site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   3339 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for August 16, 2026

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Beyond that, there is a clearer sense of the whole picture that can be gleamed. The example that comes to mind is in Principles of the Creed (book 2), where the theological differences between Islam and, say, Christianity become apparent very quickly.

One of the interesting tensions in Islam, it seems to me, especially as compared to Christianity, is that Islam tends to emphasise firstly that everything is absolutely foreknown and determined by God, and secondly that also human free choice is absolutely vital. Compared to Christianity, Islam has a much stronger teaching on predestination, but also claims to uphold free will to a greater degree. On the face of it this seems like a contradiction.

The latter is probably easier to grapple with. Christianity says that human freedom or human will is in some way blunted or damaged. The Fall happened and so we are either unable to independently choose good, or our ability to choose good is in some way constrained. As such the believer is wholly dependent on the grace of God. While Islam agrees that the believer is always wholly dependent on God (as all things are, at all times, for only God is self-sufficient), within that overall framework, it is much more confident about the ability of people to freely choose the good. Islam assumes from first principles that God would not set before us any task that we are not capable of accomplishing. God asks nothing of us that we cannot do. To do otherwise would be unjust of him.

Christianity tends to say that God asks of us more than we can do. Jesus commands his followers "be perfect, as your heavenly father is perfect" (Mt 5:48). Throughout the gospels Jesus is constantly asking people to do the unreasonable or the extreme, like sell all their possessions, or die with him. He says that if the disciples truly had faith they would be able to ask a mountain to move, and it would. It seems as though, for Jesus, even the very best that a human can do is not enough. The usual interpretation of this is that Jesus wants to challenge people beyond their own capacities so that they realise they radical dependence on God - that they come to understand their own finitude, and therefore are able to wholeheartedly cast themselves upon God's mercy.

Through Islamic eyes, this is unjust. God does not torment people by requiring of them more than they can do. Christianity comes to this conclusion in past as a response to the failure of the Law - Paul spends a long time agonising over the fact (as he sees it) that the Law failed to produce righteousness. Islam, however, is much more positive about the Law, and in fact tends to see Christianity as a retrogression, a kind of civilisational backwards step in abandoning the rigour of divine Law. (Judaism is in principle correct about the Law and its value, but it goes wrong firstly by applying it to only a select people, rather than everyone, and secondly by getting muddled up about some details.) You can see that Islam is thus, in a sense, much more optimistic about human will and the possibility of human righteousness than Christianity.

However, this optimism about free will occurs in front of the backdrop of God's absolute sovereignty. Reconciling God's authorship of all creation with human free will is going to be reminiscent of Calvinist debates - but that might be a discussion for a bit later.

This rings true with what I've read from al-Ghazali. God created both the problem and the solution, and each individual's task is to act in proportion to his own ability while increasing his ability to act. Islam is said to be the straight path, which doesn't put undue burdens on people, yet also provides comprehensive guidance such that there is no excuse for failing to uphold one's obligations. Hence, one who exceeds bounds is not just ignorant but also silly, because he cannot see what is in front of him, and goes in search of many schemes. This seems (to me) to lends itself to a sense that the view of sin or lapse of self-control which the West often holds, that it is a difficult and even unsolvable problem, that it requires much sophistication to overcome and even then one will stray, is inimical to the Islamic mind.

It's true that many Muslims use the term "free will," but I think al-Ghazali is right that the original view places a heavier emphasis on God's will. There is a constant refrain in the Quran that goes like this: "[81:27] This is a message for all people; [28] for those who wish to take the straight path. [29] But you will only wish to do so by the will of God, the Lord of all people." There are passages in the Bible which are similar, I suppose, like God hardening Pharaoh's heart, or some statements of Paul about the elect, but something about this seems more central to Islam.

Wiki tells me that "those who assert free-will are called Qadariyya, while those who reject free-will are called Jabriyya." Personally I'm more interested in the bite-the-bullet methodology of al-Ghazali (unless I'm misinterpreting him, which I might be), because consistency of thought can often yield impressive results even if one stands on disputed ground, and I suspect that he's closer to their Prophet's original intention that those who emphasize personal responsibility.

The Mu'tazilites denied predestination, I believe, but they ceased to exist a long time ago.

To make a very broad generalisation again, I think the three Abrahamic faiths all have a different 'main character', in a sense. For Jews the main character is a specific people - the story is about the Jewish people and their collective relationship with God. For Christians the main character is often an individual person - it is about your relationship with God. For Muslims the main character is all people - it's about humanity's relationship with God. Anecdotally when I have spoken to Muslims, by far the main criticism they make of Judaism is that it is particularist, focused on a single people and distinguishing between peoples, and by far the main criticism they make of Christianity is that it compromises the absolute oneness of God.

Anyway, in that broader context, it is perhaps understandable that free will is not as important in Islam, and Muslims are less inclined to go to lengths to rescue the principle. Islam is, in a sense, the most theocentric of the Abrahamic religions. Islam is about God, and it is comparatively less interested in anthropology. (Since Christianity's most basic claim is that God became man, Christianity must wrestle directly with the meaning of both 'God' and 'man'.) The human fades into the background before the absolute majesty of God.

If I think about the most beloved verses of the Qur'an, they're all about God. 1:1 is regularly cited; the Throne Verse is immensely popular as well. It is about the majesty of God. By contrast the most beloved verse of the Christian Bible is, what, John 3:16? It is about Jesus - about fathers and sons and salvation. It's also about what God has done rather than about who God is. I think there is a significant difference of emphasis between the traditions, even though Christians would surely agree that God is all-knowing and all-powerful, and Muslims would surely agree that God deeply loves the world and has compassion towards humanity.

One of the interesting tensions in Islam, it seems to me, especially as compared to Christianity, is that Islam tends to emphasise firstly that everything is absolutely foreknown and determined by God, and secondly that also human free choice is absolutely vital.

Funny; that's actually how I understand Christianity itself to be, including the concept that "God does not torment people by requiring of them more than they can do". (Which I always found a bit of a fortune cookie when used that way; if you assume this is true, then whatever happens to a man on Earth is by definition what he could bear.)

The Fall happened and so we are either unable to independently choose good, or our ability to choose good is in some way constrained. As such the believer is wholly dependent on the grace of God.

The latter is kind of Christianity 3:16 101. I agree that lots of Christians never really make it past that part, which is why doing things like writing the law on one's heart is a meaningless statement, for the answer it gives would always be wrong. Why even tell us to put on the armor of God when no man could even begin to don it? Why imply that one might even expect to understand what the Lord's will is? How could we even have been created to do good works, and how could they have been prepared in advance for us to do them?

Islam, however, is much more positive about the Law, and in fact tends to see Christianity as a retrogression, a kind of civilisational backwards step in abandoning the rigour of divine Law.

In your opinion, what is Islam's relationship with that law?

Paul spends a long time agonising over the fact (as he sees it) that the Law failed to produce righteousness

I'm honestly not even sure how surprised anyone should actually be about that (unless this is in the context that it sucks that you can't just follow the law if you're already doing what, in spirit, it requires). How could a law be expected to produce the behavior of judging one's own heart in its observers? Stereotypically, Judaism is kind of the epitome of tricking God doing everything that the law requires while ignoring its meaning perfectly, which if the Bible is to be believed was as true in Jesus' day as it is today (like that eruv wire strung around the Promised Land of... Manhattan). I don't think Islam is nearly as famous for that.

Then again, of course, maybe the huge list of "tricks" generated is part of the point, since an observer ultimately has to make a judgement call about what thing falls within what category, and it is perhaps the act of continually doing that which imparts life/generates the righteousness. Which is perhaps why those laws could ever be condensed down into 2 sentences in the first place.

Throughout the gospels Jesus is constantly asking people to do the unreasonable or the extreme, like sell all their possessions, or die with him.

I always find it odd that, provided we assume Jesus is God, that these things are considered unreasonable or extreme. It would certainly be extreme for any non-God individuals, but 'the entity that is in charge of life even after death is standing in front of you asking a question that involve having to do that' seems to me to be a bit of an extreme circumstance itself.

Funny; that's actually how I understand Christianity itself to be, including the concept that "God does not torment people by requiring of them more than they can do".

There are definitely passages in the Bible that point in that direction. Jesus famously says "my yoke is easy and my burden is light", and 1 Cor 10:13 reads, "God is faithful, and he will not let you be tested beyond your strength, but with the testing he will also provide the way out so that you may be able to endure it."

Even so I think there is a tension here in Christianity. God does not test you beyond your strength, but at the same time, it is impossible for you to achieve true righteousness under your own power. Everyone is a sinner.

The latter is kind of Christianity 3:16 101. I agree that lots of Christians never really make it past that part, which is why doing things like writing the law on one's heart is a meaningless statement, for the answer it gives would always be wrong. Why even tell us to put on the armor of God when no man could even begin to don it? Why imply that one might even expect to understand what the Lord's will is? How could we even have been created to do good works, and how could they have been prepared in advance for us to do them?

Certainly it would be a gross misunderstanding of Christianity to say that, because true righteousness is impossible to achieve unaided, we therefore need not strive for it. That would obviously be a perverse position, and as all the passages you've just alluded to indicate, Christians are exhorted to constantly strive for righteousness.

In your opinion, what is Islam's relationship with that law?

Islam is fairly straightforward, I think. In most matters like this, I find Islam tends to be more straightforward and common-sense than Christianity.

Depending on your perspective, this is either because Islam has the simple clarity of God's true and final revelation, whereas Christianity is such an incoherent, hacked-together set of false assumptions that it requires endless paradoxes and epicycles just to fit together; or it's because Islam is a simplistic creed inadequate to either life or God, whereas the paradoxes of Christianity speak to its deeper truth.

Anyway, Islam is simple. The divine Law is true, obligatory, and binding on all people. It is Sharia. The Law as it is understood in Judaism is a kind of distorted funhouse mirror of Sharia. Ancient believers like Abraham were Muslims and followed Sharia correctly, but at some point their descendants got confused, mixed up records, and so their Law, through a decent approximation of the true Law, nonetheless requires correction. Fortunately God has provided that correction. The next step is obvious - all Jews (and for that matter all people full stop) should become Muslims.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats