Punishment for apostasy

format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad

That's because this is a superficial way to look at it. Pain, suffering and trial are sometimes needed to bring about a greater good. Sometimes a diseased limb needs to be removed to save the whole body.

Are carnivores that can only survive by killing and eating other living beings needed for a greater good? Are insects that can only reproduce by laying their eggs in other insects that then eat the host from the inside out needed for a greater good? Is this the purposeful design of an all loving creator? Are cancer, tornadoes in major city centres, stillborn children, mothers killed in childbirth, etc, all needed for some greater good? Does an all powerful God not have some other way to realize his greater good without having to create or allow such horrible things? Would saying no to that not be saying that he isn't all powerful?

Whoever obeys Him, He will reward him, and whoever disobeys Him, He will punish him.

Who are you saying disobeys Allah? Certainly not me or any other non-Muslim. We can't disobey what doesn't exist. Or are you still saying we are lying about that and secretly believe as you do?

The real mystery is what will people believe and follow if they reject what is clear and what resonates with the natural disposition and human intellect.

Do you mean science? Maybe not. A lot of what science discovers is counter-intuitive. Maybe you mean the world being flat? The sun going around the earth? Illness being caused by spirits instead of germs? Light not being a particle and wave? That all seems intuitive and seems clear and resonates with the natural disposition and human intellect.

Our senses are tricked all the time and we have dozens of cognitive biases that lead us away from actual truth. Everything from peer pressure to optical illusions to tribalism to confirmation bias to naturalistic fallacy and on and on. Trusting in your "gut" instinct will often lead you astray from actual objective truth. This is where science comes in, purposefully designed to control for such biases and confounding factors.

The fact that He sent Messengers and Scriptures for our guidance does not suggest a problem with power. For instance, how many times has the Prime Minister visited your house personally to tell you what is required of you? Yet I doubt you felt the need to criticise his power as a result of that.

The Prime Minister isn't omnipotent or omnipresent and is limited to human language and means of communication. A messenger or written text from him is what I would expect of him. Plus, I can see him on TV, photos in newspapers, etc. And there are not usually many conflicting accounts of who he is or what he has said. If such conflicting accounts do come to me, I would have to view them all much more skeptically. I also don't declare the Prime Minister to be perfect or perfectly benevolent or acting in my best interest. He may even be acting against me.

The judgement of dishonesty in an individual's heart is for God. Our task is simply to convey the message. And the truth is a Straight Path. In comparing religions, it is possible to discern truth from falsehood - the monotheism emphasised in Islam is a stark contrast to the Trinitarian concept of Christianity.

The judgment of dishonesty is laced throughout many things you have said to me in this thread, as I pointed out to you in my last response. For example, when you say that anyone who honestly and genuinely seeks for spiritual guidance will be brought to believe in Islam, are you not calling anybody who says that they honestly and genuinely seek spiritual guidance but it brought them to other religious beliefs, or no religious beliefs, liars? If not, explain to me how that is? When you say that reading the Quran makes non-muslims uncomfortable and arrogant, are you not declaring the dishonesty of any of us who say that isn't so? When you say that we reject or disobey Allah, are you not implicitly saying that we must believe he exists? As I have said numerous times now, how can you reject or disobey somebody that does not exist?

You can say that you are just relaying what you are convinced Allah has told you, but even then, by worshiping and supporting Allah, you are agreeing with and praising the message. You can tell yourself that you are not judging, but you clearly are. The mere statement that God is good is a judgment on your part.

You may have noticed the numerous converts from Christianity on this forum and the recurring theme of Christian creed not making any sense to them.

I have also noticed the numerous converts form Islam to Christianity, though as near as I can tell the Christians don't say that those who convert away from their religion should be put to death. It is less clear with the Muslims. Some of you say apostates from Islam should be left in peace (and I applaud you for that). Others call for blood. That brings us back to the OP.

I know that you can't fathom why or how I could think it, but I honestly and truly see no more sense in Islam than in Christinaity, or more sense in either than in ancient polytheistic beliefs, such as in Poseidon as previously mentioned above. that doesn't mean I am closed minded to either Islam or Christianity or belief in Poseidon.

It is possible for a person's predisposition to become corrupted. The Prophet said:[COLOR=#0000CD] “Every child is born in a state of fitrah (the natural state of man, i.e., Islam), then his parents make him into a Jew or a Christian or a Magian.”

Then you have some explaining to do, because given the culture and demographics of where I live, a LOT of atheists I know grew up with religious parents. Some of them were successfully indoctrinated into the religions of their parents and broke free later in life. Others, such as myself, never adopted any religious beliefs. The vast majority of us over here were never Muslim. I myself had not even heard of Islam until I was an adult. Are you telling me that as a baby I was a Muslim, though I have no memory of it? I suppose that is possible, but I find it highly unlikely. And I suspect that the only reason you could think it so would be because your religion says so.

Instead of making our own demands, is it not wise to at least examine the proof and message that He has sent? On the one hand you complain about confusion, yet on the other you make excuses for not even wanting to receive guidance. The Qur'an is the Words of Allaah, so I'm not sure why you say He 'can't speak for himself'.

If an all powerful god exists... I am certain that he CAN speak for himself. To say otherwise would be to say he's not all powerful. But according to every religion I have ever looked into, it is always "messengers" or "prophets" claiming to speak for him, or "holy books" claiming to be his words. If an all powerful God exists, I would expect that he wouldn't be so limited, and that he could simply have us all know whatever it is he wants us to know. All of the theatrics of prophets, holy texts, even human language, would not be needed.

So the question then is IF such a god exists, why would he choose the theatrics and limited means of communication, and all of the confusion and conflict that arises form it? Why would his test have anything to do with who and who does not believe in the truth he has hidden with this? Why would he reward or punish people for finding the right religious beliefs, rather than rewarding or punishing them for doing good or bad? And how can his test have anything to do with obedience to his commands if the vast majority of us don't receive his commands?

I hope you will surprise me and tell me otherwise, but I fear that your answer, and that the answer of many Muslims, and of many religious people in general, is that we all DO receive his commands, know exactly what he expects of us, and that we are rebelling or disobeying him if we don't do it. Will you tell me that you have relayed the message from him to me, and that therefore I have no excuse and should be punished for not following it? Even though I have told you that I don't believe it is actually a message from any such God? Will you again insist that I believe what I don't?

The point is not whether you feel despair or arrogance.

Then why did you say that non-muslims feel despair and arrogance when reading the book?

