Why is there a punishment for leaving Islam? Shouldn't everyone be free to choose their religion? And no, don't tell me what can be worse than a person leaving Islam. I just see the punishment as unnecessary and makes Islam look like a religion controlled by fear.
Every mans sense of empathy and fairness has evolved and based on these he decides what is right and wrong?
So one mans sense tells him one thing and another mans sense tells him another thing. Who decides who is right then ?
We all do, and for the most part we agree. We have evolved to work cooperatively in groups, even more than other social animals, we feel a sense of connection with other people (especially those of our tribe) and we also evolved a sense of fairness. Only rarely do people lack this, and that is the disorder called sociopathy.
With all due respect, it doesn't make sense.
I always find it fascinating when I encounter people who can't see this. Do they have no sense of morality aside from obedience to authority and power (ultimate power being God)? If God told you to kill your child as a sacrifice, fly a plane into a building, or force poisoned cool aid on a village of innocent people, would you do it? Or would you refuse and turn against such a monstrous God?
Consider the bible story of Abraham and Isaac, where God tells Abraham to kill Isaac, as a loyalty test. Abraham is about to do it, and so God spares Isaac by offering a lamb to kill in his place (why the lamb deserved to die I don't know, but that's another matter). Imagine if that story instead ended with Abraham refusing God's demand, and telling him that he will not kill Isaac because that is immoral. And imagine if God then said Abraham passed the test, for standing up against authority for what is right. That would make it a great morality tale instead of the sick one that the story actually is. But instead we have Christians decreeing that obedience trumps morality. Does that bother you as a Muslim as much as it bothers me as a secular humanist?
As my sig below says, obedience is doing what you are told no matter what is right, morality is doing what is right no matter what you are told, and we should be careful not to mistake the one for the other.
But what is your evidence that the believe of homosexuality being wrong evolved in men first and then man claimed God said it, or was it the other way wrong.
The complete lack of convincing evidence that any such God exists. You can disagree about that, but you asked and I have answered.
Why would man forbid anything upon himself. If he evolved from an animal, then an animal pursues what it likes, not the opposite!
Man didn't evolve from an animal. Man is an animal. We are highly intelligent and social primates. We forbid ourselves and each other from doing things for a number of reasons, the most important being group cohesion and mutual empathy. If we considered it ok to kill each other, we would have to always be on guard from being killed by each other. An animal without any sense of empathy for other members of its species or grouping within that species isn't going to survive in groups. It isn't hard to see why we evolved our senses of empathy and fairness, and you can see the same in some degree in other social animals, such as dogs, dolphins, and chimps.
You may argue that empathy is not all powerful and we are prone to doing some horrible things to each other, and that is true. The dark side of empathy is tribalism (us vs them mentality). That is reality, and it exists on all sides (from Donald Trump to Isis to Hitler to the witch burnings). Adding religion into the mix doesn't necessarily improve matters, and often make them a lot worse, because they give you something to hide behind, to duck away from personal responsiblity. I am not saying that you yourself do that, but you must have noticed people doing it.
I explained that at length in my posts back and forth with Muhammad. My sense of right and wrong comes from my evolved senses of empathy and fairness.
I find that line of thinking flawed. So who then decides what is right and wrong? what you may deem as right and wrong, might be wrong and right. Who you'd consider a psychopath, for that psychopath, you'd be a psychopath.
I disagree on how we got our moral sense.
And to answer the obedience of God thing. No sane human being would think "God loves evil, God commands evil"
God is All-just etc.
What people do wrong is blame God for whatever they do, by saying "if God wills everything, then God willed for me to chop this baby's head off, therefore God is responsible" That is sick avoiding responsibility.
One would be right if God forced one to do something, but He didn't. We all have free will, and to blame everything on God, is just avoiding responsibility. And it is also ignorance, cause any sane Human, would think good of God. To redirect the blame on God, is avoiding responsibility.
I find that line of thinking flawed. So who then decides what is right and wrong? what you may deem as right and wrong, might be wrong and right. Who you'd consider a psychopath, for that psychopath, you'd be a psychopath.
A psychopath and a sociopath are people who have no sense of empathy. Empathy isn't arbitrary. It means seeing yourself in others, relating to them, and feeling their pain. It is why you can get emotionally invested in a movie or in a story or life event that isn't about yourself. It is neurological and hard coded into most of us. We even have mirror neurons that activate when we see somebody else do something, which are linked to our neurons that are activated when we do the same things or suffer the same pleasures and pains.
What people do wrong is blame God for whatever they do, by saying "if God wills everything, then God willed for me to chop this baby's head off, therefore God is responsible" That is sick avoiding responsibility.
It is, I agree. And sometimes they say that God TOLD them to do it. Such as the story of Abraham and Isaac that I mentioned above, or the Jim Jones cult with the poisoned coolaid, or the witch burnings, inquisition, or murdering apostates or kafir or homosexuals in the name of Islam (all of which have been endorsed on this board by various people). I hope that you and I can both see that these people are not actually being told by God to do these things, but sometimes they think they are or claim that they are, and that is how dangerous God belief (or any authoritarian belief structure) can be.
A lesser version of this is people deciding that homosexuals should be told they are abominations and to be denied civil rights, or when people scare their children with stories of hellfire and eternal suffering if they do not believe in God, despite their best efforts to delude themselves to believe what they simply do not. A lesser and indeed mostly harmless version of it is when people decide that they should abide by certain dietary laws or prayer rituals. That is not morality. That is obedience to doctrine.
And it is also ignorance, cause any sane Human, would think good of God.
I disagree. I see no reason to believe a God exists firstly, but secondly, if God does exist, I see no reason to believe that he must be benevolent. The world around me is inconsistent with that hypothesis.
To redirect the blame on God, is avoiding responsibility.
Indeed. And if anybody murders an apostate they should not be able to hide behind their religion, God or holy book. It doesn't matter what they say that their imagined God decrees. They did what they did and should be held responsible for their actions. I hope we can agree on that?
Last edited by Pygoscelis; 03-25-2016 at 05:24 PM.
So now you're comparing the Islamic punishment for apostasy with some shady secret service hit operation? It looks like you find it morally questionable just as I do.
When you don't answer the question, I am forced to guess. You said that mere apostacy is not enough, and that treason against Islam is required. I asked you what that means. You refused to answer. You told me what treason in general is, and gave an analogy to nations. I still do not know what you think is treason as it applies to a religion. Is it bombing a mosque or something less than that? Apparently it isn't speaking harshly against the religion like Ayan Hirsi Ali does. And it has something to do with somebody from Islam telling weaknesses to enemies of Islam is all I can get from your analogy/answer. So what is it? What qualifies? Why are you so hesitant to answer?
Ah, I see where you are failing to understand now.
You see all religions as separate from the state - right?
In Islam, that is not the case - In Islam, religion and state are one.
Now, when you look back at your posted questions and my answers, you will find that the question you keep pursuing is not warranted and makes no real sense given that in Islam, state and religion are NOT separate. You'll also find that my answers are actually making sense now.
In Islam, that is not the case - In Islam, religion and state are one.
Only in a true Islamic state though, right? My country has Muslims in it, and the state is certainly separate from that religion (or any other religion). So if there is no true islamic caliphate, then none of this applies, and the question is moot for you in present day reality?
We all do not decide what is right or wrong, that is a delusion , and neither will man ever come to any agreement of what is right or wrong and you only need to look around you to see how much division there is around us and how many groups are fighting one another. Which group is right? My tribe because they are my tribe or your tribe because they are your tribe? And who takes account ? You say u believe in accountably but have failed to explain how that practically works. Which group takes the other to account and on what basis ? Yes there are good people with morality and a sense of fairness and then there are people with no such sense of morality or fairness, or at least it's been destroyed by power and greed. What do we do with those people because many of them exist today with their polished speeches and hypocrisy and lies.
If we considered it ok to kill each other, we would have to always be on guard from being killed by each other
Look around you, do you not see that every country is guarded and every man guards his wealth and life.
Killing is only too common. Is man evolving a moral sense or is he evolving into a monster?
The point I am trying to make is, Mankind needs a set criteria of what is right and wrong, and morality and instinct alone is not enough to guide us on how to live. And no man can just get up and claim that God told them to do this out of the blue, again there is a criteria. We have the Quran, that is our criteria. What is Your criteria?
And that is the problem I have with atheism. There is no agreed upon criterion of what is right and wrong and that is what is dangerous. Athiesm offers no solution to the problems mankind is suffering from today. And even if there is a law, the men with power don't follow it for themselves - there is no fairness or guarantee of accountability for all men.
Adding religion into the mix doesn't necessarily improve matters, and often make them a lot worse, because they give you something to hide behind, to duck away from personal responsiblity. I am not saying that you yourself do that, but you must have noticed people doing it.
So which way or system of life do you suggest will improve matters then ? One based upon everyone's individualistic sense of morality and ungaranteed accountability for every man or one with a set Criterion of right and wrong and guaranteed accountability for every man.
A man can sit and delve deeply into all the personal issues he has with Allah. He denies divine authority because he doesn't agree with some matters, so he ends up obeying a man authority wether he agrees with some matters or not. Has man been able to come up with a better system of life or even equal to that laid out in the Quran. He has lived on earth for 1000s of years and he is still deciding what is right and wrong, forget being able to establish a system of life which provides a solution to the problems we face in the world.
In fact, results speak for themselves. The only man in history who was the most successful in every aspect of his life and eradicated oppression and evil within the space of 23 years was known by the name of Muhammad Because, he did not rule by his law or dictate what he thought was right. He ruled by Gods law, first and foremost applying it to himself and then to others. And this is what is missing in the leaders that rule the world today, secular or so called religious ones.
I disagree. I see no reason to believe a God exists firstly, but secondly, if God does exist, I see no reason to believe that he must be benevolent. The world around me is inconsistent with that hypothesis.
I disagree. Here you are blaming God for people's actions, which is wrong. God gave us free will, and a consequence of free will, is chaos and corruption - that you can not attribute or blame God for, it is no different from the child killer saying "well, God willed it"
Will you find it justifiable for me to say "God willed me to kill children, He gave me free will, so the responsibility goes on God"? NO.
And there are plenty of reasons to believe in God. Just like this world existed without you knowing - or having any knowledge before hand before its creation, so is the hereafter. Your situation is like the lifeless, unborn child, questioning whether this world exists.(which he couldn't think off) but point is, this world exists, whether you wanted or not, you exist whether you want it or not. So it is with the hereafter - why risk your akhira on being short sighted?
Personally I don't find the risk worth it to assume my situation - or hereafter - safe. Just like this world existed - so does the hereafter. That is what I believe.
We all do not decide what is right or wrong, that is a delusion , and neither will man ever come to any agreement of what is right or wrong and you only need to look around you to see how much division there is around us and how many groups are fighting one another. You say u believe in accountably but have failed to explain how that practically works. Which group takes the other to account and on what basis ?
We can only do the best we can to love and support one another, and to hold those accountable who would harm us. We, human beings collectively, have to do that. Imagining a spectator God that doesn't intervene (because free will you will say) doesn't fix anything. I am sure it is comforting to believe that justice will always be had in the end, with or without our efforts, and that good is always rewarded and people never get away with doing bad, but that just isn't so. And standing by, imagining it to be so, doesn't make is so. I believe that there is no supernatural babysitter that will come down and fix our problems. All we have is ourselves and each other, so only we can make efforts towards fairer and more just society. That is yet another level of responsibility and accountability.
And we have made progress. We have a long way to go, but we do live in the most peaceful time in human history. This can be seen both by looking at history and by looking at moral codes codified long ago and moral codes developing today. I am not certain about the Quran, but I know that the bible doesn't speak against slavery, rape, or racism. It tells slaves to obey their masters, tells rape victims they must marry their rapists, and tells us to put to death a wide variety of people, ranging from disobedient children to homosexuals. Islam likewise hates on homosexuals and kafirs (at least as some push it). Here in this thread we are discussing the Muslim doctrine that apostates are to be put to death. We have some in this thread saying that only applies given "treason" (whatever that means in this context) and others saying that Salman Rushie should be murdered. Secular humanism has no such calls for blood or bigotry.
Yes there are good people with morality and a sense of fairness and then there are people with no such sense of morality or fairness, or at least it's been destroyed by power and greed. What do we do with those people because many of them exist today with their polished speeches and hypocrisy and lies.
What we don't do is sit idly by imagining that God will sort it out for us. We organize and take action to better our societies, fight for true democracy, fairness, justice, and equalizing the wealth disparity. Yes, I'm following the current US election and I'm a big backer of Bernie Sanders
The point I am trying to make is, Mankind needs a set criteria of what is right and wrong, and morality and instinct alone is not enough to guide us on how to live. And no man can just get up and claim that God told them to do this out of the blue, again there is a criteria. We have the Quran, that is our criteria. What is Your criteria?
As I told you before, my criteria are empathy and fairness, along with the social contracts we form with one another. All of this other baggage you add with your religion, ranging from dietary laws, to methods of prayer, to hating homosexuals and distrusting kafir, to killing apostates, does more harm than good in my view. We can agree to disagree on that.
