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.

  • 1
    As logic is part of the training of Muslim scholars islamic religion is indeed based on logic. – Medi1Saif Jan 9 '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 9 '17 at 17:45
  • 1
    @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
  • 2
    @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 3:48
  • 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
-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.

  • 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 2:23
  • 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 يا رب العالمين 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 يا رب العالمين 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 0:38
  • 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. – user21196 Feb 16 '17 at 19:47
-1

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.

The 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.

  • 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

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.