The point being made was that it is expected not everyone will believe in the Qur'an.

So it is not your Gods intention for us all to believe? Then what is the problem? Why insist on our dishonesty?

uptight any time someone says you 'refuse' or 'reject' the message of Islam.

Is it really surprising to you that I don't appreciate being told what I think or believe, and being called a liar? Are you ok with it when people do that to Muslims? Would it be ok with you if we all declared that real Muslims don't actually exist, and that you only pretend to believe in these stories and in Allah and Mohammad and lie about it because of social pressure or whatever other reason (maybe because you are afraid that if you go apostate you will be murdered for it), and so your pretend beliefs shouldn't be respected? Shall I draw a cartoon of Mohammad for you? I don't think you would be cool with that, nor should you be. I think you expect us to respect your beliefs as genuine and worthy of respect. I only ask the same.

Greetings Pygoscelis,

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

Does an all powerful God not have some other way to realize his greater good without having to create or allow such horrible things?

Again, what we might think is 'horrible' does not mean there is no good or wisdom in something. Using emotional arguments does not change that fact.

We can't disobey what doesn't exist.

If someone doesn’t believe their Prime Minister exists, does it mean he can’t be disobeyed by them?

Do you mean science? Maybe not. A lot of what science discovers is counter-intuitive.

What I am referring to, as an example of only one form of evidence, is man's innate nature with regards to a basic belief that is universal and not bound to any time or culture. I don't remember suggesting natural disposition (or even ‘gut instinct’) should be a tool for conducting a science experiment or research trial. If you want to discuss allegations about Islam and science, that would be a separate discussion.

The Prime Minister isn't omnipotent or omnipresent and is limited to human language and means of communication. A messenger or written text from him is what I would expect of him. Plus, I can see him on TV, photos in newspapers, etc. And there are not usually many conflicting accounts of who he is or what he has said. If such conflicting accounts do come to me, I would have to view them all much more skeptically. I also don't declare the Prime Minister to be perfect or perfectly benevolent or acting in my best interest. He may even be acting against me.

All of this is besides the point, which is that it’s not illogical for someone of status to communicate via messengers, regardless of how capable that entity is.

There are numerous ways and signs through which we can know God and what He has said, which actually attest to His perfection and benevolence. The conflicting accounts arise due to human error, not because God has sent conflicting messages.

The judgment of dishonesty is laced throughout many things you have said to me in this thread, as I pointed out to you in my last response. For example, when you say that anyone who honestly and genuinely seeks for spiritual guidance will be brought to believe in Islam, are you not calling anybody who says that they honestly and genuinely seek spiritual guidance but it brought them to other religious beliefs, or no religious beliefs, liars? If not, explain to me how that is?

Finding truth can be a long journey and everyone will have their own experiences and trials. If someone is searching and has not yet found Islam, they may find it later. If you read some of the convert stories, you’ll find some have converted in their 60’s. There's enough to talk about in terms of what I've actually said rather than what you think I've said.

When you say that reading the Quran makes non-muslims uncomfortable and arrogant, are you not declaring the dishonesty of any of us who say that isn't so?

Again, you are plucking things out of context. You'll note I gave examples of the Quraysh disbelievers and Orientalists. If it doesn't apply to you, good. For whatever reason you don't accept the Qur'an, that does not change the fact it is a perfect communication from Allaah .

The mere statement that God is good is a judgment on your part.

There are many reasons to believe God is good. He has bestowed upon man innumerable favours and blessings.

I have also noticed the numerous converts form Islam to Christianity, though as near as I can tell the Christians don't say that those who convert away from their religion should be put to death.

What I'm emphasising here is the general trend, not the exceptions. Islam is still considered the fastest growing religion. People who leave Christianity often talk about the central creed as being problematic. Those who leave Islam often have other issues, not the fact the central creed didn't make sense to them. The death penalty is of little relevance here because there are many places where Muslims can freely leave the faith if they really wanted to, with no one to implement the Shariah ruling.

Others call for blood.

I don't see anyone calling for blood here. They've just been discussing a ruling in Islamic law.

I know that you can't fathom why or how I could think it, but I honestly and truly see no more sense in Islam than in Christinaity, or more sense in either than in ancient polytheistic beliefs, such as in Poseidon as previously mentioned above. that doesn't mean I am closed minded to either Islam or Christianity or belief in Poseidon.

I notice you offered no response when I compared the belief in Poseidon to the Islamic belief in monotheism. It's one thing to say you don't find the concept of Books and Messengers convincing, but it is another to equate a religion that does not contradict logic to others which do. There is a clear difference between Poseidon not being an all-powerful god and having to fight for power, and the belief in Islam of a perfect, all-powerful God who has no partners.

Then you have some explaining to do, because given the culture and demographics of where I live, a LOT of atheists I know grew up with religious parents.

A child may be influenced by numerous factors, not only his parents. The Prophet told us that Allaah said,

'I created My servants in the right religion but the devils made them go astray.'

The vast majority of us over here were never Muslim. I myself had not even heard of Islam until I was an adult. Are you telling me that as a baby I was a Muslim, though I have no memory of it? I suppose that is possible, but I find it highly unlikely. And I suspect that the only reason you could think it so would be because your religion says so.

When a child is born, it has with it a natural belief in God. If the child were left alone, it would grow up aware of God in His oneness. Islam complements its role and details rulings that man’s innate disposition cannot reach independently.

So the question then is IF such a god exists, why would he choose the theatrics and limited means of communication, and all of the confusion and conflict that arises form it? Why would his test have anything to do with who and who does not believe in the truth he has hidden with this? Why would he reward or punish people for finding the right religious beliefs, rather than rewarding or punishing them for doing good or bad? And how can his test have anything to do with obedience to his commands if the vast majority of us don't receive his commands?

You are asking the question of why. We cannot always know the answer to this. Yes, God could make us all believers without any test. But He has created this world for a purpose and He has decreed things to occur in a certain way. He has sent us Prophets we could speak to and interact with. He has sent Scriptures that people could read and understand. He has sent miracles that attest to their truth. He has made the world around us a place of signs and contemplation. There is nothing ‘hidden’ about this. So, rather than questioning why didn’t the message come in an alternative form, which doesn’t really get you anywhere, it makes more sense to analyse that message and seek its truth.

So it is not your Gods intention for us all to believe? Then what is the problem?

The problem is with humans themselves, not God.

Why insist on our dishonesty?

Kindly point out where.

Is it really surprising to you that I don't appreciate being told what I think or believe,

No, and I hope you can appreciate the same for me.

I think you expect us to respect your beliefs as genuine and worthy of respect. I only ask the same.

Which is where this whole thing began. Kindly stop comparing our beliefs to nonsensical fantasy stories.

format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad

Kindly stop comparing our beliefs to nonsensical fantasy stories.

The point wasn't to call Islamic beliefs nonsense or to offend you, and I apologize if it did so. The point was to show that you can't make yourself believe what you don't. No matter how much I wanted to believe in Allah, no matter how much you promised me or threatened me, I could not make myself believe, just as you could not make yourself believe in Shiva or Odin, or any other being you think is myth. Obedience once you believe is a choice. Belief itself is not. I could only pretend to believe; lie about it, but of what value would that be?

I notice you offered no response when I compared the belief in Poseidon to the Islamic belief in monotheism. It's one thing to say you don't find the concept of Books and Messengers convincing, but it is another to equate a religion that does not contradict logic to others which do. There is a clear difference between Poseidon not being an all-powerful god and having to fight for power, and the belief in Islam of a perfect, all-powerful God who has no partners.

I did. I noted that I find multiple conflicting Gods a better explanation of the less than perfect world we live in. You can logically avoid the problem of evil if you don't posit a singular perfect all-benevolent and all-powerful God.

Again, what we might think is 'horrible' does not mean there is no good or wisdom in something. Using emotional arguments does not change that fact.

Saying anything is "good" or "horrible" is indeed a value judgment. I would judge needless suffering as horrible, and I would question the concept of an all-good and all-powerful being requiring suffering for some greater good. It would make me wonder about the all-powerfulness or the all-goodness, and would land me on the horns of Euthyphro's dilemma.

All of this is besides the point, which is that it’s not illogical for someone of status to communicate via messengers, regardless of how capable that entity is.

It is illogical if you claim that the person of status is all powerful and intends their message to be understood by all. Perhaps the person of status has limitations (like a prime minister) or perhaps they do not wish to be understood by all, and intend all of the confusion and conflict that results from their purposefully unclear message, or perhaps there is no such person of status. I don't see a fourth logical possibility.

If someone doesn’t believe their Prime Minister exists, does it mean he can’t be disobeyed by them?

Yes. It does. If that someone has good reason to doubt that there is a Prime Minister that was elected by the people, and that he's just being told so by somebody claiming to be a messenger, who demands particular things of this someone, then refusing is not refusing any actual prime minister who may actually exist.

Have you seen the story of "Hank" that was going around the internet a few years ago? Hank is a billionaire philanthropist who will give you a million dollars when you leave town if you do particular things that are here on a list Hank wrote. Hank can't come say this himself. He's very busy. Talking to anyone who has left town and gotten their million dollars is forbidden. The story goes through a few more points we have covered in this thread, and the reader is left wondering if this Hank actually exists or if the messenger has made him up. It is a good analogy for why atheists don't believe in Gods.

What I am referring to, as an example of only one form of evidence, is man's innate nature with regards to a basic belief that is universal and not bound to any time or culture.

When a child is born, it has with it a natural belief in God. If the child were left alone, it would grow up aware of God in His oneness. Islam complements its role and details rulings that man’s innate disposition cannot reach independently.

I would agree with you that there is an innate instinct in us to want to believe in a "higher power" to obey and follow. This isn't unique to human beings, and can be seen in many animal species, and especially in social and pack animals. Without this instinct a cub may not implicitly trust its mother and may venture off into danger. Authoritarian structure and the need to feel the part of something bigger are also tendencies found in social animals, and which greatly benefit both the individuals and the groups. You probably think "god made us this way" or that this is some evidence of God. I disagree and see perfectly good reasons why this would have evolved.

I would also point out that just because we have an innate tendency to do or believe something, doesn't make it true. We have an innate hyper-sensitivity go agency and patterns, hence our cursing at our toasters burning our bread and seeing recognizable features in clouds and ink blots. I think this also has some explanatory power towards why people believe in things like ghosts and Gods and engage in superstitions like harvest/rain dances and lucky charms.

There are numerous ways and signs through which we can know God and what He has said, which actually attest to His perfection and benevolence. The conflicting accounts arise due to human error, not because God has sent conflicting messages.

God doesn't have to send conflicting messages for this to occur. God does not have to send any messages at all for this to occur. People will come up with their own ideas and their own interpretations of whatever, if any, message is given. Given the hyper-agency detection I noted above, people will invent Gods even where they are not. Surely you can see this occurring in religions other than your own? We are then left with many competing messages with no clear unanimous clear it up and tell for sure which, if any, Gods exist.

If there is an all powerful being that wants to clear it all up, he certainly could. That he does not, shows that he does not intend to (or that he does not exist). And if this God doesn't intend to be known to and understood by all, then how is it just to punish anybody who doesn't know or understand. What sense would it then make to punish those who fail to believe? And how would it be just to punish those who cease to believe and become apostate?

format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad

Greetings Sojourn,

Using culture or personal opinions and feelings as a standard to critique a law is very flimsy because it is not based on an objective standard, rather a subjective emotional one. As Jamaal Zarabozo put it, '[I]the above has been sufficient to demonstrate that there does not seem to be any logical, historical or philosophical argument that proves that Islam’s law of apostasy is unacceptable or irrational, especially when applied within the strict confines of the principles of Islamic Law.'

Peace be with you Muhammad,

Lengthy articles attempting to paint the "unacceptable" as acceptable only go to show how unacceptable they are. Executing a woman or man for believing differently is unacceptable, and it's not just outsiders like myself that feel this way but take a look at some of the posts by Muslims in this very thread. There is a remarkable shift away from the traditional Islamic ruling, suggesting that apostasy (i.e. change of belief) is not itself punishable by death but only if it is accompanied by an act of treason such as waging war. This suggests a Muslim or Muslimah can under Shariah change their religion as their hearts and minds dictate without fear of punishment. Again, this is remarkable as even an outsider as myself is aware that the Four Schools of Sunni Islam teach that those who leave Islam by a change of belief are to be punished by death (If I am not mistaken the most lenient position was of some Hanafi jurists who stated such a person is to be imprisoned for life.) Now why do some Muslims find executing people for believing differently problematic? I do not think it is a matter of emotion or subjective opinion. It stems from human dignity. Humans are born with a conscience, a will, and reason. The truth is out there, God has made His case so to speak, but faith has to be an act of free will. There is no coercion in religion, as your Book states so clearly, but that goes both ways. If a person chooses to embrace or leave a religion, that is their free will, there can be no coercion. If it is illogical to say you can coerce a person to become Muslim, it is likewise illogical to say you can coerce them to stay Muslim. What is the value of person's faith if the only reason she is practicing is because she is being forced to? Is it not meaningless before God's eyes if the heart is not there to begin with? Let her leave, let her follow her conscience and reason, as she has a duty to do so.

