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.
(twinkle) It might surprise you, but theists tend to believe that atheists don't have any sort of morality. That they believe that everything is good, if they (the atheists) like it and want it to be good.
I realize this, and it is not surprising at all. If you conflate morality with obedience and define good as doing what God tells you to do, and if you see Goodness as something objective and needing to come from some law giver, then it makes perfect sense that atheists would have no such morality. I content that this is a completely wrong definition of morality, is mere obedience to power, and is dangerous in so far as it isolates people from their own inner senses of empathy and fairness. If God tells you to sacrifice your son, as in the Abraham and Isaac story, these two different definitions of morality will reach different conclusions. We know what the religious one is. Same for if God tells you to fly a plane into a building, drown your children, drink poisoned cool aid en masse, etc.
I agree with you that we can't lump all theists into one box. They vary in how fundamentalist they are (some liberal ones see much of the holy texts as poetry not meant to be taken literally, etc), and the fundamentalists vary in what they believe the God(s) want of them. Most religious folks really do have their own sense of morality independent of their religious belief, whether they know it or not, and based on it they declare certain parts of their holy books and doctrines to be less important or even ignore them completely. That's why you can have Fundamentalist Christians who follow the nasty parts of the bible, hating on homosexuals, and other liberal ones who can even BE homosexuals themselves and get gay married in liberal churches. It is also why pretty much nobody today follows the parts of the bible clearly telling people to stone adulterers to death, not suffer wtiches to live, and murder disobedient children, etc. It is also why Mulsims can vary from Daesh (ISIS) on one extreme (bloodthirsty, tribal, etc) to yourself on the other (loving, inclusive, etc). You both push yourselves to obey what you think Allah wants of you, only your personality and personal morality and ethics lead you to interpret that one way, and Daesh the other.
This is an incredibly ironic thing to say to an atheist on a Muslim board that has shut down the comparative religion section. I've had a PRIVATE MESSAGE here censored and scolded for attempting to speak with a recent apostate to tell them that they are not alone in not believing and to comfort them while they were attacked by Muslims here in a public thread.
My mere presence in this very thread is evidence against your claim that I have not exposed myself to Muslims who would like to change my views to match their own. Look at the start of this thread. One Muslim fellow complained about Muhammad interacting with me and asking me questions of why I don't believe (didn't want to be exposed to my views), and Mohammed (board moderator) responded by saying that he wanted to hear me out so he could attempt to change me. I have since read, considered, and responded to multiple different Muslims who have come and gone in this conversation. MuslimInshallah has been especially thought provoking a couple of posts up. it has been a refreshingly open dialogue for a board that has otherwise always shut that sort of thing down very quickly.
I have personally been to multiple mosques, hindu and sikh temples, a kingdom hall, numerous churches of various christian denominations, and even a zoroastrian temple, all as a guest of various friends who have subscribed to these beliefs. I grew up surrounded by religious people.
The irony here is in how religions such as Islam and Christianity tell followers not to be "yoked" with unbeleivers, not to take them as friends, not to ally with them, date them, etc etc. I have no such directive. Many of my friends (and some people I have dated) are religious people, and I have heard their views. I am doing the same with you folks right now and giving my honest reactions to what you say. Just because I don't agree with you does not mean I haven't heard you out. The opposite is rarely true, which brings us full circle to the OP.
Remember, we are in a thread about a doctrine of Islam that says you are to KILL apostates. If you were to seriously consider anything I or other atheists had to say, and actually came to agree with us, and made that public, some of your fellow Muslims would like to kill you for it. If you then went on to write some negative things about Islam, like Hirsi Ali did, some muslims in this very thread have told me you should die for it. Even if that were not so, there is the concept of hell to punish you if you leave the fold. There is no such pressure on atheists to keep their minds so closed and protected from foreign ideas, religious or otherwise.
Greetings again,
My post did succinctly acknowledge your varied experiences. I have no doubt that you have had them – you are obviously here as well. It’s these experiences that shape who we are.
