Religious toleration?

[August]

Peace:
Your statement like this is because you are ignorant of Islam.1400 years back Islam raised voice against all sorts of slavery:

Last country in the entire world to owtlaw slavery? Saudi Arabia. Regardless of Islamic teaching on slavery, Muslim countries have been among the last to ban it. I'm pretty sure that it's a tribal custom, not from Islam, but in Afganistan girls are still married off to settle blood fueds. Don't know what to call that except slavery.
That really is my central point, that regardless of what the Qur'an says, it means less than what the followers of the religion actually do. Now, no religion has been blameless, and my own (Catholic) Church has persecuted many different groups in the past. What I am looking at is today's world, in which Muslims simply don't show as much respect for the freedoms of others as western culture does.

 

[- Qatada -]

Sorry, but no. It was the British Empire that ended slavery. In fact, every culture in all of human existence has practiced slavery. Like it or not, Western European Culture (and its new world offshoots) is the only culture in all of human existence to decide on its own to end slavery.

Modern Europe and Slavery

The reader would be right to inquire at this time of progress and development about the attitude of Europe, the pioneer of progress and development, toward slavery.

When Europe found its way to Africa it was a disaster for the latter that lasted for five centuries. The Europeans had a genius for devising ways to ensnare the Africans, to take them to Europe or its colonies, and to force them to such drudgery that contributed to a development of economic life. Later on, America joined Europe in subjugating the Africans, and the latter had to serve one more master.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica has the following to say about slavery:

"The hunting of of slaves from their villages in the midst of jungles was effected by setting fire to the straw used in building barns around the village. Once the villagers ran out for their lives, the English hunted them."
​

"The hunting of of slaves from their villages in the midst of jungles was effected by setting fire to the straw used in building barns around the village. Once the villagers ran out for their lives, the English hunted them.”

Apart from Africans who died during their flight, or on the way to the coast for shipment, one third of the survivors died of bad weather, 45% in traspartation overland, 12% during the sea voyage, and some more died on plantations.


Continued...


​

Let's see how much ways Islaam got rid of slavery;


the Messenger of Allaah, Muhammad (peace be upon him) said;

"Those slaves are your brothers, only God gave you an upper hand over them. So let that who has his brother (i.e. slave) under him give him the same food he himself eats, and the same clothing as he himself wears. The master may not give his brother a task that is beyond his ability. If he does give him such task, let him lend him a hand."


​

He (peace be upon him) also said:

' If a man hits or beats his slave, his atonement is the freeing of that slave.

Reported by Muslim and Abu Dawood.


​

There are more narrations of the companions of the Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him):
'Umar bin Al-Khattab once walked in Makkah and saw some slaves standing aside waiting, while their master ate. He was angry at this and inquired of the master :

"Why do some masters regard themselves as superior to their slaves ? "
​

Then he ordered the slaves to advance and eat.



A man once entered the house of Salman, may God be pleased with him, and saw him kneading his dough. "What are you doing, Abu 'Abdullah? " " I have sent my servant on an errand, " he answered. " So I didn't like to give him some more work." This is some of what Islam did for slaves !

The Noble Qur'ân An-Nur 4:32-33

32. And marry those among you who are single (i.e. a man who has no wife and the woman who has no husband) and (also marry) the Sâlihûn (pious, fit and capable ones) of your (male) slaves and maid-servants (female slaves). If they be poor, Allâh will enrich them out of His Bounty. And Allâh is All-Sufficent for His creatures' needs, All-Knowing (about the state of the people).
​

33. And let those who find not the financial means for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allâh enriches them of His Bounty. And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation), give them such writing, if you know that they are good and trustworthy. And give them something yourselves out of the wealth of Allâh which He has bestowed upon you. And force not your maids to prostitution, if they desire chastity, in order that you may make a gain in the (perishable) goods of this worldly life. But if anyone compels them (to prostitution), then after such compulsion, Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to those women, i.e. He will forgive them because they have been forced to do this evil action unwillingly).

​

The Noble Qur'ân An-Nisa 4:221

It is not for a believer to kill a believer except (that it be) by mistake, and whosoever kills a believer by mistake, (it is ordained that) he must set free a believing slave and a compensation (blood money, i.e Diya) be given to the deceased's family, unless they remit it. If the deceased belonged to a people at war with you and he was a believer; the freeing of a believing slave (is prescribed), and if he belonged to a people with whom you have a treaty of mutual alliance, compensation (blood money - Diya) must be paid to his family, and a believing slave must be freed. And whoso finds this (the penance of freeing a slave) beyond his means, he must fast for two consecutive months in order to seek repentance from Allâh. And Allâh is Ever All*Knowing, All*Wise.​

There are so much ways in Islaam to get rid of slavery, yet because it was at a worldwide scale - it got abolished gradually - starting from 14 centuries ago! Whereas we see that the slave trade which took place within America just a few centuries ago made slaves the lowest of the low, which involved racism, something which may have been abolished lately (which is a good thing) - yet much more later than Islaam.





Regards.

 

[Pynthanomai]

Because that morality, or more precisely the behaviour towards other people determined by it, is in the best overall interests of both the individual themselves (the 'golden rule' principal) and of their society. People do not want to "end up sinking in unending suffering and squalour" hence morality will become established with or without religion. Society itself, even at the most basic level, cannot function without morality and societies existed long before organised religion of any sort, let alone revealed Abrahamic religion. Religious morality merely reflects and codifies general morality.. and has proved a very effective tool historically for enforcing it.

Necessary morality can be codified and enforced just as well, and usually better, by secular law.. and that is exactly what has happened in many places from antiquity to the present day. The main advantage, I think, is flexibility; a secular approach can address contemporary moral issues (such as abortion, stem cell research, genetic engineering, environmental polution etc etc) head on without needing increasingly far-fetched, extended and increasing irrelevant 'interpretations' of ancient writings. And it can do so without favouring one religious tradition over another, where conflicts may exist.

What you say is a sound argument, consistent with itself. The primary problem I have with it lies in your supposition that the "Golden Rule" principle will apply because people are innately or naturally concerned to do good to others. I suggest that biology teaches us that the "Golden Rule" applies only because if individuals in society go through their lives entirely unconcerned about others, or seek to act only in their own interests, it's very likely that they will be shunned by society, or locked up - or killed. This very obviously works against an individual's desire for self-preservation; hence, human beings' "morality", by which they appear to conduct their affairs for the benefit of others, arises not from some inalienable altruism, but from a biological mechanism to preserve themselves, and to ensure their own survival.

If there were to be a severe famine in an impoverished region of the world (as sometimes happens), you would be able to see how little this "morality" prevails to protect the weak, when the strong realise that to ensure their survival will require appropriating food and resources from others. "Morality" therefore, and one's "conscience" are nothing more - from an atheistical viewpoint - than effects of biology and evolution. As such there is no need to posit any underlying or overriding need or desire to protect others' interests or lives any further than any individual is ultimately concerned to preserve him- or herself. Indeed, what obligation could there possibly be upon an individual to do a particular good to others, if a consideration of his own interests or self-preservation, or the psychological (= electrochemical, biological) satisfaction of his conscience, does not apply in any given case?

 

[Pynthanomai]

I agree with many of these points, but it seems to me that most human have an inherent morality by default, perhaps because we may have a creator. Naturally, we created organised religion as a direct consequence of our morality, not the other way around. I concede that belief in life's purpose is important in this, and the atheists and stalinists that did not believe in such a purpose commited great wrongs. However, this does not nullify my argument. They could have still chosen to obey their in-built conscience and turned to doing good.

But in the absence of religion, such morality would be relativistic, and subject to change. Indeed (as I noted in my reply to Trumble, below), such morality could have no function except as an individual's means to protect him- or herself. For evolution teaches us that nothing is created in vain; and if something does turn out to be useless, evolution does not continue further down that path. So morality is either useful, in which case it can have no other purpose beyond an individual's self-preservation, or it is useless, in which case, we may conclude, it will soon (in geological terms, not human years!) be destroyed through the ongoing process of natural selection.

Organised, or even non-organised religion is not necessary for this. I know its tempting to say that we would "sink into suffering and squalor" wothout religion, but history has already proved this wrong. Throughout most of history, we've had suffering and squalor. and throughout most of history, we've had deep religious belief. Today, many of us live longer and healthier than the richest King of times past. We dont have to face the (real) risk of death and mutilation daily. If you doubt this, I encourage research on the matter. It's no use being on denial on the matter. In the past four centuries, starting with Copernicus, Tycho Brae and Gallieo, there's been a steady increase in scientific understanding. There's also been a slow but sure decrease in religious belief.

Sure, we also have some terrible problems, but these are magnified by technology and intensive human activity. I think that, faced with the destructive power we have, it's remarkable that we haven't destroyed ourselves. What would have happened if say the Roman Empire had access to even conventional weaponry? Or the crusaders? The Mongols? It may be a difficult pill to swallow, but we're a great deal more civilised since we diluted religious belief.

I can't deny what you say about the progress of human civilisation. Yet I still doubt that advancing secularism or atheism will bring about a better world. People, we might guess, will no longer kill in the name of God; but without God, being guided only by individuals' conceptions of what is "right" and "wrong", we may find ourselves suffering at the hands of others, without recourse. For how, in the absence of anything objective, can we claim that someone is doing "evil", or that we are doing "good"?

 

[CptSunbeam]

I can't deny what you say about the progress of human civilisation. Yet I still doubt that advancing secularism or atheism will bring about a better world. People, we might guess, will no longer kill in the name of God; but without God, being guided only by individuals' conceptions of what is "right" and "wrong", we may find ourselves suffering at the hands of others, without recourse. For how, in the absence of anything objective, can we claim that someone is doing "evil", or that we are doing "good"?

