Punishment for apostasy

[MuslimInshallah]

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.

(smile) Hello again Pygoscelis,

Mmm... But you see, what you are stating is what you believe... but perhaps these beliefs are incorrect? (smile) It seems that you believe that faith in God serves to keep people quiet and submissive. You affirm that Islam is an authoritarian religion. But on what are you basing these assertions?

You are correct that some will try to use a person's faith against them, to extract benefits. (mildly) I was reading a thread this morning where a man was using a woman's kindness and empathy to try to manipulate her into bed with him. (twinkle) Does this mean that we should avoid kindness and compassion?! ... Or should we avoid manipulators?

You know, when I read the Qur'an, I read a revolutionary text. It exhorts me to struggle to become a better person... more just, more strong, more self-restrained, more compassionate... it is not at all calling me to be passive. The word Muslim is one who actively struggles to submit... to God. And nothing and no one else.

Are there authoritarian methodologies of interpretation? Oh gosh, yes! This is a real problem, I agree with you. But does a belief in God and the Qur'an as Word of God automatically lead a person to submit to these human-based interpretations that seek to manipulate others? (mildly) I do not think so.

(mildly) Islam for me is very liberating. It has helped me through some incredibly hard times, and strengthened me. Have some people tried to use my faith to manipulate me? (sigh) Oh goodness, yes! But what I have learned is that I need to avoid these manipulators. Such people use anything and everything to their advantage.

(smile) I read a book quite a few years ago called: And God Knows the Soldiers: The Authoritative and the Authoritarian in Islamic Discourses by Khaled Abou El Fadl https://www.amazon.ca/And-Knows-Sol...dp/0761820841?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0. It makes the distinction between the authoritativeness of the Qur'an and the usurpation of God's authority by humans for their own ends. (mildly) If you are interested in understanding Islam in a more fair and balanced way, I would suggest this book.


May God Bless you Pygoscelis.

 

[Pygoscelis]

You know, when I read the Qur'an, I read a revolutionary text. It exhorts me to struggle to become a better person... more just, more strong, more self-restrained, more compassionate... it is not at all calling me to be passive. The word Muslim is one who actively struggles to submit... to God. And nothing and no one else.

My concern is that if you truly did this completely, you would be subduing your own moral senses of empathy and fairness and replacing them with obedience. It then would become only a matter of what you are convinced Allah wants of you. This would make the words of the prophets, the people who transcribed them, and the scholars that help interpret them for you, potentially very dangerous.

You personally appear to have concluded that Allah wants you to be kind, sweet, and caring, which is a relief. But it is very clear that other Muslims have reached a far more aggressive, hateful, and violent conclusion. Having buried their own evolved moral sense under complete submission to what they believe is Allah and what he wants, they would be unreachable by empathy, and left as monsters without much hope. A soldier of Daesh could be sawing off the head of a captured medical relief worker, and fighting hard not to let themselves feel bad about it, because they must submit to Allah and they read that Allah demands they kill unbelievers wherever they find them. And if you were truly and completely submitted to Allah yourself, then they would only need to convince you that you overlooked, misread or misunderstood something in the holy text or a hadith, to change you into one of them.

Your submission to Allah, and following his orders, as you see them, instead of your own moral sense, would also mean that your acts of kindness are done out of obedience, and not because you are a genuinely kind and caring person, and I find that hard to believe in your case.

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings czgibson,

A subjective account of morality is the only game in town, philosophically speaking. The idea that morality is objective is nonsensical for various reasons. Morality is an evolving set of conventions that is always based ultimately on human opinion. Attributing the basis of morality to a supernatural source and following its commands gives rise to obedience, not moral behaviour.

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 :saws: said, 'I have only been sent to perfect good moral character'.

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. That is why I pointed out that numerous countries across the world, both religious and secular, apply such penalties to various crimes.

It's a diminishing list, and the death penalty tends to be used in countries that are either still under the sway of religion to a great degree, or less developed countries, which explains my use of the word 'primitive' earlier.

This is irrelevant. The US still uses the death penalty, and it is considered among the most developed countries in the world.

Lust for power drove the communist purges you speak of. This has nothing to do with a simple lack of belief in God.

Likewise, terrorist atrocities are not due to a simple belief in God.

Let's one of the examples I mentioned: are you really suggesting, as a thinking adult, that you can see no connection at all between the certain belief in the rewards of an afterlife and the practice of suicide bombing?

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.

As before, the text as you have given it to me is incomplete. Again, you don't seem to have understood its contents, despite having had plenty of time to reread it since the last time you showed it to me.

The text is arguing against a reductionist account of terrorism, particularly terrorism committed in the name of Islam, and is also concerned with evaluating counter-terrorism responses. The text emphatically does not discount the role of religious ideology in enabling violence, as you claim. For example [my emphasis]:

I remember this response of yours, and I pointed out that clutching to a single statement without considering the entirety of the report is poor scholarship. Interestingly,the report goes on to recommend public defence of freedom of religion, even for individuals who choose to adopt religious beliefs deemed 'extremist', which goes to show how little a threat it considers religion to be. Even the very statement you choose to focus on is sufficient for the point I am making, just by emphasising the latter half:

This suggests that religious ideology gives coherence to a group of individuals who are already engaged in terrorism but is not what drives them into becoming terrorists in the first place – which has more to do with a desire to join others in the adventure of fighting a dominant power.

