What's new

Religion and Dogma

Those instinctive fears were rationalized through times and many modern scientists believe in a supreme being or God..The more one deepens his knowledge of higher sciences the closer he comes to that reality..
Religion without scientific knowledge backing it, is dangerous..Morality and ethics stem from Human experience through time, religion came with a frame that encompasses the most positive forms of human interactions based on those experiences of human societies, modern law followed suite positively, taking it out from the hands of the clergy..
 
Last edited:
.
I respectfully disagree, Religion brings morality into play, Without religion it is difficult for morality to exist.

Infact even Dogma has it's uses - without the concept of heaven and hell why would anyone bother with good and evil?

Religious doctrines often inspire great deeds - just for an example.

It is in the tenants of Islam to practice Charity - So you Have Edhi Sahab in Pakistan dedicating his life for Charity. Similarly you had Mother Terresa

Hindu Values of inspired Gandhi to develop the novel tool of peaceful resistance, it taught Gandhi too fight against casteism, gender discrimination and communalism

So Yes. Religion like any other thing is not absolutely good or bad.

You do not need religion to be moral...we humans collectively create morality....the process is very simple....we figure out how to best survive as a species..the rules we come up with become moral codes. The most common moral code of all existing religion does not even require religion to exist. DO NOT KILL OTHERS OF YOUR SPECIES....this is the very foundation of our civilization....it is the first step of survival of our species...if you do not want to be harmed do not harm others...thus the golden rule is shaped.
The concept of Heaven or Hell is unnecessary for moral behavior..again the golden rule can come into play...the very fact that you will not be harmed if you do not harm anyone is reward enough for not harming others. Empathy is enough for good deeds...you do not need heaven.
Morality is subjective...it can mean different thing to different people and the boundary between right and wrong is vague. By Jain standards majority of the world's population is immoral by taking lives of animals....morality changes through the ages. Gandhi would be first and foremost be seen as Racist if he were to live today.(due to his views on Africans)....but since it was commonplace back then nobody view him as "immoral". Objective morality does not exist...religions claim to be objectively moral and claim their standards are eternal and demand they be applied globally....but when you go and examine the supposed moral laws laid down by religion you find the common excuse about the requirement of context for explaining all the vague and mostly immoral(by 21st century standards) yappings of bronze age men. Nothing eternal requires context to be explained...Do not murder(no context required)...do not steal(no context required)...do not rape(no context required)...do not own slaves(no context required)....these are some subjectively developed morals that can be applied objectively.(Emphasis on CAN not should be applied).

Your last statement about religion like any other thing being not absolutely good or bad is an anti-religion statement. It is religion that claims to be the absolute good warning us against the absolute bad. If the objective morality of religion is to exist religion has to be absolutely good. Otherwise the whole purpose of religion is defeated.
 
.
You do not need religion to be moral...we humans collectively create morality....the process is very simple....we figure out how to best survive as a species..the rules we come up with become moral codes. The most common moral code of all existing religion does not even require religion to exist. DO NOT KILL OTHERS OF YOUR SPECIES....this is the very foundation of our civilization....it is the first step of survival of our species...if you do not want to be harmed do not harm others...thus the golden rule is shaped.
The concept of Heaven or Hell is unnecessary for moral behavior..again the golden rule can come into play...the very fact that you will not be harmed if you do not harm anyone is reward enough for not harming others. Empathy is enough for good deeds...you do not need heaven.
Morality is subjective...it can mean different thing to different people and the boundary between right and wrong is vague. By Jain standards majority of the world's population is immoral by taking lives of animals....morality changes through the ages. Gandhi would be first and foremost be seen as Racist if he were to live today.(due to his views on Africans)....but since it was commonplace back then nobody view him as "immoral". Objective morality does not exist...religions claim to be objectively moral and claim their standards are eternal and demand they be applied globally....but when you go and examine the supposed moral laws laid down by religion you find the common excuse about the requirement of context for explaining all the vague and mostly immoral(by 21st century standards) yappings of bronze age men. Nothing eternal requires context to be explained...Do not murder(no context required)...do not steal(no context required)...do not rape(no context required)...do not own slaves(no context required)....these are some subjectively developed morals that can be applied objectively.(Emphasis on CAN not should be applied).

Your last statement about religion like any other thing being not absolutely good or bad is an anti-religion statement. It is religion that claims to be the absolute good warning us against the absolute bad. If the objective morality of religion is to exist religion has to be absolutely good. Otherwise the whole purpose of religion is defeated.

You are confusing Abrahamic faiths with totality of religion. Consider Greek Gods - There were fallible. Consider Hinduism - Ram, Krishna each of them were sinful and committed evil. Still we worship them. So Yes, while some may consider religion to be absolute good, and GOD as perfect, others allow human deficiencies in their deities and consider their motivations to be as suspect as we humans.

Are for subjectivity of the morals - I agree. However I am only referring to the genesis of morals not their continued dependence on religion. We have reached a stage where morality can be independent of religion however in the very beginning it used religion as a crutch.
 
.
You are confusing Abrahamic faiths with totality of religion. Consider Greek Gods - There were fallible. Consider Hinduism - Ram, Krishna each of them were sinful and committed evil. Still we worship them. So Yes, while some may consider religion to be absolute good, and GOD as perfect, others allow human deficiencies in their deities and consider their motivations to be as suspect as we humans.

Are for subjectivity of the morals - I agree. However I am only referring to the genesis of morals not their continued dependence on religion. We have reached a stage where morality can be independent of religion however in the very beginning it used religion as a crutch.
Ok....whether the origin of morality is rooted in religion is debatable....I do agree that it used religion as a crutch at the beginning. What justification do you have to continue believing in religion? Ram's action would also be immoral by modern standards. Why worship him then?
 
.
Ok....whether the origin of morality is rooted in religion is debatable....I do agree that it used religion as a crutch at the beginning. What justification do you have to continue believing in religion? Ram's action would also be immoral by modern standards. Why worship him then?

That is a matter of faith which I am unqualified to comment on.
 
.
I am only a student of history. Not a religious scholar so before I begin, I must declare that my opinions in the matter of religion are ‘My personal views’ and could be very wrong.

Of course every religion must be dogmatic to some extent else every potentate could alter it to suit his needs. There are some basic tenets such as belief in one Allah & his prophet, prayers, Hajj, Zakat, fasting, day of judgement & life after death that are immutable and must remain valid till eternity and there is also the word of Allah in the form of holy Quran that cannot be changed.

“I have deliberately left Hadith out because in my view 100% veracity of all the Hadith cannot be guaranteed. For example I find it impossible to accept that Hazrat Aysha (RA) was only nine years old when she was married to the holy Prophet (PBUH)”

Beyond this Islam permits consultation & Ijtihad (interpretation) of the Quran & Hadith with the changing circumstances. Islam was a very pragmatic religion during the initial period. For example during the period of famine in Medina, Caliph Omar ( RA) suspended punishment for the theft.

Quote

Yahya ibn Abi Kathir reported: Umar ibn Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, said, “Do not cut the hand of the thief who steals dates in the year of famine.”

Source: Muṣannaf Abd al-Razzāq 18371

Unquote

There were also debates about nature of Quran and interpretation of it’s versus among the believers. In my view present state of Islam is direct result of five important historical events.

First was the victory of the reactionary Asharites over the rationalist Motazalites. Second was Mongol invasion which ended the Abbasid Caliphate and thus end of Ijtihad. Then it was discovery of the oil wealth that enabled the Saudis to financing spreading of the Wahhabi doctrine through out the Islamic world. Added to these were the creation of Israel and its response in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood and the innovation of Syed Qutub which justified ‘Suicide’ under certain circumstances even though it is forbidden in Islam. Finally it was the emergence of Khomeini and the events which followed as its direct consequence such as Iran & Iraq war, stationing of the US troops on Saudi soil and the emergence of Al-Qaida.

All this is history, but what is to be done? First thing is to decide which of the two is the greater evil? Increasing influence of Iran in the Middle East or the poison of Al-Qaida & ISIS?

Somehow Saudis & the Israelis have to realize that ISIS poses greater long term danger than the Shiite Iran, therefore they should help Assad regime in Syria, and Shiite regime in Iraq and the Ashraf Ghani regime in Kabul to fight and eliminate extremist elements from Syria, Iraq & Afghanistan. In Pakistan, PTI, JUI, JI and PML-N section led by Rana Sana ullah should be made to stop supporting Taliban & extremist Sunni parties such as SSP & LeJ. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States should also stop the needless intervention in Yemen.

However Military solution alone without changing the mind-set is not going to resolve this problem.

All the Deobandi Ulemas and the Wahhabi preachers should include in their Friday sermons that suicide is forbidden in Islam and all those involved in creating suicide bombers are bound for hell. And that no individual mullah or group has a right to declare any other group as ‘Kafir’ and that the judgement should be left to the Allah.

For this to happen, door of Ijtihad must be reopened without delay. Unless all of the above is done, IMHO situation will go on as it is until such time that another Mustafa Kamal is born.
 
.
Very well written post. I will soon come back and share my views. You can also check videos of Bishop John Shelby Spong on YouTube.
 
.
I am only a student of history. Not a religious scholar so before I begin, I must declare that my opinions in the matter of religion are ‘My personal views’ and could be very wrong.

Of course every religion must be dogmatic to some extent else every potentate could alter it to suit his needs. There are some basic tenets such as belief in one Allah & his prophet, prayers, Hajj, Zakat, fasting, day of judgement & life after death that are immutable and must remain valid till eternity and there is also the word of Allah in the form of holy Quran that cannot be changed.

“I have deliberately left Hadith out because in my view 100% veracity of all the Hadith cannot be guaranteed. For example I find it impossible to accept that Hazrat Aysha (RA) was only nine years old when she was married to the holy Prophet (PBUH)”

Beyond this Islam permits consultation & Ijtihad (interpretation) of the Quran & Hadith with the changing circumstances. Islam was a very pragmatic religion during the initial period. For example during the period of famine in Medina, Caliph Omar ( RA) suspended punishment for the theft.

Quote

Yahya ibn Abi Kathir reported: Umar ibn Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, said, “Do not cut the hand of the thief who steals dates in the year of famine.”

Source: Muṣannaf Abd al-Razzāq 18371

Unquote

There were also debates about nature of Quran and interpretation of it’s versus among the believers. In my view present state of Islam is direct result of five important historical events.

First was the victory of the reactionary Asharites over the rationalist Motazalites. Second was Mongol invasion which ended the Abbasid Caliphate and thus end of Ijtihad. Then it was discovery of the oil wealth that enabled the Saudis to financing spreading of the Wahhabi doctrine through out the Islamic world. Added to these were the creation of Israel and its response in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood and the innovation of Syed Qutub which justified ‘Suicide’ under certain circumstances even though it is forbidden in Islam. Finally it was the emergence of Khomeini and the events which followed as its direct consequence such as Iran & Iraq war, stationing of the US troops on Saudi soil and the emergence of Al-Qaida.

All this is history, but what is to be done? First thing is to decide which of the two is the greater evil? Increasing influence of Iran in the Middle East or the poison of Al-Qaida & ISIS?

Somehow Saudis & the Israelis have to realize that ISIS poses greater long term danger than the Shiite Iran, therefore they should help Assad regime in Syria, and Shiite regime in Iraq and the Ashraf Ghani regime in Kabul to fight and eliminate extremist elements from Syria, Iraq & Afghanistan. In Pakistan, PTI, JUI, JI and PML-N section led by Rana Sana ullah should be made to stop supporting Taliban & extremist Sunni parties such as SSP & LeJ. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States should also stop the needless intervention in Yemen.

