to

think of something logically, freely (without being

tied up by tradition, doctrine and religion) and deeply,

so that the first principles can be reached” (Harun,

1983).

For a proper understanding of philosophy, it must

be distinguished from theology. Both disciplines used

reason in formulating their respective conception of

God and His creation, but they differed in approach

and motivation. The strating point of theology was

revalation and Holy Book. Reason was used in

defending the revealed word and in interpreting the

natural order in conformity with a religious (e.Q.

Quranic) view at creation. Meanwhile the starting

point of philosophy was not revelation, but reason

only; the motivation, the quest after “the true nature

of thing” (Mircea, 1987).

Harun Nasution made a

distinction between philosophy of religion and

theology. The former is not concerned with the

principles of a certain religion. So we know, the

terms of Islamic theology, Christian theology, Jewish

theology, etc (Harun, 1983).

Philosophy of religion is the philosophical

scrutiny of religion. Harun Nasution said that

“philosophy of religion is to think about religious

principles logically and freely,”(Harun, 1983)

but

the meaning of those terms can be divided into

two types: (1) assessment of the rationality of

religious beliefs, with attention to their coherence and

to the cogency of arguments for their justification;

and (2) descriptive analysis, elucidation of religious

language, belief and practice with particular attention

to the rules by which they are governed and to their

context in the religious life (Mircea, 1987)

We must understand very well about the

difference between engaging in religion and thinking

about it. H.M Rasyidi, who quoted C.S Lewis, made

a distinction between religion and philosophy. The

former is like enjoyment; the latter is like

contemplation. A young man, for example, loves a

girl; feeling of love is called enjoyment, whereas

thinking about loving is called contemplation. So

religion is dedication or contentment, while

philosophy is a thinking or contemplation

Kamal, Z.

Good and Evil in Religious Philosophy and in the Holy Qur’an.

DOI: 10.5220/0009937619411946

In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Recent Innovations (ICRI 2018), pages 1941-1946

ISBN: 978-989-758-458-9

1941

Why, indeed, should we think about religion?

The answer is that if we were the kind of persons who

does not think much about anything, we probably

shall not much need, to think about religion either.

It is certainly unreasonable to expect to understand

religion without a great deal of mental effort and

without knowing much about it. It is hardly

profitable, if we could not express our ideas of

religion with the clear thinking. And religious

philosophy will help us logically to answer the

question and to solve the problems addressed to the

principles of religion in general.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 The Problem of Evil

The traditional theologians (Jewish, Christian,

and Islamic theologians) agreed that God has some

sense attributes such as infinity (that God is

without limitation), goodness, omnipotence,

omniscience etc. One of the best known of these is the

so-called problem of evil. Its problem, in the sense

which I shall use the phrase, is a problem only for

someone who believes that there is a God who is both

omnipotence and absolutely good.

In its simplest from the problem is this: God is

omnipotence; God is absolutely good; however evil

exists. There seems to be some contradiction between

these three propositions, so that if any two of them

were true, the third would be false. But at the same

time all three are essential parts of most religious

positions. While there is in the world evidence of

much that is orderly, good and rational, there is even

more compelling evidence of all-pervasive evil.

There are physical evil and moral evil.

Physical evils are involved in the very

constitution of the earth and animal kingdom. There

are deserts, icebound areas, scorpions and snakes.

Secondly, there are various natural calamites and

immense human suffering, such as fires, earthquakes,

droughts and famines. Thirdly, there are the evils with

which so many are born, such as blindness, deafness,

mental deficiency and insanity. Most of these evils

contribute toward increasing human pain and

suffering. There are moral evils. Moral evil is simply

immorality evil such as envy, greed, injustice, sin and

the larger scale evils such as wars and atrocities they

involve.

Presently, if God couldn't avert underhanded on

the planet, no doubt He isn't almighty, and in the

event that He won't forestall fiendish, doubtlessly He

isn't all-great. Think about these two choices: (1) God

isn't incredible; (2) God isn't all-great. I require some

extra premises interfacing the terms 'great', 'abhorrent'

and 'transcendent'. These extra standards are that

great is against malice, in, for example, way that

something worth being thankful for dependably

disposes of detestable to the extent it can, and there

are not constrained to what a transcendent thing can

do. From these it pursues that a decent all-powerful

thing wipes out wickedness totally and after that the

recommendations that a decent supreme thing exists,

and that malevolent exists, are exceptional.

2.2 Some Solutions of Evil Problems

In the event that we were getting ready to state

that God isn't totally great, or not exactly all-

powerful, or that abhorrent does not exist, or that

great isn't against the sort of malice that exist, or that

there are cutoff points to what a supreme thing can

do, at that point the issue of insidiousness won't

emerge for us.

There are, at that point, a significant number of

palatable arrangements of the issue of shrewd and a

portion of these have been embraced., or nearly

received, by different scholars.

The Greek philosophers tended to say that, “God

is not powerful”. To them, “matter” is the principle of

limitation and disorder, hence indirectly the source of

all evil. God did not create matter. It coexists with

God from all eternity. God is not an absolute lord

over something outside Himself, which He calls

“necessity. On the other hand, manicheisme taught a

theistic dualism in which two Gods; one of light or

Good, the other of Darkness or Evil eternally

coexisted. The order and harmony of the world was

attributes to the God of Light, the disorder to the God

of Darkness.

St. Augustine suggests that evil is not something

positive, but rather a privation or lack of an order

which “ought to be there”. Thus blindness is an

obscene or derangement of the physiological order

which would normally permit sight. In the moral

realm, sin is the lack of spiritual order proper to the

soul. Now if evil is a privation or lack rather than a

position created thing, then God can not be said to

have created it.

According to Leibniz, God has created the world

according to the best possible plan. But the best plan,

said Leibniz, is not always that which seeks to avoid

evil, since it may happen that the evil is accompanied

by a greater good. Since experience tells us that evil

frequently brings about good (an illness, for example,

may give a man time to reflect on a misspent carrier

and thus lead him to a nobler life), it may be

concluded that all evil serves some higher good of

which we may not have knowledge. Leibniz

reasoning on this problem is the same as the

Mu’tazilah doctrine. The Mu’tazilite said that God –

ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation

1942

as a wholly essence – can not do bad action; all his

actions have to be good; moreover, have to be the best

of all possible action for human benefience.

Ibn Rusyd, a greatest Moslem philosophy in the

West, said that God created good and evil. Ibn Rusyd

does not deny that evil is present in the world, but that

God’s creation of evil is not in essence. It is for a

good purpose. According to Ibn Arabi, evil

accidentally, not essentially, but its existence is

necessary to realization of the various world, meaning

that the best of visible world can not be seated without

evil. That if there were no evil there could not be good

either; pleasure is possible only by way of contrast

with pain.

It is recommended by J.L. Mackie that insidious

is important as a way to great. In its straightforward

frame this has little believability as an answer of the

issue of malice. Since it clearly suggests an extreme

limitation of God's capacity. It would be a causal law

that we can't have a certain and without a specific

means. So that if God needs to acquaint malevolent

as a method with great, He should be liable to

probably some causal laws. This absolutely clashes

with what a theist ordinarily implies by power. This

perspective of God as restricted by causal laws

additionally clashes with the view that causal laws

themselves are made by God, which is more generally

held than the relating view about the laws of rationale.

This contention would, in reality, be settled in the

event that it was feasible for a supreme being to tie

himself.

It is sometime suggested that evil is an illusion.

Certain forms of Hinduism hold the view that evil,

along with the whole of visible world, is an illusion,

or ’maya’. Not only the experience of evil but also all

sense experiences are thus illusory. So the Hindu

doctrine of maya is a denial of the reality of evil.

Maybe the most vital proposed arrangement of the

issue of wickedness is that shrewd isn't to be credited

to God by any means, however to the autonomous

activity of people, expected to have been supplied by

God with opportunity of the will. The contention to

sum things up runs: men have unrestrained choice;

moral insidiousness is a result of choice; a universe in

which men practice choice even with omissions into

good malice is superior to anything a universe in

which men progress toward becoming 'programmed'

doing great ways on the grounds that fated to do as

such. Consequently, on this contention it is the

negligible truth of the incomparable estimation of

through and through freedom itself that is taken to

give a defense to its result moral abhorrence.

2.3 Good and Evil in the Holy Qur’an

In Islam, Muslims belive that Allah (God) has

some sense attributes such as infinity (that Allah is

without limitation) omnipotence, absolutely good act.

The most beautiful names belong to Allah. Allah says

in surah Al-Araf, 7:180

“The most beautiful names belong to Allah: so

call on him by them”.

Allah also said:

“Allah is He, than Whom there is no other

god;- the Sovereign, the Holy One, the Source of

Peace (and Perfection), the Guardian of Faith, the

Preserver of Safety, the Exalted in Might, the

Irresistible, the justly Proud. Glory to Allah! (High is

He) above the partners they attribute to Him”. (Al-

Hashar, 59:23)

“He is Allah, the Creator, the Originator, the

Fashioner. To Him belong the Most Beautiful Names:

whatever is in the heavens and on earth, doth

declare His Praises and Glory: and He is the Exalted

in Might, the Wise”. (Al-Hashar, 59:24)

According to Islamic theologians, Allah is

absolutely Good and has the most beautiful names.

The Mu’tazilite said that Allah-as a wholly essence-

can not do bad action; all His actions have to be good.

Averroes, a greatest Muslim philosopher in the West,

said that Allah created good and evil. He does not

deny that evil is present in the world. But that Allah’s

creation of evil is not in essence. It is for a good

purpose. According to Ibn Arabi, the same as

Averroes reasoning, that evil exists accidentally, not

in essentially, but its existence is necessary to

realization of various world; meaning that the best of

Good and Evil in Religious Philosophy and in the Holy Qur’an

1943

visible world can not be seated without evil exists.

Allah says in surah An-Nisa, 4:79:

“Whatever good, (o man!) happens to thee, is from

Allah. But whatever evil happens to thee, is from thy

(own) soul”.

“Say (to them): “It is from yourselves” (Ali-

Imran, 3:165).

“From the mischief of created things” (Al-Falaq,

113:2)

3 DISCUSSION

1. Amalush-Shaleh (Righteous Works)

Shaleh (English: righteous or good). In the

Holy Qur’an the word “Shaleh” is very often

combined to “iman” (faith), and it is mentioned a

total of 62 times. Allah says in surah Al- Baqarah,

2:82

“But those who have faith and work

righteousness, they are companions of the Garden:

Therein shall they abide (Forever)”

Verily Man is in loss,

“Except such as have Faith, and do righteous

deeds, and (join together) in the mutual teaching

of Truth, and of Patience and Constancy”.

(al-‘Ashr, 103:2-3)

Allah also said:

“Those who belive and work righteousness,

for them is forgiveness and a sustenance most

generous”. (Al-Hajj, 22:50)

It means that the ‘sustenance’ must be

construed in the widest sense. Spiritual as well as

intellectual and physical. The reward of

righteousness is far more generous than any merit

there may be in the creature following the will of his

creator. Allah also says in surah Al-Baqarah, 2:177

“It is not righteousness that you turn your faces

towards East or West; but it is righteousness to

believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the Angels, and

the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your

substance, out of love for him, for your kin, for

orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those

who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast

in prayer, and give Zakat (regular charity); to fulfill

the contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and

patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and

throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people

of truth, the God fearing”.

2. Sayyi’ah, su’ (do evil)

Allah says in surah Al-Mu’min Al-Ghafir, 40:40

ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation

1944

“He that works evil will not be requited but by the

like thereof: and he that works a righteous deed -

whether man or woman - and is a Believer - such will

enter the Garden (of Bliss): therein will they have

abundance without measure”.

“Nor can Goodness and Evil be equal. Repel

(Evil) with what is better: then will he between whom

and thee was hatred become as it were thy friend and

intimate!”. (Al Fushilat, 41:34).

“Nay, those who seek gain in evil, and are girt

round by their sins,- they are companions of the

Fire: Therein shall they abide (forever)”. (Al-

Baqarah, 2:81)

“He that doeth good shall have ten times as much

to his credit: He that doeth evil shall only be

recompensed according to his evil: no wrong shall be

done unto them”. (al An’am, 6:160)

“If any one does evil or wrongs his own soul

but afterwards seeks Allah’s forgiveness, he will

find Allah Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful”. ( An-Nisa,

4:111)

“The recompense for an injury is an injury

equal thereto (in degree): but if a person forgives

and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from

Allah: for (Allah) loveth not those who do wrong”.

