Well, let's explore this, focusing on the highlighted part. Let's imagine you have a friend or acquaintance that isn't a muslim who you know full well would be a failure of a muslim.
So you know someone, let's call him Bob, who is ignorant of islam. Now you know Bob well enough that your gut instinct is that he won't be able to handle islam, for whatever reason you like, maybe he's weak willed, maybe his personality is just completely opposed to what's needed to follow islam successfully, whatever. Point is, you don't think he'd be a good muslim, try as he might. He's not a bad person, he'd never hurt anyone, isn't racist or sexist or homophobic or bigoted, just an average bloke.
Now, looking at your friend Bob, you have two choices. One, you try to convince him of the truth of islam, and he lives his life, doesn't hurt anyone, dies, and goes to hell. Or two, you keep quite, and he lives his life, doesn't hurt anyone, dies, and goes to heaven.
So, how is you ensuring Bob doesn't go to heaven a lack of compassion? Why is the compassionate thing to send him to the fires, knowing full well what with how vivid islamic descriptions of hell are, what awaits him? Your statement about letting people "bask in the ignorance of what is false" being "a lack of compassion" makes no sense.
Well let me extract some of the key points =).
You mention that 'who you know full well would be a failure of a muslim.' However, the reality of a human being is that they change according to the concepts they adopt about reality. So a person can change in the complete direction due to a change in concepts, for example the historical example of the man named umar bin al khattab, or even say malcolm X. Even quite the opposite, for example an ex-muslim. So we never know what a person will be until we give them the information to make the informed decision. This breaks your analogy
The second point you mention, which is very indirect, is actually the foundation of secular humanism (ie the golden rule, 'be a good person,' etc). However, this is actually the premise to an entire way of life, which brings into question what is the basis for this even being a standard for mankind? Is there any rational or philosophical foundation to it? You will find that there is not, except in the case of the communist who has an entirely different argument. Since I categorically reject this paradigm, we are at a point where we would be forced to first discuss the foundations like the point of existence, how one seeks knowledge what is considered correct knowledge, etc.
The third point you mention is actually the fallacy of a false dilemma, where you have given choices which lead to one answer, or rather restricted the choices in such a way that is not representative of reality.
But say we go with it anyways for arguments sake. The previous two points I made in my previous post still stand: that since it is guidance from the Creator it is naturally always better, whether the human being comprehends the why or not, and that the responsibility of speaking truth is still not removed from the neck of the one who knows it because to give comfort on a lie is still a lie and that leaves me personally accountable for spreading a lie.
Hope that clarifies.
This is a very flawed example if indeed you are using this as equally comparable to a person willfully rejecting a truth they know, Islam, for the fun they want to have first.
Most children do not stick school out because of a long term financial or career goal ahead of them, they stick it out at first because they are forced to, by parents, then the state that will fine their parents, or imprison them if the child leave schools before 16-18 (soon to be 18 all over the UK).
Those who abandon school for fun, have no real understanding of the impact this will have on their later lives. Indeed the right to vote for example, is not given to anyone under the age of 18, because it is believed they are incapable of making an informed decision.
Your example suggests they are fully cognisant of the choice they are making, and so on a level with someone who rejects the knowledge they actually accept and believe about heaven or hell, in favour of earthly pleasures, when in reality your example is to use those who are considered too young to understand such long term effects.
You also then go on in later posts to convince yourself that you see a look of acceptance and then rejection pass across the faces of those you are convinced exist, that would willfully reject something they know to be true in favour of frolicking around on earth. Again, I disagree. The look could easily be one that says "your argument is interesting, but still unconvincing".
Like there is no argument you could produce to me that would convince me that allowing a husband to beat me as a last resort, is something that will ensure I get in to heaven in the long run. No clever debate about the delicacy of translating that passage, or that it serves as a warning for men not to beat their wives, will work. I would not be rejecting something I accept, since I flat out do not accept it.
To add, it is not that I refuse to accept something I believe to be true. There is no part of me that believes there is a truth to be rejected here.
There are a few things to point out =).
To start with, when making analogy one extracts what are the root elements (in arabic rukn), which are foundational to the analogy. This works both in Islamic usul and in the fundamentals of logic. For example, when looking at a text that talks about 'riding a camel' one first determines when the text refers is linked to the camel or the riding. Then when an analogy is made (say to driving a car), what is extracted is what is needed for the analogy, which in this case is 'riding' because the structural link is the aspect of being transported from one location to another.
So in the case of the school example I used, you highlighted an issue not with the structural link of the example, but rather with details of the example not linked with analogy. For instance, I could easily argue back "Well person X I know did know in advance but they chose so anyways." The point was not the example itself and how common its appearance was, but rather the analogy itself =).
This is true for both the point you make about the reality of 'most children being forced by parents [...] government,' and the point you make about 'have no real understanding of the impact.'
The scenario of people is usually one of three:
-A case of sincere ignorance, ie they just don't have the information
-A case of willful ignorance, ie they know but they choose not to.
-A case of intellectual ignorance, ie they do not actually understand the information
You are disputing the second one, ie there is no such thing as an insincere person because no one is ever in willful ignorance. However this is absolutely false, as you can see the reality with politicians, many CEOs, etc.
As for what I mentioned about 'the look of acceptance and rejection,' this is actually a face-reading skill. It is qualitative as opposed to quantitative, and there is an art to doing it. I have been trained (not too extensively) in reading facial muscles and psychological profiling due to the nature of my work and my background. So what you dispute here is actually the skill (ie I am incompetent at this skill). Either that, or reject the art/skill itself, I'm not sure which. Suffice to say, while you may not find it an argument that is beyond a shadow of a doubt, it cannot be dismissed as evidence itself. Regardless this is not the point at all, rather it was what I mentioned before, I just said that piece more informally because I don't want to turn the introduction thread into a formal debate =).
Finally you end by talking about you yourself not falling under the second category I highlighted above. However, I did not claim that, and you alone are not a sufficient example for the entire human race. Rather you must give a deductive argument for that reality.
Let us take even the example you used of a husband who 'beats [his wife] as a last resort.' You said 'there is no argument you could produce to me that would convince me." This means the conversation on that topic is closed in the absolute sense, meaning no discussion can be had because no amount of information will change your mind, hence the mind is closed on the topic.
All in all this topic will eventually lead us to the topic of morality, which will of course lead to epistemology.
If I might ask, do you happen to be a secular humanist?
Hello there Truth Seeker. As a tradition receive a bunny from me
. I have a question for you too. Do you think that shirk is such a great sin that you have to be roasted in hell eternally for it?
Hi Rubaya!
Well I do like bunnies, I always wanted one as a pet =).
I think I indirectly addressed that question no? =/.
One thing I do agree with that you said is that I've seen a few people on here say something like, "Even if Allah were real, I would rather go to Hell than bow down to such an evil creature," and so on and so forth. If I were to accept for a moment that Hell were real and Islam was totally true, I'd secretly (not so secretly? I guess the fellow is sitting behind my jugular vein, but whatever) have moral objections to lots of things in Islam, no matter how simple you make it. I'd even have a moral problem with the Quran. However, you bet your sweet ass I'd bow down to Him! I may not like it, but I'll do it!
If someone here had not an ounce of doubt about the truth of Islam, and not a speck of hope that they weren't going to be brutally tortured without end when the game is over, and
still said "I'm still making this decision, I cannot agree with such an immoral god," and
meant it? I would admire that person beyond words. And I would envy their bravery. And I would hope that God isn't listening to me think that. God
made such a magnificently brave and decent creature, and he hates it and is going to torture it forever? It sounds like insanity to me, but whatever, it would be his call, I guess. But I will be honest...I think a lot of people who say that would change their minds if they knew, if they felt in their very bones that Islam was true and that the descriptions of Hell in the Quran was what was waiting for them.
For the rest, I'm afraid we will still have to disagree. Like Berberella said, that look you speak of could easily be anything, even someone just trying to be polite and show that they are listening and engaged. To paraphrase Mohammad, who knows what is in his heart but God? You can't look at him and know what he believes.
I do think it is a mistake, and a common and understandable mistake, to throw out these comparisons like studying for exams, working for a good job, pursuing x or y in life, or going to college. But if you really think about it, it's just not even comparable, not only for (again) the reasons Berberella mentioned, but also for the fact that the future in life is so uncertain, there's always the chance that things will work out without work and that things will come crashing down around you even if you do everything right, and certainly none of us believe for a second that we will be transported into Hell the instant we fail our math exam.
The stakes of any earthly decision will never be so high and so certain as the decision to be pious would be to a
true believer. You really can't look at other dissimilar situations and extract a lesson about human nature and paste it onto this incredibly unique situation. There is nothing on Earth that carries such a high cost. There is no comparison to be made for avoiding eternal hellfire. There is nothing that comes even close, it's not like anything you can imagine in this world.
On a side note, your beliefs sound interesting and I want to know more about it, but I'm going to try to not totally bombard you with questions and overwhelm you in your introduction thread. I think you might be the only active Muslim right now (?), and I hope you stick around!
Well since you referenced Berberella so much perhaps you could just read my reply to her =). I'm avoiding jargon as much as possible because then the discussion gets so bogged down haha.
I think we could really shrink the discussion if we addressed two topics:
1) The topic of morality, both its source and the method of adoption we have for it
2) The logical inconsistency between what the brain adopts and what the heart feels
I think that discussion would address everything you said =).
You know you could always just PM me instead. It's better that way because what we talk about won't get hijacked and I'd actually be pretty interested in what you have to say!
Topic: Re-introduction