Australian Politics Forum

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48860
At my desk.

realistic
Nov 16^th, 2008 at 4:07pm

Abu has used the term 'realistic' to describe Islam, usually in reference to why it ignores, or at least does not focus on things like forgiveness or turning the other cheek, or why it allows certain behaviours like slaves that you can have sex with*. However, such an approach would make religion and law, both divine and secular, pointless. No law is realistic in the sense that everyone obeys it, or in the sense that everyone who breaks it gets punished. Setting such a standard would lead to anarchy. Religious law especially, or morals, are supposed to set the higher ground, not the lower ground, otherwise they become an excuse for evil rather than a call to the divine. I find it hard to understand why a religion that successfully requires it's adherents to pray five times a day and follow many other rituals would consider other moral standards as unrealistic.

I suspect that rather than being unrealistic, concepts such as turning the other cheek were largely left out of Islam because they represent a moral that is extremely difficult to translate into law. Islam does seem to have the same moral standards, as I have seen similar concepts expressed here. (I'm referring to Christianity when I say the 'same' as I don't know to what extent these moral exist in other religions.) It's just that they tend to take a lower priority because they were expressed as morals rather than laws. That is, the law allows the behaviour, but the moral discourages it to some extent. See the debate on replacing morals with rules for more on that aspect: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225960213

The only acceptable way to apply a standard of 'realistic' to law would be to base it not on whether a law would be obeyed, but on whether the enforcement of the law would do more harm than good. This concept is what is at the heart of the current debates over prostitution, drug law, no-fault divorce etc in western countries. Aiming for the high moral ground cannot do harm, even if you do not reach it. It is attempting to maintain the higher moral ground that does all the good.

* Note that saying Islam allows slaves that you can have sex with is not meant to imply that it allows sex slaves, which it clearly does not, and to say it does would obviously be slander.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 17^th, 2008 at 3:03pm by freediver »

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

abu_rashid

Gold Member

Offline

Aussie Muslim

Posts: 8353

Re: realistic
Reply #1 - Nov 16^th, 2008 at 5:35pm

It's been proven time and time again throughout history, that the idea of turning the other cheek is not compatible with human nature. Having a different outlook on it isn't immoral as you seem to think, it is ultimately just being realistic by taking into account human nature.

Islam is a divine religion, but was practised by mortal men as an example for mortal men.

Christianity is a divine religion, practised by a (supposedly) divine being, which can never be an example for mortal men.

In the end nobody can actually imitate the Christ (pbuh) of the NT, because he's supposed to be God incarnate, nobody can even dream of aspiring to such heights, and that's why most give up before they even give it a try, and end up committing far worse atrocities and behaviour than others such as Muslims and Jews who adhere to a well designed set of laws.

Quote:

usually in reference to why it ignores, or at least does not focus on things like forgiveness or turning the other cheek

Islam does emphasise forgiveness though, it's quite arrogant how you make these blanket statements about what Islam does or doesn't teach, when in reality you've only ever been exposed to about 0.001% of the Islamic texts...

The Prophet (pbuh) said that Allah has commanded him about nine things; one of them he mentioned was “that I forgive those who do wrong to me.”

The Prophet (pbuh) said: Musa Bin Imran once asked, "Oh my Lord! Who is the most honourable of Your servants? And He replied, the person who forgives even when he is in a position of power"

When he entered the city of Makkah after the victory, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, had in front of him some of his staunchest enemies. Those who fought him for many years, persecuted his followers and killed many of them. Now he had full power to do whatever he wanted to punish them for their crimes. It is reported that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, asked them, “What do you think I shall do to you now?” They pleaded for mercy. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Today I shall say to you what Joseph (pbuh) said to his brothers, ‘No blame on you today. Go, you are all free.” Soon they all came and accepted Islam at his hands. He forgave even Hind who had caused the murder of his uncle Hamza, may Allah be pleased with him. After killing him she had his body mutilated and chewed his liver. When she accepted Islam, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, even forgave her.

The Prophet (pbuh) was the most forgiving person. He was ever ready to forgive his enemies. When he went to Ta’if to preach the message of Allah, its people mistreated him, abused him and hit him with stones. He left the city humiliated and wounded. When he took shelter under a tree, the angel of Allah visited him and told him that Allah sent him to destroy the people of Ta’if because of their sin of maltreating their Prophet. Muhammad (pbuh) prayed to Allah to save the people of Ta’if, because what they did was out of their ignorance. He said, “O Allah, guide these people, because they did not know what they were doing.”

No doubt you'll bring an example where he didn't forgive someone, but that's completely irrelevant. Nobody is inifintely forgiving, but Muhammad (pbuh) had a great capacity for forgiveness, and often displayed it even towards those who were ardent enemies of Islam, but not always.

And in the Qur'an, the Muslims are advised to forgve:

Those who avoid the greater crimes and shameful deeds, and, when they are angry even then forgive; Those who hearken to their Lord, and establish regular Prayer; who (conduct) their affairs by mutual Consultation; who spend out of what We bestow on them for Sustenance; And those who, when an oppressive wrong is inflicted on them, (are not cowed but) help and defend themselves. The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree): but if a person forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from Allah: for (Allah) loveth not those who do wrong. But indeed if any do help and defend themselves after a wrong (done) to them, against such there is no cause of blame. The blame is only against those who oppress men and wrong-doing and insolently transgress beyond bounds through the land, defying right and justice: for such there will be a penalty grievous. But indeed if any show patience and forgive, that would truly be an exercise of courageous will and resolution in the conduct of affairs. (Qur'an 42:37-43)

Let not those among you who are endued with grace and amplitude of means resolve by oath against helping their kinsmen, those in want, and those who have left their homes in Allah's cause: let them forgive and overlook, do you not wish that Allah should forgive you? For Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (Qur'an 24:22)

But the right to defend ones self is also mentioned, so as to make it balanced, unlike the unrealistic Christian texts. This is an example of the realistic approach of Islam, compared to that of Christianity, not your false accusation of not focusing on forgiveness.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 48860 At my desk.	Re: realistic Reply #2 - Nov 16^th, 2008 at 5:41pm Quote: It's been proven time and time again throughout history, that the idea of turning the other cheek is not compatible with human nature. What does that mean? You could substitute 'not murdering' for turning the other cheek without apparently changing the accuracy of the comment.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

abu_rashid Gold Member Offline Aussie Muslim Posts: 8353	Re: realistic Reply #3 - Nov 16^th, 2008 at 7:22pm ]I think you're intelligent enough to see why murder is different freediver. Not murdering is the standard human response. Turning the other cheek is not.
Back to top	IP Logged

Grendel Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 28080 Gender:	Re: realistic Reply #4 - Nov 16^th, 2008 at 7:26pm You cant use metaphors etc for fundamentalists who only think in terms of black and white.
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48860
At my desk.

Re: realistic
Reply #5 - Nov 16^th, 2008 at 7:43pm

How is not murdering standard? What does standard mean in this context anyway? It is certainly not the natural 'condition' of humans. The pre-islamic nomadic residents of the Arabian peninsula are a good example of this. People living a hunter-gatherer type lifestyle also murdered without problem. For example, the Australian aborigines used infanticide as a population control tool. The PNG highlanders would raid other villages when necessary, slaughtering people in the middle of the night. These are not exceptions, but are the norm. The natural aversion to murder tends to only apply to fellow clan members. The rise of complex societies required the development of new rules and norms, such as not murdering. These did not come naturally.

So murder is not fundamentally different. The difference seems fundamental to you because your social conditioning (your religion in this case) places one moral within reach and the other out of reach.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

abu_rashid

Gold Member

Offline

Aussie Muslim

Posts: 8353

Re: realistic
Reply #6 - Nov 16^th, 2008 at 9:11pm

You most likely believe people evolved from apes.. so it's not surprising you think murdering is the standard human behaviour.

I'm talking about civilised humans, who I believe have existed since the beginning of humanity. Yes murder has occured, but it's not the modus operandi of human beings. It's an abberation. However, merely defending yourself when attacked is not, it is the modus operandi of human beings. All people have the inclination to defend themselves, rather than turn the other cheek.

If you can't see how the two fundamentally differ... then I'm a bit worried about walking the same streets as you...

Back to top

IP Logged

Grendel Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 28080 Gender:	Re: realistic Reply #7 - Nov 16^th, 2008 at 9:20pm yes 9/11, Madrid, London, bali... all fine examples of self defense.
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48860
At my desk.

Re: realistic
Reply #8 - Nov 16^th, 2008 at 10:09pm

Quote:

You most likely believe people evolved from apes.. so it's not surprising you think murdering is the standard human behaviour.

It's got nothing to do with where we come from. And I don't know what you mean by 'standard' in this context. It's seems completely meaningless.

Quote:

I'm talking about civilised humans, who I believe have existed since the beginning of humanity.

Are you a young earth creationist?

Quote:

Yes murder has occured, but it's not the modus operandi of human beings.

It is in a natural setting.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

abu_rashid

Gold Member

Offline

Aussie Muslim

Posts: 8353

Re: realistic
Reply #9 - Nov 17^th, 2008 at 5:14am

Quote:

It's got nothing to do with where we come from.

Yes it does. As an evolutionist would just believe we are animals, who've learnt how to wear clothes and stop swinging in the trees, and therefore killing would be a standard behaviour.

Quote:

And I don't know what you mean by 'standard' in this context. It's seems completely meaningless.

Standard behaviour = modus operandi.

Quote:

Are you a young earth creationist?

The Islamic texts do not specify the timeframe since the creation of the earth. But even if the earth were created billions of years ago, that's irrelevant to what I said. I said humanity was created civilised, nothing to do with the earth.

Quote:

It is in a natural setting.

You think murder is a normal behaviour for humans? In what setting do you consider it natural? I think you read Lord of the flies once too often.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48860
At my desk.

Re: realistic
Reply #10 - Nov 17^th, 2008 at 8:39am

Quote:

Yes it does. As an evolutionist would just believe we are animals, who've learnt how to wear clothes and stop swinging in the trees, and therefore killing would be a standard behaviour.

Abu you are the only one bringing up evolution. My evidence is the actual behaviour of humans, not some theory as to how they might behave that has neither evidentiary nor religious support.

Quote:

I said humanity was created civilised, nothing to do with the earth.

What do you mean by civilised? Even the people that Muhammed himself dealt with were pretty uncivilised and had no moral objection to murdering people from outside the clan.

Quote:

You think murder is a normal behaviour for humans? In what setting do you consider it natural? I think you read Lord of the flies once too often.

Like I said, I was going by the actual behaviour of humans leading a hunter-gatherer existence.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

abu_rashid

Gold Member

Offline

Aussie Muslim

Posts: 8353

Re: realistic
Reply #11 - Nov 17^th, 2008 at 9:39am

Quote:

Abu you are the only one bringing up evolution. My evidence is the actual behaviour of humans, not some theory as to how they might behave that has neither evidentiary nor religious support.

Because you indicated humans were originally savage, and have merely learnt to suppress these murderous instincts, which you consider quite normal and the modus operandi of all human beings...

Quote:

What do you mean by civilised? Even the people that Muhammed himself dealt with were pretty uncivilised and had no moral objection to murdering people from outside the clan.

We have indeed created man in the best of moulds, Then do We abase him (to be) the lowest of the low,- Except such as believe and do righteous deeds: For they shall have a reward unfailing. (Qur'an 95:4-6)

We were created in the best of moulds, civilised, moral, logical, sentient.. then we fall away from that. So murder is a falling away from that original civilised moral state.

The pre-Islamic Arabs were quite uncivilised in some ways, then again, so is modern Western society. They did not permit murder though, they forbade it. But they were engaged in a lot of tribal warfare, and according to you, death in war is not murder right?

Both are a falling away from the original pure nature of man.

Quote:

Like I said, I was going by the actual behaviour of humans leading a hunter-gatherer existence.

So you do think humans were previously primtive, perhaps animals, but have evolved ot a higher state... But still lurking in the backs of their minds is the 'killer instinct' right?

Back to top

IP Logged