“A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.”
-- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I don’t believe in God. I’m an atheist.”
“Well then, how on earth can you lead a good life when you don’t believe in God?”
This is one of the most common arguments that the faithful and the believers put forward to any given atheist. To them only those people can lead morally ‘good’ life who possess an unwavering faith in God, and hence, the life-after-death and the attached praise-and-punishment package. I’m a first-hand witness of such moral inquiries so it’s quite irritating, honestly. By putting forward such questions, what they are implying is that all their goodness and morals are only and only a consequence of frightful hellfire and wrath of Lord. In other words, in the absence of the fear of punishment, all their ‘humanity’ would wither away and they would be mere blood-sucking and life-ravishing savages.
Actually a contradiction is involved in this scenario: If a person believes that in the absence of God (Let’s suppose for a moment) morality would be a null and void term, he implies that the source of his morality is God/religion. Now, either he would have to agree that if there is no fear of divine punishment, he would degenerate into a beast, or if he denies this, he’d have to consent that the source of morality is not divine. (I recently read this point in a book and it sort of struck me. There can, however, be usual lame arguments from religious torchbearers against it, which I look forward to.)
But still, the matter seems quite clear. We see that atheists usually prove to more humane (Yes, they do. Come, argue with me on this! ), which implies that in the absence of punishment, still man manages to stay a man and which further implies that the source of goodness and morality is NOT divine. Ruled out!
Further, most morals, if not all, are time and space dependent. The consensus and conscience of society keeps varying with the changing times and with respect to different places. Religion, an established religion stubbornly refusing to alter any of it’s morals and ethics, is destined to fail in a long run. An inevitable consequence is the increasing nascence of apologists on one side, and violent fundamentalists on the other. So much for religious morality. Only thing that religion delivers without any distinction of time and space is self-righteousness, arrogance, blind following…..and let’s not get me started on this!
I personally hold the view that man is neither good nor bad intrinsically. Good as well as bad instinct exist. Those nurtured prevail and predominate and the suppressed, let’s say tamed, are pushed back into sub consciousness (they don’t vanish, however). Now the ‘good Samaritan’ side of man needs no fear of punishment or greed of reward. It would act good no matter what. They problem resides with the violent side. It needs to be tamed, which mostly happens through an authority, whether religious, or social or political or whatever. In this regard, to me, the Social Contract, no matter how mechanic or devoid of emotions and spirituality it may be, seems to be the best explanation of man’s behavior and the requirement of a better society.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Monday, August 3, 2009
Faith and Reason
It’s irritating to witness/observe people rushing after ‘HOW’ when the actual quest of existence revolves around ‘WHY’, when the Riddle to the Being is associated with ‘WHY’. WHY are we here? If we are created by some Omnipotent and Omniscient Being, WHY were we created? ‘HOW’ comes after this, and investigating HOW before WHY is a bêtise, a grave error. It’s running in vicious circles, chasing your own tail, and exhausting yourself in futile exertion!
They say, they boast, that religion/faith deciphers the enigmatic wonders at the point where reason seldom, or never, decadent to tread. Does it, in this case? The case of ‘WHY’? Lamentably, religion, no less than reason, fails, stands dumbfounded at this step. Meditation about this WHY leads to aggravation, which gives way to rejection and consequently, both faith and reason are sacrificed at the altar of nihilism. Or may be, that’s the stage where realization of Self actually beings!
A few questions from Theists:
These are very basic questions. Basic, in a sense, that without clarifying them vividly, proceeding further would be a folly and escapism of superlative degree, and unfortunately, that’s all what I find in religious scriptures, in religious books, in religious people and everything related to religion. Theists assert that human powers of reasoning and arguing fail when it comes to deciphering the intricacies of faith. But, in my opinion, religion itself does not provide any satisfactory answer to hese basic questions. Proceed then, I demand unambiguous answer from you ‘believers’!
1- Why did God create us? i.e, What is the purpose of creation?
2- If God declares those with wisdom to be the truly steadfast followers of religion, why does religion transcend human wisdom?
3- (linked with the second question) Why does, on some points, religion is above human reason and rationality? i.e, Points where religion demands ‘Imaan bil-gaib’?
4- If the destination ordained by religion can not be arrived at ONLY through human reason and intellect, why is it imposed on humans? i.e, Why does God want humans to believe in things that transcend their understanding? What’s the purpose behind this?
5- God knows all about past and future, from infinity till eternity, then why does he still want humans to go through this all and in the end, punish countless and reward some? To satisfy his vanity? Only because he was ‘hidden and unknown’ and wanted himself to be recognized?
I have discussed question 1 in a bit detail in “Initial Meditations”. Now a little discussion about question 2 and question 3 is in order: According to religion, those who are blessed with knowledge fear God more than others. In other words, they are the staunch believers and their faith is stronger as compared to common masses. But, as it happens, he more you acquire knowledge, the more your thirst and inquisitiveness increases and more you demand answers to your questing and troubling questions. However, at these certain points, religion not only itself fails to answer your questions and satisfy your quest, it forbids to indulge in such useless pursuance and warns that doing so would mislead you.
But I think to suppress the progress of human thought and hinder it’s struggle towards the search of an ultimate meaning of life further intensifies it. A repeated argument presented by the defenders of the above “suppressing theory” of religion is that there are limits to what humans can extended the limits of their knowledge and understanding. Beyond those limits, human reason and intellect cannot fathom the depths and intricacies of cognition. I personally fail to see this sort of argument going in favor of religion. They question of ‘purpose of life’, or from religious perspective, ‘purpose of creation’ is not a question that should be meant to hide from the grasp of human imagination. It’s a very basic question that haunts the mind and if religion fails to give creation a definite purpose, perhaps it does not have one in the first place, at all?
About the rest of the questions, I think I have discussed them, more or less, in “Initial Meditations”. On the way through this essay, however, if required, I would turn to these matters again.
- Initial Meditations II.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Fate of an Apostate - I
Apostasy, or in other words the free choice of religion, is generally considered to be among the gravest sins among mainstream Islamic authorities and the punishment of it among general masses is execution, thanks to shameful ignorance and blind prejudice. Recently, I've talked about it to my several friends and non of them could come up with sound arguments in surpport of this horrendous belief. I had already decided not to inquire about this in person from some clergyman, lest my head be chopped off.
Anyways, I've personally inquired into the situation and some important points have come to my observation, of which I wasn't aware earlier. I'd examine the issue from two aspects.
1- The nature of orders/laws about the fate of an apostate.
2- The rational aspect of the treatment with an spostate.
Talking about the canonical source of guidence in Islam, Qur'aan does not declare any clear-cut punishment for an apostate. Some scholars have used a few verses in favour of their claim but those verse remain to be vague at best. When we turn out attention towards hadiths, we find that there are hadiths that support both the proponents and opponents of death penalty for an apostate. Another source of confusion for those who want to know and a golden chance of manipulation for those who know! (I've again discussed the matter of such hadiths in the end).
I recently read an influential modern text on the subject, "THE PUNISHMENT OF THE APOSTATE ACCORDING TO ISLAMIC LAW", by one of the most influential scholars of 20th century, Sayyed Abul'aala Maodudi. Skipping the arguments that he presented form the quraanic verses and hadiths, I would discuss his rational arguments that he presented in favour of his stance. While going through them I came upon the following noteworthy points:
1- According to Maodudi, the punishment of an apostste is basically due to the breach of his promise that he attains by embracing Islam. This promise not only includes the acceptance of the basic tenats and rituals of religion but the entire social, political and economic code of life. It's like accepting the citizenship of a modern state. If after becoming a citizen of a particular state, he later on, not only renounces the citizenship but conspires against the state, his punishment is death by any moral and legal aspect. He writes:
"But the sole treatment for the person whose hard heart, once transformed, has again hardened and who demonstrates no capacity whatever to assimilate into society's order is to cast him out. In any case, the value of the individual, however great it be, cannot be great enough to allow the whole order of society to be corrupted because of it."
-Section C. The Natural Requirement of an Organized Society.
Anyways, I've personally inquired into the situation and some important points have come to my observation, of which I wasn't aware earlier. I'd examine the issue from two aspects.
1- The nature of orders/laws about the fate of an apostate.
2- The rational aspect of the treatment with an spostate.
Talking about the canonical source of guidence in Islam, Qur'aan does not declare any clear-cut punishment for an apostate. Some scholars have used a few verses in favour of their claim but those verse remain to be vague at best. When we turn out attention towards hadiths, we find that there are hadiths that support both the proponents and opponents of death penalty for an apostate. Another source of confusion for those who want to know and a golden chance of manipulation for those who know! (I've again discussed the matter of such hadiths in the end).
I recently read an influential modern text on the subject, "THE PUNISHMENT OF THE APOSTATE ACCORDING TO ISLAMIC LAW", by one of the most influential scholars of 20th century, Sayyed Abul'aala Maodudi. Skipping the arguments that he presented form the quraanic verses and hadiths, I would discuss his rational arguments that he presented in favour of his stance. While going through them I came upon the following noteworthy points:
1- According to Maodudi, the punishment of an apostste is basically due to the breach of his promise that he attains by embracing Islam. This promise not only includes the acceptance of the basic tenats and rituals of religion but the entire social, political and economic code of life. It's like accepting the citizenship of a modern state. If after becoming a citizen of a particular state, he later on, not only renounces the citizenship but conspires against the state, his punishment is death by any moral and legal aspect. He writes:
"But the sole treatment for the person whose hard heart, once transformed, has again hardened and who demonstrates no capacity whatever to assimilate into society's order is to cast him out. In any case, the value of the individual, however great it be, cannot be great enough to allow the whole order of society to be corrupted because of it."
-Section C. The Natural Requirement of an Organized Society.
Fate of an Apostate - II
No doubt, for an organized society, a traitor/conspirator is unacceptable and if he conspires against that society, he should be executed, but if some person peacefully renounces the citizenship of that state or society and decides to lead his life peacefully in some other society, what is to become of him? Maodudi tries to tackle with this problem as:
"When such a person finds this foundation on which society and the state are constructed to be unacceptable to himself, it will be appropriate for him to move outside its borders. But when he fails to do this, only two ways of dealing with him are possible. Either he should be stripped of all his rights of citizenship and allowed to remain alive or else his life should be terminated. In fact the first form of punishment is worse than the second since in this terrible state "he will neither die nor live" (Qur'an 20:74)."
- Section D. Response to Criticisms.
Now, he suggests that "it will be appropriate for him to move outside it's borders". Does doing so discards his penalty of death? That's what Maodudi seems to suggest from this pessage. Besides, any rational being would hardly agree with the last line that the punishment of peaceful exile is worse than death!
2- Maodudi compares the Islamic punishment of an apostate with the punishment of a traitor in British law and comments:
"And as British law is ready to give rights, such as aliens have, to those who have chosen to give up British nationality for a nationality of a nation at peace with England, similarly Islamic law also treats apostates, who have left the House of Islam to join an infidel nation which has a treaty with a Muslim government, in the same way it treats the kafirs of that nation."
-Section G. The Example of England, point 6.
Accordingly, if a person denounces Islam and converts to some other religion non-violently and chooses to live in some state other than Islamic state, any state which is at peace with the Islamic state, that person would not be harmed.
3- Now to the most important point. It's the concensus of eminent scholars that non of the penal laws of Islam can be imposed in a state which is not completely Islam. By an Islamic state is meant a state in which all social, economic, political and moral laws are as per the Qur'aanic guidence and the instructions of Sunnah. Maodudi writes:
"Wherever and in whatever circumstances Islam actually assumes that character of a religion which the critics understand religion to have, there we ourselves also reject punishing the apostate by execution. Islamic jurisprudence is not confined to the punishment of apostasy. None of Islam's penal laws can be applied when the Islamic state (or, in terms of the shariah, the "sultan") is not existing."
-Section E. The Basic Difference between a Mere Religion and a Religious State.
That means that unless and untill a complete Islamic state is not in existence, ANY penal law cannot be applied, let alone the punishment of execution of an apostate. During the age we live in, one can safely state that no such state exists and thus the application of penal laws of Islam in any state which happens to run on the basis of a ridiculous mixture of pseudo-Islamic and pseudo-rest is NOT allowed as per Qur'aan and hadith. Application of these laws under such situations would only result in further mayhem and chaos.
Now the points that derives from the fact that "an apostate cannot be punished unless an Islamic state exists because this punishment is a penance for his betrayal to Islamic society and state", is that the punishment actually stands for the threat of an apostate to an Islamic state and society and not for his personal religious bliefs.
"When such a person finds this foundation on which society and the state are constructed to be unacceptable to himself, it will be appropriate for him to move outside its borders. But when he fails to do this, only two ways of dealing with him are possible. Either he should be stripped of all his rights of citizenship and allowed to remain alive or else his life should be terminated. In fact the first form of punishment is worse than the second since in this terrible state "he will neither die nor live" (Qur'an 20:74)."
- Section D. Response to Criticisms.
Now, he suggests that "it will be appropriate for him to move outside it's borders". Does doing so discards his penalty of death? That's what Maodudi seems to suggest from this pessage. Besides, any rational being would hardly agree with the last line that the punishment of peaceful exile is worse than death!
2- Maodudi compares the Islamic punishment of an apostate with the punishment of a traitor in British law and comments:
"And as British law is ready to give rights, such as aliens have, to those who have chosen to give up British nationality for a nationality of a nation at peace with England, similarly Islamic law also treats apostates, who have left the House of Islam to join an infidel nation which has a treaty with a Muslim government, in the same way it treats the kafirs of that nation."
-Section G. The Example of England, point 6.
Accordingly, if a person denounces Islam and converts to some other religion non-violently and chooses to live in some state other than Islamic state, any state which is at peace with the Islamic state, that person would not be harmed.
3- Now to the most important point. It's the concensus of eminent scholars that non of the penal laws of Islam can be imposed in a state which is not completely Islam. By an Islamic state is meant a state in which all social, economic, political and moral laws are as per the Qur'aanic guidence and the instructions of Sunnah. Maodudi writes:
"Wherever and in whatever circumstances Islam actually assumes that character of a religion which the critics understand religion to have, there we ourselves also reject punishing the apostate by execution. Islamic jurisprudence is not confined to the punishment of apostasy. None of Islam's penal laws can be applied when the Islamic state (or, in terms of the shariah, the "sultan") is not existing."
-Section E. The Basic Difference between a Mere Religion and a Religious State.
That means that unless and untill a complete Islamic state is not in existence, ANY penal law cannot be applied, let alone the punishment of execution of an apostate. During the age we live in, one can safely state that no such state exists and thus the application of penal laws of Islam in any state which happens to run on the basis of a ridiculous mixture of pseudo-Islamic and pseudo-rest is NOT allowed as per Qur'aan and hadith. Application of these laws under such situations would only result in further mayhem and chaos.
Now the points that derives from the fact that "an apostate cannot be punished unless an Islamic state exists because this punishment is a penance for his betrayal to Islamic society and state", is that the punishment actually stands for the threat of an apostate to an Islamic state and society and not for his personal religious bliefs.
Fate of an Apostate - III
The above interpretation is further supported by another famous scholar of 20th century, Dr. Muhammad Hamid Ullah. In response to a question "Why should an apostate be executed?", his contention was:
"My personal opinion about this matter is that an apostate is not punished regarding his religion but due to the breach of his political affiliations i.e betrayal to the state. No state in the world forgives a traitor. As in Islam there is no distinction of state and religion, thus it appears that this punishment is NOT due to the rejection of religion. We do not force anyone to accept Islam and enter in the Islamic Community, but if he rebels against that collective system after embracing Islam then he would be punished, according to the political laws and requirements, as a traitor."
- "The Best Writings of Dr. Hamid Ullah", edited by Sayyed Qasim Mehmud (originally in Urdu), page 338, question 38.
Thus, following two important points emerge from the above discussion. Any person who:
1- Chooses to leave Islam peacefully and leads his life outside the borders of an Islamic state cannot be executed! (In case an Islamic state exists)
2- Leaves Islam and lives among Muslims and interacts with them in the absece of an Islamic state cannot be executed. In the absense of an Islamic state, such laws are rendered null and void and that's what they are in our today's world.
Besides, even if a person leaves Islam and continues his peaceful and non-violent existence within an ISLAMIC STATE, there is no evidence and that he SHOULD BE executed, as per Islamic law and legislation. It is clearly manifested that even if the Prophet of Islam ordered to kill someone who left Islam in his time, it was because Madina was an Islamic state and any person who left Islam was considered (and there was very less probability that actaully didn't prove him to be) a traitor and a conspirator against Islam. Any person who peacefully rejected Islam and showed no signs of violence against the state and society was not harmed. Here's an authentic hadith to support this claim:
"A bedouin gave the Pledge of allegiance to Allah's Apostle for Islam. Then the bedouin got fever at Medina, came to Allah's Apostle and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Cancel my Pledge," But Allah's Apostle refused. Then he came to him (again) and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Cancel my Pledge." But the Prophet refused Then he came to him (again) and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Cancel my Pledge." But the Prophet refused. The bedouin finally went out (of Medina) whereupon Allah's Apostle said, "Medina is like a pair of bellows (furnace): It expels its impurities and brightens and clears its good."
- [Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, #319]
As far as other hadiths that are generally cited in regard to apostasy (riddah), (a) there is not a single hadith that is authentic or without any problem as per the standards of usul (principles) of hadith, and (b) none of these hadiths pertain to solely for apostasy. After examining all the pertinent hadiths and classical commentaries on the issue of apostasy, former Chief Justice of Pakistan, S. A. Rahman, observes:
“It has been seen that even the strongest bulwark of the orthodox view, viz. the Sunnah, when subjected to critical examination in the light of history, does not fortify the stand of those who seek to establish that a Muslim who commits apostasy must be condemned to death for his change of belief alone. In instances in which apparently such a punishment was inflicted, other factors have been found to co-exist, which would have justified action in the interest of collective security. As against them, some positive instances of tolerance of defections from the Faith, with impunity for the renegades, suggest that the Prophet acted strictly in conformity with the letter and the spirit of the Qur’an and mere change of faith, if peaceful, cannot be visited with any punishment.”
-S. A. Rahman. Punishment of Apostasy in Islam [New Delhi, India: Kitab Bhaban, 1996], pp. 85-86.
Finally a friendly piece of advice to those emotional and imbecile Muslim friends who, falling in the trap of hypocrite clergy and thinking to do a huge service to their faith and Lord: It's good to be sincere with what one believes to be true, but blind faith and unexamined confidence in authority results not in sincerity but fanaticism and extremism which ultimately approaches to severe intolerence and finally brutal terrorism, exactly what we are witnessing within the followers of Islam today.
"My personal opinion about this matter is that an apostate is not punished regarding his religion but due to the breach of his political affiliations i.e betrayal to the state. No state in the world forgives a traitor. As in Islam there is no distinction of state and religion, thus it appears that this punishment is NOT due to the rejection of religion. We do not force anyone to accept Islam and enter in the Islamic Community, but if he rebels against that collective system after embracing Islam then he would be punished, according to the political laws and requirements, as a traitor."
- "The Best Writings of Dr. Hamid Ullah", edited by Sayyed Qasim Mehmud (originally in Urdu), page 338, question 38.
Thus, following two important points emerge from the above discussion. Any person who:
1- Chooses to leave Islam peacefully and leads his life outside the borders of an Islamic state cannot be executed! (In case an Islamic state exists)
2- Leaves Islam and lives among Muslims and interacts with them in the absece of an Islamic state cannot be executed. In the absense of an Islamic state, such laws are rendered null and void and that's what they are in our today's world.
Besides, even if a person leaves Islam and continues his peaceful and non-violent existence within an ISLAMIC STATE, there is no evidence and that he SHOULD BE executed, as per Islamic law and legislation. It is clearly manifested that even if the Prophet of Islam ordered to kill someone who left Islam in his time, it was because Madina was an Islamic state and any person who left Islam was considered (and there was very less probability that actaully didn't prove him to be) a traitor and a conspirator against Islam. Any person who peacefully rejected Islam and showed no signs of violence against the state and society was not harmed. Here's an authentic hadith to support this claim:
"A bedouin gave the Pledge of allegiance to Allah's Apostle for Islam. Then the bedouin got fever at Medina, came to Allah's Apostle and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Cancel my Pledge," But Allah's Apostle refused. Then he came to him (again) and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Cancel my Pledge." But the Prophet refused Then he came to him (again) and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Cancel my Pledge." But the Prophet refused. The bedouin finally went out (of Medina) whereupon Allah's Apostle said, "Medina is like a pair of bellows (furnace): It expels its impurities and brightens and clears its good."
- [Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, #319]
As far as other hadiths that are generally cited in regard to apostasy (riddah), (a) there is not a single hadith that is authentic or without any problem as per the standards of usul (principles) of hadith, and (b) none of these hadiths pertain to solely for apostasy. After examining all the pertinent hadiths and classical commentaries on the issue of apostasy, former Chief Justice of Pakistan, S. A. Rahman, observes:
“It has been seen that even the strongest bulwark of the orthodox view, viz. the Sunnah, when subjected to critical examination in the light of history, does not fortify the stand of those who seek to establish that a Muslim who commits apostasy must be condemned to death for his change of belief alone. In instances in which apparently such a punishment was inflicted, other factors have been found to co-exist, which would have justified action in the interest of collective security. As against them, some positive instances of tolerance of defections from the Faith, with impunity for the renegades, suggest that the Prophet acted strictly in conformity with the letter and the spirit of the Qur’an and mere change of faith, if peaceful, cannot be visited with any punishment.”
-S. A. Rahman. Punishment of Apostasy in Islam [New Delhi, India: Kitab Bhaban, 1996], pp. 85-86.
Finally a friendly piece of advice to those emotional and imbecile Muslim friends who, falling in the trap of hypocrite clergy and thinking to do a huge service to their faith and Lord: It's good to be sincere with what one believes to be true, but blind faith and unexamined confidence in authority results not in sincerity but fanaticism and extremism which ultimately approaches to severe intolerence and finally brutal terrorism, exactly what we are witnessing within the followers of Islam today.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Concept of Choice
“The concept of choice is much debated about in philosophical discussions and so I would like to clear my thoughts on it.
In my opinion, the concept of man having or not having complete choice is, to quite much extent, related to the concept of his being free to act i.e Free Will. While I believe that man always has a choice, he does not always enjoy free will related to that choice. This statement may seem contradictory so I would try to explain it a bit further:
When I say that man always has a choice, I have in my mind, more or less, Sartre’s existentialist concept of choice. Taking a little extreme case, a man being robbed forcefully has a choice to get robbed off his possessions and go home without any further trouble or he can choose to refuse to let go of his belongings and instead get killed. This is my concept of choice. Man always has a choice, no matter what the circumstances are, but the matter that puts restraint on this concept is that man is not always free to choose among his options with total consent. One option, returning to the above case, is expedient and beneficial financially but it can cost him his life. The other option, although depriving him off his material belongings, may safe his life. There is another man who wants to choose the best school for his son. This man has the freedom associated with his choice. He would obviously want to choose the best school and he is free to do so, provided his financial position. No one is forcing him in adopting any particular choice. This is choice with freedom. The former was choice with force. Options are there in both kinds and man can choose one among them, but he will have to pay the ultimate price. Though in the former case, less responsibility would rest on the chooser than in the latter case, although the might have to pay equal price.
Some may still call both men ‘free’ but I do not consider the former case of choice with freedom. This is force and coercion, not freedom and free will. This would be akin to religious concept of free will where a man, broadly speaking, is given two options: Enjoy all sorts of pleasures in this mundane existence od few days and then bear the eternal damnation, or lead this life within the bounds of the divine law and dwell among the blessed in the heaven forever.
So what I believe is that while choice is always there, this is not the case with freedom. There can be either choice with will, for which man is free or there can be choice with force, for which he is coerced.”
-Initial Meditations, Umer Latif.
In my opinion, the concept of man having or not having complete choice is, to quite much extent, related to the concept of his being free to act i.e Free Will. While I believe that man always has a choice, he does not always enjoy free will related to that choice. This statement may seem contradictory so I would try to explain it a bit further:
When I say that man always has a choice, I have in my mind, more or less, Sartre’s existentialist concept of choice. Taking a little extreme case, a man being robbed forcefully has a choice to get robbed off his possessions and go home without any further trouble or he can choose to refuse to let go of his belongings and instead get killed. This is my concept of choice. Man always has a choice, no matter what the circumstances are, but the matter that puts restraint on this concept is that man is not always free to choose among his options with total consent. One option, returning to the above case, is expedient and beneficial financially but it can cost him his life. The other option, although depriving him off his material belongings, may safe his life. There is another man who wants to choose the best school for his son. This man has the freedom associated with his choice. He would obviously want to choose the best school and he is free to do so, provided his financial position. No one is forcing him in adopting any particular choice. This is choice with freedom. The former was choice with force. Options are there in both kinds and man can choose one among them, but he will have to pay the ultimate price. Though in the former case, less responsibility would rest on the chooser than in the latter case, although the might have to pay equal price.
Some may still call both men ‘free’ but I do not consider the former case of choice with freedom. This is force and coercion, not freedom and free will. This would be akin to religious concept of free will where a man, broadly speaking, is given two options: Enjoy all sorts of pleasures in this mundane existence od few days and then bear the eternal damnation, or lead this life within the bounds of the divine law and dwell among the blessed in the heaven forever.
So what I believe is that while choice is always there, this is not the case with freedom. There can be either choice with will, for which man is free or there can be choice with force, for which he is coerced.”
-Initial Meditations, Umer Latif.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