Wouldn't we all be better off without systems of thought that give coherence to those already engaged in terrorism? It makes no difference whether religion is the first cause of violence (it isn't necessarily), and as you rightly say, other factors are involved, but the end result is the same.

It is good to see you agree that religion is not the primary cause of violence - I think we are making progress here. As for giving 'coherence', this is such a vague term that can apply to all sorts of things, including the supposed 'War on Terror'.

I note you decided to ignore my question:

Can you think of any criminal act that tends to be committed only by non-believers?

Would you like to offer an answer?

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.

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings Pygoscelis,

I see what you are saying, and I suppose that could make sense if you buy into it enough, but I'm also sure you can see what I am saying, when you look at people of other religions or interpretations of Islam (those who get it wrong in your view). It isn't hard to think of a situation where religious doctrine or inspiration (other than your own) runs directly against empathy, fairness and morality. Yes? Can you see how externalizing our moral value judgments to a third party could compromise them?

We are diverging from the point here, which is that obedience to God, in and of itself, does not cause moral decline (once we establish that God exists). You said that externalisation of moral values places a barrier to things like empathy and fairness. From a logical perspective I am saying that is not so when it comes to obeying God. The fact that some people may misinterpret, manipulate etc, does not mean in principle any externalisation of moral values is problematic. In terms of religious doctrine being directly against empathy, fairness and morality, again this is not exclusive to religious ideology. This can happen with any authority. There is no reason for a Muslim to stop believing in the fact that the best lawgiver is God Himself.

It fails with me for 3 reasons. First, because an all powerful being would not likely have such limitations.

I do not see the limitation here. Are you saying human beings should never undergo any suffering? How would we learn qualities such as patience and reliance upon God if there was never a trial we had to face?

Second, because I see no reason to believe such a being exists. Auto mechanics and Doctors are real flesh and blood people I can visually see who have gone to brick and mortar universities and learned their expertise and have degrees and diplomas to show for it.

There is a problem with raising this argument here. Currently we are discussing how trusting in God's judgement is a logical thing to do. This is based upon the premise that He exists in the first place. To question His existence is going back to the first premise, but it is not an argument against the issue at hand of trusting in His knowledge and judgement if He does exist.

Third, because even if such a being exists, them being benevolent seems inconsistent with what I see around me. Auto mechanics and Doctors can be shady characters out to exploit or harm or rip me off. I see no reason to give such a being the benefit of the doubt, or pre-define him as benevolent. Power corrupts as they say.

God cannot be corrupted, as that is a human weakness. Logic dictates that God must be above all human wants, needs and weaknesses if He is our Creator. Regarding the idea that benevolence is inconsistent with the world around us, I responded to this earlier:

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. ​

We will have to agree to disagree on that. An all powerful being could make us believe whatever he wants us to believe, and since belief isn't really intentional on our part anyway, it wouldn't rob us of free will. If he was giving us truth, then it would actually enable free will, and allow us to make informed decisions.

He could make us all believe, but in His Wisdom He has created us with the ability to choose. He has given us all the information we need to make that decision.

It really really doesn't. Humans have produced hundreds, maybe thousands of different "prophets", "holy books" and understandings of the Gods and what they/he/she wants us to know.

How many of these have a message as clear, logical, universal and timeless as Islam? Which religion believes in all the Prophets and Scriptures from the first till the last, connecting them all with the same core message?

The fact that we have so many earnest and well meaning seekers, finding such a wide array of conflicting "answers" makes it crystal clear to me that any God that actually does exist, can not want to be known by all. I see no way of getting around that.

How do you know who is a well meaning and earnest seeker? Besides, in your own words, conflict is not necessarily proof against God: '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.' People will always differ in their opinions and beliefs, but those who actually follow God's Message are excluded from this.

And the mere existence of human messengers (prophets) and holy texts, bringing with them all the human flaws of memory, perception, communication and spoken and written word amplifies that. An all poweful being would not be so limited, and could simply have us know what he wanted us to know, perfectly and without misunderstanding, with no need for such theatrics as written or spoken human language.

Anyone who is familiar with the revelation and preservation of the Qur'an and Sunnah will know that they are far from being limited by flaws of memory, perception or communication. Again, there is nothing limiting, illogical or irrational about communicating via Prophets and Scriptures. You agreed with me earlier that God knows best how to deliver His message. What actual grounds do you have to reject a message delivered via such means?

The fact that these so-called prophets and holy texts look so much like what we would expect from man-made fabrications amplifies it even more. The Quran and the Bible both read like texts written by people of that time with the cultures and knowledge of that time.

Again, claiming that the Qur'an is man-made stems from ignorance. How could an illiterate man produce a text that even the most eloquent of the Arabs could not imitate; a text which not only surpassed their skill but became regarded as a source of grammatical and lexicographical information? From where in a society steeped in ignorance, paganism and barbarism did a Scripture arise that would deal with matters of belief, legislation, politics, spirituality, economics and more in an entirely new literary form? I will highlight once again that the Prophet Muhammad :saws: was a renowned man of impeccable morals and character for forty years among his people... someone who was known for his honesty and trustworthiness. A man who does not lie to people does not lie about God. His truthfulness was even attested to by Jews and Christians who came to meet or know of him. He confirmed knowledge of previous peoples without ever having studied previous Scriptures. He foretold many prophecies which came true. It is evident that his words transcended the culture and knowledge of his people.

