one of the biggest problems with religion.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lynx
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 129
  • Views Views 60K
Lol

Okay, so you're going to stick your fingers in your ears and ignore what the meaning of 'anti-theism' actually is. That's fine, but don't say I didn't predict this.
Do atheists have psychic powers? I am not sticking my fingers in my ears, I am just letting you know that putting a spin on terms doesn't change meaning!

Irrespectively, I am also anti-murder, anti-fascism, anti-totalitarianism etc.
indeed
So am I prejudiced there too?
against said things yes!

So okay, you can't defend how he is supposed to be representative of secular humanist atheists.
What does that mean? we have had a couple of 'humanists' here, they were disgusting at best!
does anyone remember our dearly departed 'Zoro' the 'physicist' who was trying to split the zero in his famous book err pamphlet.. He spewed some of the most heinous crap I had encountered.. I don't know what a 'humanist' means in your book, but 'humanists' such as 'zoro' or dawkin et. al. are an abomination, if that is your claim to empathy, then I pity you!
Atheism is not an organised group.
they can and have been:

atheistbus-1.jpg

An atheist is someone who does not believe in a god(s). You can get republican atheists, democrat atheists, libertarian atheists, anti-theistic atheists, humanist atheists, communist atheists. It is not organised.
see above
What part of me saying "I don't contend that God does not exist" did you not understand? You even just acknowledged me saying it!

I do not make the positive claim that God does not exist. You obviously have no idea whatsoever atheism actually is.

Semantics!
Why are you so defensive, we don't like tantrums on this forum!
And excuse me, my intentions? What are my intentions?

you tell us, unlike you, I am not psychic!

all the best
 
Yusuf said:
It's good you're still here giving replies to all of us after having been lavished with so many islamic responses. After all we should all try to agree to disagree.
I churn on.

I don't at all deny trying to be obedient to a fixed set of orders or rules.
Okay

But when it comes to moral issues then I must totally disagree with you about morality being a subject of change. I'll explain it again with the Nazi Germany example where there in fact was a moral agreement in the society on killing the Jews.
Yes there was (to those who knew, although not completely universal as you might imply). They were wrong.

Now most of the world finds the killings of these 6 million Jews wrong. So based on your claim that morality is something that changes we should be able to say it was at that time alright to kill these 6 million of Jews whereas now it would be not. But that does not make sense because morality in real cannot change. At least objective morality cannot.
Why would I say it was right 'at that time'?

Let's take two societies, A and B. In society A 100% of the people have agreed upon that whosoever wishes may rape and kill young girls and boys whereas in society B 100% of the people have a shared opinion that such an act is wrong and thus have forbidden it.
In Society A if everyone has agreed, then everything is consensual and rape cannot happen. All murders would then also become assisted suicides.

Now based on your previous claim both of these societies are living according to morality. But would that be the reality? Obviously not.
No it isn't, and that wasn't my claim. I am talking about how morality is devised, not what I contend is an ought or ought not. If morality is not evolved within communities and for communities, then it isn't morality.

But to say that the society A is objectively morally wrong we need to have some standard that the atheists lack. We have God as our standard and can thereby objectively say that society A is living in a very wrong way.
How is God a 'standard'? What does that mean?

You say that empathy is the closest thing we have to objective morality. I must argue that it is the opposite, empathy is rather subjective. Empathy is mostly based on people's feelings and emotions which differ a lot. You can have for example a group of people who empathize with a little raped boy and you can just as well have another group of people who do not empathize with that same boy and would perhaps even want to commit that act of rape themselves. We can't deny that there are many people living in this world with such horrible desires.
Empathy is based on being able to understand others problems, concerns and issues in life. It is directly involved with emotionally understanding the pain of others and feeling their emotions as a result of that.

Morality is objective only when it is based on God because God is the only source we have that transcends the human subjectivity and because whatever humans come up with themselves and claim it to be moral or not is completely subjective and has no basis.
I'm sorry, I don't know what the term "transcends the human subjectivity" means.

Do you even know what morality means? I get the impression you really don't based on your analysis. Morality and more specifically ethical systems all concern themselves with what people ought and ought not do within a community of other people. It has nothing to do with an is claim (which is what you're leaning towards here).

Here's perhaps a more prudent question: Is something good because God decrees it so, or does God decree it so because it is good? You cannot claim both.

As God does exist, one purpose of morality would obviously to support a healthy survival of human societies as with no morals everyone would behave just like animals. Another purpose of morality is probably to test people in whether they will follow moral rules given to them or not (roughly whether they'll be good or not).
So a test between obedience and disobedience?

That is why I'd like to ask you that what's your idea about how this whole Universe came to existence and if you believe in any supreme power that may have played some role in the beginning of all this?
Uh, not this thread.

I'm currently arguing against the moral necessity of hell, defending anti-theism, defending my moral basis, and just about everything else in between.
 
Gossamer said:
Do atheists have psychic powers? I am not sticking my fingers in my ears, I am just letting you know that putting a spin on terms doesn't change meaning!
You haven't even demonstrated that you ever knew the meaning of 'anti-theism', much less me putting a spin on anything.

against said things yes!
So apparently being prejudiced means being against something according to you?

What does that mean? we have had a couple of 'humanists' here, they were disgusting at best!
does anyone remember our dearly departed 'Zoro' the 'physicist' who was trying to split the zero in his famous book err pamphlet.. He spewed some of the most heinous crap I had encountered.. I don't know what a 'humanist' means in your book, but 'humanists' such as 'zoro' or dawkin et. al. are an abomination, if that is your claim to empathy, then I pity you!
I consider myself a humanist as well, by the way.

I have no idea who Zoro is.

they can and have been:
Yes, there are groups of atheists that organise themselves against theism or religion. Their motives are anti-theistic not atheistic. I am not part of any 'group' of atheists.

So does that according to you make me not an atheist?

Semantics!
Why are you so defensive, we don't like tantrums on this forum!
It is not semantics. (And LOL the irony of tantrums considering some of your outbursts against me)

To claim that God does not exist is to make a positive claim. I do not make that claim. I simply disbelieve in the existence of a god(s). I don't claim to have evidence for no God, so I don't make the claim that no God exists.

you tell us, unlike you, I am not psychic!
No, you just hinted towards me that you knew my intentions.
 
You haven't even demonstrated that you ever knew the meaning of 'anti-theism', much less me putting a spin on anything.

It really isn't that deep, pretty self-explanatory!

So apparently being prejudiced means being against something according to you?
it might not necessarily be a bad thing (from another' perspective) it depends on the connotations others apply to it.. being an anti-homo can be conceived as a very bad thing, to you an anti-theist a good thing.. when you understand something in a particular fashion, doesn't mean that the whole agrees with your definition!
I consider myself a humanist as well, by the way.
This affects me how? I am anti-humanist as I am anti-atheist!

I have no idea who Zoro is.
That is OK, I have put his name down to jog people's memories!

Yes, there are groups of atheists that organise themselves against theism or religion. Their motives are anti-theistic not atheistic. I am not part of any 'group' of atheists.
Yet you are an 'anti-theist' per you having a similar motive to those other 'anti-theists'? just not a part of a group, only on your own private time?
So does that according to you make me not an atheist?
?

It is not semantics. (And LOL the irony of tantrums considering some of your outbursts against me)
I am writing this as I watch an episode of the golden girls and sipping on coconut chai .. how much emotions would you like me to invest..;D
To claim that God does not exist is to make a positive claim. I do not make that claim. I simply disbelieve in the existence of a god(s). I don't claim to have evidence for no God, so I don't make the claim that no God exists.
Well he either does or he doesn't, which is it? you can't spend a lifetime in vacillation.. you must graduate sometime!


No, you just hinted towards me that you knew my intentions.

And I'd rather learn them from you first hand.. surely you don't show up on a Muslim forum for random purposes?

all the best
 
Okay, I'll point out the problems with the analysis. The issues with contempt with hell are not to do with a problem with judgment, or actually anything whatsoever to do with paradise - but for things that I have mentioned before, such as moral issues (punishment for what you think and torture for eternity).
They are one and the the same thing. You have an issue over the concept of hell for those who merely disbelieve in God's existence, citing it being unjust and something that does not fit God's description. But at the same time you have no issue with heaven. You cannot have it both ways.

Pointing out some supposed hypocrisy in people who criticise it does not justify eternal torture for what many consider for what you think.

This is getting tiresome. You keep assuming God's justice parallels mankind - it doesn't. In other words, your particular criticism does not hold weight, logically speaking. It's akin to the age-old ''if god is so powerful can he make a rock he cannot lift'' argument.
 
Gossamer said:
It really isn't that deep, pretty self-explanatory!
So tell me then.

What does anti-theism mean?

it might not necessarily be a bad thing (from another' perspective) it depends on the connotations others apply to it.. being an anti-homo can be conceived as a very bad thing, to you an anti-theist a good thing.. when you understand something in a particular fashion, doesn't mean that the whole agrees with your definition!
Okay.

This affects me how? I am anti-humanist as I am anti-atheist!
So what does that mean to you? When you say you are anti-atheist, what do you mean specifically?

That is OK, I have put his name down to jog people's memories!
I've never met, or interacted with Zoro.

Yet you are an 'anti-theist' per you having a similar motive to those other 'anti-theists'? just not a part of a group, only on your own private time?
?

I am an anti-theist, yes. The anti-theists you reference are people who believe that religion and theism is detrimental to society. They take action based on that.

I don't. I had nothing to do with what they did.

Well he either does or he doesn't, which is it? you can't spend a lifetime in vacillation.. you must graduate sometime!
I don't know if God exists.

Not to blow your mind, but I didn't mention that I was an agnostic atheist, did I?
 
aamirsaab said:
They are one and the the same thing. You have an issue over the concept of hell for those who merely disbelieve in God's existence, citing it being unjust and something that does not fit God's description. But at the same time you have no issue with heaven. You cannot have it both ways.
I have no issue with heaven because it is entirely consistent with the omnibenevolence of God. You have responded to this by stating that I am just projecting our understanding our 'justice' onto God. Well, of course I am - what else do I have to go by?

It is the same as someone torturing a child, and someone trying to intervene and convince the person to stop being met with "You're just telling me what you think!"

It is a response that merely points out the blindingly obvious and answers nothing.

This is getting tiresome. You keep assuming God's justice parallels mankind - it doesn't. In other words, your particular criticism does not hold weight, logically speaking. It's akin to the age-old ''if god is so powerful can he make a rock he cannot lift'' argument.
All your argument here involves is a passive request for atheists to suspend judgment on the basis of assuming that God, if God exists has some access to wisdom we don't.

It isn't a defense - it is an exemption clause.
 
So tell me then.

What does anti-theism mean?


Okay.

People who think or act in an anti-theistic manner!


So what does that mean to you? When you say you are anti-atheist, what do you mean specifically?
One who believes that atheism is dissolute and detrimental to the moral well-being of society!

I've never met, or interacted with Zoro.


?
So? I have already granted you respite and stated that said mention wasn't for you specifically but to jog other memories of his heinousness!

I am an anti-theist, yes. The anti-theists you reference are people who believe that religion and theism is detrimental to society. They take action based on that.
I was only working with the definitions you gave them and in turn your person!

I don't. I had nothing to do with what they did.
One doesn't have to act in a specific manner, one can also think and write in a specific manner, you've already linked yourself to them by definition!


I don't know if God exists.
OK

Not to blow your mind, but I didn't mention that I was an agnostic atheist, did I?

we have an 'agnostic' as a way of life if you wished to refine how other's perceive you!

all the best
 
Gossamar said:
People who think or act in an anti-theistic manner!
What what does thinking or acting in an 'anti-theistic manner' involve?

One who believes that atheism is dissolute and detrimental to the moral well-being of society!
Okay.

And I would say that is not necessarily prejudiced.

One doesn't have to act in a specific manner, one can also think and write in a specific manner, you've already linked yourself to them by definition!
Sure, I'm linked to them in sharing some opinions.

So?

we have an 'agnostic' as a way of life if you wished to refine how other's perceive you!
Could I have both?
 
I have no issue with heaven because it is entirely consistent with the omnibenevolence of God. You have responded to this by stating that I am just projecting our understanding our 'justice' onto God. Well, of course I am - what else do I have to go by?
God has 99 known attributes - you constrain yourself to just one, which you then base solely on your own interpretation.

It is the same as someone torturing a child, and someone trying to intervene and convince the person to stop being met with "You're just telling me what you think!"

It is a response that merely points out the blindingly obvious and answers nothing.
That's because your point ignores the 99 known attributes of God thus making it a fallacy.

All your argument here involves is a passive request for atheists to suspend judgment on the basis of assuming that God, if God exists has some access to wisdom we don't.
Example of God: interest is forbidden
Example of mankind: interest is fantastic

There are significant differences here between the two. If you are unable to accept that (and apply them on a much grander scale), there can be no discussion.
 
Last edited:
Interesting picture Gossamer posted of the bus campaign. Interstingly enough, that campaign reportedly recieved funds of £100,000 within the first 24 hours of its announcement. Just goes to show how utterly sad some people are that they'd donate money to an atheist bus campaign as opposed to charity or something they can actually be proud of- you know, something worthwhile?
 
Interesting picture Gossamer posted of the bus campaign. Interstingly enough, that campaign reportedly recieved funds of £100,000 within the first 24 hours of its announcement. Just goes to show how utterly sad some people are that they'd donate money to an atheist bus campaign as opposed to charity or something they can actually be proud of- you know, something worthwhile?


agreed!
it is a loss to them.. I don't know how many folks care for advertisement on buses?

gold_leaf_comp.jpg
 
Oh yes, indeed.

That is a byproduct of the 'absolute morality' crowd. The people who believe and thrive on a world view impervious to new information and change. They believe it an affront to concede, or change with any new information.
perhaps you are correct in this assumption. in islam, we perceive our religion and its laws as being perfect, and in no need of change.

this obviously contradicts your views, as a progressive atheist. most atheists are more than willing to accept change if it betters the society.. if it gives people more human rights, etc. and we have seen, especially in our generation, a lot of change.. we've had a growing acceptance for individuality, for civil rights, equality, etc. islam is not against all of these changes.. in fact, islam, during the time of the prophet(saws), changed the society of mecca and medina greatly through human rights. for example, it used to be very common for arabs to bury their children if they had a female. yet, one of the first qur'anic commands that muhammad(saws) recited condemned this terrible act.

our religion also stresses racial equality. and we have no strings attached to this fact either. judaism and christianty on the other hand have some controversy within their scriptures, in particularly where the torah mentions ham and canaan. though most do not see this as a racial thing anymore, back in the civil rights era many christians commonly quoted this story to promote their hate-filled philosophy.

islam also has the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", and we have staunch guidelines to insure that the innocent are not wrongly punished. this is certainly something that many cultures and religions did not have, but islam brought forth change in many society's in this manner.

so the idea that we are not open to change is a bit silly, because islam, during the time of the prophet(saws) and centuries after, was at the forefront of bringing forth great changes and bettering the human rights.

now as i said, we perceive islam as being a perfect religion; the laws and morals that our religion commands are not in need of any change/evolution now, due to the fact that our religion is perfect.

this obviously differs from your view; you probably believe that we can still make great changes in the world to better society. i believe we can too, and we should... but these changes should ideally come from islam, and what has already been revealed and is being practiced by many.


Uh, no.

It is not a simple choice. First of all, non-muslims by definition do not believe Islam is true. They don't believe or cannot be convinced by the claims that Islam is true unless they are given convincing evidence that Islam is true. When you insert this into the dichtonomy, it becomes unfair of God to insist that people who have not been convinced by the information at hand to declare that they are deserving of any punishment, much less eternal anguish.

Indeed, it seems a strange situation where God allows people to not believe in him, knows that millions will not believe in him (for sincere, rational and honest reasons) and yet says that they are deserving of nothing less than eternal torture.
well this is all a matter of personal opinion and doesnt at all make islam a false religion.. which you haven't claimed.

the way i see it this... the world is a diverse place and everyone rightly has their own opinions and perceptions of things. you see this as being inhumane, but many others dont. i follow what my religion teaches me, because i believe my religion to be true and i believe that my all-knowing god has answers to these problems; and not humans, with our diverse viewpoints.

Is this the vague literary test that I've heard? You know, the find a better verse than something in the Qu'ran...
yes. it is mentioned several times in the qur'an. a lot of people find the test to be subjective, and a lot of people dont take it seriously. there are millions of arab christians who hear the qur'an being recited on a daily basis and still dont feel the need to convert to islam.. they may know about this challenge but it still doesnt convince them. however, our religion still gives them a challenge that they are more than welcome to attempt to fulfill. if they think they have fulfilled the requirements of the challenge, then they have nothing to worry about for themselves... because they will feel that islam isnt true since this challenge can be met. however, they have to see if their challenge beats the qur'an in the eyes of others.. something that just hasnt happened.
It is a simple answer.

