PDA

View Full Version : Kuwait ruler rejects death penalty for religious offences



Abz2000
06-14-2012, 07:06 PM
KUWAIT CITY: Kuwait’s Ameer, Sheikh Sabah al Ahmad al Sabah, has refused to sign a bill passed by parliament stipulating the death penalty for major religious offences, sources in the assembly said Wednesday.
The oil-rich Gulf state’s government has sent the bill back to parliament on Wednesday, sources said, indicating that it had been rejected by the Ameer.
The Ameer has the power to refuse bills passed by the elected parliament, but the assembly can override the rejection by passing the bill again with a two-thirds majority of the house membership of 49 MPs and 16 cabinet ministers.
The bill, passed by parliament last month, stipulates that Muslims who curse God, the Muslim holy book Quran, all prophets (PBUT) and the wives of Prophet Mohammed (RA) will be punished by death or life in jail.

Yet they all seem to unanimously support illegal drone massacres based on nothing but suspicion for blasphemy against the satanic practices of leaders who illegally and immorally invade Muslim lands.

source:
http://tribune.com.pk/story/389732/k...ious-offences/
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Pygoscelis
06-15-2012, 03:17 PM
Originally Posted by Abz2000
The bill, passed by parliament last month, stipulates that Muslims who curse God, the Muslim holy book Quran, all prophets (PBUT) and the wives of Prophet Mohammed (RA) will be punished by death or life in jail.
Good for him for stopping such a thing! Shows that not all Muslims are bloodthirsty.

Yet they all seem to unanimously support illegal drone massacres based on nothing but suspicion for blasphemy against the satanic practices of leaders who illegally and immorally invade Muslim lands.
That is quite the rhetoric. I'm not even sure what "blasphemy agaisnt satanic practices" is supposed to mean, but I do agree that drone attacks against innocent civilians has happened and is inexcusable.

Am I allowed to oppose both of these slaughters? Or is that too anti-tribal for you? :nervous:
Reply

~ Sabr ~
06-15-2012, 03:18 PM
In Islaam, what offence can have the outcome of a death penalty?
Reply

جوري
06-15-2012, 03:37 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Or is that too anti-tribal for you?
You're supremely tribal- and it is amusing that your so blind to self.. but your tribe's methodology & tenets are those of intellectual intimidation, brain washing, pseudo-intellect & escape from responsibility & reality with much ado about meaningless drivel such as we see above & else where; Whereby you can't distinguish active killing from 'wishes'. You dwell more on words than actions which carry actual determent and ultimately capitalize on religious confusion that exists with what you desire to see in your telescopic view to defer from searching for truth and in hopes of wider acceptance a banner under which all goes- where weed and harvest go hand in hand. Your moral compass is questionable at best and anyone that doesn't subscribe to your ideology or the world as you see & understand it is of some other tribe.. Well what do you name your tribe? Cognitive conservatism?



best,
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Hulk
06-15-2012, 04:08 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Good for him for stopping such a thing! Shows that not all Muslims are bloodthirsty.
What kind of idiotic statement is this? So muslims are generally bloodthirsty and only a handful are not? How about all atheists are arrogant and pseudo-logical? You talk a lot about tribalism but you yourself are stuck in that concept. Just because people have a different culture than you doesn't make them inferior.

No one is forcing you to agree or disagree with the report but comments like that are plain idiotic.
Reply

aamirsaab
06-15-2012, 04:17 PM
...source.
Reply

جوري
06-15-2012, 04:31 PM
http://tribune.com.pk/story/389732/k...ious-offences/
Reply

~ Sabr ~
06-15-2012, 04:39 PM
Originally Posted by Haafizah
In Islaam, what offence can have the outcome of a death penalty?
????????
Reply

Muhammad
06-15-2012, 04:42 PM
Greetings Pygoscelis,

Capital punishment can in no way be likened to blind attacks against innocent civilians, and if anyone is being bloodthirsty here it is clearly in the latter case. Let us not forget that 'the rhetoric' goes both ways.
Reply

Muhammad
06-15-2012, 05:11 PM
^^ An example of such an offence would be adultery, but the death penalty would only be applied if certain conditions are met. There's a post about it here:

http://www.islamicboard.com/worship-...tml#post591159
Reply

Perseveranze
06-15-2012, 05:22 PM
Asalaamu Alaikum,


On the authority of Abdullah Bin Masood (may Allah be pleased with him), he said: "There will be rulers over you, who will leave the sunnah like this," and he pointed to the origin of his finger. "If you were to leave these rulers alone, they will bring great affliction and disaster. There has been no previous ummah except that the first thing they left from their religion was the sunnah, and the last to be left was the salat , and were not these rulers shy and afraid from people, they would not pray". (Narrated by Al-Hakim and he said this is saheeh hadith on the condition of Bukhari and Muslim).

