-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do you believe that Islam is a fair and just religion?
- Thread starter loverOfTruth
- Start date
That doesn't strike me as very fair, though. In order for me to believe in the hereafter I need some justification to believe it. What if I'm not given any? You say that for those who haven't received "the True message," they won't be held accountable: does this include people who remain unconvinced not out of spite or pettiness but because really, they simply haven't seen convincing justification to believe it's true?
All I'm saying is that if people are punished who are really seeking the truth but simply haven't encountered justification that's solid and convincing, then that is unjust. If God doesn't punish those people, then there is no problem -- but if He does, then that is about as unjust as it gets.
LoverOfTruth said:
Fair enough, I already thought that one might be an interpretational issue. I understand the "apostasy-cum-treason" notion and don't find that to be too unreasonable for the time it applied. So, I think we're good on this point.
LoverOfTruth said:
I see a great deal of unfairness here, and I think it boils ultimately down to a microcosm of my last question (about whether there are fundamental assigned gender roles in Islam). What if the woman wants to head financial affairs, for instance? This is fundamentally unjust.
LoverOfTruth said:
Again, I find this fundamentally unjust. It forces women to take on a particular gender role unnecessarily: she must live in a gilded cage, so to speak. This will boil down to the last question, so I'll just advance to that:
LoverOfTruth said:
There are physical differences between men and women, yes -- however, there are not inherently (and not necessarily) emotional differences; and there are definitely not intelligence differences between men and women.
There is a spectrum of emotional ranges in both men and women; and a spectrum of dispositions to handle different affairs in both. Having the man as the financier might work great for some households but having the woman in charge of finances might work better in others.
It's fundamentally unjust to force particular roles on either sex outside of the physical realm -- and even then, there is no reason why a woman who happens to be brawny enough can't be a firefighter if her body is capable of performing the job! In like fashion, there's no reason why a woman capable of financing should be prohibited from managing the estate; and so on and so forth.
LoverOfTruth said:
Think I addressed this above: nobody denies physiological differences; but there is no reason to prohibit people of either sex from performing roles they are *capable* of performing and *willing* to perform. That would be unjust; and that is a system that you describe: prohibiting exactly that.
LoverOfTruth said:
It's perfectly fine if someone chooses to have a particular role -- if a woman chooses to take on a traditionally "feminine" role, then fine; I agree, that isn't demeaning at all. What's demeaning is telling a person they *must* take a particular role because of their sex, or that they *can't* have a different role, even if they're capable of doing it.
If it weren't for my society throwing off the oppression of mandated gender roles, for instance, I likely wouldn't be able to become a physicist -- yet here I am, grateful that I'm not oppressed from persuing cosmology!
(I also handle my finances; and am glad to have that choice as well!)
Last edited:
loverOfTruth
Well-Known Member
Seriously ? Really, are you serious ? I don't think someone who wants to 'dodge' such questions would go out of their way to start a thread like this. The reason I thought of this scenario is because 1) I don't know of any muslim society that still actively practices slavery and 2) many non-muslims have issues with us being called 'slave of God'.
Now let me answer your question.
"Since time immemorial, slavery was an accepted practice; thus it was not Islam that started this practice, but rather Islam was the first system to inculcate the freedom of slaves and take steps to make them equal citizens of society. Slavery was abolished in modern society only a couple of centuries ago, and was openly practiced in almost all parts of the civilized world even until the early 1900s. But Islam made it a virtue to free slaves, and inculcate them into society as equal citizens, almost 1500 years ago" [1]
Which is quite apparent from the following Hadith:
Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari: "The Prophet said, "Give food to the hungry, pay a visit to the sick and release (set free) the one in captivity (by paying his ransom)." (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Food, Meals, Volume 7, Book 65, Number 286)" [1]
Also, it was limited to only children of slaves or prisoners of war. So just like in polygamy, Islam didn't start the practice but at a time when it was freely practiced without any regulations in pre-Islamic arabia, Islam came to restrict it and give rights to the slaves.
"The slave girl was taken into a household as a full member. The children of the slave girls were known as the children of the person, grew up with his other children, and had exactly the same rights and inheritance as the other offspring. The slave girl was treated like his wife, and the children from these slave girls were treated like their children by society. very similar to the husband-wife relationship, the only difference being that the wife came into the house through a marriage contract, and the slave girl was allotted to the person by the state. " [1]
As you can clearly see in the following Qur'anic verse which was revealed in light of the practices in those days (and even then it was like a marriage and not forced sex): "If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess: And Allah hath full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another: Wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable" . Dower is a mutually agreed upon gift that a man has to give to his wife for the marriage). For more details on this specific issue, please read the first response here...
Studying Islam | Forums
So it is quite apparent that "what your right hand possesses", is certainly not the same denigrating slavery that existed in the west as recently as a century and half ago and not to mention the 'segregation' (lasting influence of slavery) which existed in US as recently as about half a century ago.
[1]http://islamicresponse.blogspot.com/2011/06/islam-on-slave-girlsconcubines.html
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Islam is fair and just from the perspective of Muslims. How could it not be? Where the cookie crumbles away to dust is how non-Muslims view Islam, based on 1400+ years of interaction with the "Muslin world". For the non-Muslim to say that Islam is "fair and just" (to non-Muslims) is an opinion based on ignorance that is simply unsupported by facts and quite possibly suicidal.
loverOfTruth
Well-Known Member
That is the most simplistic generalization without any substance. Then that would be true for any team/group, religion, nation, and what not ?
loverOfTruth
Well-Known Member
Sorry I don't agree...even a 2 year old can sense that something greater than them created them and that they have to depend on something greater than them.
"The punishment of the Hereafter is eternal only for those who were stubborn against the Truth.
Such people remained stubborn their entire lives, despite being given countless chances to repent and submit to the Truth. In fact, they have reached a stage, where, as the Qur’an says below, even if they were returned to life after having tasted the fire of Hell, they would still go back to the same sins they used to commit.
“If you could but see when they will be held over the (Hell) Fire! They will say: “Would that we were but sent back (to the world)! Then we would not deny the Sign of our Lord, and we would be of the believers! Nay, it has become manifest to them what they had been concealing before. But if they were returned (to the world), they would certainly revert to that which they were forbidden. And indeed they are liars.” (6:27-28)
Their punishment is eternal because, given the chance, they would have done evil eternally. Imam Sadiq (a.s) was asked the same question and he replied:
'Surely, people of Hell are eternally in Hell because their intention was if they lived in this world eternally they would disobey God eternally, likewise people of Paradise will be eternally in Paradise becasue their intention was if they lived in this world eternally they would worship God eternally.' (al-Kaafi, vol.2 p.85)" [1]
[1]http://www.askthesheikh.com/is-it-fair-that-god-punishes-sinners-for-eternity-in-the-next-world-for-their-sins/
Last edited:
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
It is, however, the truth. I guess you don't love the truth as much as your moniker asserts.
Photonic
Ad astra!
So "Allah" is the great generalizer.
What would be some of the undeniable signs of the "Truth," in your opinion?
This is nonsense on several levels. No, it isn't apparent that something greater "created" us. Maybe it is to some people -- I don't know, I can't judge for anyone but myself -- but it isn't apparent at all to me; nor am I alone in feeling this way.
By dismissing genuine skepticism as "being stubborn," can't you see that you're dismissing viewpoints that don't agree with yours by fiat in order to justify something that just might be fundamentally unjust -- punishing them for ignorance (given that Allah exists for sake of argument) that they can't help?
The belief that people can CONTROL what they find convincing is called doxastic volunteerism. It's almost certainly false. For instance, if I told you there was an invisible dragon in the room behind you, would you be convinced? No. Could you force yourself to truly feel convinced by force of will alone? No.
Any time you're presented with supposed evidence, something happens in your mind that either convinces you or not. You can't decide what convinces you or not -- you're just either swayed, or you are not. Now, this still applies in matters that are less obvious: for instance, whether or not a god exists. Does pointing at the world and saying "look at how beautiful the world is" constitute evidence of a god? Well, some people are convinced by this, and consider it to be strong evidence. Could we ask those people to start NOT being convinced by it, and have them change their introspective feelings about it by the force of their will? OF COURSE NOT.
Well, consider that some people see the beauty of the world and do not feel convinced that this is evidence of a god. Some people see the beauty of the world and find no need to invoke gods to explain it. That doesn't mean they're stubborn; it just means that some things that you consider "obvious" are actually quite subjective. Dismissing opposing viewpoints out of hand because you think something is "obvious" isn't very just in itself. It's not obvious at all to me and to many that a god exists; and in fact it really does make more sense to me if one probably doesn't. Is that my fault? Not any more than it's your "fault" for thinking it's obvious one DOES exist. This is why we must rely on evidence: to get over subjective humps like these.
Last edited:
Really,i agree Slavery was rife in our early history and the Slave trade was significant up until a couple of hundred years ago,in the 1800s Arab Slave Traders were even raiding Britain as late as 1867,good taken in raids which include Men Women and Children are booty,the possesion of a Human being is slavery,you can dress it up as you like its slavery,Manumission may be honourable if you hadn't taken someone as a Slave in the first place.