But it is an appalling answer. You could say that "God makes the rules", but then you null morality into pure obedience. You take away everything about morality that makes it so important and negate it into the dismal following of orders. You set up a situation where it doesn't matter what God says, as long as God says it.

So by your reckoning, murder is not wrong because of the harmful effects it has on people - but it is wrong because God says so. If God, was by your logic to reverse his decision you would have no moral grounds to disagree. This is an extremely worrying world view that I have seen both Christians and Muslims hold, and indeed we have directly seen the harmful effects in society both historically and in the present that it has generated.

It brings a whole new meaning to the claim that "With God, all things are possible".
interesting response, and one that has substance to it. to answer you simply, yes, i follow the moral views of my religion because god says so. you may see this as being close minded, because instead of deriving a view based on my personal opinion, i derive a view based on what my god says. but, i believe that Allah(swt) knows best and that the laws and morals that islam holds are laws and morals based on logic and faith.

you also have to understand this..

you as an atheist probably see this world as a not-so-good place, but a place that can certainly be bettered and be ideal. you are open to change, so long as it betters the world.

as a muslim, i see this world as a not-so-good place either, and a place that can also be changed and better. but, i also know that this world is full of tests and trials, to prepare us for the next life.

by logic, some islamic morals may perhaps just not seem right. for example, the view of homosexuality. though most other people here won't agree with me, i'll go ahead and say it... i dont think anyone chooses their sexual orientation. i think if you have same-sex attractions, it's something that you didn't choose.

so, by logic, if you didn't choose to be gay, and if you wish to date another person of the same gender, and you guys are not hurting anyone and are consenting and feel the same love that a heterosexual married couple feels... then what is wrong with that? how can that in any way be wrong, immoral, sinful?

if i was an atheist, that is exactly how i would see this issue. i would have no reason whatsoever to think homosexuality is wrong, because by logic and reasoning it just doesn't make sense that it would be.

however, my religion calls it a sin. my fellow muslim brothers and sisters often (wrongly) harass these people. my religion even allows the death penalty for certain homosexual acts. how can this be?!

well, for me, the answer is simple.. this world is a test. we are all tested. the qur'an even says that a muslim should never think they won't be tested.. because we will.

some people are given harder tests than others. some people will genuinely live a very hard and sad life, while others live extremely happily and easy lives. but, this life is all a test. the next life is really what every muslim should look forward to. but, we have to go through these tests and trials, and try to pass them so that we can live a great life in jannah(heaven, paradise) in the next.

that's the way i see it. sure, there are some islamic morals(though not many) that by logic and personal reasoning i just don't see why it is like that. but, when i look from it at the standpoint that this life is a test, i understand now and accept it.. though it may be hard and not fun.

i am sure you disagree with me, and i would love to see what you have to say about this. that's how i feel on issues like this, but perhaps you have a much different perception that i just haven't contemplated before.. so i look forward to your response. :) thanks so much for your time
 
:sl:

I haven't gone through all the 70+ replies. I think the problem of eternal punishment can be simply explained by using the first Hadith of Sahih Bukhari, which says (in near meaning) Actions are judged by intentions.

A Muslim, who believes in Allah and His Messenger performs all his actions to please Allah and performs them in the way shown by the Messenger. So he gets rewarded for his actions and intentions. But if he does anything for the sake of others, (fame, show off, to please anyone other than Allah) he will not be rewarded for it, and depending on the severity of his wrong intentions, he might be punished.

Whereas a non-Muslim either performs all his actions:
1. For Worldy gain. Usually he gets the reward for it in this world itself, either by getting what he desired, or Allah removes a calamity from him, or whatever Allah chooses to grant him.
2. For his own pleasure. He gets the pleasure and no reward in the hereafter.
3. For the sake of someone/something other than Allah. Why should Allah reward him for something which he has not done for Him?

046.020
And on the Day that the Unbelievers will be placed before the Fire, (It will be said to them): "Ye received your good things in the life of the world, and ye took your pleasure out of them: but today shall ye be recompensed with a Penalty of humiliation: for that ye were arrogant on earth without just cause, and that ye (ever) transgressed."

Now why eternal punishment for non-Muslims?

A sinner Muslim, no matter how worse his sin is, intends to repent one day or the other. He believes he will be accounted for his sins and thinks (out of laziness) that he will be repenting one day before his death. So even if he dies without repenting, because he had the intention of repenting one day, he will be saved from the fire after serving his punishment and will be transferred to the Paradise.

A non-Muslim (who is not searching for truth) intends to live on disbelief as long as he lives. Even if he were to live for eternity in this world, he would live his life in disbelief. Based on this intention, his punishment for disbelief in the Hereafter is eternal.

As for non-Muslim who is still searching for truth and death overtakes him, I don't know what will happen of him.

Hope this clears the issue. This is all what I understood from listening to scholars. Correct me if anything is wrong.
 
Skye: Forget the formulas. I was asking you to show me a formula that proves Islam is true. I figured you posted that formula earlier an analogy trying to say that Islam is true if people study it. I don't want to argue about formulas any further because it's an awful example and now our discussion is being derailed. My objection (dropping formulas aside) is: can you objectively** show that Islam is the true religion? If yes, explain. If no, then tell me how it makes any sense to send a disbeliever to Hell if he has no reason in the first place to believe in God. People don't *choose* to believe things; they get convinced or they don't get convinced. If someone is asked to do something he is incapable of (i.e., believe in something that isn't convincing), then they should not be punished for not doing that thing. Since it appears to me you think people that fit description should be punished and that God will punish them, it follows that your God is unjust.

The crux of his video was just because you think something is just or unjust does not make it so (he covers this with Slobodan milosevic example). For critics to sit back and say ''oh it's so unjust that xyz burns in hell just because they chose not to believe in Allah'' is therefore a flawed statement. You are expecting God's judgement to exactly parallel human judgement. You are basing God's decision on the mind-set of a human being which means you are ignoring the qualities of God completely. Then you wonder why does this not make any sense.
You are making two errors. Your first error is that you are creating a question begging definition of 'unjust' such that no matter what objection anyone brings you can say the word is whatever God wants it to mean. I would think if the Quran made it a point to stress how Just god is ...then the justice humans feel must have some similarity with Gods justice...if not hten why would God even waste his time calling himself Just?

Your second mistake is misunderstanding my original post; I am asking/arguing why God would send someone to hell who is merely unable to believe in Islam because the so-called evidence presented is not satisfactory.




Uthmān;1279520 said:
Greetings Lynx,

Thanks for your reply. :) Before I consider responding to your points, I would like to know with what frame of mind you are approaching this discussion. It is clear that you have a view about this already which is fine and to be expected. But are you open to the possibility that this view may change? Are you willing to objectively consider what I have to say about this topic with an open mind? If so, I will be happy to respond to your points. :)

For my part, I can say with absolute certainty that I am willing to consider everything you say with an open mind and if that means having to concede some points along the way, then so be it.

Regards

I am more than willing to change my mind. I used to be a practicing Muslim but I am not so much anymore. I used to argue that Islam is the true religion etc. and thus I am familiar with most arguments for Islam's truth. I am not a stranger to Islam and I can say I have some knowledge on topic. My point is that I used to think the opposite of what I was arguing in my OP so I am more than willing to change my mind as I have done it before.
 
Skye: Forget the formulas. I was asking you to show me a formula that proves Islam is true. I figured you posted that formula earlier an analogy trying to say that Islam is true if people study it. I don't want to argue about formulas any further because it's an awful example and now our discussion is being derailed. My objection (dropping formulas aside) is: can you objectively** show that Islam is the true religion? If yes, explain. If no, then tell me how it makes any sense to send a disbeliever to Hell if he has no reason in the first place to believe in God. People don't *choose* to believe things; they get convinced or they don't get convinced. If someone is asked to do something he is incapable of (i.e., believe in something that isn't convincing), then they should not be punished for not doing that thing. Since it appears to me you think people that fit description should be punished and that God will punish them, it follows that your God is unjust.

Islam goes with fitrah.

see here:

http://www.islamicboard.com/general/134282347-children-born-believers-god-academic-claims.html

Naturally if people merely pondered and desired to know their God, they will, the same way the predecessors did..

