Beyond the simple situations where being ‘evil’ in a religious sense brings harm, and can be seen as immoral in non-religious frameworks, do you necessarily see as desirable being on the ‘good’ side in the cosmic narrative of good and evil - where evil could be defined as being opposed to the God.
On the face of it it seems like the easiest religious question you could be asked. But in context, not really. Especially for someone who values individualism, freedom and rationality.
Iblees can be seen as having fallen from grace because he reasoned before God, arguing against a religious injunction that didnt make sense to him. khalaqtani min naariw wa khalaqtuhu min teen.
A line of attack is used often in religious discussions when people talk about Khudsarri… rebelling based on intellect and questioning the Divine. But is not intellectual rebellion in the face of authority a heroic thing? Perhaps this is because of how we come to see Authority with experience of human politics. But I digress.
If you allow momentarily the dichotomy of the faithful and the rational/individualist, where would you be? Where would you be if it were argued, as it sometimes is*, that the rebelliously rational equates the evil? Would the consequences scare you into abandoning your free thought and rationality beyond the point it starts rebelling against religion? Again, assume the interesting case where there is no way to reconcile your thought and religion.
} It is the height of irrationality to quarrel with the Omnipotent, and is by definition mere hubris.
Free thought occurs naturally, but is guided by our moral sense in that only Allah knows best. If that requires a suspension of emotion or what is seemingly rational, we will err on the side of God.
But rarely are things so pointedly expressed that this situation can arise, as matters can be written off due to ambiguity or misinterpretation. Likewise, the premise of seemingly rational arguments all to often rest upon tired stereotypes which in the end are no more than well articulated straw men.
I would sooner trust my rational faculties to question any temporal authority on earth, however the real truth here is that I can only take my questioning/rebelling to a certain point otherwise there is an imposed monopoly on the use of violence that undermines any true application of free thought, even in those cultures that espouse it as a high principle.
Picoico: We are luckier than Iblees, for when we argue we atleast have the figleaf of not arguing directly with the Omnipotent.
I am not interested in cases where things can be written off to ambiguity or misinterpretation, those are obviously easier cases. Nor am I interested in cases where seemingly rational arguments are bad arguments, since that is also an easy case.
Let us assume that the rebellion I speak of is that point where what we believe with our values and upbringing and rationality is at a fundamental conflict with what is believed to be (let us say with good cause) the Almighty's decree. Yes the pious reaction would be to err on the side of what is believed to be the religious judgement, but I wonder how many amongst us wouldnt be sympathetic to the other side in such a case.
[QUOTE]
Let us assume that the rebellion I speak of is that point where what we believe with our values and upbringing and rationality is at a fundamental conflict with what is believed to be (let us say with good cause) the Almighty's decree. Yes the pious reaction would be to err on the side of what is believed to be the religious judgement, but I wonder how many amongst us wouldnt be sympathetic to the other side in such a case.
[/QUOTE]
there is no easy answer to this question as it forces us to choose a side ( which i think is your intention to ask this question in the first place ! )
I wish you could give some examples
problem is opposing God and Prophet is not an option, while we may argue a bit based on our intellect we have to accept their decision in the end.So simply arguing does not make you a disbeliever but refusing to accept that decision might.And yes we might have sympathy for that intellectual but that does not mean I would side with that person in that argument.Difference of opinion might be tolerated but not encouraged by any means.
I can think of some examples from islamic history if you are interested
DR sure, lets have those examples from Islamic history.
This started off as a blog post, so I think the thoughts are best framed as inviting your thoughts on the topic rather than arguing a particular point of view. I am interested in how others approach the subject rather than defending my pov.
since we all have divergent values and backgrounds I daresay what the specific example would be where there is a conflict with religious opinion would vary from person to person. But in my case the immediate example that springs to mind was my reaction to the lashing of the girl in Swat. I found that spectacle to be completely unacceptable at a gut level, even as I realise that it is highly likely under a ‘correct’ Islamic system, specifics of this incident aside, things like this would happen. I am honest enough with myself to ignore intellectual cop-outs like “oh they didnt try her” or “in real Islam it would be done like X” or other stuff. That all may be true, but is besides the point.
Let us assume that the rebellion I speak of is that point where what we believe with our values and upbringing and rationality is at a fundamental conflict with what is believed to be (let us say with good cause) the Almighty's decree. Yes the pious reaction would be to err on the side of what is believed to be the religious judgement, but I wonder how many amongst us wouldnt be sympathetic to the other side in such a case.
[/quote]
The sympathy will have to be well earned, and itself stand the test of what one would deem to be reasonable. That means addressing those issues that others would dismiss (to cite your recent example) as mere cop-outs (which itself is a cop-out).
Why? Because sympathy is rooted in questioning one's position...to cite the example, what were the circumstances of the punishment, was she really guilty, and so on. If we are to suspend such questioning and say, for the sake of argument, that she was indeed guilty, then a reasonable person may well think she was an idiot for doing what she did when the punishment was so severe.
A reasonable person imbibed in a particular tradition, of course...to those external to that tradition they would need an excuse to justify such an action. And there lies the rub. Do we expect the same on the other side of this argument? If not why? Given that there are two sides to this coin, how can we navigate ourselves outside of what is inherently a subjective jungle? Attempting to be rational is not really a solution...rationality doesn't perform well on subjective matters, specifically on matters of the heart.
first of all what disgusted you about the flogging ?
the mere fact that she was flogged i.e are you against flogging even if the offender is tried under the best possible islamic court or to take it further by Prophet himself
the circumstances surrounding her flogging
or something else ?
no matter how learned the scholar was who would artfully justify this to me, every instinct in me revolts against this barbarism. But then how do we accept Islam as the social code it purports to be? Are we not selectively choosing the religion that suits our personalities, rather than the other way round?
[/QUOTE]
I think you in a way answered my question here.But you could add more if you like
Dismay of Umar Farooq when treaty of Hudaibiya was signed
Protest of ansar over the apparent favor of Prophet to Quraish during the division of spoils after a battle
protests of companions of Hasan b ali after his treaty with Muawiyah
complains regarding ALi b abitalib from muslims after expedition to Yemen to the Prophet
( ali apparently took some part of the booty for the Prophet , but Prophet here absolves ali of blame)
abdullah b umar remaing neutral ( for the fear of causing bloodshed) not siding with ali in the civil war and later repenting for it
Again issue of division of spoils and accusation of Prophet by Hurqus b zuhair a sahabi
The bottomline in all of these is the protest of an otherwise religious individual against a figure of higher religious authority but with best intentions and concern for miscarriage of justice.
Except for the last case, where the accuser persists in his deviation and meets a humiliating end.In all the rest examples the accuser or rebel is guided and finally reforms himself and comes closer to the truth.Plus there are traditions from them that they regret their course of action.
Moral of the story is always the same "nothing good ever comes out of arguing with a superior religious authority"
Obviously in this case these higher authorities are Prophet and Sahaba, the status to which ordianary muslims cannot aspire to be.These examples are not relevent for a later period.They do give us an example of how to behave under ideal circumstances.
other example would be assassinations of certain Meccans by Prophet
execution of Banu Qurayzah
Noah's Flood
in all of these one may argue about the morality of these incidents depending on one's backgrounds but as a moslem there is in reality little margin for ambiguity.
reason I give these examples from our sacred history as their is little chance for any Cop-outs as u mentioned
First thing is that this is a philosophical question and should be discussed in same paradigm and not as a religious dogma.
Second, people have come up with various explanations of satan and Adam story. I once asked this question to a sufi and he answered that every relationship with God is that of love. Hence Iblis's questioning was against ettiquete of love, and hence he was banished from heavens.
its all about the basic belief, faith in God. and the level of belief
after submission, we come to like the things Allah (swt) likes from us and dislikes the things Allah (swt) has warned us against.
thats why best place for a muslim is to live is under shariah, you get help from society in staying on the right path
obviously, we have deviated from the path so much that it almost feels as if none of our communities would know how to live under shariah. but i believe alot of the negative influences are only superficially ingrained into us. Faith is strong deepdown in our hearts
If Iblees questions Allah then it is very different from when a normal person questions God, Iblees for sure knows Allah, a normal person might not ( might be an atheist ).
Iblees did not reason before God, he showed arrogance. Arrogance is not suitable for any of the creations.
The sympathy will have to be well earned, and itself stand the test of what one would deem to be reasonable. That means addressing those issues that others would dismiss (to cite your recent example) as mere cop-outs (which itself is a cop-out).
I am deliberately framing the argument as to not consider cases where that avenue is available. This does not mean that such arguments arent legitimate, I am granting the validity of such arguments and moving on to harder cases.
[quote]
Why? Because sympathy is rooted in questioning one's position...to cite the example, what were the circumstances of the punishment, was she really guilty, and so on. If we are to suspend such questioning and say, for the sake of argument, that she was indeed guilty, then a reasonable person may well think she was an idiot for doing what she did when the punishment was so severe.
[/quote]
Even if a reasonable person were to say that, does it mean that 'idiots' as per your definition should be punished like that? Why shift the focus from the punishment to the individual? Is there no intellectual bias there?
[quote]
A reasonable person imbibed in a particular tradition, of course...to those external to that tradition they would need an excuse to justify such an action. And there lies the rub. Do we expect the same on the other side of this argument? If not why?
[/quote]
Have you never judged an action of a culture you were external to? When you read of ritual sacrifices of virgins in a culture, or when you read Quranic stories where traditional practices of deviant cultures what is your reaction, and why?
[quote]
Given that there are two sides to this coin, how can we navigate ourselves outside of what is inherently a subjective jungle? Attempting to be rational is not really a solution...rationality doesn't perform well on subjective matters, specifically on matters of the heart.
[/QUOTE]
That is true. However my view is that subjectivity itself is questionable in religious terms, where there is an objective (Godly) view of the world, and any subjective dissent (whether rational or irrational or non-rational) is in opposition to the collectivist/group-think/consensus view of religion.
The bottomline in all of these is the protest of an otherwise religious individual against a figure of higher religious authority but with best intentions and concern for miscarriage of justice.
Except for the last case, where the accuser persists in his deviation and meets a humiliating end.In all the rest examples the accuser or rebel is guided and finally reforms himself and comes closer to the truth.Plus there are traditions from them that they regret their course of action.
Moral of the story is always the same "nothing good ever comes out of arguing with a superior religious authority"
Obviously in this case these higher authorities are Prophet and Sahaba, the status to which ordianary muslims cannot aspire to be.These examples are not relevent for a later period.They do give us an example of how to behave under ideal circumstances.
Do you think it is a feature of our political systems where everyone is equal and the idea of an inherently superior class/kings etc is not palatable (in theory atleast) that an attitude of intellectual rebellion against superior religious authority has lost (to my eyes) its negativity, a negativity that would have been obvious in earlier days?
Very nice examples, all relevant (and also, thank you for recommending those books, will def. check them out inshallah). But what do you think 'guided' them and brought them closer to the truth. I mean, what kind of truth did they discover that led them to the error of their ways? Is it as simple as "Dont question superior authority"?
Second, people have come up with various explanations of satan and Adam story. I once asked this question to a sufi and he answered that every relationship with God is that of love. Hence Iblis's questioning was against ettiquete of love, and hence he was banished from heavens.
Its an interesting explanation, and I think has room to accomodate the issue of intellectual rebellion too (preferring your notions of self-righteousness before the preferences of a loved one?). Not wholly satisfying though.
shardmanny: perhaps. but we are who we are, we cannot reason as if we belong to a different society. because at best we can only hope to live according to what we think that society was.
jhoom: The arrogance was in his reasoning before God. He was arrogant regarding himself all along, it only showed when he argued with Allah showing a certain kind of rationality.
Do you think it is a feature of our political systems where everyone is equal and the idea of an inherently superior class/kings etc is not palatable (in theory atleast) that an attitude of intellectual rebellion against superior religious authority has lost (to my eyes) its negativity, a negativity that would have been obvious in earlier days?
[/QUOTE]
every political system has some sacred cows and taboos, in our political system its not religious dogmas but other dogmas
e.g in america holocaust , civil war , myth of a saintly MLK, slavery , superority of democracy etc that is the new religion.
I am not saying that the officially endoresed version are totally wrong either.But they are issues generally not disputed and we run the risk of being branded a racist, revisionist or traitor if u do.I dont think humans will ever be totally "free" from all this as it also helps to build a society and keep it togather even if the basis of it is just a farce.
but the short answer to ur qustion is yes it is much easier to question religious authorities now than before because for rulers and tyrants is a spent ideology it no longer has that power over the masses and now they try to decieve them with other ideologies.So for them there is no reason to keep religious debates off limits.
[QUOTE]
Very nice examples, all relevant (and also, thank you for recommending those books, will def. check them out inshallah). But what do you think 'guided' them and brought them closer to the truth. I mean, what kind of truth did they discover that led them to the error of their ways? Is it as simple as "Dont question superior authority"?
[/QUOTE]
Thats a great question, In all honesty it depends on the individual and not all the same.However some generalizations we can make depending on what we know about them.
Relgious version
They recognized the error of arguing with the prophet and sahaba and repented for questioning their authority and recognized the inferority of their status in compariosn to them.
orientalist view
They were able to see through the reasons behind this decisions and either a-outwardly showd their repentence so not to "rock the boat" b- recognized that their interests were better served by following their more astute and shrewd masters ( i.e Prophet and sahaba)
Both views are possible but are not exclusive either, how about a combination of these 2 ? afterall dont we face such circumstances in our daily life ? who likes to be told as a kid not to play but study , brush their teeth and all the good stuff ...we keep the peace at that time and compliy even if just to show our parents but we might be truely convinced of the value of their advice years latter when we are unemployed due to bad grades or have dentures ! Then we think of our parents more positively than we did at that time.
point i am trying to make is that our perception of the Prophet and sahaba ( religious authorities if u may) is quite different from what it was to the companions of these personalities.And the Prophet and islam today is as much a product of the collective memory of early salaf ( which is calld sunnah) as from the Quran.And it is quite possible some early followers kept their resentment to themselves esp when islam was on the rise but years later on realized the wisdom of those decisions and publicly showed their genuine repntence.And that has come down to us via hadith or history.
Wow … now this is a topic and Alhumdulillah you seemed to have attracted all the minds, pity I’ve come along now to put an intellectual dampener on things.
Intellectual rebellion in the face of authority … heroic? … I’m sure if you read Socrates and Plato and in turn from Imam Al-Ghazali you’ll fathom that courage is on the axis of what can be cowardice and what can be recklessness … too much of it bad and too less of it bad … to be a hero or courageous the assumption above needs to be elaborated on. To rebel against the Ultimate Authority is not heroic.
Then if you want to contrast what the angels said with what Iblees said … regarding humanity … They asked Allah (SWT) Surah 2 verse 30 … “Will You place therein those who will make mischief therein and shed blood, while we glorify You with praises and thanks and sanctify You?”
Here you can see that the angels are making two claims … 1) that they are better than man for they praise God and the man will create mischief … 2) They maintain that God deserves worship and with their apparent contest against the vicegerent they complement their rebellion with praise for Allah.
However, the rebellion of Ibless of void of this Adab … as Iconoclast mentions.
For sure he should have first prostrated and then made his attempt to reason, but his desire to reason prevented his obedience. Rather he knew he had failed the moment he was asked to prostrate. Rather his reason was loaded with self worth … pride which is an adornment of Allah (SWT) that’s what he should have known better, being the most perfect in worship of his time.
One can only conclude that his attempt of reasoning aimed against the Most Wise was really a facade … he was decorating lies as reason and he was not ashamed of doing that.
Look at how he complained after his folly … Iblees blamed Allah (SWT) for being led astray whereas compare this with Adam and Eve who after being led astray asked for forgiveness and said that they have wronged themselves.
See the contrast and see why this scenario is not befitting. His rebellion and hence his fall was due to PRIDE - the first sin. Then DISOBEDIENCE, then a LIE and then SHAMELESSNESS …
And of course how can we assume that Allah (SWT) The Most Just banished Iblees as a result of his incapability … no … he was fully capable of obedience and his rationale was in tact.
As for where we stand … primarily we are told to stand with our leaders not against them. We are told to obey even a tyrant ruler if his tyrrany is aligned to promote God, however, we must use wisdom to curb that and perhaps change that … First we must be faithful … to use intellect and rationalism to dissent requires these things …
very, very nice reply psyah (edit: and DR! just read yours too), comprehensive and incorporating earlier replies too. I will read again and reply appropriately soon.