Al-Harth narrated on the authority of Ibn Masood that the messenger (saw) said: "For every matter, there is a thing that spoils it, and what spoils this deen is the evil rulers". (Saheeh according to Imam Suyooti)

On the authority of Abu Musa(ra), the messenger of Allah (saw) said: "In the hellfire there is a valley, and in this valley there is a well called "Habahab", it is duty upon Allah to reside in this well every stubborn oppressor (ruler)". (Narated by Tabarani and its Isnad is Hasan)

Reply

Pygoscelis
06-15-2012, 06:13 PM
Originally Posted by Muhammad
Greetings Pygoscelis,

Capital punishment can in no way be likened to blind attacks against innocent civilians, and if anyone is being bloodthirsty here it is clearly in the latter case. Let us not forget that 'the rhetoric' goes both ways.
And let us not forget that I just said I oppose both. Why is that so hard to accept? By either "side"? I get the same sort of reaction but in reverse on the conservative pro-USA / anti-muslim boards.

And yes, the two can very much be likened to one another. Killing people because they are put on some suspect list and hunted down with drones (and often innocent civilians) or killing people merely because they leave or speak against your religion are both equally reprehensible to me. Both are bloodthirsty acts, and I am very glad that the latter is not something that all muslims support, just as I am glad that the former is not something that all western people support. Good for Kuwait!

Originally Posted by منوة الخيال
Whereby you can't distinguish active killing from 'wishes'.
I can distinguish active killing from wishing people dead, and I can see that both are wrong.
Reply

Pygoscelis
06-15-2012, 06:41 PM
Originally Posted by Hulk
So muslims are generally bloodthirsty and only a handful are not?
I didn't say that. Those are you words, not mine.

But apparently enough muslims in Kuwait were bloodthirsty enough to call for the death of anybody who spoke some words they don't like about their religion. This man in the article wasn't bloodthirsty and shut it down. Good for him. Most muslims I know in my personal life would agree wholeheartedly with him and look on with dismay at those who pushed this forward so he had to stop it.

Just because people have a different culture than you doesn't make them inferior.
Again, I didn't say that.

But if these particular people call for the deaths of others like this then they are bloodthirsty, and shutting down their agenda is admirable. The man deserves kudos.
Reply

Perseveranze
06-15-2012, 06:46 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
I didn't say that. Those are you words, not mine.

But apparently enough muslims in Kuwait were bloodthirsty enough to call for the death of anybody who spoke some words they don't like about their religion.
There's a pretty fine line between insulting a religion and simply saying you dislike it or aspects of it.

Burn the Qur'an day, draw prophets day etc. is different to saying you don't believe Islam is the truth.
Reply

جوري
06-15-2012, 06:57 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis


I can distinguish active killing from wishing people dead, and I can see that both are wrong.
Indeed, which is exactly why I stated you've a questionable moral compass at best!
Every society has its criminals. When your body is infested with cancer cells do you ask for therapy that will put them to an arrest stage with hopes of remission. Do you opt to cauterise to excise or do you prefer a meaningless tirade shark tooth from an infomercial some folk medicine from a quack who struck up a tent.
You owe yourself the dignity of not being a hypocrite as you know the rest of us see through the transeperancy of that charade!
Reply

Pygoscelis
06-16-2012, 06:20 AM
Originally Posted by Perseveranze
There's a pretty fine line between insulting a religion and simply saying you dislike it or aspects of it.
Calling for somebody's death for doing either is bloodthirsty, just as some yahoo american calling for the deaths of foreigners, immigrants, or those who insult the USA or Israel is bloodthirsty, and I'll fully endorse anybody who seeks to end that kind of barbarism, regardless of their religion or culture.
Reply

Muhammad
06-18-2012, 06:31 PM
Greetings,
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
And let us not forget that I just said I oppose both. Why is that so hard to accept? By either "side"? I get the same sort of reaction but in reverse on the conservative pro-USA / anti-muslim boards. And yes, the two can very much be likened to one another. Killing people because they are put on some suspect list and hunted down with drones (and often innocent civilians) or killing people merely because they leave or speak against your religion are both equally reprehensible to me. Both are bloodthirsty acts, and I am very glad that the latter is not something that all muslims support, just as I am glad that the former is not something that all western people support. Good for Kuwait!
Punishing someone for a crime and killing an innocent civilian are two very different things. Firstly, it should be noted very clearly that Islam does not condone carrying out capital punishment based upon suspicion. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, 'Avert punishments in the case of suspicion as much as you can.' For example, Islam prescribes that both adulterer and adulteress should be stoned but it does not inflict such punishment unless they are married persons and upon conclusive evidence by four eye witnesses. If the four witnesses are missing then the only way to apply the punishment is that they willingly admit it. And even if they admit, they should be asked several times to make sure that they are aware of what they are saying. And if only one of them confessed to have committed adultery, then it is only that one who is punished by stoning. Hence it is little surprise that due to the difficulty in proving this crime because of its strict conditions, the punishment of stoning is hardly applied.

