Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Humanism

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

I just want to make a quick post about a discussion I had here: 

 

I think it's really worth a read if anyone hasn't seen it. And I think it's worth considering with respect to this topic and adds some food for thought.

So we're asking this question of what morality is and what is humanism and it's take on morality.

In this topic ayoobi (a normal everyday guy with a YouTube channel who just shares his thoughts), discuss a hypothetical scenario.

In this scenario ayoobi and I are at a cafe. Maybe we are grabbing brunch.

In one hand, If we lived in a country like Saudi Arabia, If I were an atheist and yelled "I love being an atheist!" In the cafe (a public sphere), ayoobi suggested that he would be, in some form, content, If authorities took me away for execution due to my public announcement of non-belief.

Ayoobis justification was, well, this public announcement could indirectly cause bystanders to be influenced toward atheism and thus directed to an afterlife of hellfire.

This was his justification for this seemingly content response to my hypothetical execution.

And he does this through a moral compass of his view of Islam and through an idea that is faith based (of course none of us has ever observed heaven or hell, it's a faith based idea that it exists).

And in the discussion I propose a contrasting position. 

Let's say ayoobi and I were in...say, Berlin. And Ayoobi yells at the top of his lungs "I love being a Muslim!" At this public cafe around other people. It would be greatly offensive (to me and most others) if authorities came to take him away, and to be honest, there is a probability that I would fight the authorities to protect his life. If he was my friend, I most certainly would fight for his life right then and there. But rather I would just say "hey good for you man, now let's have some pancakes".

And so, what we have is a completely different position on the value of human life, based on how we prioritize faith based ideas. If we put the faith based idea before physical observation, we have this idea that it may be ok to do things to destroy others, to preserve or to act in favor of a faith based idea.

Whereas if we put the faith based idea after physical observation, then we seek to preserve human life, here and now, with the understanding that orthodox or dogmatic faith based views, shouldn't take priority over...what is readily observable.

And it's not necessarily materialism. Because we can follow Jesus or Muhammad or other moral compasses, while simultaneously respective human life in priority over seemingly physically destructive acts against people.

This is just one consideration of many.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This is a very interesting thread, I'm happy to share my views and position in public. There have been majorly three inspirations for me(among others): an humanist muslim scholar, Camus and definitely

Apparently, there are different types of humanism. But these days it usually means secular humanism. This is their common symbol Basically, they believe humans can be ethical without reli

Boring

  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
32 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

In this scenario ayoobi and I are at a cafe. Maybe we are grabbing brunch.

 

I don't agree with the way this scenario is being projected in both cases, namely because it is unrealistic and it won't garner the presupposed result of fearing others may apostate, simply because someone would shout 'I love being an Atheist' - considering this age of internet that connects us all - I believe it is imperative that we understand what is understood by the masses when someone says 'I am an Atheist' and also what is considered by this statement when addressed by the authorities.

(1) If an individual would simply shout out 'I am an Atheist' in public, the people would presume that this man is a lunatic (because they cannot fathom why someone would deny the existence of God) or they would simply think he is someone seeking attention - at most provoking others - either way this would not be an issue which would give rise to imprisonment/execution. 

I can say this confidently without needing to entertain this matter through a theoretical realm, I lived in a Muslim country for five years and the vulgarity of the language that I heard from some of the inhabitants shook me to the core, for example you would have the occasional direct insult toward Allah, where many adults/teens would fouly curse at Allah, or you would have those who within the public sphere talk about how they engaged in homosexual behavior, etc. 

Of course these people are considered to be the scum of society so to speak, due to their lack of moral and integral decency no one is grabbing them and imprisoning/executing them - you also have a plethora of cases where there are those who publicly apostate and even go on television shows - so this supposed scenario is completely out of the scope of reality and any reference to Saudi Arabia is null, because I don't believe them to even remotely be close to an Islamic society. 

(2) As stated above, it simply does not concord that someone who shouts 'I am an Atheist' should in anyway cause damage to the faith of those who surround him, because everyone is exposed to these individuals on a regular and consistent basis, if not through literature through politics and social media, where separation between Church and State is being highly advocated for. 

Now, there are within the United States certain derogatory terms that are considered taboo to say for every race, if someone goes out to let's say an all (culturally) white restaurant, an all black restaurant, and or a Hispanic restaurant, and as he is sitting down eating his meal he would yell a very offensive term to each said race, and one which is very extreme and foul. Do you discount the idea of vigilantes or perhaps even the state retaliating? 'Oh I am exercising free speech'... Well, you can't say that here or the repercussions will be unfavorable. 'Who chooses what I can and cannot say, who draws the line for free speech?' 

Let us as you said go to Berlin, but instead of shouting 'I am a Muslim', let's insult the holocaust victims and above that deny it ever even occurred. Again you would have a number of legal/societal issues. 

If you deny the Holocaust in a Muslim country, no one would bat an eye, because it holds no true significance, conversely if you deny the existence of Allah in a secular society, therefore, it is very fallacious to assume we can just hold ever country to the same criteria of 'free speech' or 'freedom to believe anything'.

I assure you even within an Islamic society, as seen at the time of the Prophet you can apostate all you want, but when your apostasy becomes treasonous and when you threaten the stability of a society seeking to mischievously spread the seeds of doubt in hopes of causing that society to crumble, there will be heavy punishments. 

Apostasy in Islam was known at the time of the Prophet to be rebellion against the state, because when you become a Muslim you pledge your allegiance to the state and you submit to Islamic rule, the Arabs held their oaths very highly and they would prefer death over breaking any oath that they made. Nowadays we aren't pledging our complete allegiance to a State, and by apostasting claiming that we are rebelling against said state, to warrant severe punishment. 

Take the example of Abu Shakir at the time of Imam Jaf'ar Al-Sadiq, he freely opposed Allah and even mocked the idea of there being a God in the face of the Imam and his students, what did the Imam do? He responded to him after his long tirade and prayed for his guidance and told him to reflect. This clearly highlights that apostasy as we understood it now is different then before, so I really hope that we can be very considerate to the nuanced definitions and know that any such scenarios are not just realistically erroneous, but theoretically as well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 8/23/2020 at 3:06 AM, Mohammad313Ali said:

If anyone likes to contribute to the topic of humanism please do, I’m sure the brothers can entertain your inputs, critiques, perspectives.

Salaam dear brother, 

Humanism is in opposition to previous Deiism , which puts the individual human being as the centre of consciousness rather than God. 

This is nowhere more visible than in Italy during the renaissance (rebirth) during the middle of the last millennium.  

The target was to dethrone the church as the centre of power, along with the nobles who attained their position through jihad in the name of their church, and replaced it with a 'republic' or 'democracy' run mostly by banker dynasties such as the Medici. 

At the same time the term renaissance, or rebirth was in context to the rebirth of pagan gods and ideologies.  Their art of realism and human oriented images were usually in direct contradiction with the bible, even when they claimed to represent it. One such example is the famous statue of David, which is supposed to represent an israelite prophet, yet it shows him naked, which is clearly against the Torah, as well as uncircumcised. All Abrahamic descended prophets were circumcised.

The only reason why God allowed this to happen was because of corruption among the religious leadership at the time, and the people accepting it. 

My own analysis is that humanism is part of a greater scheme by satanic forces to mislead mankind away from God's way, and lead them astray towards worldly beauty, as well as make people think on an individual level, rather than on the level of family or religious denomination.  In this way it is easier to control people with shadow governments that does not take its rulership from religious texts, but rather human inventions. Humanism is the precursor of socialism and communism, which also claim to serve the individual away from God, as professed by the likes of Karl Marx. 

Today we have an education system in most of the world that is based on the 'humanities'.  which are a direct offshoot of this. In the meantime it gives the satanic families, soldiers, leaders and decision makers (as mentioned in the Quran) a perfect way to blind the people from noticing what is really going on,  and as we can clearly see, most of the world that was very religious a century ago, now worship gay pride, so-called science, and secularism. 

Thanks brother 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

I don't agree with the way this scenario is being projected in both cases, namely because it is unrealistic and it won't garner the presupposed result of fearing others may apostate, simply because someone would shout 'I love being an Atheist' - considering this age of internet that connects us all - I believe it is imperative that we understand what is understood by the masses when someone says 'I am an Atheist' and also what is considered by this statement when addressed by the authorities.

(1) If an individual would simply shout out 'I am an Atheist' in public, the people would presume that this man is a lunatic (because they cannot fathom why someone would deny the existence of God) or they would simply think he is someone seeking attention - at most provoking others - either way this would not be an issue which would give rise to imprisonment/execution. 

I can say this confidently without needing to entertain this matter through a theoretical realm, I lived in a Muslim country for five years and the vulgarity of the language that I heard from some of the inhabitants shook me to the core, for example you would have the occasional direct insult toward Allah, where many adults/teens would fouly curse at Allah, or you would have those who within the public sphere talk about how they engaged in homosexual behavior, etc. 

Of course these people are considered to be the scum of society so to speak, due to their lack of moral and integral decency no one is grabbing them and imprisoning/executing them - you also have a plethora of cases where there are those who publicly apostate and even go on television shows - so this supposed scenario is completely out of the scope of reality and any reference to Saudi Arabia is null, because I don't believe them to even remotely be close to an Islamic society. 

(2) As stated above, it simply does not concord that someone who shouts 'I am an Atheist' should in anyway cause damage to the faith of those who surround him, because everyone is exposed to these individuals on a regular and consistent basis, if not through literature through politics and social media, where separation between Church and State is being highly advocated for. 

Now, there are within the United States certain derogatory terms that are considered taboo to say for every race, if someone goes out to let's say an all (culturally) white restaurant, an all black restaurant, and or a Hispanic restaurant, and as he is sitting down eating his meal he would yell a very offensive term to each said race, and one which is very extreme and foul. Do you discount the idea of vigilantes or perhaps even the state retaliating? 'Oh I am exercising free speech'... Well, you can't say that here or the repercussions will be unfavorable. 'Who chooses what I can and cannot say, who draws the line for free speech?' 

Let us as you said go to Berlin, but instead of shouting 'I am a Muslim', let's insult the holocaust victims and above that deny it ever even occurred. Again you would have a number of legal/societal issues. 

If you deny the Holocaust in a Muslim country, no one would bat an eye, because it holds no true significance, conversely if you deny the existence of Allah in a secular society, therefore, it is very fallacious to assume we can just hold ever country to the same criteria of 'free speech' or 'freedom to believe anything'.

I assure you even within an Islamic society, as seen at the time of the Prophet you can apostate all you want, but when your apostasy becomes treasonous and when you threaten the stability of a society seeking to mischievously spread the seeds of doubt in hopes of causing that society to crumble, there will be heavy punishments. 

Apostasy in Islam was known at the time of the Prophet to be rebellion against the state, because when you become a Muslim you pledge your allegiance to the state and you submit to Islamic rule, the Arabs held their oaths very highly and they would prefer death over breaking any oath that they made. Nowadays we aren't pledging our complete allegiance to a State, and by apostasting claiming that we are rebelling against said state, to warrant severe punishment. 

Take the example of Abu Shakir at the time of Imam Jaf'ar Al-Sadiq, he freely opposed Allah and even mocked the idea of there being a God in the face of the Imam and his students, what did the Imam do? He responded to him after his long tirade and prayed for his guidance and told him to reflect. This clearly highlights that apostasy as we understood it now is different then before, so I really hope that we can be very considerate to the nuanced definitions and know that any such scenarios are not just realistically erroneous, but theoretically as well. 

I think you're reading too much into this.

We aren't discussing whether or not the hypothetical is realistic. It doesn't matter if I truly would be abducted by Saudi Arabian Authorities or by ISIS or by anyone else. It doesn't matter if people would just think we were lunatics and would just ignore us or not.

We are discussing thought behind the idea and how two different people, ayoobi and I, would approach this hypothetical.

And I agree that, in most places on earth (but not all places), such a situation would not happen. And I also agree that most Muslims would not want atheists to be executed for announcing their atheism in a public sphere. But that's not the point of our talk.

The point is that, if such a hypothetical were real, some people would not challenge that reality. Or at least they don't think they would.

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
58 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

if such a hypothetical were real

I believe in order for such a hypothetical to be real, you would need to redefine certain Islamic beliefs/tenants, therefore, such a hypothetical scenario is a straw man.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
36 minutes ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

I believe in order for such a hypothetical to be real, you would need to redefine certain Islamic beliefs/tenants, therefore, such a hypothetical scenario is a straw man.

It's not a straw man, because it was never the purpose of the hypothetical to define Islam (or to go against Islam either).

It's no more a straw man against Islam than it is a straw man against any other religion. But rather, it's a critique of an underlying position of someone who happens to be Muslim. The argument could otherwise apply to any person of any religion with such views. And the issue is prevalent, beyond ayoobi and beyond Muslims. It's actually an issue observed worldwide by people of many religions, including Christianity.

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
2 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

it's a critique of an underlying position of someone who happens to be Muslim.

I apologize if I haven’t grasped the center of what you’re alluding to in your assessment, however, I believe external forces will always have issues with the fundamental position of any ideology/worldview, therefore, at times it’s best to see if that ideology is consistent as Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) says in the Quran if it was from other then Allah you would have found much contradiction therein. In the end everyone will have issues with those whom they disagree with on a theologically fundamental basis and not everyone can be content with what said fundamentals, due to societal factors, preconceived ideas regarding morality, the ego, etc. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
9 hours ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

Apostasy in Islam was known at the time of the Prophet to be rebellion against the state, because when you become a Muslim you pledge your allegiance to the state and you submit to Islamic rule, the Arabs held their oaths very highly and they would prefer death over breaking any oath that they made. Nowadays we aren't pledging our complete allegiance to a State, and by apostasting claiming that we are rebelling against said state, to warrant severe punishment. 

Still reading the thread, but I must say this is an excellent approach on how Islam was experienced and what apostasy meant. Another reason for the need of revision.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 9/2/2020 at 8:31 AM, Soldiers and Saffron said:

Humanism is bound to humans, so what were you before you soul temporarily parked in what is your body and what will you be when your soul and body departs? 

I agree. The truth should be universal. Angels, djinns, animals, and plants can't be humanist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 9/11/2020 at 4:38 AM, Bakir said:

I'm criticizing in this thread exclusion, prosecution, slavery, etc. How wouldn't I have reasons to criticize the Nazis? For God's sake. I'm not an immoral person, I'm questioning the divine origin of moral codes, its existence, and its lack of room for revision. Questioning that doesn't mean there aren't moral codes, or that anyone is valid. Of course not. In no way the Nazis political actions can be morally justified in anyway. In which possible way can someone not reject genocide or invasion at a moral level? And maybe the nazis could have found that justifiable (I have never met one, thankfully), but that doesn't mean other societies shall find it acceptable.

I am not sure that you understood what I meant with this example.

Humanism believes that whatever they consider to be good for humans is right. 

My point is that even nazis ultimately believe that whatever they are doing is ultimately for the benefit of mankind as a whole. If you ask any of them if they consider themselves evil, they will most certainly say no and not only that, they consider themselves as good and their counterparts as evil.

You do not agree with them based on your personal perception of morality and they in turn dont agree with you based on their personal moral perception of morality and both parties are at the same time saying what is best for humanity in their own opinion.

Why are you right and why would they be wrong if it is up to each person to make up their own rules regarding right and wrong?

Whatever answer you may give, will be nullified, due to the premise of which your answer is based on. If you personally believe something to be right, then it is right and if you personally believe something is wrong, then it is wrong.

 And this is exactly the elephant in the room when speaking about humanism.

 

I also dont understand why you would changed your religion status to "Humanist", humanism is not a religion, it says nothing of our creation nor our afterlives nor the purpose of our existence.

I personally believe that humanism as an idea is an arrogant idea and that ultimately its the submission towards ones ego versus the submission towards Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and I also believe that true humanism is Islam because what is best for mankind is Islam.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 9/18/2020 at 3:41 PM, Soldiers and Saffron said:

I am not sure that you understood what I meant with this example.

Humanism believes that whatever they consider to be good for humans is right. 

My point is that even nazis ultimately believe that whatever they are doing is ultimately for the benefit of mankind as a whole. If you ask any of them if they consider themselves evil, they will most certainly say no and not only that, they consider themselves as good and their counterparts as evil.

You do not agree with them based on your personal perception of morality and they in turn dont agree with you based on their personal moral perception of morality and both parties are at the same time saying what is best for humanity in their own opinion.

Why are you right and why would they be wrong if it is up to each person to make up their own rules regarding right and wrong?

Whatever answer you may give, will be nullified, due to the premise of which your answer is based on. If you personally believe something to be right, then it is right and if you personally believe something is wrong, then it is wrong.

 And this is exactly the elephant in the room when speaking about humanism.

 

I also dont understand why you would changed your religion status to "Humanist", humanism is not a religion, it says nothing of our creation nor our afterlives nor the purpose of our existence.

I personally believe that humanism as an idea is an arrogant idea and that ultimately its the submission towards ones ego versus the submission towards Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and I also believe that true humanism is Islam because what is best for mankind is Islam.

The difference that one was an oppressor, they being the Nazis. They abducted Jews that had physically done no evidence based wrong. This isn't moral relativism, it's moral awareness.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
17 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

The difference that one was an oppressor, they being the Nazis. They abducted Jews that had physically done no evidence based wrong. This isn't moral relativism, it's moral awareness.

And it's not based on beliefs, it's based on observation. 

Some Nazis believed in racial superiority (something that isn't evidence based) and perhaps religious superiority (also not evidence based). Some then took things a step further and turned that to the physical destruction of countless Jews (clear observation of destruction of human life on a mass scale). Some Nazis killed off handicapped people (again an assertive destruction of others), while seeking to protect their own economic wealth (perhaps out of greed or fear). 

People can make right and wrong choices about morality and what is best or not best for humanity. But that doesn't mean that there isn't an objective reality of what is or is not best for humanity. 

Someone can have a personal opinion that launching nuclear weapons at Sweden is a good idea, but if Russia fired its own nuclear weapons Sweden and the world entered a nuclear weapons frenzy that resulted in everyone dying, then that initial opinion would be objectively, a moral failure. The initial person's opinion may have been subjective, but the physical result of the action is objective.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

And so the goal of the above is to use reason, to determine what has a greater probability of being morally correct, and to take that action, rather than letting that determination be made at the hands of something that is...not necessarily evidence based (such as killing apostates out of fear of a hellfire which has never been observed).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 9/18/2020 at 9:41 PM, Soldiers and Saffron said:

I personally believe that humanism as an idea is an arrogant idea and that ultimately its the submission towards ones ego versus the submission towards Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and I also believe that true humanism is Islam because what is best for mankind is Islam.

I don‘t necessarily disagree with the bolded assertion, but religiously driven egotism is arguably just as bad as “secular” humanism. For example, antisemitism and Wahhabi–Salafi terrorism are both religiously rather than economically rooted, though resentment toward Jews does contain economic components at times. Still, Jews and Shias have been persecuted for thousands of years despite not being the apex of the socio-economic pyramid. This genocidal malevolence has been religiously motivated at its core, hence irrational from a utilitarian and/or humanist viewpoint. Some people will try to equate religiously driven massacres with “secular” humanism, e.g., Marxism, yet not even Stalinism conducted industrial-level eugenics, Satanic ritual abuse of children, medical experimentation on women and infants, etc., whereas capitalistic, Christian societies did (and still do), especially under Nazism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 9/18/2020 at 9:41 PM, Soldiers and Saffron said:

Humanism believes that whatever they consider to be good for humans is right. 

Thing with this debate is that you missunderstood the word Humanism all this time. When I speak about humanism, I'm not referring to the Arabic word Insaniyah, nor English word humane/humanitarian. I'm referring to Humanism, which is a very defined and specific philosophical position deeply developed during the last century. It's not my understanding of humanism. Humanism is a specific known and very debated philosophical position. It is up to you to understand it, not up to me to explain myself, as this is in no way a personal interpretation of Humanism. I'm speaking of Humanism based in academic philisophical study of it. The missunderstanding is in your side, not mine.

On 9/18/2020 at 9:41 PM, Soldiers and Saffron said:

I also dont understand why you would changed your religion status to "Humanist", humanism is not a religion, it says nothing of our creation nor our afterlives nor the purpose of our existence.

Because this forum is full of idiots I prefer not to discuss with. I have no interest in gaining any terrain in the debates I participate in SC. If some people feel good because they cancel me as a muslim for being homosexual, or for having a (philisophical) humanist approach to Islam, so be it. These people are garbage to begin with in my own moral scale, and SC historically does nothing (nor I expect that to change ever, SC's mentality is terrible at many levels itself). In the second hand, indeed, Humanism is not a religion, but it defines my approach to Religion and ethics. And at the same time, people stop questioning me for calling myself a Muslim. 

On 9/18/2020 at 9:41 PM, Soldiers and Saffron said:

humanism as an idea is an arrogant idea and that ultimately its the submission towards ones ego versus the submission towards Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and I also believe that true humanism is Islam because what is best for mankind is Islam.

Again, this is not Humanism as it's defined in Philosophy. It's Utilitarianisn what you are describing here.

Edited by Bakir
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...