It is important to note that we don't live in a world of absolute freedom. Whichever country you go to, you must follow the law of that place. Regardless of whether you agree with the law or not, you don't have a choice but to follow it. In numerous countries, it is a crime to deny the holocaust. There are laws against hate speech and racial vilification. In some places, it is a crime simply to wear the face veil. Certain crimes such as treason warrant death in places like the US. If inestimable dignity and freedom of speech is your concern, this is a much wider discussion than the law of apostasy.

Yes, I agree with you. Cases such as the ones you mention above go against the free speech and they remain controversial to non-Muslims as well. But you have to understand that the position you hold to execute people for no longer wanting to be Muslim is a move in the wrong direction. It is a move towards less freedom and less dignity of the human person.

This is irrelevant. The reasons for mass migration are more to do with finding better living standards and fleeing war-torn regions. It does not mean we can now turn a blind eye to the war crimes and restrictions imposed by these western countries, or the harassment of people that goes on there.

I agree that we can not turn a blind eye towards war crimes or harassment of people. But it does go to show that Christian and Secular nations provide a better standard of living even despite some of the cases you mention above. Millions of people are fleeing to Germany and not Saudi Arabia or ISIS held territory, and I don't think it's only due to economic reasons, but also do to the culture and freedom that is in Germany and other Western countries.

Thank you for clarifying. I’m sure you’ll agree there’s a big difference between saying the punishment was merely ‘loss of civil rights’ and that torture was permitted. However, we should realise that in the early days of Christianity, during which the nature of God was being debated, the ongoing disagreements were at times violent and bloody. Of the aftermath of the Council of Nicaea, noted historian Will Durant writes, “Probably more Christians were slaughtered by Christians in these two years (342-3) than by all the persecutions of Christians by pagans in the history of Rome” ( The Story of Civilization, Vol. 4: The Age of Faith, 1950, p. 8). While claiming to be Christian many of them fought and slaughtered one another, considering the others to be heretics. Even much later, for some years after the Reformation, Protestant churches were known to execute those they considered heretics, including Catholics.

Christianity does not have an absolute version of civil laws that are meant for all places and all times that we are attempting to resurrect in the Modern Age. This means that laws can vary from time to time, and even between two nations during the same time period, it also means that there is movement towards creating a community ever more in line with Jesus' teachings, and if possible a society as well.

A clear understanding of human dignity has been developing over time. Referring to the Roman Emperor of the 4th century or a Pope's fallible opinion on a civil matter in the 12th century is a moot point.

From the Second Vatican Council:

First, the council professes its belief that God Himself has made known to mankind the way in which men are to serve Him, and thus be saved in Christ and come to blessedness. We believe that this one true religion subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus committed the duty of spreading it abroad among all men. Thus He spoke to the Apostles: "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have enjoined upon you" (Matt. 28: 19-20). On their part, all men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and His Church, and to embrace the truth they come to know, and to hold fast to it.

This Vatican Council likewise professes its belief that it is upon the human conscience that these obligations fall and exert their binding force. The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power.

...

his Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_c...umanae_en.html

This is indeed a fundamental difference between Islam and other religions. The teachings that were revealed to Moses, Jesus and the other Prophets, upon them be peace, were for their respective peoples. But as Prophet Muhammad was the Final Messenger, the teachings were for his people until the end of time. That is why we have the Qur’an in its original form today, a miracle for all to appreciate. Allaah has legislated a perfect Law that is for all times and places. A Law that is for the betterment of the individual and society. A Law that covers all aspects of life, whether personal, familial life, societal roles, financial transactions, political dealings and more.

You're saying this dogmatically and it might make sense to someone who already believes, but as an outsider who does not follow Muhammad, it does nothing to make your position more believable or reasonable. I would like to address some of the things you mention above but I do want to cause offense and nor do I want to go against the forum guidelines or the scope of this thread.

But is this the reality though? Augustine justified violence if the motive behind the violence was ‘love’ for the person or persons who needed to be restrained or punished. He cited biblical texts, notably Luke 14:16-23, to justify the use of compulsion. It seems, according to Christians, loving one’s enemy can even amount to killing him.

As GK Chesterton said, "The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.” You mention St Augustine, the brilliant African Churchman and scholar of the 4th century, who lived in present date Algeria and whose Christian community has been all but whiped out. He lived in a time when the Roman Empire had converted to Christianity and it was being sacked by countless pagan tribes. The idea of Christians fighting in war was controversial because for centuries Christians had for the most part abstained from military duty and lived pacifistic life styles. But now the Empire was Christian and involved in a constant war and defense against the tribes of norther Europe, and Augustine had argued that the Empire did have a right to defend itself. His statements in his book The City of God would become the starting point for the concept of Just War:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2309.htm

Greetings Pygoscelis,

Apologies for the delayed reply.

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

The point was to show that you can't make yourself believe what you don't. No matter how much I wanted to believe in Allah, no matter how much you promised me or threatened me, I could not make myself believe, just as you could not make yourself believe in Shiva or Odin, or any other being you think is myth.

I accept the point that you can't make yourself believe. Guidance is ultimately in the control of God. The only issue I have is that you group all types of belief into one - fairytales and myths (if these can be called beliefs), polytheism, monotheism etc. I am trying to clarify that these are not the same and the evidence and reasoning for each one varies. The fact that a person can't accept a myth doesn't mean they can't accept an actual belief system with a substantial basis.

I did. I noted that I find multiple conflicting Gods a better explanation of the less than perfect world we live in. You can logically avoid the problem of evil if you don't posit a singular perfect all-benevolent and all-powerful God.

Again, you are working on the premise that the existence of evil in the world is a problem, and that God doesn’t have any reasons to permit evil and suffering in the world. The story of Khidr, which can be found in the 18th chapter of Qur’an from verses 60 to 82, is an eloquent account of how God’s wisdom, whether understood or not, has positive results and benefits for humanity. Moreover, we need to establish that God exists first before attempting to reconcile who God is with our perception of reality, in this case, evil and suffering.

Saying anything is "good" or "horrible" is indeed a value judgment. I would judge needless suffering as horrible, and I would question the concept of an all-good and all-powerful being requiring suffering for some greater good.

