/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Religion, Empathy, and Kindness



ardianto
09-29-2014, 12:54 AM
There is an interesting statement in another thread from an Atheist member "we don't need religion to live our lives ethically and with empathy towards others".

Frankly, I don't know if I must agree with him or not. But if I have empathy toward others, it's because I have faith. I believe that Allah could make me born as someone else and someone else born as me. That's why I never treat people differently just because wealth, beauty, race or ethnic. I can imagine if people insult me because I was ugly, born in poor family, and belong to the race that regarded lower than others.

Faith makes me have respect toward women. I can imagine how hard my duty if I was a woman. I must pregnant, risk my life to give birth, then raise my children. I can imagine too if I was a woman and I lived in misogynist society. I would be hated and oppressed.

Faith also makes me realize that I must not hate the sinners, because I believe, the door of repent is always opened, but the sinners afraid they will not be accepted to enter this door because the good people hate them.

But unfortunately, in another side I have seen how religious people use religion to oppress the others. There are men who hate women because they believe that women were created to drag them to the hell. There are people who kill innocent people just because those innocent people were from different religion. There are people who believe that God created human unequal which one race is higher than the others.

It makes me wonder, why religion make them have no empathy towards others?. Why religion make them cannot be kind toward others?. Why religion become justification to oppress the others?. To be honest, it makes me sometime ask myself, without religion, would they be better in treat the others?.

But I do not blame religion. I believe, it’s not because religion itself, but because some believers. I believe, religions actually teach us to have empathy, teach us to always be kind to the others, teach us to live ethically, teach us to build a peace.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Pygoscelis
09-29-2014, 02:14 PM
Empathy is basic to who we are, and it isn't even unique to humans. It goes right down to neurons in our brains called mirror neurons that literally can feel the pain we see others experiencing. Some have more of it than others, and this is likely in large part genetic, and only sociopaths lack it completely.

It operates by having us see ourselves in others, and relating to them, and feeling their pain, and wanting to stop it. So I believe the way to encourage it is to discourage tribal us vs them tinking. The less we divide ourselves and segregate ourselves by race, religion, etc, and the more we think on how much we all have in common ("If you prick me do I not bleed?" "You and I have so much in common", etc), I think the more empathy we will enable in ourselves. So if you ever get kidnapped or assaulted, I would advise you to talk as much as you can to whoever did it and relate yourself to them as much as you can.

Religion can both help and hinder empathy. Religion helps empathy when it stresses that all humanity is one family, that all are children of God (whether they know it or not), or when it stresses that we are all one with the universe, etc. Religion hinders empathy when it focuses on the divisions between believers and non believers, Christians and Muslims, Suni and Shia, etc. If your religion makes you think more about how we are all similar instead of how we are all different, then I think it will help you have more instead of less empathy for others.

Other aspects of your life can do the same. Some people see all humans on earth as similar and they care for them. This includes a lot of the religious as well as the non-religious. Some people even extend their empathy to non-human animals and become vegetarians and animal rights activists. Others are racist or nationalistic and care only about their race or their countrymen. The "USA #1!" people can become very hateful of foreigners.
Reply

Muhaba
09-29-2014, 02:55 PM
I believe that countries should open their doors to migrants without worrying that noncitizens will take jobs of citizens. After all, we are all humans and all humans should be treated alike. What do you think?
Reply

ardianto
09-29-2014, 05:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Empathy is basic to who we are, and it isn't even unique to humans. It goes right down to neurons in our brains called mirror neurons that literally can feel the pain we see others experiencing. Some have more of it than others, and this is likely in large part genetic, and only sociopaths lack it completely.
As religious person I believe that I consist of body (as hardware) and soul (as software). Empathy, love, compassion, are related to the software (soul), and influenced by someone's life experience. Sociopaths have lack of love, compassion, and empathy. But I don't think it's because genetic, or brain factor. It's because his life experience. If someone raised with love and compassion, I believe, then he would not become sociopath.

And I think I need to clarify that empathy is not "feel what other people feel", but understand what other people feel. If someone injured because accident, do we feel pain too?. Of course not. But we understand that he feel a pain.

It operates by having us see ourselves in others, and relating to them, and feeling their pain, and wanting to stop it. So I believe the way to encourage it is to discourage tribal us vs them tinking. The less we divide ourselves and segregate ourselves by race, religion, etc, and the more we think on how much we all have in common ("If you prick me do I not bleed?" "You and I have so much in common", etc), I think the more empathy we will enable in ourselves.
We can't deny that there are differences between you and me, at least we are from different race. But we can't deny too that as human we have many things in common. So, rather than make these difference as reason to hate each other, it's better we take these difference to motivate us to understand each other. But unfortunately, not every person can think like this.

So if you ever get kidnapped or assaulted, I would advise you to talk as much as you can to whoever did it and relate yourself to them as much as you can.
I was a naughty boy in early of my teenage. Yes, I have few experiences when I was assaulted by other boys who were angry to me.

In one case I made a trouble with a guy who older than me. It made him very angry. Then he and his friend brought me to a place where then he beat me. I was so scared to him. So I just cried and beg him to stop beat me. This was the experience that made me understand how a wife feel in domestic violence, when her husband beat her and she was scared. That's why I never beat my late wife, even if I was very angry to her.
Religion can both help and hinder empathy. Religion helps empathy when it stresses that all humanity is one family, that all are children of God (whether they know it or not), or when it stresses that we are all one with the universe, etc. Religion hinders empathy when it focuses on the divisions between believers and non believers, Christians and Muslims, Suni and Shia, etc. If your religion makes you think more about how we are all similar instead of how we are all different, then I think it will help you have more instead of less empathy for others.

Other aspects of your life can do the same. Some people see all humans on earth as similar and they care for them. This includes a lot of the religious as well as the non-religious. Some people even extend their empathy to non-human animals and become vegetarians and animal rights activists. Others are racist or nationalistic and care only about their race or their countrymen. The "USA #1!" people can become very hateful of foreigners.
Actually, not the religion itself, but someone's understanding of religion that will make religion help or hinder empathy. There are people who believe that religion obligate them to always care to the others, no matter if the others are from other religions or not religious at all. There are people who believe that religion obligate them to see other people as people who must not be respected. And the important factor that made this different understanding is how the religion is taught.

Do people need religion to live their lives ethically and have empathy toward others?. I understand if you are sure that people don't need religion for this. Yes, basically everyone has ability to love each other, regardless of this person embrace a religion or not. But it doesn't mean religion always make people have lack of love, compassion, and empathy toward others. Even religion can make someone can care to the other better. This is what I feel. But of course, it's depend on someone's understanding of religion.

Bay the way, I disagree with some Atheists who say that the world would be peaceful if there's no religion. It's not true. Without religion, people would still fight each other, and they would always find a reason for start a war such as nationalism, tribalism, or political ideology.
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
MuslimInshallah
09-29-2014, 06:15 PM
Assalaamu alaikum,


It seems to me that there are two fundamental (and excellent) questions here. First: can someone be compassionate and good to others if they reject Allah? And second: can someone who connects with Allah lack compassion and be bad to others?


(smile) please bear with me. These questions are complex, so I have had to bring in various elements. It may seem that I am bringing in unnecessary points, but I believe them necessary to fully explain how doing good, faith and empathy can connect. Or not.


What is compassion? Generally speaking, I would define it as empathy in motion. Empathy is when you can put yourself in another person's place and understand how they are feeling. We usually talk about empathy in the context of suffering, but actually, an empathetic person can also share another person's joys, too. Compassion, on the other hand, focuses on the empathizing with suffering and trying to do something to alleviate it.


Compassion is also something that a person must have in order to get to paradise. Because if we are not compassionate, Allah will not be Compassionate with us. And we need His Mercy and Compassion to get to Paradise.


AbuHuraira reported Allah's Messenger ()as saying:
None amongst you can get into Paradise by virtue of his deeds alone. They said: Allah's Messenger, not even you? Thereupon he said: Not even I, but that Allah should wrap me in His Grace and Mercy.


Reference : Sahih Muslim 2816 f
In-book reference : Book 52, Hadith 69
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Book 39, Hadith 6764




Jarir reported that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace,said, "Allah will not show mercy to a person who does not show mercy to other people."


Sahih (Al-Albani)


Reference : Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 375
In-book reference : Book 20, Hadith 4
English translation : Book 20, Hadith 375




The root r-h-m means mercy/compassion/love/kindness/grace. If you search through the Qur'an and ahadith with these terms (they are variously translated,so don't just search under compassion, or you'll miss many references), you will find an overwhelming number of references. And it is telling, I think, that the most-used Names of God are:ar-RaHMaan and ar-RaHiiM: variously translated as: the Merciful, the Compassionate, the Most Loving, the Most Kind, the Most Gracious.


I have read that in order to have compassion, you must be able to empathize. And this made sense to me. Because who has no empathy? Well, for one, narcissists (I'm talking in the clinical sense, not just a bit of selfishness. Narcissists, by definition, have no empathy). These are very destructive and hurtful people. If you read what kind of behaviour narcissists exhibit (pride, egotism, manipulativeness, disregard for morality, sexual promiscuity and depravity), these are traits of the thaalimoun, the faasiqoun, the mufsidoun. These are the people that Allah says in the Qur'an that he does not Love.


But then I had to think about autistic people. I have read that autistic people also don't have empathy.This is because they can't “read” another person's emotional language. It's as if they are blind to other people's feelings. However, if you know any autistic people (and as autism is increasing rapidly in frequency, you probably do), they tend to be very honest and well-meaning people (though socially, they are very clunky). And if you know an autistic person as well as I do, then you know that it isn't true that they feel no distress at another person's pain. It's more that they are so puzzled at another person's distress, that they freeze or try to ignore it. They can sense your distress, but they have no idea why you are distressed. So they don't know what to do about it. But if you tell them: ok, if you see someone doing this, then do that, they will happily follow your instructions. They still can't understand what your emotional signals are saying, but if they do sense that something is wrong, they would like to put it right, if they only knew what was happening and what they could do.


What I am trying to say is that thereis a subtle difference between narcissists/faasiqoun and autistic people: the narcissist can perceive your emotional signals. He just doesn't feel anything (though he can fake it, if he needs to). The autistic person can't read your signals. But he feels some sort of inner distress if he knows something is upsetting you. He just doesn't know what is upsetting you, or what to do about it.


We all have an innate connection with Allah. On one end of the spectrum, we can actively accept it and try and strengthen it, and on the other, we can actively deny it, and try to extinguish it. But generally, people are somewhere between these two poles.


There are many people today who call themselves atheists because they don't know any better. They think they know about God, but they do not. Often, they have been fed misinformation about God in school and/or through the general culture.They may also have had such a bad experience with people who call themselves believers (but behave terribly), that they may make the mistake of thinking that being a believer led this person into wrongdoing. I would classify these sorts of atheists as passive atheists. They have not actually consciously rejected God, but sort of just drifted or run scared towards a lack of faith. And these people still have at least a small connection with Allah, I believe,and it can be expanded fairly easily into a large and healthy channel. Indeed, there are many examples of this happening.


Allah has Created us with variousabilities. Intellect is one, and I've read of seven subcategories of intellect. And one of them is emotional intelligence. "Emotional intelligence refers to the ability to perceive, control and evaluate emotions."


Our hearts are another ability, it seems to me. This is where we find our leanings towards goodness, kindness, mercy, love, morality... It is connected with our fitrah, I think. Our spiritual hearts, it seems to me, can function in the presence of a poor connection with Allah, just as they can function with little or no emotional intelligence. However, I think that having a good connection with Allah greatly augments our hearts' capacity for compelling us towards compassionate acts, just as having emotional intelligence can augment our hearts' capacity.


An autistic person can have a healthy heart, but lack emotional intelligence. Indeed, many autistic people are known for their honesty and good (though sometimes unknowingly inappropriate) behaviour. They're just not good at perceiving and knowing how to respond to suffering. So their compassion is limited. But it is still there, in a very simple form.


A narcissist can have excellent emotional intelligence, but have a closed heart. They can read you like a book, and behave very, very badly. Modern psychology says that they have no empathy and therefore no compassion. But I think Islamically I would say that they have a diseased, closed heart and therefore they have no compassion. The difference is subtle, but I think, important.


It seems to me that a person can have a weak connection with Allah, but have a functioning heart, just as an autistic person can have weak emotional intelligence and have a functioning heart.


But if the person has a strong connection with Allah, the heart is augmented, expands, and overflows with the goodness that is flowing into it from its Lord.


True and full rejecters of God have a blocked connection, I believe. And their hearts tend to wither from the lack of Allah feeding their spiritual hearts with goodness. And they end up not nice people, in my experience. But passive atheists seem to have a weak connection. And they are more likely to have working hearts, in my experience.


I suppose that in the end, we are all unique in our patterns of Gifts and our uses of them. Allah Gifted some people with strong innate leanings towards goodness, as well as high emotional intelligence. So that, even if their connection with Him is weak, they can still do some limited goodness in this world. But if those who have a weak connection with Him were to strengthen their connection, they would be much more effective in their goodness.


Those who have closed hearts effectively block their connection with Allah, and are those who do the worst damage in this world. And they use what emotional intelligence they have for destructive purposes. They may pretend to have a good connection with Allah but they do not. They are those who Allah condemns the most: the hypocrites (fakers)/munafiqoun.


So in answer to the question: can someone be compassionate and good to others if they reject Allah? I would say, if they actively reject Allah (and therefore stifle the connection), their hearts may start out with a high degree of strength, but this wanes over time, and they eventually cease doing good. If they passively reject Allah (and therefore do have a weak connection), and they have strong hearts, they can do quite a lot of good in this world, though they are not nearly as strong and as effective as if they had a strong connection with Allah.


For the second question: can someone who connects with Allah lack compassion and be bad to others? I would say that as the degree of connection varies, and as the strength of the heart varies from person to person, the amount of compassion a person has, and the amount of wrongdoing they can commit, varies. So yes, someone who connects with Allah can do wrong, though the level of wrong is inversely proportional to the strength of their connection with Allah (i.e. the stronger the connection, the less wrong they are likely to do), if all else is equal (remembering that the intellectual and physical capacity of a person also influences their level of effective compassion (what acts they can actually do for another to relieve suffering)).


But someone who has a completely closed heart, it seems to me, cannot have a nourishing connection with Allah. A person with a completely closed heart can pretend to love and be compassionate, but he does it only for gain. He can also pretend to have a connection with Allah, if he thinks he can gain something in this world by so pretending.


I imagine the heart as a core within that is connected to Allah by a luminous channel that flows Light into the heart. The stronger a person's connection to Allah, the thicker the channel, and the more Light flows into their heart. The channel can be closed off, and the heart leak light till it dwindles away, or the heart can be sealed, and the channel cannot flow. So in the end, whether you decide to close down your connection to God and thus starve your heart, or whether you decide to close down your heart and so block your connection, the final result is pretty similar.


However, it should not be forgotten that if people who have smothered their hearts sincerely ask Him to open their hearts, their hearts may be Opened, and His Light may then flow in, and their hearts may be renewed.


May Allah Open and Nourish all our hearts and Help us to be as compassionate as we possibly can be.
Reply

ardianto
09-29-2014, 06:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dreamin
I believe that countries should open their doors to migrants without worrying that noncitizens will take jobs of citizens. After all, we are all humans and all humans should be treated alike. What do you think?
If someone expelled from his home, I would allow him to stay in my home. He need help, and I must help him.

But if someone want to move to my home just because he thinks my home is better than his home, should I allow him?. He's not a homeless. Even he run from his responsibility to take care his home and makes it better. No, I would not allow him to move to my home. But I would help him in another form if he need help. If he want to move because his house was almost collapsed, I would help him to renovate his house.

Justice does not mean we must always treat everyone alike.

We are human, we have rights. But if we a want other people respect our rights, at first we must respect other people rights.
Reply

MuslimInshallah
09-29-2014, 08:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ardianto
As religious person I believe that I consist of body (as hardware) and soul (as software). Empathy, love, compassion, are related to the software (soul), and influenced by someone's life experience. Sociopaths have lack of love, compassion, and empathy. But I don't think it's because genetic, or brain factor. It's because his life experience. If someone raised with love and compassion, I believe, then he would not become sociopath.
Mmm, you are describing a narcissist here. And even then, people make choices. You can be raised in a narcissistic family and not become a narcissist yourself. You can also became the person who tolerates narcissistic behaviour. And you can also come out with narcissistic traits that can be modified relatively easily over time (it depends on your degree of narcissism). (smile) relative to what narcissists have to do. Because they can change. But they tend to be too afraid to do so. They need a lot of pain to motivate them. And it takes a long time.

Sociopaths/psychopaths can come from all kinds of families (healthy and unhealthy). They do have many of the characteristics of narcissists, but they also feel no remorse. Narcissists are actually hypersensitive to feeling shame. Which is why they expend so much effort into dumping all their feelings of shame onto the people around them, especially those who cannot fight back. Like children. Or spouses who are used to abuse and afraid to leave.

Presently in the literature on the subject, there is not a consensus on the causes of psychopathy. But from what I have read, and my personal observation, I would suspect that there is some sort of organic malfunction in their brains.



format_quote Originally Posted by ardianto
Actually, not the religion itself, but someone's understanding of religion that will make religion help or hinder empathy. There are people who believe that religion obligate them to always care to the others, no matter if the others are from other religions or not religious at all. There are people who believe that religion obligate them to see other people as people who must not be respected. And the important factor that made this different understanding is how the religion is taught.

Do people need religion to live their lives ethically and have empathy toward others?. I understand if you are sure that people don't need religion for this. Yes, basically everyone has ability to love each other, regardless of this person embrace a religion or not. But it doesn't mean religion always make people have lack of love, compassion, and empathy toward others. Even religion can make someone can care to the other better. This is what I feel. But of course, it's depend on someone's understanding of religion.
The great 20th Century thinker and historian Ivan Illich was also a Catholic priest. He made the interesting observation that the word "religion" originally referred to a set of rules. For some people, this is all that Islam is: a set of rules.

But in reality, Islam is a lot more than this. Yes, there are limits and boundaries to respect, but they must be done with the right intention. And that is: pleasing Allah. Whoever tries to please God is working on his/her connection with God, and this will increase their connection with others. But whoever is using some label and superficial adherence to a set of rules for their own benefit (like feeling superior to others, an excuse to steal, rape, showing off in front of others…) is not really working to connect with Allah. This is result of human weakness and lack of struggle towards God. It has nothing to do with Islam, which is, by definition, the opposite: it is the active struggle to surrender to His Will and restrain one's weaknesses.

So anyway, I don't like to say that Islam is a religion. It's actually a state of being, in my opinion. And a state that leads inevitably, as it increases, towards greater compassion.

May Allah the High Lead us all.
Reply

hisnameiszzz
09-29-2014, 08:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dreamin
I believe that countries should open their doors to migrants without worrying that noncitizens will take jobs of citizens. After all, we are all humans and all humans should be treated alike. What do you think?
My grandparents came to England for work and they worked their little socks off to make a better life for us. So if someone wants to move to another to country to genuinely work, then yeah, they should be allowed.

If someone wants to move to a country to loot their benefits system, hell no! Send them all back. I think it is highly unfair on all the elderly English/British people who have worked here all their lives since they were little and are now getting a pittance because provisions are being made for looters from other countries who want to scrounge the system (housing/education/benefits etc). It's not even fair on the people who have put money into the system via tax and national insurance and others who have put nothing in and are from another country are reaping the benefits. An example is Romanians and Hungarians. Most of them come here to skank the system, I did say most and not all! They have no intentions of working and are more than happy to just sit around in the streets and pollute the environment. Polish people on the other hand are OK as they genuinely come to work and will work. That's my personal view, but given that the UK is part of the EU, everything I have said makes no sense as everyone is entitled to fleece the system whatever country they are from if they are from the EU.


format_quote Originally Posted by ardianto
If someone expelled from his home, I would allow him to stay in my home. He need help, and I must help him.
So if someone beats his wife up, and she expells him via the Police, you would welcome him into your house? So if someone robs from their parents, and they are expelled, you would help them? I surely wouldn't.

If someone is genuinely homeless, say ethnic cleansing, genuine refugees / asylum seekers, they should definitely be helped. But it should be the same rule for everyone. For example, Bosnians who came to the UK are allowed to stay forever. However, Kosovans who came at the same time have all been sent back. Why that? Also, why are Iraqis and Kurds allowed to come here and live here forever, but not Syrians or Burmese or Palestinians for that matter?
Reply

MuslimInshallah
09-29-2014, 08:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Empathy is basic to who we are, and it isn't even unique to humans. It goes right down to neurons in our brains called mirror neurons that literally can feel the pain we see others experiencing. Some have more of it than others, and this is likely in large part genetic, and only sociopaths lack it completely.
No, empathy is also considered to be lacking in narcissists, schizoids and some say autistic people.

The problem with the mirror neurons has been suggested as the problem underlying autism, but no one's really sure about this.

No one is really sure what is happening with psychopaths, either, but they do seem to have a problem "feeling" in general. I've seen psychopaths as being described as feeling rather dead and unreal. They need a lot more stimulation to feel something.

On another topic: I disagree with some of the points in your post, but I appreciate that you are trying to be a good person, Pygoscelis, both here and on the other posts of your's I've read. May God Reward you for that, in this world, if you prefer, or in both this one and the Next, if you would accept it (twinkle).
Reply

ardianto
10-01-2014, 12:00 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by MuslimInshallah
Mmm, you are describing a narcissist here. And even then, people make choices. You can be raised in a narcissistic family and not become a narcissist yourself. You can also became the person who tolerates narcissistic behaviour. And you can also come out with narcissistic traits that can be modified relatively easily over time (it depends on your degree of narcissism). (smile) relative to what narcissists have to do. Because they can change. But they tend to be too afraid to do so. They need a lot of pain to motivate them. And it takes a long time.

Sociopaths/psychopaths can come from all kinds of families (healthy and unhealthy). They do have many of the characteristics of narcissists, but they also feel no remorse. Narcissists are actually hypersensitive to feeling shame. Which is why they expend so much effort into dumping all their feelings of shame onto the people around them, especially those who cannot fight back. Like children. Or spouses who are used to abuse and afraid to leave.

Presently in the literature on the subject, there is not a consensus on the causes of psychopathy. But from what I have read, and my personal observation, I would suspect that there is some sort of organic malfunction in their brains.
I was describing my view as religious person which I believe in existence of ruh (soul). And I believe the existence of ruh after I observed few medical cases which doctors confirm that someone is dead through brain activity that already "off", not through breath and heart that still work with help by machine. It made me realize that brain actually is just a hardware that cannot work without software.

Different than some people in the West who seem like believe that psychological problem caused by psychiatric malfunction, I tend to believe that psychological problem caused by life experience that cause psychological trauma. Psychiatric malfunction just a factor that make someone easy or not easy to get psychological problem.

Frankly, I often wonder why when Western people get depressed they always run to medicine to cure their depression. Different than people in my place which trace back someone life experience to find the cause of this depression and then try to cure through psychological therapy, not psychiatric therapy.

But I maybe wrong in describing someone's psychological state. I never studied in faculty of psychology although it was my dream. When I was kid I've ever dreamed to become psychologist in the future. It's because I had interest to human behavior. So I started to read psychology articles, started to observe behavior of people around me.

But then I buried this dream after I really met a psychologist, although I didn't want it. To be honest, it was not a pleasant experience for 12 years old boy. I felt like under interrogation.

But I was not angry to my mother. I was not angry to my teachers who told my mother to bring me to a psychologist. I knew my mother loved me. She just could not understand me. That's why she always complain about how abnormal I was. I knew my teachers care on me although they could not understand me. It caused a debate among them which some said that my intelligence level was lower than average because they saw I had difficulty in understand what they taught. But some said that I actually had intelligence that higher than average.

I came from healthy family with parents who love me so much. I knew that my father could not understand me too. But he never gave up in his attempt to understand me. My father also taught me to always treat the poor people who were not so lucky like me with respect, as a form of grateful to what Allah had given to me. Grateful to what Allah has given to me really help me to have an empathy. [smile]


The great 20th Century thinker and historian Ivan Illich was also a Catholic priest. He made the interesting observation that the word "religion" originally referred to a set of rules. For some people, this is all that Islam is: a set of rules.

But in reality, Islam is a lot more than this. Yes, there are limits and boundaries to respect, but they must be done with the right intention. And that is: pleasing Allah. Whoever tries to please God is working on his/her connection with God, and this will increase their connection with others. But whoever is using some label and superficial adherence to a set of rules for their own benefit (like feeling superior to others, an excuse to steal, rape, showing off in front of others…) is not really working to connect with Allah. This is result of human weakness and lack of struggle towards God. It has nothing to do with Islam, which is, by definition, the opposite: it is the active struggle to surrender to His Will and restrain one's weaknesses.

So anyway, I don't like to say that Islam is a religion. It's actually a state of being, in my opinion. And a state that leads inevitably, as it increases, towards greater compassion.

May Allah the High Lead us all.
There are few among prophets who brought new shariat (set of rules) which then called "religion". Prophet Musa (as), prophet Isa (as) and prophet Muhammad (saw) were among prophets who brought new shariat. So, Ivan Illich was right, "religion" originally referred to a set of rules.

Yes, there are Muslims who see Islam as jut a set of rules, not also state of being. In teaching Islam, people like this use method of indoctrination which encourage the students to just follow what they teach without questioning, not method of understanding which encourage students to understand.

Alhamdulillah, I learned Islam through method of understanding. My teachers taught me not only ayah and hadith, but also the cause of revelation to make me understand the meaning of an ayah or hadith. They also encouraged me to think, like when they taught me to imagine if I was born as someone else and my life was not so lucky like my real life.
Reply

ardianto
10-01-2014, 12:05 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by hisnameiszzz
So if someone beats his wife up, and she expells him via the Police, you would welcome him into your house? So if someone robs from their parents, and they are expelled, you would help them? I surely wouldn't.
Of course I wouldn't.

Bro, English is not my daily language. So, I didn't know what the correct word to describe a condition which someone must leave his home, or lost his home, not because his/her own mistake.

:)
Reply

Pygoscelis
10-01-2014, 12:58 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by MuslimInshallah
So in answer to the question: can someone be compassionate and good to others if they reject Allah? I would say, if they actively reject Allah (and therefore stifle the connection), their hearts may start out with a high degree of strength, but this wanes over time, and they eventually cease doing good. If they passively reject Allah (and therefore do have a weak connection), and they have strong hearts, they can do quite a lot of good in this world, though they are not nearly as strong and as effective as if they had a strong connection with Allah.
What do you mean by "actively reject" Allah? Do you mean people who believe Allah exists but turn against him? Because if you do, that isn't atheists. Atheists don't actively reject Allah. We don't believe there is any such being to reject. So would you put atheists in your "passively rejecting" category?

A lot of atheists do read holy books and construct an image of "god" as a fictional character, the same way as when reading any other book we see as fiction. Many of us take from that and from inference from things like the problem of evil, a vision of a fictional God that is not morally good. We see the concept of good as separate from the concept of gods or other authority figures, so we have no issue with judging this fictional god we have created in our minds.

Then we'll say things like "If a God exists that is X Y or Z I would reject and stand against him". But please note that this still is not an actual rejection of any actual God, and the vision of God we are rejecting may be very different than the God the believers actually believe in.

format_quote Originally Posted by MuslimInshallah
Yes, there are limits and boundaries to respect, but they must be done with the right intention. And that is: pleasing Allah. Whoever tries to please God is working on his/her connection with God, and this will increase their connection with others. But whoever is using some label and superficial adherence to a set of rules for their own benefit (like feeling superior to others, an excuse to steal, rape, showing off in front of others…) is not really working to connect with Allah. This is result of human weakness and lack of struggle towards God. It has nothing to do with Islam, which is, by definition, the opposite: it is the active struggle to surrender to His Will and restrain one's weaknesses.
When I see religious people doing good deeds for a celestial reward, I don't see that as empathy at all, because it is being done for selfish gain, and I think what you are saying above agrees with that. You go on to say that we should do good deeds to please God, and you see that this will increase our connection with others (ie, empathy).

When I see people doing things "to please God", I see them doing things to please an (imagined) authority figure. That looks more like obedience than empathy to me. As far as I am concerned, empathy is when you do something for another person, with no expectation of reward, because you feel for them and care about that person.
Reply

ardianto
10-01-2014, 05:34 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
When I see religious people doing good deeds for a celestial reward, I don't see that as empathy at all, because it is being done for selfish gain, and I think what you are saying above agrees with that. You go on to say that we should do good deeds to please God, and you see that this will increase our connection with others (ie, empathy).
There is difference between doing good deed because God, and doing good deed because expect reward from God. I do good deed to the others because I believe, as His creation I have duty to help His creations. But when I help the others I never think "Yes!, now I get reward". I do not think like this because I believe, if I do good deed because expect reward, then my good deed is not sincere, and become nothing.

This is what taught by my Islamic teachers.

So, If Allah reward me because my good deed, Alhamdulillah. If I didn't get reward?. Still Alhamdulillah, because I can fulfill my duty toward other human. And I am not the only religious person who have this attitude.

Pygo, there are many things about religious people you haven't know yet. Just like there are many things about non-religious people that I haven't know yet. But I try to understand them.

:)
Reply

Abz2000
10-01-2014, 01:53 PM
There are few among prophets who brought new shariat (set of rules) which then called "religion". Prophet Musa (as), prophet Isa (as) and prophet Muhammad (saw) were among prophets who brought new shariat. So, Ivan Illich was right, "religion" originally referred to a set of rules.
Assalamu'alaikum wr wb

I would tend to lean more towards the explanation bro/sis "Muslim InshaAllah" gave, since the Jews neglected the spirit and attempted to rule themselves by rigid statutes which ended up causing them to harden their hearts with many seeing "the law" as a burden which was only to be tiptoed around and bent due to the heavy fist that was hovering over them.
Whereas Jesus (pbuh) came and tore all that apart (not to oppose the law but to fulfill it) and tried to bring them back to understanding the spirit.
This fact can be seen right from the beginning as he get's sent to the womb of a virgin (ra) who is away from the people and has no witness other than the miracles manifested by God - According to the law, she would be accused and stoned, but to God and to people of good sense, she's the highest manifestation of decency and faith, chosen above all women.
It was a challenge and a trial from God for people who pleased Him with their mouths while their hearts were averse. Sadly, the foolish ones among them didn't understand the spirit of his teachings and took it to tge other extreme, totally neglected the law and "saw therein their own vain desires" to the extent that even pig, adultery, worshipping wood and stone, and submission to caesar became ok - with Godless atheists who made it up as they went along making their laws for them.


28And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?
*29And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments*is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
30And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this*is*the first commandment.*
31And the second*is*like,*namely*this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
32And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:*
33And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love*his*neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.
34And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him*any question.
To me, it was a very concise explanation of inward and outward conduct, including acceptance of the truth, humility, fairness, jihad, and understanding of the emptiness of the laws if spirit is neglected.
As one can see, not much emphasis was being placed on the laws due to the fact that they were already struggling with copious volumes of laws and traditions of elders.
Not to say they were to be neglected.
It's a question of being true to God instead of neglecting God and imagining oneself to be true to the law (hypocrisy).

