The fate of Non-Muslims in the hereafter

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi Skavau

Yes it was a long post. You showed to me how negative behavioural characteristics and tendencies can at times, in some people possibly lead to bad people or bad actions that have demonstrable consequences. You determine these characteristics as 'shirk'. And whilst I am not interested in disputing the meaning of shirk, and how broad it is - I should as I have stated previously be more interested in the traditional meaning of shirk.

In all fairness I think I have shown more then this. Yes I have shown what pride can lead to in extreme cases. But I have also shown the immorality of it in non-extreme forms. Perhaps I did not make that point explicitly enough, so let me try again. According to Albert Ellis' school of thought in psychology. Self esteem, which I argue is a derivative of pride enables people to be selfish and egoistic, and at the same time disables people from altruism. This means that a person given a choice between doing the right thing, and doing a selfish thing will always choose the latter, if he has positive self-esteem with the exception if doing the right thing is in his own best interest as well.

Would it be out of bounds for me to propose that Islam, or at least many Muslims at least in some sense (and I've seen it directly stated with the cliche "the worst muslim is better than the best non-muslim") believe Muslims to be of more worth, at least to god? This may be not what you believe, but I'd like some clarification if I may.

It's certainly not out of bounds to make such an observation about muslims. There are indeed many problematic things in the majority of muslim minds. The condescending attitude is common indeed, but not befitting of muslims. In fact I would claim that the opposite statement is more accurate: "The worst muslim is far worse then the best non-muslim; for the muslim (supposedly) acts despite his religious knowledge, whereas a non-muslim acts out of absence of religious knowledge." The confusion lies in that muslims will be forgiven their sins, at least the small sins. Shirk, which is a big sin can only be forgiven if one repents. And if even vanity and pride is a form of shirk, then how many proud muslims are worse then proud atheists without even realising it? I fear a large majority.

And what is your opinion of Islamic Law, a system which according to many legislates a system of inequality towards people based on their religious beliefs? Some of the 'liberal' leaning proponents of Islamic Law that I have seen propose a multi-religious theocracy where people of different beliefs are in their own little refuges and run by their own religious rulings (which doesn't explain where atheists might be, mind).

Good question. My view is that equality of worth cannot be obtained by equal rules. It is true that the rules of sharia themselves are different for different groups (like men vs. woman and muslim vs. non-muslims). However in my opinion these difference are not an in-equality, but rather are aimed to create a balance of equality! If you look at each rule individually, indeed it seems to create inequality. But if you look at all the rules together as a set, you see that in fact their aim is to create a balance between different groups. A bit like how in the west governments try to balance out inequalities by positive discrimination. Take for example taxes. In an Islamic state, the state is responsible for collecting the zakaat (1/40th of the income given for the needy). However obviously only Muslims are supposed to pay this. But if the state invests in public services like irrigation the non-muslims obviously benefit from that to. So from that point of view it's only fair that they pay a tax as well. The tax for non-muslims was actually less then what the zakaat would amount to, and was only for those who could afford to pay it. Yet still many opponents of Islam claim that this was an unfair taxation of the non-muslims in the Islamic caliphate.

* In almost every religious prohibitions, one can see that the benefit is not just on a personal level for the one following the law, but it is for the sake of the whole society. Leaving such matters at the will of the followers, would enable them to wrong society, and thus wouldn't be proper guidance from God.

Are you talking specifically about the following of law in societys under Islamic Law, or the relevance of Muslims in general following the tenets of Islam?

It can be argued for both.

* As for the compulsory, those are only the basics acts of faith, some of which are still intended for the well-being of society (like mandatory alms for the poor) and some of which are aimed to maintain the faith (like 5 daily prayer). If these would be left out of divine guidance. So the importance of these laws is to maintain the laws themselves. If a system of laws is perfect for society, but not able to be maintained, it is not a good system either. Self-preservation needs to be build into it.

Are you suggesting that the persistent ritualism of Islam is designed so that it acts as a catalyst for people to feel confident about the prevailing Islamic society that they are in?

I wouldn't say "feeling confident" for that somehow suggests its a type of brainwashing, which it is not. I'd prefer to say that it helps people understand, and serves as a reminder what their purpose is. Of course, that is only one of the many benefits of it. It certainly isn't limited to that.

* As for discouraged and encouraged things, those are as you would find preferable, up to the individual to decide whether he does them or not. But still, you cannot deny that there is a difference in a person who follows them and a person who doesn't from the viewpoint of an arbiter. Should those who do allot of effort be rewarded the same as those who do only the minimum? I think you'll agree there's no fairness in that.

Well, sure. If I pledged allegience to anyone and stated I would follow their ideals, and effectively ignored all things proposed as encouraged and engaged in what was discouraged then he might be right in being miffed, but again this is a not a mandatory relationship. It would be a consensual one. When you talk about Islam, there's no doubt about it, it is a system imposed upon all.

There is no compulsion in religion. If even a Muslim isn't forced to leave what is discouraged and do what is encouraged, then why would a non-muslim in an islamic state would be forced to that?

Lol, well. In this thread I've had about 5 links thrown at me, several youtube links and in the other thread too (the one on apostasy) other links were thrown at me.
Maybe I'll get back to you?
Heh

As you wish ^_^

Okay. You would do well to pass this message on to others. You must know that threats of eternal torture would be offputting.

Wouldn't that be nice if I could tell them and people would listen to me

But on an extension of this: Why is torture, and infinite at that a necessary response to anything we have done in this life? And I note I assume you accept hellfire as one of eternal torture, because unlike Christians - I have never seen a Muslim contend that it is not. Not even the more liberal leaning ones.

Whether or not it is "necessary", I neither know nor care to answer. I do however think it is "just". I'm afraid though, we'll only be able to agree to disagree on that part. I know of no universal criteria by which we could debate whether or not such punishment is fitting. In the end the best we can do is judge it emotionally. And even that is inapt, for it is not our judgement to make. I have faith that Allah subhana wa ta'ala is the most just, and knows what is in the hearts of the corrupt, and knows what they deserve. But as I said, I'm afraid all we can do here is agree to disagree. What I can do however, is invite you to ponder upon the following questions:
*) Would heaven still be heaven, if you'd meet the scum of the earth there (serial killers, rapist, child-molesters, dictators, etc...)?
*) Would life still be just, if the injustice of this world, was not balanced out by an afterlife judgement?
*) Would God be the most just, if he doesn't punish in the hereafter those who were unjust in this world?

...
3) Even though the intention in adoration should be for the sake of Allah, there is a personal benefit in it as well, since it brings reward.

#3 is an interesting point here. What does Allah expect his adherents to praise him for?

That has not been revealed. We only know that that is the purpose of our creation, we don't know Allah subhana wa ta'ala's motive for that purpose. However we do know that he does not in any form need or depend upon this worship.

The only way #3 could be valid is if you see your existence as designed as inherently worthy or something to cherish. But if you wish to maintain this existence, is it due to overwhelming self-interest or because you really enjoy the purpose you were created for?

Are you asking about if God wishes to maintain his existence or if we wish to maintain ours? Perhaps you could rephrase to clarify what you're asking here?

These are my reasons for be an anti-theist, not an atheist.

Fair enough.

I am glad of your viewpoints. They bring a more mature edge to the regretful comments of too many posters on here.

You're welcome ^_^

But why do you think he would choose the pleasures of this world over righteousness? In this context you are accusing this person of having a high amount of self-interest in themselves. So much so that they are unwilling to observe Islam even though they believe it to be true. You then go on to say that they ought to be accountable for this.
The problem is of course, is that from a self-interest perspective this makes no sense. The promise of eternal paradise is more rewarding than the reality of lushness we see here on earth. If this person was to be consistent, then perhaps he would be a Muslim. Remember earlier on you already said that acknowledgement of Allah brings reward.

Quite right, this suggested reaction does not make sense. Unfortunately though, human motives don't always make sense, and humans often act illogical or short-sighted. So even though the reaction doesn't make sense, I do think its a realistic reaction (for some people at least).

Moreover I don't believe my analogy necessarily had anything to do with ignoring Islam due to reasons of self-interest, but of cognitive dissonance.

Yes I know, I somehow felt the need to clarify the distinction with this alternative motive for ignoring Islam, to point out what your case was not. Because in defining what it is not, I am also defining what it is (or could be) by exclusion.

I am somewhat agreeing with you. Someone refusing a belief system they know to be true because they rather much value their own bigotry. I don't agree that any accountability from that would be deserving of torture, eternal or otherwise - but it would be somewhat stubborn and evidence of agenda.

Again I fear we've hit a head end, the same one in fact, were we can only agree to disagree. Unless perhaps you can demonstrate why such punishment is unfitting.

I'm not sure how your subsconscious 'choosing' anything is the same thing as actively choosing anything. Which is what I am contending is not the case with belief.

At first, when it is only at the subconsciuos level. It is not really a "choice" already, but more of an inclination which causes you to tune out certain things and focus on others. You build your world view on these inclination of desires/need/urges/morality/shame and so on. By the time you cognitively "choose" the worldview is already half built, and the subsequent deduction and faith (or absence of it) seems inevitable.

I am saying that often people will make it appear that their beliefs are by choice (and indeed things like the placebo effect and confirmation bias assist in making these people comfortable in themselves and their beliefs). They will say that they like certain aspects of X and therefore believe it. These people are usually unlearned in what they say they believe and motivate a desire for it to be true (Indeed they are often those who spend a lot of time trying to convince others of this too).

I think these phenomena you mention barely scrape the surface of the things I'm talking about. They are in a way like side-effect of what I'm talking about. Things that occur when the process I describe goes wrong somewhere along the line, and the subject desperately tries to hold on to his/her damaged and compromised world-view.

An unspecified proposition here that I make though is that faith is nothing without this desire to be true. That faith is more often manifested as wanting X to be true rather than actual confidence or reasoning that it is true.

Perhaps this "desire" you talk of, is the manifestation of the subconscious inclination guiding people? Faith is a tricky thing to define. It is dependant on so many factors from personal experience, emotions, thoughts and so on. I doubt there's a "one-fit-all" definition.

I'll give you an obvious example. I would quite like to get £100 pounds. It'd be nice. However much I really want that to just happen in the next five minutes does not mean that I can actually be convinced that it will. I am aware of people who have convinced themselves through bias and desire exist (and indeed, the desire for something to be true is a choice. It is preference). I am however talking generally that in life, there are things that most people find ridiculous and cannot believe due to lack of evidence. With Islam, and other belief systems this is the case. People can't 'choose' to believe it - they have to be convinced.

Yes but most people usually convince themselves of the very thing that they (subconsciously) want to believe. I see this both on theistic side as well as on atheistic side.

 

[Ali_008]

My eyes are already aching and I don't have the strength to read this entire thread through so could someone please tell me where the argument has reached now? What is it that you guys are giving such huge posts about? eace:

 

[Eliphaz]

fair enough. So according to your criteria, if a rapist doesn't mind someone raping his daughter then he can go ahead and rape someone else's daughter. I got you and it is brilliant isn't?

Again you are showing your own arrogance by ignoring the gaping flaws in your argument. You talk of the daughter like she is property and the consent must be given by the father, not her. What part of 'someone who wishes for other what they wish for themselves' do you not understand? Would you want to be raped? No? Then don't rape others. Simple enough, even if you have some deep-rooted difficulty in identifying with the opposite sex as equal human beings.

1 - how are we going to check this?
2 - what is wrong with desiring something in return? When did this become a criteria of someone not being good or lacking goodness

1. 'Check' this? Are you so far gone from your own internal moral compass and dependant upon scripture to tell you right from wrong that without it you would not know otherwise??
2. Nothing, except that it encourages point-scoring. People only do what gets them the most 'points' and you will see statements such as 'Well if I'm not getting reward for it then why should I?'

you are not god so we don't give a d@mn about what you think. you are a puny human and what you think is not evidence or proof for your point. This is simply your understanding and perception. Who said that a finite crime must get a finite punishment? Did you get this from your other god?

Well at least you have now shown your true colours. Anyone who is not a god does not have a valid opinion? Fair enough. I see that logic is too much for you and that you would rather blindly accept something as 'just', namely the Hereafter. I fear this is due to you and others mentally blocking out the thought of billions of people in endless pain for all eternity, all at the hands of that 'merciful' God - which is not healthy for you. How is that giant rug you keep sweeping all the awkward questions under working out for you?

you are simply muttering the nonsensical progressive methodology. If good and bad is subjective then there is nothing good or bad because there is no such thing as an absolute as there is no criteria to judge right and wrong.

There is the human mind and the human heart. Just because your God may not exist does not mean there is not a God, and that there is no such a thing as good and evil.

What you perceive as moral is simply your view and holds on value. Simply put, for example, a murderer should not be punished since according to him he perceived it as good.

Law and morality are two different things, and if you did not blindly believe them to be the same thing you would perhaps realise this. And I think every murderer, unless psychologically impaired, knows deep down he is wrong, unless he murders in the name of a religion, in which case he is a martyr.

Your whole nonsense gets even worse when you turn around and try to enforce your own ways on others or start judging other people's moral values using your own perceptions and understanding. Here is the crux of the matter and end result of your methodology:

1 - Each individual can decide what is good and bad because morality changes with time and affected by many other factors (advancements, inventions, environment, etc.)
2 - However, everyone should live by what I consider moral or morality is judged by my standards, understanding and criteria.

Your arrogant ideals are written all over yet you dare to come out as if you are so moral and prime example of good.

Maybe before getting into so called logical and rational discussions you need to weigh yourself so that you don't making yourself a laughing stock.

From your first point I think you have already spectacularly shown both your own your lack of rationality and humanity. Morality is affected by inventions? Is this another neat little sound-bite from some renowed Sheikh which sounded great at the time? These are not my own standards. I don't have a patent for them. These are the standards most 'heathen' non-religious people live their lives by every day.

 

[Skavau]

In all fairness I think I have shown more then this. Yes I have shown what pride can lead to in extreme cases. But I have also shown the immorality of it in non-extreme forms. Perhaps I did not make that point explicitly enough, so let me try again. According to Albert Ellis' school of thought in psychology. Self esteem, which I argue is a derivative of pride enables people to be selfish and egoistic, and at the same time disables people from altruism. This means that a person given a choice between doing the right thing, and doing a selfish thing will always choose the latter, if he has positive self-esteem with the exception if doing the right thing is in his own best interest as well.

I'm not sure I agree here.

Having a high amount of self-esteem is just having a high amount of confidence in yourself in life. I don't get, and I have read your examples where you conclude that it necessitates a contempt or apathy for altruism in the context of choosing it between that and your own self-interest. You did argue that an unjust form of superiority is the root of some of the worst human traits in existence.

It's certainly not out of bounds to make such an observation about muslims. There are indeed many problematic things in the majority of muslim minds. The condescending attitude is common indeed, but not befitting of muslims. In fact I would claim that the opposite statement is more accurate: "The worst muslim is far worse then the best non-muslim; for the muslim (supposedly) acts despite his religious knowledge, whereas a non-muslim acts out of absence of religious knowledge." The confusion lies in that muslims will be forgiven their sins, at least the small sins. Shirk, which is a big sin can only be forgiven if one repents. And if even vanity and pride is a form of shirk, then how many proud muslims are worse then proud atheists without even realising it? I fear a large majority.

A very honest paragraph.

But there is an interesting conclusion that you could leap to based on the part I highlighted in bold. What of the best muslim and the best non-muslim? The best muslim, might act righteously (or not act immoraly) because of his religious knowledge - whereas the non-muslim still acts righteously in absence of it.

I don't know whether you meant it as hypothetical proposition to the muslims that do claim that muslims are inherently better than non-muslims, or whether you take it as a thoroughly accurate observation.

Good question. My view is that equality of worth cannot be obtained by equal rules. It is true that the rules of sharia themselves are different for different groups (like men vs. woman and muslim vs. non-muslims). However in my opinion these difference are not an in-equality, but rather are aimed to create a balance of equality! If you look at each rule individually, indeed it seems to create inequality. But if you look at all the rules together as a set, you see that in fact their aim is to create a balance between different groups. A bit like how in the west governments try to balance out inequalities by positive discrimination.

I should like to say that I loathe positive discrimination. I find the concept utterly self-refuting.

I think in order to set up different sets of rules for different sets of people in order to set up a form of 'equality' then you have missed the point. If different groups have different social rights (do they, by the way?) then the equality would only be from an economic value. What I believe would be more accurate to describe what you talk about would be a system of balance, rather than equality. I regard equality as the attempt to hold everyone equally accountable to the law and give everyone the same opportunities, regardless of beliefs.

And indeed, what of atheists or secularists in Islamic Law?

I wouldn't say "feeling confident" for that somehow suggests its a type of brainwashing, which it is not. I'd prefer to say that it helps people understand, and serves as a reminder what their purpose is. Of course, that is only one of the many benefits of it. It certainly isn't limited to that.

What else would you say it serves?

There is no compulsion in religion. If even a Muslim isn't forced to leave what is discouraged and do what is encouraged, then why would a non-muslim in an islamic state would be forced to that?

I meant in the eyes of Allah. It is, and all will discover at some point (according to Islam) thatindeed it was compulsory. Right?

Whether or not it is "necessary", I neither know nor care to answer. I do however think it is "just". I'm afraid though, we'll only be able to agree to disagree on that part. I know of no universal criteria by which we could debate whether or not such punishment is fitting. In the end the best we can do is judge it emotionally. And even that is inapt, for it is not our judgement to make. I have faith that Allah subhana wa ta'ala is the most just, and knows what is in the hearts of the corrupt, and knows what they deserve. But as I said, I'm afraid all we can do here is agree to disagree.

An honest, but somewhat troubling answer from my perspective. The reasons I find answers like this troubling are because in it is laced a subservient disposition towards what Allah decrees (I see this, by the way in Christians and indeed in some Jews as well). In that, I should ask you would it matter whether you should know why the hellfire is eternal and painful? You have faith and confidence that it is indeed just because of (I assume) your position that God is and cannot not be in any sense of the word unjust. So with that in mind, does the fact that some things pertaining to his decisions are not known?

What I can do however, is invite you to ponder upon the following questions:
*) Would heaven still be heaven, if you'd meet the scum of the earth there (serial killers, rapist, child-molesters, dictators, etc...)?

Well I cannot be expected to dictate or present an ideal of heaven. It is not my belief. Irrespectively, it would certainly be an incompatibility to its traditional concept. I will add though, that since my first post on this thread I have stated that my issues with the concept of hell and in general unbelievers possible presence there is not due to any expectancy of entering heaven, but due to specific issues with hell.

*) Would life still be just, if the injustice of this world, was not balanced out by an afterlife judgement?

Well, firstly as you may know - from my perspective the universe in general is rather disinterested in our affairs and is happy to send a nearby comet into our atmosphere if necessary. It has no concept of 'justice' (which I view as an exclusively human concept of unfairness to other life) and so indeed, life is unfair.

And indeed, if those who were 'unfair' were not cautioned for their actions then unfair it would be. So I would grant you this.

*) Would God be the most just, if he doesn't punish in the hereafter those who were unjust in this world?

I don't think punishment has any intrinsic claim to or a part of justice. Understanding why people commit certain acts and removing them from society to protect others is justice. Attempting to rehabilitate them to bring them back into society is justice. Causing them suffering for what they did is all too similar to sadism.

That has not been revealed. We only know that that is the purpose of our creation, we don't know Allah subhana wa ta'ala's motive for that purpose. However we do know that he does not in any form need or depend upon this worship.

Okay. You made a similar point to this earlier on concerning the eternality of hellfire, and the question I asked them remains on this.

Are you asking about if God wishes to maintain his existence or if we wish to maintain ours? Perhaps you could rephrase to clarify what you're asking here?

I am asking if you wish to maintain yours, and for what reason. Adoration of Allah or self-interest?

Quite right, this suggested reaction does not make sense. Unfortunately though, human motives don't always make sense, and humans often act illogical or short-sighted. So even though the reaction doesn't make sense, I do think its a realistic reaction (for some people at least).

It would be a realistic reaction for people who were, heh, as you might say "positive self-esteem" materialists. I don't think it would be true of people who believe divine guidance exists.

Yes I know, I somehow felt the need to clarify the distinction with this alternative motive for ignoring Islam, to point out what your case was not. Because in defining what it is not, I am also defining what it is (or could be) by exclusion.

Okay

Again I fear we've hit a head end, the same one in fact, were we can only agree to disagree. Unless perhaps you can demonstrate why such punishment is unfitting.

I don't agree with thought-crime, or rather the idea that you ought to be punished or held accountable by what you think.

At first, when it is only at the subconsciuos level. It is not really a "choice" already, but more of an inclination which causes you to tune out certain things and focus on others. You build your world view on these inclination of desires/need/urges/morality/shame and so on. By the time you cognitively "choose" the worldview is already half built, and the subsequent deduction and faith (or absence of it) seems inevitable.

This description does not appear to be in favour of the idea that world-views or belief systems are of choice.

What is the inclination based on?

I think these phenomena you mention barely scrape the surface of the things I'm talking about. They are in a way like side-effect of what I'm talking about. Things that occur when the process I describe goes wrong somewhere along the line, and the subject desperately tries to hold on to his/her damaged and compromised world-view.

I'm not sure how to respond to this. Your process appears to argue that a world view is built upon non-rational things (desires, needs, urges etc). I would contend that the things I describe are simply a different way of putting what you put. The inclination of 'desire' is what contributes to placebo effects and enables a confirmaiton bias. Your 'needs' can certainly enflame the former and your urges appears to be a more carnal form of 'desire'.

Perhaps this "desire" you talk of, is the manifestation of the subconscious inclination guiding people? Faith is a tricky thing to define. It is dependant on so many factors from personal experience, emotions, thoughts and so on. I doubt there's a "one-fit-all" definition.
[/qute]
Oh yes, indeed. The desire is, from your own definition a manifestation of subconscious inclinations (as you specifically say desire).

And yes, whilst I believe that is somewhat of a unformity towards the definition of 'faith'. I understand that it effects people in different ways and in different manners. I still believe it is often abused as a reason to believe in things, when it can do no such thing.

Yes but most people usually convince themselves of the very thing that they (subconsciously) want to believe. I see this both on theistic side as well as on atheistic side.

I'd like to believe I'm going to get £100. Am I an exception?

 

[Skavau]

My eyes are already aching and I don't have the strength to read this entire thread through so could someone please tell me where the argument has reached now? What is it that you guys are giving such huge posts about? eace:

Several topics:

The nature of belief (and faith)
The ideals of Islamic Law
The concept of 'hellfire'
The purpose of Islam

 

[cali dude]

Religions may be biased but The Almighty Lord isn't biased towards any religion. So, not to worry, Lord will take care of all, Muslim or non-Muslim....

 

[Skavau]

This is Eliphaz's battle, but it is also an open forum so I feel obliged to respond.

fair enough. So according to your criteria, if a rapist doesn't mind someone raping his daughter then he can go ahead and rape someone else's daughter. I got you and it is brilliant isn't?

I fear you misunderstand what Eli was getting at. He was referencing "do unto others, what you would do unto yourself". A cliche, and hardly mature and concise enough for ethical quandries - however, one that has remained wholly influentual historically.

Are you to argue that? What he meant was that treat others as you would like to be treated. Which is not a binding moral philosophy, but a general statement of good-will.

1 - how are we going to check this?
2 - what is wrong with desiring something in return? When did this become a criteria of someone not being good or lacking goodness

1. You can't. You either assume negative or selfish motives or you do not.
2. If someone does an act that is good purely for self-interest then it becomes just that - an act of self-interest. People who do things like that are certainly capable of doing good, but also enable themselves to commit atrocity in the same name.

you are not god so we don't give a d@mn about what you think. you are a puny human and what you think is not evidence or proof for your point. This is simply your understanding and perception. Who said that a finite crime must get a finite punishment? Did you get this from your other god?

I am not sure why you saw it fitting to begin discussing on here if indeed, you are not interested in what others think. Why did you? I understand the foundation of your beliefs to be the infallibility of Islam - but this is a forum about clarifying Islam and as of such, would you not expect the participation of Non-Muslims offering their own perspective on fairly understated issues like morality in Islam?

Also, it is a passive consequence of the human desire of balance that we typically hold contempt for overzealous punishments. This is why the term "the punishment fits the crime" exists. This is why we have courts of law, and systems set up designed to ensure that this balance exists. It might be of no interest to you, but to a lot of the world it is.

I would instead ask you: how is it proportional or fair for an infinite punishment for finite 'crimes' to exist? And I would ask, what purpose does it serve?

you are simply muttering the nonsensical progressive methodology. If good and bad is subjective then there is nothing good or bad because there is no such thing as an absolute as there is no criteria to judge right and wrong.

There can be no moral absolutes. Such things do not exist, not even if I may so in religious claims to the contrary. Morality is a decisively human affair, or affair of life. It is about broadly, what one ought to do when considering his or her actions in the context of a community's well-being. It has everything to do with considering others and nothing to do with the failed ideal of pious obedience that theistic morality attempts to argue.

How can absolutes exist according to you, concerning morality? What would or could an absolute even be?

. What you perceive as moral is simply your view and holds on value. Simply put, for example, a murderer should not be punished since according to him he perceived it as good. Your whole nonsense gets even worse when you turn around and try to enforce your own ways on others or start judging other people's moral values using your own perceptions and understanding. Here is the crux of the matter and end result of your methodology:

This sir, is why we have the rule of law. First of all, ethics is nothing but hopeful speculation without imposition of specific rational values. We understand and can argue that a murderer most certainly is not acting in the interests of others because the very act of murder is anti-thetical to that ideal. If someone is then not acting in the interest of others, or not considering the interest of others then despite their beliefs, they are not being moral.

1 - Each individual can decide what is good and bad because morality changes with time and affected by many other factors (advancements, inventions, environment, etc.)
2 - However, everyone should live by what I consider moral or morality is judged by my standards, understanding and criteria.

Not a true reflection. Each individual has the right due to the virtue (hard thought and won for) of freedom of belief to contend specific ideals they consider necessary. Each individual has the right to also express these ideals. The fact that people are capable and allow to think for themselves concerning morality does not mean that they are allowed to then begin imposing this on others. Also, the idea that morality "changes with time" is a misnomer. People change with time, and with knowledge and so ethical contemplation changes because of this.

Also, #2 is rubbish. Ethics is not about telling people how to live.

 

[sister herb]

After reading this thread I wonder:

what atheist waits is his/her fate at hereafter?

Sorry if this is off-topic.

 

[MSalman]

Again you are showing your own arrogance by ignoring the gaping flaws in your argument.

arrogance? flaws? right...whatever flows your boat.

You talk of the daughter like she is property and the consent must be given by the father, not her. What part of 'someone who wishes for other what they wish for themselves' do you not understand? Would you want to be raped? No? Then don't rape others. Simple enough, even if you have some deep-rooted difficulty in identifying with the opposite sex as equal human beings.

the analogy I presented works perfectly fine with your criteria of how we should live. but the fact is that your lack in common sense doens't allow you to grasp the point. Let us reword it: "So if a man doesn't someone raping him then he can go ahead and rape someone else". Secondly, you have no criteria to say it with surety that X is objectively moral or immoral because it is simply your perception which holds no value.

1. 'Check' this? Are you so far gone from your own internal moral compass and dependant upon scripture to tell you right from wrong that without it you would not know otherwise??

it seems you have reading comprehension problems. I asked how are we going to check and make sure that one is not doing an act of "good" without desiring anything in return. Because according to you 100% goodness is achieved when someones performs an act of "good" without desiring something in return.

As far your point, then it again displays inconsistency within your methodology. "Do not follow what scriptures say and stop appealing to God but appeal to my criteria/standards and understand things how I understand. Although I am limited in intellect and knowledge, I am capable of deriving truth and false"

That is right, I take everything from the scripture because unlike you I recognize my shortcomings and do not act arrogantly and claim that I can derive morality myself. When God is most knowledgeable and wise and we are not then it rational to follow what He says instead of acting arrogantly and trying to take His place.

Well at least you have now shown your true colours. Anyone who is not a god does not have a valid opinion? Fair enough.

true colours? When was I hiding my "true" colours? Really, try to make some sense!

I see that logic is too much for you and that you would rather blindly accept something as 'just', namely the Hereafter.

it is actually other way around but you are simply too blind to realize it. I have more than enough reasons to believe what I believe. Is there something wrong with so called "blind" following? According to who this is wrong? When did following truth even by the means of blind following become wrong? What is the criteria to judge it? Is it your own personal criteria?

I fear this is due to you and others mentally blocking out the thought of billions of people in endless pain for all eternity, all at the hands of that 'merciful' God - which is not healthy for you.

got something more productive than this typical ranting? Blocking your thoughts? Maybe less straw man and more common sense!

How is that giant rug you keep sweeping all the awkward questions under working out for you?

I didn't know that expsoing the problems in your methodology and challenging it is considered awkward questions. I am asking you to give me a criteria which you are using to say finite crime cannot have a infinite punishment. Your criteria is simply what you personally uphold, which again is not an objective proof or reasoning for your point. I hold the opposite view. Now, how are we going to judge who is right and who is wrong? At least, we cannot do this according to your own methdology because it is subjective from person to person. Hence, what I believe is right in its own way and what you believe is right in its own way and since we reached our conclusions subjectively; therefore, we cannot enforce our ways on others.

By the way, why does it seem that you have no issue with finite acts of good and infinite reward, how come?

There is the human mind and the human heart. Just because your God may not exist does not mean there is not a God, and that there is no such a thing as good and evil.

straw man - when did I say that there is no good and evil? You simply didn't understand what I said and there is no shame in asking if you don't. Try to be humble sometime, it doesn't bite you. I said because you say that morality is subjective then you cannot say with surety that something is objectively morally wrong. Since there is no universal criteria to judge between wrong and right, one cannot say killing is wrong or rape is wrong etc. What I say is right or wrong only according to me and my personal perception is in no way an evidence that what I deem morally wrong or right is itself morally right or wrong.

Law and morality are two different things, and if you did not blindly believe them to be the same thing you would perhaps realise this.

I know I made a mistake; however, many laws are dependent upon morality or more like derived from morality. So let me rephrase myself, according to your methodology if a murderer believes that it is morally right to kill innocent people then it is morally right according to him. And you cannot say that he is morally wrong unless you go back and appeal to a universal criteria and make it judge between you. However, you have no such criteria.

And I think every murderer, unless psychologically impaired, knows deep down he is wrong, unless he murders in the name of a religion, in which case he is a martyr.

that is simply what you think and you can believe in whatever you want.

From your first point I think you have already spectacularly shown both your own your lack of rationality and humanity.

no, you actually displayed more of your lack in common sense and reading comprehension problems.

Morality is affected by inventions?

no, this element is found in your methodology as many of people like you claim that morality changes with time because of new inventions and many other factors. I guess you are different from them if you don't believe in that.

These are not my own standards. I don't have a patent for them. These are the standards most 'heathen' non-religious people live their lives by every day.

I should have made clear that I do interchange between singular and plural 'you' when discussing methodology of people like you. I am well aware of the fact that you are not a loner; however, you don't represent all of you brotherns nor agree with them in everything they say.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Having a high amount of self-esteem is just having a high amount of confidence in yourself in life. I don't get, and I have read your examples where you conclude that it necessitates a contempt or apathy for altruism in the context of choosing it between that and your own self-interest. You did argue that an unjust form of superiority is the root of some of the worst human traits in existence.

I'm afraid you have a somewhat limited definition of self-esteem. In western psychology it goes far beyond merely having confidence in your capabilities. One can be fairly confident in ones capabilities, and still have a very low self-esteem. Of course I grant that there is a relation the other way around, that is if somebody has high self-esteem they will in general be highly self-confident. But it goes way beyond that. It's also about how you see yourself, not only at face value but also in comparison to others, and in terms of superior or inferior. For the relation between self esteem and mankind's capability for altruism/egoism, I refer you to the works of Albert Ellis.

A very honest paragraph.
But there is an interesting conclusion that you could leap to based on the part I highlighted in bold. What of the best muslim and the best non-muslim? The best muslim, might act righteously (or not act immoraly) because of his religious knowledge - whereas the non-muslim still acts righteously in absence of it.

In theory, I would agree with you line of thinking there. However in practice, I doubt if its possible -judging from the Islamic point of view of course- for an non-muslim to act equally righteous as a righteous muslim. My reasons for this:

*) For starters there's the problem of shirk we've been discussing. I don't know if it's possible for an atheist to be completely devoid of shirk (including the hidden shirks like vanity).
*) Secondly each act is judged by its intention. So even if a non-muslim and a muslim act the same, they can still be judged differently due to their intentions.
*) Thirdly, a muslim constantly redeems himself for the small sins which even the best of us make, by acts of worship.​

But as you said, there's the difference in religious knowledge. So in the end we can't judge these cases, and only Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows.

I don't know whether you meant it as hypothetical proposition to the muslims that do claim that muslims are inherently better than non-muslims, or whether you take it as a thoroughly accurate observation.

Yes, it was meant more as a refutation against those who claim that muslims are inherently better. Mind though, that the three things I listed, no longer hold for a "muslim" who would commit shirk. So the comparison between an atheist who commits shirk and a muslim who commits shirk is an accurate observation after-all.

I should like to say that I loathe positive discrimination. I find the concept utterly self-refuting.

I understand your ethical reservations against positive discrimination, however I fear that from a pragmatists point of view we are forced to accept it since in many cases it's the only way to improve an unbalanced situation in short-term policy. My personal opinion even goes further, thinking that this imbalance is inherited by human nature, and thus positive-discrimination is a pragmatic necessity even in long term.

I think in order to set up different sets of rules for different sets of people in order to set up a form of 'equality' then you have missed the point. If different groups have different social rights (do they, by the way?) then the equality would only be from an economic value. What I believe would be more accurate to describe what you talk about would be a system of balance, rather than equality. I regard equality as the attempt to hold everyone equally accountable to the law and give everyone the same opportunities, regardless of beliefs.

Well, allow me to point out some practical problems with that viewpoint.
*) If an employer, requires an equal physical performance of both his male and female employees, even though females only produce half the musscle tissue during workout compared to their male counterparts, would such a demand be just?
*) If a government taxes the income of a healthy person in the same percentage of a disabled person, or a person with high medical costs, would that be fair?
*) If a teacher requires the same efforts and homework out of both an ivy-league student as well as from a minority-group student who lives in poverty?

And indeed, what of atheists or secularists in Islamic Law?

Well there's a difference between Islamic laws which are expected to be enforced by the government, and Islamic laws which are up to the individual to decide whether or not he'll follow them. I think it's self-evident that an atheist or secularist living in an Islamic caliphate would have to abide by the laws which are enforced by the government, just as in a democracy liberals would have to follow the laws of the conservatives when they are in office and vice versa.

I wouldn't say "feeling confident" for that somehow suggests its a type of brainwashing, which it is not. I'd prefer to say that it helps people understand, and serves as a reminder what their purpose is. Of course, that is only one of the many benefits of it. It certainly isn't limited to that.

What else would you say it serves?

The benefits of prayer:
- It is mandatory for muslims, so by doing it one follows his religion, and seeks the pleasure of Allah subahana wa ta'ala.
- Muslims are rewarded for their prayer.
- All the small sins that you made between this prayer and the previous are forgiven by it.
- It is a reminder of our purpose in life, and the meaning of our religion.
- It is a source of spiritual strength and endurance.
- It reduces stress and worries.
- It keeps evil thoughts and acts at bay.
- It brings people together (when they pray together).
- It brings a certain rhythm and regularity in your life (especially helpful for people with to much free time on their hands).
- The physical movements one makes while praying keeps the body limber.
There might be more that I have left out...

There is no compulsion in religion. If even a Muslim isn't forced to leave what is discouraged and do what is encouraged, then why would a non-muslim in an islamic state would be forced to that?

I meant in the eyes of Allah. It is, and all will discover at some point (according to Islam) that indeed it was compulsory. Right?

The status of discouraged/encouraged acts is quite complex, and I am hardly qualified to explain the subtle difference between fard (compulsory); wajib (compulsory, but less severe when not followed) and sunnah (encouraged, but only preferable not compulsory). What I can say though is that these classes exist, and thus obviously there are differences between them.

An honest, but somewhat troubling answer from my perspective. The reasons I find answers like this troubling are because in it is laced a subservient disposition towards what Allah decrees (I see this, by the way in Christians and indeed in some Jews as well). In that, I should ask you would it matter whether you should know why the hellfire is eternal and painful? You have faith and confidence that it is indeed just because of (I assume) your position that God is and cannot not be in any sense of the word unjust. So with that in mind, does the fact that some things pertaining to his decisions are not known?

Well as I said -and as you agreed to judging from your reply- there is no universal method or criteria for us to judge this by. At best what we can do is approach the subject emotionally. And when approaching this emotionally, I am inclined to consider it just. I had considered these issues even before converting to Islam; and found in my emotional approach to this subject no restriction for accepting Islam. So in that sense my position is no different from yours. So I don't see why I, with my position would be more in need of any rational justification than you with yours. As I said, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

Well I cannot be expected to dictate or present an ideal of heaven. It is not my belief. Irrespectively, it would certainly be an incompatibility to its traditional concept. I will add though, that since my first post on this thread I have stated that my issues with the concept of hell and in general unbelievers possible presence there is not due to any expectancy of entering heaven, but due to specific issues with hell.

Point taken. You're right, one does not necessitate the other. ^_^

Well, firstly as you may know - from my perspective the universe in general is rather disinterested in our affairs and is happy to send a nearby comet into our atmosphere if necessary. It has no concept of 'justice' (which I view as an exclusively human concept of unfairness to other life) and so indeed, life is unfair. And indeed, if those who were 'unfair' were not cautioned for their actions then unfair it would be. So I would grant you this.

Then I take it you'd be forced to also agree, that a higher consciousness who would balance out this unfairness to make it just, would in itself also be just?

Would God be the most just, if he doesn't punish in the hereafter those who were unjust in this world?
I don't think punishment has any intrinsic claim to or a part of justice. Understanding why people commit certain acts and removing them from society to protect others is justice. Attempting to rehabilitate them to bring them back into society is justice. Causing them suffering for what they did is all too similar to sadism.

Well there should from an ethical/philosophical point of view be a difference between peer-to-peer crime/punishment on one hand, and Creator-to-created crime/punishment. From the Islamic point of view, our physical bodies are a sort of loan, and even our souls are in a sense property of Allah subhana wa ta'ala. If we belong to him, we can rightfully be treated as he sees best fit. And I don't mean that as a premise for which his judgement is just. For I believe that Allah subhana wa ta'ala is the most just despite that! In other words, even though we belong to him, and Allah subhana wa ta'ala could rightfully do with us as he pleases, he still chose to treat us in the most just way.

That has not been revealed. We only know that that is the purpose of our creation, we don't know Allah subhana wa ta'ala's motive for that purpose. However we do know that he does not in any form need or depend upon this worship.

Okay. You made a similar point to this earlier on concerning the eternality of hellfire, and the question I asked them remains on this.

My reply is somewhat similar to the previous, since I don't consider this concept troublesome to my viewpoints, I4m more then happy to wait until the hereafter for understanding in this subject.

Are you asking about if God wishes to maintain his existence or if we wish to maintain ours? Perhaps you could rephrase to clarify what you're asking here?

I am asking if you wish to maintain yours, and for what reason. Adoration of Allah or self-interest?

My answer would be both. I am thankfull to Allah subhana wa ta'ala for the many gifts he has given me and I hope to worship him not only in the present but also in the future. However I also have in me a natural self-preservation instinct. And as long as I keep that within certain boundaries; and keep from exceeding in it there is nothing sinful or worrisome about these perfectly natural emotions.

It would be a realistic reaction for people who were, heh, as you might say "positive self-esteem" materialists. I don't think it would be true of people who believe divine guidance exists.

I do think it's possible for people to genuinely believe in something, yet at the same time act contradictory to it. However I'll grant that as the conviction would increase in strength, and more importantly as the knowledge regarding it increases, then the described contradictory behaviour would indeed decrease.

I don't agree with thought-crime, or rather the idea that you ought to be punished or held accountable by what you think.

Me neither, it is not the thought itself that is sinfull. Thoughts come and go often outside our will, and as you pointed out it would be irrational for us to be held accountable for them. But as I have tried to illustrate in my previous posts, this is not merely an issue of what one thinks, but also about to what extend people allow their personal preferences to guide them despite their thoughts, or even to allow these selfish preferences to form their thoughts.

At first, when it is only at the subconsciuos level. It is not really a "choice" already, but more of an inclination which causes you to tune out certain things and focus on others. You build your world view on these inclination of desires/need/urges/morality/shame and so on. By the time you cognitively "choose" the worldview is already half built, and the subsequent deduction and faith (or absence of it) seems inevitable.

This description does not appear to be in favour of the idea that world-views or belief systems are of choice.
What is the inclination based on?

It seems you caught me using a double standard regarding the semantic value of the world choice. My apologies for the confusion. So I'll try to clarify without using the word choice:

What I meant was that we subconsciously incline toward a world view. In this process we allow either our sense of morality, shame, conscience or on the other hand our lust, needs, preferences to lead the way. And because of that, we are in a certain amount thus accountable for our viewpoints.​

For a more concrete hypothetical example. Say that a child who is first confronted with a dilemma between conscience and preference, chooses for preference and in so chooses to in the future make the same choice. If then later on in life that same person would come to decide whether or not religion is plausible, then it could be that the religious option is already cut off because of his already undermined and undeveloped conscience, a result of his previous choice. So on one hand you could claim that at this point it is no longer a choice, since only one outcome was possible despite the person's best efforts; however it was based on an earlier choice which the person can be held accountable for. So it is a choice and it is an inclination, it is both and it is neither. It's a complex balance of emotions and ratio, of all the decisions and choices one makes throughout life, interwoven in a paradigm.

I'm not sure how to respond to this. Your process appears to argue that a world view is built upon non-rational things (desires, needs, urges etc). I would contend that the things I describe are simply a different way of putting what you put. The inclination of 'desire' is what contributes to placebo effects and enables a confirmation bias. Your 'needs' can certainly enflame the former and your urges appears to be a more carnal form of 'desire'.

Well, what I meant was that the case where people's inclinations contradict their statements/expressed views are only a very specific group. The subconscious inclinations can go both ways. There are not only feelings of desires, needs and urges which but also feelings of morality, conscience and shame which can guide someone towards theism. There are a lot of atheists and theists whoms inclinations are in agreement with their expressed views.

And yes, whilst I believe that is somewhat of a unformity towards the definition of 'faith'. I understand that it effects people in different ways and in different manners. I still believe it is often abused as a reason to believe in things, when it can do no such thing.

I find that (some) people tend to abuse practically anything they can. Never underestimate the human capability for abuse ^_^

Yes but most people usually convince themselves of the very thing that they (subconsciously) want to believe. I see this both on theistic side as well as on atheistic side.

I'd like to believe I'm going to get £100. Am I an exception?

I'm not sure whether this is meant as an argument ad absurdum, a mockery or a genuine case-example you wish to put forward.
I'll reply that it's perfectly plausible for people to genuinely convince them of such a believe. However the falsifiability of this faith, and the contradiction by reality will soon keep people in check. There are however no undeniable proofs neither for nor against theism. This faith will only be falsifiable after death. Therefore I argue that the comparison is inapt.

Ps: Starting Monday vacation is over and I'll be back to work, so if we keep up the lengths of our post I'm afraid I'll have to cut down on the frequency of replies.

 

[Skavau]

I'm afraid you have a somewhat limited definition of self-esteem. In western psychology it goes far beyond merely having confidence in your capabilities. One can be fairly confident in ones capabilities, and still have a very low self-esteem. Of course I grant that there is a relation the other way around, that is if somebody has high self-esteem they will in general be highly self-confident. But it goes way beyond that. It's also about how you see yourself, not only at face value but also in comparison to others, and in terms of superior or inferior. For the relation between self esteem and mankind's capability for altruism/egoism, I refer you to the works of Albert Ellis.

Okay, I would look into that.

In theory, I would agree with you line of thinking there. However in practice, I doubt if its possible -judging from the Islamic point of view of course- for an non-muslim to act equally righteous as a righteous muslim. My reasons for this:

*) For starters there's the problem of shirk we've been discussing. I don't know if it's possible for an atheist to be completely devoid of shirk (including the hidden shirks like vanity).

But surely some acts of 'shirk' would be consequences of non-belief in god?

*) Secondly each act is judged by its intention. So even if a non-muslim and a muslim act the same, they can still be judged differently due to their intentions.

Are you going to suggest that an act done in the name of, or for Allah is of more inherent worth than an act done in the name of humanity, or for humanity? I would and I'm sure you know I would, consider something done in the name of us more worthy than Allah even if I believed Allah to exist.

*) Thirdly, a muslim constantly redeems himself for the small sins which even the best of us make, by acts of worship.

I would disagree with a moral necessity to make amends for 'sins' by worship. Or at least if worship if necessary, then it must act as some notification of guilt - and if that is so then all that might be necessary would some statement of guilt, rather than actual worship.

Yes, it was meant more as a refutation against those who claim that muslims are inherently better. Mind though, that the three things I listed, no longer hold for a "muslim" who would commit shirk. So the comparison between an atheist who commits shirk and a muslim who commits shirk is an accurate observation after-all.

Well, of course - these are things rooted in your belief system. I can understand your assumptions rooted in this and understand the internal consistency of your beliefs but have little interest in arguing over them. My intention in discussions on these forums is to attempt to remove people's bigotry and try and get them to understand. I am not interested in converting others, or convincing others - only to understand others on common ground.

You already have that.

But as you said, there's the difference in religious knowledge. So in the end we can't judge these cases, and only Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows.

Sure. These sort of things are a non-answer to me, but I respect the fact that it is beyond your knowledge (as it is to all) in Islam.

I understand your ethical reservations against positive discrimination, however I fear that from a pragmatists point of view we are forced to accept it since in many cases it's the only way to improve an unbalanced situation in short-term policy. My personal opinion even goes further, thinking that this imbalance is inherited by human nature, and thus positive-discrimination is a pragmatic necessity even in long term.

I consider it self-defeating. To destroy equality in the name of equality.

Well, allow me to point out some practical problems with that viewpoint.
*) If an employer, requires an equal physical performance of both his male and female employees, even though females only produce half the musscle tissue during workout compared to their male counterparts, would such a demand be just?
*) If a government taxes the income of a healthy person in the same percentage of a disabled person, or a person with high medical costs, would that be fair?
*) If a teacher requires the same efforts and homework out of both an ivy-league student as well as from a minority-group student who lives in poverty?

I fear you may have misunderstood what I meant by 'equality' (irrespective in #3 the teacher can and will require the same efforts from his or her students if they are all in the same class, the question might be should the students be in the same class?)

An employer is entitled to set up different standards for his employees with guidance from the law. I cannot comment on how physical training groups for events might act. Concerning the taxation example (which is alien to me - we have free health care and every nation ought to), this is where I think you may have missed the point. Islamic Law has different rules for different cultural and social groups based on purely their belief system. There are only exceptions and assistance provided to the wretched based on humanitarian concerns in Secular states. It is at the bedrock stating that opportunity is reserved for different groups, or the level of it. This is my dissent for the inequality there.

Well there's a difference between Islamic laws which are expected to be enforced by the government, and Islamic laws which are up to the individual to decide whether or not he'll follow them. I think it's self-evident that an atheist or secularist living in an Islamic caliphate would have to abide by the laws which are enforced by the government, just as in a democracy liberals would have to follow the laws of the conservatives when they are in office and vice versa.

Okay

The benefits of prayer:
- It is mandatory for muslims, so by doing it one follows his religion, and seeks the pleasure of Allah subahana wa ta'ala.
- Muslims are rewarded for their prayer.
- All the small sins that you made between this prayer and the previous are forgiven by it.
- It is a reminder of our purpose in life, and the meaning of our religion.
- It is a source of spiritual strength and endurance.
- It reduces stress and worries.
- It keeps evil thoughts and acts at bay.
- It brings people together (when they pray together).
- It brings a certain rhythm and regularity in your life (especially helpful for people with to much free time on their hands).
- The physical movements one makes while praying keeps the body limber.
There might be more that I have left out...

I think the majority of these I am simply unable to comment on due to the fact that I have no common ground with them. I think most people of most forums of ritualism, or acts of 'spiritual' nature would contend the majority or similar things to what you claim. I would by the way, invoke the placebo effect in both instances.

Well as I said -and as you agreed to judging from your reply- there is no universal method or criteria for us to judge this by. At best what we can do is approach the subject emotionally. And when approaching this emotionally, I am inclined to consider it just. I had considered these issues even before converting to Islam; and found in my emotional approach to this subject no restriction for accepting Islam. So in that sense my position is no different from yours. So I don't see why I, with my position would be more in need of any rational justification than you with yours. As I said, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

I'm confused by the part in bold. I was remarking directly on a moral statement you said. You stated that you have no idea of the wisdom of eternal torture and yet despite this, you hold full trust that it is just purely because of the infallibility of God. I should like to enquire then (or rather propose in a way) that logically if you take this statement to its conclusion - then all acts and forms of apologetics for Islam become meaningless. If you believe that God is always right, and always trustworthy in everything no matter if we understand or not - then surely reason for moral claims of God is secondary concerning this?

Then I take it you'd be forced to also agree, that a higher consciousness who would balance out this unfairness to make it just, would in itself also be just?

Yes.

Well there should from an ethical/philosophical point of view be a difference between peer-to-peer crime/punishment on one hand, and Creator-to-created crime/punishment. From the Islamic point of view, our physical bodies are a sort of loan, and even our souls are in a sense property of Allah subhana wa ta'ala. If we belong to him, we can rightfully be treated as he sees best fit. And I don't mean that as a premise for which his judgement is just. For I believe that Allah subhana wa ta'ala is the most just despite that! In other words, even though we belong to him, and Allah subhana wa ta'ala could rightfully do with us as he pleases, he still chose to treat us in the most just way.

Interesting. Does this mean you believe that there are moral ideals that Allah strives towards or recognises as above his 'rights'? You state that Allah has the right to commit atrocity onto us should he please (presumably because he can) but then go on to state that he does not because he understands justice.

Does this mean morals are above Allah?

My answer would be both. I am thankfull to Allah subhana wa ta'ala for the many gifts he has given me and I hope to worship him not only in the present but also in the future. However I also have in me a natural self-preservation instinct. And as long as I keep that within certain boundaries; and keep from exceeding in it there is nothing sinful or worrisome about these perfectly natural emotions.

Okay

I do think it's possible for people to genuinely believe in something, yet at the same time act contradictory to it. However I'll grant that as the conviction would increase in strength, and more importantly as the knowledge regarding it increases, then the described contradictory behaviour would indeed decrease.

Okay

Me neither, it is not the thought itself that is sinfull. Thoughts come and go often outside our will, and as you pointed out it would be irrational for us to be held accountable for them. But as I have tried to illustrate in my previous posts, this is not merely an issue of what one thinks, but also about to what extend people allow their personal preferences to guide them despite their thoughts, or even to allow these selfish preferences to form their thoughts.

So the criteria of judgment is now character rather than belief?

For a more concrete hypothetical example. Say that a child who is first confronted with a dilemma between conscience and preference, chooses for preference and in so chooses to in the future make the same choice. If then later on in life that same person would come to decide whether or not religion is plausible, then it could be that the religious option is already cut off because of his already undermined and undeveloped conscience, a result of his previous choice. So on one hand you could claim that at this point it is no longer a choice, since only one outcome was possible despite the person's best efforts; however it was based on an earlier choice which the person can be held accountable for. So it is a choice and it is an inclination, it is both and it is neither. It's a complex balance of emotions and ratio, of all the decisions and choices one makes throughout life, interwoven in a paradigm.

Are children held accountable? (Not a cheap point, just something of note from that)

Also, I don't consider the difference between 'conscience' and 'preference' as something relating to what you believe to be true. Choosing based on conscience to me implies choosing on what you think is right, and choosing on preference to me implies choosing on desire. Neither of these relate to belief, at least not directly.

I'm not sure whether this is meant as an argument ad absurdum, a mockery or a genuine case-example you wish to put forward.
I'll reply that it's perfectly plausible for people to genuinely convince them of such a believe. However the falsifiability of this faith, and the contradiction by reality will soon keep people in check. There are however no undeniable proofs neither for nor against theism. This faith will only be falsifiable after death. Therefore I argue that the comparison is inapt.

Ps: Starting Monday vacation is over and I'll be back to work, so if we keep up the lengths of our post I'm afraid I'll have to cut down on the frequency of replies.

It was no attempt at ad absurdum, it was a crude and simple example I agree - but indeed, you've answered my point I was trying to make. The contradiction by reality keeps people in check. This is why people cannot just believe in things arbitrarily or because they want it to be true, because reality exists and is held up as a standard to what you don't believe and do believe (or it ought to). It is a common cliche that "ignorance is bliss", but it is not truly. Test that by successfully convincing someone that their utopian ideals are farcical, or false. They still have their ignorance, but the contradiction with reality creates an uncomfortable state of cognitive dissonance. The true term would be a comfortabling belief system is bliss.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi Skavau,
I fear that in most of our arguments we have passed the realm of things which can be addressed by logical and rational argument, and so my replies will have evolved into small rants as opposed to arguments. I hope you'll bare with me.

But surely some acts of 'shirk' would be consequences of non-belief in god?

Non-belief would obviously play a role in it, but I wouldn't go as far as saying that it will be the sole contributor, and that thus non-believers could hide responsibility behind their non-belief.

Are you going to suggest that an act done in the name of, or for Allah is of more inherent worth than an act done in the name of humanity, or for humanity? I would and I'm sure you know I would, consider something done in the name of us more worthy than Allah even if I believed Allah to exist.

What about a righteous act done with the intention of being praised? Or a righteous act for the purpose of being accepted. I'll fall back on Ellis' work again. Any righteous act will either be selfish or done by a person with low self-esteem. So if we're talking about an atheist, who acts righteous due to a low self-esteem, and who commits no shirk then I would think Allah subhana wa ta'ala would quickly guide such a person to Islam. And I also think any person with those characteristics would be quick to accept Islam if it is explained properly.

I would disagree with a moral necessity to make amends for 'sins' by worship. Or at least if worship if necessary, then it must act as some notification of guilt - and if that is so then all that might be necessary would some statement of guilt, rather than actual worship.

The normal means of redeeming is indeed by admitting guilt and asking for forgiveness, and sometimes even requires undoing what you did wrong. (like saying paying the debts you refused to pay before). And for the big sins, this is the only way to seek forgiveness. That we are forgiven small sins between prayers is sort of an extra mercy that Allah subhana wa ta'ala bestowed on muslims.

I understand your ethical reservations against positive discrimination, however I fear that from a pragmatists point of view we are forced to accept it since in many cases it's the only way to improve an unbalanced situation in short-term policy. My personal opinion even goes further, thinking that this imbalance is inherited by human nature, and thus positive-discrimination is a pragmatic necessity even in long term.

I consider it self-defeating. To destroy equality in the name of equality.

You say that positive discrimination destroys equality, but how can it be destroyed if it doesn't exist in the first place? If it is merely a concept, a hypothetical which is nowhere to be found in reality, then how can positive discrimination possibly destroy it?

I fear you may have misunderstood what I meant by 'equality' (irrespective in #3 the teacher can and will require the same efforts from his or her students if they are all in the same class, the question might be should the students be in the same class?)

So equality for you means to have different schools for the wealthy and the poor? To reinforce the social classes and the gap between them?

An employer is entitled to set up different standards for his employees with guidance from the law. I cannot comment on how physical training groups for events might act.

So unequal treatment is allowed as long as the law backs it up?

Concerning the taxation example (which is alien to me - we have free health care and every nation ought to)

So you agree that it is desirable that an unequal part of the national funds are used for different citizens (sick vs. healthy).

this is where I think you may have missed the point. Islamic Law has different rules for different cultural and social groups based on purely their belief system. There are only exceptions and assistance provided to the wretched based on humanitarian concerns in Secular states. It is at the bedrock stating that opportunity is reserved for different groups, or the level of it. This is my dissent for the inequality there.

Islam does not have different rules based on cultural and social groups. The only differences are between muslim and non-muslim, and between male and female. And that has nothing to do with sociology or culture. Furthermore, I fear it is you who failed to understand my point. What I am arguing is, that the equality you speak of, is a pipe dream. That even in Western government which proclaims equality for all you can find in-equal rules based on differences such as: health, wealth, and even ethical minority/majority. That in the most cases these laws are created to balance an in-equality intrinsic to society. And further that the difference in Shariah are just the same. Basically what this comes down to is that you argue that it is acceptable when based on difference like wealth, or health, but not fair for differences like belief or gender. I ask you then, why? If the purpose is the same, namely to balance out an intrinsic in-equality of society? Why do these laws suddenly become so problematic, while the other ones are al-right? I strongly suspect that the reason you find this troublesome lies not in Islam, or Islamic history itself, but rather in Western history. In Western history we find that these differences like gender and belief have often been abused on a wide scale. And I suspect that the reason most Western thinkers find Islamic shariah offensive is due to a projection of their own history, and an irrational fear that shariah will lead to similar injustices as the western history went trough. At this point I'd like to remind you that these different laws in Shariah are very limited, to very specific situations, and quite innocent actually in the greater scheme of governments. And more importantly perhaps, these laws in shariah do not justify the creation of new unequal laws as the rulers see fit.

Well as I said -and as you agreed to judging from your reply- there is no universal method or criteria for us to judge this by. At best what we can do is approach the subject emotionally. And when approaching this emotionally, I am inclined to consider it just. I had considered these issues even before converting to Islam; and found in my emotional approach to this subject no restriction for accepting Islam. So in that sense my position is no different from yours. So I don't see why I, with my position would be more in need of any rational justification than you with yours. As I said, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

I'm confused by the part in bold. I was remarking directly on a moral statement you said. You stated that you have no idea of the wisdom of eternal torture and yet despite this, you hold full trust that it is just purely because of the infallibility of God. I should like to enquire then (or rather propose in a way) that logically if you take this statement to its conclusion - then all acts and forms of apologetics for Islam become meaningless. If you believe that God is always right, and always trustworthy in everything no matter if we understand or not - then surely reason for moral claims of God is secondary concerning this?

I don't think that's an accurate representation of my viewpoints. First of all, while I admit there's a barrier to my knowledge and my capabilities to judge things, you 're forced to admit the same. There is no criterion or logical, rational case that you can make against the justness of eternal punishment for the wicked. As I repeatedly said, at best what we can do is judge this issue emotionally. And when we do that we already differ. Because as I said, even before I converted to Islam, I found no emotional reservation in this. From my emotional judgement, this would be just. So by what authority is one persons emotional judgement better then the next? Especially if the subject is beyond the scope of rational logical argument. If then, after realising this barrier, I comment that I have faith that Allah subhana wa ta'ala is teh most just, then that should have no bearing on our differences. Especially since I mentioned I had already pondered this issue before I converted (thus without religious bias) and came to the same conclusion as I come now. You're asking me for a logical and rational justification of something faith-based which is merely an enrichment of viewpoints, viewpoints which are beyond the barrier of both of our rational and logical powers of deduction and analyses.

Well there should from an ethical/philosophical point of view be a difference between peer-to-peer crime/punishment on one hand, and Creator-to-created crime/punishment. From the Islamic point of view, our physical bodies are a sort of loan, and even our souls are in a sense property of Allah subhana wa ta'ala. If we belong to him, we can rightfully be treated as he sees best fit. And I don't mean that as a premise for which his judgement is just. For I believe that Allah subhana wa ta'ala is the most just despite that! In other words, even though we belong to him, and Allah subhana wa ta'ala could rightfully do with us as he pleases, he still chose to treat us in the most just way.

Interesting. Does this mean you believe that there are moral ideals that Allah strives towards or recognises as above his 'rights'? You state that Allah has the right to commit atrocity onto us should he please (presumably because he can) but then go on to state that he does not because he understands justice.
Does this mean morals are above Allah?

I'm not quite sure I understand your question. To me the question seems at first sight nonsensical. Morality is concept to define characteristics of actions/beliefs. To ask if morals are above Allah seems to me similar like asking if beauty is above art, if language is above communication, if numbers are above math. How can a concept, be above an entity? What would then be the semantic meaning of "above" be? In what type would a concept have superiority over an entity?
If you would have asked if there is a higher order which through whatever means enforces morality upon God, then obviously the answer is no. God is omnipotent, and thus nothing can be enforced on him. The characteristics of being just are either intrinsic to him, or completely by choice and preference. Whichever the case, I don't think this implies some form of inferiority to the concept itself. Perhaps as argument ad absurdum I could reply, if you choose to be happy does that mean happiness is above you? Again, the question seems not to make sense to me.

Me neither, it is not the thought itself that is sinfull. Thoughts come and go often outside our will, and as you pointed out it would be irrational for us to be held accountable for them. But as I have tried to illustrate in my previous posts, this is not merely an issue of what one thinks, but also about to what extend people allow their personal preferences to guide them despite their thoughts, or even to allow these selfish preferences to form their thoughts.

So the criteria of judgement is now character rather than belief?

Every person is judged by the actions he makes, and every action by its intention. so it's our intention that matters. And if we allow our needs and urges to guide our religious views, due to selfish intentions, then that means such is an act by which we can be judged.

Are children held accountable? (Not a cheap point, just something of note from that)

People are accountable to the extend that they have matured. A child who follows his personal urges because he knows no morality is obviously not accountable. A child however who starts to have an intuitive understanding of it, gradually becomes accountable for his choices. That being said, it is extremely difficult, from a psychological point of view, to pinpoint at what age this development reaches a tiping point, where a child should by all logic be accountable for the things he understand. It's even further difficult to know what he does and what he doesn't understand. Not to mention that each individual develops at his/her own pace.

Also, I don't consider the difference between 'conscience' and 'preference' as something relating to what you believe to be true. Choosing based on conscience to me implies choosing on what you think is right, and choosing on preference to me implies choosing on desire. Neither of these relate to belief, at least not directly.

True, but it does relate to moral vs. immoral choices. And as I explained in the example, it is my conviction that the choice we make determines a path. And that such a path will either lead us towards or away from religion. So yes, we don't choose our religious views directly. But they are a result of a conscious decision of "right and wrong" if I may.

It was no attempt at ad absurdum, it was a crude and simple example I agree - but indeed, you've answered my point I was trying to make. The contradiction by reality keeps people in check. This is why people cannot just believe in things arbitrarily or because they want it to be true, because reality exists and is held up as a standard to what you don't believe and do believe (or it ought to).

But reality does not contradict faith, as it would in your example. quite the contrary millions of people speak of prayers being answered, miraculous events and consistency of believes and reality. Of course I'll take it you'll have a whole arsenal of alternative explanation for all of these things. But my point remains, reality does not contradict our beliefs. And our beliefs are certainly not arbitrary.

It is a common cliche that "ignorance is bliss", but it is not truly. Test that by successfully convincing someone that their utopian ideals are farcical, or false. They still have their ignorance, but the contradiction with reality creates an uncomfortable state of cognitive dissonance. The true term would be a comfortable belief system is bliss.

I certainly didn't convert to Islam to escape reality. And I think I have sufficiently demonstrated that despite my paradigm being admittedly circular and biased, I am still very much capable of unbiased argument, analysis and deductions. I think your statement here stems from a stereotypical viewpoint of how atheists look upon theists. Well at least it is the way that I used to look at theists back when I was an atheist. But I can assure you that it certainly isn't an accurate representation.

 

[Skavau]

I fear that in most of our arguments we have passed the realm of things which can be addressed by logical and rational argument, and so my replies will have evolved into small rants as opposed to arguments. I hope you'll bare with me.

Okay

Non-belief would obviously play a role in it, but I wouldn't go as far as saying that it will be the sole contributor, and that thus non-believers could hide responsibility behind their non-belief.

Okay

What about a righteous act done with the intention of being praised? Or a righteous act for the purpose of being accepted. I'll fall back on Ellis' work again. Any righteous act will either be selfish or done by a person with low self-esteem. So if we're talking about an atheist, who acts righteous due to a low self-esteem, and who commits no shirk then I would think Allah subhana wa ta'ala would quickly guide such a person to Islam. And I also think any person with those characteristics would be quick to accept Islam if it is explained properly.

I see no difference in self-interest with the intention of being praised by Allah and with the intention of being praised by your community. If anything, the being praised by Allah has more worth if Islam is accepted - and therefore that would be far more indicative of self-interest.

But in general, I don't believe it is true that everyone does good acts for their own gain, in some form or another. We know that altruism and empathy really do guide people's actions.

The normal means of redeeming is indeed by admitting guilt and asking for forgiveness, and sometimes even requires undoing what you did wrong. (like saying paying the debts you refused to pay before). And for the big sins, this is the only way to seek forgiveness. That we are forgiven small sins between prayers is sort of an extra mercy that Allah subhana wa ta'ala bestowed on muslims.

See, this is another untouched issue I didn't get into or comment on. The culture of shame, or inherent guilt (for existing?) that appears so prevalent in both Islam and Christianity (although primarily fundamentalist christianity). I can't abide the claim that we are all inherently sinful and worthy of discard with much seriousness. We are, if the claims of Islam and Christianity are true created as imperfect beings - and by that mean we have the capacity to fail, the inability to know and do everything. God though, would have always known this and would have always known the consequences of this. He indeed created us as this or with the knowledge we would become this.

I see only the incompetence or petulance of the designer here. And that is not an insult to your beliefs, merely a critical observation. It is like baking a cake with cherries on and then complaining, when it comes out that it has cherries on.

You say that positive discrimination destroys equality, but how can it be destroyed if it doesn't exist in the first place? If it is merely a concept, a hypothetical which is nowhere to be found in reality, then how can positive discrimination possibly destroy it?

True equality arguably cannot exist (although I'm not sure what one would argue true equality is - probably transhumanism would be necessary for it) but invoking positive discrimination as means to empower others at the necessary consequence of ignoring and discriminating against others does not in the long term, in my opinion work nor does it do anything for equality.

So equality for you means to have different schools for the wealthy and the poor? To reinforce the social classes and the gap between them?

Uh, no. You misread what I meant. If someone is not capable of keeping up with a specific class requirements then they should be moved to a lower class fitted to their abilities (as was and is here). Same school, lower tier class out of about 3 or 4 tiers. Concerning social classes, no I do not believe we should discriminate between social classes.

So unequal treatment is allowed as long as the law backs it up?

An employer is allowed to say employ several people for a specific role, or similar roles and give them different duties in that role. That is what I meant. So if a coach feels that women cannot physically keep up with a man, and decides accordingly that their training should be less or the same - that is up to the coach and up to the women to protest if they feel it is unfair.

So you agree that it is desirable that an unequal part of the national funds are used for different citizens (sick vs. healthy).

I accept the importance of National Health Care for humanitarian reasons. I think you have a rather strange understanding of equality which I can only compare to a strange interpretation of Communism. When I talk about equality I am referring to human rights. Everyone ought to have the same rights.

Islam does not have different rules based on cultural and social groups. The only differences are between muslim and non-muslim, and between male and female. And that has nothing to do with sociology or culture. Furthermore, I fear it is you who failed to understand my point. What I am arguing is, that the equality you speak of, is a pipe dream. That even in Western government which proclaims equality for all you can find in-equal rules based on differences such as: health, wealth, and even ethical minority/majority. That in the most cases these laws are created to balance an in-equality intrinsic to society. And further that the difference in Shariah are just the same. Basically what this comes down to is that you argue that it is acceptable when based on difference like wealth, or health, but not fair for differences like belief or gender. I ask you then, why? If the purpose is the same, namely to balance out an intrinsic in-equality of society? Why do these laws suddenly become so problematic, while the other ones are al-right? I strongly suspect that the reason you find this troublesome lies not in Islam, or Islamic history itself, but rather in Western history. In Western history we find that these differences like gender and belief have often been abused on a wide scale. And I suspect that the reason most Western thinkers find Islamic shariah offensive is due to a projection of their own history, and an irrational fear that shariah will lead to similar injustices as the western history went trough. At this point I'd like to remind you that these different laws in Shariah are very limited, to very specific situations, and quite innocent actually in the greater scheme of governments. And more importantly perhaps, these laws in shariah do not justify the creation of new unequal laws as the rulers see fit.

You'll have to explain what imbalances specifically exist in beliefs for them to require inequal laws or propositions. And you'll have to explain the necessary differences in gender that require contrasting laws.

I don't think that's an accurate representation of my viewpoints. First of all, while I admit there's a barrier to my knowledge and my capabilities to judge things, you 're forced to admit the same. There is no criterion or logical, rational case that you can make against the justness of eternal punishment for the wicked.

I have made a logical and rational case. Firstly, that any 'crimes' that someone may have committed to end up in a position of eternal torture are all crimes of a finite nature. By this statement, and indeed you ought to appreciate this as you are yourself keen on 'balance' - it is unbalanced at the very least to punish them eternally.

Also it makes no sense. What purpose does eternal vanquish serve other than the none-too-subtle sadism possibility?

These are my two main problems when you don't consider the possibility that your thoughts or disposition might be the deciding factor of this punishment. I know that you contend otherwise on that, so I won't include those as criticisms.

And I will note further than indeed these criticisms of mine cannot be 'objective' or 'unquestionable'. Objective morality, be it under a god or under no god cannot exist. To make an ethical claim is to simply state that a specific behaviour is preferable than another behaviour or other behaviours based on how it effects others. It was what one ought or ought not do based on the impact of others. It is always a judgment call based on others. It cannot be objective anymore than there can be an objective favourite colour.

But mind, objective =/= rational.

Especially if the subject is beyond the scope of rational logical argument. If then, after realising this barrier, I comment that I have faith that Allah subhana wa ta'ala is teh most just, then that should have no bearing on our differences. Especially since I mentioned I had already pondered this issue before I converted (thus without religious bias) and came to the same conclusion as I come now. You're asking me for a logical and rational justification of something faith-based which is merely an enrichment of viewpoints, viewpoints which are beyond the barrier of both of our rational and logical powers of deduction and analyses.

Actually, I have no qualms with your honesty on this issue. I asked a specific question several pages ago. You conceded you had no answer to the question of eternal torture for finite crimes, but then stated that despite this you hold trust and faith in Allah on this issues irrespectively.

So my question is, does it to you matter if Allah rationalises his moral decisions? Is that an important aspect of your belief?

I'm not quite sure I understand your question. To me the question seems at first sight nonsensical. Morality is concept to define characteristics of actions/beliefs. To ask if morals are above Allah seems to me similar like asking if beauty is above art, if language is above communication, if numbers are above math. How can a concept, be above an entity? What would then be the semantic meaning of "above" be? In what type would a concept have superiority over an entity?

Does Allah 'answer' to morality? You said that Allah has the right to treat us how he pleases, but unlike most Muslims on this issue - you specifically said that this was not a moral argument for Allah's wrath or power but purely an argument that he could if he so chooses to. You then said that, and I quote: "In other words, even though we belong to him, and Allah subhana wa ta'ala could rightfully do with us as he pleases, he still chose to treat us in the most just way."

This is the age old euthyphro dilemma. Does Allah command something because it is good, or is it moral because Allah commands it? That was what I was hinting towards.

If you would have asked if there is a higher order which through whatever means enforces morality upon God, then obviously the answer is no. God is omnipotent, and thus nothing can be enforced on him. The characteristics of being just are either intrinsic to him, or completely by choice and preference.

So you have answered the above dilemma. Whatever Allah commands is good. Whether or not he has specific characteristics here is irrelevent to the point here - since you would have no way of determining anything Allah does as a consequence of this as unjust. If Allah embodies justice and is omnipotent then what right or ability would you have to question anything he does?

Whichever the case, I don't think this implies some form of inferiority to the concept itself. Perhaps as argument ad absurdum I could reply, if you choose to be happy does that mean happiness is above you? Again, the question seems not to make sense to me.

I phrased it badly.

Every person is judged by the actions he makes, and every action by its intention. so it's our intention that matters. And if we allow our needs and urges to guide our religious views, due to selfish intentions, then that means such is an act by which we can be judged.

Okay

People are accountable to the extend that they have matured. A child who follows his personal urges because he knows no morality is obviously not accountable. A child however who starts to have an intuitive understanding of it, gradually becomes accountable for his choices. That being said, it is extremely difficult, from a psychological point of view, to pinpoint at what age this development reaches a tiping point, where a child should by all logic be accountable for the things he understand. It's even further difficult to know what he does and what he doesn't understand. Not to mention that each individual develops at his/her own pace

Okay

True, but it does relate to moral vs. immoral choices. And as I explained in the example, it is my conviction that the choice we make determines a path. And that such a path will either lead us towards or away from religion. So yes, we don't choose our religious views directly. But they are a result of a conscious decision of "right and wrong" if I may.

So you contend that all beliefs on what is stem from what a balance between what someone ought and ought not do?

But reality does not contradict faith, as it would in your example.

Reality can contradict faith. If I have faith that say, a friend will not be sentenced in court - and they then get sentenced in court, then it would've be contradicted. But I do take your point that faith (setting itself in general as an unfalsifiable statement of hope) almost cannot be contradicted - but it can be labelled as absurd.

quite the contrary millions of people speak of prayers being answered, miraculous events and consistency of believes and reality. Of course I'll take it you'll have a whole arsenal of alternative explanation for all of these things. But my point remains, reality does not contradict our beliefs. And our beliefs are certainly not arbitrary.

I would wager for millions that they certainly don't believe that their faith has been contradicted by reality. This is why I don't contend that 'ignorance is bliss' is necessarily true. If you become aware of your ignorance, then the fact it was used to promote and favour a utopian worldview no longer matters and pales in comparison to the effects of cognitive dissonance.

Concerning miracles... well, that's several paragraphs in itself. People are certainly selective about what is a miracle. The one survivor of a plane crash is a miracle by God, and yet the 200 other deceased passengers - many of religious piety are what? Friendly fire? Collateral damage? Perhaps you could say God works in mysterious ways or had no involvment? But did have involvement in the lone survivor? People selectively look for things to contend as miracles (often explainable, improbable or the work of good people) and then contend that anything that is disastrous is our punishment, our fault, or perhaps just natural in itself (despite how improbable). The irony is there in that they will dismiss naturalistic explanations for 'miracles' but then accept them for disasters.

I certainly didn't convert to Islam to escape reality. And I think I have sufficiently demonstrated that despite my paradigm being admittedly circular and biased, I am still very much capable of unbiased argument, analysis and deductions. I think your statement here stems from a stereotypical viewpoint of how atheists look upon theists. Well at least it is the way that I used to look at theists back when I was an atheist. But I can assure you that it certainly isn't an accurate representation.

I never contended you converted to Islam to escape reality. I said that people who have their desired beliefs stumped by reality go into cognitive dissonance. It was an argument against the claim that ignorance is bliss. I don't believe you consider your belief troubled, or nor do I believe you are in a state of cognitive dissonance.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi Skavau,
I hope you don't take this personal. But I feel it no longer serves any purpose to continue this debate. I've given you all the pieces of the puzzle to work my viewpoints out, and see their consistency. And while you have accepted some, you have rejected others based on your personal views. This is off course your prerogative, but the end result is that we'd be running back and forth in circles from here-on.
Add to that, that I'm a slightly bit disappointed in your narrow-minded responses in the thread about the cartoons. So, with all respect, I really don't feel like like taking this any further.
Hope you can understand.

 

[boriqee]

i would like to interject between skavao and abdul-fattah on just one itty bitty topic

Would these immoral actions be in the context of Islam? By this I mean that could you reasonably demonstrate to me, a non-theist the validity of those claims?

Well, yes, perhaps if certain people were born with an above higher than average intelligence they would be wrong in holding a certain amount of pride about it - but, I wouldn't class it as immoral nor necessarily inevitable that it would lead to selfish behaviour (it could lead to more confidence, and ergo more success).

But accepting this argument here, what does this have to do with say, the traditional 'shirk'? The worship of idols or multiple beings? Remember that polytheists are sincere. They honestly believe they have the truth as much as you do.

outside of abdul-fattah's more than capable ability of entertaining a discussion with you, I wanted to interject on an erroneous notion and the fact of me not coming across abdul-fattah's articulation of the answer to the "moralness" of shirk

I say that the issue of worshipping others along with God is not a matter of solely moral ground.

In order for an atheist to picture this concept, the best example that can be brought forth is the example of a parent to a child.

In the case of a parent and child, here we have a child whom the parent birthed, took care of, protected it, ensured the proper care was given to nurture the child. Now, this child has only been nutured, raised, and cared for solely and ONLY by the parent. Keep this in mind. Then one day after the child grows up, the child decides to tell its parent

1. you are not my parent, I don't known you (atheism)
or
2. I think these other people are my parents, they do things for me so I will treat them LIKE I treat my parents. (shirk)

anyone can see the inherent problem with the above two mentalities. Whether one sees a lot, little, or no morality within the above two mentalities is not the issue, rather what IS the issue is the problematic nature of these actions in and of themselves regardless of ethics.

The same application is applied in terms of religion. The only difference is in the nature and relationshiep of the two entities i.e. the worshipper and the Worshiped.

God conscientiously Wills for every aspect of our nourishment to take place. every heart beat in our body only beats because it is given its permission by Him who wills it. every speck of benefit we intake is ordained for us. God formed the bodies and minds, blessed it with the five physical senses and blessed us with the metaphysical sense or faculty called the intellect, and then we would have the audacity to
1. use our brains that He gave us to absolutely deny His existence
or
2. to attribute our worship to others that ARE NOT DESERVING of worship.

This is the fundamental aspect of where the concept of shirk lies.

Islam does not negate that there are other Gods. In fact, in one verse in the Qur'an, Allah renders the desires of man as a god. So in reality, there are many gods people can have. The ONLY thing that Islam brings to the table is whether any of them DESERVE our worship or not. That is the fundamental aspect between shirk and its antithesis, tawheed.

pardon me if any of you felt like I intruded in your conversation, but I felt obligated to bring these points

regards

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Selam aleykum Al-Izaaree,
If you would have bothered to read all of my posts, before making a judgement of whether or not my replies is adequate; then you would have seen that I never claimed that shirk is a matter of solely moral ground. However skavau's questions were invitations to debate the ethics and morality of such concepts, thus I limited myself to that aspect of it alone. In fact I even specifically mentioned there was more depth to it, but that I would limit myself to only arguments from a agnostic premise.

 

[boriqee]

asalamu alaikum akh

sorry, for speaking without having familiarity with the previous posts. I reworded the sentence to better articulate my intent. sorry if i offended you