The Nature of Moral Law

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

(*This isn't directed at any posters here so much as to the general attitude you find about Shariah Law in Western dialogues)
It is a shame that Muslims have to defend themselves on attempted caricatures thrust upon them. It is in bad form to criticize something that you do not live under unless you are prepared to openly explain your criticism. Most people cannot do this and instead use Shariah Law as an anterior strawman to create unity within their own communities.

Personally, I have nothing positive to say about Islamic practice or jurisprudence; for if I did, I'd probably be a Muslim but I am sure Islam as a whole can and will survive my dissent and disagreements.

A reasonable approach.

But I have to ask, out of curiosity, nothing positive at all about Islamic practice? There is not one thing that you can tell yourself, "huh, makes some sense"?

I spoke with a bit of rhetoric. Obviously, there are aspects which "make sense," or are reasonable. I didn't intend to cast aspersions as if Islam is a "evil principle" which I am against. I am not a Muslim and it would be patronizing speak as if my positive affirmation meant something. A lot of the criticism directed towards Islam seems to me to reflect just as well on "Westerners" or "Christianists" or however you'd like to define them. You only fight with people who are similar to yourself. I don't believe Islam to be true; I don't believe it holds up to scrutiny (be it historical, moral, revelatory) as well as Christianity does. I think of it as a complicated Christian heresy and though I gladly invite all to Christianity, this is in God's hands not mine. I may be right or wrong; what I do know though is that I am not in rivalry with Muslims so I have no compulsion to heap scorn or act derisively towards Islamic practitioners who share in the same virtues and vices found among the brotherhood of men.

[Hans Bulvai]

(*This isn't directed at any posters here so much as to the general attitude you find about Shariah Law in Western dialogues)
It is a shame that Muslims have to defend themselves on attempted caricatures thrust upon them. It is in bad form to criticize something that you do not live under unless you are prepared to openly explain your criticism. Most people cannot do this and instead use Shariah Law as an anterior strawman to create unity within their own communities.

Personally, I have nothing positive to say about Islamic practice or jurisprudence; for if I did, I'd probably be a Muslim but I am sure Islam as a whole can and will survive my dissent and disagreements.

A reasonable approach.

But I have to ask, out of curiosity, nothing positive at all about Islamic practice? There is not one thing that you can tell yourself, "huh, makes some sense"?

I spoke with a bit of rhetoric. Obviously, there are aspects which "make sense," or are reasonable. I didn't intend to cast aspersions as if Islam is a "evil principle" which I am against. I am not a Muslim and it would be patronizing speak as if my positive affirmation meant something. A lot of the criticism directed towards Islam seems to me to reflect just as well on "Westerners" or "Christianists" or however you'd like to define them. You only fight with people who are similar to yourself. I don't believe Islam to be true; I don't believe it holds up to scrutiny (be it historical, moral, revelatory) as well as Christianity does. I think of it as a complicated Christian heresy and though I gladly invite all to Christianity, this is in God's hands not mine. I may be right or wrong; what I do know though is that I am not in rivalry with Muslims so I have no compulsion to heap scorn or act derisively towards Islamic practitioners who share in the same virtues and vices found among the brotherhood of men.

Interesting. So then what are your thoughts on Muslims believing in the same God as Christians and Jews? And the glorification of Jesus and the Virgin Mary in the Quran?

[Sparky]

The implementation is the religion - it's the living, practical embodiment of the idea.

If you are going to take that approach, then discussion of religion becomes impossible. You would have to treat every sect/denomination/usool al-fiqh as a separate entity. In the case of independent Christian churches each congregation would be considered a separate religion. And what do we do with the Hindu religions?

That seems very sensible, in the same way that it makes sense to study, say, the structure and behaviour of the dolphin and the pangolin while also being aware of the structure of the classification mammal. It doesn't strike me as being impossible.

Then you must deal with human misunderstanding and sin. This idea that implementation = religion is oversimplified.

It's as important, if not more so than the idea. The idea in action is what one has to live within, for good or ill.

[Sparky]

I don't buy that for a second. Whenever confronted with the ghastly results of a philosophy made flesh through law, practice and constitution, it's enthusiasts are forever telling us that this is because "it's not being done properly." If only the real principles of [BELIEF_SYSTEM] were properly implemented, then [CATALOGUE_OF_HORRORS] would be replaced with [LIST_OF_UTOPIAN_OUTCOMES].

The implementation is the religion - it's the living, practical embodiment of the idea.