So which way or system of life do you suggest will improve matters then ? One based upon everyone's individualistic sense of morality and ungaranteed accountability for every man or one with a set Criterion of right and wrong and guaranteed accountability for every man.
My karma ran over your dogma, goes an old joke. I take serious issue with dogma, and its authoritarian nature. I have no such problem with karma. Karma is a beautiful concept, and it would be nice if it were true; that what goes around comes around and that good things always happen to good people. But it is not the default state of our existence. It is a goal for us to strive towards. Pretending that there is some divine justice that will just happen despite any effort to bring it about isn't going to improve anything aside from comforting us.
Believing in God doesn't mean we become passive, and stay at home hoping for God to bring us food, and hoping for society to become better - that is a wrong perspective.
. You speak as if we who believe in God think that God will do everything for us, and hope for society to become better, while we sit at home passively at home. - That is a wrong mindset.
No matter how much supplications to God you do, if you don't do something - and put in effort to improve, or get that thing, - you won't get it. And no matter how much you try to get a thing - if God doesn't will that for you, you won't get it. Though that does not mean we assume God's will, and blame God. We still continue to do our best - cause we don't know our future, our end.
While it is God that wills everything - and lets everything to happen, we need to play our part, and put in effort, otherwise we won't get anywhere.
Again, a wrong perception on God's will from your side, I presume, Pygo.
And may Allah forgive me if I said anything wrong. Ameen.
I disagree. Here you are blaming God for people's actions, which is wrong. God gave us free will, and a consequence of free will, is chaos and corruption - that you can not attribute or blame God for, it is no different from the child killer saying "well, God willed it"
First, that isn't even remotely what I am saying. I am not blaming God for anything. There is no God to blame.
Second, when I said when I look around me it doesn't fit with a benevolent creator, I wasn't referring to human actions. How does human free will account for natural disasters, stillborn children, carnivores that must kill in order to survive, or the wide variety of truly sadistic looking creatures on the earth, such as parasitic wasps that eat their victims from the inside out? God designed all of this why? Is he sadistic?
Will you find it justifiable for me to say "God willed me to kill children, He gave me free will, so the responsibility goes on God"? NO.
That is the opposite of what I am saying. That would be a type of religious "morality", and confusion of obedience for morality. If God did exist and asked me to kill children, I would stand up to God and say no, not lead my son to be sacrificed as Abraham did to Isaac in that story I mentioned above. We must learn to always question authority and disobey it when it demands wrong of us. Religion too often teaches the opposite.
Don't pretend you can't see this in many of your fellow Muslims, even if you don't fall prey to it yourself. If a so-called holy text or so-called prophet says X is wrong, then is X truly wrong? Even if it wouldn't otherwise appear wrong in the slightest? What basis besides obedience to authority or "faith in God" do you have to establish that homosexuals are abominations or that you shouldn't befriend kafirs or that apostates should be murdered? I see none.
why risk your akhira on being short sighted?
Personally I don't find the risk worth it to assume my situation - or hereafter - safe. Just like this world existed - so does the hereafter. That is what I believe.
This sounds like Pascal's Wager: "Is it safer to believe in God rather than not believe in God? If you believe and are wrong, you lose nothing. If you don't believe and are wrong, you lose everything." Right? Wrong.
First, we can't force ourselves to believe what we don't. We could pretend and lie, but any all powerful God could see right through that deception, right?
Second, it is a false dichotomy. When I read most religious texts and talk to most religious people, it appears that the Gods they believe in are more offended by the worship of false Gods than no worship of Gods at all. Who is to say that you picked the right God? Won't Shiva, Odin, Ra, etc be quite upset with you when you face them in the afterlife having dedicated all your prayer to a false God?
Third, why would any benevolent, all knowing, and just God who made us himself punish us for using our logic and reason, and it leading us (as he knew it would) to the conclusion that he doesn't exist? Why would he punish us for not being able to believe he exists, as he designed us to be? Why would he reward us for telling lies and pretending to believe when we don't? I find that completely unfair and completely nonsensical. It isn't even a test of obedience if we don't know he's there and what he wants of us.
we do live in the most peaceful time in human history.
Hello Pygoscelis,
Mmm... in Canada, this is certainly true; we haven't had war on our turf for over 200 years... but I wonder whether this is true elsewhere? Wars seem to be pretty devastating when they are waged... and there seem to be quite a few places that are experiencing war.
