Joseph de Maistre, the limits of reason, and Islam

[Northwest]

Recently I was reading about the Catholic traditionalist Joseph de Maistre. He is well known from criticising the rational basis of morality.

For example, he says that marriage and monarchical succession do not seem to be rational. His reasoning: a man may reasonably choose to do other things with his life than marry one or more women, and bad kings as well as good issue forth from the lines of their fathers. Nevertheless, he concludes that the institutions of marriage and monarchy have proven essential to society, or at least better than alternatives.

He is also fiercely critical of the Enlightenment-era notion that the ideal society operates on the basis of reason. Per de Maistre, reason allows men to criticise the basis of society, so that even the best of orders can be questioned. In turn, de Maistre posits that society requires a foundation which is beyond inquiry, impervious to prying minds:

Quote

By founding societies upon foundations so dark, so mysterious and so terrifying that anyone who dares approach them will find himself immediately subject to the most hideous and enormous penalties.

He says that the basis of the moral law must remain inscrutable. He says that man is fundamentally irrational, or rather arational, and that the Earth is essentially a battlefield and altar. Only a coercive, irrational system can control man’s dark, implacable instincts.

Quote

He says: Man is corrupt, man is sinful, man is a cruel and vicious creature who can only just be stopped from destroying the others by the wise discipline imposed upon him by a few people wise enough and powerful enough to do so. This has been his whole history.

De Maistre seems to imply that morality is more intuitive than quantitative. The heart takes precedence over the intellect.

There is an interesting parallel in Islam. Islam gives precedence to the wise and noble-born rather than the ignorant and base. Also, Islam does ultimately rest on revelation rather than reason. For example, some things may be spiritually harmful, but not produce measurable effects. One must therefore trust the authorities’ rulings on these matters.

But if the ignorant and base, the laymen, are not competent, how may they decide which scholars are wisest and should be heeded? How may they choose between the contending claims of different religions and their scholars?

After all, both Islam and Christianity rely on exegetical authority to support their different perspectives on the Trinity and original sin. (The Quran says that man is created weak, so is that weakness or tendency to evil original sin?) And if the miraculous, revelatory basis of religion cannot be tested in every case, then of what use is reason?

Is the Truth, like good and evil, ultimately based on the heart rather than the intellect? For example, people often speak of pornography: “I know it when I see it.” It can’t be defined objectively, or intellectually, but rather subjectively, in the heart.

Thoughts?

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 7/6/2023 at 10:40 PM, Northwest said:

There is an interesting parallel in Islam. Islam gives precedence to the wise and noble-born rather than the ignorant and base. Also, Islam does ultimately rest on revelation rather than reason. For example, some things may be spiritually harmful, but not produce measurable effects. One must therefore trust the authorities’ rulings on these matters.

Salam this is  generall misundestnading about Islam which you are comparing apples with oranges which noble & wise born has no relation to resting  on revelation rather than reason which all of revelations in Islam have sent down based on reason but because still we have not achieves totall knowledge & upmost of intellect so we don't understand all of reasons behind Islamic revelations anyway in "spiritually" we may have some strong guess based on seeing signs & outcome & side effects of deeds of others any way every rulling  in Islam has a hidden strong reason which we maybe understand it in future after reappearance of Imam Mahdi (aj) when we reach to  totall knowledge & upmost of our intellect.

On 7/6/2023 at 10:40 PM, Northwest said:

But if the ignorant and base, the laymen, are not competent, how may they decide which scholars are wisest and should be heeded? How may they choose between the contending claims of different religions and their scholars?

Anyway even  the laymen have some expreinces & basic knowledge about their profession which somehow anyone can recognize someone wiser than himself which by increasing knowledge & information & using reason people can find differences "different religions and their scholars".

On 7/6/2023 at 10:40 PM, Northwest said:

After all, both Islam and Christianity rely on exegetical authority to support their different perspectives on the Trinity and original sin. (The Quran says that man is created weak, so is that weakness or tendency to evil original sin?) And if the miraculous, revelatory basis of religion cannot be tested in every case, then of what use is reason?

Islam doesn't see weakness in humans as result of "evil original sin' also definition of weakness has broad definition in Islam which in opposite to your conclusion at least in Shia Islam revelatory basis of religion can be tested in every case which all of reasons is available infallible Imams which reasons for every revelations  have  been described by Imam Ali (عليه السلام) in his compiled Quran which a small percentage of reasons have been said by his succesor through time but greatetes perctage will be explained after reappearance of imam Mahdi (aj) which he bring back compiled Quran  by Imam Ali(عليه السلام) which is full of details & reasonnings for all of revelations.

[Northwest]

4 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Islam doesn't see weakness in humans as result of "evil original sin' also definition of weakness has broad definition in Islam

@Ashvazdanghe

I know, but how does Islam explain the fact that man has tended more to evil than good throughout history?

[Ethics]

I disagree, there has been more good since the creation of man then bad and the reason that is, is because good is so normal it is not taken into notice as much as when bad things happen, especially when it is such vile and evil acts of destruction. Of course it is natural that more people focus and feel the bad then the good because again evil, as Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has stated, is not innate in us. In fact what is innate is the mercy of Allah who has created us and has given us this "fitra" this essence of knowing good and evil, and that good is in the root of all things.

[Northwest]

58 minutes ago, Ethics said:

I disagree, there has been more good since the creation of man then bad and the reason that is, is because good is so normal it is not taken into notice as much as when bad things happen, especially when it is such vile and evil acts of destruction.

@Ethics Then why does Islam also aver that there have been, on average, more unbelievers than believers in history? If humans have a natural instinct that inclines toward that which is “good, beautiful, and true,” then why does man’s “weakness” and evil inclination more often than not tend to manifest, to varying degrees and in various forms?

[Ethics]

10 minutes ago, Northwest said:

Then why does Islam also aver that there have been, on average, more unbelievers than believers in history?

I would like evidence please. Islam believes all humans are born pure, and if they die in ignorance or having not Islam reached to them or not directly knew it was the truth and rejected it, they are not bound to hell. It is in that sense that although there is a majority of "non muslims" then muslims, it does not mean one is good and one is bad. This view is very myopic.
 

10 minutes ago, Northwest said:

If humans have a natural instinct that inclines toward that which is “good, beautiful, and true,” then why does man’s “weakness” and evil inclination more often than not tend to manifest, to varying degrees and in various forms?

We are getting into philosophy and conjectural talk depending on how we view life and existence. From an Islamic point of view, the basic desire and understanding of good is innate in us, but not everything. Obviously, man in many degrees differ in ignorance, understanding, intellect, and thus is always in need of guidance. Hence there is societal influence and upbringing. Even disbelievers will argue being good is a good thing, regardless whether they believe in god or an afterlife or relative morality. The majority will always cherish their life and want peace and equity and happiness. What is this if this is not that which is good, inherent good?

Edited July 8 by Ethics

[Northwest]

11 minutes ago, Ethics said:

I would like evidence please.

@Ethics Well, the Quran (and the Bible, incidentally) mentions that the sons of Israel were given clear proofs and yet so often rejected the truth, despite being faced with it. For example, many Israelites rebelled against Moses during the Exodus, rejected Jesus during the latter’s ministry, etc. Even many believers turned unbelievers after a while. If man is basically good, why would he be so fickle and unprincipled as to completely reverse himself, going from believer to unbeliever in a span, often on the flimsiest of reasons? Jüri Lina’s book Under the Sign of the Scorpion even brings forth quotations to the effect that Marx and Engels started out as Christian believers before turning to atheism and even (according to some allegations) overt Satanism. By many accounts Louis XVI and Nicholas II were Christian monarchs in their private lives, yet in the end the majority of their subjects, who were by no means supporters of the Jacobins or Bolsheviks (quite the opposite in most cases!), did little or nothing to save them. Also, look at the history of social liberalism. At the start of the twentieth century ideologies such as feminism and free love were overwhelmingly opposed, yet the opposition was passive for the most part, and in the end people went along with elite minority. Today the vast majority of ordinary people do not particularly like the LBGTQ+I agenda (which is propagated almost exclusively by elite forces), yet they don’t put up effective resistance to it, for the most part.

Even if only a minority of people are purely evil, for the most part the “good” men act in very lukewarm opposition, which is inconsistent with their professed hatred of evil.

11 minutes ago, Ethics said:

Islam believes all humans are born pure, and if they die in ignorance or having not Islam reached to them or not directly knew it was the truth and rejected it, they are not bound to hell. It is in that sense that although there is a majority of "non muslims" then muslims, it does not mean one is good and one is bad. This view is very myopic.

Maybe my emphasis on fate and fatalism is too strong. But I will offer an example. Most Sunni and Shia hadith that I have personally seen referred to on this forum indicate that people born of zina (illegitimacy, to be precise) simply have no access to Paradise. There are threads on this forum about this. So fatalism does play a role in at least one case; why not others, potentially?

11 minutes ago, Ethics said:

From an Islamic point of view, the basic desire and understanding of good is innate in us, but not everything. Obviously, man in many degrees differ in ignorance, understanding, intellect, and thus is always in need of guidance. Hence there is societal influence and upbringing. Even disbelievers will argue being good is a good thing, regardless whether they believe in god or an afterlife or relative morality. The majority will always cherish their life and want peace and equity and happiness. What is this if this is not that which is good, inherent good?

Well, people’s understanding of good and evil is very subjective and inconsistent. A disbeliever’s standard of good and evil will be different from a believer’s, even in very basic matters such as child-rearing, corporal punishment, women’s status, and so on, to not mention individual circumstances. For example, people are very self-interested and tend not to believe in universal morality. The “Golden Rule“ does not mean treating everyone as equals. One is treated differently according to status, sex, class, rank, ethnicity, and so on, regardless of moral considerations (though those play some role as well). In war guerrillas are treated more harshly than regular soldiers in many situations. America dropped nuclear weapons on Japan because the Japanese as a “race” were believed, rightly or wrongly, to have a different genetic mentality from white Westerners’, which conditioned Japan’s wartime conduct.

Anyway, I think this is going off topic, to a degree. My original post concerned the argument, which de Maistre put forth, that morality is based more on inscrutable, subjective perception than reasoning (i.e., one’s heart, not mind, “perceives” that something is miraculous, that a certain miracle points to a specific creed’s or claim’s veracity, etc.). And maybe different people are born with different qualities of heart, depending on their parents’ heritage and activity. If so, then would the fact that most lineages are marked by at least some vice influence the fact that man’s moral constitution seems to be frail in the main?

[Ethics]

On 7/6/2023 at 3:10 PM, Northwest said:

Islam gives precedence to the wise and noble-born rather than the ignorant and base.

That is not true by the way. The theme throughout the quran, is God prefers those who are upright and do good over everything else. While the intellect is a blessing that helps man to see more deeply and achieve more, it does not mean one who is more intellectual is better than one who is not in the eyes of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).

 

On 7/6/2023 at 3:10 PM, Northwest said:

Also, Islam does ultimately rest on revelation rather than reason

I find Shia Islam to be the most rational and reasoning of all ideologies. But hand in hand with faith and revelation, not separate or lacking.

 

On 7/6/2023 at 3:10 PM, Northwest said:

For example, some things may be spiritually harmful, but not produce measurable effects. One must therefore trust the authorities’ rulings on these matters.

First statement is not true. We as Shia muslims believe the spiritual is insanely important because it is able to produce measurable effects into the physical, mental, and social level.

 

On 7/6/2023 at 3:10 PM, Northwest said:

But if the ignorant and base, the laymen, are not competent, how may they decide which scholars are wisest and should be heeded? How may they choose between the contending claims of different religions and their scholars?

Being ignorant or lay does not mean the inability to learn or grow. Also society and community has a general sense of unity and guidance. How does science work in this world? We rely on the advice and guidance of scientists whom we see as laymen from their perspective, to be more intellectual. Thus we can tell their significance and their capabilities, although we are lay and ignorant. Man has this innate direction to find the truth and challenge ones self, no matter how ignorant or lay you can be. Even those who are born and raised in jungles have the capability to seek and grow. How did humanity come this far after all?

 

On 7/6/2023 at 3:10 PM, Northwest said:

After all, both Islam and Christianity rely on exegetical authority to support their different perspectives on the Trinity and original sin(The Quran says that man is created weak, so is that weakness or tendency to evil original sin?)

Quran says not that man was created weak but man has the ability to become the lowest of the low in the sense of morality. As I mentioned above, Islam rejects the notion of original sin. No human being is punished for the sin of another.

 

On 7/6/2023 at 3:10 PM, Northwest said:

Is the Truth, like good and evil, ultimately based on the heart rather than the intellect?

By heart do you mean soul? Because if so then yes. But it is not an either or. The intellect works with the soul. They are not seperate entities that work opposites. They both effect each other. Of course the soul is superior, because without the soul there is no existence (from Islam's point of view). That is why even rejectors of faith and god, believe in a system of justice and the distinction of true and falsehood is clear.

[Northwest]

2 minutes ago, Ethics said:

That is not true by the way. The theme throughout the quran, is God prefers those who are upright and do good over everything else. While the intellect is a blessing that helps man to see more deeply and achieve more, it does not mean one who is more intellectual is better than one who is not in the eyes of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).

Then why are the intelligentsia given a higher social status than, say, a common mechanic? Why do higher classes (i.e., scholars) have more rights over the lower?

2 minutes ago, Ethics said:

By heart do you mean soul? Because if so then yes.

Yes, I mean soul.

[Ethics]

44 minutes ago, Northwest said:

Well, the Quran (and the Bible, incidentally) mentions that the sons of Israel were given clear proofs and yet so often rejected the truth, despite being faced with it. For example, many Israelites rebelled against Moses during the Exodus, rejected Jesus during the latter’s ministry, etc. Even many believers turned unbelievers after a while. If man is basically good, why would he be so fickle and unprincipled as to completely reverse himself, going from believer to unbeliever in a span, often on the flimsiest of reasons? Jüri Lina’s book Under the Sign of the Scorpion even brings forth quotations to the effect that Marx and Engels started out as Christian believers before turning to atheism and even (according to some allegations) overt Satanism. By many accounts Louis XVI and Nicholas II were Christian monarchs in their private lives, yet in the end the majority of their subjects, who were by no means supporters of the Jacobins or Bolsheviks (quite the opposite in most cases!), did little or nothing to save them. Also, look at the history of social liberalism. At the start of the twentieth century ideologies such as feminism and free love were overwhelmingly opposed, yet the opposition was passive for the most part, and in the end people went along with elite minority. Today the vast majority of ordinary people do not particularly like the LBGTQ+I agenda (which is propagated almost exclusively by elite forces), yet they don’t put up effective resistance to it, for the most part.

Even if only a minority of people are purely evil, for the most part the “good” men act in very lukewarm opposition, which is inconsistent with their professed hatred of evil.

With due respect that really doesnt prove your point. As I mentioned before, Islam speaks about cases where God sent clear proofs and prophets/messengers but that doesnt mean Islam promotes this idea that in the history of mankind there will be more disbelievers than believers. Afterall in Islam the concept of the Mahdi exists, where peace justice and equity will finally exist until the day of judgement and the majority of mankind will be believers by their own will. Imam Mahdi being the final successor of prophet muhammad, and even Jesus (عليه السلام) will come with him as proof for the christians and jews to show them the truth. I think you are struggling with the notion of free will that as Muslims we believe God has endowed with mankind. There are different levels of truths and falsehoods. One can entirely reject, one can circumstantially reject, one can be fed lies, one can accept and then by their own ignorance through doubt and confusion reject etc etc Again you can be a good person and still disbelieve in God, because good and truth is inherent but it is not clearly defined. That is why man is dependent on guidance from the divine who created us and teaches us all that is true and good. And just because you learn and you know it doesnt necessarily mean you will abide, because again free will exists, and other notions exist like desires and influences that may not always be beneficial to man but man stirs in that direction. You can learn from the teacher and study for an exam and still choose the wrong answer. You can still know how dangerous gambling is and partake in it and become addicted and destroy your life. There are so many examples like this. It is because man is not so strong by their will and why Islam a core component is training the self, reminding the self, educating the self, constantly challenging the self because the stronger the self gets, your god consciousness grows.

 

59 minutes ago, Northwest said:

Maybe my emphasis on fate and fatalism is too strong. But I will offer an example. Most Sunni and Shia hadith that I have personally seen referred to on this forum indicate that people born of zina (illegitimacy, to be precise) simply have no access to Paradise. There are threads on this forum about this. So fatalism does play a role in at least one case; why not others, potentially?

Yes maybe you do emphasize fatalism, when I read your posts it gives of these preconceived notions so I try and reexplain from a different perspective. I hope it helps or gives insight at least. That is far from the truth, from my understanding of Shia Islam we clearly clearly clearly reject such an idea that someone born out of zina is going to hell. First time I am hearing it. If a hadith exists, and even if someone claims it is authentic, it simply rejects the quran, because the quran is clear. No one holds the burden of the other, and also people who even do zina can still seek forgiveness from God so it would be highly stupid and irrational for a God to be able to forgive but damn the child to hell. I do not know about sunni islam, they do have some far fetched beliefs but not shia islam. You can always double check anything you read on the internet with Al-Islam.org that has resources from our top scholars and clergy.

 

 

1 hour ago, Northwest said:

Well, people’s understanding of good and evil is very subjective and inconsistent. A disbeliever’s standard of good and evil will be different from a believer’s, even in very basic matters such as child-rearing, corporal punishment, women’s status, and so on, to not mention individual circumstances. For example, people are very self-interested and tend not to believe in universal morality. The “Golden Rule“ does not mean treating everyone as equals. One is treated differently according to status, sex, class, rank, ethnicity, and so on, regardless of moral considerations (though those play some role as well). In war guerrillas are treated more harshly than regular soldiers in many situations. America dropped nuclear weapons on Japan because the Japanese as a “race” were believed, rightly or wrongly, to have a different genetic mentality from white Westerners’, which conditioned Japan’s wartime conduct.

Anyway, I think this is going off topic, to a degree. My original post concerned the argument, which de Maistre put forth, that morality is based more on inscrutable, subjective perception than reasoning (i.e., one’s heart, not mind, “perceives” that something is miraculous, that a certain miracle points to a specific creed’s or claim’s veracity, etc.). And maybe different people are born with different qualities of heart, depending on their parents’ heritage and activity. If so, then would the fact that most lineages are marked by at least some vice influence the fact that man’s moral constitution seems to be frail in the main?

With due respect thats why I said we are going into conjecture unless you wanna strictly speak from a shia islamic point of view, otherwise I am basically just going to be disagreeing with your life anecdotes and personal experiencing. For example, in Islam sins have different levels of severity and rejecting good and doing evil is not a basic matter on many occasions. Of course someone who disbelieves does not abide by the "believers" moral code so.. yes it would be subjective. However, what I am talking about here is the innate level of good that exists in us. The topics you bring forth do have to do with morality, however they are very deep with many different circumstances, cases, and conclusions. It is a more complex issue rooting from good and evil. That is why monotheist argues against relative morality. One can simply argue even those that do not treat others equally or by sex status rank etc etc still know what is good and like it when they receive good and do good. Which is my point, that a level of good exists innately. A liar hates being lied to for example.

As I mentioned before a more deep sense of morality is not simple as one or the other, its a mixture and also external like upbringing, culture, society, level of intellect etc etc etc Different people are born with different capacities and capabilities and circumstances that effect ultimately who they are how they are and what they are. This will ultimately effect their moral compass to a degree, but again, no genetics, no level of or lack of intellect, no environment, can ever change the innate good and truth that God has endowed mankind with. People are not born evil, people are not born without good, they grow and they change. The proof is babies, they lack intellect but still know the self enough to feel that which is good and that which is bad at the innate level. Not sure if I answered anything but Shia Islam rejects this theory.
 

[Northwest]

4 hours ago, Ethics said:

Yes maybe you do emphasize fatalism, when I read your posts it gives of these preconceived notions so I try and reexplain from a different perspective. I hope it helps or gives insight at least. That is far from the truth, from my understanding of Shia Islam we clearly clearly clearly reject such an idea that someone born out of zina is going to hell. First time I am hearing it. If a hadith exists, and even if someone claims it is authentic, it simply rejects the quran, because the quran is clear. No one holds the burden of the other, and also people who even do zina can still seek forgiveness from God so it would be highly stupid and irrational for a God to be able to forgive but damn the child to hell. I do not know about sunni islam, they do have some far fetched beliefs but not shia islam. You can always double check anything you read on the internet with Al-Islam.org that has resources from our top scholars and clergy.

@Ethics I know that this is somewhat off topic, but there seem to be plenty of narrations that indicate illegitimate children cannot attain Paradise:

^ If this is the case, then in at least one case fatalism seemingly trumps free will, at least in this world.

As for the rest of your thoughtful reply, I am still giving it thought.

[Ethics]

3 hours ago, Northwest said:

@Ethics I know that this is somewhat off topic, but there seem to be plenty of narrations that indicate illegitimate children cannot attain Paradise:

^ If this is the case, then in at least one case fatalism seemingly trumps free will, at least in this world.

As for the rest of your thoughtful reply, I am still giving it thought.

Again dear brother/sister I want to make it clear, in Shia Islam we do not just accept hadiths. There is a check and balance system, and the quran is the ultimate check. If there is any hadith that goes against the quran, then the hadith is countered. I clicked on a random thread you linked and funny enough I replied back then with the same reply too lol. And some of those hadith were already noted as being inauthentic. But no worries. My purpose of participating was to simply give you more food for thought but from a Shia Imami perspective. That is all. Thanks for the thoughts.

[Ethics]

@Northwest

Question 15: Why Illegitimate Children Are Kept Away From Some Posts?

Question: Whereas we know that the children born due to illegal relations have no role in their illegitimacy and have not committed any sins, then also according to Islamic traditions they are not treated fairly. And they are not allowed to take the important posts like that of a judge, Imam-e-Jamat and Maraja etc.

Why a person who has not committed any sin, just because the fault of his parents, should be ill-treated and kept away from important posts in the society?

Some people also say that such children will neither go to Paradise nor see any goodness. Is it right? Whereas we also know that Allah will not write one person's sin in another person's account?

And no soul earns (evil) but against itself, and no bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another…1

Answer: Before we give the answer it is necessary to discuss the following points which are the basis of this topic and then we can conclude from it.

(1)    Due to illegal relationship, the relation between father and son is finished from the point of view of law and economics and thus it cuts off the family relationship and sentiments, which is the basis of a society. Sometimes the female doesn't know that from the sperm of which man she had become pregnant.

In this way a child does not know his father, grandfather, grandmother and relatives. And generally many ethical, psychological, social, training, family, financially and sentimental defects come into existence because of it. This is the reason that the Holy Prophets ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).a.) and laws makers of the society prohibited things, which are against sanctity; the Shari’ah also prohibits the illegal relationship.

(2) In every community there are rules of marriage; that is why to establish illegal relationships is against the law. This is the reason that the person doing this type of deed feels guilty due to this, which stems from the sinful soul and has bad results, which arise from this type of deed.

And when a person repeats this deed or due to other factors the guilt of the person becomes less or if the fornicator does not have the feeling of guilt, then also there is a thief present in his inner self, and he become ill mannered, breaks the law, and deviates.

(3) According to the law of inheritance, like the other physical effects, inner qualities and thinking of the mother and father is also transferred to the children. In the same way the special traits of the parents are transferred to children like the color of eyes, hair, shape of the eyebrows etc.

In reality inheritance is the base for a person's future and makes the personality of an individual and prepares the ground for them for their good or bad fortune.

From these points we can derive the following results:

Illegitimate children inherit bad manners, breaking of laws and sins from their parents. For them the ground for sins and crime is more feasible. As compared to others they are more prepared for sins and if they personally get wrong training or if the environment is not good, then it is enough for them that their polluted soul, like sparks beneath the ash become fire and burn their good fortune.

As for the question about social posts for illegitimate persons, it is a logical precaution for the protection of social good on the basis of whatever is said above about their psychological state.

Islam gives much importance to persons who are supposed to take these social posts, for acquiring the confidence of the people. Therefore those families which have some defects or whose past is not praiseworthy have been deprived of posts that require spiritual purity.

But we should not be that a person of illegitimate birth has the license to commit all sins and go against the Shari’ah, and that he be deprived of true Islamic teachings and training, and he by following the right principles cannot be fortunate - No, it is not like that.

Illegitimate children also like natural and lawful children are free to choose the right or wrong path. They also with their intentions and powers can choose the path of righteousness and goodness and acquire salvation and be one of the Heavenly people. It is not that they are born criminals and at any cost cannot be freed from the web of crimes and sins, but as Imam as-Sadiq ((عليه السلام).) has said:

When an illegitimate child is prepared to perform his duties and able to do work of training, if his deeds are good he will get rewards for it and if he does bad he will be punished.

Although the rebellious nature of illegitimate children (which have more interest and are more inclined to break the laws and commit sins) makes it difficult for them to avoid sin, and it is also difficult for them to perform their duties, but if they go against their desires and follow the orders of Almighty and right principles they will be given the best of the rewards.

That is why Islam reproaches illegitimate children. It is so, to make them aware that they are facing a dangerous situation; they should fulfill their duties, remain away from sins and take precautions. It doesn't mean that knowledge and training has no effect on them and they will certainly go to Hell.

In other words those children who are illegitimately born are like those children who are born to the parents having diseases (T.B, and sexual disorders). These children have more chances of contracting these diseases and if they are not cured as early as possible they are more likely to get these diseases. This is the reason that to protect the interest of the people, those children who are possible to contract the disease of T.B. should not be given whatever food and other things are available.

Like the ill parents, illegitimate children are also prepared to break the laws and fall into crime if their training and studies are not provided in the right environment and healthy intentions. It is possible they may fall into a great depth and ally with the criminals. For those reasons, in order to protect the social cause, precautions should be taken that they remain away from some posts.

Although it is wrong as some people think that illegitimate children will never be happy, lucky and acquire salvation. They can also be fortunate and happy like other people, but as we have told earlier their inner self in comparison to others is not favorable for this; that is why they should be stricter and take more precautions.

Just as it is not necessary that consumptive person's son should also be consumptive; maybe he follows the rules of health becomes stronger than other people and may remain away from the diseases. The result is that the ground for sins is not necessarily proof for doing them but with strong intentions and good training it can be avoided.

It is important to mention that such illegitimate children if they remain staunch on the good path can acquire higher positions and a better life because they have practiced more self control.

https://www.al-islam.org/philosophy-islamic-laws-naser-makarem-shirazi-jafar-subhani/question-15-why-illegitimate-children

[Ashvazdanghe]

20 hours ago, Northwest said:

I know, but how does Islam explain the fact that man has tended more to evil than good throughout history?

Hi it has been explained very well by @Ethics anyway your assumption is wrong because you want to interpret Islam from wrong Christian viewpoint which it leads to wrong assumption so then conclusion by you  because idea of Islam & current Christanity is totally in opposition of each other  which according to Islam everyone borns without original sin so then that person during his life can choose to enters to paradise or hell but on the other hand ccording to christanity everyone borns with original sin so then everyone will be in hell except few ones who will be eached to salvation  which in Islam people needs infallible mentors to corect them to be good & helps them to not fell in traps of evil which in process they grow their intellect & spirituality & knowlwdge  but on the other hand in Christanity people are likewise sheeps that can't learn anything from a mentor which only in similar fashion of herd of sheeps ,shepherd by hiting them & controlling by dogs only can holds people  in right pass so therefore people won't understand anything also from their birth until death so they won't gain intelect or knowledge or spirituality which only they continue a too low key life too near to life of sheeps until their death which they only think about finding better grass without recognizing traps of evil for leading them to doing more evil.

[Northwest]

@Ashvazdanghe @Ethics

Let me see if I understand. The fact that humans have survived up to this point by itself proves that the good in man is stronger than evil, because otherwise the human race would have died out long ago, ups and downs notwithstanding. Subjectively, at the present moment I only see the “bad” that is going on worldwide, and most people going along with the negative changes (i.e., the LBGTQ+I). Even though I am not (yet) a Muslim, I find many aspects of the present depressing, such as drug addiction, the decline of the family, coarseness of manners, and so on. The fact that people often choose the wrong thing despite knowing better is even more depressing.

Objectively, yes, I know that original sin, like the Trinity, doesn’t make sense. But subjectively, at present, “original sin” feels like a better explanation, even though obviously it isn’t. Also, I have tried at times to convince Trinitarians on this forum that the Trinity doesn’t make sense, but presenting detailed logic, proof, etc. doesn’t seem to affect the Trinitarians, which is discouraging. Why do some people react so angrily to clear evidence that disproves their Trinitarian beliefs? Even irreligious people are able to understand that the Trinity is illogical, but not Trinitarian Christians. It’s as though the emotional, subjective side outweighs reasoned evidence.

I know, of course, that I struggle with this issue as well, but at least I am honest enough to admit that I am torn, e.g., on “original sin.” My mind says it’s nonsense, yet my heart gives it some thought.

[Ethics]

36 minutes ago, Northwest said:

@Ashvazdanghe @Ethics

Let me see if I understand. The fact that humans have survived up to this point by itself proves that the good in man is stronger than evil, because otherwise the human race would have died out long ago, ups and downs notwithstanding. Subjectively, at the present moment I only see the “bad” that is going on worldwide, and most people going along with the negative changes (i.e., the LBGTQ+I). Even though I am not (yet) a Muslim, I find many aspects of the present depressing, such as drug addiction, the decline of the family, coarseness of manners, and so on. The fact that people often choose the wrong thing despite knowing better is even more depressing.

Objectively, yes, I know that original sin, like the Trinity, doesn’t make sense. But subjectively, at present, “original sin” feels like a better explanation, even though obviously it isn’t. Also, I have tried at times to convince Trinitarians on this forum that the Trinity doesn’t make sense, but presenting detailed logic, proof, etc. doesn’t seem to affect the Trinitarians, which is discouraging. Why do some people react so angrily to clear evidence that disproves their Trinitarian beliefs? Even irreligious people are able to understand that the Trinity is illogical, but not Trinitarian Christians. It’s as though the emotional, subjective side outweighs reasoned evidence.

I know, of course, that I struggle with this issue as well, but at least I am honest enough to admit that I am torn, e.g., on “original sin.” My mind says it’s nonsense, yet my heart gives it some thought.

We are all struggling and feeling troubled our minds always tend to focus on the negative and bad that is around us, and that is normal. But I also recommend focusing on all the good that happens in this world and if you do just focus on the bad, know that these are just minor blimps enough to move us because of the abnormality of it. Know that mankind never gives up hope and always changes for the better. Life must have obstacles and troubles, for that is the product of our free will, the proof that each of us has a potential and there are two sides and that we all effect on another. Without the bad we wont truly understand the value of the good. Also it is okay that people act in anger or in emotion, it is their right although not a good behavior, but when someone challenges something of your doctrine all your life, when questions start to arise, after all it is ones entire premise being challenged so some will get angry because in their minds, you are shaking their bubble. Not all are like this from my own experience but they do exist, i agree. Just keep on struggling and seeking answers and truth. There is no rush. Day by day struggle to improve yourself, gain knowledge, seek answers. inshAllah you find the truth. I highly suggest this lecture if you ever got the time.
 

Why Do We Exist? Where Did We Come From? A Philosophical & Scientific Lecture By Hassanain Rajabali

Edited July 9 by Ethics

[Northwest]

On 7/9/2023 at 3:15 PM, Ethics said:

We are all struggling and feeling troubled our minds always tend to focus on the negative and bad that is around us, and that is normal. But I also recommend focusing on all the good that happens in this world and if you do just focus on the bad, know that these are just minor blimps enough to move us because of the abnormality of it. Know that mankind never gives up hope and always changes for the better. Life must have obstacles and troubles, for that is the product of our free will, the proof that each of us has a potential and there are two sides and that we all effect on another. Without the bad we wont truly understand the value of the good. Also it is okay that people act in anger or in emotion, it is their right although not a good behavior, but when someone challenges something of your doctrine all your life, when questions start to arise, after all it is ones entire premise being challenged so some will get angry because in their minds, you are shaking their bubble. Not all are like this from my own experience but they do exist, i agree. Just keep on struggling and seeking answers and truth. There is no rush. Day by day struggle to improve yourself, gain knowledge, seek answers. inshAllah you find the truth. I highly suggest this lecture if you ever got the time.
 

Why Do We Exist? Where Did We Come From? A Philosophical & Scientific Lecture By Hassanain Rajabali

@Ethics I did briefly peruse part of the lecture that you linked to. One problem that I noticed is the assertion that Islam makes reference to the Big Bang. It is problematic to conflate a specific scientific theory and/or its conceptual framework with the language of the Quran and/or hadith. For example, the nature of creation may be very different from that which the Big-Bang theory posits. Scientific concepts and jargon cannot be read backward into Islam. Likewise, one cannot randomly reject certain hadith about illegitimacy on the basis of the Quran without sound contextual exegesis. The problem is that al-Islam.org is far from a complete or even transparent site and in certain respects is “whitewashed” to accommodate modern liberal sensitivities. As a spiritual seeker who may be interesting in reverting to Islam, I feel that I need closure on these matters, so as to not enter with a false paradigm based on liberal modernity. I would rather rely more on classical medieval jurisprudence for rulings on illegitimacy and other matters. What are the classical medieval rulings on illegitimacy? (Anyone other than @Ethics may feel free to clarify as well.)

Edited July 11 by Northwest

[Ethics]

This is where I completely disagree with you on many aspects. I will touch on these points you raised from an Islamic perspective but I do not want to get into further discussion or debates on these issues. I just want to clarify and thats it.
 

2 minutes ago, Northwest said:

One problem that I noticed is the assertion that Islam makes reference to the Big Bang. It is problematic to conflate a specific scientific theory and/or its conceptual framework with the language of the Quran and/or hadith

Assertion that Islam makes? The big bang theory is a new theory, the quran (and Imams) describes the creation of the universe, expanding of the universe before scientists even came up with such a theory. Of course you do not adhere to an ideology so it makes sense everything is an assertion in your eyes. Thus your approach and comprehension will obviously be biased and seen as problematic. Also how can it be problematic when one it is still a theory from a scientific standpoint, and one is describing in its own language and similitude. No one also claimed that the quran touches on scientific theories to a tea. No, the quran clearly speaks about the facts within these theories. The quranic language is never in theory for it is God speaking. For example, with big bang, what is certain is that life came into existence in such a point that science it itself is inapplicable until science begins to suddenly work (if you wanna put it in this way). God always speaks about existence and creation in this similitude of when God says Be and it Is! Or for example evolution, although Islam rejects ape theory, it does not reject evolution and man and other beings capable of evolving. Meaning evolution is within the creation system of God, not the other way around.

 

17 minutes ago, Northwest said:

For example, the nature of creation may be very different form that which the Big-Bang theory posits.

well, that is because man still is searching and is not certain with many things... while the quran "claims" to be the words of the creator...you have to look at the quran the other way around.. You also have to start with what is a fact and true in science. So no I do not find it problematic.

 

23 minutes ago, Northwest said:

Scientific concepts and jargon cannot be read backward into Islam.

Today science depends on mathematics and these systems were developed thousands of years ago. Without them todays science would not even be capable of a single thing. So I am sorry but to argue such a reasoning is dumb. Also language exists..

 

 

27 minutes ago, Northwest said:

Likewise, one cannot randomly reject certain hadith about illegitimacy on the basis of the Quran without sound contextual exegesis.

What? Yes you can. I thought you were a much more rational logical minded person but maybe I have misjudged? Do you know what the quran's position is? Do you know what hadith are? Even if you are a non muslim, non shia for that matter speaking like this, even if you were a shia that claimed you were knowledgeable in Islam and Hadith, I would still tell you, you are wrong on this perspective. The quran is clear and concise when it comes to decisive verses and that is without doubt in relation to many things including illegitimacy of which I even gave evidence of the exegesis through a very very high ranking philosopher/scholar within Shia Islam, a grand scholar, a marja who holds one of the highest in knowledge within the scope of Shia Islam who is profoundly studied in classical works.
 

 

33 minutes ago, Northwest said:

The problem is that al-Islam.org is far from a complete or even transparent site and in certain respects is “whitewashed” to accommodate modern liberal sensitivities. As a spiritual seeker who may be interesting in reverting to Islam, I feel that I need closure on these matters, so as to not enter with a false paradigm based on liberal modernity. I would rather rely more on classical medieval jurisprudence for rulings on illegitimacy and other matters. What are the classical medieval rulings on illegitimacy?

There is nothing more to say here is that you can think what you like but it seems like you have preconceived biases that were fed to you from somewhere. "Far from complete / whitewashed" "accommodate modern liberal sensitivities" speaking on conjecture and using terms like liberal modernity .. I see I am sad and surprised I viewed your questions thoughts and posts differently until now.. I will say you will only misinterpret misunderstand and lead yourself astray if your intentions and notions fall on such premises... good luck

[Northwest]

@Ethics

It is unquestionable that Islam makes reference to creation. It is also unquestionable that spacetime was created. The Quran is definitely accurate in describing all this. I was referring more to the nitty-gritty of present-day scientific theories. The problem isn’t with Islam per se but with some people’s reading specific, current scientific theories back into the text.

As for the question of illegitimacy, I take back the definitiveness of my assertion. My point about “modern liberal sensitivities” had more to do with a general trend than with a specific point. For example, we see people such as @kadhim falsely arguing that hijab is un-Islamic, while even a basic researcher concludes otherwise.

We do not know each other personally, nor do we know the issues we deal with in our personal lives. Please give me second chances to improve my communication and internalise the points that you have made.

Be well.

[Mightyspunge]

“Is the Truth, like good and evil, ultimately based on the heart rather than the intellect? For example, people often speak of pornography: “I know it when I see it.” It can’t be defined objectively, or intellectually, but rather subjectively, in the heart.

Thoughts?”

I don’t think this is necessarily what you meant but I can see a parallel to what you said with the concept of “truth” or rather the argument as to whether the truth is subjective or objective. To deny an absolute and objective truth could be to deny reality, but to deny the personal paths, experiences, and people as we are all unique and get to the truth in different ways is a fallacy. every person on this planet believes they are on the truth one way or another. Even if that person doesn’t follow a religion they most likely have their own thoughts and opinion or even views on various things which they believe to be most correct.

what you are mentioning could be grey water “Is the Truth, like good and evil, ultimately based on the heart rather than the intellect?“ but without actively using both, then any belief or argument is rather useless. Not taking into account that what YOUR heart says can and will be fundamentally different from what OTHER Hearts say. 

[kadhim]

4 minutes ago, Northwest said:

For example, we see people such as @kadhim falsely arguing that hijab is un-Islamic, while even a basic researcher concludes otherwise.

Where in the world did I characterize hijab as “un-Islamic?” If you can’t follow along closely enough to make an honest summary, then keep my name outcha mouth. 

Don’t bear false witness, akhi. 

Edited July 11 by kadhim

[Northwest]

Just now, kadhim said:

Where in the world did I characterize hijab as “un-Islamic?”

Don’t bear false witness, akhi. 

@kadhimMaybe you didn’t apply that specific term, but you claim that it isn’t in the Quran. I was just using your post to illustrate an example in relation to the current point of discussion.

[Ethics]

1 minute ago, Northwest said:

@Ethics

We do not know each other personally, nor do we know the issues we deal with in our personal lives. Please give me second chances to improve my communication and internalise the points that you have made.

Be well.

Very true, very understandable. I am someone that is quite blunt sometimes but I am also very very very sincere with those that are being genuine and I know you are. I do not remember seeing you as a member, so to me you are a new member on this forum. Even though you raised terminology I personally find as red flags with my own experience I just wanted to advise you because I have seen where many of those similar minded people have been led to, including online people who claim to be Shia Muslims. But there is no need for a second chance dear brother/sister. Sorry if I came off that way, my apologizes.

[kadhim]

5 minutes ago, Northwest said:

@kadhimMaybe you didn’t apply that specific term, but you claim that it isn’t in the Quran. I was just using your post to illustrate an example in relation to the current point of discussion.

There’s no maybe about it. I didn’t use that term, period. Be honest about your dishonesty and take ownership of it. 

Objectively there is no command to head cover in the Quran. Mentioning jilbaab and khimaar doesn’t add up, legally, to a commandment to either. Linguistically that’s just a fact. 

Observing that is not the same as saying “hijab is un-Islamic.

Get your facts right or leave me out of your “examples.”

 

[Northwest]

On 7/8/2023 at 3:05 PM, Ethics said:

I disagree, there has been more good since the creation of man then bad and the reason that is, is because good is so normal it is not taken into notice as much as when bad things happen, especially when it is such vile and evil acts of destruction. Of course it is natural that more people focus and feel the bad then the good because again evil, as Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has stated, is not innate in us. In fact what is innate is the mercy of Allah who has created us and has given us this "fitra" this essence of knowing good and evil, and that good is in the root of all things.

@Ethics

I have decided to return to this thread.

If original sin does not exist, then why do men so readily succumb to negative desires and influences? For example, today there is much tolerance of homosexuality, which is biologically unnatural, like much of feminism. If man has reason and fitrah, then logically shouldn’t he be able to police himself, especially in relation to things that are unnatural? Wouldn’t he also reform and/or resist governments that rest upon unnatural foundations, rather than meekly acquiesce and go along with them? Does this suggest that man himself is fundamentally irrational, if not inclined to evil, on some level? Why does man believe in irrational concepts such as the Trinity for millennia? Cowardice or irrationality?

Quote

De Maistre, as a key figure of the Counter-Enlightenment, regarded the excesses of the French Revolution as the dire results of resorting to reason. That which is built with reason can also be torn down by reason, he thought. If they are to endure, all institutions of authority must necessarily be irrational, and he cites the longevity of European monarchies as an example. Only an absolute authority can keep man in check. His unruly nature must be tamed by the power of punishment, which is ultimately an extension of God’s authority.

Source