The question also arises as to what makes our value judgements objectively true. Without God, these terms are relative as there is no conceptual anchor, apart from God himself, which transcends human subjectivity.

It is illogical if you claim that the person of status is all powerful and intends their message to be understood by all. Perhaps the person of status has limitations (like a prime minister) or perhaps they do not wish to be understood by all, and intend all of the confusion and conflict that results from their purposefully unclear message, or perhaps there is no such person of status. I don't see a fourth logical possibility.

You are arguing using subjectivity, not logic. Indeed, the Qur'an details how former people made similar demands, asking to see God in public, receiving what the Messengers received and asking for a book to descend upon them from heaven.

And those who have no knowledge say: "Why does not Allah speak to us (face to face) or why does not a sign come to us'' So said the people before them words of similar import. Their hearts are alike, We have indeed made plain the signs for people who believe with certainty. [Qur'an 2:118]

God knows best how to deliver His message. Out of His Mercy, He has delivered it in a language we can understand and sent a Messenger from amongst mankind who could expound upon it, with whom people could interact and seek clarification. God has made the arguments clear, proving the truth of the Messengers, with no need of further questions or proofs for those who believe, follow the Messengers and comprehend what Allah sent them with. This is a universal message which transcends culture, nationality and ethnicity. It has been preserved meticulously for all those alive today to reflect, learn and ponder over.

Yet the Qur'an also makes clear,

Truly, those, against whom the Word (wrath) of your Lord has been justified, will not believe. Even if every sign should come to them, until they see the painful torment. (10:96-97).

Ultimately, it is the approach of individuals towards the message of God that varies. It is not a problem with the message or its mode of delivery that is at fault.

Yes. It does. If that someone has good reason to doubt that there is a Prime Minister that was elected by the people, and that he's just being told so by somebody claiming to be a messenger, who demands particular things of this someone, then refusing is not refusing any actual prime minister who may actually exist.

You are answering from the perspective of the individual. However, in reality, just because someone denied the validity of the Prime Minister would not be a license for them to break the law. The other citizens and law enforcement officers would most likely regard such an individual as deluded.

Have you seen the story of "Hank" that was going around the internet a few years ago? Hank is a billionaire philanthropist who will give you a million dollars when you leave town if you do particular things that are here on a list Hank wrote. Hank can't come say this himself. He's very busy. Talking to anyone who has left town and gotten their million dollars is forbidden. The story goes through a few more points we have covered in this thread, and the reader is left wondering if this Hank actually exists or if the messenger has made him up. It is a good analogy for why atheists don't believe in Gods.

The problem with this analogy is that it's not representative of our beliefs. It is a scenario restricted to a particular situation, presumably of a dubious person turning up at one's doorstep (and numerous alarm bells would be ringing before a person even listens to what the 'salesman' is saying). The fact that it involves human beings and isn't about an All-Powerful Creator means we are dealing with limited beings capable of greed, deception, malice and other weaknesses. There isn't even any evidence presented for Hank existing! As you can see, it fails on multiple levels. The Prophet was known to his people for 40 years before he even began preaching about Islam. His message was the same given to countless generations before him, a message from the Lord of the Worlds. The Jews and Christians around him recognised his message and even anticipated his arrival. Again, it is a completely different scenario.

I would agree with you that there is an innate instinct in us to want to believe in a "higher power" to obey and follow. This isn't unique to human beings, and can be seen in many animal species, and especially in social and pack animals. Without this instinct a cub may not implicitly trust its mother and may venture off into danger. Authoritarian structure and the need to feel the part of something bigger are also tendencies found in social animals, and which greatly benefit both the individuals and the groups. You probably think "god made us this way" or that this is some evidence of God. I disagree and see perfectly good reasons why this would have evolved.

What I am referring to is more than an instinct. It is a reference point used by God to appeal to man. It is complemented by Islam. One of the scholars of Islam likened man's innate disposition and the truth to vision and the sun: every individual should be able to see sunshine if there is no barrier between them. Similarly, false and passing beliefs are like a barrier that prevents the eyes from seeing the sun.

I would also point out that just because we have an innate tendency to do or believe something, doesn't make it true. We have an innate hyper-sensitivity go agency and patterns, hence our cursing at our toasters burning our bread and seeing recognizable features in clouds and ink blots. I think this also has some explanatory power towards why people believe in things like ghosts and Gods and engage in superstitions like harvest/rain dances and lucky charms.

The innate disposition is not used on its own. An individual is born sound and free from all false beliefs and ready to accept correct ones. A person’s disposition recognises matters in general, while the law of Islam details, explains and attests to what the innate self cannot do alone.

God doesn't have to send conflicting messages for this to occur. God does not have to send any messages at all for this to occur. People will come up with their own ideas and their own interpretations of whatever, if any, message is given. Given the hyper-agency detection I noted above, people will invent Gods even where they are not. Surely you can see this occurring in religions other than your own? We are then left with many competing messages with no clear unanimous clear it up and tell for sure which, if any, Gods exist.

If there is an all powerful being that wants to clear it all up, he certainly could. That he does not, shows that he does not intend to (or that he does not exist). And if this God doesn't intend to be known to and understood by all, then how is it just to punish anybody who doesn't know or understand. What sense would it then make to punish those who fail to believe? And how would it be just to punish those who cease to believe and become apostate?

I agree that people do come up with their own interpretations and ideas regardless of the message given to them. However, the Hyper Active Agency Detection theory neglects external evidences and use of intellect in recognising God and the message He has sent to us. As I mentioned above, the innate nature of man is only one tool amongst others. From an Islamic perspective, we don’t believe that man evolved from a lower species, rather he was created by God. The belief in monotheism was present from the beginning, not something which was the product of an evolutionary process.

God has given man responsibility and the ability to make choices. The answers are in front of us if we seek them. God is there to accept our prayers if we take the step and ask for His guidance. The question is not about what God intends or not; the question is what are we doing to find the true guidance?

Alhamdulillaah for Islam being complete, and unfortunate and cursed are those who leave this true religion!

format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad

The question also arises as to what makes our value judgements objectively true. Without God, these terms are relative as there is no conceptual anchor, apart from God himself, which transcends human subjectivity.

Value judgments are by definition subjective. They are values, not facts. Attributing it to the mind of a God doesn't change that, it only seeks to externalize it from yourself.

And if you are thinking how can we know good from bad or right from wrong or live in harmony without a moral law giver from on high, my answer is our evolved and innate senses of empathy and fairness, which we share with many social animals, but have developed further, which enables us to live in towns and cities, etc, in relative harmony. The vast majority of my moral framework and my moral values comes from this. I don't need any external code of ethics or values to get there.

Tradition and authoritarianism is another source of "moral values" for people, especially fundamentalist religious people or highly nationalistic people, who seem to conflate morality with obedience a lot more than I do. This is seen in Islam as "submission to Allah", etc. I have no obedience to a God or King. Authority figures can tell me what is legal and illegal, but not what is right and wrong. When I say something is wrong, I say so because it is unfair or because my sense of empathy kicks in (seeing myself in others and feeling their pain). Authoritarian/Tradition based morality adds rituals (praying a certain number of times in the "proper" manner) and other "values" (dietary laws, sexual laws etc) that I don't follow.

That's a bit of an aside, but I think it is an interesting one, and I am curious how people on the other end of the spectrum look at this. Am I speaking unfairly when I say that they are basing their values on obedience to an authority (King) or a perceived authority (God) as much as on their own sense of empathy and fairness? Sometimes I get the sense that they bury their own sense of morality under a sense of obedience or group identity. Well, I'm getting way off topic now, so I digress.

God knows best how to deliver His message. Out of His Mercy, He has delivered it in a language we can understand and sent a Messenger from amongst mankind who could expound upon it, with whom people could interact and seek clarification. God has made the arguments clear, proving the truth of the Messengers, with no need of further questions or proofs for those who believe, follow the Messengers and comprehend what Allah sent them with. This is a universal message which transcends culture, nationality and ethnicity. It has been preserved meticulously for all those alive today to reflect, learn and ponder over.

I agree that any all powerful God would know how best to deliver his/her message. I disagree that arguments have been made clear or "truth" been made apparent. This is obvious to me as I see that the majority of human beings are not Muslims, or otherwise of a unified view on theology. If there is an all powerful God, then this God must have intended that, and all that results from it. To say otherwise would be to question his all-powerfulness.

I agree that people do come up with their own interpretations and ideas regardless of the message given to them. However, the Hyper Active Agency Detection theory neglects external evidences and use of intellect in recognising God and the message He has sent to us.

I see no convincing evidences and my use of intellect leads me in the opposite direction, so we'll have to politely agree to disagree.

I accept the point that you can't make yourself believe. Guidance is ultimately in the control of God.

God has given man responsibility and the ability to make choices. The answers are in front of us if we seek them. God is there to accept our prayers if we take the step and ask for His guidance. The question is not about what God intends or not; the question is what are we doing to find the true guidance?

So you accept that many (ie, Hindus and Christians) do their best to "find true guidance" and come to other things than Islam, with as much conviction as certainty as you have in Islam? And do you accept that some of us (ie, Athiests and the non-religious) see no need for such guidance? Is this God's plan? If so, I must wonder then, why should any of us be punished for coming to different answers? Or changing our minds, such as apostates from Islam? Or are you saying that we should not be?

Greetings Sojourn,

format_quote Originally Posted by Sojourn

Lengthy articles attempting to paint the "unacceptable" as acceptable only go to show how unacceptable they are.

Is that your excuse for not reading it? Let us look at the points made rather than the length.

Executing a woman or man for believing differently is unacceptable,

That isn't what we are talking about, or else there would be no non-Muslims in Muslim countries. Apostasy refers to someone willingly disbelieving after embracing Islam.

and it's not just outsiders like myself that feel this way but take a look at some of the posts by Muslims in this very thread. There is a remarkable shift away from the traditional Islamic ruling, suggesting that apostasy (i.e. change of belief) is not itself punishable by death but only if it is accompanied by an act of treason such as waging war.

If you want to look for traditional Islamic rulings and whether there is a shift away from them, you should look to what the body of Islamic scholars have said, not what lay Muslims say on forum threads.

Again, this is remarkable as even an outsider as myself is aware that the Four Schools of Sunni Islam teach that those who leave Islam by a change of belief are to be punished by death (If I am not mistaken the most lenient position was of some Hanafi jurists who stated such a person is to be imprisoned for life.)

To the best of my knowledge, the Hanafi jurists say only the female apostate is to be imprisoned until she accepts Islam; the male apostate is to be killed.

Now why do some Muslims find executing people for believing differently problematic?

Hmmm... what do you tell your Christian brethren who find the very core of your faith, the trinity, problematic?

I do not think it is a matter of emotion or subjective opinion. It stems from human dignity.

There can be no greater dignity than following divine guidance in its entirety, without distortion or rejection. The Qur'an warns of previous nations who subjected the revelation to their own whims and desires and as a result, went astray.

Humans are born with a conscience, a will, and reason. The truth is out there, God has made His case so to speak, but faith has to be an act of free will. There is no coercion in religion, as your Book states so clearly, but that goes both ways. If a person chooses to embrace or leave a religion, that is their free will, there can be no coercion. If it is illogical to say you can coerce a person to become Muslim, it is likewise illogical to say you can coerce them to stay Muslim. What is the value of person's faith if the only reason she is practicing is because she is being forced to? Is it not meaningless before God's eyes if the heart is not there to begin with?

Our conscience, will and reason should not precede God's wisdom and knowledge. We are His humble creation and recognise His authority in ordaining how we should live. If we claim to love Him, we must obey Him.

With regards to there being no coercion in religion, it's important to note that there are two different types of people: a person who has not embraced Islam and someone who apostatised from Islam. Both of them do not fall under the same category. In the verse you are referring to [2:256], the believers are ordered not to coerce anybody into accepting the fold of Islam. This verse is not speaking about apostasy.

But if one, of his own free will, chooses to believe and enters Islam by declaring the testification of faith, then he is bound by his declaration and all the disciplines of Islam become obligatory upon such a person. If one, after accepting Islam, does not pray, he will be compelled by Law to offer his prayers; or if he refuses to pay the zakah dues, he will be compelled by Law to fulfill his zakah dues; or if he refuses to distribute inheritance as prescribed by Shariah, he will be compelled by Law to do so; etc. Once the person of his own free will accepts Islam, he has no right to pick-and-choose the laws he wishes to follow, rather he will be compelled to follow all the obligatory dictates of Shariah by Law. Here one cannot say or bring forth the excuse Let there be no compulsion in religion, nor would it be accepted. This command only applies to one who has not accepted Islam as his way of life.