(pensively) With our industrial methods... war seems to me to be pretty bad in ways that humans have rarely seen in the past (the Mongol hordes were pretty efficient at killing large amounts of people, though).
As for slavery and the like... mmm... it may not be formally labeled as such, but it seems to me that there is a fair bit of this in the world, too.
(smile) Perhaps this peacefulness that we have in Canada may colour our views in other ways, too (as expressed in your last post)? (pensively) When you are at the top a hierarchy, it is easy to exhort those lower down to take responsibility for their position, in this instance, to struggle for justice. It is also easier to forget about God and any kind of reckoning. But if a person is in a position of weakness... if a person cannot get justice... then perhaps the idea that there will be justice eventually (if not in this life, then the Next) might be rather appealing, don't you think? It is not necessarily that a person can't be bothered to struggle for justice in this life... it could be that a person struggles in this life... but knows that even if they fail in the here-and-now, they could succeed eventually. (mildly) And this could help motivate a person out of apathy, don't you think? (smile) Because if you can succeed (eventually), no matter what...
May God, the Bringer of Judgment, Strengthen those who strive to do good in this world.
Pygo - Truth can not come from us. and since we are not all-knowing etc. and since we are limited, what we come to conclude - from our senses and such, may be far from truth.
Truth can only come from God, and before we talk about truth from God, we must believe in a God. So how does one believe in a God one can't see with one's eyes? You see, those false dieties you mentioned are all from the imaginations and whims of man.
But how do we know - or rationally come to the conclusion of a possibility of a God? We can't assign who is God and who isn't. But what we can do is, rationally conclude that there must have been a cause to this Universe- as it has a beginning.
And the complexities furthers my belief in God. One's belief in God has to be on basis of sound reasoning and rationale. If someone came and said "worship this God, like this etc." you'd say "no" cause he has no evidence for his claims, and many times one's logic and mind will just say no..
But before we even reach religion, we must found common grounds on the existence of a God. And How do we do that without seeing Him? We have plenty of signs that points towards the existence of God.
One's belief in God has to be on basis of sound reasoning and not superstition, otherwise, you'd end up worshipping your imagination! Or shaytan.
And to avoid being mislead by one's own logic, as you claim, one must remain sceptic. Otherwise, you'd believe everything people say.
To conclude: One's belief in God has to be on basis of sound reasoning, and God created us right? So there is no harm in using our brain, to think and search what is true and false, since our mind is God's creation, God's religion, can not contradict God's creation.
But one also has to keep in mind - that you are limited by your senses, and science is but a tool - limited.
Just use sound reasoning, but don't get mislead by your own arrogance, or ignorance.
if a person cannot get justice... then perhaps the idea that there will be justice eventually (if not in this life, then the Next) might be rather appealing, don't you think?
This is a good point, and I think it is one way that religions get sold to people. It doesn't make the religions or Gods true however.
It is not necessarily that a person can't be bothered to struggle for justice in this life... it could be that a person struggles in this life... but knows that even if they fail in the here-and-now, they could succeed eventually. (mildly) And this could help motivate a person out of apathy, don't you think? (smile) Because if you can succeed (eventually), no matter what...
This is another excellent point, and one I had not considered. The concept of Karma may motivate people in dire conditions to have not only hope but also to do good so that they may be rewarded or reincarnated in a positive direction. That is more suited for buddhism and religions such as that however, and not at all suited for authoritarian religion. I believe that authoritarian religion such as Christianity and Islam are more geared towards keeping the downtrodden from rising up against those who oppress them. I think it serves to placate them and make them accept their lot in life and feel less animosity towards the rich and powerful (believing that all will be equalized in the end). When a religion confounds obedience for morality, I become alarmed.
Last edited by Pygoscelis; 03-27-2016 at 05:06 PM.
But thinking that you know more than the One who created everything, is kinda arrogant.
You may see a meteor strike as merciless, but you have only a 1% of the view while God has 100%. So the overall picture may be merciful.
You may see a tornado as merciless, but behind it there is mercy. It'd be kinda ignorant to judge by the apparrent, as if you have the whole view and knowledge.
And we do not say "don't think and believe" but rather "think and believe" but also know that you don't know everything.
And without something to strive for, I swear by God, one may be driven to destroy the world, out of boredom. Lol.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Array
piXie liked this post
Because, he did not rule by his law or dictate what he thought was right. He ruled by Gods law, first and foremost applying it to himself and then to others. And this is what is missing in the leaders that rule the world today, secular or so called religious ones.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks