Re: convinced rational muslim
Reply #147 - July 25, 2010, 02:54 PM
Hi Ras111,
As for your question about verses saying that people joining partners to Allah will go to hell. I think it's important to keep in mind the context of those verses. they are general verses with a general message. There are many verses which say people doing this, or people with this characteristic will go to hell. And at the same time many verses saying that people doing that and with those characteristics will go to heaven. This begs the question, what about people who do things from both classes? What about people who have characteristics of both classes? I think the only logical interpretation of these verses is thus, that they are not meant as a tool for us to derive who will go to heaven, and who will go to hell, but that rather these verses were only meant to show which actions and characteristics should be avoided, and which are admirable. Again remember the purpose of the Qur'an is to guide people. So verses saying "these people will go to hell" are not with the purpose of letting us know who'll end up were, but rather are meant to guide us away from a certain type of actions.
As for your question on the difference of a woman's testimony compared to a man's testimony. I think you're referring to the testimony on financial transactions right? Well I think that in general men as opposed to woman have a better memory for numbers. That's not to say there might be some woman with exceptionally good memory for numbers, or some men with exceptionally bad memory for numbers. But in general, I do think this is one of these biological differences between men and woman.
As for the issue of relationships, I think that taking the lead, and having authority are both intertwined, and that you cannot have one without the other. And again, I disagree with your argument that this implies men are superior in value in the eyes of God. In fact many verses in the Qur'an state that men and women are equal in value in the eyes of God. So the issue on leadership in a relation is a practical issue, and not a reflection of their respective value in the eyes of God. Also keep in mind that leadership comes hand in hand with responsibility. So it's not like men get a carte-blanche to do as they see fit. And those who do think that might be questioned about that in the afterlife.
As for your question on why the Qur'an isn't writen in such a way that it would convince everyone. I can't claim to know the motives of GOd, but my best Guess would be that this would defeat the purpose of testing us.
Hi Ras111 & Abz,
Since you both brought forth very similar arguments, I'll respond to both of you at once on this subject.
Regarding the criteria for accepting things as truths. You seem to imply that accepting anything without scientific proof is irrational. So what you are saying in a way is that any faith is by itself already irrational, regardless of what the faith is. I think that's shortsighted. First of all, you seem to be forgetting the subtle differences between "knowing" something and "believing" something. Secondly, not everything which is true can also be proven, so by only believing in things which can be proven, you limit yourself to a whole bunch of truths out there. Thirdly, There are many other reasons, next to scientific proof which might make people accept things as truths. Indications, probabilities and plausibilities, personal experiences, emotional judgment and so on. Now, if you were to object that trough all these different methods, there is a much lower degree of certainty, and false truths can easily sneak in, Id have to admit you're right. However I still consider it rational to accept some things trough these methods from a pragmatists point of view. As I said, some things are simply beyond the scope of science, so I don't think we should limit ourself to accepting only those things which can be proven by science. at least that is the personal choice I made. I off course acknowledge your right to only believe in things that can be proven, or in other words to not "believe" in anything at all.
Hi Ras111 and Olweasel,
You both asked me a similar questions about the apparent contradiction between predestination and free will. So basically how God can be just, if he already knows who will go to hell and who will go to heaven. I think your problem with this is, that you think if God knows in advance, that means he's responsible, right? Well I strongly disagree and consider that a slippery slope deduction. Just because somebody has knowledge of something, doesn't make him responsible for it. I believe God created us with free will, but he knew what we'd do with our free will. Just because he knew, doesn't mean we aren't responsible. If you have children, have you never had a situation were you knew they were about to do mischief, but rather then stopping them, you let them do it and then afterwards confronted them because you realized that this way they'd learn more out of the experience? Were they then not responsible or accountable for their mischief despite as a parent you knew what they were planning? I'd argue the case with pre-destination and punishment and reward, although not the same is still very similar.
Hi Olweasel,l
On the reason I think faith can be simultaneously strong and logical, and why I think those two reinforce each other. Well I can't speak for other people, but for me personally, being raised in a Catholic environment I have a strong resentment against mysticism and the way it tries to shortcut criticism and bypass logic. Therefor to me, the more logical a faith is, the easier it is to accept and the stronger my faith becomes. Likewise, the stronger my personal faith is, the easier it is to think from within the faith-paradigm, and the easier it is to see the logical consistencies.
When I said that I'm fully aware that my views are circular, you asked me then how I affirm the "correctness" of my faith. Well I think you might have misinterpreted my position. In my initial post, when stating that I consider my faith to be perfectly rational; I did not intend to mean by that, that my views are undeniable truths and everyone who opposes them must be false. I believe that two views can be completely opposite, and yet both can be perfectly logical and rational. Logic and rationality only go that far. You cannot build a world view without relying on premises and axioms. And those will always inevitably be biased to some extend. In the end we've no option then to chose our world views based on different criteria. So what I meant by pointing out the rationality of my views, is that my views are different from those who have inconsistent and illogical views, and don't even care about that because of their faith. My faith is different in the sense that I cannot have faith without logical consistency, but I have faith nonetheless because I found this consistency in Islam!
Regarding the problem of evil, I do think that has been sufficiently tackled. the problem though, is that there are many types of evils, and that one scholar might limit his explanation to one type of evil, and another scholar to another, making both of their explanations insufficient. But if you put all these Islamic views toghether, you arrive at a pretty satisfactory reply to the problem of evil.
1. Evil as result of free will. Many evil things comes from mankind's free will. The problem is freedom of Choice. If you believe -like I do- that life is a test; then God would defeat his own purpose by preventing evil! Stopping evil would prevent free will.
2. Necessary (relative) Evil. Of course, not all evil of the world can be traced back to human choices. There is a second type, which I'd like to call relative evils. Because their "evilness" is relative to one's perspective. Death for example, gets a whole new perspective if seen as a transition rather then an end. These are things that serve a purpose. It can be a practical purpose, like the mentioned death in order to transit from one world to the next. But other things as hardship can also have practical benefits. For example, it can teach people. Ever noticed how generally speaking, people who had little or no hardships in their life have a higher tendency to be arrogant? Rightful punishment could be another practical evil. As controversial as some of these might be, the point remains that we can imagine alternative motives, without resorting to judging our creator as malevolent for allowing these "evils".
3. Hardship as a test. And then finally a third type of evil, in general all sorts of hardships and suffering that do not serve a direct purpose in this life. However even these can gain a new perspective if seen in the context of life being a test. There's a huge difference between a poor man who doesn't steal and a rich man who doesn't steal. From that perspective one could consider being poor as a blessing rather then a curse, as it can increase one's reward in the hereafter.
As for your question if I think that Islam is the absolute truth, and anyone who doesn't think so must be misguided or an evil hedonist? I'm a bit surprised you would deduce that out of my statement while I fact what I said was completely different.
Hi Jinn and tonic,
I hope this doesn't come across as disrespectful towards what you've been trough, but since you keep pressing the issue I'd like to take the opportunity to point some things out.
- If the Saudi government imposes unfair rules towards woman, that doesn't mean that Islam is unfair towards woman, or that Islam is false. There is this hadeeth were the prophet mentioned that some time in the future (ie, after the war with the polytheists ended) a woman would be able to perform hajj while only having to fear wild animals. this clearly indicates that woman are allowed to perform hajj on their one as long as the route is safe and secure, as some scholars hold.
- Even if these Saudi imposed rules hindered you from performing hajj, it's unfair to say that they stopped you from worshiping God. If you are unable to perform hajj by factors beyond you. Be that financial needs, or rules enforced by a woman-unfriendly government, then eitherway no blame falls on you and you're perfectly capable of worshiping god in all other methods which we have been thought in the Qur'an and sunnah.
- Just because a large majority of Muslims have a different view, doesn't mean that theirs is the correct one, and I'm just wishful thinking. every opinion I hold, was formed based on arguments and source.
Hi Homer,
It's not that I don't want to elaborate on your question, it's just that I've already got my hands full with this thread to reply to such "open questions". I'm not quite sure what exactly you're inquiring after. Furthermore I'm pretty sure that anything I'll post will probably create an avalanche of replies, so for the moment I think I prefer keeping it on the defensive and replying to these direct questions. Then when things cool down a bit, I might venture into different threads and voice my opinion occasionally.
Hi Prince Spinoza,
My views on infant deaths, and hell and heaven, they are all derived from my faith, not the other way around that my faith is derived from my views on these issues. So yes, my views will obviously will be circular. I never denied that. I've chosen a paradigm because to me it seems the most logical and consistent, but in the end it is a faith and I have no proof to show for it. On the other hand, I think there's something fundamentally flawed with your approach. You're questioning my views, but your arguments are made from your personal premises and world-views. I fail to see the logic in that. I mean if you're questioning a paradigm, you must construct your premises from within that paradigm, otherwise it's just a philosophical play, and not a genuine search for truth.
Regarding your comment that in the end everybody is guided by their desires in choosing their views. I completely agree, although I would add a slight nuance and say everybody is guided by their desires to some extend. I cannot deny that for me there is also a factor of personal desires which guide me. I think this is an inevitable factor every human has to deal with. However, I also think that every person has conflicting desires, and then again we have a choice in which desires we allow to take the lead. so perhaps our choices in faith are not free; and are a direct result of our previous choice in which desires to follow. I do believe so. But this still means they are nevertheless a result of a choice we can be held responsible for!
Hi TheLastKnight,
I'll be honest, the issue of Aicha is still one that I've not heard a completely satisfactory answer to myself. And I'm still somewhat on the fence because of that. However I wouldn't go as far as to say that it is a horrible thing, and that it convinces me my faith is false. First of all there's the issue on arbitrarily fixing the border as to where lies the boundary of adulthood. Secondly there's the recognition that each individual has his personal rate of growing up and reaches puberty at a different age. Thirdly there's the issue on whether or not you can compare adulthood now, with adulthood several centuries ago. Again, I'm not saying any of these issues clear the issue. But I do think these questions put things into perspective enough, for me to remain on the fence about it.
Topic: convinced rational muslim