Don't hate debate - can you ridicule and not hate?

Following on from the horrible Charlie Hebdo atrocity there seemed to be little restriction as to what constitutes freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Where do we draw the line? Should there in fact be a line?

I certainly believe that all views should be allowed, but such views must be offered in a sensible and responsible manner.  Do we have the full freedom to offend? What if an unfettered freedom to offend  incites hatred and the carrying out of hate crimes?

I think certainly that the more responsible amongst us have a greater duty of care to ensure that opinions are expressed in a civil and respectful way, especially given the sensitivity involved.

Today, three innocent Muslims were murdered in the US in what has been headlined as being committed by a suspected "anti theist". Professor Richard Dawkins, to his immense credit, immediately condemned the murder.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-condemns-chapel-hill-shooting-suspected-to-have-been-carried-out-by-antitheist-that-left-three-muslims-dead-10037983.html

As at the time of writing I don't know if today's killings were carried out by an "anti theist" and I certainly don't know his motivation. That said, perhaps the killings should encourage those who are engaged in the debate about the existence of God to act in a sensible and responsible manner and certainly not in a way that could incite hatred and/or hatred by others.

In my blog, I try my utmost to be respectful. I do not think lesser of someone who does not believe in God, I do not hate them. Indeed, I have been surprised at the nasty comments I have received to my blog which I assume stems from a reader's disagreement to my belief in God. Where does that venom come from? You can be passionate about a belief (or disbelief) but this shouldn't lead to hatred or the incitement of hatred in others and I think the higher your profile you have the more you need to think about how others might interpret your actions.

In the context of Professor Richard Dawkins, he is passionate about his beliefs and I respect him for that. His books are thoughtful (although I don't agree with his conclusions). That said, I don't think he needs to approach the subject with "ridicule" as he mentions on his Twitter profile.  We can lighten the debate with good humoured comments but "ridicule"?

rid·i·cule

ˈridiˌkyo͞ol/

noun

1. 1. 

   the subjection of someone or something to contemptuous and dismissive language or behavior.

   "he is held up as an object of ridicule"

   synonyms:

   mockery, derision, laughter, scorn, scoffing, contempt, jeering, sneering, sneers, jibes, jibing, teasing, taunts, taunting, badinage, chaffing, sarcasm, satire;  informalkidding, ribbing, joshing, goofing, razzing

verb

1. 1. 

   subject (someone or something) to contemptuous and dismissive language or behavior.

   "his theory was ridiculed and dismissed"

   synonyms:

   deride, mock, laugh at, heap scorn on/upon, jeer at, jibe at, sneer at, treat with contempt, scorn, make fun of, poke fun at, scoff at, satirize, lampoon, burlesque, caricature, parody, tease, taunt, chaff; informalkid, rib, josh, razz

One synonym for "ridicule" is "contempt". How far away is this from "hatred"?

ha·tred

ˈhātrəd/

noun

1. intense dislike or ill will.

   "racial hatred"

   synonyms:

   loathing, hate, detestation, dislike, distaste, abhorrence, abomination, execration;  aversion, hostility, ill will, ill feeling, enmity, animosity, antipathy;  revulsion, disgust, contempt, odium

To what extent can you have contempt for an idea and/or a belief but not have the same contempt for the person with the objectionable idea or belief? What if your contempt of an idea inspires someone to have contempt for the one who holds the objectionable idea?

Certainly, I don't intend to ridicule anyone's beliefs no matter how much I may object to them.

Indeed, there is also the danger that your views can be mis-interpreted.  Does this matter? Well, I suppose it depends on who you are. If you are a high profile figure who people respect, look up to and follow then I think it matters more.

Looking at Professor Dawkins' t-shirt - "Religion - together we can find the cure" - could this be misinterpreted? What is the cure? Medicine? Intellectual reasoning? When I first saw the t-shirt I thought of Sylvester Stallone.

Of course, you cannot be held responsible for the criminal acts of someone who plainly takes what you say and do out of context but I would have thought that leaders in this debate should debate with utmost responsibility. Does such responsibility allow for "good humoured ridicule"? Would be interested in the views of others.

Explanation of evil - an Islamic perspective

A common remark I hear is that there cannot be a God because surely if there was a God he wouldn't have allowed "evil" (i.e. bad things). The logic follows that as there is "evil" on Earth, there must be no God. Stephen Fry in his recent interview with Gay Byrne referred to "evil" things such as bone cancer in children and used this as one of the bases for his disbelief.

Of note here is that we all seem to expect God to be "good". Why do we have this hot-wired into our minds? Why also do we seem to be in a perpetual dilemma as to what is "good" and "evil"?  Why is this relevant?

Well, the Islamic perspective on this is that God (Allah) is all powerful. He is the "Creator" and everything else is His "Creation". God (Allah) is in complete control of everything and knows what will happen.  It follows that "good" and "evil" are the creations of God (Allah).

Indeed, it is a basic principle of the Islamic faith that a Muslim believes in this.  This concept is known as "qadar". The best way to define "qadar" is destiny, fate or pre-destination. Meaning, everything is already planned by God (Allah). God (Allah) has written everything down. God's (Allah's) will cannot be frustrated.

Sahih Muslim (1) The Book of Faith

When asked what is faith, Prophet Muhammed answered:

"...it is to believe in Allah, His Angels, His Books, His Messengers, the Day of Judgement and the Qadar (divine destiny) both the good and the evil thereof..."

[Bold emphasis added]

In his commentary on the Hadith about "qadar" in Sahih Muslim an-Nawawi says:

"In all of these Hadith there is clear evidence that supports the view of Ahl as-Sunnah concerning the belief in qadar, and that all events, good and bad, beneficial and harmful, happen by the will and decree of Allah, the Exalted."

[Sharh an-Nawawi 'ala Muslim, 16/196] [Bold emphasis added]

God (Allah) is all powerful and whatever happens can only happen because of God's (Allah's) will. It follows that "good" or "evil" may only occur by the will of Allah. Such occurrences are decreed by Allah and he had knowledge of them in advance (the concept of pre-destination). God (Allah) is all knowing.

Accordingly, we can expect that "evil" things can, will and do happen....but this raises further questions which I will try and briefly provide the answer from an Islamic perspective.

Why?

In essence, our life on Earth is a test.  We are to worship God (Allah) and strive to do "good" deeds, forbid "evil" and seek forgiveness for our "evil" deeds. Why did God (Allah) give us this test? We don't know, but this is the test.

At this point I would like you to ponder, why do we have this dilemma between "good" and "evil"? Why do we persistently ask what is "good" and "evil"? Why is this relevant to us? Certainly, I am sure we all have this dilemma in everything we do.  Animals do not have the same concern.

How free is man given that God (Allah) has already decided things?

If God (Allah) has determined everything, what is our test? Do we (humans) have any choice in the matter? Well, certainly, it seems that we are capable of deciding matters for ourselves. We make decisions every day. We, ourselves, decide should we do this or should we do that.  I don't think there is any doubt here. Certainly, we have the freedom of choice whether we believe in God (Allah), whether we worship, whether we do "good" or "evil".

The Islamic perspective is that God (Allah) has allowed us to live our lives, we are free to lead them as we want. At the same time God (Allah) knows what we will do.  If you imagine an all powerful God I am sure we can imagine a God who can have prior knowledge of what his creation will do. A computer programmer will know what his/her computer programme will do. The same can be said of a designer of a machine.

What should humankind do?

In Islam we are commanded to strive and seek God's (Allah's) guidance and in turn we will fulfil our destiny.  The Quran and Hadith explain the type of people who will go to Paradise and Hell and so it is for each one of us to determine whether we believe and whether we want to strive accordingly.

Some people will reject belief, others will accept.  This is the test.  I don't believe that the test is an academic exercise. It isn't about how much you have read of religion, science or anything else. It is purely guidance from God (Allah) and the knowledge you will learn from your study will affirm your belief or if you are inclined to disbelieve it will affirm your disbelief.

"Verily, Allah is not ashamed to set forth a parable even of a mosquito or so much more when it is bigger (or less when it is smaller) than it. And as for those who believe, they know that it is the truth from their Lord, but as for those who disbelieve, they say "What did Allah intend by this parable?" By it he misleads many, and many He guides thereby. And he misleads thereby only those who are Al Fasiqun (i.e. rebellious, disobedient to Allah).

Quran - Surah 2 Al Baqarah, Ayat 26

Conclusion

The observation that there is "evil" in the World isn't a basis for a Muslim to disbelieve in God (Allah). In fact, on the contrary, it is a requirement of Islamic faith that we believe in God's (Allah's) command (decree) and this includes the "good" and the "evil" of such decree. This isn't to say that God (Allah) is "evil". "Evil" is the creation of God (Allah) and we are forbidden to do it but that isn't to say we are unable to do it.

To revert back to Stephen Fry's comment about bone cancer in children. This isn't a basis for disbelief. It is to be accepted and the best way to understand this is that this is part of the test. Bearing in mind that if for a moment we assume that God (Allah) exists, the time we spend on the Earth is short and transitory. There is a much longer life afterwards. Would the child who dies of bone cancer but attains Paradise feel so aggrieved? Would be interested to hear alternative explanations as to why we are here and why we have "evil".