If the Quran told us that germs rather than spirits make us sick,

Where in the Qur'an are we told that spirits make us sick?

So you do believe it is Allah's decree that decides if we are going to be believers or not? I thought you were saying the opposite above?

I said in my post that Allaah :swt: has a Will, and we humans also have a will and ability to make choices. We are required to act and exert effort, and Allaah :swt: will help us.

A lot of us do that. And we come to radically different conclusions. That tells me something. How do you explain that away?

There are numerous factors driving people to make different choices, not necessarily having different conclusions. Let's take the moral trait of fairness as an example. Let us say most, if not all people recognise this as a good trait and that we should seek to practice it. Does that mean all humans are fair? We know from countless examples and instances that this isn't so. Knowing the right way doesn't always mean people will take it. For others, they may not know. For each person there are individual challenges. Many times we don't get anywhere because people have no intention of changing their mindset; they just wish to justify what they already believe (or don't believe).

My life actually has plenty of meaning, as does the universe. That meaning just isn't imposed by some external all powerful authority figure.

Where do you believe that meaning of the universe came from?

Second, my concern with "objective meaning and morality" mostly centers on the religious person's claim of it. I do not believe that morality or meaning exist in a vacuum where no mind is present to create or judge them. The closest I can get to a belief in "objective morality" is recognizing that as a social species we have evolved innate senses of empathy and fairness. I can see why we evolved that way and can see why it is mostly universal (aside from sociopaths) and why it is getting stronger in our species over time as we cooperate in bigger and bigger groups.

Innate senses are limited in terms of being objective measures of morality. What was considered by most people as immoral only a few decades or so ago has now become protected (and arguably even encouraged) by law. Have those people holding on to former values now become immoral? As I said to czgibson, subjective morals can change according to situation, culture and personal preferences. It then becomes clear that we cannot always use subjective morals to derive universal principles.

"The choice of disbelief" you say. I am sad to see that we are right back where we started. If you see and feel me put that apple in your hand can you choose to disbelieve it is an apple, and believe it is a banana or a grape?

This is really a question a believer would ask an atheist with regards to the world we see and feel around us.

Murder is culpable (unjustified) homocide (human killing). I call killing apostates murder because I find it completely unjustified, and I don't any legal authority in your religious belief, especially when applied to those who no longer share that belief.

You find it unjustified based upon subjective morals, just as any war or judgement we don't agree with would constitute countless lives murdered. I know you don't find a legal authority in my religious belief, but that does not make it wrong. There is no logical reason for a Muslim not to trust in Islam as being a true revelation from God. Hence, there is no reason for a Muslim to abandon God’s law.

 

[Pygoscelis]

We are diverging from the point here, which is that obedience to God, in and of itself, does not cause moral decline (once we establish that God exists).

You said that externalisation of moral values places a barrier to things like empathy and fairness. From a logical perspective I am saying that is not so when it comes to obeying God. The fact that some people may misinterpret, manipulate etc, does not mean in principle any externalisation of moral values is problematic.

What you are saying may make some sense if you could be sure that not only Allah exists, and is perfectly good, but also that you have a perfect understanding of him and what he wants of you. Given how vastly Muslims disagree with each other (as we have seen in this very thread), I don't see how you can be so sure that you do. And even if you did, you would be at best making yourself amoral and obedient, and removing moral agency from yourself. That creates the barrier I mentioned above.

In terms of religious doctrine being directly against empathy, fairness and morality, again this is not exclusive to religious ideology. This can happen with any authority. There is no reason for a Muslim to stop believing in the fact that the best lawgiver is God Himself.

Absolutely, it can happen with any authority. I would be very alarmed at the subduing of one's own moral senses in favour of obedience to any authority, be it a God, the King of England, Hitler, Hamurabi, or the most benevolent and kind of dictators.

I do not see the limitation here. Are you saying human beings should never undergo any suffering? How would we learn qualities such as patience and reliance upon God if there was never a trial we had to face?

I see no need for us to learn "reliance on God". In fact I see a need for us to learn reliance on ourselves and each other. We can learn patience without stillborn children, tornadoes, disease, parasitic wasps, and a universe wherein 99% of it is immediately deadly to human life. Were I to look at the world and consider an all powerful creator, I simply could not conclude that said creator was in any way benevolent towards us or other living beings on earth. A deist God who is indifferent or competing polytheistic Gods would make more sense to me.

How many of these have a message as clear, logical, universal and timeless as Islam? Which religion believes in all the Prophets and Scriptures from the first till the last, connecting them all with the same core message?

A religion sewing other religions together? Are you talking about Bahai now?

How do you know who is a well meaning and earnest seeker?

I give them the benefit of the doubt, just as I give you the benefit of the doubt. You claim to have the best religion with the best foundation and the best answers. So do these many other people from other religions. I see no reason to not take you all at your word that you all believe that. I also can clearly see that you can't all be right.

Anyone who is familiar with the revelation and preservation of the Qur'an and Sunnah will know that they are far from being limited by flaws of memory, perception or communication.

Written human language has limitations, even if the best words are chosen and are flawlessly recorded and preserved. Different interpretations can result. Different emphasis can be placed on different parts of the text. And this is exactly what we see within Islam and within other religions. Gods apparently don't like to be clearly heard and always choose to communicate through human language and human prophets, rather than just making us know what they want us to know. And for some odd reason their revelations are always steeped in the culture and time and moral beliefs and values of the prophets. This wouldn't have to be so if any of these Gods truly did exist and was all powerful.