The statement that you quoted from my post was in the context of our interactions and my offering you a different type of experience. I did this realizing that you would likely respond to this offer with indifference. What more could I possibly offer? Nevertheless, I think you're worth the effort.
That educated Muslims are shifting away from the traditional body of teaching concerning executing people who choose to leave Islam is an indicator that academic opinions are not convincing.
This statement is deceiving. First, you offer no basis as to how you have deducted that ‘educated’ Muslims are shifting away from the traditional body of teaching. Secondly, the term ‘educated’ needs clarification. Being educated in the general sense does not necessarily put one at an advantage when it comes to following God’s message. As a Christian, you should know this. Doesn't the New Testament itself teach that the followers of Jesus were uneducated lower-class Aramaic-speaking Jews from Palestine?
The core of Christian faith is the Jesus' redemptive work through his death and resurrection, something the Qur'an does not address.
Clearly you are not familiar with the Qur’an then:
And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain. [Qur’an 4:157]
The trinity is simple to define and easy to understand but impossible to imagine
Christians desperately try to explain the concept of one-God-but-three-persons using an alarming range of elaborate analogies that leave us more confused than ever. Christian preachers themselves admit they struggle with the trinity and that it’s a subject which ‘has always been elusive’. The Vatican Council has explained the meaning to be attributed to the term mystery in theology. It lays down that a mystery is a truth which we are not merely incapable of discovering apart from Divine Revelation, but which, even when revealed, remains “hidden by the veil of faith and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of darkness”.
You are making Islam an irrational religion. A person must always go according to their conscience and reason.
There is nothing irrational about recognising one’s limits. You speak of conscience and reason yet Christians freely admit that the trinity is a ‘mystery’, so they stop trying to understand it logically. In my discussions with other Christians on this very forum, they have described the trinity as ‘unspeakably mysterious relationships’ and that they are commanded to ‘believe where reason cannot go’. You need to ask yourself who is being irrational.
That may the opinion of the scholars you follow, but the verse itself does not limit itself to those embracing Islam.
Maybe it doesn’t. But what credibility do you have over Muslim scholars qualified in the field of Qur’anic exegesis? In the Qur’an, verses are understood in the light of others, and in light of the explanation given by the Prophet . We don’t just take one verse and make up rulings.
And the point is straightforward, it is illogical to coerce people to Islam as it would be to coerce them to stay.
You have not demonstrated anything illogical; we’re talking about different values and perspectives, so something doesn’t become ‘illogical’ just because you disagree with it.
To force someone to stay Muslim is really forcing them to remain a munafiq, and what value is that?
Would you use the same argument against stopping people from committing treason? By this logic, we should allow people to commit treason if insincerity is such a major concern.
Again, faith is a free act of the will. The only thing that binds a Muslim to these disciplines is this free act of faith, but if the freely choose to leave Islam, these disciplines no longer apply to them.
Entering faith is a choice, but we are not free to pick and choose which part of that faith we want to follow. Remember, we are talking about applying the ruling in an Islamic state, and a person cannot claim disciplines no longer apply just as someone living in the US cannot claim the law no longer applies.
But a person can renounce their US citizenship without fear of being executed.
Treason would be a more accurate example here. Religion is not like citizenship where one can keep entering and leaving like a tourist. Commitment to a religion has far more value than that.
And forcing a woman or man to live the life of hypocrite by threatening them with execution if they leave saves them from hell? If they act Muslim but in their hearts they left Islam years ago, it doesn't really matter, does it? This is why executing people who leave Islam is irrational.
This claim fails to take account of a number of issues. First, it is not necessarily the threat of execution which is responsible for hypocrisy. A person thinking of forsaking truth after knowing it has a problematic heart to begin with. There were those who entered Islam for political reasons, people who harboured evil intentions against the Prophet and his followers but were too cowardly to resist them publicly; they were rather, under those Islamically favourable conditions, obliged to fake amicability and friendliness. This is why the Qur’an repeatedly exposes their hypocrisy and warns against their concealed designs. Their surreptitious intrigues continued to undermine the stability of the Islamic society.
This leads us to the second point which is very pertinent, which is that capital punishment has a role towards the whole society, not just the individual. An apostate fuels widespread disorder and confusion. His apostasy has a negative impact on others. Islam is a complete system of life. Its rules govern not only individual conduct but also shape the basic laws and public order in the Muslim state. In the establishment of the ruling on apostasy, there is protection for the sanctity of religions not to be toyed with, lest those who are manipulative and desire-driven obtain the means to advance their personally-motivated ambitions and objectives.
What is interesting to note is that during the time of the Prophet there were many hypocrites yet he did not execute them, despite knowing who they were. The rulings of this worldly life are applied in relation to what is apparent, and Allaah knows what is hidden in the hearts of the people. It is quite possible for a hypocrite to repent from his hypocrisy and become sincere to Allaah .
As I have been explaining to Pygoscelis, which is really the crux of the matter, Muslims hold that there are very strong, rational reasons for them to believe in Islam. It is not simply a matter of ‘blind faith’. Thus, before a Muslim is asked to override something found in his religion, there needs to be very strong evidence that something is mistaken or unacceptable in the religion of Islam.
How did Muslims acquire the ancient learning of Greece? Was it not from the Christians they conquered?
Didn’t the Ottomans arrive in Greece from the 15th century onwards? Yet, hundreds of years earlier in the 9th century we had academic institutions like Bayt al-hikma, founded in Baghdad. In this academy, translators, scientists, scribes, authors, men of letters, writers, authors, copyists and others used to meet every day for translation, reading, writing, scribing, discourse, dialogue and discussion. Many manuscripts and books in various scientific subjects and philosophical concepts and ideas, and in different languages were translated there.
but in the end the Islamic world closed it's mind and rejected Greek Philosophy and the rationalizing of faith proposed by the Mutazelites.
Is that so surprising, when many historians and religious scholars attest to the influence of Greek or Platonic philosophy on Christian theology, most notably the development and acceptance of the Trinity doctrine? That is why the Islamic creed remains pure and clear, and remains to be the truth from God Himself.
And what is this of the Jews? At one point 3 out of 4 Jews in the world lived in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, a Catholic Kingdom well known for it's tolerance.
Yes, we have seen the ‘tolerance’ expressed by Catholic councils towards Jews. One of the clauses in the text of the proceedings of the Fourth Council of Toledo (633 CE) states:
We decree that the sons and daughters of the Jews should be separated from the company of their parents in order that they should not become further entangled in their deviation, and entrusted either to monasteries or to Christian, God fearing men and women, in order that they should learn from their way of life to venerate the faith and, educated on better things, progress in their morals as well as their faith. Amnon Linder, The Jews in the Legal Sources of the Early Middle Ages, New York, 1997, p. 488.
Hence, according to Amnon Linder, who is a professor of medieval history in Jerusalem’s Hebrew University, the children of the Jews were to be forcefully converted to Catholicism. On the other hand, the Islamic rule proved to be most advantageous in the history of Judaism. The Spanish Jews reached such a high level of learning and progress that they could now claim to be world leaders of Judaism. The Jews were certainly saved from extinction by the Muslim conquest of Spain.
And has Mr Wallace-Murphy forgotten that the Christian West was on constance defense against the Islamic conquest? Some one hundred years after Muhammad's death Muslims conquered two-thirds of the Christian world,
Was it not a Christian ruler, Julian, Count of Ceuta, who is said to have requested help from the Muslims against the Visigoths of Spain? Indeed, Jews also welcomed them as liberators from Christian Persecution.
and yet Wallace-Murphy makes an asinine comment about the West's mistrust and "imperial takeovers"? What breathtaking ignorance!
Could it be that he is referring to the Christian crusades – you know… the genocide preached by Pope Urban II? Or perhaps the Spanish Inquisition where countless Jews and Muslims were forced to convert to Christianity?
All this is a moot point, the better question is what have Muslims contributed to the modern world in terms of science, medicine, technology, and culture?
The Moroccan geneticist Dr. Ismahane Elouafi was named among the 20 Most Influential Women in Science in the Islamic World under the Shapers category, and the CEO-Middle East Magazine has listed her among the World’s 100 Most Powerful Arabophone Women in the Science category.
Two Egyptian scientists created space-based crystals of two proteins of the Hepatitis C virus. The crystals which were developed in space can help in innovating new drugs to fight the virus.
Dr. Sheik Umar Khan, the doctor who led Sierra Leone's fight against the worst Ebola outbreak and the one who treated more than 100 patients and dozens of health workers, died from the virus.
An Iranian mathematician became the first ever female winner of the celebrated Fields Medal. In a landmark hailed as "long overdue", Prof Maryam Mirzakhani was recognized for her work on complex geometry.
Kazakhstani Muslim scientist proves the existence of a solution to Navier Stokes Equation which is deemed one of the hardest in the world.
Engineering:
The Moroccan engineering scientist Rachid Yazami became a co-winner of 2014 Draper Prize by the US's National Academy of Engineering for pioneering and leading the groundwork for today’s lithium ion battery.
Three Malaysian academics were chosen among the world’s leading scientific minds, according to a report by business information firm Thomson Reuters.
The European space probes Rosetta and Philae didn't only have Egyptian names to commemorate the Egyptian Civilization’s contributions to humanity, but four Egyptian scientists have also worked in this historic space mission.
Egyptian students were ranked internationally among the top 20 teams of space engineering youth groups that participated at the University Rover Challenge (URC), in USA. In 2016, Bangladesh and Egypt are among the teams advancing to the semi-finals.
A young female Kazakh inventor Nazifa Baktybayeva has been working on a real in-orbit satellite that will allow Kazakhstani students to conduct research based on materials obtained from space. This invention wasn't Nazifa's first one as in 2012 she created a model of a Venusian spacecraft that was fabricated using parts of her own old computer, headphones, a DVD disk, an umbrella and even a hanger and she calculated the craft's trajectory.
In addition, I present to you 14 exciting and celebrated nanotechnologists from the Muslim world:
Dr. Mostefa El-Sayed [Nano-scale Scientist], Regents’ Professor and Julius Brown Chair, Georgia Institute of Technology, Zewail Prize, #17 on Thomson Reuters, Top 100 Chemists of the Decade
Dr. Ibrahim Elfadel [Designer of Nano-scale Tools], Professor, Masdar Institute, Winner of Six Invention Achievement Awards, an IBM Outstanding Technical Achievement Award and a Research Division Award
Dr. Muhammad Al-Sayah [Supra-molecular Chemist], Professor, American University of Sharjah and winner of Comstech Award
Prof. Ali Khademhosseini [Biologically inspired Engineer], Assoc. Prof., Harvard Medical School, President Obama’s Early Career Award
Dr. AbdolReza Simchi [Nanostructures & Biomaterials], Assoc. Prof., Sharif University, Khwarzimi International Award
Munir Nayfeh [Quantum Nanotechnologist], Professor, University of Illinois (UIUC), Award for Single Atom Detection
Sharifah Bee Abd Hamid [Catalyst and nanomaterials], Deputy Vice Chancellor, University of Malaysia
Dr. Aghil Yousefi Koma [Designer of Micro-vehicles], Professor, University of Tehran
Resit Turan [The Solarizer], Director, Center for Solar Energy, Research & Applications, Metu, Turkey
Muhammad Mustafa Hussain [Integrated nanotechnologist], Associate Professor, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), Thuwal, Saudi Arabia
Halimaton Hamdan [Synthesizer of Nanostructures], Director, National Nanotechnology Directorate, Mosti, Malaysia
Prof. Uda Hashim, Director [Micro-electronic Systems Engineer], Institute of Nano Electronic Engg, Malaysia
Dr. Irfan S. Ahmed [Bionanotechnologist], Executive Director, Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology, University of Illinois (UIUC)
Prof. Ali Eftekhari [Electrochemist & Nanoscientist], Avicenna Institute of Technology (USA)
In terms of the future, there are grassroots efforts across the Muslim world to stimulate curiosity about science among students of all ages, operating without much government support. Eminent international experts have called for comprehensive reforms to universities of the Muslim World seeking to transform societies though scientific excellence.
And conversely, how much is the Islamic world indebted to the Christian and Secular West for all it's contributions?
I’m sure the Christian and secular West have made important contributions. The point here is not to make arrogant generalisations such as Muslims being backwards and inferior to the rest of the world.
Any Christian can ascertain Jesus' teaching through the sacred tradition and sacred scripture possessed by the Church.
There is not a single document from the time of Jesus that exists today. We only have "gospels" from one or two generations later, written by unknown authors. There are many contradictions in them and NONE of them are written in the language that Jesus spoke. NOT ONE!
Furthermore, we never believed a table descended from heaven with food, or that he turned clay birds into living ones, or that he shook a palm tree as an infant, or that a cube monument in the Hijaaz is a place of pilgrimage, or that the holy spirit is an angel,
It seems like you’ve gone for the ‘scatter-gun’ approach; by casting your net indiscriminately you’re targeting your own beliefs at the same time. The Bible tells us that Jesus performed miracles such as healing the lepers, blind, turning water into wine, even bringing the dead back to life… don’t you believe in these miracles gifted by God? So, if the Qur’an tells us that a table descended from heaven with food, or that clay birds became real, we believe in those with conviction, because the Qur’an is the Word of God and God is able to do all things.
Muslims have ONE place of pilgrimage. How many do Christians have? Hundreds, by the looks of it, and this list is just for Catholics.
or that it's ok for us to have multiple wives or divorce a spouse,
How many wives does the Bible tell us Prophet Solomon had? Divorce is a way out of an irreparable situation. According to you, why is it not allowed to leave a marriage but acceptable to leave God’s message?
or that there is a prophet after him that would totally reverse his teachings.
The core message of all the Prophets was the same, but laws can vary between peoples.
Some of these are legends circulating in parts of the Christian world, and yet your Book is telling us they are historical. The truth is very easy to ascertain.
Indeed the truth is easy to ascertain, if you have one Book which exists as the original version and whose author is known.
The point is those laws that may have been suitable and even progressive in 6th century Hijaaz are not applicable to the modern world.
So, on the one hand you endorse following teachings presumed to be over two thousand years old, yet on the other hand criticise Muslims for following teachings from the 6th century? You accuse me of being illogical yet have no qualms about believing in a contradictory concept of God. You criticise Muslims for trusting God’s teachings based on a preserved Scripture and yet yourself blindly follow a Church that constitutes the opinions of men.
Love is not impractical,and if more followed love the world would be a better place.
What better place to start with than yourself? Instead of coming to Islamic forums to tell Muslims how backwards and illogical their religion is, you should practice what it is you claim to preach.
Last edited by Muhammad; 04-02-2016 at 04:55 PM.
Reason: Updated formatting and links
The statement that you quoted from my post was in the context of our interactions and my offering you a different type of experience.
What reason could I possibly have to believe you have anything that is actually different or more convincing than what I've already seen in all of the adventures I spoke of above, especially when you won't present it here and insist it is out there somewhere in my local community and I should go find it? EVERYONE who I have ever spoken to in all of the experiences I noted above have also claimed to have had unique and special information that was convincing evidence. Perhaps it was for them, but most of it is indistinguishable to me in any meaningful way, and none of it has been even remotely convincing. Why do you think you have something special and why can't it be presented in this thread?
And of the hypocrisy I noted above... how many of you here are equally willing to take in new and competing information and open your mind to change as I have, even if it means you may become apostates to Islam? Like me, have you visited Sikh temples, Hindu temples, Zoroastrian temples, Catholic churches, Jehova's Witness Kingdom Halls, and other such places to see their views and maybe discover that they have better foundation and evidence for their beliefs than you have for yours? Is this something you would encourage in Muslims? Quite a question to have to ask in a thread about a doctrine about killing apostates. I obviously don't expect you to have such an open mind. But for you to then turn around and accuse ME of not having an open mind and taking in your views... while I have been here for nearly a decade listening to Muslims... the irony is incredibly thick.
Last edited by Pygoscelis; 04-02-2016 at 07:39 PM.
Maybe it doesn’t. But what credibility do you have over Muslim scholars qualified in the field of Qur’anic exegesis? In the Qur’an, verses are understood in the light of others, and in light of the explanation given by the Prophet . We don’t just take one verse and make up rulings.
This speaks directly to what I was saying above. You are not merely listening to Allah directly. You are not even merely taking what is written in the Quran directly. You are listening to "scholars" who tell you it is complicated, so you shouldn't read it for yourself and you should listen to what they tell you it says. This is not obedience to a deity. This is obedience to people purporting to speak for a deity. Coupled with the idea that obedience trumps morality, this can dangerous, as you immediately go on to demonsrate here....
format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad
As I have been explaining to Pygoscelis, which is really the crux of the matter, Muslims hold that there are very strong, rational reasons for them to believe in Islam. It is not simply a matter of ‘blind faith’. Thus, before a Muslim is asked to override something found in his religion, there needs to be very strong evidence that something is mistaken or unacceptable in the religion of Islam.
On the face of it, it is wrong to kill people for believing Allah exists. You and I both know that. I would have to come up with some pretty convincing argument to reach any conclusion that we should hunt and kill Muslims, just for being Muslims, and preaching the Muslim religion. Right?
On the face of it, it is wrong to kill people for no longer believing Allah exists. You and I both know that too. You would have to come up with some pretty convincing argument to reach any conclusion that we should hunt an kill apostates, just for being apostates, and speaking against the Muslim religion.
You can't tell us what that argument is, but you believe it exists and that it justifies such an otherwise obviously immoral action, because you are convinced it is a part of Islam, and you are convinced that Islam has some superior "strong, rational reasons" foundation. This is where your "faith" comes in. You are trusting that Allah has his reasons, and just because we don't know them, doesn't mean they don't exist. Yes?
So, from my view point, you wind up rationalizing an obviously immoral position because you have convinced yourself an imaginary authority demands it of you. Can you see why I find that dangerous?
format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad
And the point is straightforward, it is illogical to coerce people to Islam as it would be to coerce them to stay.
You have not demonstrated anything illogical; we’re talking about different values and perspectives, so something doesn’t become ‘illogical’ just because you disagree with it.
So you are saying it IS logical to coerce them to stay? Despite them not believing? Really... what would you have somebody who stops believing in Allah do? Do you want them to lie for the rest of their lives and pretend to be Muslim? Is it then about keeping up appearances so the next guy doesn't realize he's not the only disbeliever?
Last edited by Pygoscelis; 04-02-2016 at 07:35 PM.
What reason could I possibly have to believe you have anything that is actually different or more convincing than what I've already seen in all of the adventures I spoke of above, especially when you won't present it here and insist it is out there somewhere in my local community and I should go find it? EVERYONE who I have ever spoken to in all of the experiences I noted above have also claimed to have had unique and special information that was convincing evidence. Perhaps it was for them, but most of it is indistinguishable to me in any meaningful way, and none of it has been even remotely convincing. Why do you think you have something special and why can't it be presented in this thread?
And of the hypocrisy I noted above... how many of you here are equally willing to take in new and competing information and open your mind to change as I have, even if it means you may become apostates to Islam? Like me, have you visited Sikh temples, Hindu temples, Zoroastrian temples, Catholic churches, Jehova's Witness Kingdom Halls, and other such places to see their views and maybe discover that they have better foundation and evidence for their beliefs than you have for yours? Is this something you would encourage in Muslims? Quite a question to have to ask in a thread about a doctrine about killing apostates. I obviously don't expect you to have such an open mind. But for you to then turn around and accuse ME of not having an open mind and taking in your views... while I have been here for nearly a decade listening to Muslims... the irony is incredibly thick.
I’m not accusing you of anything Pygo. I made an observation and thought I’d try to make you aware of it.
You did acknowledge that evidence supporting the Islamic claim may exist – something that you have not been exposed to before. That’s the reason why.
The resource that I referred to is an Islamic school of the classical tradition. The environment and interactions you have with the subject matter experts/scholars at this institution are likely to be entirely different than what you have experienced before.
I can’t bring the school to this forum. Here’s the link to their website: ducanada.org
I don’t think that you’re closed minded. I think that you are making assumptions based on your past experiences.
These two are not mutually exclusive - the One who has created man and given him a sense of right and wrong is the same Law-Giver. Obeying Him elevates our moral behaviour and does not pose any obstacle in that regard. The Prophet said, 'I have only been sent to perfect good moral character'.
I think Pygoscelis is doing a good job trying to help you see the difference between obedience and moral behaviour.
Even if we look at things from a subjective point of view, there is nothing immoral about the concept of capital punishment being used to deter crime.
Stop trying to move the goalposts. This thread is about using the death penalty to punish apostasy, which cannot be a crime if you endorse freedom of religion, as you claim later on.
That is why I pointed out that numerous countries across the world, both religious and secular, apply such penalties to various crimes.
...
The US still uses the death penalty, and it is considered among the most developed countries in the world.
I will grant that the US is something of an anomaly in this area (as it is in many other ways), but it is one of the countries I had in mind when I said "still under the sway of religion". The fact that countries, as they become more civilised, tend to abolish the death penalty should indicate to you that it is not as simple a moral issue as you might like to believe. The claim that "there is nothing immoral about the concept of capital punishment being used to deter crime" is not necessarily true at all.
Likewise, terrorist atrocities are not due to a simple belief in God.
I never claimed that they were, and you know that this is not my position.
Trying to force connections will not help us; looking at facts will. That's why I have posed some research-based food for thought, which I think is more convincing than what a thinking adult like me might say.
You have given me an incomplete text, and I have attempted to summarise it for you in response. The text does not say what you seem to think it does, and at this point I'm beginning to suspect that you haven't even read it.
It is good to see you agree that religion is not the primary cause of violence - I think we are making progress here.
Not necessarily the primary cause, no. I'm saying that religion helps to cause violence. This has always been my position, and I have mentioned this several times to you already. I'm astonished that you don't seem to be aware of this.
As for giving 'coherence', this is such a vague term that can apply to all sorts of things, including the supposed 'War on Terror'.
This is an intriguing comment and I'm sure you could unpack it in interesting ways. What systems of thought do you have in mind as providing justification or coherence to the supposed War on Terror? Religious ones? Secular ones?
If you think I'm being vague with regard to the coherence that I claim Islam provides to the killers of the world, then I suggest you try reading Dabiq, the magazine of Daesh. Look at how Islamic concepts of death and the afterlife (backed up with a huge number of quotes from the Qur'an) govern the whole narrative of their military operations. Even though you and I agree that the interpretation of Islam shown there is incorrect and highly partial, the end result is the same. There is a very serious problem here, and we do not have time to wait for an Enlightenment; if large numbers of people continue to believe that religion is literally true, murderous groups like Daesh will always be one of the results.
I thought it was obvious why. You have already conceded that religion is not necessarily the primary cause behind violence, therefore the question (and its underlying assumption) becomes void.
How does the question become void, given that this has always been my position from the outset? I ask again:
Can you think of any criminal act that tends to be committed only by non-believers?
Note that my position on the relationship between religion and violence has no bearing on the corollary question here, which would be:
Can you think of any criminal act that tends to be committed only by believers?
for which we can all readily supply numerous answers with no difficulty whatsoever.
I realize this, and it is not surprising at all. If you conflate morality with obedience and define good as doing what God tells you to do, and if you see Goodness as something objective and needing to come from some law giver, then it makes perfect sense that atheists would have no such morality. I content that this is a completely wrong definition of morality, is mere obedience to power, and is dangerous in so far as it isolates people from their own inner senses of empathy and fairness. If God tells you to sacrifice your son, as in the Abraham and Isaac story, these two different definitions of morality will reach different conclusions. We know what the religious one is. Same for if God tells you to fly a plane into a building, drown your children, drink poisoned cool aid en masse, etc.
Hello Pygoscelis,
Mmm... But where does this inner sense of empathy and fairness come from? A theist would say: from God. And God is Good (by definition). Behaving in accordance with our inner sense of empathy and fairness (our inner compass, or fitrah) will bring us into harmony with God. And thus we feel no dissonance, and this brings peace to us. This is Islam.
(mildly) The story of Ibrahim and his son has been studied at length, and it is too big a topic to discuss in detail here. But please recall that the Biblical and Qur'an accounts are different. For instance, in the Qur'anic account, the son was a young adult, and agreed to follow the dream (when his father told him about a dream he'd had in which he had seen himself preparing to sacrifice his son). And please note that God didn't actually tell Ibrahim to sacrifice his son. The dream showed only Abraham and his son preparing to do this. Not an actual sacrifice.
As for people saying God inspired them to kill innocent people... well, those that wish to do wrong will use any excuse to try to cover themselves from blame. And this is true no matter what their ideology. For instance, if a child molester says the child seduced him and egged him on, and that he (the molester) is the true victim... do we believe the molester? Is the child at fault? Or do we understand that the molester is just trying to avoid responsibility for his despicable actions?
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
I agree with you that we can't lump all theists into one box. They vary in how fundamentalist they are (some liberal ones see much of the holy texts as poetry not meant to be taken literally, etc), and the fundamentalists vary in what they believe the God(s) want of them. Most religious folks really do have their own sense of morality independent of their religious belief, whether they know it or not, and based on it they declare certain parts of their holy books and doctrines to be less important or even ignore them completely. That's why you can have Fundamentalist Christians who follow the nasty parts of the bible, hating on homosexuals, and other liberal ones who can even BE homosexuals themselves and get gay married in liberal churches. It is also why pretty much nobody today follows the parts of the bible clearly telling people to stone adulterers to death, not suffer wtiches to live, and murder disobedient children, etc. It is also why Mulsims can vary from Daesh (ISIS) on one extreme (bloodthirsty, tribal, etc) to yourself on the other (loving, inclusive, etc). You both push yourselves to obey what you think Allah wants of you, only your personality and personal morality and ethics lead you to interpret that one way, and Daesh the other.
(smile) The opposite of extreme is centered. Not another extreme.
(mildly) I don't think the divide between "fundamentalists" and "liberals" works well to describe Muslims. Yes, there are extremists (and your divisions sound like extremes to me), but Islam is supposed to be the "Middle Way". And this Middle Way is where we should struggle to find ourselves. (smile) But we don't often find this point of balance, and even when we do, we do not remain balanced for long. (smile) Not in this life. (smile) The atheist-turned-Muslim mathematician Jeffrey Lang called one of his books StrugglingtoSurrender. And it is a very apt title, I think. For Islam is the struggle to surrender to God's Will. The struggle to find harmony, balance, inner peace. A struggle that continues our whole lives.
(mildly) Incidentally, I think you are misunderstanding Najimuddin. I don't think he is trying to be harsh with you. I think he actually is positively inclined towards you, and wishes to do you some good through his discussions with you. I think the problem is partly that you are coming from different sets of assumptions, and so you find one another somewhat unintelligible.
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
MuslimInshallah liked this post
were uneducated lower-class Aramaic-speaking Jews from Palestine?
. We don’t just take one verse and make up rulings.
knows what is hidden in the hearts of the people. It is quite possible for a hypocrite to repent from his hypocrisy and become sincere to Allaah
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks