Morality

[Badb Catha]

Immorality is the natural state of the human species, just as it is for all animals. Religion provides us with a moral compass that is otherwise absent from our very being and teaches us the correct way to live. This has shaped our society, our culture, and indeed our very civilization. Even in a state devoid of spirituality or religion there is still morality because the faiths the people in it have abandoned ingrained it within their culture so that it might permeate in all things. Of course, a godless state will forever move further toward immorality without faith to guide and enforce it's moral code. Thus it is that secularism is the greatest immorality: for it provides the breeding grounds for further immorality.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Immorality is the natural state of the human species, just as it is for all animals. Religion provides us with a moral compass that is otherwise absent from our very being and teaches us the correct way to live. This has shaped our society, our culture, and indeed our very civilization. Even in a state devoid of spirituality or religion there is still morality because the faiths the people in it have abandoned ingrained it within their culture so that it might permeate in all things. Of course, a godless state will forever move further toward immorality without faith to guide and enforce it's moral code. Thus it is that secularism is the greatest immorality: for it provides the breeding grounds for further immorality.

Yet, by most observable metrics, immorality has decreased as secularism and irreligion increased. It appears to me, that there's no positive correlation between irreligion and immorality.

[Griemvarant]

Cripes, not shying away from the big questions.

I view it as fairly indistinguishable from ethics, and fundamentally about the legitimacy of the demands that a particular society makes on its members through institutions of social control, and the legitimacy of the demands that individuals put on society in return through assertions of difference.

Personally, I believe that history and the prevailing culture are important players - and that religion has some role in forming the heritage even if, like me, you're an atheist. The collective interest rather than the selfish interest should be paramount, since the collective forms the basis of moral thinking, but there should be a modicum of flexibility in accommodating diversity so long as the variant forms of lifestyle are not liable to make people define themselves against society or are completely incompatible with either its principles or the rights of others.

How does the collective form the basis of moral thinking, and what is immoral about someone defining themselves against society if they are not hurting anyone? What of a rightous individual against an unjust society? Is that possible?

I'll try fielding this.
1.) In general, the collective is made up of individuals who all want the greatest good for themselves and their kith/kin. In this situation, they will agree upon mores and norms that grant the most benefit to their people while discouraging harmful actions. There is nothing inherently immoral about someone defining themselves against society if not hurting anyone, except for the fact that this leads to more people doing the same. It's like cell phones on an airplane: one isn't going to cause trouble, but if everybody on the plane is using their phone there's a chance the interference could lead to a fatal error. When people start to pull away, it's usually the peaceful ones who're allowed to do so. Afterward, more radical elements start to strain against the collective moral system and make emotional arguments that the previous groups were permitted to do so. Eventually nobody's part of a group and it turns into every man for himself savagery.

2.) A righteous individual against an unjust society isn't just possible, it's happened countless times in recorded history. It only takes one person to stand against corruption and totalitarianism. But, by that same token, there's the risk that this person isn't actually righteous and the society is not unjust, but shifting perceptions and propaganda have led the populace to believe it is unjust. Thus, when the society is overthrown, things only get worse.
For an example of the former, look at the American and French revolutions. For the latter, look at most South and Central American countries, as well as the Middle East and Africa.

[Badb Catha]

Immorality is the natural state of the human species, just as it is for all animals. Religion provides us with a moral compass that is otherwise absent from our very being and teaches us the correct way to live. This has shaped our society, our culture, and indeed our very civilization. Even in a state devoid of spirituality or religion there is still morality because the faiths the people in it have abandoned ingrained it within their culture so that it might permeate in all things. Of course, a godless state will forever move further toward immorality without faith to guide and enforce it's moral code. Thus it is that secularism is the greatest immorality: for it provides the breeding grounds for further immorality.

Yet, by most observable metrics, immorality has decreased as secularism and irreligion increased. It appears to me, that there's no positive correlation between irreligion and immorality.

This is not true. Infidelity, promiscuity, hedonism, corruption, selfishness, greed, etc. have all increased drastically in recent centuries among all classes.

[Communist Zombie Horde]

Morality is a spook

Edit: this entire thread is about spooks

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Yet, by most observable metrics, immorality has decreased as secularism and irreligion increased. It appears to me, that there's no positive correlation between irreligion and immorality.

This is not true. Infidelity, promiscuity, hedonism, corruption, selfishness, greed, etc. have all increased drastically in recent centuries among all classes.

Infidelity is not inherently immoral, nor is hedonism, citation needed, citation needed, citation needed.

[Badb Catha]

This is not true. Infidelity, promiscuity, hedonism, corruption, selfishness, greed, etc. have all increased drastically in recent centuries among all classes.

Infidelity is not inherently immoral, nor is hedonism, citation needed, citation needed, citation needed.

It is not immoral to cheat on one's spouse or partner? It is not immoral to betray their trust by fornicating with another behind their back and without their knowledge? How is this not immoral?

Hedonism, corruption, selfishness, and greed are all examples of the permeating thought of narcissism which has certainly increased. This is best seen in the United States, where it has begun to influence even those devoted and faithful to God - causing them to commit blasphemy and sacrilege out of ignorance or hypocrisy. Even the President of the United States is wholly self-centered; serving an excellent example of the moral state of the USA. Even without him, the immense popularity and influence of people like Joel Osteen, the Westboro Baptist Church, Fox News, Hollywood, the Kardashians, the Church of Scientology, etc. provide even greater examples. The United States of America - a country founded on the principles of Libertarianism and Secularism - is morally bankrupt. This is not a coincidence, but proof of the inherit immorality in individualistic and secular thought. Europe is slowly moving in the same direction of ignorance and apathy that is intrinsic to an immoral society. It is clear that without religion or spirituality to enforce morality among the populace, that even religious institutions will begin to fall to immoral and heretical interpretations of their sacred texts. Those secularists, agnostics, atheists, and even anti-theists who profess to have a moral compass did not obtain them from themselves, but the moral teachings of earthly cultures and philosophies which were in turn influenced directly by religion and spirituality.

[Technoscience Leftwing]

As the thread title says, what define morality? Does religion define morality or do you not need religion to define morality?

I personally believe religion can help someone have morals, considering that they have a Holy book such as the Quran in my Faith's case to study all the time. Fear of God especially comes into play when someone wants to purify themselves morally. Many religious people like Muslims and Christians, for instance, have a goal to attain, that being, the worship of God, to develop better morals.

This helps motivate them to donate to charity, helping their neighbor, having compassion, patience, and etc.

I am not denying however, that one without religion cannot have morals, nor that religious people, are simply better than atheists. Rather, fear of God, and a lot of prayers, as in the case of Islam, can really put a lot of emphasis for an individual to develop righteousness, and in turn, a high moral character as they have that goal in mind, the attainment of the pleasure of God?

What is your view on morality? Religious or not? Discuss.

Morality is a tool for mobilizing people for a task. For the implementation of a project.

If the project is religious (crusades, preaching, the creation of a monastery) - the moral is used religious
If the project is communist - the communist morality is used (the code of the builder of communism, the moral assessment of the actions of their usefulness for taking power by the Communist Party)
If the project is corporate - corporate morality is used.
If the project consists in the establishment of a feudal, military hierarchy - the morality of knights or samurai, nobles, officers ("estate honor")
If the project consists in maintaining the life of a primitive tribe, then a taboo system is used, this morality can allow cannibalism to other tribes, but forces loyalty to its tribe.

The more technically backward a society is, the more taboo and moral restrictions it imposes on its members. For example, technical backwardness - the inability to produce contraceptives and medicaments - led to the asceticism of the Middle Ages and the Victorian era. The absence of automation and robots created a need for work ethic. And so on. The more advanced the technique, the more freedom from social manipulation. Morality serves, as a rule, the ruling classes, and in addition it is changeable in different eras.

[AhmadiMuslim1889]

Post it here because it is frowned upon by the NSG rules to post in a thread that's been dead for over a month.

The last post in the old thread was just a month ago, so it was okay to revive. When it's on the cusp like that, asking in Moderation is worth trying. I've merged the two threads.

Fair enough

[Vojelneit]

As the thread title says, what define morality? Does religion define morality or do you not need religion to define morality?

Islam is the most blatant proof that religion does not define morality and that you don't need religion to define morality.

I personally believe religion can help someone have morals, considering that they have a Holy book such as the Quran in my Faith's case to study all the time.

Depends. Religion is ultimately what the individual makes of it. You can ask a hundred Christians about a Bible verse and a hundred Muslims about a Qur'an verse and in both cases you're gonna have at least 20 different interpretations. Even many renowned Christian or Muslim scholars do not interpret their holy texts in the same ways. In the end, it's incredibly subjective.
Now, another important factor is that the content of the holy texts will also influence the individual in that "religion-is-what-the-individual-makes-of-it" process. If Book A instructs the believer to pray for the apostates while Book B instructs the believer to chop their heads off, it's likely that what Book B's believer makes of that instruction will be more violent than what Book A's believer will interpret in the sentence "pray for the apostates".
In your faith's case, I'm quite positive the Qur'an is closer to Book B than Book A. This is why you have barely heard of Christian terrorism in the last 300 years whereas Islamic terrorists kill everyday.
To illustrate my thought, here is the Qur'an's surah 4; verse 89: "They wish that you reject Faith, as they have rejected (Faith), and thus that you all become equal (like one another). So take not Auliya' (protectors or friends) from them, till they emigrate in the Way of Allah (to Muhammad). But if they turn back (from Islam), take (hold) of them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither Auliya' (protectors or friends) nor helpers from them."
This isn't very moral, don't you think?
Of course, not everyone interprets this verse literally - especially in the west, since Muslims in a position of minority and can't just enact sharia law on their own - but I assure you a lot of people interpret it quite literally, especially in the Middle East, and that it poses an enormous threat to basic human rights and freedom of conscience.

Fear of God especially comes into play when someone wants to purify themselves morally.

So if you didn't believe in God and thus weren't scared of Jahannam/Hell, would you give up morality and take the easier, effortless path of immorality?

Many religious people like Muslims and Christians, for instance, have a goal to attain, that being, the worship of God, to develop better morals.

No. At most, holy texts that attempt to pose a basis for moral rules - especially if they are acted upon by a perfect, sinless prophet - can inspire believers to choose the moral path. On a secular viewpoint, someone doesn't become moral by worshipping God alone.

This helps motivate them to donate to charity, helping their neighbor, having compassion, patience, and etc.

And occasionally they stumble upon a Qur'an verse that advocates for them to become shaheeds and kill unbelievers, since that's also defined by Islam and/or interpreted by many Muslims as "moral". Oops.

[AhmadiMuslim1889]

As the thread title says, what define morality? Does religion define morality or do you not need religion to define morality?

Islam is the most blatant proof that religion does not define morality and that you don't need religion to define morality.

I personally believe religion can help someone have morals, considering that they have a Holy book such as the Quran in my Faith's case to study all the time.

Depends. Religion is ultimately what the individual makes of it. You can ask a hundred Christians about a Bible verse and a hundred Muslims about a Qur'an verse and in both cases you're gonna have at least 20 different interpretations. Even many renowned Christian or Muslim scholars do not interpret their holy texts in the same ways. In the end, it's incredibly subjective.

That is irrelevant to the point I made.

Now, another important factor is that the content of the holy texts will also influence the individual in that "religion-is-what-the-individual-makes-of-it" process. If Book A instructs the believer to pray for the apostates while Book B instructs the believer to chop their heads off, it's likely that what Book B's believer makes of that instruction will be more violent than what Book A's believer will interpret in the sentence "pray for the apostates".
In your faith's case, I'm quite positive the Qur'an is closer to Book B than Book A. This is why you have barely heard of Christian terrorism in the last 300 years whereas Islamic terrorists kill everyday.

This is outright a fallacious misrepresentation of the Quran. That is not what the Quran says. Just because there are many terrorists does not mean that the Quran is at fault.

To illustrate my thought, here is the Qur'an's surah 4; verse 89: "They wish that you reject Faith, as they have rejected (Faith), and thus that you all become equal (like one another). So take not Auliya' (protectors or friends) from them, till they emigrate in the Way of Allah (to Muhammad). But if they turn back (from Islam), take (hold) of them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither Auliya' (protectors or friends) nor helpers from them."
This isn't very moral, don't you think?

Yeah, I highly doubt you read the context of that verse. You completely missed the verse that comes after it:

Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them.

ISIS does none of the above in this verse.

Of course, not everyone interprets this verse literally - especially in the west, since Muslims in a position of minority and can't just enact sharia law on their own - but I assure you a lot of people interpret it quite literally, especially in the Middle East, and that it poses an enormous threat to basic human rights and freedom of conscience.

Yeah. And a lot of Wahabbists themselves misinterpret this very deliberately. Not just the critics of Islam. The context of Surah al-Nisa 89-91 still does not make your argument valid.

Fear of God especially comes into play when someone wants to purify themselves morally.

So if you didn't believe in God and thus weren't scared of Jahannam/Hell, would you give up morality and take the easier, effortless path of immorality?

This is a strawman. Please don't misrepresent my views. Taqwa (fear of God), is about attaining righteousness and bettering oneself for the sake of Allah. It doesn't mean going and killing everybody. To misrepresent my OP is dishonest and careless, and your signature proves this.

Many religious people like Muslims and Christians, for instance, have a goal to attain, that being, the worship of God, to develop better morals.

No. At most, holy texts that attempt to pose a basis for moral rules - especially if they are acted upon by a perfect, sinless prophet - can inspire believers to choose the moral path. On a secular viewpoint, someone doesn't become moral by worshipping God alone.

I never denied this in my OP.

This helps motivate them to donate to charity, helping their neighbor, having compassion, patience, and etc.

And occasionally they stumble upon a Qur'an verse that advocates for them to become shaheeds and kill unbelievers, since that's also defined by Islam and/or interpreted by many Muslims as "moral". Oops.

And occasionally, we get people who never read the Quran, and strawman the entire Islamic faith based on the actions of ignorant terrorists and those ignorant right-wing critics of Islam who are prejudiced and fear that the identity of their countries will be lost because of multiculturalism. *shrugs*

Yes, definitely an oops on your part.

Ironically, I agree with your sarcasm in your last post.

[Neutraligon]

Morality is the intersection of self interest and empathy.

[AhmadiMuslim1889]

Morality is the intersection of self interest and empathy.

Can you elaborate a little bit more on self interest?

[Far Easter Republic]

The ability to die or not.

[Neutraligon]

Morality is the intersection of self interest and empathy.

Can you elaborate a little bit more on self interest?

I don't like having my stuff taken from me,through empathy I am pretty sure you do not like your stuff taken from you. I do not want to live in society that lets people take my stuff from me, and I bet you don't either, so we should teach people that it is wrong to take things from each other.

[AhmadiMuslim1889]

Can you elaborate a little bit more on self interest?

I don't like having my stuff taken from me,through empathy I am pretty sure you do not like your stuff taken from you. I do not want to live in society that lets people take my stuff from me, and I bet you don't either, so we should teach people that it is wrong to take things from each other.

Fair enough.

[Kowani]

I believe my position on this matter is fairly well known, but-Morality is completely subjective.

[Vojelneit]

Islam is the most blatant proof that religion does not define morality and that you don't need religion to define morality.



Depends. Religion is ultimately what the individual makes of it. You can ask a hundred Christians about a Bible verse and a hundred Muslims about a Qur'an verse and in both cases you're gonna have at least 20 different interpretations. Even many renowned Christian or Muslim scholars do not interpret their holy texts in the same ways. In the end, it's incredibly subjective.

That is irrelevant to the point I made.

No, how do you think it's irrelevant?

Now, another important factor is that the content of the holy texts will also influence the individual in that "religion-is-what-the-individual-makes-of-it" process. If Book A instructs the believer to pray for the apostates while Book B instructs the believer to chop their heads off, it's likely that what Book B's believer makes of that instruction will be more violent than what Book A's believer will interpret in the sentence "pray for the apostates".
In your faith's case, I'm quite positive the Qur'an is closer to Book B than Book A. This is why you have barely heard of Christian terrorism in the last 300 years whereas Islamic terrorists kill everyday.

This is outright a fallacious misrepresentation of the Quran. That is not what the Quran says. Just because there are many terrorists does not mean that the Quran is at fault.

Yes it does, because the content of the Qur'an, even if it is being misinterpreted (which it isn't. Only moderate muslims go ridiculous lengths to find different interpretations of verses that explicitly state to kill apostates), is much, much more war-mongering than the content of the Bible for instance. Therefore it's proner to misinterpretation by its believers who are more likely to act upon the many crudely violent verses contained in the Qur'an.
Then you argue that this isn't what the Qur'an says.
Lol.
Dude, it's what your faith as a whole says. A vast majority of Muslims in the Middle East don't go search for farfetched double interpretations and meanings - they see "kill the apostates" and they rightfully interpret it as what is extremely explicitly written, "kill the apostates". What, Islam doesn't advocate for apostates to be killed? Oh, really?
Sahih Bukhari (83:37) "Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate."
Sahih Bukhari (84:57) "Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"
Sahih Bukhari (84:58) "There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu'adh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Muisa said, "He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu Muisa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, "Then we discussed the night prayers and one of us said, 'I pray and sleep, and I hope that Allah will reward me for my sleep as well as for my prayers.'"
All of these are Sahih Bukhari - the most reliable Hadith type in Islam.

To illustrate my thought, here is the Qur'an's surah 4; verse 89: "They wish that you reject Faith, as they have rejected (Faith), and thus that you all become equal (like one another). So take not Auliya' (protectors or friends) from them, till they emigrate in the Way of Allah (to Muhammad). But if they turn back (from Islam), take (hold) of them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither Auliya' (protectors or friends) nor helpers from them."
This isn't very moral, don't you think?

Yeah, I highly doubt you read the context of that verse. You completely missed the verse that comes after it:

Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them.

ISIS does none of the above in this verse.

"If they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause for fighting against them."
Seems like an awful lot of things you need to do not to be killed by Muslims... By comparison, Christianity advocates for its followers to turn the other cheek.
What does "removing themselves, not fighting, offering peace" mean anyways? That's incredibly vague. Surah 4:89 is talking about killing those who turn back from Islam (i.e. apostates). It seems pretty logical to me that "offering peace", in this context, would be returning to Islam - though you might make up another sketchy, comically farfetched interpretation to defend the contrary.
So with that in mind, those two verses combined basically say "Kill the apostates, unless they decide to come back to Islam".
So if you're an apostate, you have two possible ends: either you're killed, or you have to come back to Islam (which would be against their will if they left the religion in the first place).

So if you didn't believe in God and thus weren't scared of Jahannam/Hell, would you give up morality and take the easier, effortless path of immorality?

This is a strawman. Please don't misrepresent my views. Taqwa (fear of God), is about attaining righteousness and bettering oneself for the sake of Allah. It doesn't mean going and killing everybody. To misrepresent my OP is dishonest and careless, and your signature proves this.

I'm not making a strawman, dude. I'm asking a simple question, would you give up morality if you weren't scared of God? I'm not making any assumptions or anything, I'm not trying to misrepresent anything. It's a pretty fair question and I'm honestly curious, but you're avoiding it. Hmm, why?
"To misrepresent my OP is dishonest and careless"
I'm not misrepresenting anything. I'm asking a question.
"and your signature proves this"
What does that have anything to do with my signature? I'm gonna assume you're talking about the Islamophobia bit. "Islamophobia" is a very poorly defined concept, but what I'm saying is that if "Islamophobia" is interpreted as the opposition to Islam's barbaric teachings, such as the killing of apostates I demonstrated earlier, then I'm indeed an Islamophobe. And so are a lot of people without even knowing it, because I doubt many people that are properly informed on Islam consider killing apostates acceptable.
Some define "Islamophobia" as the deep hatred for Muslims as people. I don't fit that criteria. I don't hate Muslims because they're defined by plenty other things than their religion, and they're defined by their actions first and foremost. But I do dislike Islam as an ideology because it advocates for pretty bad things, as I've shown earlier.

No. At most, holy texts that attempt to pose a basis for moral rules - especially if they are acted upon by a perfect, sinless prophet - can inspire believers to choose the moral path. On a secular viewpoint, someone doesn't become moral by worshipping God alone.

I never denied this in my OP.

That wasn't very clear. You made it sound like "the worship of God" was a goal in itself that permitted one to develop better morals.

And occasionally they stumble upon a Qur'an verse that advocates for them to become shaheeds and kill unbelievers, since that's also defined by Islam and/or interpreted by many Muslims as "moral". Oops.

And occasionally, we get people who never read the Quran, and strawman the entire Islamic faith based on the actions of ignorant terrorists and those ignorant right-wing critics of Islam who are prejudiced and fear that the identity of their countries will be lost because of multiculturalism. *shrugs*

Yes, definitely an oops on your part.

Ironically, I agree with your sarcasm in your last post.

I didn't read the entire Qur'an, but I did read huge chunks of it. I don't think I need to read it all, just like you don't need to read all of Mein Kampf to determine that Hitler is a very angry and quite deranged man. I've seen the very weak "verses of peace", I've seen the much more numerous verses of violence. I think I've seen enough of Islam to judge it.
I don't judge the entire Islamic faith based on the action of terrorists - though it is quite telling that almost all religiously-motivated terror attacks in the world are committed in the name of Islam - but based on the Islamic holy texts themselves. Once again, see the Hadiths that I quoted. I can quote much, much more of that type. And not only about apostates. You talk about the prejudice of the right-wing towards Islam, but Muslims themselves are prejudiced against a lot of people, to the point that they advocate for their submission or for their death. Jews, apostates, women, homosexuals... Besides, I can understand that the right-wing critics of Islam does feel uneasy about a group of people that follow a religion that calls for their death/forced conversion starting to come and settle in Europe. Many Qur'anic verses or Hadiths are simply alarming.
I'm not prejudiced against Muslims or Islam. I don't have any traumatic experience with Muslims or the Islamic religion that would make me irrationally deeply hate them - I'm just observing from the holy texts themselves, and drawing the rightful conclusion that the Qur'an is a violent and dangerous sectarian book.

[Auristania]

Immorality is the natural state of the human species, just as it is for all animals.

Amorality is the natural state of bears because they live alone. Morality is the natural state of wolves, elephants and people because we are pack animals.

Mushrooms and Turtles have lots of children and "hope" that some will get through. Most warm-bloods have few childern and care for them.

For millennia Human Morality = Care for the Clan and that was all the Morality we needed. Then we invented agriculture and cities, so Morality grew to loyalty for larger and larger groups.

These days we are supposed to care for all Humans or even all Living and it gets very complicated.

Morality is a tool for mobilizing people for a task. For the implementation of a project.

If the project is religious (crusades, preaching, the creation of a monastery) - the moral is used religious
If the project is communist - the communist morality is used (the code of the builder of communism, the moral assessment of the actions of their usefulness for taking power by the Communist Party)
If the project is corporate - corporate morality is used.
If the project consists in the establishment of a feudal, military hierarchy - the morality of knights or samurai, nobles, officers ("estate honor")
If the project consists in maintaining the life of a primitive tribe, then a taboo system is used, this morality can allow cannibalism to other tribes, but forces loyalty to its tribe.

The more technically backward a society is, the more taboo and moral restrictions it imposes on its members. For example, technical backwardness - the inability to produce contraceptives and medicaments - led to the asceticism of the Middle Ages and the Victorian era. The absence of automation and robots created a need for work ethic. And so on. The more advanced the technique, the more freedom from social manipulation. Morality serves, as a rule, the ruling classes, and in addition it is changeable in different eras.

[AhmadiMuslim1889]

That is irrelevant to the point I made.

No, how do you think it's irrelevant?

This is outright a fallacious misrepresentation of the Quran. That is not what the Quran says. Just because there are many terrorists does not mean that the Quran is at fault.

Yes it does, because the content of the Qur'an, even if it is being misinterpreted (which it isn't. Only moderate muslims go ridiculous lengths to find different interpretations of verses that explicitly state to kill apostates), is much, much more war-mongering than the content of the Bible for instance. Therefore it's proner to misinterpretation by its believers who are more likely to act upon the many crudely violent verses contained in the Qur'an.
Then you argue that this isn't what the Qur'an says.
Lol.
Dude, it's what your faith as a whole says. A vast majority of Muslims in the Middle East don't go search for farfetched double interpretations and meanings - they see "kill the apostates" and they rightfully interpret it as what is extremely explicitly written, "kill the apostates". What, Islam doesn't advocate for apostates to be killed? Oh, really?
Sahih Bukhari (83:37) "Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate."
Sahih Bukhari (84:57) "Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"
Sahih Bukhari (84:58) "There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu'adh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Muisa said, "He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu Muisa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, "Then we discussed the night prayers and one of us said, 'I pray and sleep, and I hope that Allah will reward me for my sleep as well as for my prayers.'"
All of these are Sahih Bukhari - the most reliable Hadith type in Islam.

Yeah, I highly doubt you read the context of that verse. You completely missed the verse that comes after it:


ISIS does none of the above in this verse.

"If they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause for fighting against them."
Seems like an awful lot of things you need to do not to be killed by Muslims... By comparison, Christianity advocates for its followers to turn the other cheek.
What does "removing themselves, not fighting, offering peace" mean anyways? That's incredibly vague. Surah 4:89 is talking about killing those who turn back from Islam (i.e. apostates). It seems pretty logical to me that "offering peace", in this context, would be returning to Islam - though you might make up another sketchy, comically farfetched interpretation to defend the contrary.
So with that in mind, those two verses combined basically say "Kill the apostates, unless they decide to come back to Islam".
So if you're an apostate, you have two possible ends: either you're killed, or you have to come back to Islam (which would be against their will if they left the religion in the first place).

This is a strawman. Please don't misrepresent my views. Taqwa (fear of God), is about attaining righteousness and bettering oneself for the sake of Allah. It doesn't mean going and killing everybody. To misrepresent my OP is dishonest and careless, and your signature proves this.

I'm not making a strawman, dude. I'm asking a simple question, would you give up morality if you weren't scared of God? I'm not making any assumptions or anything, I'm not trying to misrepresent anything. It's a pretty fair question and I'm honestly curious, but you're avoiding it. Hmm, why?
"To misrepresent my OP is dishonest and careless"
I'm not misrepresenting anything. I'm asking a question.
"and your signature proves this"
What does that have anything to do with my signature? I'm gonna assume you're talking about the Islamophobia bit. "Islamophobia" is a very poorly defined concept, but what I'm saying is that if "Islamophobia" is interpreted as the opposition to Islam's barbaric teachings, such as the killing of apostates I demonstrated earlier, then I'm indeed an Islamophobe. And so are a lot of people without even knowing it, because I doubt many people that are properly informed on Islam consider killing apostates acceptable.
Some define "Islamophobia" as the deep hatred for Muslims as people. I don't fit that criteria. I don't hate Muslims because they're defined by plenty other things than their religion, and they're defined by their actions first and foremost. But I do dislike Islam as an ideology because it advocates for pretty bad things, as I've shown earlier.

I never denied this in my OP.

That wasn't very clear. You made it sound like "the worship of God" was a goal in itself that permitted one to develop better morals.

And occasionally, we get people who never read the Quran, and strawman the entire Islamic faith based on the actions of ignorant terrorists and those ignorant right-wing critics of Islam who are prejudiced and fear that the identity of their countries will be lost because of multiculturalism. *shrugs*

Yes, definitely an oops on your part.

Ironically, I agree with your sarcasm in your last post.

I didn't read the entire Qur'an, but I did read huge chunks of it. I don't think I need to read it all, just like you don't need to read all of Mein Kampf to determine that Hitler is a very angry and quite deranged man. I've seen the very weak "verses of peace", I've seen the much more numerous verses of violence. I think I've seen enough of Islam to judge it.
I don't judge the entire Islamic faith based on the action of terrorists - though it is quite telling that almost all religiously-motivated terror attacks in the world are committed in the name of Islam - but based on the Islamic holy texts themselves. Once again, see the Hadiths that I quoted. I can quote much, much more of that type. And not only about apostates. You talk about the prejudice of the right-wing towards Islam, but Muslims themselves are prejudiced against a lot of people, to the point that they advocate for their submission or for their death. Jews, apostates, women, homosexuals... Besides, I can understand that the right-wing critics of Islam does feel uneasy about a group of people that follow a religion that calls for their death/forced conversion starting to come and settle in Europe. Many Qur'anic verses or Hadiths are simply alarming.
I'm not prejudiced against Muslims or Islam. I don't have any traumatic experience with Muslims or the Islamic religion that would make me irrationally deeply hate them - I'm just observing from the holy texts themselves, and drawing the rightful conclusion that the Qur'an is a violent and dangerous sectarian book.

Well, I'll have to do my large scale responses that people know me for with thousands of words that may overwhelm this forum. I will compile a response to this.

Herpy you ready to record how many words we will both use?

[The Feylands]

I believe in "objective morality". For perfect, flawless entities..... that I have never met. For the rest of us, it's "intersubjective" morality is the way to go... I cannot disconnect myself from my natural essence or the laws of nature that I'm inherently bound by. Ie. something might be right for you, but not for me, and no one needs to be "objectively" more right than the other. I can actually believe that is the case.. if you're God.. but that "objectivity" is simply not something we can comprehend due our carnate nature...

Although honestly.... being intellectual all the time is probably the wrong approach to reality in the first place. Since that approach quickly loses any basis in reality.

I kinda enjoy reading random pages in Machiavelli's book (got it here on my table) though... almost like I could enjoy reading the bible before I apostatised from X-tianity..

People that are idealistic all the time are just kinda lame imho, and not folks I wanna hang out with. Occasionally, such folks are honestly rather dangerous..

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

No, how do you think it's irrelevant?



Yes it does, because the content of the Qur'an, even if it is being misinterpreted (which it isn't. Only moderate muslims go ridiculous lengths to find different interpretations of verses that explicitly state to kill apostates), is much, much more war-mongering than the content of the Bible for instance. Therefore it's proner to misinterpretation by its believers who are more likely to act upon the many crudely violent verses contained in the Qur'an.
Then you argue that this isn't what the Qur'an says.
Lol.
Dude, it's what your faith as a whole says. A vast majority of Muslims in the Middle East don't go search for farfetched double interpretations and meanings - they see "kill the apostates" and they rightfully interpret it as what is extremely explicitly written, "kill the apostates". What, Islam doesn't advocate for apostates to be killed? Oh, really?
Sahih Bukhari (83:37) "Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate."
Sahih Bukhari (84:57) "Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"
Sahih Bukhari (84:58) "There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu'adh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Muisa said, "He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu Muisa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, "Then we discussed the night prayers and one of us said, 'I pray and sleep, and I hope that Allah will reward me for my sleep as well as for my prayers.'"
All of these are Sahih Bukhari - the most reliable Hadith type in Islam.



"If they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause for fighting against them."
Seems like an awful lot of things you need to do not to be killed by Muslims... By comparison, Christianity advocates for its followers to turn the other cheek.
What does "removing themselves, not fighting, offering peace" mean anyways? That's incredibly vague. Surah 4:89 is talking about killing those who turn back from Islam (i.e. apostates). It seems pretty logical to me that "offering peace", in this context, would be returning to Islam - though you might make up another sketchy, comically farfetched interpretation to defend the contrary.
So with that in mind, those two verses combined basically say "Kill the apostates, unless they decide to come back to Islam".
So if you're an apostate, you have two possible ends: either you're killed, or you have to come back to Islam (which would be against their will if they left the religion in the first place).



I'm not making a strawman, dude. I'm asking a simple question, would you give up morality if you weren't scared of God? I'm not making any assumptions or anything, I'm not trying to misrepresent anything. It's a pretty fair question and I'm honestly curious, but you're avoiding it. Hmm, why?
"To misrepresent my OP is dishonest and careless"
I'm not misrepresenting anything. I'm asking a question.
"and your signature proves this"
What does that have anything to do with my signature? I'm gonna assume you're talking about the Islamophobia bit. "Islamophobia" is a very poorly defined concept, but what I'm saying is that if "Islamophobia" is interpreted as the opposition to Islam's barbaric teachings, such as the killing of apostates I demonstrated earlier, then I'm indeed an Islamophobe. And so are a lot of people without even knowing it, because I doubt many people that are properly informed on Islam consider killing apostates acceptable.
Some define "Islamophobia" as the deep hatred for Muslims as people. I don't fit that criteria. I don't hate Muslims because they're defined by plenty other things than their religion, and they're defined by their actions first and foremost. But I do dislike Islam as an ideology because it advocates for pretty bad things, as I've shown earlier.



That wasn't very clear. You made it sound like "the worship of God" was a goal in itself that permitted one to develop better morals.



I didn't read the entire Qur'an, but I did read huge chunks of it. I don't think I need to read it all, just like you don't need to read all of Mein Kampf to determine that Hitler is a very angry and quite deranged man. I've seen the very weak "verses of peace", I've seen the much more numerous verses of violence. I think I've seen enough of Islam to judge it.
I don't judge the entire Islamic faith based on the action of terrorists - though it is quite telling that almost all religiously-motivated terror attacks in the world are committed in the name of Islam - but based on the Islamic holy texts themselves. Once again, see the Hadiths that I quoted. I can quote much, much more of that type. And not only about apostates. You talk about the prejudice of the right-wing towards Islam, but Muslims themselves are prejudiced against a lot of people, to the point that they advocate for their submission or for their death. Jews, apostates, women, homosexuals... Besides, I can understand that the right-wing critics of Islam does feel uneasy about a group of people that follow a religion that calls for their death/forced conversion starting to come and settle in Europe. Many Qur'anic verses or Hadiths are simply alarming.
I'm not prejudiced against Muslims or Islam. I don't have any traumatic experience with Muslims or the Islamic religion that would make me irrationally deeply hate them - I'm just observing from the holy texts themselves, and drawing the rightful conclusion that the Qur'an is a violent and dangerous sectarian book.

Well, I'll have to do my large scale responses that people know me for with thousands of words that may overwhelm this forum. I will compile a response to this.

Herpy you ready to record how many words we will both use?

I'm ready

btw the above text is 1339 words long

[Auristania]

"Islamophobia" is a very poorly defined concept, but what I'm saying is that if "Islamophobia" is interpreted as the opposition to Islam's barbaric teachings, such as the killing of apostates I demonstrated earlier, then I'm indeed an Islamophobe.

Islamophobia is clearly defined by European Court as any and all criticism of Islam and Mohammed.
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2018/11/22/emmanouil-bougiakiotis-e-s-v-austria-blasphemy-laws-and-the-double-standards-of-the-european-court-of-human-rights/
So I am Islamophobe and you are Islamophobe and anyone who ain't Islamic is Islamophobe and from Sunni POV Shia are the biggest Islamophobes of them all.

[AhmadiMuslim1889]

That is irrelevant to the point I made.

No, how do you think it's irrelevant?

Because that wasn't part of the point I made. You added it to misrepresent what I said. Looks like we're going to both have to go scholarly level then at the bottom, which I accept your challenge as i have in the past. I enjoy these types of discussions.

This is outright a fallacious misrepresentation of the Quran. That is not what the Quran says. Just because there are many terrorists does not mean that the Quran is at fault.

Yes it does, because the content of the Qur'an, even if it is being misinterpreted (which it isn't. Only moderate muslims go ridiculous lengths to find different interpretations of verses that explicitly state to kill apostates),

Yes you are misinterpreting it if you are saying something like "moderate muslims dont do this because they're in the west". How can you say it is not misinterpreted? This is a ridiculous and poorly researched argument. Getting your information from anti-Islamic books and websites does not make you an expert on the faith of Islam.

is much, much more war-mongering than the content of the Bible for instance.

Please then, make a comparison between the Bible and Quran then on their views of war.

Therefore it's proner to misinterpretation by its believers who are more likely to act upon the many crudely violent verses contained in the Qur'an.
Then you argue that this isn't what the Qur'an says.
Lol.

Because it doesn't. Forget about the muslims of today man. We're talking about Muhammad and his followers.

Dude, it's what your faith as a whole says. A vast majority of Muslims in the Middle East don't go search for farfetched double interpretations and meanings - they see "kill the apostates" and they rightfully interpret it as what is extremely explicitly written, "kill the apostates". What, Islam doesn't advocate for apostates to be killed? Oh, really?

No. My faith as a whole does not say that. What are you even on about "different interpretations"? We're not even talking about that dude. Forget about the "different interpretations". We're discussing Muhammad's teachings by itself.

To refute your "different interpretations" and "moderate Muslims" nonsense, the Quran in of itself, prescribed warfare because of oppression and endless persecution by the pagan tribes:

Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged — and Allah indeed has power to help them —
Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly only because they said, ‘Our Lord is Allah’ — And if Allah did not repel some men by means of others, there would surely have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft commemorated. And Allah will surely help one who helps Him. Allah is indeed Powerful, Mighty —
Those who, if We establish them in the earth, will observe Prayer and pay the Zakat and enjoin good and forbid evil. And with Allah rests the final issue of all affairs.

Whether you willfully ignore this or not, does not refute the fact that Islamic warfare conducted by Muhammad was mostly defensive, and if it was offensive, it was to end a threats to the Muslims. A perfectly reasonable position. Nothing like ISIS.

To prove this isn't "moderate Westernized Muslims" saying that Islamic warfare was defensive, I have proof from ancient and historically significant Islamic scholar, Ibn Kathir, a commentator of the Quran that is often, ironically used by those who oppose Islam to prove that Jihad is prescribed against all non-Muslims, when in reality, only against those who have wronged them. This tafsir by Ibn Kathir refutes their claims:

Allah prescribed Jihad at an appropriate time, because when they were in Makkah, the idolators outnumbered them by more than ten to one. Were they to engage in fighting at that time, the results would have been disastrous. When the idolators went to extremes to persecute Muslims, to expel the Prophet and resolving to kill him; when they sent his Companions into exile here and there, so that some went to Ethiopia and others went to Al-Madinah; when they settled in Al-Madinah and the Messenger of Allah joined them there, and they gathered around him and lent him their support, and they had a place where Islam prevailed, and a stronghold to which they could retreat; then Allah prescribed Jihad against the enemy, and this was the first Ayah to be revealed for it.

Now let's address your citations of Sahih Bukhari below:

Sahih Bukhari (83:37) "Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate."

The reason he did these things was because Arabia didn't have a prison system like the modern era has. Besides, things were done differently back during that time.

(1) A person who killed somebody unjustly

Which was completely justified considering the amount of hostility many tribes had against the Muslims.

(2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse

Generally, before the revelation of Surah 24:2-3, Muhammad would have the adulterous stoned to death. When the Quran didn't have a prescribed punishment, Muhammad would often use the rulings of the Torah until Surah 24. This does not mean that Muslim countries should stone the adulterous as many of their ulama mistakenly think because Surah 24:2-3 completely contradicts this:

The adulteress and the adulterer (or the fornicatress and the fornicator) — flog each one of them with a hundred stripes. And let not pity for the twain take hold of you in executing the judgment of Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment.

The adulterer (or fornicator) shall not marry but an adulteress (or fornicatress) or an idolatrous woman, and an adulteress (or fornicatress) shall not marry but an adulterer (or fornicator) or an idolatrous man. That indeed is forbidden to the believers.

(3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate."

Seems also just, especially for its time which takes us back to:

Quran 5:33-34:

The reward of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive to create disorder in the land is only this that they be slain or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on alternate sides, or they be expelled from the land. That shall be a disgrace for them in this world, and in the Hereafter they shall have a great punishment;

Except those who repent before you have them in your power. So know that Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.

That doesn't mean we should go kill non believers today because today, we use "jihad of the pen" as Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community has stated.

The majority of Arabia, especially the Quraish, Jewish and christian tribes, looking for any opportunity to wipe out Islam and the Muslims would have some people occasionally pretend to convert to Islam, and then apostasize by committing a horrible act. As is the case of the tribe if Ukl: Now before you go on, and tell me that this refutes my defense of Islam, I will be underlining the reasonings for why this punishment was so brutal:

Narrated Anas:

Some people from the tribe of `Ukl came to the Prophet (ﷺ) and embraced Islam. The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet (ﷺ) ordered them to go to the (herd of milch) camels of charity and to drink, their milk and urine (as a medicine). They did so, and after they had recovered from their ailment (became healthy) they turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away. The Prophet (ﷺ) sent (some people) in their pursuit and so they were (caught and) brought, and the Prophets ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and that their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they die.

حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، حَدَّثَنَا الْوَلِيدُ بْنُ مُسْلِمٍ، حَدَّثَنَا الأَوْزَاعِيُّ، حَدَّثَنِي يَحْيَى بْنُ أَبِي كَثِيرٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي أَبُو قِلاَبَةَ الْجَرْمِيُّ، عَنْ أَنَسٍ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ قَالَ قَدِمَ عَلَى النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم نَفَرٌ مِنْ عُكْلٍ، فَأَسْلَمُوا فَاجْتَوَوُا الْمَدِينَةَ، فَأَمَرَهُمْ أَنْ يَأْتُوا إِبِلَ الصَّدَقَةِ، فَيَشْرَبُوا مِنْ أَبْوَالِهَا وَألبانها، ففعلوا فصحوا، فارتدوا وقتلوا رعاتها واستاقوا، فبعث في آثارهم فأتي بهم، فقطع أيديهم وأرجلهم وسمل أعينهم، ثم لم يحسمهم حتى ماتوا‏.‏

Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 6802In-book reference : Book 86, Hadith 32USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 8, Book 82, Hadith 794  (deprecated numbering scheme)

Which adds up to the verses in Surah 5:33-34:

The reward of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive to create disorder in the land is only this that they be slain or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on alternate sides, or they be expelled from the land. That shall be a disgrace for them in this world, and in the Hereafter they shall have a great punishment;

Sahih Bukhari (84:57) "Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

Again, this takes us back to the context of the situation as I have mentioned with the above references I posted. According to Jonathan Brown of the Yaqeen Institution:

Shaltūt and the other scholars found strong confirmation for their thesis in the very same Hadiths that had long been used as evidence for punishing apostasy with death. What the Prophet ﷺ considered punishable by death was not the personal decision to cease believing in and practicing Islam but rather the betrayal of the Muslim community by joining the ranks of its enemies. One of the main pieces of evidence for the death penalty for apostasy is the Hadith narrated by Ibn ʿAbbās that the Prophet ﷺ ordered: “Whoever changes their religion, kill them.” This Hadith is invoked by Ibn ʿAbbās in the context of a group of Muslims who had rejected Islam and then began preaching and even setting down in writing “heretical” ideas (these apostates are described as zanādiqa, or heretics), seeking to challenge the caliph Ali.[43] The Arabic word used to describe what they had done, irtaddū, was understood in the early Islamic period to be a public act of political secession from or rebellion against the Muslim community. Hence the famous two years of the Ridda Wars fought during the caliphate of Abū Bakr (632-34 CE), the very name of which shows the conflation of ridda as apostasy with ridda as rebellion and secession from the Muslim polity (in Hadiths the word was used with both meanings).[44]

Which again, anyone who causes disorder in the land and is openly hostile to the Muslim community, were to be punished. This proves that apostasy by itself is not grounds to punish someone. Rather it is because of their own hostility.

He further adds:

Looking at this evidence, Shaltūt explained that Islam does not punish disbelief (kufr) with death. What is punishable by death, he concluded, is “fighting the Muslims, attacking them and trying to split them away from their religion.”[48] Scholars like Yūsuf al-Qaraḍāwī have therefore compared the punishment for apostasy to the modern crime of treason.[49] Al-Qaraḍāwī explains that there is no punishment for an individual’s decision to stop believing in Islam since the Qur’an makes clear that “there is no compulsion in religion” (Qur’an 2:256). Only those who combine their leaving Islam with a public attempt to undermine the stability of the Muslim community can be punished for ridda. Al-Qaraḍāwī introduces the distinction between ‘transgressive apostasy (al-ridda al-mutaʿaddiyya)’ and ‘non-transgressive apostasy (al-ridda al-qāṣira).’ The former, in which a Muslim renounces their faith in a way that actively encourages others to do so or that undermines stability, is subject to the apostasy punishment. One who simply leaves Islam or embraces another religion privately is left alone.[50]

Remember that hadith from Sahih Bukhari I quoted to you earlier.

Now that I have given you the above references (whether or not you willfully reject them will not refute history), now I can answer this hadith you quoted below:

Sahih Bukhari (84:58) "There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu'adh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Muisa said, "He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu Muisa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, "Then we discussed the night prayers and one of us said, 'I pray and sleep, and I hope that Allah will reward me for my sleep as well as for my prayers.'"

So, you see, reverting back to Judaism was not the reason why the Jew was killed, but for encouraging disorder in the land as Surah 5:33-34, Sahih Bukhari, and Jonathan Brown state. If you don't like it, I'm sorry, but that's how things worked back in the day. It's no different than the US executing Timothy McVeigh for treason and for his act of disorder by bombing a federal building. If you look at this way (though I doubt you will), you'll see that all the fiqhs Muhammad and his Khalifas passed were reasonable.

All of these are Sahih Bukhari - the most reliable Hadith type in Islam.

Yes, I know they are the most reliable. I study the science and context behind these hadith books from time to time, and they refute your claim that they promote terrorism. History does not agree with you on this allegation.

Yeah, I highly doubt you read the context of that verse. You completely missed the verse that comes after it:


ISIS does none of the above in this verse.

"If they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause for fighting against them."
Seems like an awful lot of things you need to do not to be killed by Muslims...

In the things I quoted to you in this post, definitely.

By comparison, Christianity advocates for its followers to turn the other cheek.
What does "removing themselves, not fighting, offering peace" mean anyways?

That they cease fighting and make peace...? It's not that hard to comprehend.

That's incredibly vague. Surah 4:89 is talking about killing those who turn back from Islam (i.e. apostates). It seems pretty logical to me that "offering peace", in this context, would be returning to Islam - though you might make up another sketchy, comically farfetched interpretation to defend the contrary.

Or as I've said several times in this post, you will willfully ignore out of your sheer ignorance, all the references and historical explanations I quoted to you in this post. I feel no need to repeat myself here.

So with that in mind, those two verses combined basically say "Kill the apostates, unless they decide to come back to Islam".
So if you're an apostate, you have two possible ends: either you're killed, or you have to come back to Islam (which would be against their will if they left the religion in the first place).

Yes. I do not deny this, but do remember it also means ceasing to stop committing disorder in the land before you accuse me of contradicting myself. Their conversion also has to be sincere. Sometimes, historically, even if you repented, you could still be executed because the Muslims may not know the state of their hearts depending on the history of the individual who apostatized. However, as the Conquest of Mecca showed, if you are sincere with your conversion, there is no reason that they should be killed. Why? Because the Quran and Bukhari both forbade two muslims from fighting each other to death:

And if two parties of believers fight against each other, make peace between them; then if after that one of them transgresses against the other, fight the party that transgresses until it returns to the command of Allah. Then if it returns, make peace between them with equity, and act justly. Verily, Allah loves the just.

Abu Bakrah reported: The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “If two Muslims confront each other with swords, then both the killer and the killed will be in Hellfire.” It was said, “O Messenger of Allah, we understand for the killer, but why for the one killed?” The Prophet said, “Verily, he intended to kill his companion.”

This is a strawman. Please don't misrepresent my views. Taqwa (fear of God), is about attaining righteousness and bettering oneself for the sake of Allah. It doesn't mean going and killing everybody. To misrepresent my OP is dishonest and careless, and your signature proves this.

I'm not making a strawman, dude. I'm asking a simple question, would you give up morality if you weren't scared of God?

Define your criteria for morality.

I'm not making any assumptions or anything, I'm not trying to misrepresent anything. It's a pretty fair question and I'm honestly curious, but you're avoiding it. Hmm, why?

Because you're pretending that I'm somehow avoiding questions when I've answered pretty much every single one of them that I seen? Yes you are making assumptions and trying to misrepresent things.

"To misrepresent my OP is dishonest and careless"
I'm not misrepresenting anything. I'm asking a question.

Same difference in this context.

"and your signature proves this"
What does that have anything to do with my signature?

Because I can get an idea about where you get your views on Islam. You being a French Nationalist, I assumed you may be a bit right wingish. Which was why I referenced the Islamophobia of the far right. Especially in Europe.

I'm gonna assume you're talking about the Islamophobia bit. "Islamophobia" is a very poorly defined concept, but what I'm saying is that if "Islamophobia" is interpreted as the opposition to Islam's barbaric teachings, such as the killing of apostates I demonstrated earlier, then I'm indeed an Islamophobe. And so are a lot of people without even knowing it, because I doubt many people that are properly informed on Islam consider killing apostates acceptable.

Killing apostates by itself is not morally right, but killing those who cause disorder and commit treason against the state is morally justifiable. Not apostasy by itself.

Some define "Islamophobia" as the deep hatred for Muslims as people. I don't fit that criteria. I don't hate Muslims because they're defined by plenty other things than their religion, and they're defined by their actions first and foremost. But I do dislike Islam as an ideology because it advocates for pretty bad things, as I've shown earlier.

Okay fair enough. You don't hate Muslims? Alright. But I still disagree with your views on Islam.

I never denied this in my OP.

That wasn't very clear. You made it sound like "the worship of God" was a goal in itself that permitted one to develop better morals.

Read this part of my OP again:

I am not denying however, that one without religion cannot have morals, nor that religious people, are simply better than atheists

And occasionally, we get people who never read the Quran, and strawman the entire Islamic faith based on the actions of ignorant terrorists and those ignorant right-wing critics of Islam who are prejudiced and fear that the identity of their countries will be lost because of multiculturalism. *shrugs*

Yes, definitely an oops on your part.

Ironically, I agree with your sarcasm in your last post.

I didn't read the entire Qur'an, but I did read huge chunks of it. I don't think I need to read it all, just like you don't need to read all of Mein Kampf to determine that Hitler is a very angry and quite deranged man. I've seen the very weak "verses of peace", I've seen the much more numerous verses of violence. I think I've seen enough of Islam to judge it.

Ok ,but you have no read it in-depth nor have you read much of the history behind the Quran. And yes, we should also read Mein Kampf as a whole despite the Quran not being at the level of Mein Kampf as you claim it is.

I don't judge the entire Islamic faith based on the action of terrorists - though it is quite telling that almost all religiously-motivated terror attacks in the world are committed in the name of Islam - but based on the Islamic holy texts themselves.

And you were demonstrated to be wrong. Anyone can use religion to commit terrorism. Burma is committing genocide against Muslims, the Lord's Resistance Army committed genocide, Pol Pot, an atheist committed genocide against three million people, and as you admitted, Adolf Hitler, etc.

Once again, see the Hadiths that I quoted. I can quote much, much more of that type. And not only about apostates. You talk about the prejudice of the right-wing towards Islam, but Muslims themselves are prejudiced against a lot of people

I can agree with you that Muslims are prejudiced and I often call them out for their own misrepresentation of Islam.

, to the point that they advocate for their submission or for their death. Jews, apostates, women, homosexuals... Besides, I can understand that the right-wing critics of Islam does feel uneasy about a group of people that follow a religion that calls for their death/forced conversion starting to come and settle in Europe. Many Qur'anic verses or Hadiths are simply alarming.

And those critics are wrong alongside the Muslim fundamentalists. It's ironic because many Muslims actually flee those countries in order to get away from the fundamentalists. Sometimes, it's because of the poor economic state that is within those nations. I don't deny we got some violent Muslims, and they should not be welcomed in Europe, but for those who aren't violent, they should be welcomed.

I'm not prejudiced against Muslims or Islam. I don't have any traumatic experience with Muslims or the Islamic religion that would make me irrationally deeply hate them - I'm just observing from the holy texts themselves, and drawing the rightful conclusion that the Qur'an is a violent and dangerous sectarian book.

It seems like you are. Not against Muslims, but Islam itself.

If you want to learn more about Islam, I'd recommend going deeper than just "texts themselves" or at least, stop listening to what anti-Islamic critics have to say regarding Islam because it seems you get your information from those websites or you are hanging around a group of people that have mislead you. Whatever the case may be, I don't care. Your views are grievously historically inaccurate and wrong.

Hence, all the things I have said prove that what Muhammad and the Khalifas did was morally correct. Especially for its time period. They didn't have the court system that we have today nor did they have the prisons that we have today, and considering that during Muhammad's lifetime, the tribes had no unified system, and they were in a state of war, all of their actions were justified.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

4,097 words.