As for apostasy, even in countries where the death penalty is opposed, serious acts against their constitutions may be punishable by death or life imprisonment. Apostasy from Islam (the religion of Allah) and rebellion against its system, which the person first chose freely and accepted without compulsion, is much worse than rebelling against man-made systems and institutions. The apostate is given a last opportunity to repent and return back to Islam before being executed. If he perseveres and refuses to return to what he has committed himself to, i.e. Islam, he is then executed.

Islam imposes preventive punishments which may appear cruel or coarse if viewed superficially or without proper consideration. But Islam does not execute such punishments unless it ascertains that the crime was not justifiable or that the criminal was not acting under any obligation.

It is because people have not studied the reality of the Islamic concept of crime and punishment that they consider the punishments prescribed by Islam as barbarous and degrading to human dignity. They wrongly imagine that such punishments - like the European Civil punishments - will be inflicted every day. They also fancy that the Islamic society indulges in daily executions of flogging, hand-cutting and stoning. But this is nonsense conjured by misleading headlines and twisted or fabricated stories. Whilst those killing innocent civilians may find joy in witnessing persecution, it should be remembered that Islam aims at the prevention of crimes and is a system of justice and mercy.

I hope it is evident now that merciless drones functioning without purpose and capital punishment cannot be equated as the same. And that the word bloodthirsty was most certainly misplaced when you applied it to Muslims in this context:

Bloodthirsty:

1. eager to shed blood; murderous: to capture a bloodthirsty criminal.
2. enjoying or encouraging bloodshed or violence, especially as a spectator or clamorous partisan: the bloodthirsty urgings of the fight fans.
Reply

Roasted Cashew
06-19-2012, 04:15 AM
"...that Muslims who curse God, the Muslim holy book Quran, all prophets (PBUT) and the wives of Prophet Mohammed (RA) will be punished by death or life in jail."

"Non-Muslims who commit the same offence face a jail term of not less than 10 years, according to the bill."

"Defendants who repent in court will be spared the death penalty, but will get a jail sentence for five years and a fine of $36,000 or one of them, while repentance by those who repeat the crime is not acceptable, the bill says."
Reply

Pygoscelis
06-19-2012, 10:28 PM
No, it has nothing to do with due process etc. I understand that these punishments are not used frequently and that you have to be sure the person did it, and while good to know, that is not what I balk at. It is that you are endorsing killing people because they disagree with or speak against or leave your worldview. Reminds me of North Korea, East Germany, or the mob. I find it easily as reprehensible as drone attacks killing innocent "collateral damage" or mistaken targets etc. That is homocide by gross negligence. This is intentional homocide. I am very happy to see that the guy in this story, like pretty much all of the muslims I know in my real life (maybe Canadian muslims are super liberal?) don't support such things.
Reply

Kyle
06-19-2012, 11:23 PM
Originally Posted by Haafizah
????????
Killing another Muslim for no purpose, adultery, and leaving the religion. Cursing our Holy Book is indeed a form of kufr (disbelief) and the penalty could indeed be death. However, understand that there are implications. For example, with adultery, there must be 4 witnesses who were not invading privacy, etc etc. I'm no Islamic judge, so can't say too much besides Allahu Alim!
Reply

Abz2000
06-19-2012, 11:50 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
I understand that these punishments are not used frequently and that you have to be sure the person did it, and while good to know, that is not what I balk at. It is that you are endorsing killing people because they disagree with or speak against or leave your worldview.
In the United States, before the Civil War, deserters from the Army were flogged; while, after 1861, tattoos or branding were also adopted. The maximum U.S. penalty for desertion in wartime remains death, although this punishment was last applied to Eddie Slovik in 1945.

ummmm, that's for leaving the "worldview" that it's ok to illegally and immorally invade countries and murder innocent people who have committed no crime - for material gains and empire, under the direction of total despotic liars.
Reply

Pygoscelis
06-20-2012, 12:05 AM
Originally Posted by Abz2000
In the United States, before the Civil War, deserters from the Army were flogged; while, after 1861, tattoos or branding were also adopted. The maximum U.S. penalty for desertion in wartime remains death, although this punishment was last applied to Eddie Slovik in 1945.

ummmm, that's for leaving the "worldview" that it's ok to illegally and immorally invade countries and murder innocent people who have committed no crime - for material gains and empire, under the direction of total despotic liars.
So you agree with me then?

"They did it too" doesn't make it any less wrong, for anyone. In the latter case we're at least talking about military deserters though (which can put lives at risk), not people leaving a religion.
Reply

Muhammad
06-20-2012, 01:20 PM
Greetings,

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
No, it has nothing to do with due process etc. I understand that these punishments are not used frequently and that you have to be sure the person did it, and while good to know, that is not what I balk at. It is that you are endorsing killing people because they disagree with or speak against or leave your worldview. Reminds me of North Korea, East Germany, or the mob. I find it easily as reprehensible as drone attacks killing innocent "collateral damage" or mistaken targets etc. That is homocide by gross negligence. This is intentional homocide.
I mentioned some of that to illustrate how the perception of Muslims being bloodthirsty based upon capital punishment was totally false. At the end of the post I quoted the definition of bloodthirsty: enjoying or encouraging bloodshed or violence, especially as a spectator or clamorous partisan. That is why it was important to highlight that executions of flogging, hand-cutting and stoning are not thrown about haphazardly and inflicted everyday. Islam is a religion that respects life, to the extent that even killing an animal for slaughter is to be done with compassion and mercy by sharpening the blade and not doing so in front of the animal. It is clear, then, that kindness and excellence is even more befitting towards others. These drones that are controlled by computers and killing men, women and children without any concept of justice or due procedure - are you seriously telling me that this is the same as capital punishment in Islam? How do they demonstrate any value or respect towards human life?!


"They did it too" doesn't make it any less wrong, for anyone. In the latter case we're at least talking about military deserters though (which can put lives at risk), not people leaving a religion.
The issue boils down to the question of who is to decide which killing is appropriate and which is not. On the one hand you seem to be grouping all forms of killing together indiscriminately, such that one could argue that defending one's family, property or country is an equal act of abominable homicide, simply because the act of killing is involved. Yet on the other hand you seem to suggest it is acceptable to kill in certain circumstances like military desertion, with the justification that 'it can put lives at risk', therefore now we must ask why killing is more acceptable in some cases than others. Why can killing be used in the cause of man-made ideologies such as 'democracy' or 'freedom' whereas for religion it cannot? Who decides?

The heart of the issue is thus:

... issues of this nature are often the result of different worldviews and perceptions. Many in the West have the understanding that “faith” means to believe in something that one cannot prove. This is not the approach of Islam.[3] In general, Muslims hold that there are very strong, rational reasons for them to believe in their religion. It is not simply a matter of “blind faith.” ... Thus, before a Muslim is asked to override something found in his religion, there had better be very strong evidence that something is mistaken or unacceptable in the religion of Islam. Furthermore, from a Muslim’s perspective, the burden of proof in such a case would be upon the one who claims that there is something superior or more suitable than what is found in Islamic law. (It must be stressed that this seems to be an issue that many in the West simply cannot comprehend because they think that faith is just a matter of blind faith and they do not realize that Muslims have rational reasons for believing in Islam and Islamic Law.)...

The belief in the Islamic law of apostasy stems from the Islamic belief in God, the Creator. It stems from the belief that God has the right to lay down laws for His creatures and that, in fact, He is the best in laying down such laws. This should be considered logical by anyone who believes in God. Even though it can be considered logical, this argument is repugnant to many of the West, even those who believe in God. However, this fact has more to do with the West’s unique history than with the logic of the argument being made. The West experienced a period in which many were killed in the name of God and they also experienced a period in which they realized that their scriptures are not truly from God, due to their manifest contradiction with science. Both of these facts led the West to move away from “God’s law” to man-made laws. One, though, cannot derive “universal principles” from the experience of this small portion of human beings. In fact, those phenomena have no relevance whatsoever to Islam.

Thus, there is no logical reason for a Muslim not to trust in Islam’s scripture, the Quran, as being a true revelation from God.

Hence, there is no reason for a Muslim to abandon God’s law.

Similarly, there is no reason for a Muslim to stop believing in the fact that the best lawgiver is God Himself.

Therefore, there is no logical reason for a Muslim to stop believing in the Islamic law of apostasy as explained by the Prophet of God, Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).

http://www.zeriislam.com/artikulli.php?id=921
Regards.
Reply

Pygoscelis
06-20-2012, 06:59 PM
Originally Posted by Muhammad
The issue boils down to the question of who is to decide which killing is appropriate and which is not.
We all decide that for ourselves. Some will farm it out to others who claim to speak with authority (such as those who claim to speak for Gods, etc, or those who exert peer pressure).

In general, Muslims hold that there are very strong, rational reasons for them to believe in their religion.
I have diffiuclty believing that is all there is to it. The fact that religion runs in families and communities speaks volumes to me. Family and societal programming is definitely a major factor at work here. You even hear people say "he's a muslim child" or "she's a christian child" which makes no sense whatsoever if the kids are too young to have seriously considered such things. If those kids then grow up and decide they don't buy into the religion, even though they assumed it was true and said they were believers for years, having been offered little alternative as they grew up, are they not apostates? Would you have them killed?

The belief in the Islamic law of apostasy stems from the Islamic belief in God, the Creator. It stems from the belief that God has the right to lay down laws for His creatures and that, in fact, He is the best in laying down such laws. This should be considered logical by anyone who believes in God. Even though it can be considered logical, this argument is repugnant to many of the West, even those who believe in God.
This is what scares me most about organized religion. It too often tries to make obedience into morality. If God asked me to kill my child or slaughter my neighbours I wouldn't do it just on his direction. I would need some really good moral justification for it, if there is one (I can't think of one as I type ths). I fear that some religious folks WOULD do it on God's (purported) word alone, and just take it on authority that it is good to do because he says so. This opens the door for any attroticity one can imagine to be done with pride.

