Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Donald_M

Islam And The Future Of Tolerance

Recommended Posts

A very interesting talk from Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz.

 

They discuss their collaborative effort to remedy the problem of Islamism,

and their soon to be released book, 'Islam and the Future of Tolerance'

 

 

 

41KvXPEJejL._SX329_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Edited by Donald_M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The book is to be realised late September or October but one can place a pre order with Amazon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's a good idea to learn about Islam from this guy. He don't respect his god' sayings, which indicates, he thinks he is more intelligent and wise than the god.

freedom of beliefs and speech are guaranteed by Islam. thinking and discussions are urged by Allah. he, subhanah wa ta'ala, said in many places in the Quran he don't like the blind followers but those who think, learn and understand.

All Islamic Penalties are mainly a deterring means to have more safe and just society (aimed not to be applied or minimum numbers). all the world, east and west, are using this concept regarding the areas that  is very dangerous to their national safety or challenging their existence.  electric fences around their nuclear stations, dams, military bases + one bullet to the head. why the USA have 5000 nuclear weapon? for deterring!!! ? By the way it works fine in this area. you don't find many corps over these electric fences nor the military guards kills 100s around the fences every day. because people are deterred to get near the forbidden area.

why theft is so bad and what are the consequences of it?? ask those who lost their earnings and could't help provide their families with the basic means of life and sometimes committed suicide. for those who tried to defend themselves and properties and lost their hands, legs, eyes and their whole body and life in many cases. tell me how many thieves and robbers in the USA jails and how much they consume on the sake of the tax payers whom they steal their money. why the modern countries could't stop it?!

In Islam, this penalty will not be applied if the government don't provide the resources for an honorable life for individuals, those who steal to feed themselves or their families will not be punished.

why adultery is bad and what are the consequences of it??
ask the AIDS carriers, those dead alive persons, ask the kids who gained AIDS and other diseases from their parents, ask the families who have an infected father, mother or brother who their lives changed. how many families has been destroyed due to this crime and how many children lost their future or how many crimes happened due to this. how many single mothers ........

In Islam, the proof of such crime is ultimately difficult, and almost never been applied except for the admission cases. while it worked in deterring manner.

at the end of the day, after some simple statistics it's a trade off, either allowing the chopping of hands, legs and eyes and of  thousands innocent and take their money to accommodate the killers (this money can save other innocent's lives). or deterring the potential criminals by chopping the hands and heads of few number of their criminal colleagues and save the lives of the innocents. and by the way having more save and secure society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble with your first statement is that we only know what 'God said' because Mohammed told us so the argument becomes circular. Secondly, a rational person would read several accounts. Thirdly, by reading widely you may be able to understand that you've got it wrong or simply misunderstood your own scripture.

 

If freedom of belief and speech are guaranteed why are apostates or others executed in say Saudi Arabia for saying what they think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much of what Tanker had to say was valid.

 

But if 'freedom' is equivalent to 'without constraint', then we've already moved too far.

 

Punishment is not an honourable substrate for morality.

Behaving the way that you do out of fear of punishment, is not morality.

 

And when multiple religions use the argument (that God is the source of our morality)

to justify their own version of a deity, the credibility of the whole argument crumbles further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if there is no God there is no ultimate source of morality?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You started your sentence with the word 'but',

then finished it with a question mark,

and it has thrown me somewhat...

 

God must exist because you have ethics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Good' is equal to beneficial & 'bad' is equal to detrimental.

 

This spectrum of desire contains 2 variables.

The value of each variable is a product of perspective.

 

If you have water and desire ice, then heat is detrimental (bad).

If you have ice and desire water, then heat is beneficial (good).

 

How well an entity can predict the future (cause and effect) will determine the scope to the value of each variable.

To what degree something may be defined as 'good', will depend entirely upon the quality of this perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about say chemotherapy - is it good or bad in that it might cure you or might not so one cannot necessarily decide whether it is good or bad. In ethics we have what is called a double effect. That is I might give a patient morphine which can ease the pain but it can also kill them. So it seems to me deciding on good or bad is not quite as black and white as you make out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For as long as WE DETERMINE something to be of benefit, it is considered 'good'.

Water (just like morphine) is also poisonous in large quantities.

But it can never be described as inherently bad (nor good).

 

This is also true for radioactive materials; Which are only 'good' for as long as we say they are.

 

Black and white, until you can demonstrate otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point Donald . I think all men, with the exception of the legally insane or congenital defect , innately know the difference between right and wrong . Wait,  I'll qualify that by adding , at this  present stage of social evolution .

  Example : 

 Murder will always be murder UNLESS one kills to defend against being killed  or prevents another from being killed . Those are the only two exceptions that redeem one from being a murderer .

 Men do not need religion or spiritual writings to know this . Any religion that justifies killing  beyond those two exceptions mentioned , is merely reflecting the mind of the murderer .  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Murder is a legal term for ‘unlawful killing’.  Killing to defend yourself or another is considered by law to be OK so you have not committed “murder”. This gets tricky when you consider soldiers, maybe they are defending themselves or their comrades from harm when they kill the enemy or maybe they instigated an attack, killing their enemy to gain ground or a specific objective, this is not classified as murder under law but was it really a good action.  It’s a bit of a mine field really.

 

One problem with religions as a ‘source of morality’ is that they each defined differently who you should kill, murder is different for each as the set of people you are allowed and encouraged to kill is different for each.

 

I think the ultimate source for morality is humans and our desire to be happy.  What makes the maximum amount of long term human happiness is good, simple as that. If you agree with me that humans exist and that they want to be happy then you and I agree on all of the foundations that my view of morality requires.

 

The old saying holds here, good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things but to get good people to do bad things requires a religion.

Edited by russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should qualify your point Russel , for when you say Murder is unlawful killing , you are not taking into account places in this world where killing which is actually murder and LAWFULL , for the "right reasons " and yes that pertains mostly to religion , but also to mobs , gangs  and governments .The Saudis recently sentenced a man and his son , NOT for any Islamic rule violation but for criticizing the Saudi Government . I'm sure there are more than just a few governments who execute people for political rather than any moral or religious violations . This is Murder .  Even soldiers in war , can be guilty of murder , and we all know there's more than enough proof for that .

 If you get "good people" to do bad things , that simply means they were not good people to begin with .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you get 'good people' to do bad things, that simply means they were not good people to begin with.

 

A 'good' person can do a 'bad' thing and still remain 'good' - Ignorance is an effective cause of such behaviour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Old Man;
  this is a story of an old man who was about to kill himself and suicide. He was eighty years old.
He left a letter for his wife .But what happened next was amazing. He finally found his way
  At his letter to his wife he wrote“Katrina, my love, I’m leaving for good. I will end my misery that never seems to abandon me. To put it frankly: I will end my life. Forgive me, and may the children forgive me too.” and he was about to carry out his plan.
  Something happened that changed his life for better. to know more visit;http://en.islamkingdom.com/Know_about_Islam/The_novel/The_Old_Man.aspx
  Source;Islamkingdom http://en.islamkingdom.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not when it comes to murder Donald . I think you have a skewed view of human nature . You can not claim ignorance as an excuse after murdering another human being . Sorry .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Murder is, exactly as I stated, “Unlawful killing”. There is no qualification as none is needed.  My government, my view of morality, may well see a Saudi killing of a dissenter as murder but under their law it is not.  I believe their law is wrong and I’m sure they would see my view as wrong.  Murder has no meaning outside human laws, human ideas.

 

Religious people now wish to push a law maker, an ultimate source, into the mix and state that it gives us a basis for morality but just look at how different their views are on what is and is not moral and where they hold common ground it is usually in areas in which simple human empathy would agree.  That does not sound like an ultimate source is behind it to me.

 

If a perfectly good man truly believes that his daughter would be better off dead because of some transgression of his deeply held religious beliefs, that her ‘eternal soul’ could be saved by his actions, he is deluded not bad but his actions may well be immoral thanks to his religious beliefs.  Yes I’m oversimplifying, false beliefs of many kinds can lead good people to do bad things, think of drug company scientists who injure or kill people because they did not truly understand what their invention would do to them.  They were good people yet they killed for their false beliefs.  Ignorance can indeed lead good people to do ‘bad’ things for all the right reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Russel , I'd hate to live in a land ruled by your ethics. Yikes ! { and no doubt ,there are such lands} You are confused. It makes no difference whether some religious sensibility has been violated , or some political rule broken , murder is murder. Good people do not murder. Your  sentence "if a perfectly good man truly believes ..." is and of itself an oxymoron. You can construct whatever " rationale " you wish , it will not change the act of murder. An no "perfectly good man " can incorporate such a rationale in committing the murder of another human being , whether it be a daughter or stranger. As for your example of a drug company killing or injuring , that would be called accidental , unless of course the drug company knew the effects were deadly , and sold it anyway , that would be murder , or at least reckless homicide.  Apple and Oranges man.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If 'killing' things is sometimes good, but 'murder' is always bad, then this is but a matter of semantics & applied value (before the fact).

 

But if a definition of 'murder' is always subject to perspective or opinion pole, then it is possible to be defined as 'good' and do something defined as 'bad'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My poor confused debate opponent  . Killing is not murder . Murder is not subject to opinion .   If you , by this late date in your mental development can not differentiate between the two , that is indeed cause for concern .

LOL....the game of semantics is what you have engaged in . Perhaps you should reread your statement .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

No need to be sorry about it, one of the beauties of the system I’m explaining is that it can accept people of almost any faith and it pushes all people to live together peacefully and respectfully because that is what creates the greatest long term human happiness, if that troubles you then you are free to find somewhere else to live, that also is part of this philosophy.

 

Maybe we can make more progress here if you define “Murder” without any human ideas, remove gods, remove political rules and human ideas and define what murder is?  Can you do that?

 

Maybe you don’t understand my example of the perfectly good man killing someone for his religious beliefs but let’s dig a bit deeper into that one and see what we are dealing with.  Imagine a young man whose sister has committed the terrible sin of pre-marital sex, a sin that is unforgivable in his belief system and his culture; a sin that stains his entire family according to everything he’s been taught over his entire life.  His deeply held religious ‘truth’ teaches that there is an out, anyone who dies a martyr’s death gets a free ticket to heaven, plus rewards, and they can take their relatives with them.  Martyrdom earns them a free pass for their sins and for the family member’s sins.  Why would such a man not choose to take up a gun and kill some ‘infidels’ because he truly believes that he will earn forgiveness and rewards for doing so?  I agree that such an action is immoral and barbaric but I have not been indoctrinated with this meme.

 

You’ll have to read what I wrote above because I never accused the drug company people of murder rather I used their situation as an example of how false beliefs can lead to killing.  Yes it was a mistake, what they did they did with all of the best intentions, but they still caused the deaths of their patients because they were ignorant of some important facts.  The point I was making was simply this, false beliefs, whether cause by indoctrination or simple ignorance, lead to unnecessary deaths.

 

Russell

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My poor confused debate opponent. Killing is not murder.

Murder is not subject to opinion. If you, by this late date in your mental
development can not differentiate between the two, that is indeed cause
for concern. LOL....the game of semantics is what you have engaged in.

Perhaps you should reread your statement.

 

What an exceptional reply. I love the way you defended your position intelligently,

you threw around a couple of insults, laughed-out-loud like my 9yr old daughter and

then concluded it all by asking me to read my own comment. Wow!

 

Using your own words, please define 'killing' & 'murder' highlighting the differences between them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 LOL... Donald,.my replies were in the same vain as yours . They deserve to be matched . No ?   Obviously you have trouble differentiating killing from Murder .

 If a man threatens your life and in the course of defending yourself you kill that man -   that is killing .  If a man wants something another possess , and in order to get it , he robs and kills that man - that is murder .

 

Good grief man , I don't think that can be made any more clear . And as I said before , if your mind is not capable of grasping the  difference ,  yes you truly do have a cause for concern . However if you wish to play your game of semantics , feel free , you only diminish yourself in the process .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russel ,  you  have slipped in a strawman . Which I think was likely your purpose . A lot of words , totally uneccessarry , and mostly irrelevant . There is no religious or non-religious rationale for murder . But you, like Donald seem to have a problem differentiating killing from murder .I know full well what you meant in the example of the drug company , and my reply still stands , your analogy was a poor one, in that you failed to provide an explanation of the difference between an intentional deception resulting in death , with premeditation as it relates to a knowledge of deadly effects as opposed to accidental poisoning due to an incomplete understanding of deadly side effects .There have been more than enough examples of this in our lifetime , that we both have been aware of .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×