The Second Temple Desolated

After their release from Babylonian captivity and rebuilding the city and temple, the Jewish leaders erected a mountain of rules and regulations designed to protect them from repeating the sins that had led to their bondage. The fourth commandment's seventh-day Sabbath became a special object of amendment. The Jews reasoned that since it was transgression of the Sabbath that led to their captivity, they needed to define in minute detail how the Sabbath should be kept.*Over 500 rules concerning Sabbathkeeping eventually resulted. Some of these Sabbath laws were as ridiculous as this: one could not leave an egg in the sun on the Sabbath because the sun might cook it, and cooking on the Sabbath was a violation of the fourth commandment. Of course, this only resulted in a system of pure legalism. At last the people began to believe that favor with God depended on how well they obeyed the traditions of their elders.

*Ultimately the people were led full circle to disobedience again. Jesus comments that in spite of their apparent religiosity they were still breaking God's law even as their forefathers had during Isaiah's and Daniel's day. "Well hath Isaiah prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men... full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition... making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered" (Mark 7:6-13). Once again the people found themselves immersed in vain and rebellious worship.
With Islam came that combimation of spirit and truth which manifested itself as an inward and outward, social and personal way of life which is progressive, practical, just and lenient.

So i would tend to say it is more a state of being than what is generally understood today as "religion".
The laws can only govern the outward aspects, but the spirit and understanding which come from deep reflection cause a person to start measuring and weighing their every deed in light of God's good pleasure. And God is the Best and Wisest guide - and most Powerful Helper.

The word religion i would say fits more with the concept of blind adherence to unreasonable and rigid laws created by politicians, worldly kings and priests than with the majestic, practical and noble way of life shown to us AND COMMANDED by God.

Peace be to those who follow the guidance of God, and guidance/woe be to those who YET don't/won't.


*Originally Posted by*Pygoscelis*When I see religious people doing good deeds for a celestial reward, I don't see that as empathy at all, because it is being done for selfish gain, and I think what you are saying above agrees with that. You go on to say that we should do good deeds to please God, and you see that this will increase our connection with others (ie, empathy).
Which proves that atheism is anarchy which is an impracticable and unimplementable chaotic religion.
Since each individual decides what's best ultimately themselves and are only held together by a loose made up "status quo".

Tell me pygo, in the lands where atheism is practiced, is it not a fact that (as you say) people who accept that doctrine do good only because they feel they wan't to, and (as can be observed) are only prevented from doing evil by their own subjective reasoning and laws which other evil people make in order to rule over them (making themselves and associates rich in the process), with fear of punishment only if people are caught breaking those "laws" which they often want to break , which their own leaders see as a burden ro be tiptoed around and turned upside down?

Is it no wonder then that America - the ultimate example of atheist, liberalist, secularist, "do what thou wilt privately is part of the law, and do what the politicians say shall be the remainder of the law" is the country with the highest prison population on the planet? (that's without counting all the other moral and scriptural crimes tgat go ignored).

it keeps coming to the surface that all those systems and ways of life (religions) fall apart when put to the challenge by the truth that is Islam, and that none of them are based on firm, unflinching qaeda (foundations).

Why the irrational hypocrisy and double standard? why do good only because you want to and not because you should.
And not do what you or someone else who lies to you perceives/portrays as "evil" because you don't want to and because you live under fear of arrest?
And not just because you don't want to.
Why all the cops with tear gas and guns? (along with illegal invasions and theft).


Causes me to recall the orwellian religious doctrine: democracy is unattainable, but Big Brother is the bastion of democracy.
Same goes for atheism and secularism.
And "freedom" from the land of prisons is also a farce.

By their FRUITS shall you know them.

We don't do good and avoid evil just because God (whom we may be uncertain of) wants us to, but because we exercise our intellect and come to know that it is right and wrong since we know God is the truth and the Wise.
We are also aware of eternal rewards ALONG WITH the punishments for transgressors (fasiqoon) and criminals (mujrimoon).
There's a difference, and it makes sense.
Reply

MuslimInshallah
10-01-2014, 06:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ardianto
I was describing my view as religious person which I believe in existence of ruh (soul). And I believe the existence of ruh after I observed few medical cases which doctors confirm that someone is dead through brain activity that already "off", not through breath and heart that still work with help by machine. It made me realize that brain actually is just a hardware that cannot work without software.
Assalaamu alaikum Ardianto (and fellow travellers!),


(smile) As I'm not the most computer-savvy person, I decided to consult with those more knowledgeable than I (my children and friends!) about this analogy of people to computers. It is an interesting truth that our tools shape the way we see ourselves. In the mechanical age, we compared ourselves to machines. In the electronics age, we compared ourselves to computers. And now in the internet age, we compare ourselves to systems.


(smile) You and I were formed in the electronics age. But our children are being formed in the internet age...


So here goes: our bodies could be compared to the hardware. Our souls could be the operating systems. The programming our parents give could be the pre-installed software you buy the computer with. And the social environment could be the internet, with software downloads available.


A problem in the hardware could mean that your software couldn't run properly, but it still could run somewhat.


A problem in the software would normally not cause damage to the hardware, unless the software was malicious. In this case, the software could do something like instruct the computer to switch off the internal fan that cools the hardware, and therefore heat would then damage the hardware.


It could be argued that this analogy works. And it does- to an extent. Certainly, the hardware (physical body) is necessary to function in this world. And you can have plain hardware with no operating system (soul). Just nothing would work.You can have malfunctions in the body (like damage caused by a stroke or trauma or genetic defects that cause some part of the brain or its chemistry to not be formed correctly) that can cause you to not be able to function quite like most people. And a person can make decisions (according to malicious programming?), like taking in some kind of poisons (like alcohol) that can damage the body.


(smile) But to be honest, I'm not sure whether these analogies are really bringing us closer to a true understanding of ourselves and life. I wonder if they don't oversimplify ourselves and life and cause us to miss something vital.


(grin) But it certainly was fun to play with this analogy!

format_quote Originally Posted by ardianto
Different than some people in the West who seem like believe that psychological problem caused by psychiatric malfunction, I tend to believe that psychological problem caused by life experience that cause psychological trauma. Psychiatric malfunction just a factor that make someone easy or not easy to get psychological problem.

Frankly, I often wonder why when Western people get depressed they always run to medicine to cure their depression. Different than people in my place which trace back someone life experience to find the cause of this depression and then try to cure through psychological therapy, not psychiatric therapy.
But playing aside, it is an established fact that a person's physical and emotional health are interconnected.


(gently) I'm afraid you are incorrect in thinking that people in the “West” only use medication to deal with their problems. Like people everywhere, they try various different methods to deal with their problems. You can go to psychologists to try to untangle the effects of an unhealthy family environment, for instance. Or you can join groups that try to help one another deal with a common problem. Like people with addiction problems getting together to admit their problem (the first step towards healing. Many deny their problem), and then sharing their efforts and insights in trying and succeeding to overcome their problem. You can also go to a religious person for help. Some people go for faith-healing (like ruqyah). Or talk to sympathetic strangers. Or phone a helpline. Or get insights and help online. And you can talk with friends and neighbours, too. And you can pick up your Qur'an and immerse yourself in it.


Yes, if you go to a regular medical doctor, they often will prescribe an anti-depressant. And you may chose to use these or not.


(smile) Frankly, from my observation, people in other parts of the world also take anti-depressants, though they might not like to admit it, or they may just be ignorant of the fact. As my professional degrees are in pharmacy, I can tell you with sure knowledge that if you look through the drugs people are taking in non- “Western” countries, anti-depressants and anti-psychotics are there.


(smile) You also seem to think that people in the “West” believe that psychological problems are caused only by an underlying organic cause (or maybe I misunderstood you?). This is not true. People here are very aware of the effects of unhealthy families on a person's psychology. If you were to come to one of our public libraries here,you would see many books on all sorts of psychological disorders that focus very much on the patterns people learn in their childhoods. If you like, you can search on amazon (a bookseller) online and have a look at all the books on the topic. Or online.


People with organic malfunctions are more likely to develop a personality disorder under the effects of abuse or neglect than someone with no organic disorder,this is true. It is also true that our emotional and physical health are interconnected. When you are stressed, for instance, the patterns of chemicals in your body are different from when you are not stressed. And under long-term stress, especially in children, whose bodies are forming, the body can adapt to these chemical changes with physical changes in their brains, according to what I have read.


There are also chemical and electrical connections between the different components of our bodies. Someone with an emotional problem, can end up with an immune dysfunction, for instance. An emotional shock can lead to sudden heart failure or fainting.


(smile) In the end, if we are to help people who are suffering, we need to look at the whole person and see what is most appropriate. Depending on the person, and the underlying problem (psychological vs physical, and the interplay of the two), you may chose medication, or counselling or a mixture of the two. Counsellors may use faith, or not. Groups of sufferers working together usually use God as a fundamental force in healing. Religious healers use God, too.


(gently) When people talk about the “West”, there is often an underlying (though perhaps unconscious) level of discrimination in the thought. The idea that people “over there” are fundamentally different from ourselves is not true. Yes, there are cultural differences, but this is true within the “West”, too. French culture is different from British culture is different from Belgian culture is different from various Canadian cultures,etc. But are these fundamental differences? I think not.


You know, the whole East-West divide actually originated in the division of the Roman Empire into East and West, and subsequent political divisions between the two. It's a false divide, in my opinion.


People also confuse the “Western culture” with what I call the industrial a-culture. It might also be called a monoculture. Both terms capture part of what it is. It's a homogenizing force (and I mean force in a destructive sense) that arose with the industrial revolution that flattens real culture (which is a way people use to interact with their local environment (in all its aspects)), and replaces it with a soul-less imitation ofculture. It has ridden on the back of globalization, and has been sold as “Western culture”, but it isn't. It's just that it started destroying real cultures in so-called Western countries first.


I have seen this industrial a-culture everywhere in the world that I have been. It encourages all the human weaknesses, and seeks to control and dominate humans through their weaknesses. It destroys local cultures. It tries to erase God. Historically, it has used the educational system (which is everywhere more the same than many realize) since the industrial revolution, to mould people into submitting to it (if you are curious, you might be interested in John Taylor Gatto's The Underground History of American Education). It also uses the corporate media, and increasingly the internet, to propagate and reinforce it's messages. In my opinion, it is satanic.


It also tries to convince us that the world falls neatly into two camps: the “West” and the “Rest”. This is false. And those that fall into this fallacy, end up embracing an a-culture. If you have trouble seeing this, imagine the following: suppose you have a photograph. An old-fashioned one in black and white. Now turn all the black-coloured parts white, and all the white-coloured parts black. What picture do you have? Exactly. It's the same picture. People who blindly take the monoculture and do superficial opposites, end up creating a homogenizing a-cultural force that flattens real cultures.


Allah Tells us (49:13):


O People! Truly We Created you from a male and a female and brought forth from you diverse groups (ethnic/cultural/racial/religious?) and subgroups/closer groups (clan/family/class?) so that you could know yourselves and one another. Truly, the noblest/most distinguished/most precious of you in God's sight is the (one) most aware of God.


This is my own translation, as I feel that the usual translations don't fully bring out the meaning of the passage (ok, (smile) neither does mine, but I feel it is closer). The diverging groups and subgroups are a bit variable. Religious divisions, for instance, could be a subgrouping in society, or a defining feature of a society. Also, class may be a defining feature in a society, but this doesn't mean that Allah necessarily upholds the class divisions we've made. But that the effort to recognize ourselves in and through the other, is in Allah's Plan.


It is Allah's Will that we have differences. It is useful for our spiritual development. The homogenizing a-culture/monoculture is against His Will. As is the photographic negative that we find in blind rejection (and therefore ironically embracing) of the a-culture.


I believe that we need to look into and through each other's eyes in order to understand ourselves and see our own flaws and weaknesses. And also to appreciate the Beauty of Allah's Creation. Another person, with a different way of doing things, of thinking about things, is beautiful (sparkle!). And another way of doing things can open our eyes to different possibilities and solutions, to both spiritual and mundane problems. Subhanallah, what richness!


(laugh) This is perhaps not quite on-topic! After all, we were talking about empathy. And then we diverged into psychological vs organic disorders of behaviour. But then the idea of the “West” came up. And this is such a common misconception, that I felt the need to address it.



format_quote Originally Posted by ardianto
Yes, there are Muslims who see Islam as jut a set of rules, not also state of being. In teaching Islam, people like this use method of indoctrination which encourage the students to just follow what they teach without questioning, not method of understanding which encourage students to understand.
On the final point about “religion”. (smile) I'm afraid that I respectfully disagree with those who collapse Islam into merely a set of rules. In my opinion, it describes the state of a person when they struggle to surrender their will to that of Allah's. There are rules, yes. That we live our relationship through our behaviour with other people, yes. That Allah has given different rules for different times and circumstances, yes. But Islam did not start with the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Islam has always been, ever since Creation. But our deen was perfected/completed with the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) (Qur'an 5:3).


Some people talk of deen (often translated as religion) as meaning a way of life. This definition has got a lot of truth in it, in my opinion. But I think it still is missing some elements. Yes, being in the state of Islam affects one's whole life. But deen implies being subject to Allah, being indebted to Him, to yielding to Him, to owing Him our allegiance because of the loan He has Given us of existence, of Creation. We owe Allah everything (I am analyzing the root meanings of deen, here). If we are Muslims, we recognize this, and we strive to enter a state of Islam and we live our lives with this realization of complete indebtedness. Deen is the way we behave when we acknowledge this debt. But also, with the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), Allah completed His Teaching to us of how to behave.


To summarize, it seems to me that deen is at the same time 1) how we behave when we are in a state of Islam,2) a method of finding a state of Islam.


(smile) So yes, deen can imply a set of rules. But it is more than this.


Islam is also described as a deen (5:3). I believe this means that when we struggle towards surrendering our Selves to Allah (Islam), we are acknowledging and trying to honour our debt. And the Day of Deen (the Day of Judgement), is the day when we find out how well we have been paying our debt. It's a settling of accounts, sort of. Except that no one can actually repay this immense debt. So it is up to Allah, the Merciful, to Forgive the debt. Or not.


(smile) At least, this is how I understand these things. But of course, I am only human, and I cannot possess the Whole Truth. This is just my own little bit of understanding.


(twinkle) Note to Abz2000, it's “sis”, though I personally prefer “sister”. I'm a bit old-fashioned that way (smile).


May Allah, the Knowing, Guide us to ever-greater knowledge and understanding of how we can act in the light of our complete indebtedness to Him.
Reply

Pygoscelis
10-01-2014, 08:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abz2000
Tell me pygo, in the lands where atheism is practiced, is it not a fact that (as you say) people who accept that doctrine do good only because they feel they wan't to, and (as can be observed) are only prevented from doing evil by their own subjective reasoning and laws which other evil people make in order to rule over them (making themselves and associates rich in the process), with fear of punishment only if people are caught breaking those "laws" which they often want to break , which their own leaders see as a burden ro be tiptoed around and turned upside down?
You make a good point, in that atheists don't necessarily trust in the moral authority of others, and at least not in the moral authority of purported Gods. Liberal atheists like myself do indeed figure it out for ourselves, based on empathy, compassion, and yes, to some extent culture. I don't see that as a bad thing.

If a God exists, I see no reason to assume it is moral, and I judge for myself. For me to see something as moral or immoral, I need a good reason I can understand, which I don't see in cases like contraception or homosexuality, so I don't see them as wrong. I find their religious designation as "wrong" as arbitrary. I see it as a mere decree from somebody claiming to speak for a deity, and not as an actual moral truth. I can see how you would brand my mindset as chaotic, as yes, this can lead to a less cohesive society than if everybody simply thought what they were told to think.

But I'd also note that religious leaders often disagree with each other and you wind up with divisions between and within religions that can be quite chaotic and even violent. When your disagreements about arbitrary "rights" and "wrongs" become so strong as they often do in religion, people start saying that to disagree with their view is "evil" and that those who disagree with them are "evil", and this can lead to all sorts of atrocities against those "evil" people.
Reply

Abz2000
10-02-2014, 08:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
You make a good point, in that atheists don't necessarily trust in the moral authority of others, and at least not in the moral authority of purported Gods. Liberal atheists like myself do indeed figure it out for ourselves, based on empathy, compassion, and yes, to some extent culture. I don't see that as a bad thing.

If a God exists, I see no reason to assume it is moral, and I judge for myself. For me to see something as moral or immoral, I need a good reason I can understand, which I don't see in cases like contraception or homosexuality, so I don't see them as wrong. I find their religious designation as "wrong" as arbitrary. I see it as a mere decree from somebody claiming to speak for a deity, and not as an actual moral truth. I can see how you would brand my mindset as chaotic, as yes, this can lead to a less cohesive society than if everybody simply thought what they were told to think.

But I'd also note that religious leaders often disagree with each other and you wind up with divisions between and within religions that can be quite chaotic and even violent. When your disagreements about arbitrary "rights" and "wrongs" become so strong as they often do in religion, people start saying that to disagree with their view is "evil" and that those who disagree with them are "evil", and this can lead to all sorts of atrocities against those "evil" people.
Sister Muslim InshaAllah forced me to force myself to try and smile despite what's happening....her calm method prevents a backlash in the heart as opposed to furious indignation that makes the wicked flee ;) so why not try....? XD


Atheist/secularist politicians disagree often violently or cold war style on fundamental differences more so than Islamic ones, since the fundamentals are structurally defined in Islam, the differences thereafter are the means of adaptation and positive advancement within boundaries and cause of welcome blessing.

In Islam, we have a description/constitution which defines/describes what is evil and what is not - and someone who has Islam successfully installed should be able to bring forth evidence to explain his/her stance without just making it up to suit their current whim as they go along. This way of life can be defined and understood by an individual before acceptance/rejection.

However, with the atheist method, there is no moral standard, we have seen whole continents go from secular conservative republics (God knows if that's even definable) opposed to democracy in their very essence, to secular liberal democracies in less than two centuries while yet pledging allegiance to the original constitution, with leaders and citizens pledging allegiance to uphold somethong unconsciously while being opposed in essence. This i believe is the result of trying to assume oneself or collective team as knowing better and being wiser than God.

We went from: homosexuality, bestiality and adultery are punishable crimes, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed, ability and capacity to oppose government is the the essence of liberty and healthy society -To sodomy is colorful and gay (blush), bestiality and adultery are freedoms which reap taxes in video sales, (hide your daughters! And sons!) weapons are only for cops and criminals (since neither are hindered by legislation), and questioning government policy or wearing levis and being nice is "almost" terrorism.

As someone who has consciously studied and accepted Islam, and a little history and travelled to and lived in different countries west, east and centre i can perceive that these changes, corruption and abuse of power are inevitable without subjection to God, and collective understanding and acceptance of His laws. Leader and citizen, if not subject tend to grow into a state of being at odds and dog eat dog becomes the inevitable status quo.

Going back to your comment on fixed definition of evil, i'll provide a prime example: the branch davidians, they refused to submit to us government and refused to repent, the us gov decided they were a threat to their leadership, and began a massive vilification and smear campaign, freshly formulated and constructed an opinion of them being evil, and massacred thwm when they decided they had enough political capital to do so.

Yet when IS gave the yazidis an ultimatum to submit or leave based on sound and verifiable reasoning, the US decided to portray it as wrong and unjustified.

Anyone who knows even the basics of economics can discreetly tell you how impossible the usury based banking system is as opposed to the interest free and fundamentally stable fixed interchangeable gold dinar and silver dirham. 1 dinar=7? dirham with no rothschild style global manipulation of difference fluctuations.

I'll now give two sound descriptions from both scriptures which explain the two differing methods of approah. Made up as opposed to stable and definable.

24.*See you not how Allah sets forth a parable? - A goodly word as a goodly tree, whose root is firmly fixed, and its branches (reach) to the sky (i.e. very high).
25.*Giving its fruit at all times, by the Leave of its Lord and Allah sets forth parables for mankind in order that they may remember.
26.*And the parable of an evil word is that of an evil tree uprooted from the surface of earth having no stability.
27.*Allah will keep firm those who believe, with the word that stands firm in this world (i.e. they will keep on worshipping Allah Alone and none else), and in the Hereafter.*And Allah will cause to go astray those who are*Zalimun*(polytheists and wrong-doers, etc.), and Allah does what He wills.
28.*Have you not seen those who have changed the Blessings of Allah into disbelief (by denying Prophet Muhammad*and his Message of Islam), and caused their people to dwell in the house of destruction?
29.*Hell, in which they will burn, - and what an evil place to settle in!

Quran ch. Abraham.


The Wise and Foolish Builders

Matthew 7:24-27 (KJV)

24*Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25*And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26*And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27*And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
Reply

MuslimInshallah
10-02-2014, 11:53 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
What do you mean by "actively reject" Allah? Do you mean people who believe Allah exists but turn against him? Because if you do, that isn't atheists. Atheists don't actively reject Allah. We don't believe there is any such being to reject. So would you put atheists in your "passively rejecting" category?

A lot of atheists do read holy books and construct an image of "god" as a fictional character, the same way as when reading any other book we see as fiction. Many of us take from that and from inference from things like the problem of evil, a vision of a fictional God that is not morally good. We see the concept of good as separate from the concept of gods or other authority figures, so we have no issue with judging this fictional god we have created in our minds.

Then we'll say things like "If a God exists that is X Y or Z I would reject and stand against him". But please note that this still is not an actual rejection of any actual God, and the vision of God we are rejecting may be very different than the God the believers actually believe in.
Greetings Pygoscelis,


I'm sorry it has taken me a little while to get back to your post.


Incidentally (smile), I always think of Happy Feet when I see your “name”. It is a nice image.


Hmm, about rejecting God... well, you see, according to the Qur'an and ahadith, we are all born Muslim. We have an inherent inner connection with God. As does every other created thing in Creation. But God has Given us the option of free will. That is, we can chose to maintain this connection, or we can chose to cover it over and increasingly ignore it.


I don't know about the Ontario school system, but I know that here is Québec, the system is very clearly ideological. Atheism is clearly the preferred option. Not only is the language used very atheistic, but all children here must take classes on “ethics and religion” which seem to be designed to make all religions look a little foolish, and atheism as the only sensible option. I also know that if a child has faith (and this seems particularly true of Muslim girls who wear scarves. I know several cases of male teachers doing this to them), this child may find herself being bated and ridiculed in front of her peers for her faith.


Against this backdrop, it is not surprising that many young people come out of the system as what I call passive atheists. They are not particularly ideologically driven in their atheism. They've just sort of absorbed it through indoctrination.


A second group a passive atheists is found in the generation a little older than myself. These are the people who lived through the Quiet Revolution, when the people of Québec profoundly rejected the abusive dominance and hypocrisy within the Catholic Church. The Church had deep tentacles into the politics of Québec prior to the 1960's. This is not to say that Catholics themselves were corrupt. They weren't. There were and are some very decent Catholics in Québec. But the institution was definitely corrupt at that time. I have met people who grew up during this time. Again, their atheism may be very low-key. Some of them are not interested in destroying other people's faith. They just don't want to think about God. I see it as being like a person who has undergone a trauma. It just hurts too much to think about topics related to the trauma.


However, there are those who are very evangelical in their atheistic choice. Not only do they reject God, but they want everyone else to reject God, too. They try to engage you on the topic with the view to proving how idiotic and foolish, and even wicked, your faith is. It reminds me very much of when people do something wrong: they try to get others to do the same, so that they can feel good about themselves.


I respect a person's option to reject God. If God Gave a person that choice, who am I to try to force anyone into it?


(smile) But you are perhaps objecting: I don't reject God. I've built a construct in my mind, and I don't like it. (smile) Yes, you have built a construct. But God is not a construct you build. God just is, and is connected with you deep within.


I remember hearing an interview on the radio with an Australian parachutist. He was telling the tale of how one day his parachute got tangled and failed to deploy. He told the tale very well. (smile) It was very exciting! But then he got to the part where he was about to hit the ground, and he suddenly called out: O God, help me! And he said he suddenly felt really relaxed... and he hit the ground. And amazingly, he survived with just minor injuries. The man then sounded very sheepish. He insisted that he didn't believe in God. He'd always been an atheist. And he was now. But...


But at the moment he knew he had nomore control of his life... he called on God.


On a more personal note, my ex-father-in-law passed away last spring. On the few occasions we had spoken over our lives, he liked to denigrate Muslims and faith. He was very much a Shah of Iran era glory-to-the-Aryans atheist. He was Given a long life. And he was consistent in his rejection of God. But here again, it is curious. You see, when he was dying of cancer, he fought tooth-and-nail to survive. He became progressively more terrified of death. He would get really agitated when things weren't going well, and then start calling on God to help him. But then when he would recover a bit, he'd ignore God again. Near the end, he was sedated, and eventually put into a medically-induced coma. He was just so terrified. And when he would surface briefly, he'd call out in horror: oh God! Oh God!


We all have an underlying connection with God. We can cover it over and ignore it, we can ridicule others and feel superior to them, we can construct evil or foolish idols in our minds... but the connection is still there.


Waiting for us to use it and call on Him Who Loves and Creates.


Peace, Pygoscelis. I apologize if my words are too strong. I just don't know how else to respond to your questions and comments. If you had not asked, I would not have spoken.


May God have Mercy on you.
Reply

Pygoscelis
10-02-2014, 04:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by MuslimInshallah
Peace, Pygoscelis. I apologize if my words are too strong. I just don't know how else to respond to your questions and comments. If you had not asked, I would not have spoken.
I take no offence to your views. You make no personal attacks and I am glad that you speak your mind. We have diametrically opposed view points, which to me, makes these conversations very interesting. Some defensive people may take offence to what you or I write, no matter how politely we attempt to make it, but that is more on them than us. At the core of it, you see me as spiritually blind and/or disconnected, and I see you as self-deluded, and there is no way to sugar coat that. I take great care in writing and rewriting my posts on forums such as this, where my viewpoint is the minority, but no matter how I express myself, somebody will be upset by what I write and there is not much I can do about it. The last conversation I had in the thread that inspired this one is a good example of that. We can only seek to better understand each others' perspective, even though we reject for ourselves.

Incidentally (smile), I always think of Happy Feet when I see your “name”. It is a nice image.
SCORE! Few people recognize Pygoscelis as the latin name for a type of penguin, but yes, that is exactly where my name comes from :)

Hmm, about rejecting God... well, you see, according to the Qur'an and ahadith, we are all born Muslim. We have an inherent inner connection with God. As does every other created thing in Creation. But God has Given us the option of free will. That is, we can chose to maintain this connection, or we can chose to cover it over and increasingly ignore it.
All I can tell you is that I have no conscious memory of ever believing in a God.

I don't know about the Ontario school system, but I know that here is Québec, the system is very clearly ideological. Atheism is clearly the preferred option. Not only is the language used very atheistic, but all children here must take classes on “ethics and religion” which seem to be designed to make all religions look a little foolish, and atheism as the only sensible option. I also know that if a child has faith (and this seems particularly true of Muslim girls who wear scarves. I know several cases of male teachers doing this to them), this child may find herself being bated and ridiculed in front of her peers for her faith.
Quebec has become infamous for the poor way they treat Muslims there, and as somebody who has a family history in Quebec I am truly sorry for that. The west in general has treated Muslims poorly since 9/11. I am not aware of any religious instruction or "ethics and religion" classes in Ontario schools, outside of Catholic schools. I strongly support keeping school secular. They should not be indoctrinating children into or out of religion there. Religion should be taught at home. And you should be allowed to wear whatever garb you want and you should be allowed to pray whenever and wherever you want, so long as it does not get in the way of others.

However, there are those who are very evangelical in their atheistic choice. Not only do they reject God, but they want everyone else to reject God, too. They try to engage you on the topic with the view to proving how idiotic and foolish, and even wicked, your faith is. It reminds me very much of when people do something wrong: they try to get others to do the same, so that they can feel good about themselves.

I respect a person's option to reject God. If God Gave a person that choice, who am I to try to force anyone into it?

(smile) But you are perhaps objecting: I don't reject God. I've built a construct in my mind, and I don't like it. (smile) Yes, you have built a construct. But God is not a construct you build. God just is, and is connected with you deep within.
Yes, that would be my objection. It is a construct of God that atheists object to, not any actual God. Atheists also may object to the actions of believers, when they demand we conform to their religious practices. I join them when they make efforts to keep Creationism out of the science classroom (it isn't science), to stop religious blockades on stem cell research, and to combat religious practices like circumcision and refusing children blood transfusions, etc. I don't join them when atheists go around trying to take away the comforts and inspiration people get from religion, but I can see why that happens. It is the same reason religious people express such vitrol and ridicule towards atheists, or people of other religions. And if you think atheists do more of this than theists do, I have to strongly disagree.

I remember hearing an interview on the radio with an Australian parachutist. He was telling the tale of how one day his parachute got tangled and failed to deploy. He told the tale very well. (smile) It was very exciting! But then he got to the part where he was about to hit the ground, and he suddenly called out: O God, help me! And he said he suddenly felt really relaxed... and he hit the ground. And amazingly, he survived with just minor injuries. The man then sounded very sheepish. He insisted that he didn't believe in God. He'd always been an atheist. And he was now. But...
I think we as humans have evolved a natural tendency to look to a higher power. Infants benefit from trusting in mothers, seeing them as authorative, infallible and superior, at least until they reach a certain age and can be independent. It gives them great comfort to know that mother is there. Later in life they realize that mothers are human, like anybody else, with vulnerabilities and flaws, like anybody else. God, being untouchable (and I would say imaginary), can fill that same role in our psyches, and provide that same comfort, without it ever having to lose it.

The "no atheists in foxholes" meme has been around for a long time. It isn't entirely true. Neither is the "deathbed conversion" meme. There are plenty of atheists who have faced death and not converted to any religion. For those that do, I don't find it surprising. Desperate people often turn to irrational things like psychics, etc. What I find more convincing is when non-desperate people turn to religion, doing it not in response to a major life change or emotional event.
Reply

Pygoscelis
10-02-2014, 04:55 PM
Threads like this, where intelligent theists calmly and intelligently expressed their perspective, without preaching or trying to convert me, are really quite awesome. It helps me to see the world as you folks see it. And must say, that it makes a lot of sense if you start with a belief in God.

If I believed there was a benevolent being who sees and knows and understands more than I do, and more than any of us here do, then it would make sense to follow what they say and trust in them that it is moral. Perhaps there is some reason I am not aware of why it makes sense to stop homosexuals from getting married. Perhaps there is some reason I am not aware of that even makes something I find wrong actually right, and if only I could see what is hidden from me, I would understand why. It is like going to a doctor or mechanic and knowing they know more than you do, and trusting in their judgment over your own. It really does make sense.

But I don't believe such a being exists, so that all falls apart. As I see it, we have only ourselves and each other and the empathy and compassion within us, with which to build ethical societies as best we can. As I see it, clinging to old ways of thinking and standing against developing new ideas only holds us back. And the way I see it, trusting in what others say is right and wrong without applying our own empathic sense and our own thoughts and judgments can be dangerous, even if those people claim to speak for benevolent Gods.

So, both sides of this are well meaning and both sides of this strive for what is moral and ethical. Neither of us are malevolent and neither of us mean to do evil. Perhaps if we can all come to see the other's point of view, even while entirely rejecting it, we can have more peace in this world and better understanding.
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
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!