The Definition of Fitrah
By Yasien Mohamed
Extracted with slight modifications from "Fitrah: The Islamic Concept of Human Nature" © 1996 TA-HA Publishers Ltd.
In attempting a definition of ‘fitrah’, I give an exposition of its linguistic and religious meaning. The religious understanding of fitrah is based on the positive interpretation of fitrah…
Suffice it to say that linguistic and positive religious explanations have one thing in common: both define fitrah as an inborn natural predisposition which cannot change, and which exists at birth in all human beings. What makes our religious understanding positive is that it not only acknowledges fitrah as a natural predisposition, but also one which is inclined towards right action and submission to Allah, the One God.
After discussing the implications for human responsibility, I compare, for the benefit of Western readers, the Islamic concept of original goodness with the Christian concept of original sin. I argue that the doctrine of original sin, from an Islamic point of view, cannot be reconciled with the notion of Divine mercy nor the human responsibility. Since the doctrine of original sin features significantly in the Christian concept of human nature, and as Islam and Christianity are the world’s largest revealed religions, this aspect of their creeds presents an interesting contrast, well worth investigating.
1. The Linguistic Meaning of Fitrah
‘Every new-born child is born in a state of fitrah. Then his parents make him a Jew, a Christian or a Magian, just as an animal is born intact. Do you observe any among them that are maimed (at birth)?’[1]
The word fitrah comes from the Arabic radicals fa ta ra, the verbal noun being fatrun. The root action means, he clove, split, slit, rent or cracked it. Note the usage of the first form fatarahu (He created it); that is, He caused it to exist, newly, for the first time. Thus fatiru’s-samâwât, the Originator or Creator of the heavens.[2]
The second form, fattara(hu) (verbal noun taftir), denotes repetition, muchness and frequency of the root action which means, as we saw, he clove, split, slit, rent or cracked it.[3] Futira (‘ala shay’) is equivalent to tubi‘a, which is the passive form of taba‘a (verbal noun tab‘un) he sealed, stamped, printed or impressed, being a synonym of khatama, he sealed. Ar-Râghib says that it means the impression of a thing with the engraving of the signet and stamp; thus taba‘a’llâhu ‘alâ qalbihî ‘Allâh sealed his heart’, that is the unbeliever’s heart. Similarly, khatama ‘alaihi, pertains to the natural constitution which denotes a quality of the soul; either by creation or habit, but more especially the creation.[4] Also, taba ‘a’llâhu ‘alâ amr – ‘Allâh created (him) with a disposition to the affair, state or condition’. Likewise, tubi‘a ‘ala shay’ ‘he was created with a disposition to a thing’ which is synonymous with jubila or futira.[5] Tab‘un – originally a verbal noun – signifies nature or an inborn disposition. Its synonyms are sajjiyah, jibillah, khalîqah, tabî‘ah and mizâj. These are names for innate natural disposition which cannot change, and which exists at birth in all human beings.[6] Thus, fitrah, having the same meaning as tab‘un, linguistically means an inborn natural disposition.
The term fitrah literally means, creation; the causing a thing to exist for the first time; and the natural constitution with which a child is created in his mother’s womb. It is said that is the meaning in the Qur'an (30:29), and in the central, opening hadith.[7]
2. The Religious Meaning of Fitrah
In the context of the hadith, according to Abû Haytham, fitrah means to be born either prosperous or unprosperous [in relation to the soul]:
‘And if his parents are Jews, they make him a Jew, with respect to his worldly situation; [i.e. with respect to inheritance, etc.] and if Christians, they make him a Christian, with respect to that situation; and if Magians, they make him a Magian, with respect to that situation; his situation is the same as that of his parents until his tongue speaks for him; but if he dies before his attaining to the age when sexual maturity begins to show itself, he dies in a state of conformity to his preceding natural constitution, with which he was created in his mother’s womb.’[8]
Fitrah is also associated with Islam and being born as a Muslim. This is when fitrah is viewed in respect to Shahadah – that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah – which makes a person a Muslim. Fitrah, in this sense, is the faculty, which He has created in mankind, of knowing Allah. It is the natural constitution with which the child is created in his mother’s womb, whereby he is capable of accepting the religion of truth.[9] That fitrah refers to religion is further shown in a tradition in which it is related that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, taught a man to repeat certain words when lying down to sleep, and said: ‘Then if you die that same night, you die upon the fitrah (in the true dîn).’ Also by the saying: ‘The paring of the nails is of the fitrah (i.e. of the dîn).’[10]
This meaning is affirmed by sûrah 30 âyah 30:
‘Set your face to the dîn in sincerity (hanîfan) which is Allah's fitrah (the nature made by Allah) upon which He created mankind (fatâra’n-nâs). There is no changing the creation of Allah. That is the right dîn but most people know not.’
Apparently Abû Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him, cited this verse after the central hadith which means that, in his view, the fitrah of the hadith is the same fitrah in the ayah. The ayah refers to the fitrah as good because the right religion is being described as Allah's fitrah. Thus according to Abû Hurairah, fitrah is associated with the dîn of Islam.[11]
Since Allah's fitrah is engraved upon the human soul, mankind is born in a state in which tawhîd is integral. Since tawhîd is intrinsic to man’s fitrah, the prophets, peace be upon them, came to remind man of it, and to guide him to that which is integral to his original nature. The ayah describes a fitrah of primordial faith which Allah Himself implanted in human nature. It implies Islam's essential message of submission to the will of Allah as taught as practised by the prophets.
The Laws or the sharî‘ahs, which the prophets were sent with, are guiding lights to the essential faith in Allah which is created in every human being. Furthermore, since this faith comes from Allah, it naturally follows that only laws capable of guiding man back to it must also come from Allah, hence Islam is also called dîn al-fitrah, the religion of human nature.
That every child is born in this pure state of fitrah is also supported by the following hadith concerning the polytheists:
‘It is related that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said that he saw in a vision an old man at the front of a large tree and around him were children and in the vision he was told that the old man was Ibrihim and that the children who were around him were the children who, before attaining the age of discretion, had died. At this, some Muslims had asked hum: "And the children of the polytheists too, Messenger of Allah?" The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, replied: "The children of the polytheists as well."[12]
Being with Ibrâhîm meant being in Paradise, and this includes children of polytheistic families. It is clear, from the Qur'an and from the hadith, that every child is born with a pure nature, as a Muslim. Islam recognises that all children, whether born of believing or unbelieving parents, go to Paradise if they die before attaining the age of discretion.
Imâm Nawawî defined fitrah as the unconfirmed state which exists until the individual consciously acknowledges his belief. Hence, if a child were to die before he attains discretion he would be on of the inmates of Paradise. This view applies to the children of polytheists as well, and is supported by the above-quoted hadith. The legal implication of this hadith is that all children are born pure, sinless and predisposed to belief in one God; moreover they are of the inmates of Paradise; however, if their parents are non-Muslims, the religion of their parents will be applicable to them in this world.[13]
Islam is also called dîn al-fitrah, the religion of human nature, because its laws and its teachings are in full harmony with the normal and the natural inclination of the human fitrah to believe in and submit to the Creator. Like the word al-Islam, the word dîn also means, according to Lane, obedience and submission, among other meanings. Allah states:
‘And who is better in obedience (in dîn) than he who resigns himself to Allah?’ (Qur'an 4:125)
‘There shall be no compulsion in obedience (dîn).’ (Qur’ân 2:256)
Ad-dîn implies religion in the widest sense of the word, embracing both the practical aspects of the acts of worship and ordinary transactions of life, and the teachings of religion; and it is a name for that whereby one serves Allah.
‘Truly, the religion (dîn) in the sight of Allah is al-Islam.’ (Qur’ân 3:19)
And, according to Lane, it means particularly the religion of al-Islam. The synonyms of ad-dîn are ash-Shariah (the law), tawhîd (Oneness of Allah) and wara‘ (caution). Ad-dîn also comes from the verb dana, meaning ‘he had indebted’. This is significant, according to al-Attas, because man is indebted to Allah for his existence and sustenance. The believer will realise that his spirit acknowledged Allah in pre-existence, and that the debt that he must return is his self, and this can be done by service and submission to Allah. This return implies a return to man’s inherent spiritual nature, to his fitrah. The one who submits to Allah is called ‘abd (a slave) of Allah, and his service is called ‘ibâdah (slavehood or conscious submission to the will of Allah). By worshipping Allah in such a manner, man in fulfilling the purpose of his creation and existence.
‘I have not created the Jinn and man but that they should serve Me (li ya‘budûnî).’ (Qur'an 51:56)
Such worship or submission does not entail loss of freedom, for, freedom is to act as one’s true nature demands; that is, as one’s fitrah demands. Al-Attas succinctly explains the connection between submission, fitrah and dîn as follows:
‘When we say that such a man is fulfilling the purpose for his creation and existence, it is obvious that that man’s obligation to serve God is felt by him as normal because it comes as a natural inclination on the man’s part to do so. This natural tendency in man to serve and worship God is also referred to as dîn, … here in the religious context it has a more specific signification of the natural state of being called fitrah. In fact dîn also means fitrah. Fitrah is the pattern according to which God has created all things… Submission to it brings harmony, for it means realisation of what is inherent in one’s true nature; opposition to it brings discord, for it means realisation of what is extraneous to one’s true nature.’[14]