I have even had some (Christians) ask me how can an atheist be good and have morals without God. They claim you can't be good without God, because there is no moral law giver. Without God, all is permissible they will say. That shows that they have completely burried their senses of fairness, empathy, etc, and replaced it with blind obedience to an authority figure. Terrifying.

They also tell me that without God there is no "objective morality". I never understood why they think they can have such "objective morality" by introducing God, if such morality is just God's subjective statement of what is good or bad. I have yet to see a good answer to the Euthyphro Dilemma (which goes way back to Plato).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

"Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"
Reply

Muhammad
06-21-2012, 07:17 PM
Greetings Pygoscelis,

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
We all decide that for ourselves. Some will farm it out to others who claim to speak with authority (such as those who claim to speak for Gods, etc, or those who exert peer pressure).
If everyone decides for themselves, then there will be differing ideas about when killing is appropriate and when it isn't. How would people justify which idea is right and which is wrong?

I have diffiuclty believing that is all there is to it. The fact that religion runs in families and communities speaks volumes to me. Family and societal programming is definitely a major factor at work here. You even hear people say "he's a muslim child" or "she's a christian child" which makes no sense whatsoever if the kids are too young to have seriously considered such things. If those kids then grow up and decide they don't buy into the religion, even though they assumed it was true and said they were believers for years, having been offered little alternative as they grew up, are they not apostates? Would you have them killed?
Family and societal 'programming' can only go so far: in today's society it is very common for young people to become atheist or agnostic or go through all kinds of beliefs, despite Christian or other origins. What do you make of all the conversions to Islam from people whose families and communities are totally opposed to Islam? The point remains that Islam does not require us to have blind faith and hence, for example, Muslims believe that the excellence of the Qur'an, its unquestionable historical authenticity, and the numerous miracles related to it all point to this book being a true revelation from God.

This is what scares me most about organized religion. It too often tries to make obedience into morality. If God asked me to kill my child or slaughter my neighbours I wouldn't do it just on his direction. I would need some really good moral justification for it, if there is one (I can't think of one as I type ths). I fear that some religious folks WOULD do it on God's (purported) word alone, and just take it on authority that it is good to do because he says so. This opens the door for any attroticity one can imagine to be done with pride.
Morality and obedience to God are not mutually exclusive. Rather, it follows that if God exists, He would be the source of all good and morality. God, by definition, is perfect in every way. He is our Creator who knows everything about us, including all that will benefit us and all that will harm us. His knowledge, wisdom and justice, are beyond our ability to comprehend, except for what He wills. He is free from all defects, mistakes, weaknesses and faults. His godhood is free from partiality and injustice. It is therefore inconceivable that He would command us to do something that is devoid of wisdom and benefit.

It is only through following His laws that justice and harmony can be achieved. We may not always comprehend His commands, but we see that in the end, they are for our benefit. We see from the implementation of God's commands how the early Muslims established a state of justice and wellbeing. We see how God granted them success and victory, causing them to gain much land and wealth. And it was falling away from the teachings of God that led to their weakness and humiliation. Even today we can appreciate God's law when it is put into practice - places where the death penalty is applied have significantly reduced crime [see this post]. Just by contemplating the law He has ordained for mankind, we appreciate the timeless justice, wisdom and mercy therein for all humanity.

This is, of course, assuming that one believes in God. So we would need to go back a step and establish the existence of God. One this is firmly established, it follows that the next step is submission to His commands.

If we consider the alternative, following man-made laws, these are very clearly flawed and limited in their perception of justice. Man does not possess perfect qualities of knowledge, wisdom or justice. Laws are continually changing with the changing attitudes of people. The concern over moral justification should thus be applied to man-made laws whose justice and fairness are more deserving of doubt and scrutiny. Very great atrocities have and still are being committed in the name of western ideals, with the blind support of many people. They take it on the authority of their governments that it is good to so because they say so.

It is as the article says, that there is no moral or logical reason to discard what God says due to what people say. Just as there are very strong, rational reasons for Muslims to believe in their religion, they need equally strong evidence to show that something is unacceptable in Islam:

Thus, there is no logical reason for a Muslim not to trust in Islam’s scripture, the Quran, as being a true revelation from God.

Hence, there is no reason for a Muslim to abandon God’s law.

Similarly, there is no reason for a Muslim to stop believing in the fact that the best lawgiver is God Himself.

Therefore, there is no logical reason for a Muslim to stop believing in the Islamic law of apostasy...
I have even had some (Christians) ask me how can an atheist be good and have morals without God. They claim you can't be good without God, because there is no moral law giver. Without God, all is permissible they will say. That shows that they have completely burried their senses of fairness, empathy, etc, and replaced it with blind obedience to an authority figure. Terrifying.
God has placed in every human being a sense of morality and conscience. Therefore, those who reject belief in God can still share certain moral viewpoints. However, this does not prevent believers in God from being fair and empathic towards non-believers.

Regards.
Reply

User2024
06-24-2012, 03:24 PM
How about these stupid Muslim countries (sorry for sounding harsh) stop their religion bashing and get USA Military out of their country because they (USA) 100% are against Islam! They attack Muslims, drone attacks, and in Islam we cannot use such force yet they moan over the ruling of the country. USA will make a base in every country soon and then start to attack..
Reply

Pygoscelis
06-25-2012, 05:59 AM
Originally Posted by Muhammad
If everyone decides for themselves, then there will be differing ideas about when killing is appropriate and when it isn't. How would people justify which idea is right and which is wrong?
By empathy and consensus and mutual interest of course, the same way we already do it. We also do it by those in power (political, military or religious) declaring it by fiat. I think that is the dangerous bit and where authoritarianism comes into play.

Family and societal 'programming' can only go so far
You avoided my question. Would you or would you not have them killed? I hope not, which would make you one of the muslims I could support, along with the man in this news article and all the muslims I know in my personal life.

The point remains that Islam does not require us to have blind faith and hence, for example, Muslims believe that the excellence of the Qur'an, its unquestionable historical authenticity, and the numerous miracles related to it all point to this book being a true revelation from God.
You have to be a believer to see this unquestionable historical authenticity, numerous miracles, etc. From an outsider point of view, the Qur'an does no better than competing religious texts, or Nostradamus type stuff.

Morality and obedience to God are not mutually exclusive.
I agree. But they are not synonymous, which too often they seem to be presented as in organized religion. And Blind unquestioning obedience IS mutually exclusive from morality in my view, so hopefully obedience isn't unconditional. Unconditional obedience turns off one's moral sense and makes them into a tool for the bidding of whoever they are obeying or whoever is making them think they are obeying a higher power.

Rather, it follows that if God exists, He would be the source of all good and morality. God, by definition, is perfect in every way. He is our Creator who knows everything about us, including all that will benefit us and all that will harm us. His knowledge, wisdom and justice, are beyond our ability to comprehend, except for what He wills. He is free from all defects, mistakes, weaknesses and faults. His godhood is free from partiality and injustice. It is therefore inconceivable that He would command us to do something that is devoid of wisdom and benefit.
I see no reason to believe that if there is a God, he/she/it would hold humans as important or be beholden to our well being. Gods could just as easily see us as tools for their own amusement or to use towards ends entirely harmful to humanity. Just because something is all powerful, and all knowing, and perfect, doesn't mean it will be benevolent towards us.

It is only through following His laws that justice and harmony can be achieved. We may not always comprehend His commands, but we see that in the end, they are for our benefit. We see from the implementation of God's commands how the early Muslims established a state of justice and wellbeing. We see how God granted them success and victory, causing them to gain much land and wealth.
Over other people? Reminds me of the hebrew stories in the bible where one tribe is favoured by the God and commanded to do genocide and slaughter other tribes. Not exactly peace and love is it?

This is, of course, assuming that one believes in God. So we would need to go back a step and establish the existence of God. One this is firmly established, it follows that the next step is submission to His commands.
No. As I said above, that does not follow at all. Why do people so quickly jump from "God exists" to "It is this particular God" to "We should worship him" without feeling any need to explain these jumps?

If we consider the alternative, following man-made laws, these are very clearly flawed and limited in their perception of justice. Man does not possess perfect qualities of knowledge, wisdom or justice. Laws are continually changing with the changing attitudes of people. The concern over moral justification should thus be applied to man-made laws whose justice and fairness are more deserving of doubt and scrutiny. Very great atrocities have and still are being committed in the name of western ideals, with the blind support of many people. They take it on the authority of their governments that it is good to so because they say so.
This is very true and I do not dispute it. Organized religion is but one form of authoritarianism. Nationalism is just as powerful and just as dangerous.

Care to address Euthyphro Dilemma I noted above? I would like to see a Muslim take on it. I have seen the Christian "command theory" line of argument against it (which I don't find convincing) but never one from muslims.
Reply

Muhammad
06-27-2012, 07:29 PM
Greetings Pygoscelis,

I am sorry that my post is a bit long. I hope you will manage to get to the end. :)

I've also rearranged some points to try and avoid repetition and take things in order.

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
By empathy and consensus and mutual interest of course, the same way we already do it. We also do it by those in power (political, military or religious) declaring it by fiat. I think that is the dangerous bit and where authoritarianism comes into play.
There is no consensus on the issue of when killing is appropriate or not. Different people have different perspectives or agreed ideas regarding empathy and mutual interest. Different authorities handle it in different ways. This applies to many issues. So that goes back to the question of how to determine who is right and who is wrong. A Muslim would argue that God is the one who decides and whose decision will be best. And that is the basis for the rest of our discussion.

You avoided my question. Would you or would you not have them killed? I hope not, which would make you one of the muslims I could support, along with the man in this news article and all the muslims I know in my personal life.
It seems there is some disagreement among scholars concerning the validity of Islam embraced by a discriminating child and the ruling on his apostasy. What seems to be clear is that he would not be killed until he becomes an adult, when he would be asked to repent and given respite to do so. And of course this would be done by the rightful people in authority, not any Muslim of their own accord. But the underlying point here is not about the specific ruling. You are arguing that the major factor at work is not rational reasoning to believe in Islam, and that is why you raise this issue. But we should note that in non-Islamic lands, prescribed punishments would not be carried out. Even in an Arab country as in the article of this thread, Islamic law is not practised in entirety. So there are many points, such as the number of people converting to Islam all over the world, and many youth in particular who are turning to Islam, which all suggest that there is far more to Islam than mere brainwashing or coercion.

You have to be a believer to see this unquestionable historical authenticity, numerous miracles, etc. From an outsider point of view, the Qur'an does no better than competing religious texts, or Nostradamus type stuff.
This is not true. The Qur’an is a message and miracle for the whole of humanity, a sign that God has given to prove that Islam is true. It is visible to anyone who wishes to investigate. It is also not true that it does no better than competing texts. For example, on the issue of authenticity, there can be no doubt that the authenticity of the Qur’an is far more established and credible than that of the Bible. The Qur’an is one area of evidences. But there are others too – the life of the Prophet Muhammad (may peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is a big evidence too. It would be beyond the scope of this thread to discuss this at length, but I hope you will appreciate the point that Islam does not expect us to believe in it without any evidences for doing so.

No. As I said above, that does not follow at all. Why do people so quickly jump from "God exists" to "It is this particular God" to "We should worship him" without feeling any need to explain these jumps?
Innate nature, common sense and external evidences will point to the fact that God is One. As to why we should worship Him: It is through His benevolence that God has bestowed countless favours on mankind, even to those who do not believe in Him. Even to those who seek to mock His religion. It is God who gifted us with the abilities we have, it is He who provided us with all we need to survive, and it is He who nurtured us and taught us everything we know. It follows that the one who has created us, guided us and sustained us in every way is deserving of us following His commands and purposes for which He created us. That is to say, recognition of the Lordship of God leads to His worship. This concept is explained in the Qur’an – again a demonstration that God provides reasons and evidences – God highlights aspects of His Lordship to explain why we should worship Him:

O mankind! Worship your Lord, Who created you and those who were before you so that you may become righteous. Who has made the earth a resting place for you, and the sky as a canopy, and sent down water from the sky and brought forth therewith fruits as a provision for you. Then do not set up rivals unto Allah (in worship) while you know (that He Alone has the right to be worshipped). [Qur’an 2: 21-22]
Say (O Muhammad) to My slaves who have believed, that they should establish prayer and spend in charity out of the sustenance We have given them, secretly and openly, before the coming of a Day on which there will be neither mutual bargaining nor befriending.

Allah is He Who has created the heavens and the earth and sends down water (rain) from the sky, and thereby brought forth fruits as provision for you; and He has made the ships to be of service to you, that they may sail through the sea by His Command; and He has made rivers (also) to be of service to you.

And He has made the sun and the moon, both constantly pursuing their courses, to be of service to you; and He has made the night and the day, to be of service to you.

And He gave you of all that you asked for, and if you count the Blessings of Allah, never will you be able to count them. Verily, man is indeed an extreme wrong-doer, a disbeliever (an extreme ingrate who denies Allah's Blessings by disbelief, and by worshipping others besides Allah, and by disobeying Allah and His Prophet Muhammad). [14: 31-34]
And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me. [51:56]

I see no reason to believe that if there is a God, he/she/it would hold humans as important or be beholden to our well being. Gods could just as easily see us as tools for their own amusement or to use towards ends entirely harmful to humanity. Just because something is all powerful, and all knowing, and perfect, doesn't mean it will be benevolent towards us.
Benevolence is one of the attributes of God highly emphasised in Islam, and I mentioned it above in terms of how God provides for humans, animals and the rest of His creation which is a magnificent proof of His kindness and concern. But His mercy is not only in providing sustenance to meet our physical needs, but spiritual too. God sent thousands of messengers and prophets with scriptures and various miracles to guide people to the truth and teach them the religion. Does this not illustrate an immense concern for our welfare? There is a very beautiful hadeeth that I would also like to share here:

Abu Dharr narrated: The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, said, “O My servants, I have forbidden oppression for Myself and have made it forbidden amongst you, so do not oppress one another. O My servants, all of you are astray except for those I have guided, so seek guidance of Me and I shall guide you. O My servants, all of you are hungry except for those I have fed, so seek food of Me and I shall feed you. O My servants, all of you are naked except for those I have clothed, so seek clothing of Me and I shall clothe you. O My servants, you sin by night and by day, and I forgive all sins, so seek forgiveness of Me and I shall forgive you. O My servants, you will not attain harming Me so as to harm Me, and you will not attain benefiting Me so as to benefit Me. O my servants, were the first of you and the last of you, the human of you and the jinn of you to become as pious as the most pious heart of any one man of you, that would not increase My kingdom in anything. O My servants, were the first of you and the last of you, the human of you and the jinn of you to be as wicked as the most wicked heart of any one man of you, that would not decrease My kingdom in anything. O My servants, were the first of you and the last of you, the human of you and the jinn of you to rise up in one place and make a request of Me, and were I to give everyone what he requested, that would not decrease what I have, any more than a needle decreases the sea if put into it. O My servants, it is but your deeds that I reckon up for you and then recompense you for, so let him who finds good praise Allah, and let him who finds other than that blame no one but himself.” Sa’id said that when Abu Idris narrated this hadith he would kneel down upon his knees.
[Sahih Muslim, Book 32, Number 6246]

God has taught us much about Himself in the Qur’an and Hadith, and from this we have learnt that He loves us very much, He wants good for us hence He has taught us how to attain it and encouraged us towards it, He wants for us ease not hardship, He never wrongs or oppresses any of His servants and His mercy is so much so that it overcomes His wrath. He has made salvation easy for us and even in the laws He has commanded us to follow, there are clear indications of mercy and compassion towards us. Prayers can be shortened when travelling, combined due to hardship, earth can be used when water is not available for ablution, the sick person can pray sitting down instead of standing, the obligation of fasting takes into consideration the sick, the travellers and elderly, alms-giving is only due on those who obtain a minimum amount of wealth and pilgrimage only for those who are able. Likewise the prescribed punishments in Islam stem from God’s mercy to all creatures and doing what is best for them – as discussed earlier, in them is deterrent, restraint, purification from sins, and they establish security, stability and welfare in society.

Care to address Euthyphro Dilemma I noted above? I would like to see a Muslim take on it. I have seen the Christian "command theory" line of argument against it (which I don't find convincing) but never one from muslims.
I’ve given it some thought, but it is quite a confusing question and I am wondering if it is even valid. On one hand, it seems only one option is true, but from a different perspective it seems both can be true. If we say that God commands an action because it is good, this could imply that morality is no longer dependent on God, that God is subject to an external law and therefore is not omnipotent, which challenges the orthodox view of God. But if we say God is the creator of all things, He created good and He created evil both with wisdom and purpose, then He knew where the goodness lies and commanded accordingly. I think the end message is what is important, which is that whatever God commands us is for our benefit, based on His wisdom and knowledge. And this leads to the next point:

I agree. But they are not synonymous, which too often they seem to be presented as in organized religion. And Blind unquestioning obedience IS mutually exclusive from morality in my view, so hopefully obedience isn't unconditional. Unconditional obedience turns off one's moral sense and makes them into a tool for the bidding of whoever they are obeying or whoever is making them think they are obeying a higher power.
What is implied here is that it is possible for God to command something which is wrong, and that our understanding of right and wrong is better than God’s, hence we need to check what He says against our understanding and only follow what we think is right. I hope you can appreciate that this is a very arrogant way of thinking from a believer’s point of view. If you went to a doctor and he advised you of a cure, would you apply this same standard and give precedence to your own knowledge over his clinical expertise? The example is greater with God. God is the one who created us and gave us the ability to think. He is the one who taught us what we know. After recognising that none is more knowledgeable or full of wisdom and justice than Him, how can we do anything other than unconditionally obey?

Has there not been over man a period of time, when he was nothing to be mentioned? Verily, We have created man from Nutfah drops of mixed semen (discharge of man and woman), in order to try him, so We made him hearer, seer. Verily, We showed him the way, whether he be grateful or ungrateful. [76: 1-3]

Say: "Do you inform Allah of that which He knows not in the heavens and on the earth?" Glorified and Exalted is He above all that which they associate as partners (with Him)! [10: 18]
One can also argue that it is turning away from God’s guidance that turns off one’s moral sense. As mentioned before, man does not possess perfect knowledge and wisdom of right and wrong. He does not always know wherein lies his benefit. He is prey to his own desires and misguidance. One day he views something as an abominable crime. Some time later it becomes acceptable. Later still it becomes a fashion. In contrast to this, obedience to God is a safeguard against bringing our destruction with our own hands.

Over other people? Reminds me of the hebrew stories in the bible where one tribe is favoured by the God and commanded to do genocide and slaughter other tribes. Not exactly peace and love is it?
Sometimes to achieve a greater purpose, there will be fighting and struggle. Nobody said there would be peace always. Though even in the story you mention, it was a people who committed a very great crime who were commanded to be killed. It was not killing without purpose.

Regards.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!