> Debate Is there a place for the skeptic if Islam is perfectly Logical?

[SilverLJ]

In the thread "Art the arts Permitted" several tracks appeared and I felt they were worth exploring. The idea expressed there and elsewhere is that Islam is perfectly logical. Now this may be true if one places oneself inside a bubble (I mean no disrespect) where everything has been decided and with a set of premises that are assumed to be true. But such a stance is logically I would contend not sustainable and provably so by the fact that tomorrow or next year new things will be known and so what is felt to be true today might be irrelevant tomorrow or provably incorrect. To begin the debate I will start with the idea of the hereafter, heaven and how we might get there. My argument is that if we begin with the premises that God is a Holy and God Just and I am sure we will agree on them we must ask:

Can God set aside sin without some payment, some recommence, some form of atonement. It is logical that if God is Holy and Just then He must punish sin; not to do so would violate His character of Justice. If I use an analogy to make my point clear then I might say that if someone kills my brother (or yours) then he is deserving of punishment; justice demands it. I quote a comment from the other thread by Abdul-Fattah "The prophet (pbuh) said that nobody will deserve paradise, not even him. Instead those that will go to heaven will do so, not because they earned it as a reward, but by Allah's mercy.

Now of course this is true but how does God exercise that mercy, how does he find a way to satisfy is Holiness and Justice. If he simply forgives with no payment so to speak, he violates His sense of Justice and must therefore be acting on a whim.

To use the above analogy again. Suppose the murderer comes and says sorry to me and begs forgiveness and seeks for repentance what should I do and what would the law demand? Can I forgive without demanding any justice? Would the law say go free, we are having mercy on you or would it also demand justice?

So how do you get out of this dilemma, what is the Islamic understanding on how God's justice is satisfied?

[salman]

I apologize in advance if my comment seems off-topic or offensive but I'm going to describe these questions in two words: UTTER RUBBISH

this is another evidence for self proclaimed Christians leaving the way of Jesus and contradicting their own doctrine or using double standards

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by salman

I apologize in advance if my comment seems off-topic or offensive but I'm going to describe these questions in two words: UTTER RUBBISH

this is another evidence for self proclaimed Christians leaving the way of Jesus and contradicting their own doctrine or using double standards

I am not offended, so don't worry on that score and I have taken your note to heart to never stray into personal attacks but I don't consider your remarks as an attack just an opinion. I am though surprised, even shocked and may I explain why. Firstly, I asked one question not several and that was how does God satisfy His Holiness and Justice. Secondly, there can hardly be a more important question since it pertains to heaven and hell and surely, in this life we need some assurance of how God might treat us on the day of resurrection?

I asked the question because you affirm often how logical it all is and secondly although I have searched for an Islamic answer I am unable to find one. Let me say that I know the Christian position on this issue and I think I am right in saying that we both would agree that faith and repentance are needed if we are to have any chance of mercy. I think from what I have read that the Islamic position is one or perhaps both the following, depends how you look at it.

1. God will have mercy but only on Muslims and, if I can put it like this, there is no scales measuring good and bad involved, God just decides to have mercy.

2. Alternatively, somehow one builds up capital in this life through faith, devotions and good works and that in some way offsets the bad things one does and allows God to show mercy.

Now, my position is that both these are illogical because they violate God's sense of justice. If I consider some of the names of God you use and put them together then my question becomes how are they coherent if what I have written above is correct.

The All-Compassionate, The Forgiver

The Humiliator, The Judge, The Just, The Forgiver and Hider of Faults, The Accounter, The Avenger, The Pure One, The Equitable One

So here how can God be a Judge and Just yet be All-Compassionate and Forgiving. Perhaps the most interesting one here is "The Forgiver and Hider of Faults" if I just take it literally, my question becomes how does God 'hide' faults and yet remain Just and Holy (is that the same as The Pure one?)?

[salman]

^let's be clear: I didn't attack you Mr. Silver, rather I attacked your questions or arguments or whatever you wanna call them!

It doesn't matter how you feel about this matter, because, praise to be Allah, He does whatever He Pleases and He will question you and not questioned by His creation. You don't decide what is justice, rather He decides what is justice! You see this is the main difference between your corrupt thought and our pure Islamic thought. For more on this, you can wait for others' response and please pardon my short responses due to lack of time.

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

In the thread "Art the arts Permitted" several tracks appeared and I felt they were worth exploring. The idea expressed there and elsewhere is that Islam is perfectly logical. Now this may be true if one places oneself inside a bubble (I mean no disrespect) where everything has been decided and with a set of premises that are assumed to be true. But such a stance is logically I would contend not sustainable and provably so by the fact that tomorrow or next year new things will be known and so what is felt to be true today might be irrelevant tomorrow or provably incorrect. To begin the debate I will start with the idea of the hereafter, heaven and how we might get there. My argument is that if we begin with the premises that God is a Holy and God Just and I am sure we will agree on them we must ask:

Can God set aside sin without some payment, some recommence, some form of atonement. It is logical that if God is Holy and Just then He must punish sin; not to do so would violate His character of Justice. If I use an analogy to make my point clear then I might say that if someone kills my brother (or yours) then he is deserving of punishment; justice demands it. I quote a comment from the other thread by Abdul-Fattah "The prophet (pbuh) said that nobody will deserve paradise, not even him. Instead those that will go to heaven will do so, not because they earned it as a reward, but by Allah's mercy.

Now of course this is true but how does God exercise that mercy, how does he find a way to satisfy is Holiness and Justice. If he simply forgives with no payment so to speak, he violates His sense of Justice and must therefore be acting on a whim.

To use the above analogy again. Suppose the murderer comes and says sorry to me and begs forgiveness and seeks for repentance what should I do and what would the law demand? Can I forgive without demanding any justice? Would the law say go free, we are having mercy on you or would it also demand justice?

So how do you get out of this dilemma, what is the Islamic understanding on how God's justice is satisfied?

utter rubbish indeed. however, i will respond to this rubbish with a context that will by default redner your contention even more obvious to the read, as plain and simple ignorance

1. it is logically only in a bubble-

this is baseless because our shariah takes into account "new things". In Islam, there is constants and variables. what does not change are the constants, what can change are variables

those issues that do not change, the only reason WHY they don't change is because they fall outside the property and realm of change to begin with

allow me to state it in terms that you can understand.

the US constitution was meant to be abided by and adhered to for all of time for a land of the free. No constitutionalist in their right mind would concur that the constitution is only for a certain time period and that it is inapplicable to modern times.

the analogy of criticing Islam within the viewpoint that its only logical if constrained into a bubble but it is illogical if applied to new situations is just as absurd and analogous to someone who views these very same views only about the U.S. constitution

2. the Attribute of God, one of them, is called "JUSTICE".

justice, the meaning of justice is "putting into place what demands to be there". in other words, if yopu were wronged by another human being and you just so happened not to forgive this person on the day of judgment, then God will facilitate a punishment for him tantamount to the satisfaction of your desire.

The operation of this entire earth is based on Allah's Justice

Part of justice is to state the truth and to fulfill promises.

Allah stated in the Qur'an to Iblees (satan himself) after satan told him that he will lie in wait (spy on the humans) and approaching them from every angle and he will do his utmost to steer mankind from God's path. In response to Satan, God said in reply
"delude those of them whom you can EXCEPT those who follow my way and WE promise to fill hell with you and whoever follows you"

thus, the punishment for sin has no bearing on God. infact, such an idea being posited only demonstrates the warped nature of your thinking because what Im about to say is the reality
GOD by default stated "I have made my Mercy (where atonement comes from) supercede M Wrath". so in others words, Allah is more forgiving and merciful than He is wrathful and punishing. With that being stated, then it is a general rule that if you are not forgiven by God, then your soul is really unworthy of forgiveness and you are absolutely deserving of punishment.

ADDING to the mercy of God and His emmense favor on us, He has multiplied good deeds from 10 to 700 times greater than the single deed itself, so if you did a good deed, it is as if you did 10 good deeds. HOWEVER, when you do an evil deed, it is only counted by God as merely one. ANd even when He leaves the bad deed without multiplying it, most of those evil deeds are forgiven or He has allowed certain injuries and accidents and hardships in a person's life to purify those bad deeds.

So the human's relationship to ALlah is unlike a relationship with anything or anyone else. So if a human finds himself unworthy of Gods mercy after all of these encouraging realities, then for a surity he is a criminal.

3. thirdly, the reason for following religion, particularly Islam is to hope for salvation

The messenger of Allah said in a hadeeth whcih means
"do you know what the slaves (human's) right upon ALlah is and do you know what Allah's right upon them is"
the companions stated "Allah and his messenger knows best"
so then he proceeded to say

"the right of Allah upon the slave is that the slave will worship none save Him AND obey His commands. The right of the slaves upon Allah is that if they do this (and fulfill the covenant), then their right upon Allah is that He does not put them into the fire"
and henceforth "salvation"

Now, the problem with your view in this light is that the people who have dedicated their lives to the pleasure of God, in a world under your theory, would make no distinction between such a noble intention and an intention who does not care about anything.

n other words, under your theory, then everyone who dedicates themselves to their Lord are only doing so in vain, for even the wicked and corrupt can have the same eligibility for such atonement without being religious at all.

your theory is a defilement of the human experience. it professes that God's character is harmed on the basis that punishment takes place on people and that it shouldn't.

that is the greatest oppression because equalizing the non equatable is ultimate oppression.

4. there is no "how" to Allah's attributes. no one can say "how will God do this or that".

5. yeh, if you choose to forgive the criminal, then of course, the law will take that into account and it will not carry out any punishment.

im half way sleeping right now cuz its late so my brain is not functioning properly, i had more illusive statements but my tired self can;t handle any more thinking and typing for now

[Abdul-Fattah]

Hi

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

In the thread "Art the arts Permitted" several tracks appeared and I felt they were worth exploring. The idea expressed there and elsewhere is that Islam is perfectly logical. Now this may be true if one places oneself inside a bubble (I mean no disrespect) where everything has been decided and with a set of premises that are assumed to be true.

They are not simply assumed to be true. They are believed to be true based on whatever people find their faith in. These things could be, personal experience (like prayers being answered), odd phenomena or miracles (like the miracles of the Qur'an) or a mixture of several things. Be that as it may, believing a certain premise to be true, does not mean you are unable to be sceptical against the premise in the first place. It just means that you find the premise plausible enough to accept it for truth. The two are not mutually exclusive.

But such a stance is logically I would contend not sustainable and provably so by the fact that tomorrow or next year new things will be known and so what is felt to be true today might be irrelevant tomorrow or provably incorrect.

For the disbeliever, no amount of proof is sufficient, for the believer none is necessary. I'm gonna have to agree with Salman here, (despite his lack of diplomacy :p ).

Can God set aside sin without some payment, some recommence, some form of atonement. It is logical that if God is Holy and Just then He must punish sin; not to do so would violate His character of Justice. If I use an analogy to make my point clear then I might say that if someone kills my brother (or yours) then he is deserving of punishment; justice demands it. I quote a comment from the other thread by Abdul-Fattah "The prophet (pbuh) said that nobody will deserve paradise, not even him. Instead those that will go to heaven will do so, not because they earned it as a reward, but by Allah's mercy.

There's a difference between "not deserving" paradise, and deserving punishment. Just because you don't deserve paradise, doesn't mean deserve punishment. As an analogy, if I have a job andwork for a day, I don't deserve a million € in wages. Such a wage would be extravagant. However, that doesn't mean I don't deserve any wage, and it certainly doesn't mean that I deserve to be fired.

Now of course this is true but how does God exercise that mercy, how does he find a way to satisfy is Holiness and Justice. If he simply forgives with no payment so to speak, he violates His sense of Justice and must therefore be acting on a whim.

Allah subhana wa ta'ala will forgive some sins of some people. It is not revealed in detail which sins will be forgiven of which people, but we were told some general guidelines. For example, if you own another person a debt, that will still be recompensated after death, even if you were a pious person whoms other sins would be forgiven. So like you said, in those cases that justice is due, Allah subhana wa ta'ala shall pass justice as he is the most just. And I don't know, and Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows best.

To use the above analogy again. Suppose the murderer comes and says sorry to me and begs forgiveness and seeks for repentance what should I do and what would the law demand? Can I forgive without demanding any justice? Would the law say go free, we are having mercy on you or would it also demand justice?

First of all, there's a diffrence between a murdere pleaing forgiveness to you, another person, or to Allah subhana wa ta'ala the alknowing. And just because you forgive him, doesn't guarantee that Allah subhana wa ta'ala will forgive him to. It could be for example that his apology wasn't sincere, but he acted sincere and you thought it was sincere, but Allah subhana wa ta'ala knew what was in his heart. The other way around is technically also possible. It could be that you are unable to fogive him, even though he has genuine remorse. And it could be that Allah subhana wa ta'ala forgives him because of that remorse despite your unability to forgive him. As for your question, "can you"? you certainly can, and to forgive those that wronged you is better for you.

So how do you get out of this dilemma, what is the Islamic understanding on how God's justice is satisfied?

I hope the previous paragraphs clear the appearent dillema.

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by salman

It doesn't matter how you feel about this matter, because, praise to be Allah, He does whatever He Pleases and He will question you and not questioned by His creation. You don't decide what is justice, rather He decides what is justice! You see this is the main difference between your corrupt thought and our pure Islamic thought. For more on this, you can wait for others' response and please pardon my short responses due to lack of time.

Now it may be true of me but in fact it is true of all of us that our thoughts are corrupt as prophet David said in Psalm 51:4-6 (NIV). 4. Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you are proved right when you speak and justified when you judge. 5. Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. 6. Surely you desire truth in the inner parts you teach me wisdom in the inmost place.

An in Job, perhaps one of the most godly men who ever lived, said Job 42:5-6 (NIV) 5. My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you. 6. therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes."

But that is a point for a later debate.

I will respond to this post in full but before I do that I want to ask you a question. If you or someone close to you were going before a Judge in a court tomorrow, what features or character would you want that Judge to have?

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

I will respond to this post in full but before I do that I want to ask you a question. If you or someone close to you were going before a Judge in a court tomorrow, what features or character would you want that Judge to have?

the desire of the criminal is not worth a discussion. In fact, the desire of the righteous holds no weight and therefore not worth discussion.

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

the desire of the criminal is not worth a discussion. In fact, the desire of the righteous holds no weight and therefore not worth discussion.

This seems to be an incoherent answer to a question no one has asked. The statement is in any case is complete nonsense if for the only reason that it renders the sayings of the the prophet and your noble scholars worthless.

I repeat my question again, what would your requirements be for a judge. What criteria would you set? It's a simple question and one supposes that it can be answered perfectly logically.

Originally Posted by Abdul-Fattah

They are not simply assumed to be true. They are believed to be true based on whatever people find their faith in. These things could be, personal experience (like prayers being answered), odd phenomena or miracles (like the miracles of the Qur'an) or a mixture of several things. Be that as it may, believing a certain premise to be true, does not mean you are unable to be sceptical against the premise in the first place. It just means that you find the premise plausible enough to accept it for truth. The two are not mutually exclusive.

For the disbeliever, no amount of proof is sufficient, for the believer none is necessary. I'm gonna have to agree with Salman here, (despite his lack of diplomacy :p ).

I take your point but there is no real difference between having an opinion and believing; how you arrived at that opinion or belief is irrelevant to my point, it being that once you take that step you are inside a bubble. If later your scepticism turns into fact then the bubble bursts.

It's not about amount of proof but a stance as Descartes described it "[scepticism is] pushing doubt as far as it will go, the purpose is to see whether there is anything at all that survives the doubt: if so, it will serve as the foundation stone for a new reliable edifice of science"

I perfectly understand, as Victor Hugo said that 'scepticism is the dry rot of the intellect and for some only a full glass will do" because we all need to believe in something.

[Abdul-Fattah]

I take your point but there is no real difference between having an opinion and believing; how you arrived at that opinion or belief is irrelevant to my point, it being that once you take that step you are inside a bubble. If later your scepticism turns into fact then the bubble bursts.

Not necessaryly, your bubble may remain intact despite your scepticism. That is a perfectly plausible scenario.

It's not about amount of proof but a stance as Descartes described it "[scepticism is] pushing doubt as far as it will go,

I disagree, pushing it as far as you can go is to extreme, and borderline-paranoia. If you are sceptic as far as you can take it, then you have to reject every single thing. At one point you have to make decisions of plausibility and form your paradigm, for practical reasons.

the purpose is to see whether there is anything at all that survives the doubt:

I would think that nothing survives doubt at all. No matter how many proofs or evidence or indications you have, there will still be people who doubt it, and hence do not believe it. there's even people that in this day and age still don't believe that the earth is round. And I'm not talking about some isolated tribe, but people who enjoyed a western education. Knowledge by nature is evasive, and there is always room for doubt. So from a pragmatists' point of view, it's perfectly normal to accept certain theories despite a certain degree of uncertainty. The problem however is that there's a double standard. When there's a degree of uncertainty in semi-scientific theories, most people tend to ignore them. Whereas as the same degree of uncertainty exists in philosophical theories, then people tend to exaggerate them.

if so, it will serve as the foundation stone for a new reliable edifice of science"

It's important to understand the value and position of science. Science can be valuable but it's not the only exclusive methodology of attaining knowledge. Science may have the benefit of having a higher degree of certainty as opposed to philosophy for example. But at the other hand science has the disadvantage of being very limited and specific to certain field of knowledge. And we should not assume that because some theory or idea falls outside the scope of science that it is therefore inferior to a scientific theory. Each theory has its own purpose and its own value, and comparing one to the other is like comparing apples with oranges. Be that as it may, whether or not a theory is scientific has no bearing on whether or not it is logical. Let me explain that trough an example:

If I would claim: A person who dies without ever having children, will bring no future generations.
This claim is perfectly logical, and also refers to the truth. If however I would claim: If Obama dies without ever having children, he will bring no future generations. This claim is still logical, since it still follows the rules of logic. However it no longer refers to the truth, as Obama already has children, so the initial condition of the logical claim is not fulfilled. this shows that a claim can eb perfectly logical, yet not refer to reality. One doesn't guarantee the other. In a simular way one could argue, that just because a belief is not scientific, doesn't guarantee wheter or not it refers to reality or is logical. So basically, you can ask 3 diffrent questions:

Is this faith logical?
Is this faith scientific?
Is this faith refering to reality?

And the answers to those 3 questions do not necesairly have a bearing on one another. Just because it isn't scientific doesn't mean that it cannot refer to reality or doesn't mean that it is not logical.

As for these questions in Islam:
Is Islam logical? Yes, because there is not a single contradiction or logical flaw in it.
Is Islam scientific? No, it is not testable, falsifiable or provable on a scientific scale.
Is Islam refering to reality? Most likely, since it is a very plausible explenation for everything, and there exist many indications which show that it is likely to be true.