Just for the record,if you want to be a Slave thats your choice,i have no issue with "Slave to Allah",i may find the idea alien and not something i would strive to be but choice is the key word here.
As for the Qur'an and hadith,the problem as i see it is there is no update,its 1400 years old,like any cultural religious practice that old it seems like a square peg trying to fit into a round hole,just my opinion.
loverOfTruth
Well-Known Member
Please don't jump the gun - I have not responded to your last set of comments yet. I will as time permits in order.
loverOfTruth
Well-Known Member
I am going to respond to the other points later as I will respond in order. However, I just had to say this cause I was just amazed to see that line in Bold Red (above and below). See what the Qur'an says about that - the other verse I stated earlier along with a few more before it...
"...when they come to thee, they (but) dispute with thee; the Unbelievers say: 'These are nothing but tales of the ancients.' Others they keep away from it, and themselves they keep away; but they only destroy their own souls, and they perceive it not.If thou couldst but see when they are confronted with the Fire! They will say: 'Would that we were but sent back! Then would we not reject the signs of our Lord, but would be amongst those who believe!' Yea, in their own (eyes) will become manifest what before they concealed. But if they were returned, they would certainly relapse to the things they were forbidden, for they are indeed liars."
To respond to that , Yes we like to keep it Pure and Authentic as it was revealed untainted by any influence by passage of time.
loverOfTruth
Well-Known Member
I have no idea who this Imam is. But his argument is flawed and does not exculpate Allah.
If Allah knows that if I lived in the world eternally, I would still continue to be a disbeliever and THAT IS CITED AS THE REASON FOR NOT GIVING ME AN ETERNAL WORLDLY LIFE, the same argument can be used to question why Allah creates the world at all. Whenever Allah created the world, he eternally knew which individuals will die as believers and which individuals will die as disbelievers. He need not have created at all. He could have thrown us into eternal hellfire and you and other believers into eternal paradise directly skipping this step of worldly life.
Apart from being unfair and unjust, Allah also seems to be inefficient in his activities.
loverOfTruth
Well-Known Member
It would only seem to be true if you are getting your facts from the Islamophopic sites. Let me give you some history.
* "Indonesia is the country that has the largest number of Muslims in the world, and the majority of people in Malaysia are Muslims. But, no Muslim army ever went to Indonesia or Malaysia." - Muslims only went there to do trade and people became Muslim just by seeing the fair and just dealing of the Muslims. [1]
* "Muslims ruled Spain (Andalusia) for about 800 years. During this period the Christians and Jews enjoyed freedom to practice their respective religions, and this is a documented historical fact." [1]
* "An article in Readers Digest Almanac, yearbook 1986, gives the statistics of the increase of the percentage of the major religions of the world in half a century from 1934 to 1984. This article also appeared in The Plain Truth magazine. At the top was Islam, which increased by 235%, while Christianity had increased by 47%. During this fifty-year period, there was no Islamic conquest yet Islam spread at an extraordinary rate." [1]
* Not to mention that people of different background, faith, race, life style accepting Islam in the US in droves. See it for yourself. The Deen Show
You must be really smart and all these people must be really dumb to accept such an unfair and unjust religion as their way of life ...
You wanna know what non-muslims think of Islam ? Then read ....
Mahatma Gandhi, in his inimitable style, says "Some one has said that Europeans in South Africa dread the advent Islam -- Islam that civilized Spain, Islam that took the torch light to Morocco and preached to the world the Gospel of brotherhood. The Europeans of South Africa dread the Advent of Islam. They may claim equality with the white races. They may well dread it, if brotherhood is a sin. If it is equality of colored races then their dread is well founded." [2]
And more wonderful still is what the reverend Bosworth Smith remarks (regarding Prophet(pbuh) of Islam), "Head of the state as well as the Church, he was Caesar and Pope in one; but, he was pope without the pope's claims, and Caesar without the legions of Caesar, without an standing army, without a bodyguard, without a palace, without a fixed revenue. If ever any man had the right to say that he ruled by a right divine It was Mohammad, for he had all the power without instruments and without its upport. He cared not for dressing of power. The simplicity of his private life was in keeping with his public life." [2]
[1]http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/677/
[2]http://thesimplemessage.blogspot.com/2006/02/about-prophet-muhammadpbuh-by-non.html
loverOfTruth
Well-Known Member
All Knowing and Predetermination is not the same thing ... (we believe in the human ability to choose between the right and the wrong in Islam).
By the way, no one needs to excupate Allah(God) - He is beyond any need. It is for our own benefit that we discuss such things - Allah gave the ability to humans to judge/think/act any way then want (in this world).
Last edited:
