Where does our morality come from in Islam? From what I understand — and I think I may be mistaken here, which is why I'm asking — it seems that there are two views. One view says that morality comes entirely from Allah, and all our morals are based on the Qur'an and Sunnah. Without them, there would be no such thing as good or bad, because — according to this view — we wouldn't have any sense of moral purpose if we didn't believe in the Qur'an or Sunnah. The confusion I have with this view is: What about the fitrah? According to Ibn Taymiyyah, we have an innate sense of good and bad. But if good and bad are based entirely on the Shariah, doesn't that mean every aspect of Shariah is innately ingrained in us? Even things like not eating pork or lowering one’s gaze? The second view is that morality is innate, and we can reason about right and wrong even without divine revelation. The issue with this, though, is that it seems to fall into the “is–ought” fallacy — the idea that just because something is a certain way, that doesn’t mean it ought to be. If we don't have divine revelation, how do we rationally determine what is good or bad? For example, how do we know that harm is bad unless we already know it stops us from reaching an ultimate goal in life?

I do realize this question has been asked before here: https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/32860/why-does-allah-create-someone-whose-fate-is-hell Yet I feel I should ask again and maybe in a bit of a different manner as I don't believe the answers on that post were adequate. I'm wondering from an Islamic perspective, if Allah knew that some people will end up in hell, why go through with the creation anyway? What purpose does that serve for Allah? Note: Some people seem to be confused and don't understand my question and they think I'm not understanding the purpose of hellfire and that it is to punish people who do wrong, when in fact all I'm asking is about the creation of those who will end up in hellfire. Please don't resort to explanations for why hell was created or why people go to hell, etc. This doesn't answer the question being asked.

> **Plato's The Euthyphro Dilemma** > > If divine command theory is true then either (i) morally good acts are > willed by God because they are morally good, or (ii) morally good acts > are morally good because they are willed by God. Has this issue been discussed by past Islam scholars?

In Sunan Ibn Majah - 4048 , it reads: > "The Prophet (ﷺ) mentioned something and said: ‘That will be at the time when knowledge (of Qur’an) disappears.’ I said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, how will knowledge disappear when we read the Qur’an and teach it to our children, until the Day of Resurrection?’ He said: ‘**May your mother be bereft of you, Ziyad**! I thought that you were the wisest man in Al- Madinah. Is it not the case that these Jews and Christians read the Tawrah and the Injil, but they do not act upon anything of what is in them?’" Would not wishing grief upon someone's mother be very extreme? In another hadith describing the same situation (Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2653 ), it reads: > "Narrated Jubair bin Nufair: from Abu Ad-Darda who said: "We were with the Prophet (ﷺ) when he raised his sight to the sky, then he said: 'This is the time when knowledge is to be taken from the people, until what remains of it shall not amount to anything." So Ziyad bin Labid Al-Ansari said: 'How will it be taken from us while we recite the Qur'an. By Allah we recite it, and our women and children recite it?' He (ﷺ) said: '**May you be bereaved of your mother O Ziyad**! I used to consider you among the Fuqaha of the people of Al-Madinah. The Tawrah and Injil are with the Jews and Christians, but what do they avail of them?'" Jubair said: "So I met 'Ubadah bin As-Samit and said to him: 'Have you not heard what your brother Abu Ad-Darda said?' Then I informed him of what Abu Ad-Darda said. He said: 'Abu Ad-Darda spoke the truth. If you wish, we shall narrated to you about the first knowledge to be removed from the people: It is Khushu', soon you will enter the congregational Masjid, but not see any man in it with Khushu'.'" In this hadith the wording is a little different, so Muhammad wishes death upon Ziyad's mother this time. So my question is wouldn't it be immoral for Muhammad to say these things?

Allah told us to either obey him to go to heaven or disobey him to go to hell. So my question is: > Why there is only heaven and hell? why not live without obeying a god and end up in normal life (or a similar one)? In other words: >Why does Allah want to create creatures (humans) and tell them to obey him?

Is a muslim fair if he: - [He respects elders and not younger people](https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:1921) - [He has mercy on younger people and not elders](https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:1921) - He only gives love to the ones he prefer, and not to the people who deserve it - He only appreciates succesful people, and not the ones who excerted the most effort (like all contests I have ever heard about)

There are many thing in sharia law that modern people (olny disbelievers) find outdated. So can we update sharia law. **They saw** That a woman can't have equal inherentense And why can't a woman live alone and why can she go outside alone.

I read in an answer to another question that you do not need religion for morality and that without religion it is not like you are going to be raping or murdering. So how does Islam change morality and what is the difference between an atheists morality and Islam’s? https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/12200/do-we-need-religion-for-morality-morality-without-religion?r=SearchResults In which way is the morality we have in Islam better than that of the morality of the atheists or other religions?

Say in a scenario, someone as bad as Hitler or Hitler himself had converted to Islam on his death bed, He would be forgiven for ALL his sins and therefore not punished for the sins that he did. This sounds disgusting and unjust to let a man like Hitler not receive any punishment for his actions. So why does Islam have such a concept and allows this?

While I was working in the kitchen our two maids were loudly talking with each other and one was teasing the other, so I told them that when I'm around, doing something, I don't want to hear them talk. Is this unfair? There's a negative vibe to what I said, but given her job, I don't think it's too unfair to ask. But what's the Islamic perspective on what I did and the whole situation?

For my studies, I am looking ayah or hadith which unambiguously mentions or strongly suggests that conscience/morality/altruism/mercy are God-given values. The one I have is: > Narrated Abu Huraira: I heard Allah's Messenger saying, Verily Allah > created Mercy. The day He created it, He made it into one hundred > parts. He withheld with Him ninety-nine parts, and sent its one part > to all His creatures. Had the non-believer known of all the Mercy > which is in the Hands of Allah, he would not lose hope of entering > Paradise, and had the believer known of all the punishment which is > present with Allah, he would not consider himself safe from the > Hell-Fire. ---*Sahih al-Bukhari 6469, Book 81, Hadith 58 * From which we learn not only that such values are God-given but also *created* by God. Are there any other? Especially useful would be if I could find ayah/hadith where it is mentioned that such values are actually Signs of Allah.

Let's say one in a married couple or both of them have some sort of mental or physical disability (a serious one perhaps), and reproducing has a high chance of making the offspring suffer from the same disability which might or will lead to the child from suffering extremely throughout its life. Let's say the couple has no empathy and decency at all and decides to reproduce anyways. Is it morally acceptable in Islam to procreate in this case or are there no rules regarding this matter?

When I was working out, I suddenly felt a strange feeling down. At first, I thought that it is coming from my abdomen, but then I realised that sexual tension was building up, so I stopped doing this exercise. After reading about this a little on the internet, I realised that the reason for this is because the exercise was exercising the core and putting pressure on the pelvis region, stimulating the prostate gland and building up sexual tension. Is it permissable to do such an exercise, provided that my intention is not masturbation? What if 'maniy' was released?

I am looking for the response of **any denomination** that is against abortion in the case of rape that has also responded to the scenario below or something similar to it. "A Defense of Abortion " (Thomson): > You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with > an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been > found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers > has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you > alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped > you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged > into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from > his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he > will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, > and can safely be unplugged from you. It is said later that: > Critics of Thomson's argument generally grant the permissibility of > unplugging the violinist, but seek to block the inference that > abortion is permissible by arguing that there are morally relevant > differences between the violinist scenario and typical cases of > abortion. But it is **unsourced**. :( To make my intentions clear, the above is an analogy for a female being raped and impregnated by a male. **Some denominations claim that the female is obliged to carry the child to birth if medically practical** because the child is innocent of his/her father's sins, has a right to life, etc etc etc. (Assume ideal conditions such as medical complications not being present so the mother and child are healthy, the mother can give birth, the mother and the father are not close relatives, a proper hospital is available and can be afforded, an adoption agency is available etc etc etc) **So do those arguments apply to the violinist too?** What are the "morally relevant differences" ? I understand that Thomson was defending abortion in non-rape cases, but let us consider only rape cases. What's the difference? Why are women responsible for carrying a child, who she did not consent to carrying, to birth but people are not responsible for caring for a violinist who they were attached to without consent? I am not saying women are not responsible, but **if they are, it looks like everyone is responsible for the violinist.** Finally, I would like to emphasize that I'm looking for any denomination's response, probable response based on teachings or relevant teachings. Naturally, I'm not asking what "Islam" thinks or would think. Thanks to all. I'm new to site so please go easy on me in feedback and editing. :)

Some time ago I answered this Question (https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/11929/as-an-atheist-what-awaits-me-after-death/11931#11931) based on my own knowledge! The questioner commented that I am very wrong and **we do not need religion for morality** as I had referred to that in my answer. I was surprised since it was like one of my basic beliefs and very natural for me but then I understood I had no real proof for that (:P I have some but not so convincing). I need to add that I think this is a mistake that to accept we can have morality without a religion, then one can say why there are religions for then?? And then one can result there is no God!! So I want you to give me these proofs from Muslims point of view, Thanks.

Its hard to condone with a liberal whose views on freedom and equality contradict morality, esp. Chasity. If I make a point that the body is the soil for the tree of the mind and to keep itself pure, renunciation from lust and greed is necessary, they make a contention that no one size fits all and not everyone is a ardent purifier of self. The problem with a liberal is he is a zealous enunciator of freedom of thought and action, thus he will not take side of any one of disparaging factions, so its harder to convince him the universal benefit of Islamic philosophy and morality. One point that aggravates the situation and one that most of my Islamic brothers like to make is zaid leads to unwanted pregnancies and plethora of bastards who corrupt themselves belonging nowhere and the society, though true for medieval times, with the easy availability of contraceptives, this argument does not hold true anymore. Besides the "bastard problem" is not something that cannot be fixed by therapy, liberals exhort. Thus the assertion on chastity and its implications if not followed is weak. With all this in mind, how can I make my argument strongly rooted in Islamic philosophy in a rational manner concurring to a liberal?