Unifying spiritual practices to save the world

[godelian]

I like that you use AI but in this case,
I have used AI so regularly I am well aware of its limitations.
As far as on Islam, AI is programmed to be 'woke'.
As such the above from AI is not totally credible nor objective.

The following is a fatwa (jurisprudential ruling) in al-fiqh on the same question by a mufti (legal scholar):

https://islamqa.org/hanafi/fatwaa-dot-c ... lamic-law/

Salam.
Can a Muslim take law into his own hands in the case of blasphemy even no actions taken by the government or no legal rulings will be applied on that particular person who is at the higher state doing blasphemy or any kind of criminal act if that’s written in the law of a particular State?

What must be done in that regard if no one is taking action against such person ?

Answer


Wa’alaykum as Salam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu,

Islam has given certain individuals specific commandments. For example, a female is commanded not to fast and pray when she experiences her periods. A man cannot practice on this when he is in an impure state.

Likewise, the laws of implementing and executing Islamic laws have been vested with the government. It is their duty to take action against one who turned renegade, or commited other crimes, likes stealing, drinking alcohol etc. If they do not fulfill those laws, then we cannot take the law into our own hands and implement the law. Rather, we should write letters to the government, and continue to make Dua for the rulers.

Since we cannot execute the law ourselves, if someone left the fold of Islam, our duty will be to invite him back to this wonderful religion, and clear any misconceptions which he may have had.

And Allaah Ta’aala knows best

Wassalaam,

Ismail Moosa (Mufti)

This is in fact not even a matter of religion but one of sheer biology.

It is the same principle across all primate species. It is the monopoly of the leader in authority to adjudicate conflict. You will find the same pattern with the chimps, the baboons, and the gorillas.

Your views are therefore even in violation of the laws of nature.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I like that you use AI but in this case,
I have used AI so regularly I am well aware of its limitations.
As far as on Islam, AI is programmed to be 'woke'.
As such the above from AI is not totally credible nor objective.

The following is a fatwa (jurisprudential ruling) in al-fiqh on the same question by a mufti (legal scholar):

https://islamqa.org/hanafi/fatwaa-dot-c ... lamic-law/

Salam.
Can a Muslim take law into his own hands in the case of blasphemy even no actions taken by the government or no legal rulings will be applied on that particular person who is at the higher state doing blasphemy or any kind of criminal act if that’s written in the law of a particular State?

What must be done in that regard if no one is taking action against such person ?

Answer


Wa’alaykum as Salam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu,

Islam has given certain individuals specific commandments. For example, a female is commanded not to fast and pray when she experiences her periods. A man cannot practice on this when he is in an impure state.

Likewise, the laws of implementing and executing Islamic laws have been vested with the government. It is their duty to take action against one who turned renegade, or commited other crimes, likes stealing, drinking alcohol etc. If they do not fulfill those laws, then we cannot take the law into our own hands and implement the law. Rather, we should write letters to the government, and continue to make Dua for the rulers.

Since we cannot execute the law ourselves, if someone left the fold of Islam, our duty will be to invite him back to this wonderful religion, and clear any misconceptions which he may have had.

And Allaah Ta’aala knows best

Wassalaam,

Ismail Moosa (Mufti)

This is in fact not even a matter of religion but one of sheer biology.

It is the same principle across all primate species. It is the monopoly of the leader in authority to adjudicate conflict. You will find the same pattern with the chimps, the baboons, and the gorillas.
Your views are therefore even in violation of the laws of nature.

You believe in the words of the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscience Allah in the Quran or the words of a man [Mufti] or a committee of humans?

There is no way the mufti can speak on behalf or the government act as punisher on God's behalf in the absolute sense.
Humans can only guide believers but cannot enforce God's Laws on believers.

It is the same principle across all primate species. It is the monopoly of the leader in authority to adjudicate conflict. You will find the same pattern with the chimps, the baboons, and the gorillas.
Your views are therefore even in violation of the laws of nature.

What?? humans are not apes.

Q5:60 Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “Shall I inform you of those who deserve a worse punishment from Allah ˹than the rebellious˺? It is those who earned Allah’s condemnation and displeasure—some being reduced to apes and pigs1 and worshippers of false gods. These are far worse in rank and farther astray from the Right Way.”

God had given humans freewill to believe in God in accordance to the holy texts, i.e. primary to obey Allah's words.

Surely you understand throughout history leaders were evil and corrupt there is no way you can be sure of it.
The only sure way is from the believers to follow God's word directly via the book.

If they do not have access to the book, then they have to use blind faith and trust but the words of the leader or government cannot be absolute.

You are seemingly at least an average person who have the competence to understand God's word in Arabic or its translations to make up your own mind of God's intentions.

If a believer kill a blasphemer based on Q5:33 will he be punished by God or will he be heavily rewarded on Judgment Day?

[godelian]

There is no way the mufti can speak on behalf or the government act as punisher on God's behalf in the absolute sense.

The mufti gives jurisprudential advice. If you don't understand what this means, then look it up.

What?? humans are not apes.

You have a poor grasp on biology:

ChatGPT: Are humans primates?

Yes, humans are classified as primates. Biologically, humans belong to the order Primates, which includes animals such as monkeys, apes, and prosimians (like lemurs). Within this order, humans are part of the family Hominidae, also known as the "great apes," which includes gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, and orangutans.

Humans share many anatomical and genetic similarities with other primates, such as forward-facing eyes, grasping hands, and complex social behaviors. However, humans are unique in several ways, including advanced cognitive abilities, language, and culture.

We share an important part of our complex social behaviors with the other primate species. This is standard biology.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is no way the mufti can speak on behalf or the government act as punisher on God's behalf in the absolute sense.

The mufti gives jurisprudential advice. If you don't understand what this means, then look it up.

What?? humans are not apes.

You have a poor grasp on biology:

ChatGPT: Are humans primates?

Yes, humans are classified as primates. Biologically, humans belong to the order Primates, which includes animals such as monkeys, apes, and prosimians (like lemurs). Within this order, humans are part of the family Hominidae, also known as the "great apes," which includes gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, and orangutans.

Humans share many anatomical and genetic similarities with other primates, such as forward-facing eyes, grasping hands, and complex social behaviors. However, humans are unique in several ways, including advanced cognitive abilities, language, and culture.

We share an important part of our complex social behaviors with the other primate species. This is standard biology.

This is about divinity not biology.
In 5:60 your prophet had already differentiated between apes [lowly] and [higher] humans and you want to defy Allah?

Yes, the mufti gives jurisprudential advice but he cannot overrides the authority of Allah.
If anyone were to ignore any mufti's advice and obey Q5:33 and killed a blasphemer based on Q5:33 will he be punished by God or will he be heavily rewarded on Judgment Day?

[godelian]

Yes, the mufti gives jurisprudential advice but he cannot overrides the authority of Allah.

A trained mufti does not do that. If you do not understand the nature or status of jurisprudential advice or jurisprudential interpretation, then look it up.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes, the mufti gives jurisprudential advice but he cannot overrides the authority of Allah.

A trained mufti does not do that. If you do not understand the nature or status of jurisprudential advice or jurisprudential interpretation, then look it up.

I am well aware of that.
Fact is humans are fallible and not perfect thus vulnerable to make mistakes. There are a few Madhhabs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhhab
also there is the Shia and other interpretations beside the Sunni one.
If your mufti made a mistake and you follow him, you cannot then blame the mufti on judgment day.

I asked again:
If anyone were to ignore any mufti's advice and obey Q5:33 and killed a blasphemer based on Q5:33 will he be punished by God or will he be heavily rewarded on Judgment Day?

[godelian]

There are a few Madhhabs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhhab
also there is the Shia and other interpretations beside the Sunni one.

If you are surprised by that, it just means that you are simply not familiar with mathematical model theory. Otherwise, you would know that it is unlikely that a first-order logic theory would have a single model, i.e. interpretation, and hence be categorical. Peano arithmetic theory is not categorical either and the natural numbers are not its only interpretation.

But then again, there are rulings for which there is ijma, i.e. consensus, across all interpretations ("models"):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijma

Ijma' (Arabic: إجماع, romanized: ijmāʿ, lit. 'consensus', IPA: [ʔid͡ʒ.maːʕ]) is an Arabic term referring to the consensus or agreement of the Islamic community on a point of Islamic law.

If a ruling is true across all possible interpretations ("models"), then it means that there exists a proof that it necessarily follows from the rules in the theory. This is known as Gödel completeness theorem:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6de ... ss_theorem

The completeness theorem applies to any first-order theory: If T is such a theory, and φ is a sentence (in the same language) and every model of T is a model of φ, then there is a (first-order) proof of φ using the statements of T as axioms. One sometimes says this as "anything true in all models is provable".

A collection of rules, i.e. a theory, is generally not categorical, i.e. it will have multiple interpretations ("models"), but there will still be conclusions that are true in all its interpretations.

If your mufti made a mistake and you follow him, you cannot then blame the mufti on judgment day.

Interesting question but you should ask a trained mufti instead.

I asked again:
If anyone were to ignore any mufti's advice and obey Q5:33 and killed a blasphemer based on Q5:33 will he be punished by God or will he be heavily rewarded on Judgment Day?

Interesting question but you should ask a trained mufti instead.

I am not interested in producing jurisprudential rulings. I am much more interested in model theory and figuring out how things work across theories. A theory, i.e. a collection of rules, is a surprisingly interesting mathematical object in itself.

[Belinda]

No denying that to unify us all is a hard nut to crack .
Even Christmas is enmeshed in a sticky web of commercialism.
Even jihad mostly implies the lesser , political, jihad instead of the greater jihad to save one's own soul.

One way to unify is to encourage experience of other's religious doctrines and practices. For instance the local mosque here where I live in the Midlands of England invited outsiders from the local community to visit the mosque where its congregation had put up a show of photos and a pleasant young man in traditional white apparel ,signifying he had been on the Hadj, answered our questions and conducted us around the place explaining what went on. There were snacks and drinks. And the Pakistani taxi driver kindly forewarned us us we'd be expected as women to cover our heads with scarves.

Another example is the Sikh practice of sharing meals with all comers on an equal footing with the congregation at the Gudwara.

[puto]

Veritas Aequitas, you data dumped, again, and then you expected me to figure it out. You use unacademic research for your data, then you dumped it. Do you understand what you are writing? Using, half-truths to prove your points, makes you look like an idiot. You are, I assume, smarter than that of your postings. Take your time and learn; then do not just write what you see in text, and post it what you just read, as yours. Learn what you are posting before you post it. The internet for the most part is a big lie. There are trusted sources like the Philosophy Now magazine or digital for research for topics on this site. You claim all this wisdom, then prove it, and not the opposite. You, again, are smarter than that. Learn before you open your mouth.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are a few Madhhabs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhhab
also there is the Shia and other interpretations beside the Sunni one.

If you are surprised by that, it just means that you are simply not familiar with mathematical model theory. Otherwise, you would know that it is unlikely that a first-order logic theory would have a single model, i.e. interpretation, and hence be categorical. Peano arithmetic theory is not categorical either and the natural numbers are not its only interpretation.

But then again, there are rulings for which there is ijma, i.e. consensus, across all interpretations ("models"):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijma

Ijma' (Arabic: إجماع, romanized: ijmāʿ, lit. 'consensus', IPA: [ʔid͡ʒ.maːʕ]) is an Arabic term referring to the consensus or agreement of the Islamic community on a point of Islamic law.

If a ruling is true across all possible interpretations ("models"), then it means that there exists a proof that it necessarily follows from the rules in the theory. This is known as Gödel completeness theorem:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6de ... ss_theorem

The completeness theorem applies to any first-order theory: If T is such a theory, and φ is a sentence (in the same language) and every model of T is a model of φ, then there is a (first-order) proof of φ using the statements of T as axioms. One sometimes says this as "anything true in all models is provable".

A collection of rules, i.e. a theory, is generally not categorical, i.e. it will have multiple interpretations ("models"), but there will still be conclusions that are true in all its interpretations.

If your mufti made a mistake and you follow him, you cannot then blame the mufti on judgment day.

Interesting question but you should ask a trained mufti instead.

I asked again:
If anyone were to ignore any mufti's advice and obey Q5:33 and killed a blasphemer based on Q5:33 will he be punished by God or will he be heavily rewarded on Judgment Day?

Interesting question but you should ask a trained mufti instead.

I am not interested in producing jurisprudential rulings. I am much more interested in model theory and figuring out how things work across theories. A theory, i.e. a collection of rules, is a surprisingly interesting mathematical object in itself.

Note what is at stake here is whether you will end up with eternal life in paradise or burnt in internal Hell.

Surely as a theist and believer of your religion you believe that God the omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient is the greatest of all.

Whether it is mathematics [Peano {a human} or otherwise] or Ijma' consensus or agreement, they are all based on fallible human views, opinion and beliefs, and thus cannot be absolutely true to God's intention as delivered in his holy text to his chosen messenger.

Q5:33 commands and permit you as a slave [abdoo] of God to kill non-believers upon the slightest threat to the religion, e.g. blasphemy or just disbelieving the religion.

Why ask a mufti, at best he is merely a fallible human, not an omniscient God. If a mufti is a good believer, he will agree with Q5:33 literally since those are the direct words of God.

If the mufti is a good human being with moral compass, he will not agree with Q5:33, thereupon he is not a good compliant believer.

I asked again:
If anyone were to ignore any mufti's advice and obey Q5:33 and killed a blasphemer based on Q5:33 will he be punished by God or will he be heavily rewarded on Judgment Day?

If you are not going to answer, you should reflect and mull on the truth it for what is at stake for you is either paradise or hell.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas Aequitas, you data dumped, again, and then you expected me to figure it out. You use unacademic research for your data, then you dumped it. Do you understand what you are writing? Using, half-truths to prove your points, makes you look like an idiot. You are, I assume, smarter than that of your postings. Take your time and learn; then do not just write what you see in text, and post it what you just read, as yours. Learn what you are posting before you post it. The internet for the most part is a big lie. There are trusted sources like the Philosophy Now magazine or digital for research for topics on this site. You claim all this wisdom, then prove it, and not the opposite. You, again, are smarter than that. Learn before you open your mouth.

What are you grumbling about?

If you that good, present a valid argument to support whatever is your point.
You think you are good but in reality you are ignorant and trapped within the tall dark silo of Analytic Philosophy.
What threads have you opened for discussion here towards the possibility of incremental knowledge for anyone other than playing 'what-the-mole' game.

I had a discussion with ChatGpt on a thesis proposal and here is it's comment after a long discussion of it:

ChatGpt Wrote:
Potential Novel Contributions:
Your proposal stands out because it:
Provides a Kantian critique of moral realism in metaphysical terms (via the noumenon issue).
Integrates empirical realism with a systematic FS-based approach to moral objectivity.
Bridges metaethics and scientific realism using a Kantian lens, addressing moral objectivity without presupposing metaphysical absolutes.

If refined further, your idea could represent a significant contribution to contemporary metaethical discussions.

If I had highlighted half-truths AI would have pointed that out and not reached the above points.

[godelian]

Whether it is mathematics [Peano {a human} or otherwise] or Ijma' consensus or agreement, they are all based on fallible human views, opinion and beliefs, and thus cannot be absolutely true to God's intention as delivered in his holy text to his chosen messenger.

You do not seem to understand the connection between theory and interpretation. I invariably fall back on Tarski's semantic theory of truth for these matters. I have tried to point out how these things fit together according to model theory but you do not seem to understand it.

I asked again:
If anyone were to ignore any mufti's advice and obey Q5:33 and killed a blasphemer based on Q5:33 will he be punished by God or will he be heavily rewarded on Judgment Day?

You are the one who wants an answer to your question, not me. I don't give a flying fart about your question. Seriously, who even cares? So, I am not going to put in any effort into figuring out the answer. I do not care about blasphemers and I do not care about the ones who kill them, simply, because I cannot see myself do either. Why would I even be interested? We can describe the situation as some people liking to utter blasphemies and other people liking to kill them, and so what? What's in it for me? Explain to me why exactly I would care?

If you are not going to answer, you should reflect and mull on the truth it for what is at stake for you is either paradise or hell.

I choose what I should reflect and mull on, and not you. If you want to reflect and mull on something, be my guest and go ahead. That does not mean, however, that I would be interested in reflecting or mulling on it. I only reflect and mull on the things I am interested in.

[puto]

Veritas Aequitas, you are not even worth it.

[puto]

Veritas Aequitas troll, lol.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Whether it is mathematics [Peano {a human} or otherwise] or Ijma' consensus or agreement, they are all based on fallible human views, opinion and beliefs, and thus cannot be absolutely true to God's intention as delivered in his holy text to his chosen messenger.

You do not seem to understand the connection between theory and interpretation. I invariably fall back on Tarski's semantic theory of truth for these matters. I have tried to point out how these things fit together according to model theory but you do not seem to understand it.

I asked again:
If anyone were to ignore any mufti's advice and obey Q5:33 and killed a blasphemer based on Q5:33 will he be punished by God or will he be heavily rewarded on Judgment Day?

You are the one who wants an answer to your question, not me. I don't give a flying fart about your question. Seriously, who even cares? So, I am not going to put in any effort into figuring out the answer. I do not care about blasphemers and I do not care about the ones who kill them, simply, because I cannot see myself do either. Why would I even be interested? We can describe the situation as some people liking to utter blasphemies and other people liking to kill them, and so what? What's in it for me? Explain to me why exactly I would care?

If you are not going to answer, you should reflect and mull on the truth it for what is at stake for you is either paradise or hell.

I choose what I should reflect and mull on, and not you. If you want to reflect and mull on something, be my guest and go ahead. That does not mean, however, that I would be interested in reflecting or mulling on it. I only reflect and mull on the things I am interested in.

You are changing subject and shifting all over.

You condemned the West and implied in post #2 that Islam is the best.

My counter is how can Islam be the best when it is an inherently evil-laden ideology with Q5:33 which condones, sanctions and permits believers to kill non-believers upon the slightest threats [fasadin] to the religion.

Btw, the majority [you included] of Muslims are good human beings but if only 10% of believers are incline to execute Q5:33 that is 150-200 millions of them
Even if 5% it is still scary and it is already a reality and so evident.