However Military solution alone without changing the mind-set is not going to resolve this problem.

All the Deobandi Ulemas and the Wahhabi preachers should include in their Friday sermons that suicide is forbidden in Islam and all those involved in creating suicide bombers are bound for hell. And that no individual mullah or group has a right to declare any other group as ‘Kafir’ and that the judgement should be left to the Allah.

For this to happen, door of Ijtihad must be reopened without delay. Unless all of the above is done, IMHO situation will go on as it is until such time that another Mustafa Kamal is born.

Thanks for providing the historical context and elaborating on evolution of present day Islam. To this end I have a few questions

- When you speak of Ijtihad, is it on the personal level or institutional one? @Oscar suggested taking power away from Clergy identifying some of the present day clergies for wrong interpretation and thus many misconceptions floating around. If however the freedom is given to individual for Ithihad then barring the core beliefs, wildly varying interpretations and schools of thought would develop laying ground for further schisms and probable conflicts.

- The way to mitigate the above is itself suggested by you in the later half of the post where you say no one should have the right to declare the other as "Kafir" and judgement should be left to Allah but this would come with a lot of resistance as many believe Islam to be not just a religion but a way of life involving all facets of societal life. This has led intertwining of politics with religion where the State itself takes responsibility of not only defining Islam but upholding it as well therefore giving the state unprecedented power over the lives of their citizen. Institutions don't give up power like that easily without a revolution which would be hugely disruptive and perhaps fatal as we have seen in ME.

Regards
 
. .
That is because Religion gave birth to Morality which led to development of Legal principles
Really?

Islam says otherwise. If what you say is true then we would not be born with Fitra, an innate moral compass and an inclination of Oneness, we would be born as chimpanzees.
 
.
If what you say is true then we would not be born with Fitra, an innate moral compass and an inclination of Oneness, we would be born as chimpanzees.

That is true ONLY because we are now living as civilisied beings

AT the time when we were living in caves ; there was NO morality

As humans became settled ; and religion became more organised
we started living in cities and Human life
moved BEYOND Hunting and gathering ; we humans became interested in
bigger issues of life -- which is what it is to be a Human

That is when morality developed

If any human even today lives in a jungle ; he would nt care for moral issues
 
Last edited:
.
Thanks for providing the historical context and elaborating on evolution of present day Islam. To this end I have a few questions

- When you speak of Ijtihad, is it on the personal level or institutional one? @Oscar suggested taking power away from Clergy identifying some of the present day clergies for wrong interpretation and thus many misconceptions floating around. If however the freedom is given to individual for Ithihad then barring the core beliefs, wildly varying interpretations and schools of thought would develop laying ground for further schisms and probable conflicts.

- The way to mitigate the above is itself suggested by you in the later half of the post where you say no one should have the right to declare the other as "Kafir" and judgement should be left to Allah but this would come with a lot of resistance as many believe Islam to be not just a religion but a way of life involving all facets of societal life. This has led intertwining of politics with religion where the State itself takes responsibility of not only defining Islam but upholding it as well therefore giving the state unprecedented power over the lives of their citizen. Institutions don't give up power like that easily without a revolution which would be hugely disruptive and perhaps fatal as we have seen in ME.

Regards

Honourable Spectre,


By jihad I mean it as an institution.

Until such time any mullah can accuse whosoever he feels like, be an individual/ or a group of individuals, of being ‘kafir’; target killings and suicide bombings will not stop because naïve young men could easily be brain washed into doing Allah’s work with instant transit into heaven upon death as the reward. Therefore one has to change the mind-set which cannot be done by the bullet alone.

In all over the Middle East, Friday sermons are approved by a gov’t appointed committee before mullah can deliver the same from the pulpit. They can do it because most countries are absolute monarchies and ruler’s word is the law without any recourse to appeal.

Unless top Ulemas (scholars) of all the different sects are in agreement; this would be very difficult to put into practice in Pakistan.But the alternative is ‘more of the same’ for a very long time with disastrous consequences for Pakistan.
 
.
That is true ONLY because we are now living as civilisied beings

AT the time when we were living in caves ; there was NO morality
Religion didn't give us morals, wrongful suffering as we lived in larger groups gave us morals. Religion came after.
 
.
An interesting article I came across recently:

The reader will note:

"So he spoke out. In articles and television appearances, he argued that much of what Saudis practiced as religion was in fact Arabian cultural practices that had been mixed up with their faith"

Rightly or wrongly; I have always believed Islam as preached by our holy Prophet (PBUH) was a moderate progressive religion. On the other hand many Wahhabi edicts are "innovations" where Arab tribal cultural beliefs are represented as pure Islam. Taliban also follow many traditional Pashtun tribal customs and think that is pure Islam.

Even such customs that are obviously un-Islamic such as 'Swara', 'Wanni' or 'Karo Kari' are still practiced by otherwise staunchly orthodox Muslim village elders among the Pashtun, Baluch & Sindhi rural societies. Regrettably the current Council of Islamic Ideology headed by Maulana Shirani is also following in similar footsteps.


A Saudi Morals Enforcer Called for a More Liberal Islam. Then the Death Threats Began.



JIDDA, Saudi Arabia — For most of his adult life, Ahmed Qassim al-Ghamdi worked among the bearded enforcers of Saudi Arabia. He was a dedicated employee of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice — known abroad as the religious police — serving with the front-line troops protecting the Islamic kingdom from Westernization, secularism and anything but the most conservative Islamic practices.

Some of that resembled ordinary police work: busting drug dealers and bootleggers in a country that bans alcohol. But the men of “the Commission,” as Saudis call it, spent most of their time maintaining the puritanical public norms that set Saudi Arabia apart not only from the West, but from most of the Muslim world.

A key offense was ikhtilat, or unauthorized mixing between men and women. The kingdom’s clerics warn that it could lead to fornication, adultery, broken homes, children born of unmarried couples and full-blown societal collapse.

For years, Mr. Ghamdi stuck with the program and was eventually put in charge of the Commission for the region of Mecca, Islam’s holiest city. Then he had a reckoning and began to question the rules. So he turned to the Quran and the stories of the Prophet Muhammad and his companions, considered the exemplars of Islamic conduct. What he found was striking and life altering: There had been plenty of mixing among the first generation of Muslims, and no one had seemed to mind.

So he spoke out. In articles and television appearances, he argued that much of what Saudis practiced as religion was in fact Arabian cultural practices that had been mixed up with their faith.

There was no need to close shops for prayer, he said, nor to bar women from driving, as Saudi Arabia does. At the time of the Prophet, women rode around on camels, which he said was far more provocative than veiled women piloting S.U.V.s.

He even said that while women should conceal their bodies, they needed to cover their faces only if they chose to do so. And to demonstrate the depth of his own conviction, Mr. Ghamdi went on television with his wife, Jawahir, who smiled to the camera, her face bare and adorned with a dusting of makeup.

It was like a bomb inside the kingdom’s religious establishment, threatening the social order that granted prominence to the sheikhs and made them the arbiters of right and wrong in all aspects of life. He threatened their control.

Mr. Ghamdi’s colleagues at work refused to speak to him. Angry calls poured into his cellphone and anonymous death threats hit him on Twitter. Prominent sheikhs took to the airwaves to denounce him as an ignorant upstart who should be punished, tried — and even tortured.

Full article link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/w...1&nl=evening-briefing&nlid=59685041&te=1&_r=0
 
Last edited:
.
threads going gud,:tup:
ps-guys kindly refrain from discussing any particular religion,,,threads not abt that
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom