The topic for this discussion is a question that I feel is very pertinent.
Does the Islamic Doctrine of Idolatry, (drawing cartoons of Muhammad for example) trump an individuals right to free expression?
Or to put it another way; do the laws put forth by 'God' outweigh the laws put forth by man?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Since I think there are no gods to put forth any laws, your question is difficult to answer. Allow me to tweak it a bit: should secular laws outweigh religious laws? Answer: Yes.
Damn right !!
There should be no such thing as religious laws in the first place. They do us more wrong than they do good.
Religious laws might have a place among followers of that particular religion but cannot be forced on people who don't accept and/or adhere to that faith.
Bob-you did it again---"said" the obvious
Does the Islamic Doctrine of Idolatry, (drawing cartoons of Muhammad for example) trump an individuals right to free expression?
Fuck no. We need to drown Islamists in a sea of homoerotic Muhammad drawings.
Hi all
Before we can decide which system of law is better, don't we need to define the standards with which to make the measurements? What are the tools we have on hand to make such analysis?
(Sarcasm intended.)
Let us consider valiya's suggestion. What tools DO we have on hand to measure if it is better or worse to kill someone for drawing a picture of mohamed. Let's break those tools out and get to analyzing that law. Because, as he has said, we cannot decide if it is better or worse to have a law defining death as a punishment for doodling until we analyze it.
@valiya
Ok let me give you a better question that is more applicable to you, from what I have read so far from all the responses I gather that my question was poorly expressed.
In Islam, if a Muslim apostatizes and meets the conditions of apostasy – i.e., he is of sound mind, an adult and does that of his own free will – then his blood may be shed with impunity. He is to be executed by the Muslim ruler or by his deputy – such as the qaadi or judge, and he is not to not be washed (after death, in preparation for burial), the funeral prayer is not to be offered for him and he is not to be buried with the Muslims.
The evidence that the apostate is to be executed is the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): “Whoever changes his religion, execute him.” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 2794). What is meant by religion here is Islam (i.e., whoever changes from Islam to another religion).
So since Allah decrees that the murder of apostates is required and yet man has deemed murder to be illegal, do you abide by the decree of Allah or the law of man?
To do the former makes you a good Muslim, but a bad person
To do the latter makes you a good person but a bad Muslim.
Source: http://islamqa.info/en/20327
Hi AlphaLogica
I appreciate your knowledge of Islam. Unlike some people, you are not just ranting without proofs. Before I get to answer your question, let me explain what I think is the moot point here.
From your question, I can make out that you think that a person being executed for his faith is extremely immoral. And that seems to be a very obvious conclusion. However, I would like to know what led you to come to that conclusion. Is it your reasoning… or is it your intuition/conventions.
To add some more perspective… if killing a man for changing his religion is immoral, then how much more immoral would it be to kill a baby that doesn’t even know what religion is? Sure… it must be a hell lot more immoral right. Therefore, what is your position on abortion?
What about killing animals? Is that moral or immoral? How do you arrive at these conclusions?
I am asking you these questions just to make you realize that you cannot settle questions of morality using reason or logic.
If not reason… then what do you use? Many of us use intuitions, conventions and religions to make these moral decisions. Do you think any of these methods have any objectivity in them?
Okay… now coming to your question on apostasy.
If Islam says that a person who apostates from Islam should be killed, then that would be my position too. But before you rattle your sabre against my outrageous remark… let me quickly remind you about the subjectivity of your own moral judgments, and hence your ability to judge me.
But I do NOT support the killing of apostates because Islam does not say so.
While I agree, that there are some scholars who support it, based on the hadith you rightly quoted, a great number of scholars starting from classical times rejected this idea.
If you know about the canons of Islam, Quran trumps the hadith in canonical stature. The quran is very unequivocal in saying: “There is no compulsion in religion.” Quran 2:256.
The hadith you cited is talking about a particular situation when some Christians and Jews with the intention of mischief would pretend to accept Islam in the morning and renounce it by evening, thus creating doubts in the minds of the neutral people. They were creating confusion in the minds of those attracted by Islam and contemplating conversion.
However, in the life of the prophet no one was ever killed for apostasy. That in short in the answer.
But to do justice to our topic… let’s say Islam does call for the killing of apostates… under what logic can you say that it is immoral?
valiya
Hello, in reading your response I must address in issue in our discussion, that of answering my question WITH a question, this is bad form in any discussion as it does not add anything to the conversation itself. Now those question you have presented are in themselves valid, and worthy of discussion, yet they do not particularity apply to THIS topic, so I feel that you have dodged the main point, even if unintentionally.
So I am only going to respond to what you have put forth that is of relevance to this topic.
"If Islam says that a person who apostates from Islam should be killed, then that would be my position too"
Here I appreciate your honesty, most Muslim apologists would avoid this level of honesty like the plague, offering instead a nothing response and platitudes about 'people of the book' etc
On me judging you, the subjectivity of morality is of no consequence at all, the hidden corollary of this line of thinking is very reminiscent of your typical apologist , trying to move the goal post into the abstract so as to provide cover against a very reasonable criticism. The 'morals' put forth by Allah are also subjective, as there are many different Gods, all claiming the exact same authority as Allah, yet make wildly incompatible claims themselves and as such, cancels out any claims of 'objective truth' that all theists claim to posses.
"I am asking you these questions just to make you realize that you cannot settle questions of morality using reason or logic. "
That is an absurd statement, one can ONLY use reason and logic on these matters, as there are no other methods more effective to this task. I will not allow you to build a defense within the trenches of abstraction, it is a poor tactic that only serves to give you wiggle room when cornered.
"If you know about the canons of Islam, Quran trumps the hadith in canonical stature. The quran is very unequivocal in saying: “There is no compulsion in religion.” Quran 2:256."
Yes that is true, Qur'an always trumps Hadith, but that alone does not really address anything. The surah you put forth is a favorite among Muslim apologists, as it paints the illusion that Islam is reasonable, yet converts to Islam are called 'reverts' because of the belief that all are born Muslim, yet if this is true, then there is a great deal of compulsion in religion, a baby does not have a choice to either leave or accept Islam as they lack the cognitive function to do so, yet they are still 'muslim' this my friend is compulsion in practice.
"However, in the life of the prophet no one was ever killed for apostasy. That in short in the answer."
That may be true as far as we know, but there are a lot of things in Islam that are standard today that were not around in the life time of Muhammed, the Qur'an for example, was not compiled until long after his death, so to use this as a criteria for drawing a conclusion hurts your position more than it helps.
"The hadith you cited is talking about a particular situation when some Christians and Jews with the intention of mischief would pretend to accept Islam in the morning and renounce it by evening, thus creating doubts in the minds of the neutral people. They were creating confusion in the minds of those attracted by Islam and contemplating conversion. "
This is another irrelevant point, one of the doctrines of Islam is that Islam, and the Qur'an are applicable to every generation, yet if you insist that one or another part OF Islam/Qur'an must be put into context in order to be understood properly, then you have by default admitted that it is NOT applicable or relevant to our times otherwise it would NOT require it to be put into context. To put something into historical context only proves that its time and relevance has passed.
"But to do justice to our topic… let’s say Islam does call for the killing of apostates… under what logic can you say that it is immoral? "
This is not a question of morality, but of liberty, they are not one and the same, again you cannot do what all apologists do and move the goal post into the cover of abstract concepts such as morality. This is a cheap tactic that only serves to throw smoke screens in the discussion, giving the theists the chance to 'have it both ways' where you can dismiss anything out of hand that I may say as being 'subjective' while being perfectly 'justified' in your own sense to prop up completely arbitrary and contradictory 'truths' and then grant them some special privilege where the rules do not apply to your position, as you would insist they apply to mine.
@AlphaLogica
Thanks for the reply. Here is my take.
“Hello, in reading your response I must address in issue in our discussion, that of answering my question WITH a question, this is bad form in any discussion as it does not add anything to the conversation itself.”
To say that I did not answer your question is misleading. I answered it… and the last part of your post was a rebuttal of that answer. I explained clearly about the position of executing apostates in islam from quran and exegesis of hadith. You may beg to differ with my answer… but to say I did not answer is disingenuous.
“Now those question you have presented are in themselves valid, and worthy of discussion, yet they do not particularity apply to THIS topic, so I feel that you have dodged the main point, even if unintentionally.”
Let me explain why I think the questions are relevant. When you bring a charge against Islam saying that something in it is wrong… I am just seeking to understand on what basis you are saying so? Hence those questions. If you try answering those questions, I will be able to demonstrate how your notions of objectivity of morality are wrong.
“The 'morals' put forth by Allah are also subjective, as there are many different Gods, all claiming the exact same authority as Allah, yet make wildly incompatible claims themselves and as such, cancels out any claims of 'objective truth' that all theists claim to posses.”
Fine, if you think morality in islam is ‘subjective’ we will discuss that as well. But why not we start with you. I asked them first.
"That is an absurd statement, one can ONLY use reason and logic on these matters, as there are no other methods more effective to this task. I will not allow you to build a defense within the trenches of abstraction, it is a poor tactic that only serves to give you wiggle room when cornered.”
Just answer my questions on morality and you will understand that it doesn’t rest on any objective basis. If only you can take one of my questions and answer them objectively, it would prove me wrong… easy. That would be better than throwing empty accusations at me. Moreover, I am not taking refuge behind abstractions. My point is very simple… your standards of morality can never be objective, and I have asked you some questions based on everyday scenarios… just apply your objective reasoning to them and tell me what your moral position on them are. If you can do that, my argument would be defeated.
"Yes that is true, Qur'an always trumps Hadith, but that alone does not really address anything. The surah you put forth is a favorite among Muslim apologists, as it paints the illusion that Islam is reasonable, yet converts to Islam are called 'reverts' because of the belief that all are born Muslim, yet if this is true, then there is a great deal of compulsion in religion, a baby does not have a choice to either leave or accept Islam as they lack the cognitive function to do so, yet they are still 'muslim' this my friend is compulsion in practice.”
My believing something does not compel anybody to accept Islam. If I believe everyone is born a Muslim, that does not mean I am forcing everyone into accepting islam. I don’t understand how you can equate that belief to compulsion.
As an atheist you may be thinking that all theists are stupid or illogical… you have the right to assume what you want… but through your assumption are your forcing someone to accept your ideas? I don’t think so.
Regarding the baby… that’s the case of babies in all faiths and all ideologies. Babies are born as clean slates. You cannot not bring them up without leaving your impressions on them. Most of our assumptions of what is right and wrong come from our upbringing… and every child draws its values from its parents. If you are teaching values to your children (whatever they may be) you are doing the same crime you impute against me, namely, compulsion.
"That may be true as far as we know, but there are a lot of things in Islam that are standard today that were not around in the life time of Muhammed, the Qur'an for example, was not compiled until long after his death, so to use this as a criteria for drawing a conclusion hurts your position more than it helps.”
This is another topic – preservation of the quran. I would love to debate this, as I have done so many times in this site… the best one was the one I had with Watchman. But for now, let me put it tersely that quran is verbatim the same document that the prophet taught his followers. If you insist, we will have a separate debate on this.
"This is another irrelevant point, one of the doctrines of Islam is that Islam, and the Qur'an are applicable to every generation, yet if you insist that one or another part OF Islam/Qur'an must be put into context in order to be understood properly, then you have by default admitted that it is NOT applicable or relevant to our times otherwise it would NOT require it to be put into context. To put something into historical context only proves that its time and relevance has passed.”
Nothing is farther from truth than this. Everything in Islam is understood on the basis of context… it is for the sake of context that the entire science of hadith was formulated. Quran says that alcohol is prohibited only at the time of prayer. But why do Muslims avoid alcohol completely from their lives. It’s because they understood this verse in its context, which is that it was the first stage of reforming a society that was drowned in alcohol. Later on the total prohibition came. Throw out context, and you will be able to justify anything you want in faith. In fact, people attacking Islam don’t like context, because then they can’t say whatever they want just by picking out a line from here and there. The famous verse of ‘slay the unbeliever’ is one such example.
And just because you put something in context, how can you say it’s relevance has passed? By putting the ‘alcohol’ verse in context… it’s become all the more relevant, because today, we don’t drink alcohol at all.
"This is not a question of morality, but of liberty, they are not one and the same, again you cannot do what all apologists do and move the goal post into the cover of abstract concepts such as morality. This is a cheap tactic that only serves to throw smoke screens in the discussion, giving the theists the chance to 'have it both ways' where you can dismiss anything out of hand that I may say as being 'subjective' while being perfectly 'justified' in your own sense to prop up completely arbitrary and contradictory 'truths' and then grant them some special privilege where the rules do not apply to your position, as you would insist they apply to mine.”
Isn’t it immoral to curb someone else’s liberty? My forcing someone to accept Islam becomes immoral because it curbs his liberty. To clear things up, let me first of all hear your definition of morality. What do you mean by it?
@valiya
First off "but to say I did not answer is disingenuous."
Fair enough, you are correct that you offered an answer, that was bad editing on my part and I apologize.
Now instead of me responding to you point by point I want to directly address the issue we are having in this conversation. On my part I need to be more clear in my points, and on your part you need to not assume what I am saying or what point I am ultimately trying to make. The assumption I am referring on your part is that I am trying to make a moral argument against apostasy, I can see how you would assume this mind you, I am sure you have heard my question before and just thought I was going to that conclusion as well.
I am not.
This is a discussion about the laws of man v.s the laws of God/Allah and which carries more authority to the believer. So while I would love to talk about morality and Islam that is a conversation for another time. If you wish to make a new thread I will gladly reply, but lets keep THIS thread on point.
Thank you. =)
She has been told several times and over not to change subject on morality, but she just cannot help herself.
Then when several of us discussed morality, she just stops discussing after a some long posts as if she just wants to bore you to death with it so you just quit out of boredom.
@AlphaLogica
I am sorry... i don't understand what you mean by this latest post. If you want me to answer any particular question, please spell it out.
Thanks.
As an ex-Muslim I must say that if you follow Islam's logic, then yeah the laws put by God outweigh the laws put by men. Because God is perfect and all-knowing whilst humans are just imperfect creatures (yeah tell me about it, a perfect being messed up and created something imperfect). So you can not insult God nor can you say what you're. If you say that you left Islam there's something called Apotheosis to let you think about it at least twice before saying out loud in an Islamic country such as mine. in Morocco, for example, homosexuality is a huge no no, the article 489 prohibits any form of "deviant sexuality". If you're a foreigner, the police will arrest you but will soon release you. If you're Moroccan you have to be a straight Muslim or you'll be sent to jail. Also, they still believe in that whole Active/Passive stuff (yeah people are still retarded) so if you're the one giving it, nobody will say anything (except that you'll be sent to jail) but if you're the one on the receiving end, you will be raped sooner or later, and the ones raping you won't consider themselves gays. For em, it's just a hole, you're the one that is turning into a woman.