Where in the Qur'an are we told that spirits make us sick?

Where in the Quran does it say that sickness comes from bacteria, viruses, etc? Where in the Quran or any other religion's holy text does it clearly state anything that wasn't already known at the time? And I don't mean Nostradamus style cryptic poetry. I mean clear straight forward statements. If the Quran told us that the earth goes around the sun, or gave us Einstein's theory of relativity... then I would be impressed and would have to reconsider my atheism. Likewise I would have to take the Quran very seriously if astronauts found evidence that the moon had in fact been split in two when the Quran claims this happened.

Where do you believe that meaning of the universe came from?

The same place the meaning of anything comes from: our minds observing it.

This is really a question a believer would ask an atheist with regards to the world we see and feel around us.

Do you have an answer? You keep referring to making a choice to believe. I tried to tell you that I make no such choice. Why are you so keen on insisting that I do? Can you choose to believe what you don't? Can you choose to believe that an apple you see me place in your hand is an orange or a grape?

 

[Sojourn]

Peace be with you Muhammad,

Greetings Sojourn,

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

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.

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.

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.

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

The core of Christian faith is the Jesus' redemptive work through his death and resurrection, something the Qur'an does not address. The trinity is simple to define and easy to understand but impossible to imagine because nothing in the created order is a trinity, and herein lies the "difficulty" for some people. The best analogy was outlined by St Augustine and the scholastics and it involves turning towards God's highest creation, the human person, but we digress.

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.

You are making Islam an irrational religion. A person must always go according to their conscience and reason. Muslims are right to feel uncomfortable with the idea of executing a man or woman for freely choosing to leave Islam.

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.

That may the opinion of the scholars you follow, but the verse itself does not limit itself to those embracing Islam. And the point is straightforward, it is illogical to coerce people to Islam as it would be to coerce them to stay. Faith is a *free* act of the will, it can not be forced. To force someone to stay Muslim is really forcing them to remain a munafiq, and what value is that?

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.

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. To threaten a person with death and force them to live the life of a hypocrite, or munafiq, is absurd. Let these people leave, it's better for the community to be small but sincere than large but full of hypocrites, no?

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.

But a person can renounce their US citizenship without fear of being executed.

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.

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.

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​

Wow, where do we begin?

How did Muslims acquire the ancient learning of Greece? Was it not from the Christians they conquered? And what did Muslims do with that knowledge? Sure, you had Averros and Avicenna, but in the end the Islamic world closed it's mind and rejected Greek Philosophy and the rationalizing of faith proposed by the Mutazelites.

Tolerance? Is he referring to "Muslim Spain" where the liberal Sultans permitted Christians and Jews to practice there faith to a level unprecedented in any part of the Muslim world at that time? 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.

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, and yet Wallace-Murphy makes an asinine comment about the West's mistrust and "imperial takeovers"? What breathtaking ignorance!

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? And conversely, how much is the Islamic world indebted to the Christian and Secular West for all it's contributions?

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.

Jesus established a spiritual community, a Church, whom he promised the divine Holy Spirit to guide and protect until the end of time. Any Christian can ascertain Jesus' teaching through the sacred tradition and sacred scripture possessed by the Church. We have always believed Jesus was divine, that he was crucified, that he resurrected. All these your Book rejects or simply never addresses. 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, or that it's ok for us to have multiple wives or divorce a spouse, or that there is a prophet after him that would totally reverse his teachings. 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.

I

t is easy for an outsider to appreciate the preservation of the teachings of Islam and their comprehensiveness. Simply reading a biography of the Prophet :saws: 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.

The point is those laws that may have been suitable and even progressive in 6th century Hijaaz are not applicable to the modern world.

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

Love is not impractical, and if more followed love the world would be a better place.

 

[Pygoscelis]

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 is an excellent point and speaks to the heart of what I have been saying. It seems to presume that these people can actually choose to believe or can be forced by other Muslims to keep actually believing, rather than pretending to believe to avoid being murdered. You can't choose to believe that apple you watched me put in your hand is an orange or a grape. You know it is an apple. I did not make a choice to fail to be convinced by your religion. I just don't believe it. The apostate didn't make a choice to stop believing. They just stopped, and no amount of coercion or force is going to make them truly believe again.

 

[azc]

Punishment for apostasy...http://www.answering-christianity.com/death.htm

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings Pygoscelis,

What you are saying may make some sense if you could be sure that not only Allah exists, and is perfectly good, but also that you have a perfect understanding of him and what he wants of you.

This much is already presumed. It is like the point about trusting in superior knowledge, which is based upon the assumption that God exists in the first place and we know what He wants from us.

Given how vastly Muslims disagree with each other (as we have seen in this very thread), I don't see how you can be so sure that you do.

If Muslim scholars disagree with each other, that is one thing. But for lay people to disagree is hardly significant when often we lack basic pre-requisites to delve into details of Islamic law.

And even if you did, you would be at best making yourself amoral and obedient, and removing moral agency from yourself. That creates the barrier I mentioned above.

That is exactly what I’m saying isn’t the case. If we assume God exists and assume we know what He wants from us, this leads us to the understanding that there would be no conflict between moral values because He created our sense of right and wrong.

Absolutely, it can happen with any authority. I would be very alarmed at the subduing of one's own moral senses in favour of obedience to any authority, be it a God, the King of England, Hitler, Hamurabi, or the most benevolent and kind of dictators.

But if that authority is our Creator Who has the most perfect knowledge and free from any corruption, it makes sense to obey Him. To presume that our own moral sense can be better than God’s is arrogance.

I see no need for us to learn "reliance on God". In fact I see a need for us to learn reliance on ourselves and each other. We can learn patience without stillborn children, tornadoes, disease, parasitic wasps, and a universe wherein 99% of it is immediately deadly to human life. Were I to look at the world and consider an all powerful creator, I simply could not conclude that said creator was in any way benevolent towards us or other living beings on earth. A deist God who is indifferent or competing polytheistic Gods would make more sense to me.

You are simply repeating the same arguments that I’ve responded to earlier. You subject the world to your own limited perception of reality. You agreed that morality can be subjective and presumably you agree it cannot be used to define universal principles. The criterion for judging anything cannot be our own desire. Why then do you insist that the world should be moulded according to your thoughts and refuse to acknowledge there could be many reasons to permit evil and suffering? I’ve responded to the implausible argument about deist and polytheistic gods in my earlier post here.

A religion sewing other religions together? Are you talking about Bahai now?

No, not other religions. I’m talking about the same religion taught by all the Prophets and the Scriptures they brought. I’m not talking about false prophets and scriptures. As sister Insaanah explained:

Allah has sent a succession of prophets to people throughout the ages, to convey His message to them, and with guidance to show people how He wants them to live and worship Him. Muslims believe in all the prophets Allah sent, and do not reject or blaspheme any of them, from Adam, to the last and final prophet, Muhammad, peace be on them all. They were the purest and noblest of humanity and were not divine in any way. Allah sent all the prophets with the same message and not different messages. All the prophets and messengers sent by God to humans to convey His message, conveyed the same message since the beginnig of time, regardless of when and which people they were sent to. The message was:to submit wholeheartedly to Allah and worship Him and Him alone, without any associates in, or parts to, His Exclusive Divinity, and to obey the prophet. They taught that people should be under no misperception that they can commit themselves to Allah as their Lord, and then combine this with accepting others as their Lord, or associating others in His Divinity, in whatever way. They taught that we should strive hard to translate our belief in the One True God into practice, by obeying Allah and the messengers He sent, who were also role models and examples for us, showing us practically how to put the guidance they were sent with into practice in our daily lives, explaining the scriptures, warning against wrong-doing, giving good tidings, and giving additional legislation from Allah.

So Islam is not a new faith, but is the same ultimate universal truth that God revealed to all the prophets, including Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus (peace be on them), and the same thing they all taught. Thus Islam is not named after a specific person (like Christianity, Buddhism), nor after a certain race or place (like Judaism, Hinduism), but is named by God Himself, the meaning loosely translating as 'submission to God', which is what every Prophet and their righteous followers did, from amongst all times, places and peoples. That in itself is one fraction of the evidence that it was the way of all the Prophets from the beginning...

I give them the benefit of the doubt, just as I give you the benefit of the doubt. You claim to have the best religion with the best foundation and the best answers. So do these many other people from other religions. I see no reason to not take you all at your word that you all believe that. I also can clearly see that you can't all be right.

That is why I’m asking you to investigate beyond giving the benefit of the doubt. You can’t use the ‘benefit of the doubt’ as evidence to say God doesn’t want to be known.

Written human language has limitations, even if the best words are chosen and are flawlessly recorded and preserved. Different interpretations can result. Different emphasis can be placed on different parts of the text. And this is exactly what we see within Islam and within other religions. Gods apparently don't like to be clearly heard and always choose to communicate through human language and human prophets, rather than just making us know what they want us to know.

The Qur’an was sent with a Messenger to explain and teach it to the people, whose life was modelled on its instruction. All of these teachings have been meticulously preserved. The fundamentals of how to live a good life and enter Paradise are very clear. There are some different interpretations of finer issues, yes, but you agreed that differing is a human trait. Even if God spoke to each of us directly, there is still the possibility we would differ in our interpretations and opinions of what He said. So, there are no grounds here to reject God’s Message. We simply need to do our best to follow His Message and He will help us.

And for some odd reason their revelations are always steeped in the culture and time and moral beliefs and values of the prophets. This wouldn't have to be so if any of these Gods truly did exist and was all powerful.

That is not the case with the Qur'an due to reasons I have already mentioned and more below.

Where in the Quran or any other religion's holy text does it clearly state anything that wasn't already known at the time?

Have a look at the references to embryology:
https://islampapers.com/embryology-in-the-quran/

You may also look at the Qur’an’s remarkable insight into the past:
http://www.islam21c.com/islamic-tho...-the-qurans-remarkable-insight-into-the-past/

The same place the meaning of anything comes from: our minds observing it.

But why should life or the universe have any meaning if everything is purely material and coincidental with nothing to guide it?

Do you have an answer? You keep referring to making a choice to believe. I tried to tell you that I make no such choice. Why are you so keen on insisting that I do? Can you choose to believe what you don't? Can you choose to believe that an apple you see me place in your hand is an orange or a grape?

There has to be a choice between belief and disbelief, otherwise that would mean you are being compelled to disbelieve. There may well be an apple in your hand, but you have to open your eyes to see it. Mankind is surrounded by signs which are enough to direct us to believe in God; we have to open our hearts to them.

 

[Pygoscelis]

This much is already presumed. It is like the point about trusting in superior knowledge, which is based upon the assumption that God exists in the first place and we know what He wants from us.

Which of course can't be true for the vast majority of us, given how vast the disagreements are in this understanding. You think that your particular understanding is special. So do all the others.

That is exactly what I’m saying isn’t the case. If we assume God exists and assume we know what He wants from us, this leads us to the understanding that there would be no conflict between moral values because He created our sense of right and wrong.

This becomes a small and possibly moot point if we make all of your assumptions, but still, obedience is not moral agency. You could do the same physical acts for different reasons, based on moral agency (your judgment of right and wrong) or based on obedience to power.

The criterion for judging anything cannot be our own desire.

But must be our own moral senses, for any moral judgment we make. Not mere obedience to authority.

Why then do you insist that the world should be moulded according to your thoughts and refuse to acknowledge there could be many reasons to permit evil and suffering?

I have explained this a number of times now. Permitting evil is evil, unless there is some limitation on the person permitting it, so that it can not be stopped without a greater evil happening or a greater good being prevented. An all powerful being by definition has no such limitation.

I’ve responded to the implausible argument about deist and polytheistic gods in my earlier post here.

The problem of evil can be readily and easily explained if you posit a God or Gods limited in power, in benevolence, or given multiple Gods in conflict. Not so much if you posit a single all powerful and perfectly benevolent God. Your demand that there must be some explanation because you insist it must exist and I can't definitively prove otherwise, is not persuasive. I would also note that whereas you are biased in favor of monotheism, I am giving an unbiased view on this. I am not monotheistic or polytheistic. I agree that we have gone over this already, and so I will leave it at that and not respond further to this point.

Have a look at the references to embryology:
https://islampapers.com/embryology-in-the-quran/

I've seen this before. It is a good effort, but it doesn't amaze me. The Quran refers to distinct stages of development, as did the Jews before Mohammad, and has did the Greeks. The Quran's particular stages and descriptions of them appear to be copied from ancient Greek physician Galen. The Quran states that bone is formed first and then flesh is clothed upon it, when in fact bone and muscle develop at the same time.

The Quran makes reference to sperm or seminal fluid. So does the Bible (a lot of reference to "his seed" meaning his sperm or seminal fluid). So did the ancient Greeks. You don't need divine revelation to figure that sex leads to babies, and you don't need to study much so know that sperm passes from the male to the female during sex. Moreover, does the Quran not say that this fluid (and that is as specific as it gets, yes?) comes from between the backbone and the ribs rather than saying it comes from the testes?

That is why I’m asking you to investigate beyond giving the benefit of the doubt. You can’t use the ‘benefit of the doubt’ as evidence to say God doesn’t want to be known.

To reach my conclusion that any all powerful being that exists doesn't want to be clearly known by all, I am indeed assuming that theists (including yourself) are being honest when they say that they are earnestly seeking to understand God and seek spiritual guidance. You are saying that I should not make that assumption? I don't need it to be true of all of them for my argument to work, just a couple of them that contradict each other. Are you saying that everybody who disagrees with your particular understanding of God and what he wants is lying to me?

There has to be a choice between belief and disbelief, otherwise that would mean you are being compelled to disbelieve. There may well be an apple in your hand, but you have to open your eyes to see it. Mankind is surrounded by signs which are enough to direct us to believe in God; we have to open our hearts to them.

I have told you repeatedly that I make no such choice. I am indeed as compelled not to believe in your spiritual claims as I am compelled not to believe that an apple in my hand is a grape. Yet here you are insisting that I must be choosing disbelief. So you require my dishonesty in this? Along with the dishonesty of every theist that doesn't agree with your particular theological view? Everybody is lying but you?

 

[M.I.A.]

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ould-shoot-somebody-and-still-not-lose-voters

...well, apostates beware.


But seriously..

Too be fair he is a very charismatic and successful man, it's a shame he likes how he can say whatever he wants but freedom of speech from Muslims is classed as hate..

Apparently not the demographic he is aiming for.. Probably.

 

[MuslimInshallah]

My concern is that if you truly did this completely, you would be subduing your own moral senses of empathy and fairness
and replacing them with obedience.

Hello Pygoscelis,

(smile) This innate moral sense you speak about is what Muslims call our fitrah. This is a moral compass that God has endowed us with. And it is one of the elements that we use when trying to understand God's Will.

It then would become only a matter of what you are convinced Allah wants of you. This would make the words of the prophets, the people who transcribed them, and the scholars that help interpret them for you, potentially very dangerous.

Yes, this is a problem. Indeed, there are definitely people who try to usurp God's authority and try to bend others to their will. In order to try to address these problems, Muslims have tried very hard to preserve as accurately as possible the Prophet Mohammed's (God's Peace and Blessings upon him) words and actions. This is where the hadith sciences come in. There really has been a lot of work to try to ascertain which sayings are reliable, and to what degree.

This is also why many Muslims feel wary about who is telling them what. Rather like looking at the credentials of a surgeon who will operate on you, people wonder at the reliability of the scholar. Who is he/she? Where did they study? With whom? What did they study?

And here I have a little disagreement with some posters. I do not believe that anyone knows all God's Will for sure. Even the most learned of scholars is a human being, and therefore fallible. Yes, there are some points of consensus. But there are also points of controversy. And frankly, when you are living your day-to-day life, you can't always check everything with a scholar. Indeed, you rarely can. (mildly) So you do your best. You try to educate yourself, through reading the Qur'an, ahadith, scholarly works. You listen to your inner compass. You seek clarifications from others. You think. You struggle to understand God's Will.​

(smile) And this is what life is about: trying to understand God's Will, and then doing what is Pleasing to him. (mildly) And yes, you will face hardship. You will suffer. But this suffering is not senseless. It is what can help the seed that you are, grow. This is how you can grow closer to God: by growing in those Qualities that are His. (smile) And yes, He is Good. And Kind. And Compassionate. (smile) As well as Just, Strong, Self-Reliant, Firm... all the Beautiful Qualities belong to God.

(smile) You know, my own life has not been an easy one. But it has been a very rich one, I think. (smile) I know you think that suffering is bad, but I do not. I can't say that I would wish my life on anyone, and yet, I am grateful to God that He Has Gifted me with my life. It has taught me many things, I think. And I feel as if my life has had some meaning, some use. (smile) Of course, I can never learn everything. Nor can I come anywhere near attaining God's Qualities. But when you love someone... do you not want to be more like them? Do you not wish to get closer to them? Would you not be happy for an opportunity to do this? Even if it was difficult?

You personally appear to have concluded that Allah wants you to be kind, sweet, and caring, which is a relief. But it is very clear that other Muslims have reached a far more aggressive, hateful, and violent conclusion. Having buried their own evolved moral sense under complete submission to what they believe is Allah and what he wants, they would be unreachable by empathy, and left as monsters without much hope. A soldier of Daesh could be sawing off the head of a captured medical relief worker, and fighting hard not to let themselves feel bad about it, because they must submit to Allah and they read that Allah demands they kill unbelievers wherever they find them.

Mmm... from what I have read, soldiers working with Daesh are human beings like everyone else. Some truly are heartless, and use any pretext to do acts that are far from God's Beautiful Will. But others join because they want to put food on the table. Or because they mistakenly thought that Daesh was a good organization... only to discover that it was not at all what they thought. And when people with hearts see the corruption and the cruelty, they may go along with things because they are afraid. Or confused (and yes, God's authority is usurped to create this confusion, by people who want to bend others to their wills). Or they try to convince themselves that it's ok to do something, because it benefits them in some way. Or...

(gently) It is not God who is inspiring these terrible acts. This is human weakness and Satanic whisperings. And you will find these sorts of horrors being done by peoples of all ideological stripes. Yes, atheists, too. This is the dark side of humanity that the angels perceived.

And if you were truly and completely submitted to Allah yourself, then they would only need to convince you that you overlooked, misread or misunderstood something in the holy text or a hadith, to change you into one of them.

(smile) This sounds like I could be the Incredible Hulk or some such!

(seriously) You say "they". But do you not realize that I have agency? God has endowed me with reason, with a moral compass, with a Guidebook... and with the power to chose my actions. Only I am responsible for my acts. Of course, others may try to convince me of their interpretations, but at the end of The Day, I will stand before God and be accountable for what I chose to do. I cannot get out of anything by saying "Oh! So-and-so told me that this is what I must do. I just followed so-and-so."

Your submission to Allah, and following his orders, as you see them, instead of your own moral sense, would also mean that your acts of kindness are done out of obedience, and not because you are a genuinely kind and caring person, and I find that hard to believe in your case.

(smile) My inner compass comes from God. It is part of my toolkit. It helps me understand His Will. If I do not do what is Pleasing to Him (if I do not struggle to surrender my destructive desires for what is actually better for me), then my compass will warn me (if I am paying attention to it). (gently) Obeying God leads to kindness and caring. There is no contradiction between obeying God and being a genuinely kind person (twinkle. Though I'm not always kind, you know!).


May God Bless you, Pygoscelis.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Hello Pygoscelis,

(smile) This innate moral sense you speak about is what Muslims call our fitrah. This is a moral compass that God has endowed us with. And it is one of the elements that we use when trying to understand God's Will.

Now that is a fascinating layer on top of all of this. So you are saying that you don't bury your own moral senses of empathy and fairness under obedience to authority, but instead you view your moral senses as coming from the authority figure? So you are completely amoral and this is all about obedience? There is no moral sense that you have truly of your own that is independent of God? How then could you know that God is good and worthy of your obedience to begin with? Or is it a matter of Might makes Right? He made us, so whatever he says goes, no matter what that may be, or no matter what you become convinced that it is?

That would explain the lack of cognitive dissonance and my inability to reach people who endorse killing apostates, discriminating against homosexuals, etc... they are not only obeying what they think God wants, but they have truly made themselves feel that it is right, even at the deepest of levels. Is that correct? If so, I see little hope for them.

 

[MidnightRose]

I have told you repeatedly that I make no such choice. I am indeed as compelled not to believe in your spiritual claims as I am compelled not to believe that an apple in my hand is a grape. Yet here you are insisting that I must be choosing disbelief. So you require my dishonesty in this? Along with the dishonesty of every theist that doesn't agree with your particular theological view? Everybody is lying but you?

Greetings Pygo,

My take on this is that you have made a conscious choice. I don’t think you’re lying though. This choice is based on the perceptions you’ve developed due to various influences.

