free will vs determinism
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Adurelm
Yes, this is what I understand by the idea too. The "should" in your sentence implies normativity. You can see the distinction in the difference between these two views:
1. People should be punished for their actions. If you kill someone, you've done something wrong and you ought to be punished.
2. People shouldn't be punished for their actions, because their actions are not up to them. But we should nevertheless keep them away from wider society, since if we didn't then we'd just have widespread crime and society would collapse.
(1) applies a normative judgement to the agent and says they've done something wrong. (2) doesn't.
1. People should be punished for their actions. If you kill someone, you've done something wrong and you ought to be punished.
2. People shouldn't be punished for their actions, because their actions are not up to them. But we should nevertheless keep them away from wider society, since if we didn't then we'd just have widespread crime and society would collapse.
(1) applies a normative judgement to the agent and says they've done something wrong. (2) doesn't.
I think to really clarify the distinction it would be useful to expand on why someone "should" or "shouldn't" be punished for their actions.
I can see a few reasons why someone should be punished for a crime:
- Reparation: Fixing the damage they have caused (e.g. paying a fine to clean up graffiti)
- Isolation: Keeping them away from wider society if we think they're otherwise likely to commit the same crime again
- Deterrence: Making them suffer in order to disincentivise them (and others) from committing the same crime in future
- Education: Helping them realise that their actions cannot be tolerated, in case they didn't already
- Rehabilitation: Helping them to no longer feel the need to commit crimes (e.g. overcoming a drug addiction)
And the main reason I see why someone should not be punished is if the punishment is unlikely to have any of the above effects, and will simply make them suffer for no reason. For example, if a person accidentally shoplifts as a one-off, but returns the next day to give the item back, it's already unlikely that they'll shoplift again, and they've already rectified the mistake. So punishment no longer seems to serve any purpose.
Now what doesn't make sense to me is this:
- (2) seems self-contradictory in principle, because we start off by simultaneously saying that the punishment should not take place, and also that it should take place. In practice, we end by saying that the punishment should take place (for prevention/reparation purposes), but that raises the question of what the relevance was of initially saying that it should not take place.
- In (1) we're saying that they should be punished because their actions are ultimately "up to them"; but what has that got to do with whether or not they should be punished? Isn't the purpose of punishment to achieve prevention/reparation effects? And aren't these successfully achieved either way, whether the action was ultimately up to them or not?
- Combining the two points above, we seem to have eroded the distinction between (1) and (2). Because in both cases we end by saying that they should be punished, for the purposes of prevention/reparation. We may start off by considering the "ultimately up to them" aspect, but it doesn't seem to make a difference to what happens in the end.
It seems to me that you're suggesting that, if a person is ultimately in control of their actions, then there is some other reason why they ought to be punished for their crimes besides just prevention or reparation, which might alter the nature and extent of the punishment they get. This would probably resolve the issue, but so far I don't think we've explicitly touched on what those additional reasons are.
Original post by tazarooni89
I think to really clarify the distinction it would be useful to expand on why someone "should" or "shouldn't" be punished for their actions.
I can see a few reasons why someone should be punished for a crime:
- Reparation: Fixing the damage they have caused (e.g. paying a fine to clean up graffiti)
- Isolation: Keeping them away from wider society if we think they're otherwise likely to commit the same crime again
- Deterrence: Making them suffer in order to disincentivise them (and others) from committing the same crime in future
- Education: Helping them realise that their actions cannot be tolerated, in case they didn't already
- Rehabilitation: Helping them to no longer feel the need to commit crimes (e.g. overcoming a drug addiction)
And the main reason I see why someone should not be punished is if the punishment is unlikely to have any of the above effects, and will simply make them suffer for no reason. For example, if a person accidentally shoplifts as a one-off, but returns the next day to give the item back, it's already unlikely that they'll shoplift again, and they've already rectified the mistake. So punishment no longer seems to serve any purpose.
I can see a few reasons why someone should be punished for a crime:
- Reparation: Fixing the damage they have caused (e.g. paying a fine to clean up graffiti)
- Isolation: Keeping them away from wider society if we think they're otherwise likely to commit the same crime again
- Deterrence: Making them suffer in order to disincentivise them (and others) from committing the same crime in future
- Education: Helping them realise that their actions cannot be tolerated, in case they didn't already
- Rehabilitation: Helping them to no longer feel the need to commit crimes (e.g. overcoming a drug addiction)
And the main reason I see why someone should not be punished is if the punishment is unlikely to have any of the above effects, and will simply make them suffer for no reason. For example, if a person accidentally shoplifts as a one-off, but returns the next day to give the item back, it's already unlikely that they'll shoplift again, and they've already rectified the mistake. So punishment no longer seems to serve any purpose.
What you're describing here is a standard consequentialist justification for punishment. We should punish people who do crime if doing so results in favorable consequences. The purpose of punishment is not to make someone suffer but to educate, rehabilitate, isolate, etc.
But there is also the rival retributivist theory of punishment, where the purpose of punishment is to inflict some kind of suffering on wrongdoers, regardless of whether this results in any other ends that we value. If it does result in those ends, then that's all for the better, but it isn't the main point of punishment nor a necessary requirement. Kant, for example, famously defended something like this. It's the sort of thing that a family who have lost a loved one might desire for the one responsible for the murder. E.g. they might demand that the murderer spend the rest of their life behind bars, not primarily to educate or rehabilitate, but to make them suffer.
Now what doesn't make sense to me is this:
- (2) seems self-contradictory in principle, because we start off by simultaneously saying that the punishment should not take place, and also that it should take place. In practice, we end by saying that the punishment should take place (for prevention/reparation purposes), but that raises the question of what the relevance was of initially saying that it should not take place.
- In (1) we're saying that they should be punished because their actions are ultimately "up to them"; but what has that got to do with whether or not they should be punished? Isn't the purpose of punishment to achieve prevention/reparation effects? And aren't these successfully achieved either way, whether the action was ultimately up to them or not?
- Combining the two points above, we seem to have eroded the distinction between (1) and (2). Because in both cases we end by saying that they should be punished, for the purposes of prevention/reparation. We may start off by considering the "ultimately up to them" aspect, but it doesn't seem to make a difference to what happens in the end.
- (2) seems self-contradictory in principle, because we start off by simultaneously saying that the punishment should not take place, and also that it should take place. In practice, we end by saying that the punishment should take place (for prevention/reparation purposes), but that raises the question of what the relevance was of initially saying that it should not take place.
- In (1) we're saying that they should be punished because their actions are ultimately "up to them"; but what has that got to do with whether or not they should be punished? Isn't the purpose of punishment to achieve prevention/reparation effects? And aren't these successfully achieved either way, whether the action was ultimately up to them or not?
- Combining the two points above, we seem to have eroded the distinction between (1) and (2). Because in both cases we end by saying that they should be punished, for the purposes of prevention/reparation. We may start off by considering the "ultimately up to them" aspect, but it doesn't seem to make a difference to what happens in the end.
If "punishment" is taken to mean what consequentialists take it to be, then it would be self-contradictory; but if it's taken to mean what retributivists take it to be, then it wouldn't.
So building on that, what I was saying earlier might be a bit clearer: if people aren't responsible for their actions, then we're still perfectly justified in "punishing" them, i.e. in taking measures to further the ends that we value. But we aren't justified in "punishing" them in a retributivist sense (and we also aren't justified in blaming them, as if they had any [ultimate] say in the matter).
And so your earlier claim that there seems to be an inconsistency in people people who believe free will doesn't exist and believe that we shouldn't abandon the judicial system, would be true or false depending on their views on punishment.
Incidentally, how would you reconcile your view on punishment with God's eternally punishing people with hellfire?
Original post by Adurelm
What you're describing here is a standard consequentialist justification for punishment. We should punish people who do crime if doing so results in favorable consequences. The purpose of punishment is not to make someone suffer but to educate, rehabilitate, isolate, etc.
But there is also the rival retributivist theory of punishment, where the purpose of punishment is to inflict some kind of suffering on wrongdoers, regardless of whether this results in any other ends that we value. If it does result in those ends, then that's all for the better, but it isn't the main point of punishment nor a necessary requirement. Kant, for example, famously defended something like this. It's the sort of thing that a family who have lost a loved one might desire for the one responsible for the murder. E.g. they might demand that the murderer spend the rest of their life behind bars, not primarily to educate or rehabilitate, but to make them suffer.
If "punishment" is taken to mean what consequentialists take it to be, then it would be self-contradictory; but if it's taken to mean what retributivists take it to be, then it wouldn't.
So building on that, what I was saying earlier might be a bit clearer: if people aren't responsible for their actions, then we're still perfectly justified in "punishing" them, i.e. in taking measures to further the ends that we value. But we aren't justified in "punishing" them in a retributivist sense (and we also aren't justified in blaming them, as if they had any [ultimate] say in the matter).
And so your earlier claim that there seems to be an inconsistency in people people who believe free will doesn't exist and believe that we shouldn't abandon the judicial system, would be true or false depending on their views on punishment.
But there is also the rival retributivist theory of punishment, where the purpose of punishment is to inflict some kind of suffering on wrongdoers, regardless of whether this results in any other ends that we value. If it does result in those ends, then that's all for the better, but it isn't the main point of punishment nor a necessary requirement. Kant, for example, famously defended something like this. It's the sort of thing that a family who have lost a loved one might desire for the one responsible for the murder. E.g. they might demand that the murderer spend the rest of their life behind bars, not primarily to educate or rehabilitate, but to make them suffer.
If "punishment" is taken to mean what consequentialists take it to be, then it would be self-contradictory; but if it's taken to mean what retributivists take it to be, then it wouldn't.
So building on that, what I was saying earlier might be a bit clearer: if people aren't responsible for their actions, then we're still perfectly justified in "punishing" them, i.e. in taking measures to further the ends that we value. But we aren't justified in "punishing" them in a retributivist sense (and we also aren't justified in blaming them, as if they had any [ultimate] say in the matter).
And so your earlier claim that there seems to be an inconsistency in people people who believe free will doesn't exist and believe that we shouldn't abandon the judicial system, would be true or false depending on their views on punishment.
That’s a pretty clear explanation - thanks.
Personally I’m more of a consequentialist rather than a retributivist when it comes to punishment (as you can probably tell!) so even though I understand the distinction you’re making, it doesn’t really resonate with me.
I admit that I know first-hand the desire to make someone else suffer when they have wronged me. But as I said earlier, with my rational hat on, I just see it as an emotional heuristic we’ve developed which motivates to ensure that punishments are carried out, the true purpose of which is actually consequentialist. I don’t see any tangible benefit in demanding someone’s pound of flesh purely for the sake of making them suffer. If anything I feel that the in-built desire for revenge for its own sake is probably one of mankind’s biggest flaws.
I also don’t imagine that this desire we have for retributive justice would disappear just because it turned out that the universe is deterministic, because I think it’s an innate, emotional response rather than a rationally considered one. (In fact, I knew a baby/toddler who would run around without looking where he was going, and hurt himself by banging into walls, doors, furniture etc. and his automatic response would be to go and hit the item that hurt him, as a form of angry retaliation. This is before he could even speak.)
So for those reasons, even when considering punishment in a retributivist sense, I personally wouldn’t really link it to the incompatiblist concept of free will. Although I can see why it might make sense to do this, if you think you’re the sort of person who would become much more forgiving if you knew that the universe was deterministic.
Incidentally, how would you reconcile your view on punishment with God's eternally punishing people with hellfire?
I don’t really know to be honest. As a religious person, all one can really say for sure is that God punishes people with Hell fire for various sins/crimes they might commit. I don’t really see how one could tell for sure whether God inflicts these punishments for consequentialist purposes or retributive purposes.
Of course as a consequentialist myself I’d like to think that if God exists, then he would be too! Perhaps that’s why religious texts also emphasise that God is forgiving over being vengeful, and why they also describe forgiveness as a virtue for human beings too.
Original post by tazarooni89
Perhaps that’s why religious texts also emphasise that God is forgiving over being vengeful, and why they also describe forgiveness as a virtue for human beings too.
Do they?
Which religious texts emphasise this?
Original post by PilgrimOfTruth
Do they?
Which religious texts emphasise this?
Which religious texts emphasise this?
I’m thinking of the Qur’an as an example. Usually what you find is that it discusses punishment for various crimes, but follows it up by saying that, for those who are willing to reform, forgiveness is much better.
A couple of examples:
5:45 - We ordained for them in the Torah, “A life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth—and for wounds equal retaliation.” But whoever waives it charitably, it will be atonement for them
2:159-160 - Indeed, those who conceal what We sent down of clear proofs and guidance after We made it clear for the people in the Scripture - those are cursed by Allah and cursed by those who curse, Except for those who repent and correct themselves and make evident [what they concealed]. Those - I will accept their repentance, and I am the Accepting of repentance, the Merciful.
To me this suggests that the aims of punishment are not revenge or retributive justice, but rather the other things I mentioned earlier on in the thread (e.g. deterrence). In other words it aims to prevent the same crime occurring in the future, rather than just to exact vengeance to make them suffer for the sake of it.
Personally I struggle to take any of the religious texts on a literal basis. My view is that they are mostly allegorical and thus one needs to know how to decode the text, what the allegorical language is and thus what secrets the texts are really imparting.
I don't find that when taken literally, the texts present God as forgiving at all. They portray Gods of vengeance and retribution, engaging in mass murder, genocide, ethnic cleansing etc.
I don't find that when taken literally, the texts present God as forgiving at all. They portray Gods of vengeance and retribution, engaging in mass murder, genocide, ethnic cleansing etc.
Original post by PilgrimOfTruth
I don't find that when taken literally, the texts present God as forgiving at all. They portray Gods of vengeance and retribution, engaging in mass murder, genocide, ethnic cleansing etc.
That may be the case to some extent in other religious texts, but I find that an impossible conclusion to come to with regards to the Qur'an.
Firstly, note that when we talk about "vengeance" and "retribution" in this context, we are talking about punishments intended to make the guilty party suffer for the sake of suffering in itself, regardless of any other benefit the punishment might bring (in terms of reparation, deterrent etc.) Vengeance is a retrospective action (i.e. solely dependent on what has been done in the past), as opposed to a prospective action (where the punishment actually intends to create a better future with less crime).
But we don't really see that in the Qur'an. Whenever punishment is discussed, however harsh it may be, it is pretty much always followed up by some kind of statement expressing forgiveness for people who have committed not to repeat the crime. This suggests that punishment exists for the purposes of deterrence and prevention of the crime in future, as opposed to just getting gratification from making people suffer for what they did in the past.
In fact you can see this stated explicitly in 2:179, which says "In the Law of Equality there is (saving of) Life to you, o ye men of understanding; that ye may restrain yourselves". (Here the "Law of Equality" refers to "a life for a life" i.e. the death sentence given to a murderer, and as you can see, the point is that this is ultimately intended to save lives by causing people to restrain themselves from committing murder.) And of course the verse before it, 2:178 offers strong incentive for the family of the victim to forgive the killer rather than seeking to have them executed.
And secondly, I estimate it's probably about 100 times in the Qur'an where it is stated that "Allah is Oft-Forgiving, most Merciful". In fact I'd encourage you to Google this phrase and have a look for yourself. Taking that literally, I don't see what other conclusion you can come to besides the fact that God is presented as being forgiving.
Original post by mads_larisma01
I'm struggling to figure out the key difference between free will and determinism. Is free will the idea that we can make a choice and we are free to choose how we behave? And is determinism a choice you make that cannot be changed once you have made it? But does that mean that you then have no free will?
I personally believe true free will does not exist as every action has an equal and opposite reaction and nothing just happens for no reason, there’s always a reason why someone decides to do something or a reason why when you roll a dice that dice was always gonna land on the number it did because of it’s surroundings and the atoms in the air and the atoms that make up the surface that it lands on. I was not sure of what I believed on this topic a few weeks ago until I had a late night long, deep talk with my friend who convinced me that true free will does not exist although some parts of the theory are hard to picture. Imagine you were to run a simulation or even if it’s not a simulation just imagine the Universe were to start all over again exactly how it did where all the conditions and the laws and fabric of the Universe is the same, every single thing would continue to happen exactly as it had the first time round because everything is just a reaction of something else and therefore is not spawned ever from true free will despite feeling and looking like it does. Trust me I could go much deeper into this but even the conversation with my friend took hours so imagine if I were to type everything out rn, it would take an age. Just remember to not feel like you can’t change anything though, if you feel hopeless you’ll become hopeless. Peace.
Original post by tazarooni89
I’m thinking of the Qur’an as an example. Usually what you find is that it discusses punishment for various crimes, but follows it up by saying that, for those who are willing to reform, forgiveness is much better.
Hmmmm you seem to be suffering from selective cherry picking there. How about these verses:
"Those who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire: as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty: for Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise." Quran 4:56
Not much forgiveness there
"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. " Quran 9:29
Or here
"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them and take them captive, and besiege them and prepare for them each ambush"….Quran-9:5: ….
Slay idolaters?
"When you meet the unbelievers in the Jihad strike off their heads…". Quran-47:4:
Hmm hard to get forgiveness when your head is lying on the floor !!
"And slay (kill) them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out such is the reward of those who suppress faith. " Quran-2:191:
Again not much forgiveness here.
There's a VERY marked difference between someone being genuinely "willing to reform" and someone being brutally coerced to reform.
A key problem perceived by many with Islam is this intolerance of other's views, beliefs and ideals.
Of course such intolerance only comes out of a literal interpretation of the texts which is where I think people go wrong.
Neither the Bible nor the Quran are literal works imo. They contain many secrets and messages allegorically and cryptically and the allegories are THE SAME in both works which adds credibility to what I am saying.
Original post by Atalay
I personally believe true free will does not exist as every action has an equal and opposite reaction and nothing just happens for no reason, there’s always a reason why someone decides to do something or a reason why when you roll a dice that dice was always gonna land on the number it did because of it’s surroundings and the atoms in the air and the atoms that make up the surface that it lands on.
Yes you are correct.
There is nothing, absolutely nothing in this universe that is random. Everything, absolutely everything, moves or acts because it is being acted upon by one or more external forces/influences. The fact that the puny human mind can not comprehend the multitude of absolute factors that are in play when you roll a pair of dice, does NOT make the dice throw a random one. Some of the factors involved are :
gravity
speed of rotation of the Earth
The moon's current cycle
The prevailing air pressure
The prevailing air resistance/density
Any existing air currents/draughts
The level of friction of every part of the table surface the dice contacts
The level of friction of the surface of the dice themselves
The chemicals in the persons hands being transferred to the dice when they are thrown (sweat, grease etc)
The height which the dice are thrown from
The speed the dice are thrown
The direction the dice are thrown
All surrounding heat sources, lights, ambient temperature etc
and so on
We can't comprehend all of these physical attributes but they are there nonetheless. So for us we call it random because WE can't compute the factors in play but of course nothing is random. Those factors WILL determine how the dice end up. A super computer could calculate it all and thus predict the result every time.
One you accept this and take it on board then it simply follows that everything in the universe is doing the same thing, being affected by every other thing, it's just that our tiny minds can't comprehend it.
If everything is affected by every other thing then nothing happen by chance or by choice. Everything is reacting to those other forces and influences.
Hence there can be no free will.
Just like randomness seems to occur to our tiny minds yet in truth does not, so too is free will. It appears to our stupid minds like we have free will, but that's simply because we can't compute the myriad of factors that are impacting us all the time.
Once you accept this then it should be clear that the entire path of the universe is fixed and predictable and thus has already happened. Which is the only way any "God" could know everything. It's already happened and "God" can compute and understand all the variables. That's how God knows everything. It's basically all one very long feature film which you can view at any point or fast forward.
Original post by PilgrimOfTruth
Hmmmm you seem to be suffering from selective cherry picking there. How about these verses:
"Those who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire: as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty: for Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise." Quran 4:56
Not much forgiveness there
"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. " Quran 9:29
Or here
"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them and take them captive, and besiege them and prepare for them each ambush"….Quran-9:5: ….
Slay idolaters?
"When you meet the unbelievers in the Jihad strike off their heads…". Quran-47:4:
Hmm hard to get forgiveness when your head is lying on the floor !!
"And slay (kill) them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out such is the reward of those who suppress faith. " Quran-2:191:
Again not much forgiveness here.
There's a VERY marked difference between someone being genuinely "willing to reform" and someone being brutally coerced to reform.
A key problem perceived by many with Islam is this intolerance of other's views, beliefs and ideals.
Of course such intolerance only comes out of a literal interpretation of the texts which is where I think people go wrong.
Neither the Bible nor the Quran are literal works imo. They contain many secrets and messages allegorically and cryptically and the allegories are THE SAME in both works which adds credibility to what I am saying.
"Those who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire: as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty: for Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise." Quran 4:56
Not much forgiveness there
"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. " Quran 9:29
Or here
"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them and take them captive, and besiege them and prepare for them each ambush"….Quran-9:5: ….
Slay idolaters?
"When you meet the unbelievers in the Jihad strike off their heads…". Quran-47:4:
Hmm hard to get forgiveness when your head is lying on the floor !!
"And slay (kill) them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out such is the reward of those who suppress faith. " Quran-2:191:
Again not much forgiveness here.
There's a VERY marked difference between someone being genuinely "willing to reform" and someone being brutally coerced to reform.
A key problem perceived by many with Islam is this intolerance of other's views, beliefs and ideals.
Of course such intolerance only comes out of a literal interpretation of the texts which is where I think people go wrong.
Neither the Bible nor the Quran are literal works imo. They contain many secrets and messages allegorically and cryptically and the allegories are THE SAME in both works which adds credibility to what I am saying.
It seems to be you who is suffering from selective cherry-picking. In most of these cases you've quoted a verse (or half a verse) and just ignored the bit right afterwards that talks about repentance and forgiveness.
For example you quote 9:5 - the whole of it reads:
When the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them. And capture them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayers, and pay the alms, then let them go their way. God is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful.
And in fact the verse right afterwards, 9:6, reads:
And if anyone of the polytheists asks you for protection, give him protection so that he may hear the Word of God; then escort him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.
Now answer me honestly: Did you deliberately erase /ignore these extra parts of the passage before quoting it? Or did you not actually open up the Qur'an yourself at all, but instead just Google search "violent verses in the Qur'an" or something and copy and paste from the first website you found?
Either way, it's not me who's cherry-picking! If you're going to quote something quote it all.
(edited 1 year ago)
Original post by tazarooni89
For example you quote 9:5 - the whole of it reads:
When the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them. And capture them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayers, and pay the alms, then let them go their way. God is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful.
For example you quote 9:5 - the whole of it reads:
When the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them. And capture them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayers, and pay the alms, then let them go their way. God is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful.
Forgive me but your point is ridiculous. The intolerance of the religion is clearly manifest in the above quote. There is no real repentance if it is forced at the end of a blade under the threat of being killed. The ultimatum to repent and convert to Islam or die is simply abominable and abhorrent and intolerant. Anyone who adheres to such methods clearly has no real interest in anyone's spiritual welfare. If you really think that approach is the way to win hearts and minds, you're sadly mistaken.
Original post by PilgrimOfTruth
Forgive me but your point is ridiculous. The intolerance of the religion is clearly manifest in the above quote. There is no real repentance if it is forced at the end of a blade under the threat of being killed. The ultimatum to repent and convert to Islam or die is simply abominable and abhorrent and intolerant. Anyone who adheres to such methods clearly has no real interest in anyone's spiritual welfare. If you really think that approach is the way to win hearts and minds, you're sadly mistaken.
Nobody is being “forced to convert” here. The crime for which they are being asked to repent is not simply being a polytheist. Rather, it is the fact that the polytheists formed a peace treaty with the Muslims, but then broke that treaty by declaring war against them and trying to kill them. (And obviously Muslims are going to fight back against those perpetrators). The ones who did not break the treaty by attacking Muslims are not to be harmed. But you’d know that if you actually read the whole passage instead of cherry picking half a sentence.
Indeed, the verse right before the one you quoted, 9:4 says:
As for the polytheists who have honoured every term of their treaty with you and have not supported an enemy against you, honour your treaty with them until the end of its term. Surely Allah loves those who are mindful of Him
So I ask again: Did you deliberately erase / ignore these extra parts of the passage before quoting it? Or did you not actually open up the Qur'an yourself at all, but instead just Google search "violent verses in the Qur'an" or something and copy and paste from the first website you found?
(edited 1 year ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Advice on Applications from a current University of Sheffield Student
- I did A level biology, psychology and Business, ask me anything!
- Law of Evidence HELP!!!
- Plotting sin wave help
- A little help for a new engineering student
- Thin lens formula
- Save me from a level torture
- Do you think this covers most possible questions for Macbeth? (eduqas)
- Ladies, would you date a guy who has vitiligo
- Help in Choosing a Big 4 Audit Firm:
- Why does sample preparation determine the success or failure of an experiment?
- Required A level grades for the University of Toronto
- Law vs Dentistry
- Investment Banking vs entrepreneurship
- Geography NEA regeneration
- UCL vs KCL racism
- would you expect cl2 to conduct electricty
- Determinism in the Cognitive Approach
- Ranking colleges for Durham
- Electrical Engineering maths help with Desmos graphing calculator
Latest
Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 6 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 6 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
