Islamic Existentialism

[Sophist]

JB: Murtad sida loola xaajoodo waan aqaan; but I won't waste time on you.

 

Sorry murtad uma aan quuro kalmada Saaxiib!.

[Johnny B]

Sophist Atheer , what does "Murtad" mean ?

and why this uncalled for hostility ?

For me you're all good, and i wish you were a freind.

[Sophist]

JB adeer, there is no hostility. It is just that I am not fond of Murtadiin! how could I when Allah said in the Furqaan ""But those who reject Faith after they accepted it, and then go on adding to their defiance of Faith,- never will their repentance be accepted; for they are those who have (of set purpose) gone astray. As to those who reject Faith, and die rejecting,- never would be accepted from any such as much gold as the earth contains, though they should offer it for ransom. For such is (in store) a penalty grievous, and they will find no helpers!

 

No personal hard feelings old boy.

[Khayr]

Originally posted by Sophist:

JB adeer, there is no hostility. It is just that I am not fond of Murtadiin! how could I when Allah said in the Furqaan ""But those who reject Faith after they accepted it, and then go on adding to their defiance of Faith,- never will their repentance be accepted; for they are those who have (of set purpose) gone astray. As to those who reject Faith, and die rejecting,- never would be accepted from any such as much gold as the earth contains, though they should offer it for ransom. For such is (in store) a penalty grievous, and they will find no helpers!

 

No personal hard feelings old boy.

In both cases for the Murtad (one who leaves the religion) and the Kafir (the disbeliever)-they are dammed to spend eternity in the infernal (hell) world.

 

SubhanAllah!

 

Sophist saxib,

 

You are a real man and akhi, when I saw this post what comes to mind is the hadith wherein The Rasul (salallahu caliyhe wasilm) praised the Believer who 'Loves for Allah's sake and Hates for Allah's sake'

 

Fi Amanillah

[Cara.]

Khayr

 

Originally posted by Khayr:

you sure your

'circle of friends'

does not largely constitute members of the asylum?

 

What your arguing for is

INSANITY

(doubting themselves and question whether they are in the right continously)

Obviously, you've never visited people in an insane asylum (otherwise known as the psychiatry unit in a hospital in the modern era). The one defining feature of insanity is absolute certainty. An insane man never doubts that that someone's implanted a tracking device in his ear, or that he's Jesus, or that he can turn into a teacup. I think they get released when they begin to question that certainty.

 

JB, you can't expect people with different views to debate with you. That's insane

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Khayr:

Please explain to us your doctorinal Moral Relativism i.e. Morality without GOD(The Absolute)

There's no doctorine here, just universal fact. A fact that can be instantiated by conducting a survey of world's different cultures. You can either refute the claim of univeral moral relativism, accept it or in your case do what you do best. Be irrelevant.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Khayr:

In both cases for the Murtad (one who lives the religion) and the Kafir (the disbeliever)-they are dammed to spend eternity in the infernal (hell) world.

 

 

Why are you anthropomorphizing Allah :confused:

 

God is not answerable to anybody, He can do whatever He wants. He can send a life long pious muslim to hell while pardoning life long impudent Murtad. That's for Him and Him alone to decide, not you. No reason need be provided. Do not mistake your wish for what Allah should be like to what Allah is. Else, you're only lending more credence to the charge "humans make God in their own image."

[xiinfaniin]

First off to JB , accept my belated responses saaxiib. Time has not afforded me the leisure to participate in these cyber debates. But as you correctly noted in your earlier post we are not breaking new ground here. On that account I haven’t withheld much, you may agree. The gallery has accustomed hearing different versions of both my faith-based position about morality and your mulish stance against every thing that has the slightest scent of religion. What brought me back though, aside from my courteous nature to honor you with response, is the fact you have revived old arguments again. Old arguments that I have previously done justice to them, that is. Moral firmness does not prevent society to thrive and you know it adeer. Clinging to old values is not necessarily an indication of our society’s decline and today’s political setbacks for Muslims around the world do not suggest flaws in our creed! The fact that you’ve successfully observed that our values are shared across many customs/religions does not mean that Furqan has gone on a borrowing spree---it merely means that the source of those values (majority of them any way) is the same Allah. So good JB-ow, aashaa adeer.

 

Cara, when it comes to religion moral certainty is a prerequisite for a valid faith. There are known vices and there are agreed and acceptable practices. In principle, if one can’t genuinely discern right from an obvious wrong and relies someone’s else judgment to take a fitting action on it, then is it not reasonable to conclude that the fault lies with that person’s sluggishness and not with the level of the moral clarity of the issue at hand? We are talking about morality in principle and where it could legitimately be derived. Your example of angry men smashing airplanes in to buildings is a feeble effort to blur the clarity of Furqan’s moral teachings adeer. Clichés like these are never substitute for a genuine argument and they do disservice to the point you are trying to convey. And in the Bush’s analogy, you went even further and drew a false parallel between what amounts to a sheer oratory dyed with bogus claims with false moral assertions (Bush’s political speeches) and morality based on a well seated and solid theological teachings (the argument I have attempted to make)!

 

I agree with you on one thing though: Furqan’s ideal teachings may not always be reflected in the individual practices of its adherents. But individual choices and how they conduct themselves is only a measure of themselves and not of the larger faith. There are countless souls who strive to mimic and reflect Furqan’s actual teachings adeer. If you sample only the shortcomings of the first group and disregard the valiant efforts of the latter, clearly you are content to paint a biased and incomplete picture.

[Johnny B]

I know i hold a not so common view , theologically that is,and i take and accept all sorts of punishments from Deities whose existance and messages my humble view disregards, such, can only my view entail.

 

Therefore it follows, or so i think, that those who claim to adhere to a specefic religion yet find their Deity's wrath on me somehow not enough and feel the need to bring their own on me, are the real Agnostics/Skeptics.

 

As a freind put it, "there's none louder, less significant or more sanctimonious than our ilk".

[xiinfaniin]

^^This one of yours is a deep plea for a dose of logic and rationale from our side, and I for one thought I have provided you both. Faith never thrives by force, and if you, in your genuine quest to find the truth, have yet to reach that promised spiritual station, I dare say it’s not a particular fault of yours. Perhaps when you seize it you would be better Muslim than I.

 

Needless to say that I wish no harm, divinely exacted or otherwise, on you. I have neither supplicated for your demise nor did I ever want you perish in hell. Admittedly I would have loved to see you in my theological column and pray on my side, and as you would attest, I have at times tried to educate you about my faith. I will continue IA to do so. How could I do otherwise yaa JB? Intelligent and educated people like you deserve to see the whole light. Or so I think!

[Khalaf]

JB, why dont you go to a masjid and talk with an imam one on one?

 

Sophist u are not arguing with JB...but there are silent readers who can benefit namean remember dat......may Allah bless xiin and viking for the debates on dis section....very intellectual and easy to understand..flowery words give headaches.

[Sophist]

Khalaf; I think Xiin is doing a good job; only when I feel there is a needed point to made would I then throw my hat in it.

 

JB: My advice to you is to get hold of Al-Gazali's magnum opus Incoherance of Philosophers; he might help you a bit IA.

[N.O.R.F]

Morality and Religion

 

Morality can be based only on religion, but morality and religion are not one. Morality as a principle does not exists without religion even thought morality as a practice, as a particular case of behavior, is not dependant directly on religiousness. A common argument that connects them both is the other, superior world. Because it is the other world, it is a religious world; because it is a superior world, it is a moral world. This shows both the interdependence of religion and morality as well as their independence of each other. There is a certain inner consistency that is not automatic, mathematical, or logical but rather practical; divergencies are possible but sooner or later the dependence is reestablished. Atheism, after all, ends up as a negation of morality, and every true moral transformation starts with a religious renewal. Morality is a religion transformed into rules of behavior - that is, into man's attitude toward other man in accordance with the fact of God's existence. To have to fulfill our duties regardless of the difficulties and risks we face (this being moral behavior as distinguished from behavior motivated by interest), such a demand can be justified only if this world and this life are not the only world and the only life. This is the common starting point of morality and religion.

 

Morality was born by prohibition and has remained a prohibition until today. A prohibition is religious by nature and by origin. Out of the Ten Commandments, eight of them are prohibitions. Morality is always a restrictive or prohibitive principle which opposes the animal instincts in human nature. The Christian ethic can serve here as an example - not as the only but as the most famous and the most evident.

 

The history of religion is full of seemingly meaningless prohibitions. However, from the point of view of ethics, there are no meaningless prohibitions. Of course, a prohibition can have a rational meaning too, but utility is never its primary aim.

 

Morality is not " life in harmony with nature" as the Stoics defined it. It is rather life against nature, provided that the word "nature" is understood in its true sense. Like man, morality is also irrational, non-natural, supernatural. Natural man and natural morality do not exist. Man within the limits of nature is not man; he is, at best, an animal endowed with reason. Morality within the limits of nature is not morality but rather a form of selfishness, a form of wise and enlightened selfishness.

 

In the Darwinian "struggle for survival," the best (in the moral sense) do not win; only the strongest and the best adjusted do. Biological progress also does not lead to human dignity being one of the sources of morality. A Darwinian man may reach the highest degree of biological perfection, a "superman," but he will remain without human quality and, therefore, without human dignity as well. The latter could have been given to him only by God.

 

Social progress as a prolongation of the biological progress has the same effects on morality. The English moralist Mandeville asks: "What is the significance of morality for the progress of society and the development of civilization?" and answers very simply: "None. It may even be harmful." According to him, the means that are usually blamed as sinful have the most stimulating effect on a society's progress since " what increases man's needs promotes his development the most." To be more definite: "The so-called moral and physical evils of this world are the main driving forces that make us social beings."

 

If all progress, biological as well as technical, is to be found in Darwin's theory of natural selection where the stronger suppresses and even destroys the weaker, morality must be in opposition to this essential point of progress. Morality has always demanded protection, compassion, and regard for the weaker and less capable. Thus, morality and nature have been in opposition with each other from the very beginning. "Get rid of the conscience, compassion, forgiveness - those inner human tyrants. Oppress the weak, climb over their corpses..." The parting with morality is very evident. Destroy the weak versus protect the weak - those are the two opposite demands that separate the biological from the spiritual, the zoological from the human, nature from culture, and science from religion. Only Nietzsche consistently applied biological laws and their consequences to human society. The result was the rejection of love and forgiveness and the justification of violence and hatred. For Nietzsche, Christianity, especially Christian ethics, was "the most poisoned poison that had ever been instilled into the vigorous body of the ardent mankind."

 

In Phaedo, Plato expounded a genuine ethic: ordinary courage is only a kind of cowardice, and ordinary moderation is only a hidden lust for pleasure. That kind of virtue is only a commercial business, a shadow of virtue, a virtue of slaves. A true moral man has only one desire: to be away from the physical and closer to the spiritual. The body is the grave of the soul. In its earthly existence, the soul never reaches its aim, and true knowledge comes only after death. That is why an ethical man is not afraid of death. To truly think and live means constant preparation to die. Evil is the force that rules the world, and morality is neither a natural possibility of man, nor can it be based on reason.

 

Established ethics have never been rationally proved and, of course, they cannot be proven by this method. Plato referred to metaphysical proofs instead of anthropological ones, which made him the forerunner of theologically based ethics. This development was lawful. It is well known that Plato proponed a teaching about preexistence which stated that every item of knowledge is only a remembrance. An integral part and necessary presumption of such a teaching is the idea of immorality.

 

Plato's meditations on ethics led him directly to the religious position. Two other ancient thinkers, Epictetus and Seneca, were led to a specific religion (Christianity) through similar meditations. There are very certain indications that Epictetus was a clandestine Christian, and that Seneca corresponded with Paul. In his De viris illustribus, Jerome includes Seneca in the list of church writers.

 

Christianity is a striking example of a perfect harmony, a strong mutual affinity, and almost a unity of a great religion and great ethics. The art of the Renaissance, completely inspired by biblical themes, proves that great art joins them.

 

From a historical point of view, moral thought is one of the oldest human thoughts. It is preceded only by the idea of the divine which itself is as old as man. These two thoughts have been closely connected throughout history. In the history of ethics, there is practically no serious thinker who has not decided about religion, either by borrowing the necessity of religion for moral principles or by proving the opposite. The whole history of ethics is a continuing story of the reciprocal permeance of religious and ethical thought. Statistics cannot be proof in this matter, but it can be pointed out that religious moralists prevail, while atheists almost never do.

 

The so-called laic (secular) ethical movements which stressed the independence of ethics from religion showed that every moralistic thought or activity naturally tends to approach or even to identify with religion. Notwithstanding the contradictory course of these ideas and their oscillation between religion and science, their development is of great importance. Schoolbooks in French state schools, where moral instruction replaced religious instruction, followed the catechism format of teaching religious doctrines in Christian churches. This trend had a permanent tendency to maintain an independent position against religion which all the while continued to approach it unconsciously.

 

Therefore, it is possible to imagine a truly religious but immoral man and vice versa. Religion is one kind of knowledge, and morality is a life lived in accordance with that knowledge. There remains, however, a certain discrepancy between knowledge and practice. Religion is the answer to the question of how to think and believe, while morals are the answer to the question of how to desire and aim or how to live and behave. The tidings of the other world also imply a demand to live in accordance with this wide and infinite vision, although the demand itself is not identical with the vision. Jesus' sublime ethics were a direct consequence of an equally strong and clear religious consciousness. However, the inquisitors' devotions were also sincere, even though this assertion sounds paradoxical. "Believe and do good deeds" - this sentence, which us repeated in the Qur'an more than fifty times, points out the necessity of uniting something that people tend to separate. It expresses the difference between religion ("believe") and morality ("do good") as well as the imperative that they should go together. The Qur'an uncovers a reverse relation and shows how religion can find a strong incentive in morality: "You will not believe until you give amply of what is dear to your heart." It is not: "Believe and you will be a good man," but the reverse: "Be a good man and you will believe." To the question of how one can strengthen his faith, the answer is: "Do good and by so doing you will find God."

 

 

 

Excerpted from the book "Islam Between East and West" by 'Alija 'Ali Izetbegovic. Mr. Izetbegovic is considered by many to be the hero of Bosnian Muslim resistance during the siege of Sarajevo who led his country to independence from the genocidal campaign of Yugoslavia.

 

Link

[Socod_badne]

C&P articles are not substitute for cogent expostulation. They're just that, copy and pasting.

 

I for one would like to see an honest debate on Morality. Up until now, just about everyone has been pusyfooting around the subject. We can only speculate why?

[N.O.R.F]

^^What do you think of the article? Do you agree/disagree, what are it's shortcoming, if any etc.

 

I threw in an article for the debaters to read.