Forcing Beliefs on Kids....

[Scooby Doo]

I don't know man, those sort of religious folk don't seem so bad compared to Allahs soldiers.

I still have better personal experiences with muslims than with christians. I repeat: personal interactions. Again: I can have whatever preferences I want I think.

 

[ANiMUS]

Re: Forcing Beliefs on Kids....(Religious/Nonreligious ones)

Yea, that's what I mean. I know a lot of people who tell their kids stuff and the kids follow and don't ask questions. One of my cousins told me she though it was "bad" to question her belief and god. I explained to her that it was okay to do so. She is like 17.

Ok, u r right if that is what u meant. There is nothing wrong with questioning your religion. If u r gonna put your faith in something then u need proof and if u have doubts then ppl should be willing to help u.

 

[BlacLord™]

I don't know man, those sort of religious folk don't seem so bad compared to Allahs soldiers.


[video=youtube;CRZiVCv2EQY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRZiVCv2EQY[/video]

ISIS aren't good Muslims. The Qu'ran makes it clear that one should not try to force their religions on others.

But if you want to play that game, how about we question the "christian" KKK's slaughter of anyone who isn't white.

 

[Donald Trump]

When kids start to have a conscience, they are like a very saturated piece of clay. That clay can be molded by others in both simply and suggestive ways. I never agree with my mother because I realized one day that my little clay self was molded into something I personally do not like, however, I can understand how any parent would rather have their kids turn out like them instead of being a thug on the streets. It's only natural. One little slip up and your kids like "Mom, what does f**k mean?"

Just saying. Annoying as hell, BUT it's still a part of how we grow up.

 

[V h o]

Honestly speaking that's how traditions are passed down, or even belief systems. Once a child grows up, they are free to make their own decision regardless of a parent's opinion of it. Then again some children do this before they become adults Lol

 

[Prometheus Beta]

ISIS aren't good Muslims. The Qu'ran makes it clear that one should not try to force their religions on others.

But if you want to play that game, how about we question the "christian" KKK's slaughter of anyone who isn't white.

Clearly you are not familiar with the Quranic concept of "abrogation" (naskh); the nice verse that there is no compulsion in religion is one example of where it applies. Here are the various orthodox views on it.

You must be registered for see links

The scholars explained that these two verses, and other similar verses, have to do with those from whom the jizyah may be taken, such as Jews, Christians and Magians (Zoroastrians). They are not to be forced, rather they are to be given the choice between becoming Muslim or paying the jizyah.

Other scholars said that this applied in the beginning, but was subsequently abrogated by Allaah’s command to fight and wage jihad. So whoever refuses to enter Islam should be fought when the Muslims are able to fight, until they either enter Islam or pay the jizyah if they are among the people who may pay jizyah. The kuffaar should be compelled to enter Islam if they are not people from whom the jizyah may be taken, because that will lead to their happiness and salvation in this world and in the Hereafter....

Some of the scholars are of the view that others may also be given the choice between Islam and jizyah, but the most correct view is that no others should be given this choice, rather these three groups are the only ones who may be given the choice, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) fought the kuffaar in the Arabian Peninsula and he only accepted their becoming Muslim.....

And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allaah), and the religion (worship) will all be for Allaah Alone [in the whole of the world]” [al-Anfaal 8:39]

“Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikoon (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah), and give Zakaah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful” [al-Tawbah 9:5]

This verse is known as Ayat al-Sayf (the verse of the sword).

These and similar verses abrogate the verses which say that there is no compulsion to become Muslim.

ISIS are the only practicing Muslims, it is the rest of the Islamic world that are the nominal Muslims. The KKK have about as much textual basis in Christianity for their beliefs as homosexual Muslims do.

 

[Scooby Doo]

Clearly you are not familiar with the Quranic concept of "abrogation" (naskh); the nice verse that there is no compulsion in religion is one example of where it applies. Here are the various orthodox views on it.

You must be registered for see links

ISIS are the only practicing Muslims, it is the rest of the Islamic world that are the nominal Muslims. The KKK have about as much textual basis in Christianity for their beliefs as homosexual Muslims do.

That is one opinion. Here are some others:

Spoiler

Abrogated?
The next issue with this verse concerns abrogation. It has been claimed by some that this verse 9:5 has abrogated all the peaceful verses in the Qur'an. However, this claim results from a misunderstanding of some Qur'anic concepts. In the Qur'an there is naskh and there is also takhsees. Naskh is the abrogation of a ruling by a ruling that was revealed after it. Naskh occurs in matters of Islamic law. Takhsees on the other hand refers to specification, where one verse restricts the application of another verse, or specifies the limits not mentioned in the other verse. As Shaykh Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi writes:
Specification involves one verse limiting or restricting a general ruling found in another verse, whereas naskh involves abrogating the first verse in toto (i.e., it is not applied in any circumstances or conditions). (Qadhi, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan;UK Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution, 1999, p. 233)
Shaykh Qadhi also explains that one of the conditions for naskh is that the two conflicting rulings apply to the same situation under the same circumstances, and hence there is no alternative understanding of the application of the verses. As he states:
Therefore, if one of the rulings can apply to a specific case, and the other ruling to a different case, this cannot be considered an example of naskh. (Qadhi, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan;UK Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution, 1999, p. 237)
Therefore, verse 9:5 can in no way be considered an example of naskh since it is only a ruling applied to a very specific situation and circumstances. There is a lot of confusion surrounding some verses labeled as cases of naskh because the early Muslims used to use the word naskh to refer to takhsees as well. Therefore, some Muslims failed to realize that some of these cases labeled by early Muslims as 'naskh' were cases of takhsees. This is why some early Muslim scholars are quoted who have classified this verse as a case of 'naskh'. One should realize that they used the term naskh to refer to a broader range of meanings, including takhsees. As Dr. Jamal Badawi writes:
Any claim of naskh must be definitive, not based on mere opinion or speculation. It should be noted that earlier Muslims used the term naskh to refer also to takhsees or specifying and limiting the ruling than abrogating it. (SOURCE, emphasis added)
Shaykh Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi specifically addresses the confusion about verse 9:5, and after citing the different claims he concludes:
It can be seen from the examples and categories quoted that, in reality, most of these verses cannot be considered to have been abrogated in the least. Some of them merely apply to situations other than those that they were revealed for. Almost all of these 'mansookh' (abrogated) verses can still be said to apply when the Muslims are in a situation similar to the situation in which the verses were revealed. Thus, the 'Verse of the Sword' in reality does not abrogate a large number of verses; in fact, az-Zarqaanee concludes that it does not abrogate any! (fn. Az-Zarqaanee, v.2, pps.275-282) (Qadhi, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan;UK Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution, 1999, p. 254)
Shaykh Sami Al-Majid also states the same thing in his article:
Some people – especially some contemporary non-Muslim critics of Islam – have tried to claim that this verse abrogates the verse “Let there be no compulsion in religion.” They argue that the generality of this statement implies that every unbeliever who refuses to accept Islam must be fought. They support their allegation by pointing out that this verse is one of the last verses to be revealed about fighting. However, this verse in no way abrogates the principle in Islamic Law that there is no compulsion in religion. It may be general in wording, but its meaning is quite specific on account of other verses of the Qur’ân that are connected with it as well as on account of a number of pertinent hadîth. (SOURCE)
Shaykh Jamal Al-Din Zarabozo also deals with this issue in his writings on the verse "There is no compulsion in religion". He mentions the view that this verse has been abrogated as then states:
Al-Dausiri rejects this statement because of the following: A verse cannot abrogate another verse unless it completely removes the ruling of the earlier verse and there is no way to reconcile the contradictory meanings of the verses. (Zarabozo, There is No Compulsion in Religion, Al-Basheer)
This was the view of the great scholars and mufasireen (Qur'anic commentators) both classical and recent, like Ash-Shanqeeti or Ibn Jarir At-Tabari. Shaykh Muhammad S. Al-Awa also comments on this issue in his discussion on the puunishment for apostasy:
At the same time, one can say that the death penalty for apostasy – especially when it is considered as a hadd (prescribed) punishment – contradicts the Qur'anic principle [law] in Surah II, verse 256, which proclaims "No compulsion in religion." Ibn Hazm, to avoid this criticism, claimed that this verse had been abrogated and that compulsion is allowed in religion; consequently, according to him, the punishment for apostasy does not contradict the Qur'an (fn. Muhalla, vol. XI, p. 195). However, this claim is invalid, since Qur'anic scholars have established the abrogated verses and this verse is not among them (fn. Suyuti, Itqan, vol. II, p. 22-24). Accordingly, one can say with the Encyclopaedia of Islam that "In the Qur'an the apostate is threatened with punishment in the next world only." (fn. Heffening, Encyclopaedia of Islam, vol. III, p. 736 under "Murtadd"). (El-Awa, Punishment in Islamic Law; US American Trust Publications, 1993, p. 51, emphasis added)
Therefore, when we discuss the merciful and loving verses of the Qur'an and we receive a claim that they have been abrogated by the specific verses concerning battle, we can dismiss such a claim as mere speculation and invalid. Peace and justice are fundamentals of the religion of Islam and can never be removed from it.

 

[~WastelandSociety~]

There's nothing wrong teaching your kids about God.
It's the parents duty to raise their kids right.
It's not like the bible is saying to steal or kill your enemies.

If they grow up to stray away from the path of God,then that's their choice.

 

[Srom777]

The parents have the right to teach their kids whatever they want. For someone who is a Christian, you're supposed to teach your kids about Christianity because it's your duty to tell them about it. If you don't teach them about Christianity then you will be judged by God when you die because you didn't teach your kids the right way. As for myself, I was never forced to believe in what I believe. I made a decision, and I saw how God worked in my parents lives, and how He set an example in them. I also saw how God worked in the lives of not only my parents, but also from other people as well who have the same belief from me.

 

[Prometheus Beta]

That is one opinion. Here are some others:

Spoiler

Abrogated?
The next issue with this verse concerns abrogation. It has been claimed by some that this verse 9:5 has abrogated all the peaceful verses in the Qur'an. However, this claim results from a misunderstanding of some Qur'anic concepts. In the Qur'an there is naskh and there is also takhsees. Naskh is the abrogation of a ruling by a ruling that was revealed after it. Naskh occurs in matters of Islamic law. Takhsees on the other hand refers to specification, where one verse restricts the application of another verse, or specifies the limits not mentioned in the other verse. As Shaykh Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi writes:
Specification involves one verse limiting or restricting a general ruling found in another verse, whereas naskh involves abrogating the first verse in toto (i.e., it is not applied in any circumstances or conditions). (Qadhi, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan;UK Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution, 1999, p. 233)
Shaykh Qadhi also explains that one of the conditions for naskh is that the two conflicting rulings apply to the same situation under the same circumstances, and hence there is no alternative understanding of the application of the verses. As he states:
Therefore, if one of the rulings can apply to a specific case, and the other ruling to a different case, this cannot be considered an example of naskh. (Qadhi, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan;UK Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution, 1999, p. 237)
Therefore, verse 9:5 can in no way be considered an example of naskh since it is only a ruling applied to a very specific situation and circumstances. There is a lot of confusion surrounding some verses labeled as cases of naskh because the early Muslims used to use the word naskh to refer to takhsees as well. Therefore, some Muslims failed to realize that some of these cases labeled by early Muslims as 'naskh' were cases of takhsees. This is why some early Muslim scholars are quoted who have classified this verse as a case of 'naskh'. One should realize that they used the term naskh to refer to a broader range of meanings, including takhsees. As Dr. Jamal Badawi writes:
Any claim of naskh must be definitive, not based on mere opinion or speculation. It should be noted that earlier Muslims used the term naskh to refer also to takhsees or specifying and limiting the ruling than abrogating it. (SOURCE, emphasis added)
Shaykh Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi specifically addresses the confusion about verse 9:5, and after citing the different claims he concludes:
It can be seen from the examples and categories quoted that, in reality, most of these verses cannot be considered to have been abrogated in the least. Some of them merely apply to situations other than those that they were revealed for. Almost all of these 'mansookh' (abrogated) verses can still be said to apply when the Muslims are in a situation similar to the situation in which the verses were revealed. Thus, the 'Verse of the Sword' in reality does not abrogate a large number of verses; in fact, az-Zarqaanee concludes that it does not abrogate any! (fn. Az-Zarqaanee, v.2, pps.275-282) (Qadhi, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan;UK Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution, 1999, p. 254)
Shaykh Sami Al-Majid also states the same thing in his article:
Some people – especially some contemporary non-Muslim critics of Islam – have tried to claim that this verse abrogates the verse “Let there be no compulsion in religion.” They argue that the generality of this statement implies that every unbeliever who refuses to accept Islam must be fought. They support their allegation by pointing out that this verse is one of the last verses to be revealed about fighting. However, this verse in no way abrogates the principle in Islamic Law that there is no compulsion in religion. It may be general in wording, but its meaning is quite specific on account of other verses of the Qur’ân that are connected with it as well as on account of a number of pertinent hadîth. (SOURCE)
Shaykh Jamal Al-Din Zarabozo also deals with this issue in his writings on the verse "There is no compulsion in religion". He mentions the view that this verse has been abrogated as then states:
Al-Dausiri rejects this statement because of the following: A verse cannot abrogate another verse unless it completely removes the ruling of the earlier verse and there is no way to reconcile the contradictory meanings of the verses. (Zarabozo, There is No Compulsion in Religion, Al-Basheer)
This was the view of the great scholars and mufasireen (Qur'anic commentators) both classical and recent, like Ash-Shanqeeti or Ibn Jarir At-Tabari. Shaykh Muhammad S. Al-Awa also comments on this issue in his discussion on the puunishment for apostasy:
At the same time, one can say that the death penalty for apostasy – especially when it is considered as a hadd (prescribed) punishment – contradicts the Qur'anic principle [law] in Surah II, verse 256, which proclaims "No compulsion in religion." Ibn Hazm, to avoid this criticism, claimed that this verse had been abrogated and that compulsion is allowed in religion; consequently, according to him, the punishment for apostasy does not contradict the Qur'an (fn. Muhalla, vol. XI, p. 195). However, this claim is invalid, since Qur'anic scholars have established the abrogated verses and this verse is not among them (fn. Suyuti, Itqan, vol. II, p. 22-24). Accordingly, one can say with the Encyclopaedia of Islam that "In the Qur'an the apostate is threatened with punishment in the next world only." (fn. Heffening, Encyclopaedia of Islam, vol. III, p. 736 under "Murtadd"). (El-Awa, Punishment in Islamic Law; US American Trust Publications, 1993, p. 51, emphasis added)
Therefore, when we discuss the merciful and loving verses of the Qur'an and we receive a claim that they have been abrogated by the specific verses concerning battle, we can dismiss such a claim as mere speculation and invalid. Peace and justice are fundamentals of the religion of Islam and can never be removed from it.

There is no such thing as an "opinion" in Islam, "innovators" or those who commit "bidah" are an example of the "mushrikoon" that Tawbah 9:5 mandates the killing of. When IslamQA mentions "scholars", what they are actually referring to are the people who literally codified the sharia law in the 7-10th centuries, i.e. people like Abu Hanifah, Malik bin Anas, Al-Shafi and Ibn Hanbal (the four founders of the "maddhabs") to name a few.

I can't comment on all those copy and paste "scholars" but the only one I am familiar with (that in itself tells me much of what I should make of your post considering that I have mostly only read the orthodox literature) is Yasir Qadhi who hilariously thinks the whole jihadist problem can be ascribed to Ibn Taymiyah (a giant among giants of Islamic theologians in Sunni Islam). This is like asking me to take the words of the nearest lesbian Rabbi over the likes of Maimonides on what Judaism is.

 

[BlacLord™]

Clearly you are not familiar with the Quranic concept of "abrogation" (naskh); the nice verse that there is no compulsion in religion is one example of where it applies. Here are the various orthodox views on it.

You must be registered for see links

ISIS are the only practicing Muslims, it is the rest of the Islamic world that are the nominal Muslims. The KKK have about as much textual basis in Christianity for their beliefs as homosexual Muslims do.

I'm very well acquainted the Qu'ran, it's you who is not. Basing your opinions off the mere opinions of others. The bible is exactly alike in that it contradicts itself regarding peace/war many times.

And actually, the KKK justify their actions with the Bible just as ISIS do with the Qu'ran. A real Christian and a real Muslim are ones who follow the intentions of religion overall; peace, goodness and unity. There is an old saying which says that to be true to oneself and to others, one should remember and cherish a person or idea in it's purest form, and to sustain that form.

 

[Prometheus Beta]

I'm very well acquainted the Qu'ran, it's you who is not. Basing your opinions off the mere opinions of others. The bible is exactly alike in that it contradicts itself regarding peace/war many times.

And actually, the KKK justify their actions with the Bible just as ISIS do with the Qu'ran. A real Christian and a real Muslim are ones who follow the intentions of religion overall; peace, goodness and unity. There is an old saying which says that to be true to oneself and to others, one should remember and cherish a person or idea in it's purest form, and to sustain that form.

If you are a Muslim you should be well aware of the concept of heresy ("bidah") in your religion: like ISIS (and other jihadists), Im not going to take your word for anything; if you are going to convince me, what you need to do is adduce what ISIS have -the likes of Ibn Taymiyah, say- show me an orthodox interpretation from the people who literally codified Islamic law, otherwise its no good (for ISIS or for me). Now do you understand the problem? Islam is an INTRINSICALLY militant religion: ISIS and other terrorists will always exist because verses and hadith of the nature that they are inspired by -and people like Ibn Taymiyah who interpreted them at face value- exist.

The Bible is a collection of stories (some like those from the OT are indeed about violence and even genocide) about a Semitic peoples and a Semitic man. The KKKs interpretation of the Bible would be comparable to something like someone interpreting Harry Potter as a science textbook, not ISIS. But more importantly, neither the Jews nor the Christians, in the west at least, take their texts seriously anymore. Now the Quran and Hadith describe the sayings and life of a very successful Arabian warlord who conquered the Arabian peninsula, engaging in religious-tribal genocide in the process (e.g. against the Jews of Medina). What you are telling me is that a "real Muslim" is someone who only selectively practices his/her religion. That is fine and all -after all thats essentially the majority of Jews and Christians these days- but don't tout that crap about Islam in and of itself being peaceful.

 

[Scooby Doo]

There is no such thing as an "opinion" in Islam, "innovators" or those who commit "bidah" are an example of the "mushrikoon" that Tawbah 9:5 mandates the killing of. When IslamQA mentions "scholars", what they are actually referring to are the people who literally codified the sharia law in the 7-10th centuries, i.e. people like Abu Hanifah, Malik bin Anas, Al-Shafi and Ibn Hanbal (the four founders of the "maddhabs") to name a few.

I can't comment on all those copy and paste "scholars" but the only one I am familiar with (that in itself tells me much of what I should make of your post considering that I have mostly only read the orthodox literature) is Yasir Qadhi who hilariously thinks the whole jihadist problem can be ascribed to Ibn Taymiyah (a giant among giants of Islamic theologians in Sunni Islam). This is like asking me to take the words of the nearest lesbian Rabbi over the likes of Maimonides on what Judaism is.

I hope you're aware that the opinion of a muslim scholar is neither sacred nor unchangeable nor infallible. That's all I'll say.

 

[YowYan]

I'd never try to force religious, cultural or political beliefs on my child.

The only things I would fashion regarding my child are tolerance, good morals and manners. Oh, and I would raise them bilingual or even trilingual, if they showed significant promise for the latter.



I went to a Catholic secondary school and we were always taught that you didn't have to be a Christian to get into heaven, just being a good person (or, trying your best to be) was enough. And I'm sure that was based on a direct quote from the bible.

I'm not Catholic though, or even Christian for that matter.

As I said; each household varies. Some are more hardcore and will unknowingly create a type of upbringing that will keep their children chained. I also know plenty of christians who are mild with their indoctrination. Still, all of them have no argument whatsoever in a debate.

 

[YowYan]

The parents have the right to teach their kids whatever they want. For someone who is a Christian, you're supposed to teach your kids about Christianity because it's your duty to tell them about it. If you don't teach them about Christianity then you will be judged by God when you die because you didn't teach your kids the right way. As for myself, I was never forced to believe in what I believe. I made a decision, and I saw how God worked in my parents lives, and how He set an example in them. I also saw how God worked in the lives of not only my parents, but also from other people as well who have the same belief from me.

There is this nice story from a child anime in which a character doesn't have belief in himself and is afraid of trying to pursue that which he wants. Someone gave him an omen and told him this would help him find inner strength and achieve his goals if he kept it on him. He suddenly bloomed with confidence, spiritual strength and liveliness and, eventually, achieved his goals. After doing so, he realized he lost his omen before the great trial and the person that gave him that omen told him he'd done it all by himself, the omen wasn't even on him.

Moral of the story: You guessed it. Stop deluding yourself.

 

[Funky Tiger]

oh my ****ing god, i read this as forcing belfies on kids and was speechless for a whole minute

 

[NineSNS]

Most people live under the assumption that their values and religious beliefs are the best ones. By the time a child is old enough to understand that values/religious beliefs are chosen from an array of options, their baseline has already been established.

What happens when the child asks questions is then a function of parenting style: authoritarian parents hold firm, insisting the family's values are the only right ones, while other types of parents will guide the child through their questions, but leave the final answer up to the child.

I believe it's important to help children learn to be comfortable asking questions and making decisions and to be confident in the answers they've chosen for themselves.

 

[YowYan]

Most people live under the assumption that their values and religious beliefs are the best ones. By the time a child is old enough to understand that values/religious beliefs are chosen from an array of options, their baseline has already been established.

What happens when the child asks questions is then a function of parenting style: authoritarian parents hold firm, insisting the family's values are the only right ones, while other types of parents will guide the child through their questions, but leave the final answer up to the child.

I believe it's important to help children learn to be comfortable asking questions and making decisions and to be confident in the answers they've chosen for themselves.

That was basically my point in my first post on here. But you explained it simpler and better.
Reminds me of George Carlin telling his crowd to teach children to question everything.

 

[Bronze]

It depends on the culture, tradition, country of the kid came from.

There is nothing wrong about teaching kids about God and religion. Religion is to basically have faith and become spiritually good in life. You cannot the kid roam free and believe what he/she wants from a very early age. It is also educational system law that all schools must teach religion, so that tells you the value behind it.

But, like UzumakiSama said: the kid will grow up and come up with his/her own opinion and lifestyle. That is solely if the kid was raised in a nicely religion family and country, otherwise he/she will be raised in a strict system.

 

[Funky Tiger]

belief and belfie are synonyms. coincidence? i think not, its the illuminati at work. they stick beliefs up you arse with every butt-shot you take, sheeple.