3. Fitrah and Human Responsibility
…Man is distinguished from the rest of the creation because he has been endowed with intellect (‘aql) and free-will (irâdah). The intellect enables him to discern right from wrong. He can use these faculties to complement his fitrah and to please Allah or to be untrue to it and displease Allah. The choice is his. The prophets and Divine revelation are external sources of guidance to guide the intellect and will of man. The Qur'an declares that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, enjoins the right and lawful things (ma‘rûf) and forbids the wrong and unlawful things (munkar). Man is responsible for his actions and accountable to Allah for every atom of right and wrong that he does. It is in this sense of accountability that guides man to act in accordance with the Divine will. It empowers him to struggle against the wrong-doing of his lower self (nafs) as well as the negative influences of the social circumstances. The central hadith makes plain that it is the social circumstances after the birth of the child that causes the individual to diverge from fitrah. Hence if someone follows an aberrant path it is not because of any innate wrong within his nature, but because of the emergence of the lower self or nafs after birth, and negative effects in the social circumstances.
The concept of fitrah as original goodness, in my view, does not merely connote a passive receptivity to good and right action, but an active inclination and a natural innate predisposition to know Allah, to submit to Him and to do right. This is man’s natural tendency in the absence of contrary factors. Although all children are born in a state of fitrah, the influence of the environment is decisive; parents may influence the religion of the child by making him a Christian, Jew or Magian. If there are no adverse influences, then the child will continuously manifest his fitrah as his true nature. Since many infants are born with gross physical deformities, the maiming referred to in this hadith is not meant in the physical sense; it means that all children are born spiritually pure, in a state of fitrah. The reference to animals born intact in the central hadith should be viewed as an analogy to illustrate the parallel spiritual wholeness of children at birth.
It is precisely because of man’s free-will and intellect that he is able to overcome the negative influences of the environment and attain to the highest level of psycho-spiritual development, an-nafs al-mutma’innah, ‘the self made tranquil’. At this level, his inner and outer being, his soul and body, are able to conform to the requirements of his fitrah and the dictates of the Shariah. He actualises his fitrah, and attains psycho-spiritual integration and inner peace.

4. Alienation from Fitrah
The central hadith suggest that circumstantial (i.e. parental and other social) influences cause man to change and become alienated from his fitrah. However in Qur'an 30:30 (‘There is no changing in the creation of Allah.’) suggests that fitrah is universal unchanging given of the human constitution. This meaning is consistent with the linguistic definition of fitrah as innate natural disposition which cannot change, and which exists at birth in all human beings. The synthesis of the meanings of both statements is that although fitrah remains a universal unchanging given of the human constitution, people may, because of the elements of intellect and free-will, decide and choose to conduct themselves in a wrong or unlawful manner. All the children of Adam, including those who deviated from the path of tawhîd[15], possessed fitrah. Civilisations which have been condemned and destroyed by Allah because of their practice of polytheism (shirk) and unbelief (kufr), possessed fitrah. Fitrah is a universal and immutable given of the metaphysical human constitution, and as a rule, cannot be corrupted or altered. No wrong action can pollute the Divine spirit [maintainer’s note: i.e. spirit created by God] which Allah has blown into man (Qur'an 15:29) despite the many generations of polytheism and unbelief. For example, a generation whose forefathers were mushrikûn (those who practice shirk) does not possess a fitrah of a lesser quality than a generation of believers. However, both shirk and kufr represent the antithesis of fitrah by undermining its very object and raison d’etre; kufr is a rejection of the oneness of Allah (tawhîd). When a individual commits shirk or kufr he denies his own nature. Fitrah which is integral to man’s spirit (rûh) was created by Allah so that he man acknowledge Him as the Lord Who has power over all things. Tawhîd is intrinsic to man’s fitrah because Allah in His infinite wisdom intended for man to know Him as the One God. This is why man was able to acknowledge his Lord before his existence on earth, that is, in pre-existence state.
The function of the prophets and Divine revelation is not only to remind man about that which he already knows (that is, tawhîd), but also to teach him that which he does not yet know (that is, Shariah). Man already knows tawhîd because of the pre-existent fitrah as well as his earthly unchanging fitrah. The prophets have come only to remind man of tawhîd; the choice is left to the individual, as suggested in the following verse:
‘Surely, this is a reminder; so whoever wills, let him take a way to his Lord.’ (Qur'an 76:29).
Knowledge of the Divinely revealed laws, the methodology of worship and devotion, etc. are acquired by man from Shariah which is based on Divine revelation and the teachings of the prophets. Since every individual is endowed with the innate knowledge of tawhîd, he is held accountable for his belief in Allah precisely because of his fitrah. Not every soul, however, will be held accountable for not practicing Shariah because knowledge of Shariah is acquired only by those who received the message of the Divine revelations and the teachings of he prophets.
The distinction between the inborn knowledge of tawhîd (which includes the knowledge of right and wrong) and the acquired knowledge of Shariah (which includes what is lawful and unlawful) is significant because of the legal implications of each. The mushrik, one who violates tawhîd, will not be pardoned for his polytheism, irrespective of whether he received the message of Islam or not. On the other hand, the practice of Shariah is only required from the Muslim while the non-Muslim (who did not receive the message of Islam) is not expected to fulfil this obligation. An individual may be forgiven for not practising the Shariah if he had not received the message of Islam, but he will not be forgiven for rejecting tawhîd. The Muslim will thus be held responsible for tawhîd and Shariah. Dr. Faruqi Ahmad Dasuqi,[16] who holds this view, adds that the hunafa’ [17] of past centuries had acknowledged tawhîd and will not be held accountable for Shariah.
Apart from the chosen prophets, I venture to say that there is no difference between the fitrah of individual men: all men are endowed with the same or an ‘equal’ fitrah. The believer is in harmony with his fitrah because his instincts are directed in service of Allah, but the unbeliever is alienated from his fitrah because his instincts are in the service of everything else besides Allah. The reason for man’s destruction of himself and his environment is that he has become alienated. Nevertheless, he can overcome this estrangement his will and intellect with the Divine will and knowledge. It is man’s recourse to Islam which will enable him to effect such a reconciliation.

5. The Christian Doctrine of Original Sin
Religions may be contrasted with secular philosophies in that the former recognise the transcendent principle of human nature while the latter tend to view man as a material being. Religions usually refer to this transcendent principle as the spirit or the soul in man. Most religions recognise three dimensions within man: body, mind and spirit. Secular theories of human nature tend to recognise only the body and sometimes the mind. Western psychologists such as Carl Jung recognise the spiritual dimension not as an independent unchanging reality, but as a part of the human psyche. Religions in general, with the exception of Hinayana Buddhism, recognise the spiritual dimension of man as a distinct unchanging reality of human nature. The first step towards self-knowledge is the recognition of our inmost spiritual essence which is universal in man and which is immortal. It is this innate spirituality which explains the urge at the heart of every man for betterment and self-realisation; and it is this human spirit which explains man’s capability to emerge out of darkness into light and goodness. This emergence has been the unfailing history of man: nothing can stop the human soul from projecting itself nearer to the source of all good, Allah. Islam and Christianity both recognise this innate spirituality but they differ in the methods by which to attain to this self-realisation, and they also differ in the methods by which they attain to this self-realisation, and they also differ with respect to their views of innate human nature. For the Christian view I need to turn to the doctrine of original goodness in Islam. Such a comparison will bring into focus the divergent perspectives of human nature of two major religions of the world.
Christianity, in all the varied forms in which it exists today, is probably the largest religious movement. It emerged out of Judaism as a religion of salvation by faith. Christianity became a universal religion of redemption, and its world-renouncing strain has been strong for a great part of its history. Judaism and Islam were never so dominated by monasticism and the ideal of celibacy. This is not to say that Christianity did not have a world affirming strain in it. The Kingdom of God was an imminently arriving state of this earth. With emphasis on the person of Jesus, peace be upon him, rather than his preaching, salvation was to be by rather than his preaching, salvation was to be by faith-union with Jesus in his supposed death and resurrection. Jesus, peace be upon him, was exalted to heaven and acclaimed as Lord, Son of God, and the meaning of Messiah – an anointed prophet-king – was altered radically.
Paul was the main figure to work out Christian theology almost entirely in terms of the doctrine for man. Jesus’ two worlds are reinterpreted in terms of a great contrast between man in bondage to the flesh and man redeemed in Christ. This theology is set out in the first eight chapters of The Epistle to the Romans.[18] The flesh (sarx) is man in his weakness and the spirit (pneuma) is the Divine breath and power of life which makes man inwardly aware of himself as a person. The whole person is either bound to sin or redeemed in Christ. As a rabbinically trained Jew, Paul had to integrate his new gospel of salvation with the old doctrine of creation and so he began the development of the Christian epic story:
‘Creation had originally been perfect, but Adam fell and mankind has since been in bondage to sin; but through Christ, the second Adam or Last man, the world or mankind are being restored to their original perfection. Thus in the Christian doctrine of man the central theme is that Christ is the Creator’s proper (=own) Man.’[19]
To make this scheme more intelligible, Paul had to emphasise both the parallels and the contrasts between Adam and Christ, peace be upon both of them. Adam was first made in the image of God, but Christ is the true and final image of God. Adam’s disobedience plunged mankind into ruin, but Christ’s obedience restored mankind. Adam brought wrath and guilt upon mankind, Christ has brought grace and acquittal.
This contrast profoundly affected later Christian thought. The Christian doctrine of man has two themes, the Divine image and the Fall. Since the latter theme is more directly relevant to my discussion of original sin I shall focus on this aspect, Adam’s disobedience plunged the human race into ruin, and fallen man could not of himself do good, please God or gain salvation.
A good example of the classic Christian doctrine of man is Milton’s Christian epic Paradise Lost (1667). The themes are the special creation of man by God, the Divine image in man, original righteousness, the Fall through man’s disobedience, the curse on man and woman, and the ensuing original sin. This scheme was wrecked by Darwinism and today liberal and humanistic theologians take over the evolutionary view of man’s gradual ascent, seeing Christ as a pinnacle of human development. Others, such as Rudolph Bultman and Paul Tillich, have built their theology on an existentialist doctrine of man.
The Christian is born in sin and in an impure state, and cannot redeem himself by his own inner resources, but only through Christ. Salvation for the Christian is centred on an external entity – the mystical body of Christ in which the Christian must participate in order to be saved.
By contrast, in Islam the redemptive potential is centred in the individual himself, who engages in meaningful intercourse with the guidance provided by the Qur'an and the Sunnah, Salvation in Islam depends on faith (iman) and good conduct (ihsân), and not on faith alone. The Qur'an emphasises the exertion of will, for ‘there is nothing for man but that which he strove for’. This notion of the will also has implications for responsibility. A person is responsible only for the manner in which he exercised his own will and not the will of other persons.
Christians believe that Christ has paid the wages of sin through his death, and having suffered for all men’s sins. Salvation is based on this faith. Without the doctrine of original sin there would be no need for a saviour and, consequently, the trinity, the crucifixion and the resurrection would become meaningless.
Islam rejects the premises of these doctrines, especially the concept of original sin which is alien to Islam and inconceivable to the Muslim mind. Islam has a different version of the Fall. Adam acknowledged that he had gone astray and sincerely sought Allah's forgiveness which was granted to him unconditionally. Adam and his progeny descended from bliss to the earth because of his error, and yet, none of his children inherited the blame for his error. The volitional implication of fitrah is that man is responsible for his own wrong actions. It is inconceivable to Muslim thinking that mankind should be punished for wrong actions that others did. The concept of Divine forgiveness features strongly in the Qur'an, for Allah accepts the sincere repentance of His slaves.
‘But the devil made them slip from it, and caused them to depart from the state in which they were. And We said, "Down with you and be henceforth enemies unto one another; and you shall have in the land a state of settledness and necessities of life for a period."
Then Adam received words (of guidance) from his Lord and He accepted his repentance: truly, He is the Acceptor of Repentance, the Compassionate.’ (Qur'an 2:36-37)
Tawbah (literally, turning, i.e. away from wrong action, and to Allah) or repentance plays a very significant and decisive role in a Muslim’s life. Although man is born in a state of original goodness or fitrah, he is also subject to temptation and folly. Allah has granted him the ability and opportunity to repent which means that he should admit his errors and turn remorsefully away from them to Allah.
Knowledge of Divine mercy as well as knowledge of the innate goodness of the human fitrah, serves three very important functions: firstly it gives the believer hope of salvation and success; secondly, it gives him confidence in his own potential to do right and resist wrong; thirdly, it exhorts and admonishes him to actively pursue all that is right and resist all that is wrong. These are the merits of sincere repentance. Just as the Prophet Adam, peace be upon him, repented and was pardoned for his wrong action, so may his descendents repent and be pardoned for their wrong actions.
Confession and penance is a fundamental pillar of the Roman Catholic Church, but for the rest of the Christian world it holds virtually no fundamental value. Belief in Christ as a Saviour is of primary importance, even for the Catholic who engages in penance mainly as a means of self-discipline or self-retribution. No amount of confession or repentance can save the Christian from the belief in Christ as the Saviour. Adherence to this doctrine can be problematic when viewed in the light of the doctrine of original sin.
Neither Islam, common sense or modern Western law, hold a person responsible for the deeds of someone else. Certain awkward questions may also be posed to the adherents of this doctrine. For example, does inheritance of Adam’s sin mean that man is born innately sinful or guilty of a sin he did not commit or both? Did Christ’s suffering change human nature or did it only absolve man of guilt for the sin he never committed, or both? If man is born innately evil and sinful why is he still capable of choosing good over evil? What happened to the souls before Christ who could have had the benefit of the latter’s alleged suffering; were they saved by the Saviour they neither knew nor acknowledged or were they just too unfortunate to be born at the wrong time? These questions are asked in all sincerity of the believing Christian whose faith every Muslim is required to respect.
To conclude, fitrah may be defined as a natural predisposition for good and for submission to the One God… While the concept of fitrah offers a hopeful and positive outlook for the Muslim, the doctrine of original sin is fraught with negative connotations and complex dogma. To the average Christian, man is impure and bound for eternal ****ation, even if he leads a life of virtue, if he does not accept Christ as his saviour. Apart from the Christian theory, there are secular theories of human nature which are also subject to determinism, fatalism and pessimism…
If, in this chapter, the reader has not gained a clear conception of what fitrah is, it should at least be clear to him what it is not. Fitrah does not refer to man’s outward behaviour; not to his psyche, personality or character. A definition of fitrah does not involve the role of man as an individual or a collectively as such. Rather, fitrah pertains to the deep, common spiritual essence of man. It is humankind’s natural and universal innate predisposition for goodness and submission to One God…

Notes and References
[1] I. M. Hanîf, Sahîh Muslim bisharh al-Nawawî, Book of Qadr, Vol. 16 (al-Matba‘at al-Misriyyah bi al-Azhari, 1930) p. 207.
[2] Ibn Manzûr, Lisân al-‘Arab al-Muhît. Vol. 4., ed. A. al-‘Alayali, (beirut: Dâru Lisân al-‘Arab, 1988), pp. 1108-1109; cf. also, al-Isfahânî, al-Raghîb, Mu‘jam Mufradat Alfaz al-Qur’ân ed. Nadîm Mar‘ashlî. (Dârul Karîb al-‘Arabi, 1984) p. 2415; cf. also, Lane, E. W., Arabic-English Lexicon. 2 volumes, Cambridge: The Islamic Texts Society, 1972), p. 397.
[3] This repetition also applies to the 7th form verb infatara, 5th form tafattara and the 1st form fatara, e.g. idha’s-samâ’unfatarat ‘When the heaven shall be cleft’, (Qur’ân 82:1), and yakadu’s-samâwâtu yatafttarna minhu ‘The heavens almost become repeatedly rent in consequence thereof’, (Qur'an 19:92), and tafatarat qadamahu ‘his feet became cracked’.
[4] Lane, Ibid., p. 1823; al-Isfahânî, al-Raghîb, Kitâb al-Dharî‘ah ila Makarim al-Sharî‘ah. Ed. Abû’l-Yazîd al-‘Ajamî, (Cairo, 1987), p. 113.
[5] Lane, Ibid, p. 1823.
[6] Yasien Mohamed, The Islamic Conception of Human Nature with Special Reference to the Development of an Islamic Psychology. unpublished thesis, (Cape Town: Department of Religious Studies, University of Cape Town, 1986), p. 74; cf. also, Lane, Ibid., p. 1823; al-Isfahânî, al-Dharî‘ah, op.cit., p. 113; al-Isfahânî, Alfaz, op.cit., p. 310.
[7] Ibn Manzûr, Lisân al-‘Arab, op.cit., p. 1109; cf. also Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon, op.cit, pp. 2415-2416.
[8] Ibn Mazûr, Ibid. p. 1109; Lane, Ibid., pp. 2415-16.
[9] ‘Alî ibn Muhammad al-Sayyad al-Sharîf Jurjânî, Kitâb al-Ta‘rifat ed. ‘Abdul Mun‘îm al-Hafani. (Cairo: Dârul Rashad, 1991), p. 190; cf. also Ibn Manzûr and Lane, Idid.
[10] See Ibn Manzûr and Lane, Ibid.
[11] Muhammad al-Ansârî A. A. Qurtubî, Al Jâmi‘u al Ahkâm al-Qur'an Vol. 12 Part 14. (Cairo: al-Maktabu al-‘Arabiyyah, 1967), p. 25.
[12] Ibid, p. 30; cf. Ibn Manzûr, Ibid.
[13] Ibn Taymîyya Dar‘u Ta‘arud al ‘Aql wa al Naql. Vol. 8, ed. Muhammad Rashad Sa’im. (Riyadh: Jami‘at al-Imâm Muhammad ibn Sa‘ud al-Islamiyyah, 1981), p. 382-3.
[14 ] S.M.N. Al-Attas, Islam, Secularism and the Philosophy of the Future, London: Mansell Publishing Limited, 1985, pp. 57-58.
[15] cf. Lane, op.cit., for the meaning of the ad-dîn.
[16] Tawhîd is the corner-stone of the Islamic belief which was taught by all the prophets. The Arabs deviated form tawhîd but it was restored to its original purity with the advent of Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, Divine Unity is expressed as lâ ilâha ill' Allah ‘There is no deity but Allah’ and together with his expression of Muhammadun Rasûlu’llah ‘Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah’, a person is admitted into the fold of Islam. Tawhîd implies that Allah is One, and that He is one and unique in His essence (dhât), His attributes (sifât), and His works. This monotheistic concept of Allah liberates man from subservience to everything and everyone, and is the basis for the unity of mankind. The antithesis of tawhîd is shirk which is considered to be the only unforgivable wrong action (Qur'an 4:48), and it signifies the association of partners with Allah. Blind submission to one’s own desires is also described as shirk (Qur'an 25:43).
[17] Dasuqî, F. A. Muhadarat fî al-‘Aqîdah al-Islâmiyyah, (Alexandria: Darul Da‘wah, 1983), p. 28.
[18] The hanîf (singular of hunafa’) is one who naturally rejects polytheism and idolatry while inclined towards acceptance of tawhîd. In the Qur'anic context, the hanîf refers particularly to those who followed the faith of Ibrâhîm as well as those who accepted tawhîd during the Jâhiliyyah period. After the advent of the Prophet Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, the term acquired a more circumscribed meaning – one who follows the dîn of Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. Dr. Dasuqî cites Zaid ibn ‘Amr ibn Nufayl and Qais ibn Sa‘ada as examples of hunafâ’ in pre-Islamic times. A more well-known hanîf was Waraqa ibn Nawfal, the cousin of the Prophet’s wife, Khadîjah.
[19] Don Cupitt, The Nature of Man, (London: Sheldon Press, 1979), pp. 33-34.


http://www.missionislam.com/knowledge/DefinitionFitrah.htm


________________________________________


I have no idea why you suppose that the idea of hell doesn't reconcile with God?

to use a very poor analogy as I certainly don't like the divine to be akin to his creation?

Have you ever been punished by your parents? Did you find said punishment to denote that they are evil or negligent etc,?

I mean you are welcome not to believe in Islam or God, or heaven or hell, but I don't subscribe to your philosophy and find it equally difficult to envision a life without contrast.. how does one learn of dark if there were no light? or right if there were no wrong? or well being if there were no pain?


all the best
 
Skye:

So is your argument that we all have a natural disposition to God and people who go against that natural disposition deserve Hell? What does my state of beliefs (and I am going to be generous and assume fitrah for the sake of argument) at the time of my infancy have to do with now?


I have no idea why you suppose that the idea of hell doesn't reconcile with God?

to use a very poor analogy as I certainly don't like the divine to be akin to his creation?

Have you ever been punished by your parents? Did you find said punishment to denote that they are evil or negligent etc,?

I mean you are welcome not to believe in Islam or God, or heaven or hell, but I don't subscribe to your philosophy and find it equally difficult to envision a life without contrast.. how does one learn of dark if there were no light? or right if there were no wrong? or well being if there were no pain?

I am not saying we should go unpunished. What I am saying is sending someone to hell for believing in a different religion (or no religion at all) or seemingly arbitrary because there is no reason why anyone should convert in the first place. The reason why God is incoherent with Hell (and again I am talking about Hell that will burn those who did not believe in Islam) is because the Quran says (somewhere) that God will not give anyone a task that he can not bear. I am arguing htat someone who looks at Islam and doesn't see why it's true, and it seems there is no objective evidence for the truth of islam, is going to be sent to hell and this makes your version of God unjust since he is sending someone to hell for something absurd.

Consider the following analogy: your dad is going to punish you for picking the wrong flavour of ice cream; he wont tell you which one is wrong or right and lets you decide. Naturally you pick the one that is best tasting , and lo and behold, you are punished. Is this a just parent? I think not. So contradiction seems to appear between Allah being 'just'.

You might say well God did tell us which religion is right...it's in the quran. I would say this would be a totally reasonable objection IF you could demonstrate objective evidence that shows God telling us that Islam is true. The Quran doesnt count because if people actually considered quran to be the word of god in the first place then they would be muslim anyway. so it would be a bad circular argument if you take this objection and use it.



AAMIR:
This is getting tiresome. You keep assuming God's justice parallels mankind - it doesn't. In other words, your particular criticism does not hold weight, logically speaking. It's akin to the age-old ''if god is so powerful can he make a rock he cannot lift'' argument.

So for God, justice means punishing people with eternal hellfire for not believing in something that has no evidence to be believed in? If the definition of justice is going to be so radicallly different from our idea of justice then why not just say there is no way to understand God's mercy, power, knowledge, kindness, wrath, lordship etc. Taking your route it would be blasphemous to say any description at all since we would be paralelling it with makinds definition. That's funny because God seems to make a big deal about his attributes in the Quran...listing them so many times...the beginning of almost (except 1) every surah (most merciful and gracious). I think you should rethink your position.
 
Skye:

So is your argument that we all have a natural disposition to God and people who go against that natural disposition deserve Hell? What does my state of beliefs (and I am going to be generous and assume fitrah for the sake of argument) at the time of my infancy have to do with now?

1- Indeed a natural disposition toward God
2- those who against it are in fact rebels (if they genuinely didn't know) then their trials will start on the day of recompense.
3- after your infancy you are to refine, cultivate and calibrate your fitrah!

I am not saying we should go unpunished. What I am saying is sending someone to hell for believing in a different religion (or no religion at all) or seemingly arbitrary because there is no reason why anyone should convert in the first place. The reason why God is incoherent with Hell (and again I am talking about Hell that will burn those who did not believe in Islam) is because the Quran says (somewhere) that God will not give anyone a task that he can not bear. I am arguing htat someone who looks at Islam and doesn't see why it's true, and it seems there is no objective evidence for the truth of islam, is going to be sent to hell and this makes your version of God unjust since he is sending someone to hell for something absurd.
It isn't absurd to me!
If you don't see it as true, then man break out some bubbly, call some gals or guys and don't waste your life on remote philosophies that have no concern to you!
Consider the following analogy: your dad is going to punish you for picking the wrong flavour of ice cream; he wont tell you which one is wrong or right and lets you decide. Naturally you pick the one that is best tasting , and lo and behold, you are punished. Is this a just parent? I think not. So contradiction seems to appear between Allah being 'just'.
The punishment isn't about inclinations, it is about logic and I have no doubt in my mind that when one ponders (as Abraham or Joseph) once did whether or not God exists, they don't conjure up some ideologies about burnishing the town with cow pu, or a three headed god or a god of a remote few on some desert mount, It should be basic and simple a God and a system for all of humanity. The punishment isn't merely of wrong choices, it is of the impact that those wrong choices on society as a whole!

You might say well God did tell us which religion is right...it's in the quran. I would say this would be a totally reasonable objection IF you could demonstrate objective evidence that shows God telling us that Islam is true. The Quran doesnt count because if people actually considered quran to be the word of god in the first place then they would be muslim anyway. so it would be a bad circular argument if you take this objection and use it.
I don't understand.. if you want to discuss some laws of physics, you start with a book and a teacher no? You can't have objective evidence about physics using a genetics books or a philosophy book. So I have no idea what route you'd like to take, but when I decided to practice and look into Islam, I did a comparative study, a study in philosophies.. slept on it and then made my decision.. I assume that is how most people start, with the basic life questions and then take it from there...

that being said, I don't know where I will end, maybe I am no wiser than you, but I am always hopeful of God's mercy.
On the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), who said that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: Allah (mighty and sublime be He) said:




Whosoever shows enmity to someone devoted to Me, I shall be at war with him. My servant draws not near to Me with anything more loved by Me than the religious duties I have enjoined upon him, and My servant continues to draw near to Me with supererogatory (extra) works so that I shall love him. When I love him I am his hearing with which he hears, his seeing with which he sees, his hand with which he strikes and his foot with which he walks. Were he to ask [something] of Me, I would surely give it to him, and were he to ask Me for refuge, I would surely grant him it. I do not hesitate about anything as much as I hesitate about [seizing] the soul of My faithful servant: he hates death and I hate hurting him.”

It was related by al-Bukhari.




all the best
 
greenshirt said:
perhaps you are correct in this assumption. in islam, we perceive our religion and its laws as being perfect, and in no need of change.
Okay

this obviously contradicts your views, as a progressive atheist. most atheists are more than willing to accept change if it betters the society.. if it gives people more human rights, etc. and we have seen, especially in our generation, a lot of change.. we've had a growing acceptance for individuality, for civil rights, equality, etc. islam is not against all of these changes.. in fact, islam, during the time of the prophet(saws), changed the society of mecca and medina greatly through human rights. for example, it used to be very common for arabs to bury their children if they had a female. yet, one of the first qur'anic commands that muhammad(saws) recited condemned this terrible act.
Alright.

our religion also stresses racial equality. and we have no strings attached to this fact either. judaism and christianty on the other hand have some controversy within their scriptures, in particularly where the torah mentions ham and canaan. though most do not see this as a racial thing anymore, back in the civil rights era many christians commonly quoted this story to promote their hate-filled philosophy.
Well you must know of course, that people have contentions with Islamic scripture however much you believe it to be perfect, or divine.

so the idea that we are not open to change is a bit silly, because islam, during the time of the prophet(saws) and centuries after, was at the forefront of bringing forth great changes and bettering the human rights.
You yourself said that muslims "percieve our religion and its laws as being perfect, and in no need of change". The only thing I can gather from this is that you could be accepting of change if it does not contradict or disagree with the Qu'ran.

And this is not really change as such, it is simply parts of your world view that are currently open and not decreed by Islam. I think what your assessment actually says is that Islam attempts to revolutionise the world to its way of thought. It is change for everyone else - but merely empowerment for Muslims.

now as i said, we perceive islam as being a perfect religion; the laws and morals that our religion commands are not in need of any change/evolution now, due to the fact that our religion is perfect.
Indeed.

To which I must ask, and you may answer it later on in this post (I don't know): How do you, personally determine something to be moral?

this obviously differs from your view; you probably believe that we can still make great changes in the world to better society. i believe we can too, and we should... but these changes should ideally come from islam, and what has already been revealed and is being practiced by many.
Well, you see, that's not really change. It is change for Non-Muslims as Islam begins to exert influence - but it is merely the enacting of the 'absolute' contentions for Muslims on society.

the way i see it this... the world is a diverse place and everyone rightly has their own opinions and perceptions of things. you see this as being inhumane, but many others dont. i follow what my religion teaches me, because i believe my religion to be true and i believe that my all-knowing god has answers to these problems; and not humans, with our diverse viewpoints.
Well that's an honest answer, of course.

But it is a non-answer. It is merely a statement of faith that you trust God will answer the call to the wisdom behind his decisions. In this you are telling me that you only know that hell is acceptable, and not why it is acceptable.

yes. it is mentioned several times in the qur'an. a lot of people find the test to be subjective, and a lot of people dont take it seriously. there are millions of arab christians who hear the qur'an being recited on a daily basis and still dont feel the need to convert to islam.. they may know about this challenge but it still doesnt convince them. however, our religion still gives them a challenge that they are more than welcome to attempt to fulfill. if they think they have fulfilled the requirements of the challenge, then they have nothing to worry about for themselves... because they will feel that islam isnt true since this challenge can be met. however, they have to see if their challenge beats the qur'an in the eyes of others.. something that just hasnt happened.
What does that mean though?

You must know that non-muslims do not base their contention with Islam on its literary merits. You know that being able to 'better' a passage in the Qu'ran is a bit like me asking you to write a 'better' song, or write a better poem.

A challenge is not credible if no-one understands what it means.

interesting response, and one that has substance to it. to answer you simply, yes, i follow the moral views of my religion because god says so. you may see this as being close minded, because instead of deriving a view based on my personal opinion, i derive a view based on what my god says. but, i believe that Allah(swt) knows best and that the laws and morals that islam holds are laws and morals based on logic and faith.
No I don't find it close-minded, but I find it frightening.

It means that if you really believe this, then if you were to believe that God suddenly decreed and accepted murder - you would have no grounds to disapprove of it (and we know that people have used this as a excuse). It means that you don't find things immoral because of their harm to other people, but purely because God doesn't like it. It means that terms like 'moral' and 'immoral' to you necessarily become 'obedience' and 'disobedience'. I struggle to gather how you much account for the concept of 'justice' in this world view of yours either.

Everything as a consequence of this is entirely focused on God. If you really believe this, then humanity is merely a means to an end for God's will.

you also have to understand this..

you as an atheist probably see this world as a not-so-good place, but a place that can certainly be bettered and be ideal. you are open to change, so long as it betters the world.
Okay

as a muslim, i see this world as a not-so-good place either, and a place that can also be changed and better. but, i also know that this world is full of tests and trials, to prepare us for the next life.
Okay

by logic, some islamic morals may perhaps just not seem right. for example, the view of homosexuality. though most other people here won't agree with me, i'll go ahead and say it... i dont think anyone chooses their sexual orientation. i think if you have same-sex attractions, it's something that you didn't choose.

so, by logic, if you didn't choose to be gay, and if you wish to date another person of the same gender, and you guys are not hurting anyone and are consenting and feel the same love that a heterosexual married couple feels... then what is wrong with that? how can that in any way be wrong, immoral, sinful?
Music to my ears so far....

if i was an atheist, that is exactly how i would see this issue. i would have no reason whatsoever to think homosexuality is wrong, because by logic and reasoning it just doesn't make sense that it would be.
Excellent.

I'm glad you see that. That is one of my main intentions on here. To get peopel to understand and work on common ground.

i am sure you disagree with me, and i would love to see what you have to say about this. that's how i feel on issues like this, but perhaps you have a much different perception that i just haven't contemplated before.. so i look forward to your response. thanks so much for your time
Oh I do disagree, but respectfully.

I admire your ability to reach out and explain your position honestly. And indeed, from your standpoint that life is a test - it could make sense, although I wouldn't say morally...
 
1- Indeed a natural disposition toward God
2- those who against it are in fact rebels (if they genuinely didn't know) then their trials will start on the day of recompense.
3- after your infancy you are to refine, cultivate and calibrate your fitrah!


It isn't absurd to me!
If you don't see it as true, then man break out some bubbly, call some gals or guys and don't waste your life on remote philosophies that have no concern to you!

The punishment isn't about inclinations, it is about logic and I have no doubt in my mind that when one ponders (as Abraham or Joseph) once did whether or not God exists, they don't conjure up some ideologies about burnishing the town with cow pu, or a three headed god or a god of a remote few on some desert mount, It should be basic and simple a God and a system for all of humanity. The punishment isn't merely of wrong choices, it is of the impact that those wrong choices on society as a whole!


I don't understand.. if you want to discuss some laws of physics, you start with a book and a teacher no? You can't have objective evidence about physics using a genetics books or a philosophy book. So I have no idea what route you'd like to take, but when I decided to practice and look into Islam, I did a comparative study, a study in philosophies.. slept on it and then made my decision.. I assume that is how most people start, with the basic life questions and then take it from there...

that being said, I don't know where I will end, maybe I am no wiser than you, but I am always hopeful of God's mercy.
On the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), who said that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: Allah (mighty and sublime be He) said:






It was related by al-Bukhari.




all the best



Can I summarize your position as you know that Islam cannot be demonstrated objectively true and you don't care if God sends people to Hell for not believing in it?
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top