(As Syura, 42:40)

“But indeed if any do help and defend himself

after a wrong (done) to him, against such there is no

cause af blame”.

“The blame is only against those who oppress

men with wrong-doing and insolently transgress

beyond bounds through the land, defying right and

justice: for such there will be a chastisement

grievous”. (As Syura, 42:41,42)

4 Makruf (Good) dan Munkar (Evil)

Allah says in surah Ali Imran, 3:104

“Let there arise out of you a band of people

inviting to all that is good, enjoining what is right,

and forbidding what is wrong: They are the ones to

attain felicity”.

“You are the best of peoples, evolved for

mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is

wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the people of

the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them

are some who have faith, but most of them are

perverted transgressors”. (Ali Imran, 3:110)

“Then (Moses) threw his rod, and behold! it was

a serpent, plain (for all to see)!”. (Al A’raf,7:107)

4. Khaer (Good) and Sharr (Evil)

Good and Evil in Religious Philosophy and in the Holy Qur’an

1945

“Let there arise out of you a band of people

inviting to all that is good, enjoining what is right,

and forbidding what is wrong: They are the ones to

attain felicity”. (Ali Imran, 3:104)

“He said: “Yea, (and more),- for ye shall in

that case be (raised to posts) nearest (to my

person)”. (Ali Imran, 3:114)

“Then shall anyone who has done an atom’s

weight of good, see it!.”

And anyone who has done an atom’s weight of

evil, shall see it. (Al Zalzalah, 99:7-8)

5. Hasan (Good) and Su’ (Evil)

“If you did well, ye did well for yourselves; if ye

did evil, (ye did it) against yourselves. So when the

second of the warnings came to pass, (We permitted

your enemies) to disfigure your faces, and to enter

your Temple as they had entered it before, and to visit

with destruction all that fell into their power”. (Al

Isra, 17:7)

“But seek, with the (wealth) which Allah has

bestowed on thee, the Home of the Hereafter, nor

forget thy portion in this world: but do thou good, as

Allah has been good to thee, and seek not (occasions

for) mischief in the land: for Allah loves not those

who do mischief”. (Al Qashash, 28:77)

“Say: “O you My servants who believe! Fear

your Lord, good is (the reward) for those who do

good in this world. Spacious is Allah’s earth! Those

who patiently persevere will truly receive a reward

without measure!”. (Az Zumar, 39:10).

4 CONCLUSIONS

The different verses of the Qur’an are

explanations of evil, that evil is not to be ascribed to

Allah at all, but to the independent action of human

begings, or comes from created things. Good and evil

are mentioned very often and various words in the

Holy Qur’an. All of them refer to moral standards in

Islam.

REFERENCES

Harun Nasution, Falsafa Agama (Jakarta: Bulan Bintang,

1983).

Horold H. Titus, Living Issued in Philosophy, Third ed

(New York, 1959), p. 10

Mircea Eliade (ed), The Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. V,

(London)

H.M. Rasyidi, Filsafat Agama. (Jakarta: Bulan Bintang,

1983)

G. Mac Gregor, Introduction to Religious Philosophy, Mac

Millan & Co. Ltd., New York, 1964.

Alvin Platinga, The Philosophy of Religions, Ed, by Basil

Mitchhell, Oxfort Universitry Press, 1982.

Baruch A. Brody, Reading in the Philosophy of Religions,

New Jersey, 1974, p.170-171

J.G. Brennon, The Meaning of Philosophy (New York,

1966)

Harun Nasutrion, Teologi Islam, (Jakarta: UI Press, 1983).

Mahmoud Kassim, Dirasat fi al-Falsafah al-Islamiyah

(Cairo: Dar al-Maarif, 1973), P.173.

Basil Mitchel, The Philosophy of Religion, p. 97.

David Stewart, Exploring the Philosophy of Religion

(Englewood eliffs, 1980), p. 247.

Baruch A. Brody, Reading in the Philosophy of Religions,

p. 181.

Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an: Text, Translation

and Commantary, (USA: Virginia, Herndon, 1409 H).

ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation

1946