-1

Assuming Islam followers believe that they are truly reading/following the word of Muhammad and not a collection of fictional works/stories.

Assuming it is accurate to assume that every Muslim in the world is trusting what other people has told them is the truth [Islam] and that they don't criticize neither the source of the information or the information in itself, if it comes from the Quran.

If so, why is this a logical approach to life, and why should we not tolerate each other exactly as we are without enforcing religion and strict rules upon everyone? Why is violence in the name of unverifiable information a more logical approach to life as opposed to peace and tolerance?

I come to you as an anti-prohibitionist, as I think most societies overall have too many ridiculous rules and too little freedom. I don't seek to attack you or your religion.

Edit: To clarify, among Swedish immigrant Muslims this [violent, forcing others to adhere] model of Islam seemed to be the most prevalent with the ones I have spoken to. Which is too small of a group to make accurate statements about Islam as a whole. However I'd like Muslims with these opinions in general to answer this question so that I can grasp their point of view. It's not about defending yourself, but about providing me with the logic behind your reasoning or simply denouncing logic in favor of religion.

Edit once again: I'm not looking to scandalize Islam or say that Muslims are second class human beings. I respect you and admire your dedication. I'm looking for where Islam and logic do not refute each other, which does not imply that a Muslim needs to defend themselves, but only explain how Islam fits into the definition of the word "Logic".

Peace.

user-1289389812839
  • 45
  • 7
  • 1
    As logic is part of the training of Muslim scholars islamic religion is indeed based on logic. – Medi1Saif Jan 09 '17 at 12:28
  • Would it then not be accurate to say that Muslim scholars whom interpret the Quran in a way which represents violence and/or enslavement of non-believers and/or non-obeyers, have abandoned logic? – user-1289389812839 Jan 09 '17 at 17:45
  • Are you saying violence and/or enslavement in the name of Islam is logical and generally condoned? – user-1289389812839 Jan 09 '17 at 17:54
  • My interpretation of logic? Look at the definition of the word "Logic". It's about being able to agree upon a general truth. When it comes to Islam or many other religions, you abandon being able to confirm truth and hence religion does not appear logical. I'm asking you to explain what logic I am missing which guarantees that Islam is The truth, or simply to tell me religion stands over logic in this instance as a way of life altogether to many Muslims. – user-1289389812839 Jan 09 '17 at 18:03
  • What you are saying is highly subjective and does not apply to me nor most people I know. I thrive when I have the freedom to do what I want, when I can make my own rules. I don't "need rules" as you say to be happy and I believe what you're saying is an illogical social construct put upon you, transmitted hierarchically, to control a mass of people. – user-1289389812839 Jan 09 '17 at 18:09
  • If you know what the word logic means you also know that you must denounce logic if you follow something which you are not able to guarantee and confirm is truth/the way life is supposed to be lived, decided by an omnipotent being which is also the creator of the universe. – user-1289389812839 Jan 09 '17 at 18:11
  • I follow traffic rules. I don't kill, steal or aggravate people. Well maybe aggravate people but that's a byproduct of expressing my opinion. There will always be people who are aggravated by that when they don't agree, which is their problem and theirs alone. However, Killing, stealing are not logical things to do, because I want society to thrive. I want to live in a society where everybody truly cooperate, where there are no copyright rules, where nobody is being forced to make money for someone else, where I can ingest anything I want to. Who are you to tell me this is a bad way of life? – user-1289389812839 Jan 09 '17 at 18:22
  • Agreed. What I'm saying is that it is illogical to follow rules because of an omnipotent being who might reward you for it over following said rules because one wants the best for society as a whole. It's easier to get people not to question rules when there's "Allah" backing them. Rules are important, it's just the way that most rules are made and laid out today profit capitalism and the top 1% way more than the people affected the most by it. Also note: a Rule is not the same as Prohibition – user-1289389812839 Jan 09 '17 at 18:35
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – user-1289389812839 Jan 09 '17 at 19:30
  • Right, I see what you mean. I obviously had some facts wrong here. However I think that the difference is irrelevant to logic, since following the word and imposing it upon others is exactly as illogical no matter if it comes from Allah, Muhammad or Winnie the Pooh. You cannot confirm beyond doubt that this is true and what you heard is true. You believe you are following the word of Allah but there's no way to confirm that you are. Hence it is not logical to force others to do the same, in any situation. Be it your child or me, nobody should be forced into religion or be tortured otherwise. – user-1289389812839 Jan 12 '17 at 16:40
  • How does Islam and logic relate to? It's a too general question but the fact that among various Islamic sects, there are many who require their seminarians to study logic and philosophy, and the fact that Islamic civilization during its Golden Age has introduced many bright philosophers and scientists to the world may help you broaden your perspective about the question. – infatuated Jan 13 '17 at 07:20
  • If you still have not read my answer here maybe this is somewhat helpful http://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/28682/how-do-non-violent-muslims-explain-the-violent-verses-of-the-koran it may not cover your questions, but it is related to some extent. – Medi1Saif Jan 18 '17 at 08:51
  • Thank you. While not shedding more light on the relationship between Islam and Logic, it was interesting to read about how "non-violent" people can still find reasons to fight. – user-1289389812839 Jan 19 '17 at 02:55
  • @Envayo Ofc I haven't read the whole Quran and I never will. What you're saying implies anyone needs to have read every religion's holy scriptures to have an idea about which is "the truth" and the word of "the creator". Also you are blatantly stating what I would think about something, as if you know me? You should read up on subjectivity vs. objectivity. Frankly you seem very arrogant in your opinions. – user-1289389812839 Jan 20 '17 at 13:22
  • And no I won't take it as a truth about Islam. I will take it as a truth about what Islam can do to certain peoples and how it can twist their minds into thinking that violence in the name of religion is even remotely okay, ever. Same goes for every other religion/sect/cult (these three are really the same, only the scale differs) as well. – user-1289389812839 Jan 20 '17 at 13:32
  • I think that what @Medi1Saif wants to express is that logic doesn't mean right or wrong. In logic it is possible to derive different of meanings in a certain context (of text or situation). But LOGICALLY it doesn't mean that all these derived meanings are TRUE. If you have studied logic you know this. I think this is what medi1saif wanted to point out. THIS means that if a person concludes that the Quran says to kill someone, that MIGHT have been a logically valid theory BUT it doesn't mean it is a TRUE theory and it doesn't mean it is the MOST logic theory either. This is objective knowledge. – Kilise Jan 21 '17 at 21:56
  • @Kilise It is possible to derive different meanings out of one sentence, true. However, the definition of the word logical is that which you can back with something irrefutable and factual. If something can be interpreted in many different ways, it is not logical for any one person except for the writer to say that it should be interpreted in a certain way and call that "logical". That is nothing but subjective opinion. Not fact or "the word of the creator". Ergo not logical to expect others to obey. Which means that there should be no Islamic laws, logically. – user-1289389812839 Jan 21 '17 at 22:27
  • @t0k3 The point is, even the Muslims who interpret the texts in a more extreme way, are SOMEHOW basing their interpretation on logic, but one could of course argue that it is limited and not "the most correct way". Of course that doesn't mean I am agreeing with them at all. They are completely wrong in my understanding. Anyway, how many muslim immigrants have you been speaking to in Sweden? Also, I don't think you will find an answer here from a muslim with these opinions. – Kilise Jan 22 '17 at 01:59
  • @Kilise Sure, but they seemingly abandon logic when they make laws stemming from their understanding of the Quran. If no Muslim can explain a logical reason behind that we just have to assume that there are dark spots in implementations of Islam which have abandoned Logic. Sad but seemingly true. – user-1289389812839 Jan 22 '17 at 10:36
  • When you write muslims, are you referring to a special group of muslims or do you mean all? Because I might just misunderstand, but I can't see your point on: "If no muslim can explain a logiclal reason behind that..." Again, how many Muslim immigrants have you been speaking to in Sweden? – Kilise Jan 22 '17 at 10:45
  • 2
    @t0k3 Your notion and use of "logic" lends much semblance to the central claim of the obsolete, refuted ideology of Logical Positivism which nonetheless still exerts powerful influence over the mainstream and popular scientific mindset (that by its nature always lags behind the philosophical discourse). Truth of doctrines are more dependent on their foundational axioms about the nature of man and the world, than whether or not they use logic in their arguments. Therefore you will find many "irrational" doctrines using logical reasoning. – infatuated Jan 22 '17 at 11:20
  • You may also have a look these comments to further broaden your perspective: http://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/37126/how-can-i-defend-islam-as-being-a-peaceful-religion#comment62374_37126 – infatuated Jan 22 '17 at 11:22
  • @Kilise As I explained in the comments and the edits earlier I'm speaking about every Muslim whom accepts violence in the name of religion for any reason whatsoever except for in direct self-defense from physical harm. – user-1289389812839 Jan 22 '17 at 22:39
  • @infatuated logic is deterministic in it's nature, yes. Otherwise it is simply not logic. My ideas however, are not at all involved with Logical Positivism, which you seem to be implying. So you are saying that the message is more important than whether or not logic was used in the arguments laid out, because it is "divine"? Glad we could establish that. – user-1289389812839 Jan 22 '17 at 22:40
  • 3
    @You didn't yet get the point. Logic is all about following the correct rules for formal consistency of the arguments. It says nothing about the validity of the content of the arguments, that is, the premises, and says nothing on its own about, say, the validity of the particular epistemological approach one may adhere to which indicates which sources of knowledge you choose as valid: sense experience, rational intuition, spiritual vision, religious experience? Logic says nothing about any of these questions, beyond setting some basic rules of inference. – infatuated Jan 23 '17 at 03:48
  • 1
    I see what you mean. However, since Islam is so open for interpretation and there is actually more philosophy than blatant rules in the Quran, it is not logical to say that "This philosophy is what should forcibly govern our society" [Saudi-Arabia, Dubai etc.], just because the individuals who rule the country feel that way because of experience, intuition, "spiritual vision, religious experience". There is simply no way for anyone of these people to know whether they have simply been more or less hypnotized into believing these things and hence not logical to force such rules.. – user-1289389812839 Jan 24 '17 at 13:05
  • ...not logical to force such rules based on anything but actual unquestionable irrefutable proof (not just for one group of people with whatever "confirming and foolproof spiritual beliefs", then it is not irrefutable) of it's validity over everything else, scientifically. You can't just ignore actual science and say that Islam stands above it, and say that you follow logic. – user-1289389812839 Jan 24 '17 at 13:07
  • 1
    I agree with your general point. However I object to the common misconception that many so-called Islamic countries are really putting Islam above everything else. Often times the harsh policies are motivated by political interests of the ruling class but masked under religious pretensions, especially when these countries fail to manifest anything that can be a manifestation of Islam's notion of mercy and compassion, a notion that is manifestly reminded at the opening of each chapter of Quran. And there's also the question of biased coverage of many Islamic countries in the West and so on... – infatuated Jan 24 '17 at 13:24
  • You have to believe me when I say that I can look beyond what the reporters say. I don't have any values stemming from religion, nor do I support or take in political agendas in journalism. Please don't assume that I cannot look past what is obviously an attempt at making someone else look bad. I think capitalism is obsolete, I believe in minarchism, so there's no siding with western media from my part which you seem to be implying. The fact that people can mask their political agenda with religion is to me reason enough not to let any religion into the government buildings. People will abuse. – user-1289389812839 Jan 24 '17 at 13:42
  • 1
    Yes, and that sounds like a very common perception. Although I know of individual very special cases to the contrary. But besides, people always find something to abuse. If it is not religion, it is then "democracy", "free-trade", "homeland security", "fight against terrorism" etc! ;) And I guess you guess what I'm talking about! – infatuated Jan 24 '17 at 15:24
  • Yes infatuated. Right now I really resonate with you, because you are yourself implying the very argument that makes Minarchism or something like it the only solution in my opinion. A State will always be abusive, because people abuse power. The logical thing to do in my opinion is to reduce the influence the state has overall, to something as reductionist as Minarchism. Then and only then we can be more or less guaranteed personal freedom and then and only then the most logical and fair solution for everyone can exist. – user-1289389812839 Jan 24 '17 at 15:51
  • @t0k3, Well, as a Shia esoteric Muslim and a proponent of the Traditionalist school, I don't think there are any formal solutions to fundamental problems of humanity in general. The formal political structures are just a reflection of the conditions of human thinking and culture. But on the structural level alone I don't think decentralized political systems are possible at all for social hierarchy is just a natural consequence of the hierarchical nature of man itself. So the problem has to be sought in more qualitative aspects of life. – infatuated Jan 25 '17 at 12:23
  • @infatuated It is indeed a consequence of human nature. I don't agree that it cannot be changed or that there is not a more efficient method of cooperating which would allow for the most knowledgeable to work together and which would disregard rhetoric's in favor of actual knowledge. Hardware-/software-development can most definitely help us bypass a lot of these problems. Especially in a couple of years from now. – user-1289389812839 Jan 26 '17 at 22:33
  • 1
    @t0k3, What would you do with human tendencies such as greed, desire for dominance, etc? How do you ascertain that technology will not even backfire? You must have heard of Edward Snowden's revelations. I don't think technology can remedy shortcomings of our understanding our human nature. If we are spiritual beings, and there are transcendental truths governing nature, I don't think we can reform our societies by staying in our present state of disregard for the sacred. – infatuated Jan 27 '17 at 03:33
  • @infatuated That's the most interesting part. I will argue that there will in a decade or two be software which can understand human emotions, because of the exponential growth in hardware development during the last few decades. Unless of course, we really are "supernaturally spiritual" (I don't think "spiritual" necessarily implies "supernatural" or religion, I consider myself spiritual.) beings with some kind of divine force intervening with our minds, making them ineffable to science. We can make sure the technology won't backfire if we open-source it in a special way. Too off-topic, chat. – user-1289389812839 Jan 28 '17 at 21:25
  • I created a room to continue our discussion in case you're interested: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/52713/technology-and-human-destiny – infatuated Jan 30 '17 at 06:39

6 Answers6

1

I'll answer as I understood your question, though it was a little confusing.

Some errors to touch upon briefly:

  • It's incorrect for you to accuse Muslims of giving preference to 'violence over peace' when we have our Creator (ﷻ) telling Muslims in the Qur'an to 'incline to peace' and a Prophet (ﷺ) who said "do not desire an encounter with the enemy" (Muslim [1741]) meaning we prefer peace over violence and try to avoid violence as much as possible. And also, when majority of Muslims are peace-loving and peace-going.

  • It's also incorrect to assume that every Muslim in the world is blindly following. Blatantly setting up a false premise/assumption like this will of course lead to false conclusions; if you direct the question to those who do just blindly follow then it would make sense and moreover.. even we (fellow Muslims) are one step ahead of you and already advising each other to seek knowledge (ilm) and understanding (fahm). There is no religion which stresses individuals using their reason and intelligence more than Islam. [This blog article I wrote gives examples/evidences of Allah (ﷻ) encouraging rational thought, if you want to read more: Contemplation: A Step Forward ].

  • It's incorrect to claim Muslims enforce rules on everyone. They enforce Islamic laws over their own Muslim populations who want Islamic laws to rule over them. They do not enforce them over non-Muslim populations, esp. those that are tolerant to Islam.

► Now to the question: "Why enforce (relatively) strict Islamic laws over 'liberal laws' that afford more freedoms?" - To the premise that Islam is not/cannot be confirmed, reality is that Islam is confirmed in many ways [the rejection/acceptance of people not withstanding]. Alhamdulillah. Thereby, it's the only logical system to implement. But that's a topic for another post.