These perceptions are preventing you from even exposing yourself to information and an environment that has the potential to alter them. You have acknowledged that you are not all knowing and that there may be objective, observable, and measurable evidence supporting the Islamic claim that you have not been exposed to. The following quotes illustrate this:

Hi Pygo,
Would you be open to the possibility that there may be some objective, observable, and measurable evidence supporting the Islamic claim that you have not been exposed to?

Yes, sure. I could be wrong. I am not infallible or all knowing. Allah could exist. Poseidon could exist. So could the Aztek Gods, but I would be rather shocked.

However, when I mentioned:

Although it’s possible for analogies in relation to this to be made with other personalities and dogmas, it is believed that definitive judgments should be based on a comprehensive understanding of the Islamic tradition.

Sometimes the key to understanding something may lie in practical exposure. That said, there are places where one can gain an understanding of the man that delivered the message from traditional subject matter experts in person.

I see you’re in Ontario. If you’re interested I know a place in Chatham where you can meet these engaging, non-judgmental, and friendly people.

Your response was analogous:

No need. I don't doubt your sincere belief in Muhammad's integrity. I don't have any reason to question his integrity myself either. I also don't have any particular reason to question the integrity of Jesus, the Budha, or any other spiritual icon or founder of a religion. But that doesn't make what they believed about theology to be any more convincing to me.

By stating “No need”, you have made a conscious choice of rejecting to even being exposed to something that you have acknowledged may exist.

Understanding and agreeing with theology is a subsequent matter. If God, then theology.

 

[MuslimInshallah]

Now that is a fascinating layer on top of all of this. So you are saying that you don't bury your own moral senses of empathy and fairness under obedience to authority, but instead you view your moral senses as coming from the authority figure? So you are completely amoral and this is all about obedience? There is no moral sense that you have truly of your own that is independent of God? How then could you know that God is good and worthy of your obedience to begin with? Or is it a matter of Might makes Right? He made us, so whatever he says goes, no matter what that may be, or no matter what you become convinced that it is?

That would explain the lack of cognitive dissonance and my inability to reach people who endorse killing apostates, discriminating against homosexuals, etc... they are not only obeying what they think God wants, but they have truly made themselves feel that it is right, even at the deepest of levels. Is that correct? If so, I see little hope for them.

Hello Pygoscelis

(amused) Of course I believe that everything comes from the Creator, including my moral compass. I am a theist! It wouldn't be very logical of me if I said that there was a Unique, All-Powerful, All-Encompassing Creator, and then said that there was a part of creation that was independent of that Creator!

(gently) Perhaps this is why you have trouble convincing theists of anything: you are coming from a different set of assumptions. It's a bit like Canadians trying to convince Americans that gun control is a good idea. We Canadians tend not to understand the underpinnings of American thought on this idea, and therefore, we tend not to be able to get very far in our discussions with them on this topic.

(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. (mildly) I disagree with this lumping together of atheists and easy dismissal... just as I disagree with the lumping together of theists and dismissal... (gently) I believe that each person is unique and full of precious potential. And that rather than see the "other" as a sort of zombie army (which opens the door to such dark thoughts and actions towards the "other"...), that we must hear each voice in its uniqueness, and evaluate each person individually.

(mildly) If you want to try to convince a theist of what you feel your moral compass is telling you about right and wrong... then I would suggest that you use arguments that fit within the frame of reference of the theist. (smile) I think you could make a lot of positive contributions, you know.

(smile) May God Bless you. Pygoscelis.

 

[piXie]

Why is there a punishment for leaving Islam? Shouldn't everyone be free to choose their religion?

The question you should be asking is, why is there a punishment for following Islam, Shouldn't everyone be free to choose their religion?

Why are Muslims falsely accused, jailed without trial, and being massacred in their own countries.

 

[piXie]

what you feel your moral compass is telling you about right and wrong...

What I don't understand about athiests is how they can condem someone else's moral compass based on their own moral compass. If their moral compass is telling them homosexuality is normal and another persons moral compass is telling them that it is abnormal, why do they condem that person.

 

[Delphi]

I was going to post something about reason, athiestic neutrality, science, revealed truth through rational discovery and scientific logic, and rational tolerance - the freedom of every person on earth to answer to God - or the infinite stars (or both) according to their conscience alone, so long as they do not seek to bring violence against another. As soon as one man starts using violence to coerce another into belief, the outcome is automatically tainted and polluted by that act alone. To be quite frank multicultural tolerance is the glue that holds the world together, the peace that we have forged to allow multiple tribes with different beliefs to live together in peace. As soon as one person or group begins trying to co-erce or force another into belief, that glue breaks, and the eventual end result is violence, and then war. Matthew 26:52 - those who live by the sword, die by the sword.

Throughout it's history Christianity has said that the way of the world, the way of force, and the way of the sword are the ways of the devil.

1But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
2Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them.
3Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst,
4they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act.
5Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?”
6This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.
7So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.”
8And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”
11She said, “No one, Lord.”
And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”
12Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”

 

[The-Deist]

The question you should be asking is, why is there a punishment for following Islam, Shouldn't everyone be free to choose their religion?

Why are Muslims falsely accused, jailed without trial, and being massacred in their own countries.

Religion is becoming more disliked by time, plus islamophobia.

 

[Pygoscelis]

These perceptions are preventing you from even exposing yourself to information and an environment that has the potential to alter them.

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.