Student of Allah raises some good points. Good job asking the tough questions.

I guess I would consider myself an atheist at this point. I would love to believe in a benevolent God, but I just don't see any real reason to. I would love to think that I never actually die, just move to a better, nicer place, but that just seems like wishful thinking. Hope I'm wrong.

But I think the discussions about free-will and suffering are sort of irrelevant. I think the first step is to prove that there is actually a god, or that there might actually be a decent chance of a god existing. At the moment there is no proper evidence of either god or an afterlife.

But I suppose you could get around that by arguing that it's not possible to "see" god, you have to "feel" god, if you will. You can't prove it, but you know it's there. It's an esoteric thing.

Then we can argue whether this god is good or bad. And I think with everything considered, the idea of a god that needs to test its creations, that will punish people for ETERNITY for not following his rules - that god sounds pretty awful. Any god that would put anyone in hell for eternity is not to be trusted with anything.

But of course, not everyone's idea of god conforms to that. People have different ideas of God.

I would suggest people really think about the hard questions that atheist ask in an honest way. Instead of looking at clever ways to deflect or turn their argument against them. Because if you believe in God then it should be a good God.

Pretty much yeah. It was typically a statement of proof to be able to financially provide for her, and she retains it even in case of divorce. It is still a "bride price" you basically are paying for her (not to her parents but to her), and she has to of course accept the price and that is the contract. She can't be forced. It almost sounds like modern prostitution but not a temporary contract, this is basically the marriage procedure so after the dowry is offered and accepted, then she has agreed to be married. It is almost similar to the "ring" tradition, except it appears the dowry should be something that she can support herself on or save in case of divorce or any issue, otherwise it is pointless and a person could still be taking advantage of her.

Then there are other obligations as well, but the main obligation is that you are able to financially provide for her and be a good husband and honor her and treat her well and take care of children if any are had and all that. All that duty is on the man mainly in the Islamic Law. That doesn't mean the woman can't work, just that it is not her duty to be the working one, it is the obligation of the man in being a righteous husband to take on all the providing activities where the woman's duty is traditionally to take care of children directly with breast feeding and whatever so she is not asked to also be the working one too but can of course.

The whole mind should be turned towards what is most just and right.

What is most just and right is the following

A man and a woman love each other, love meaning care for the well-being of the other and treat them as a priority to protect and cherish. What people usually call "love" meaning some passive sexual whim, is not a requirement, but justice and intent on doing justice is a requirement always in all things. So you should care enough about this person or especially yourself that you will be intent on doing justice and goodness.

You must strive hard and prove your care by the giving of a variety of gifts and affections all the marriage, not just the initial bridal gift of the dowry payment, but continue to provide for her the money for food and the food, and whatever else, just like a proper old cave man. She is basically yours to care for, so you must care for her entirely, not depend on her to care for herself, this is your duty. You need to treat her better than anything or anyone, this is like you've taken on a child or something however offensive that might sound to people, you can not neglect them, abuse them, starve them, etc.

Any man who does not live up to this obligation then is not properly performing the marriage, and most men do not live up to this in the Western society or perhaps elsewhere too, they are all falling short in everything and are generally wicked.

You must work to be better than everyone in goodness.

The woman has a free ride basically, no obligations except to doing justice in her own way, taking care of the children, remaining faithful, not being adulterous or cheating, etc, but the major work obligations are all yours, though she is supposed to be affectionate also but can not really be forced. It is your duty though to do all the caring acts and supportive acts, it is not her duty to carry you in any way, you must do all the carrying generally though she can help willingly, you should work even harder that she does not need to help and she is treated as well as possible.

Various scummy people on this website are not right minded so they oppose these statements but I am telling you the right thing for sure that will help you in all regards, even if this girl leaves you, you will be free from guilt or shame because you were excellent in every regard. Make it so the shame is on the evildoers, make anyone who does you wrong that they have done you wrong in the greatest ways with no justification because you were SO good in the most obvious manner.

You must be a total chump, the kind people call "p*ssy whipped" or whatever, that they will mock you for doing so much extra for your wife, but you know better, she is YOUR WIFE why wouldn't you treat her the best? Do you mistreat your own things? Then you mistreat yourself!

A good marriage is simply treating what is yours, as yours, and treating it well.

If you abuse what is yours, you work at self destruction.

This is a reminder to anyone who is currently married too, not to take it easy, but to strive hard in being good. Don't think it is wasted, it is a form of charity. Your wife and family and kin come first in charity.

So to make them laugh, to make them happy, to make them feel good bodily and otherwise, to make sure they are in good health, to pay them, to feed them, to give them gifts repeatedly, to surprise them, to honor them, to compliment them, to make them feel good, is an HONOR TO YOU.

It doesn't matter what they do, if they fight, if they are mean, you are only to perform justice in everything, and justice tempered with mercy. If you want God to shower you with gifts, treat others as you want God to treat you. I want God to give me gifts for free, for no merit of my own, to shower me with grace and bounty, and that is how you should act towards your companion and your family and your friends and the whole world.

I'm sorry but this may be Islamic law or whatever, but this is terrible advice you're giving to this kid.

A relationship goes both ways. It is not just the man's responsibility to be caring and providing. The couple can work out who works when and who doesn't and work out the financials. That's whatever. But they both have to work at the relationship in all aspects.

And to the OP, the answer to your question is that there's no law that applies to all situations. Do what you think is right and responsible. Don't hurt others while protecting yourself, if you're not doing both those things you're doing something wrong. That's all.

Very good and accurate description of the humanoid creature. Indeed, without the Ruuh/Spirit, this creature/bashar walking on two legs is no different than an instinct driven beast. It is the God given sense of morality that makes this creature/Bashar, into "The human being" - Al Insaan.

---

But to address the topic, alright, you'll find that the number of people driven by instinct (this can be good or bad) will increase, but more of the "bad" type. This is because now even for those who would have otherwise been God conscious, would suddenly find themselves indulging in highly selfish behavior, many of which can often be destructive in the long run.

To others why should you give charity to an unknown person? Why should you care to give if someone's dying from thirst on the street and you have a full bottle of water for example? No reason, you're not getting anything in return for helping X, Y, Z.

Being useful or useless are highly relative terms.

To a national army, you and the majority of people are useless, and therefore should be annihilated because we're not helping the army in anyway (unless you join it in some way) and are a burden, for example, - that is rational. Would you now happily accept being eliminated in the name of rationality? This is actually going on in the grand scheme of things the world over, even if it's not bluntly obvious, if you want to see. And it is being done by those uh, "intelligent and rational" people.

A relative dying from cancer in 5 years, is useless to the society because he/she is not going to be productive. What about his/her family? To them those 5 years of company and moments are worth it - making this time "useful".

A no God scenario creates a materialistic, selfish world. Even those athiests you cite who are supposedly being very "moral", are driven by selfishness (i.e. they have instincts that fall into actions/behavior we understand as "good", they derive pleasure from helping people, giving their love and care to people and/or animals and in return they enjoy all these chemical reactions that makes them feel good, like a drug).

There is a universe of difference between morality, enjoyment, struggle, pain for God, and the same things driven by selfish instinct. In the former, you will also find doing things that are against your instinct, but may classify as "good". And you will also find yourself avoiding some things that otherwise resonate with your instincts, even though they may classify as "bad".

With the latter, you only follow your instincts, and the instinct is only focussed on the self with no regards for anything else.

I'm sorry, but that description of human nature is not accurate and really outdated.
Biology, not God (or God has through biology), has given us the ability to be moral and sympathetic and altruistic.

The idea that humans only act good because of fear of hell or for the reward of heaven is completely wrong. Normally our actions are not based on such a rational decision.
And the idea that there is some sort of spirit in us urging us to do good is also not founded in fact. There is no evidence of any kind of soul/ruuh/spirit inside us.

The fact is, even without god, there are many incentives, rational and instinctive, for us to be good. And for the most part people are good.

Jack,

I'm not sure that humans are necessarily incapable of thinking for themselves, or that religion has absolutely no effect on our tendency for violence.

Look at what religion teaches - blind faith, conformity, fear of hell, etc. Those are things that can be great motivators for people to commit violence.

I do think a world without religion would be more peaceful. And maybe it's not a coincidence that we are living in the most peaceful time in human history and it is also a time when belief in God and religion are at an all time low.

And religion will continue to lose followers and science replaces it in all aspects of life. And I think humans will continue to become more and more peaceful overall. I say that because our natural tendency is to be good to others. We're designed to show empathy, to self-sacrifice. I think the struggle has been to extend that past our immediate friends and family and apply that to everyone. Religion has been a tool that has worked against it. And our globalized world is now making it easier to connect emotionally with people from all backgrounds, from all over the world.

And this is speculation, but we have practically been artificially selecting ourselves into becoming more domestic, more docile creatures. We have been breeding out our more aggressive, violent traits. And we are reaching the point where we'll be able to pick and choose our genes - and we'll cut out the violent tendencies.

But, having said that, there will always be people who put their self-interest above others. And some of those people will always be in powerful positions. And so we will probably continue to have wars and conflicts over nothing. But it will be less than it is now.

Still learning,

How would you precisely define socialism?

Here's what I think.

A capitalistic base is a necessity to any society. In history the only societies that have made progress is which enabled capitalism and some sort of free market.

After that, if you decide to have the government regulate some things and provide a safety net for the less fortunate, thats fine too.

There are practical problems with that, because often governments are corrupt. And often, even though well intentioned, social programs do end up hurting the poor.
We need to look at them from a utilitarian perspective. A lot of times in a bid to provide for everyone we end up killing incentives and killing competition, which means fewer goods, fewer choices, and higher prices.

But I can understand that in some cases the government can intervene.

What I can support is localized socialism. For example the people of a town (or even a bunch of towns) coming together and voluntarily creating a system by which they share their wealth or do whatever.

On a small scale it works.

On a large scale, not so much.

In the end, I think capitalism should reign. And if the capitalism is need to be damped and regulated, then it needs to be done on a local scale.

Stilllearning,

I think you are a bit too cynical when it comes to human nature.

People naturally give money away. Of course everyone will not (libertarians will argue that that is their individual right), but many will. Enough? I can't say.

And people are more inclined to help each other and work as a community when the government isn't there to help. The fact is, people find ways to survive, whether it is through the government or other means.

In third world countries, extended families live together and the members help each other out. If the government isn't there, the family takes care of you.

If there is no "free" health care, there are charity hospitals (run either by generous individuals or religious institutions) that take people in and help them.

Socialism takes away the freedom of people because it forces people to give. And it forces people to be part of a system that perhaps they don't want to be a part of.

But that is not necessarily a bad thing.

That is not really the problem I have with socialism. The problem I have with socialism is the trust we have to put in with the government. Which is, in my opinion, always corrupt and always inefficient. And it ends up doing more harm than good.

I just don't think giving the government that power is necessary because, as I explained, people are capable of taking care of themselves.

The fact is that every socialist country in the world does have some sort of capitalism entrenched in it. You can't do without it. And, in theory at least, they would be better off if they let capitalism reign freely and not compromise it with a socialist net.

People see capitalism as evil. But historically the evil has never come from capitalism. It has never come from one person trying to make a FAIR profit.

The evil has always come from the GOVERNMENT. The corrupt government which ignores its duties and tolerates fraud and the infringements of human rights.

And we can view our disagreement in terms of human rights.

You may agree with the Continental tradition of Human Rights. In this view the government is benevolent and has certain duties towards its citizens, such as providing them with health care etc.

I agree more with the Anglo-American tradition of Human Rights, which sees the state as a necessary evil, and the rights afforded to invidiuals are all negative rights, basically telling the state what it can't do to its people.

There was a really good analogy that sort of explained socialism. Here it is

Let's say there's a community of people living outside the city. They all work in the city and they all drive their in their individual cars. They like driving their cars because it is convenient and comfortable. But this results in slow traffic and the commute takes hours.

So they all get together and decide that they will NOT drive their cars, and instead take the bus. Giving up some comfort for a much faster commute.

Now they all take the bus, and the commute is much faster.

But what if just a few people didnt take the bus, and just drove their cars? That wouldn't clog the roads and the bus's commute wouldn't slow down. The people taking the bus wouldn't be affected by this.

Except it wouldn't be fair to everyone taking the bus.

And everyone would see that and decide to take their cars, thinking the rest would take the bus, and this would clog up the roads again, leading them back to square one.

And that is supposedly what would happen in a free society. So you would need a law saying no one can drive their own cars to work.

Also the point about arbitrary laws, I was thinking about the many awful, paradoxical laws that our country has that do nothing but make things worse. But as pointed out in the analogy, some laws do make sense, and giving up a bit of freedom can certainly mean a better life for everyone involved.

I am also a staunch anti-socialist and pro-capitalist.

Capitalism is not a system. It is just the form freedom takes when there aren't arbitrary rules governing our lives.

When you have a free market, without unnecessary taxation, people have more to give. When the government isn't responsible for providing for people, the people themselves take up the responsibility and give to charity and help the poor.

What socialism does is, as others have pointed out, takes away the freedom of the people. And actually makes them MORE apathetic towards their fellow citizens because now whatever happens the government will take care of them.

There is a HUGE misconception that the US is a free market economy. We are NOT a free market economy. We do not have a capitalist system. I can't stress this enough.

What we have is corporatism. What we have is the government favoring certain powerful corporations and letting them get away with murder. It is this favoritism (through government subsidies) that caused the economic collapse.
It wasn't the collapse of capitalism. It was the sign that it is time to go back to capitalism - but the powers that be didn't let it happen.
Ignore God's signs at your peril!

And America's obesity problem? That is also the result of government subsidies for corn. The masses of illegal immigrants living in poor conditions in the US? That is also the result of subsidies.

Once the government gets out of our way and stops artifically shaping our lives based on the false assumption that it knows whats best for us, then we can finally have a system that is equal and promotes health and community.
We can see the benefits of capitalism in our fight against racism and inequality.

I am not completely against socialism. I think it has some great ideas, and a socialist system can work. And maybe a true capitalist society isn't possible (because we haven't seen one yet).

Tyler Durden, I feel for you.

When Obama won, at my university there was much celebration because all the kids were excited about "change."

But I knew better. What Obama had said was nothing but empty rhetoric. And his idea of change was pathetically superficial.

There was only one politician willing to talk about the REAL issues back in 2008, and he is at it again in 2012 - and that's Ron Paul.

It is amazing the support he is now garnering from college students and other young people. I think many of them are disillusioned Obama supporters like yourself.

Hope you agree Ron Paul's our man this coming election.

Gabriel,
Personally I believe the Quran used familiar names and stories to illustrate different morals and lessons. And at least in some cases the relation between the Quran and earlier scriptures is purely imagined.
I think the problem has been that scholars have used earlier scriptures to "fill in the blanks" in the translations and interpretations. But what actually needs to be done is that the Quran is translated using only itself as a source, without the presumption that it is just an extension or newer edition of the Bible, and then see if any connections emerge.

Paradox Uncreated -

What is a jinn?

And what is consciousness?

I feel that while the words you use are simple, the concepts you are relating are quite complex. So I would like a more thorough explanation of your views and how you can verify them.

Peace

Also, there is an interesting take on reincarnation that I read (maybe it was in Herman Hess's Siddartha).
It goes like this The idea of reincarnation, from a Hindu/Buddhist point of view, isn't a literal one, but a metaphor for our development as persons in this lifetime.
Certain experiences you have (maybe all experiences) change you in a manner which is irreversible. So the old you is now "dead" and a new you is "born."
You either come out as a higher being or a lower being, in a heaven or a hell, depending on you respond to that experience.

I don't know how much I've added to it but that's the idea.

Paradox Uncreated - how do you know this?

How can one make it so one diamond-human cannot withhold vegetables from another diamond-human? I offered an explanation of that to the part of my post addressed to Caveman doctor.

The hypotheticals serve simply as thought experiments, so they can be as absurd as you like. The point is to show that logically the possibility exists.

But I don't have an argument against your point. I agree that to eliminate evil would most probably eliminate free-will as well.

Caveman doctor, I don't think it's naive. I consider myself to be someone who is generally good, and so are most other people I know. We may slip up from time to time but we would not commit all out "evil" acts. But anyway, let's say God created humans that were genetically so predisposed to doing good that they never did evil. Let's call them "the people of the good."
The possibility of capability of something existing doesn't mean it exists. So if these people of the good never committed evil then evil wouldn't exist.

But obviously that would be pointless. So I guess the hidden premise here is that there has to be a point?

Wakas, peace to you too. I have missed you guys.
If, let's say, humans were made of diamond, but ate vegetables to survive. You could certainly make knives that would be completely harmless to us.
But anyway, that's irrelevant.

So our existence has to have a point, we have to have free-will. So you (and Caveman) would say that God created this life as a test, and that's why evil exists, because its the byproduct of our free-will. Fair enough point.

I don't think I agree. It's completely possible to have good without evil because there are people in this world, millions in fact, that can't even consider committing an evil act.

Let's say some people in this world, due to a combination of genetics and conditioning, become immune to evil. Why couldn't God just make everyone like that from the start? We still have the possibility of evil, but everyone would be so averse to it that it wouldn't actually exist.

Whether we'd recognize good behavior as good then is an entirely different matter. Maybe in that world the concepts of good and evil wouldn't exist, but the behavior of people would still be "good."
What do you think.

peace,

The Quran itself talks a lot about this. From my studies, I will give you my understanding

Think of it like this if a company produces cooking knives, and some people use these knives for their intended purpose cutting meat, chopping vegetables etc (i.e. good) and some people use the knives for stabbing/killing others (i.e. bad), would it be fair to say the company created the evil/bad?

God gave us free-choice, and showed us the two paths good and bad. It is up to us which we choose.

The story of adam/mankind in The Quran is a parable. Perhaps its most central/thematic. The following book discusses it in more detail, it is from the same author as the Quran translation I mentioned. Some background posts
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597379.msg185295#msg185295
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=12703.msg102151#msg102151

Once you have read the above, I strongly recommend re-reading the story of "Adam" in The Quran with this in mind. I would be interested to hear your thoughts. I personally found understanding this story one of the most important in my overall understanding of The Quran. )

From the topics index at www.studyquran.org

While I'd normally agree with this argument, here's a possible flaw
The company making the knives is bound by physical laws. For example, something that is sharp and can cut eggs can also cut through human skin.

But God himself is not bound by any laws. Usually in our world to gain something you have to lose something orjust deal with side effects, but why can't God create something without any downsides or possible risks, without any possible risks?

So maybe evil isn't just a side effect of our free-will (do we even have free-will is another question), but rather something purposely built into our design?

Abdullah, I wouldn't be TOO sure that there is exactly ONE truth. Logically speaking, how can we KNOW that? For certain? In fact our everyday obvservations suggest that there are several different versions of the truth depending on how you see things. But usually our intuition is that there is only one correct truth (most likely our own version). But again how do we know that that intuition is correct? I mean sure, we can scientifically verify some facts, but you can't always decide on one correct interpretation of what those facts MEAN. So how do we know that there is always one meaning?

The whole universe is incredibly boring. We are a part of that small interesting bit.

I don't believe abortion is murder. But I am against universal health care.

The question for you is, what do you do if abortion is included in the bill? And the more generalized question for all of us is, if we know our government is immoral, do we continue living here and paying taxes or would we rather move somewhere else or go to prison?

I don't think there is a simple answer.

Abdun Nur makes some good points, actually.

Munzir Ali, why does God want something?

How do you know that he wants something?

How did you figure out what that something was?

Those are some questions for you to think about.

My understanding is, I don't know what God is. Or what Allah is. Maybe Abdun Nur can offer some insight into that.