Salaam,
With first time in this forum, I look forward to have an enlightening discussion.
Consider you are in the middle of a situation where on your one side a Kafir (an infidel) is about to die if you don’t provide him help and on other side your prayer (salat) time is about to get over (i.e. salat will Qadha).
What would be your preference?
Obviously try and save the “infidel”…todays non-believer could be tommorows muslim…every human life should be valued as your own blood.
Welcome, by the way
Walaikum-Assalam
Save the human, Muslim or not. No 2 ways about it. Wish all problems were so simple!
Welcome on board.
no doubt about it....
a human's life is more important....
u can pray a bit late....
or even QAZAA if the saving takes more time....
I think only a guy who is too much particular about salat will deliberate about this issue. Otherwise, in such a situation your humane emotions/sensitivities take you over and saving a human life is just like a reflex action.
Verstehen interesting name…verstehen=understand
Welcome to Gupland
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/hula.gif
*“na maiN momin vich masiitaaN, na maiN muusaa, na fir’aun!”
*
Thanks guys for your welcome. Ali_R you got it right, Verstehen is Understanding
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif
It looks like we have quite a consensus on this issue.
And no surprise in it, as Islam no doubt lays much stress on importance of a human life regardless of his race, ethnicity, religion, nationality.
A question pops up into mind.
Do we value human life because it is valuable in itself (objectively) or because our religion teaches us to do so?
A similar case,
Do we like and speak truth because it is good in itself or because our religion teaches us?
Kay hum tu Dhoop main baarishh kay woh qatray hain jo gir ker, dar-o-deevar per hi sookh jaatay hain…
Dear Person of Understanding,
Anna Frank said it practically perfectly in my understanding.
"I believe all people are good at heart."
(and I would add that it doesn't matter what time it is when you save a human life.)
Saving a human life is more important than praying. I read that he Rebbe's say that saving one is as holy as saving many. And I don't think Jesus or Mohammad would argue that.
Girl
[This message has been edited by AvgAmericanGirl (edited November 25, 2001).]
Indeed good replies!
So we all think humans have this good nature intrinsic in them.
I quite agree with it.
But why then our history is full of miseries, brutalities, oppression, wars, people killing one another. Its people who make their own history. If people were good by nature, why they did and still doing such acts of inhumanity?
The answer to this in my opinion is, inspite of all this, people still favor good and like to be good.
It is their definition of goodness that changes in different cultures and circumstances as was pointed by Dhoop.
Like in middle ages catholic clergy man used to give strict punishments to non-conformists but in their personal lives they were very kind to their family and people of the same faith. I have also read they allowed prostitution for revenue but stressed on strict morality in society.
We might call it “double consciousness” or “double thinking” in Orwellian terminology.
A modern day example of this double thinking would be killing of innocent people in WTC that was defined as a ‘crime against humanity’ and brutality and which no doubt IS, but killing of innocent humans in Afghanistan (am talking about civilians) is defined to be JUST in the name of ‘war against terrorism’. Are these civilians in Afghanistan not the SAME humans as were in WTC?
But this is not our main topic. The question is, do we have any natural or universal definition of good? Can we arrive at any?
Its good for brain to think philosophically, atleast for a few moments
**
Indeed good replies!
So we all think humans have this good nature intrinsic in them.
I quite agree with it.
But why then our history is full of miseries, brutalities, oppression, wars, people killing one another. Its people who make their own history. If people were good by nature, why they did and still doing such acts of inhumanity?
The answer to this in my opinion is, inspite of all this, people still favor good and like to be good.
It is their definition of goodness that changes in different cultures and circumstances as was pointed by Dhoop.
Like in middle ages catholic clergy man used to give strict punishments to non-conformists but in their personal lives they were very kind to their family and people of the same faith. I have also read they allowed prostitution for revenue but stressed on strict morality in society.
We might call it “double consciousness” or “double thinking” in Orwellian terminology.
A modern day example of this double thinking would be killing of innocent people in WTC that was defined as a ‘crime against humanity’ and brutality and which no doubt IS, but killing of innocent humans in Afghanistan (am talking about civilians) is defined to be JUST in the name of ‘war against terrorism’. Are these civilians in Afghanistan not the SAME humans as were in WTC?
But this is not our main topic. The question is, do we have any natural or universal definition of good? Can we arrive at any?
Its good for brain to think philosophically, atleast for a few moments
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif
I think the universal definition of good
should be (or maybe is)…treat others as u would like to be treated (this goes for normal conscientious ppl. ofcourse
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/biggrin.gif
)
The other thing I think is that the human being has a barrage of emotions all at once.
Its not black 'n white…not goodness and evil etc.
An individual acts very differently then a
crowd of ppl.
and I think humans have this capacity to
compartmentalize stuff…be several ppl. at the same time quite as same as the clergy person u mentioned, kind to one, harsh to the other…I think most of the atrocities done throughout history r political…the “I have to be cruel to be kind” mentality when politicians begin to
(or atleast claim)to c the “bigger picture”
and act accordingly.In instances like these the do unto others as u would others do to u fades somewhere maybe…u still believe u r doing it for the greater good (somehow the good transforms itself into the greater"cause") and voila! U resort to barbarianism without even realizing it.
(hope i’m making sense)…
Kay hum tu Dhoop main baarishh kay woh qatray hain jo gir ker, dar-o-deevar per hi sookh jaatay hain…
[This message has been edited by Dhoop (edited November 26, 2001).]
"treat others as u would like to be treated"
A very good quote.
But in my opinion this doesn't help much in getting to a universal standard without making many clarification and distinctions.
We discussed earlier, and as you mentioned again, every one likes to be "good" but definition of "good" is different in different minds, making it a very relative and subjective term. We also have tendency to compartmantalize our consciousness in order to remain "good".
In the same way treating 'others as you would like to be treated' in my opinion is more a relative and subjective issue and can't be taken as a general standard.
Take Taliban for example. In their opinion its "good" for themselves and for other people to create an Islamic society, even by use of force if required. Its good for them to have long beard and for others too. But others might not agree to this definition of "goodness" of them.
American don't like communism for itself and for any other country. Thats why it invaded Vietnam and drop bombs on civilian people to save those people from the "evil" of Communism.
So the above standard is so generalized that it can't be applied without making many clarifications and distinctions. Even I don't think human can agree to any universal standard for "good".
People try to find number system, scientific theories, predictions in Quran. It might contain them. But I don't think this is what the purpose of Quran is. Because people through their Intellect which is endowed by their Creator can reach to these knowledge by themselves and they have!!
I truly believe that it is only God sent people and book that can make this standard of "good" and "justice" for us.
Humans have made incredible advancements in the fields of science and technology. Through their Intellect they are able to advance their history from "primitive" cultures to modern global cultures. They have added much sophistication and luxury in their way of living.
But humans have done proportionally nothing in becoming a "human". They have not yet been able to subjugate their low nature and desires such as oppression, greediness, selfishness and as Will Durant says they have just change their means.
I was watching a scene in Gladiator in which people were shown enjoying the brutal fighting(if you can recall that scence), Will Durant's above comment popped up into my mind at that time. Don't you really think, people have just changed the means in our living patterns, now thy consider themselves to be more "civilized" but we enjoy the same brutality watching wrestling, soccer. Bristish colonist enjoyed killing of Natives( the "inferior" race),Germans enjoyed killing Jews, Americans took pride in their democracy dropping bombs in Nacaragua.
The absence of this evolution of Humanity in humans has made some philosophers of history believe that human history is moving towards self-destruction.
Were it not flashes of lights in history, I think human civilization have had destroyed itself much earlier. Thats why we need Prophets and message of God.
Though all human beings are 'good at heart', but it does not guarantee that they demonstrate their 'good at heart' being all the time. People have devilish desires too. If 'devil' part in a human being overcomes the 'angel' part then he is more of a devil. Lust for money, power, land, fame, women all lead to wars.... religion tells us to control all lusts.
We oughta be Changez like, don't we?