I believe it is possible that the necessary objectivity exists within most of us, put there by our creator. Perhaps one day he will show himself to us, but even if he doesn't, my gut instinct tells me that we wouldn't be completely lost without religion. It is my view that the Stalins and Hitlers were either violent because they were godless with no purpose, or they were notable, horrible exceptions. In the U.S.A, most prison inmates are religious, and they were so before they were sentenced.

Psychological reports have shown that religious people suffer from greater mental illness and generally have a poorer education, often by choice. This can lead to social deprivation. The US is an interesting case study because it can be compared with the generally secular European economies, which suffer from lower crime and inequality. The difference is moderate and statistically significant.

So the claim that religion produces moral people is not backed up by the evidence I'm afraid. All of my friends are atheists or agnostics, and yet they are amongst the most caring, "moral" people I know. It's just within us to do good, and nobody can take that away, even with religion gone. On the other hand, holy books can induce bad morality. They promote an "us versus them" attitude, and one only needs to read the Old Testament to see the atrocities ordained by God. One study subjected a test group to bible reading, and they were found to show increased aggression. It's the same as watching a violent movie. If religious people want to get immoral books removed from libraries, they should include the holy books too.

 

[جوري]

a very curious and dubious report indeed ( No matter) ... I wonder what "observer bias" has led to such conclusions?.. be that as it may, it must mean there are only 8-10% of the population that are educated and the rest are living in the stone age? since atheists make up 8-10% of the population at large...
here is a report at least about the Muslim population in the U.S
peace!

Middle Eastern immigrants were highly educated, with 49 percent holding at least a bachelor's degree, compared to 28 percent of natives.

Median earnings for Middle Eastern men were $39,000 a year compared to $38,000 for native workers.

they tend to be better-educated than native U.S. residents — about half hold bachelor's degrees, compared to 28 percent of natives. They also perform as well economically as natives — 30- and 40-year-old Middle Eastern males with a college education have the same median income as natives, and Middle East immigrants are more likely be self-employed.




Middle Eastern Immigrants in U.S. Educated, Prosperous, Study Says
Gannett News Service, August 15, 2002

(Also ran in Arizona Republic - 8/15)

WASHINGTON — Middle Eastern immigrants in the United States are well educated, earn more money than most Americans and are predominantly Muslim, according to a report released Wednesday.

They also are among the nation's fastest-growing immigrant groups, according to the report issued by the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, a think tank that supports reducing the number of immigrants to the United States.

The report says the number of Middle Eastern immigrants increased from fewer than 200,000 in 1970 to almost 1.5 million in 2000. The overall number of foreign-born residents in the United States tripled to 31 million over the same period.

The report offers a rare portrait of an immigrant group that has received intense scrutiny and negative publicity since the Sept. 11 attacks.
Project MAPS, a survey of "Muslims in the American Public Square" conducted in 2001-2002 by researchers at Georgetown University, found that 86 percent of all Muslim professionals were concentrated in three careers: engineering, computer science, and medicine. Law, law enforcement, and politics accounted for a minuscule 0.6 percent. American Muslims, some demographers say, have also been voting well below their numbers in the population -- registering to vote at only half the national rate, according to the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey [PDF], a project of the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. "If they ever did play to their weight" in the electoral arena and in Washington, Muslims "would be a much more considerable force in public policy-making," says Steve Clemons, a Democrat who directs the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation in Washington.

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/DUSS_Arab_America.pdf
http://www.cis.org/articles/2002/mideastcoverage.html

so much for poorer education!

peace!

 

[CptSunbeam]

it must mean there are only 8-10% of the population that are educated and the rest are living in the stone age?

Woah! I didn't say that! The report I found that, on average, the rate of education was lower among religious people, especially amongst fundamentalist Christianity. This has nothing to say about Middle-East immigrants, or individual cases. I urge you to please not make out that I said something when I did not. I was making the case against religion, not specifically Islam, and was referring to general statistical trends, not small populations.

 

[جوري]

It was certainly a judgment reached after consideration of what you'd written; acknowledging that this is an Islamic forum, frequented by religious folk... Collectively as a whole, I haven't come across any Muslim/ religious peoples, that were on any ground under educated. Rather than giving you my word for it, I provided you with statistics from non-Islamic sources, on the educational affairs of Muslim believers.
I don't think Islam would have reached its golden age compared to what is universally known as dark ages of Europe, if Islam didn't encourage the pursuit of knowledge from the cradle to the grave!
peace!

 

[Pynthanomai]

[...]
I don't think Islam would have reached its golden age compared to what is universally known as dark ages of Europe, if Islam didn't encourage the pursuit of knowledge from the cradle to the grave!
peace!

I can't help but agreeing. When I read about Christianity in the Dark/Middle Ages, I find it hard to discover any concerted or consistent effort on the part of the Christian elite to promote genuine scientific inquiry. Science tended to focus on confirming what was contained in the Bible, rather than "going where no man has gone before" (obligatory Star Trek quote). Things got better as time moved on, but I don't knew whether that was as a result of the religion itself pushing people to extend the bounds of science, or external pressures (e.g. the advancement of civilisation and culture generally) forcing it to move with the times.