It suffices your question [alongside its false premise] for me to point out that Islam covers both aspects of the Seen and Unseen Matters. Divine Islamic Laws cover the Seen matters, whereby you can see real world application and real world results that can be 'measured'. This way you can see the superiority of Islamic laws and why it is logical to implement them over other 'laws.'

All that Islam bans (eg, alcohol, porn, etc) is proven, time and time again by science/evidence/statistics, to be detrimental to the individual and society as a whole (causing degradation or illness or death). Islam is therefore protecting/preserving human life, upholding human dignity and establishing order. On the other hand, your liberal laws/pro-freedom stance pave the way for humanity to strangle itself. A system which saves lives is superior to one that risks/takes lives.. so that logic (among others) is what makes Muslims opt for God's Islamic laws, superior and the best for humanity. Their implementation makes more sense than the implementation of anything else.

Muslimah
  • 4,327
  • 2
  • 12
  • 25
  • I obviously had some false premise. However I explained in the edits that this was about a very specific group of Muslims. You rephrased my question in a way that it was easier for you to answer it, you did not capture the essence of the question. You are also implying that we have tried every possible system and that there is no system that can ever measure better than an Islam-regulated one, and that every single citizen wants Islam to rule. This answer is not relevant because of the obvious bias, and I'm not going to accept it as it is not satisfactory to the question posed. – user-1289389812839 Jan 15 '17 at 02:23
  • You don’t have to like my answer but it definitely does answer the essence of your question which was why logically Islam should be implemented. I laid out why. Now, IF you claim that there is a system better than Islam then the burden of proof is on you to show us the system/model. I see no evidence of a better system than Islam. – Muslimah Jan 15 '17 at 14:07
  • Furthermore, dismissing my answer merely because I am a Muslim and pro-Islam is a type of ad hominem fallacy. And it’s strange that you want an answer from a ‘Muslim’ and yet then you turn around and say you reject an answer from a Muslim because of ‘bias’. In other words, you just want someone who you agree with to answer you, and not necessarily someone who is speaking accurately. – Muslimah Jan 15 '17 at 14:07
  • 1
    You take too much for granted. You are nowhere near correct when you speak about how I think regarding this answer (another unconfirmable 'fact' you lay on me). I want a Muslim to explain the logical reason behind implementing Islam. It is not logical to say that Islam can be confirmed, that it is the best system we have (provide proof for this claim otherwise). If you say that every Muslim is going to give me the same answer, then I will derive the answer out of that and say that Logic and Islam has broken their relation. – user-1289389812839 Jan 16 '17 at 00:38
  • 1
    Islam is a religion which is entirely based on faith.I wonder how can you believe that Allah exists if you cannot see him.And if you believe someone then u do not need the logic behind it.And this faith comes inside anybody only by the wish of Allah.I know that u don't believe in Islam now but it will not even take a second for you to believe if Allah wills.And a day will come when you will know that Islam was truth.And maybe that day will be after you die. –  Feb 16 '17 at 19:47
  • 1
    For example you can see this http://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/37683/do-muslims-believe-that-the-moon-was-split-in-two-and-put-back-again. I don't think anybody can explain the logic behind this.In order to believe in such things you need faith in Allah and his messenger –  Feb 16 '17 at 20:09
  • In your example the question posed is how Muslims can say that "the moon split in two" when there are no events recorded by other civilizations despite observing and recording the sky at the same time. The first answer is stating the Quran is in fact probably referring to a future event because it frequently uses the 'past' to describe the 'future', without providing any sources except for the original comment. I want the source of this statement, so I can judge whether the statement is plausible or not. As it is right now, we have enough information to say that this seems highly implausible. – user-1289389812839 Jun 02 '17 at 22:36
1

As a believer in divine revelation (I am a Christian) and a professional practitioner of logic (I have been a competitive debate coach for many years) hopefully I can offer some perspective on the relation of logic to religion. In a way you may consider this essay a "critique of pure logic".

(1) Logic is ultimately content neutral.

Three forms of reasoning typically are considered 'logical': deductive reasoning (internal consistency), inductive reasoning (determining probability), and abductive reasoning (rough heuristics for understanding). Each of these systems of logic has their own strengths, but if you are searching for truth, or certainty, none of them provide a source of absolute truth on which to base your life.

(a) Deductive reasoning works from broad and known (certain) assumptions and from those derives whatever else may be known. However, it is content neutral in that you must always begin with potentially unverified'assumptions' being considered absolutely true. In religion, the content of revelation often serves as the source of content which is assumed to be true and from which other truths (i.e. laws and other applications) may be logically derived.

(b) Inductive reasoning works from specific observations and from those suggests the most probable explanation. The scientific method is an inductive process. However, when it comes to absolute truth it is content neutral in that it never offers the promise of certainty. A conclusion based on three examples may be overturned by a fourth example, and it seems to objectively accept content from observations but that means it's claim to 'truth' is only as good as the (always finite) sample size). Furthermore, (i) it doesn't ever logically propose to provide absolute truths (i.e. never claims to describe reality as it is), (ii) inherently biases sensory data at the expense of other potential sources of information, and (iii) ignores psychological data that suggests that all observations are biased by our perspective and experience - content not derived from inductive observation.

(c) Abductive reasoning looks not at specific data but rather broad sets and from that set tries to propose rough systems for interpreting that set. However, it is content neutral in that it is not really looking for absolute truth but only a system that works pragmatically. Abductive reasoning, like inductive reasoning, must ultimately depend on limited observations, and since it leans more heavily into the assumptions of the observer, doesn't usually require that the conclusions be true in every instance. This is the way imperfect humans live their lives, but not a path to truth.

Therefore, logic is useful for analyzing the world, but can never produce true content.

(2) We all exist in-the-world.

Thankfully we all have content on which the tools of logic can be turned. We grow up breathing before we speak, and speaking before we think, and believing before we can prove. Religions that depend on revelation take the content which they believe is delivered to them by God to be the source of absolute assumptions from which they may reason deductively, to guide their inductive observations, and to scaffold their ways of understanding the world at large.

(3) The proper use of logic is analytical not productive.

Therefore, logic may be useful for analyzing and critiquing our own knowledge but it can never produce knowledge, and so never properly undermines revelation for believers in revelation. To allow logic to trump religion if you are a believer is an inappropriate application of logic.

ninthamigo
  • 119
  • 3
0

See my answer here. It's an in depth answer about having a rational approach in Islam.

About your assumptions:

truly reading/following the word of Muhammad No Muslim should assume such. There are a gazzilion disputes among Muslim scholars about many verses, many aspects of Prophet Muhammad's life or its application to today's world.

they don't criticize neither the source of the information or the information in itself

We do criticize, we should be critical of what comes to us. Read my linked answer.

why should we not tolerate each other exactly as we are

We shouldn't force them:

There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. https://quran.com/2/256

Let them have their religion—if they don't want to listen (don't force them, let them enjoy their own ignorance)

For you is your religion, and for me is my religion.https://quran.com/109/6

That shouldn't be the case

providing me with the logic behind your reasoning or simply denouncing logic in favor of religion.

A group of Muslims just follow leaders (good or bad, unintellectual or intellectual, pious or evil). I'm sure a group of atheist, Christians, Jews, Hindus just follow people. People are people. Muslims aren't from Mars or anywhere.

The other group that are intellectual, don't just follow they are critical

So basically to answer this part: The group who just follow, may just have leaders who evil, have an agenda or are simply very unintellectual, which I highly doubt. I mean what kind of a person would prefer violence?!

The other group who are intellectual denounce violence completely.

But why violence can be interpreted by mistake?

  • Because the prophet himself was attacked on numerous occasions. There were many assassination attempts against him. Why? Well imagine there was tyrant who has been killing people for years. Have control over all the economics. Suddenly a humble, loving leader rises and people find hope in following him. Well what does the tyrant do at this moment? He's going to bribe him at first. Then he's going to threaten. Then's he's going to attempt to assassinate him. If none of that works then he will go at war against him. If the tyrant can't take this loving person of the surface of earth, then he's doomed. All the people will go away from him and he will lose his position and wealth.

    Because of this turbulent time, there were harsh verses against these people. Some of them even wrote peace treaties with Prophet Muhammad then broke those treaties by killing some Muslims. Then a verse came and said, kill them where you find them.

    Imagine if America was having a war with N.Korea and then they wrote a peace treaty. Then a few days later N.Korea soldiers kill some Americans in S.Korea. They are basically peace breakers and never to be trusted again. But just as an example see what America did against the middle east after 9/11. They literally put the entire region in chaos.

  • Another reason was that in the early centuries after the death of the prophet, many Muslims were merely just followers of the prophet. They were only following Islam for their own benefit. Islam was in power and many people joined it. It's like a new revolution where there's a power shift. These followers brought fear to the Muslims.

    So 1. applying the verses of the prophet's situation to this time and era is a mistake 2. applying the wrongdoings of other Muslims is another mistake.

  • But really that's not the problem. The problem stems from their lack of collective understanding of the life of prophet.

    Did the prophet participate in wars? Yes in a defending manner. But more than anything he's known as a prophet of mercy. He pardoned and freed many of those who fought against him before in the Conquest of Medina. He took control of a city without any bloodshed from battle.

They forget that the prophet said: “I was sent to perfect honourable morals. انی بعثت لاتمم مکارم الاخلاق

and instead think that he has just came to bring everyone to Islam by force.

Thaqalain
  • 2,638
  • 1
  • 13
  • 27
  • Thank you for the effort put into this answer. However, it is not satisfactory to the question posed. Again, I'm asking for the logical reasoning behind this. So far, nobody has produced any logically irrefutable proof that what they're preaching and what they've been told isn't just a load of bullshit with some positive but even worse negative side-effects. And no, people don't necessarily follow other people as you state in your answer. Especially not when it comes to my body or my life choices. – user-1289389812839 Feb 18 '17 at 10:21
  • 1
    "Did the prophet participate in wars? Yes in a defending manner." A defensive manner does not make you ruler over Arabia within 9 years, nor does it make your successors ruler over an empire stretching from China to Spain within 120 years after you. "let them enjoy their own ignorance" Quite offensive. The rest of the answer is apologism and irrelevant to the question. – G. Bach Mar 16 '17 at 21:14
  • Prophet( pubh) became the ruler of Arabia within 9 years and he did not expand his ruling area in first 5-7 years of his ruling era!!! And he had no power to rule in 1st 12 years of his Prophethood!!! Just think more. You had better not to be concerned with Islamic expansion that happened fighting with militants and not with general innocent people. – GyL 209 Aug 12 '20 at 05:33
  • To answer G.Bach. "A defensive manner does not make you ruler over Arabia within 9 years" If you can only increase to your territory by war, then you're correct. But the premise needs evidence. People had rough times the years before. Mohammad came. Had answers to questions and needs. The rich didn't like it. They bribed him. It didn't work. They Muslims under financial stress. It didn't work. So they attacked him. That failed too. So they lost lands to those they were oppressing. – Thaqalain Aug 12 '20 at 15:30
0

Islam is not a logical way of life, it's a religious way of life. This is why the Prophet said that we keep to our way of life, as you keep to yours.

Kalam, is the rational or logical defence of Islam which does not on the whole interest many Muslims. From what I've said above, you would be right to say it doesn't interest me. Although I have been interested in logic. But it may be what you are looking for.

The notion of secular first arose in Europe during the disputes between various religious factions. Today, its another way of life for some although it has no book, so to speak. Moreover, its basically the civic religion of Europe. This virtue of toleration that you speak of does not come from nowhere and has a history.

As good Europeans we keep to their, or rather, our laws, as we are Europeans. And we also keep to our customs as the abiding by one's religion as a way of life, is one way to the good life, which Europe wisely approves of.

Mozibur Ullah
  • 1,496
  • 7
  • 23
  • 41
0

What you are missing is that Islam does not seek to fit into other people's way of life. It seems you assume that the prevalent way of life emanating from secular capitalism should be the norm. This is where your enquiry went south, sir.

"Islam is a deen which translates to a "way of life" or "lifeway", a "discursive tradition" intimately fused with power where Muslims are expected to socially and territorially embody Islam (dar al-Islam) - acknowledging, submitting, and serving Allah. Islam thus comprises an environment derived from the fusion of revelation with power, where every individual chooses their way of life and freely lives by it..." (Source)

Islamic beliefs, which are the creedal foundations of all the teachings that emanate from it, are proven with evidences. The most fundamental of them are rationally proven:

  1. Does God Exist
  2. What is the proof the Quran was revealed to Muhammad

In addition, Islam requires its own environment to manifest completely. Muslims follow the Deen not because they are bigots but are convinced of it. As for your logic of tolerance, that is nothing but a way of avoiding the truth of reality. Liberalism, or whatever is it you follow, claims that it accommodates all sorts of beliefs when in truth it does so only to those that do not pose threat to its shenanigans.

Abu Ammar Ahmad
  • 189
  • 1
  • 4
-1

There are different forms of logic. Islam is quite logical with logic based on inductive reasoning, whereas may be illogical when using logic based on deductive reasoning. This was pointed out by Al-Ghazali over a millennia ago, and so he discouraged logic based on deductive reasoning.

"Inductive reasoning formulates a general principle or principles from detailed facts, or from the specific to the general, connecting these throughout by making inferences and predictions based on some kind of pattern or association" (Corzo 95)[3]. So, we have these observed facts that we are here in this world and that most likely all of this did not just happen per chance. Thus there must be a creator and sustainer. This creator and sustainer must be one and not plural since there would be chaos and disorder otherwise. Morality must be absolute, otherwise we have observed how moral relativism leads to conflict and social collapse. Every injustice must be corrected, every victim to injustice must eventually have their day in court, if not in this lifetime, then the next. Otherwise, we have to accept that evil and tyranny are justified, crime pays, the ends justify the means, etc.

"Opposite from inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning begins with a general statement or hypothesis and then goes on to deduce specifics." The premise general statement must be as sound as possible in order for the deduced arguments to be credible and valid (Corzo 98) [3]. This formulation of a hypothesis and subsequent conducting of experiments to collect results and data supporting the hypothesis encapsulates the scientific method.

While deductive reasoning and the scientific method may be acceptable for investigating the observable physical world, it is problematic when getting into metaphysical and religious-philosophical realms. A hypothesis is nothing but an educated guess and if unverifiable by data, a guess is what it remains.

Quran 6:116 - "And if you obey most of those upon the earth, they will mislead you from the way of Allah. They follow not except assumption, and they are not but falsifying." وَ‌إِ‌نْ تُ‍‍طِ‍‍عْ ‌أَكْثَ‍رَ‌ مَ‍‌‍نْ فِي ‌الأَ‌رْ‍ضِ يُ‍‍ضِ‍‍لّ‍‍ُ‍وكَ عَ‍‌‍نْ سَب‍‍ِ‍ي‍‍لِ ‌اللَّ‍‍هِ ۚ ‌إِ‌نْ يَتَّبِع‍‍ُ‍ونَ ‌إِلاَّ‌ ‌ال‍‍‍ظَّ‍‍‍نَّ ‌وَ‌إِ‌نْ هُمْ ‌إِلاَّ‌ يَ‍‍خْ‍‍رُ‍صُ‍‍و

Al-Ghazali saw danger in the hypotheses made by certain "philosophers that suggested that God was not all-knowing or even non-existent" (Wikipedia).

Also, there are fallacies in your points when presenting your question. For example, your experience with the Muslim minority in Sweden cannot be generalized for a critique or conclusion about Islam. This fallacy is known as "Ad Hominem", focusing on a person or persons (some Swedish Muslims) instead of the subject (Islam).

[3]: Corzo, Aimee. Essential Skills for Composing Effectively 2nd Ed., Kendall Hunt, 2015

0tyranny0poverty
  • 1,089
  • 1
  • 10
  • 28