But the majority of Muslims are not engaged in Catalogues_of_horrors. Like the majority of the planet, they want the same things as everybody else. Most of them are probably worried about how they will feed their kids. And it is impossible to have a utopian outcome no matter the system. And just because you don't like the system doesn't mean that it is not working for someone else. Do tell of the ghastly though please. Maybe we can go through them to see if they are indeed inthe constitution.

Try Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan. Horrors aplenty - ditto the many attempts around the globe to make communism work. The practical results of trying to implement the perfect system for governing mankind are rather unpleasant.

Yes but not just common law. What's more oppressive; being forced to wear a veil or being forced to take it off?

Both are illiberal, barbarous follies.

[Nonc Hilaire]

The implementation is the religion - it's the living, practical embodiment of the idea.

If you are going to take that approach, then discussion of religion becomes impossible. You would have to treat every sect/denomination/usool al-fiqh as a separate entity. In the case of independent Christian churches each congregation would be considered a separate religion. And what do we do with the Hindu religions?

That seems very sensible, in the same way that it makes sense to study, say, the structure and behaviour of the dolphin and the pangolin while also being aware of the structure of the classification mammal. It doesn't strike me as being impossible.

Then you must deal with human misunderstanding and sin. This idea that implementation = religion is oversimplified.

It's as important, if not more so than the idea. The idea in action is what one has to live within, for good or ill.

Yes, I'm not disagreeing with you; you have just oversimplified the question. If I was to try to reduce religion to a single word it would probably be intention. Well meaning actions may have bad consequences and vice-versa. Why you do something is typically more revealing than what you do.

[Endovelico]

I am not a Christian nor am I one of the "People of the Book" as my Muslim friends define me, so I am the infidel in the discussion here.

Still, is the problem as to how "moral law" is derived the central issue in our lives? "Moral law" may be "written in human hearts" as Marcus asserts or may be the product of divine revelation as Nonc Hilare maintains, or it could be a result of multiple determinants: educational, cultural, experiential, spiritual, or biological.

Do these distinctions really matter for how we actually live our lives for good or ill? How? All these natural vs revelatory morality disputes seems like a Swiftian Big-Endian/Little-Endian controversy to me, but then again, I am not a Christian and I am an unconverted pagan to the Abrahamic religions with little understanding and appreciation of these matters.

The fundamental question for me is this - why do some of us behave decently when confronted with suffering and evil, and others do not and even cooperate and participate in such darkness? What makes the difference between those who act with kindness and mercy and those who respond with greed and hatred under such circumstances?

If a suffering, terrified, or destitute human being knocks on your door, do you care to help them because you studied noble scripture or philosophy? Or do you respond with care and compassion because their suffering is simply an immediate necessity that you are compelled to address as a pain that you share with all your human brothers and sisters?

Beliefs and convictions however derived are the easy part - placing them into action where hard choices must be made through the immediate demands of compassion is where the proverbial rubber meets the road. What we actually do, or fail to do, is what really matters. We are the owner of our actions and heir to them, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
.

Good is what preserves the species, evil is what harms it. For that reason evolution will promote good over evil, but this should be seen on an eon's scale. That's why it seems that there is a natural moral law. Forget about revelation. All the "revelations" put together may have influenced Man's actions, not Man's nature...

[ansuchin]

Good is what preserves the species, evil is what harms it. For that reason evolution will promote good over evil, but this should be seen on an eon's scale. That's why it seems that there is a natural moral law. Forget about revelation. All the "revelations" put together may have influenced Man's actions, not Man's nature...

Hi Endovelico.

If one were to define good or evil based upon an evolutionary outcome favourable to our species, I suppose that would all make sense. However, I do not perceive the processes and contingencies of natural selection whether favourable to Homo sapiens or to other species as having moral content any more than do the actions of earth’s rotation, the laws of thermodynamics, or the waxing and waning of the tides…

I will openly admit that, in spite of my numerous enquiries and discussions with many highly informed, educated, and good Christians, that I do not understand what they are talking about when they talk about revelations. Whatever those may be, if it helps them to behave themselves and to be kind, compassionate, and generous, I am sure that such considerations are sacred, whatever they may be. Since I do not know what they are talking about, I prefer to leave it at that. A Catholic priest I knew and had extensive discussion with while I was in the States called me his “gentle, kind pagan.” I miss him very much.

For me, ethical action is an immediate, experiential matter. I really bloody well do not care what people proclaim as their commitments to decency, virtue, or any other metrics of value. Talk is cheap, action and the results of action are the test that matters for me.

When I have reflected upon my own responses to the moral challenges of my life that I have responded to decently or indecently, I realise that my harmfulness was a product of my own confusion and ignorance, while my goodness was the grace of an unobstructed awareness that demanded compassion and a loving response. I will admit that I have not always done well. But when I have seen clearly, there really has been no choice, only a present necessity. Under these conditions, my subsequent actions have contributed to less suffering not just for human beings, but for dogs, pigs, and even snakes as well.

What do my probably apparently strange, eastern reflections matter to “Moral Law?” Probably not much. I really do not know if such a law exists. If people are guided by such laws and other sentient beings have less pain, suffering, and confusion as a result, you have my full support.

For me in my own world, I must be mindful if what I do will harm or help, and that is all I believe that I should concern myself with.

[Marcus]

. . my goodness was the grace of an unobstructed awareness that demanded compassion and a loving response. . .

And that, as I see it, ansuchin, is revelation. It's one thing to enjoy the beef, quite another to acknowledge the brand . .

[Parodite]

When all knowledge is incomplete, what can be said with any degree of certainty of "moral law" being revealed or natural, a combination perhaps or other? Add the things we don't know we don't know... and it gets messier quickly. Doesn't seem to be very important to label it either, or, xor or and, or neither. Fact is that behavior, included thought and feeling, is conditioned, shaped all the time because it has concequences that feed back on it. But we can play with definitions (what else is there?): morality is possible because we can be aware of the consequences of some of our behaviors. Revelation via feedback. God gives a lot of feedback.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

(*This isn't directed at any posters here so much as to the general attitude you find about Shariah Law in Western dialogues)
It is a shame that Muslims have to defend themselves on attempted caricatures thrust upon them. It is in bad form to criticize something that you do not live under unless you are prepared to openly explain your criticism. Most people cannot do this and instead use Shariah Law as an anterior strawman to create unity within their own communities.

Personally, I have nothing positive to say about Islamic practice or jurisprudence; for if I did, I'd probably be a Muslim but I am sure Islam as a whole can and will survive my dissent and disagreements.

A reasonable approach.

But I have to ask, out of curiosity, nothing positive at all about Islamic practice? There is not one thing that you can tell yourself, "huh, makes some sense"?

I spoke with a bit of rhetoric. Obviously, there are aspects which "make sense," or are reasonable. I didn't intend to cast aspersions as if Islam is a "evil principle" which I am against. I am not a Muslim and it would be patronizing speak as if my positive affirmation meant something. A lot of the criticism directed towards Islam seems to me to reflect just as well on "Westerners" or "Christianists" or however you'd like to define them. You only fight with people who are similar to yourself. I don't believe Islam to be true; I don't believe it holds up to scrutiny (be it historical, moral, revelatory) as well as Christianity does. I think of it as a complicated Christian heresy and though I gladly invite all to Christianity, this is in God's hands not mine. I may be right or wrong; what I do know though is that I am not in rivalry with Muslims so I have no compulsion to heap scorn or act derisively towards Islamic practitioners who share in the same virtues and vices found among the brotherhood of men.

Interesting. So then what are your thoughts on Muslims believing in the same God as Christians and Jews? And the glorification of Jesus and the Virgin Mary in the Quran?

I'm not sure if those are answerable questions. Id est, I can't "think" or organize what I know on those topics. It really is in God's hands; Do I think you worship the God of Abraham? You say you do, I have no reason to not take your word seriously. Do all Muslims? Yeah, to the same extent that all Christians do as well (everyone comes upon someone whose conception of God doesn't get further than a superidol despite their affiliation...) We also share more in common than, say, either one of us do with Mormons and their corporeal Godhead generated by a series of gods....However, because I do not deny the Trinity and Christological conceits and you do, where does that leave us? There are many ontological disagreements we harbor arriving from our different conceptions which affect our thoughts and how we live; I learned a very valuable lesson a long time ago: If you love and respect another person, you will openly disagree with them. Or as someone would tell me, "Do not play huggy&kissy when there is a disagreement; instead treat the other person with the respect to hear your disagreement," or the aphorism: "Speak like a lion and act like a lamb." So I can only vouch for the Christian conception of God as passed down from the apostles, this is what I believe and I can't otherwise reconcile others relation to Deity. My concern begins and ends with people and with the belief that peace will be had between men of good will, even through disagreements. (I don't believe the Virgin Mary requires a comment outside of my belief of Islam as a Christian heresy is only bolstered by such facts; something we obviously disagree upon...)