A simple example may help to further explain the point. In today's age, one is not compelled to take citizenship of any nation (e.g. United States of America); but if one of his own free will chooses to take on and accept US citizenship, he cannot pick-and-choose which law he wishes to follow. If the law of the land states that he has to pay tax, he will be compelled to pay it whether he likes it or not; of if the law of the land states he has to be drafted in the army, he will be compelled to join the army; or if the law of the land states he has to pay half his wealth to his divorced wife, he will be compelled to do so; etc.

Let her leave, let her follow her conscience and reason, as she has a duty to do so.

What if their so-called conscience and reason takes them and those around them to Hell? The duty rests on others to try and prevent this from happening.

It is a move towards less freedom

Sometimes having less freedom is beneficial, as in the examples to prevent hate crimes. In some cases it can save a person's life, as in detaining a severely depressed person trying to kill themselves.

I agree that we can not turn a blind eye towards war crimes or harassment of people. But it does go to show that Christian and Secular nations provide a better standard of living even despite some of the cases you mention above. Millions of people are fleeing to Germany and not Saudi Arabia or ISIS held territory, and I don't think it's only due to economic reasons, but also do to the culture and freedom that is in Germany and other Western countries.

Rather than reduce the Islamic world to Saudi Arabia and 'ISIS held territory', you would do yourself more favours to remember how much western culture owes to Islam's rich tradition. Templar Historian, Tim Wallace-Murphy, writes in his book:

Even the brief study of history revealed in these pages demonstrates that European culture owes an immense and immeasurable debt to the world of Islam. Muslim scholars preserved and enhanced the learning of ancient Greece, laid the foundations for modern science, medicine, astronomy and navigation and inspired some of our greatest cultural achievements. If it were not for the inherent tolerance for the People of the Book that was manifest within the Islamic world for over fifteen centuries, it is highly doubtful that the Jewish people could have survived as a racial and religious entity, and we would have lost their contribution to art, medicine, science, literature and music which is almost beyond measure. We in the West owe a debt to the Muslim world that can never be fully repaid. Despite our common religious and spiritual roots, we have thanked them with centuries of mistrust, the brutality of the Crusades and an imperial takeover that was conducted with callous indifference to the needs of the peoples we exploited.
Tim Wallace-Murphy, What Islam Did for Us; p. 215

Christianity does not have an absolute version of civil laws that are meant for all places and all times that we are attempting to resurrect in the Modern Age. This means that laws can vary from time to time, and even between two nations during the same time period, it also means that there is movement towards creating a community ever more in line with Jesus' teachings, and if possible a society as well.

It is not only laws you are referring to, but doctrine as well. The fact that there is no way for Christians to ascertain Jesus’ actual teachings means that the Church has used ‘Sacred Tradition’ to extract out of the Bible whatever verses that might be construed to support their doctrines. Even a customary reading of the Bible does not lend itself to the numerous beliefs and practices of today. Thus, it is somewhat ironic for you to speak of Jesus’ teachings and in the same breath boast of modified laws.

A clear understanding of human dignity has been developing over time.

Well, the direction of where that dignity is going is debatable.

Referring to the Roman Emperor of the 4th century or a Pope's fallible opinion on a civil matter in the 12th century is a moot point.

Or perhaps inconvenient when you realise it wasn’t what you expected.

You're saying this dogmatically and it might make sense to someone who already believes, but as an outsider who does not follow Muhammad, it does nothing to make your position more believable or reasonable.

It is easy for an outsider to appreciate the preservation of the teachings of Islam and their comprehensiveness. Simply reading a biography of the Prophet will illustrate the numerous teachings from him in all spheres of life. The fact that this Law was revealed over a thousand years ago and yet is applicable today and provides the solutions for our problems, is evidence of originating from an All-Knowledgeable, All-Wise Legislator.

As GK Chesterton said, "The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.” You mention St Augustine, the brilliant African Churchman and scholar of the 4th century, who lived in present date Algeria and whose Christian community has been all but whiped out. He lived in a time when the Roman Empire had converted to Christianity and it was being sacked by countless pagan tribes. The idea of Christians fighting in war was controversial because for centuries Christians had for the most part abstained from military duty and lived pacifistic life styles. But now the Empire was Christian and involved in a constant war and defense against the tribes of norther Europe, and Augustine had argued that the Empire did have a right to defend itself. His statements in his book The City of God would become the starting point for the concept of Just War:

I take it you will agree, then, that operating on the basis of love alone is an impractical worldview.

format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad

That isn't what we are talking about, or else there would be no non-Muslims in Muslim countries. Apostasy refers to someone willingly disbelieving after embracing Islam.

I can't think of anything as fundamental as a belief in a God that I ever "willingly disbelieved". How is that possible? What does that mean? There are ex-Muslims who actually lose faith on purpose by will? Is it different from a former Muslim coming to disbelieve Islam unwillingly? And why would either merit murder?

Greetings Pygoscelis,

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

Value judgments are by definition subjective. They are values, not facts.

We agree on this. That is why I am saying we cannot use subjective value judgements as an objective standard to argue against the existence of evil.

Attributing it to the mind of a God doesn't change that,

It does. If we are discussing the existence of evil in the context of the existence of an All-Powerful God, we need to complete that picture by remembering God's knowledge and wisdom is perfect, in contrast to ours which is limited.

And if you are thinking how can we know good from bad or right from wrong or live in harmony without a moral law giver from on high, my answer is our evolved and innate senses of empathy and fairness, which we share with many social animals, but have developed further, which enables us to live in towns and cities, etc, in relative harmony. The vast majority of my moral framework and my moral values comes from this. I don't need any external code of ethics or values to get there.

I agree that man has an innate moral compass (although we may disagree on how it got there), and I add that guidance from God endorses and completes the virtues intrinsic within us. It's interesting to note, when we were talking about innate nature as a means for recognising God, you said, 'just because we have an innate tendency to do or believe something, doesn't make it true'. However, when trying to find fault with God, you are quick to justify innate sense as an independent tool.

Tradition and authoritarianism is another source of "moral values" for people, especially fundamentalist religious people or highly nationalistic people, who seem to conflate morality with obedience a lot more than I do. This is seen in Islam as "submission to Allah", etc. I have no obedience to a God or King. Authority figures can tell me what is legal and illegal, but not what is right and wrong. When I say something is wrong, I say so because it is unfair or because my sense of empathy kicks in (seeing myself in others and feeling their pain).

A Muslim's submission to Allaah and confidence in His Law is based upon a very logical framework. The initial stages of this involve establishing that God exists and identifying the sources by which we may know about His message. Some of these sources we have been discussing - internal ones like innate disposition and intellect. There are also external sources we have not really discussed (but have been discussed at length in other threads) which would mainly comprise of the Qur'an and the teachings and life of the Prophet Muhammad . Once the foundation is in place with regards to believing in God and understanding His message, naturally obedience and implementation of that should follow. It is no coincidence that the Qur'an was revealed gradually over many years, and that the focus of the message at the beginning was on creedal issues as well as character, before there was even a command for things like prayer. It is also no coincidence, as I mentioned earlier, that the Prophet Muhammad was a renowned man of impeccable morals and character well before he was assigned as Messenger. In all this we see a stepwise, logical process illustrating how faith is coupled with reason and that submission is not without knowledge and certainty.

With regards to morality, God is the One who instilled our moral compass in the first place and His Laws are there to elevate it. When we talk about human authorities who are capable of making mistakes, being corrupted and having ulterior motives, it is clear they are not infallible sources of right and wrong. But, when that authority is God and His Messenger, it is a different picture entirely.

Authoritarian/Tradition based morality adds rituals (praying a certain number of times in the "proper" manner) and other "values" (dietary laws, sexual laws etc) that I don't follow.

In Islam, worship is very comprehensive; it is one's entire life. Worship may include beliefs, social activities and personal contributions to one's society and fellow human beings. Rituals which are performed correctly and sincerely elevate the individual both spiritually and morally and actually help him to live a righteous life according to the guidance of Allaah .

Sometimes I get the sense that they bury their own sense of morality under a sense of obedience or group identity.

I assert that godlessness is what tends to cause moral decline, not obedience to God.

I disagree that arguments have been made clear or "truth" been made apparent. This is obvious to me as I see that the majority of human beings are not Muslims, or otherwise of a unified view on theology. If there is an all powerful God, then this God must have intended that, and all that results from it. To say otherwise would be to question his all-powerfulness.

Everything is indeed according to God's Will. There is no doubting that. However, we must understand that God has given mankind the freedom to make choices and we must also face the consequences of those. If the majority of people have fallen prey to misguidance, that is not to say the way of truth is not clear. The Qur'an tells us (interestingly, in the very verse about there being no compulsion in religion):

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. [Qur'an 2:256]

So you accept that many (ie, Hindus and Christians) do their best to "find true guidance" and come to other things than Islam, with as much conviction as certainty as you have in Islam?

I do not believe that anyone can have as much conviction and certainty as Muslims have in Islam. How can it be so, when there is no foundation, neither of intellect nor scripture, to support those beliefs? As for people doing their best, that is a matter known to God.

And if you obey most of those upon the earth, they will mislead you from the way of Allah. They follow not except assumption, and they are not but falsifying. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who strays from His way, and He is most knowing of the [rightly] guided. [Qur'an 6:116-117]

And do you accept that some of us (ie, Athiests and the non-religious) see no need for such guidance?

There is not a single soul on this earth who is not in need of guidance. To think otherwise is a huge disservice to oneself in realising the purpose of being here.

If so, I must wonder then, why should any of us be punished for coming to different answers?

There are numerous factors because of which people fail to accept the truth. This is for the individual to analyse within their own heart. As for those who have a genuine excuse, God is the Most Just and will not punish unfairly.

I can't think of anything as fundamental as a belief in a God that I ever "willingly disbelieved". How is that possible? What does that mean?

I believe what is being referred to here is someone who does that of his own free will, i.e. he is not acting under coercion. And Allaah knows best.

format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad

I assert that godlessness is what tends to cause moral decline, not obedience to God.

We will have to politely agree to disagree. I do not say that externalization of your moral values to an imagined authority (what you call obedience to God) is necessarily going to lead to immoral actions, but I do believe that externalization of your moral values to any authority, imagined or otherwise, places a barrier to your own senses of empathy and fairness. It can lead to farming out your judgments of good and bad, which I view as an avoidance of moral judgment and an avoidance of personal responsibility, such as with the catholic gentleman I spoke to recently who answered a moral quandry with "What does the Pope say? Whatever he says is what I believe to be right".

Everything is indeed according to God's Will. There is no doubting that. However, we must understand that God has given mankind the freedom to make choices and we must also face the consequences of those. If the majority of people have fallen prey to misguidance, that is not to say the way of truth is not clear.

Yes, it is. Unless your God is not all powerful, of course. If an all powerful being willed us to know and understand him, we would know him and understand him. We don't... so he doesn't. Simple as that. You say that there is no compulsion in religion, but does that apply to belief or to obedience once you believe? If the former, it makes no sense to me whatsoever. As I have been saying above, and as you agreed, we can not make ourselves believe what we do not believe, or make ourselves not believe what we believe by sheer willpower. There is compulsion in belief. Not compulsion by some threat by a religious person, but compulsion by your own senses. If I put an apple in your hand, you are compelled to believe you have an apple in your hand. Or can you stare at it and make yourself believe you are holding a banana? I can't do that.

I do not believe that anyone can have as much conviction and certainty as Muslims have in Islam. How can it be so, when there is no foundation, neither of intellect nor scripture, to support those beliefs?

Because you are Mulsim. The Hindu and the Christian tell me the exact same thing about how their religion is the only one with good foundation, intellect and scripture.

There is not a single soul on this earth who is not in need of guidance. To think otherwise is a huge disservice to oneself in realising the purpose of being here.

That isn't what I asked. I asked if you believe that there are those of us who do not see any need for guidance. I accept that you wrongly believe that you need some external purpose and guidance to your life imposed by an external all powerful being. Do you accept that I very wrongly (in your view) dismiss your belief as without rational foundation?

I believe what is being referred to here is someone who does that of his own free will, i.e. he is not acting under coercion. And Allaah knows best.

I think we established above that it is God's will that makes us either believe or not believe he exists, and his will that either guides us to believe in Islam or doesn't. If he is an all powerful being, I would further posit that it must be his will if we lose belief in his existence. Would an all powerful being not have the power to stop that from happening? I further posit that people who lose belief in the existence of God do not do so willingly, anymore than you willingly believe that the apple you ate is no longer in your hand. You don't choose to believe that the apple is no longer in your hand. It just isn't, and you believe that it isn't because your senses compel you to.

I then look to the concept of punishing or murdering somebody for it, and my moral senses, my true moral senses of empathy and fairness, not externally shelled off or farmed out, tell me that it is abhorrent and wrong.

Death by apostasy secures the foundation, security and unity of the Ummah. It prevents hypocrites from coming, leaving, and defaming.