What makes something good?

[Hugo]

In this comparative religion section I thought it might be useful to talk over the notion of what it might mean to say something is good as it seems a useful idea and it would be interesting to see if Muslims have a different notion of it to others. To begin the discussion I will just outline some loose ideas and you may like to comment on those before perhaps getting into specifics.

1. Definition - the word good (in English) takes up quite a space in a dictionary with a wide span of meaning:

Good - "having desirable or positive qualities, agreeable or pleasing"
Good - "morally admirable or excellent or suitable
Good - "deserving of respect" etc.

2. For our purposes here I shall use a definition that is common in philosophy and that is that a 'good' is something we might want to create, keep preserve because it brings or adds value; meaning that which is worth having. In this thread the concern is about goods that can be achieved by action meaning we set out to do, get, or hold on to them. It is understood that in the world there are many valuable things, of which perhaps the most important is love, which are simply not within our power to acquire or preserve (except indirectly)

3. Since we are speaking of goods and their value then we are into the realm of judgement because logic alone cannot help us decide if something is good or bad and we have to rely essentially on our emotions. For example, it sounds logical to set criteria and use those criteria to judge if something is bad or good but it is obvious the setting of criteria itself involved judgements.

4. So how can we decide if something is bad or good? Well I will suggest three ways but it is understood here that one can offer personal opinions only and in general you cannot speak for everyone. It follows that you cannot base an argument for a good on the basis that you consider it to be that but of course you can argue that it is for you good or bad or you may be just indifferent.

a. Use dogma, that is some one or something tells us; for examples the Qu'ran or the Bible. But dogma alone seems unsatisfying to the human mind and we need to ask why.
b. We use the notion of value and ask if the 'thing' is worth creating, keeping or preserving
c. This is really an extension of b but we attempt to be logical by agreeing on criteria

5. Lastly, I want to speak about absolutes. In mathematics for example we can in principle always decide if something is true or false, there can be no grey areas. Also if I say I have 3 sons and two daughters there doubt but if I say that bird in the bush is grey and that other one is not but there will always be shades of grey where we can't decide - that is the concept of 'grey' is necessarily vague. Language itself of course is vague, in a way that is the beauty of it. Science itself has almost built into it vagueness as concepts and theories are always on the move.

A starter topic to demonstrate the principles?
Is music good or bad might be a place to start as its been debated hotly in this board but not as far as I can see in the term I have outlined and mostly in terms of dogma but what few seem to be aware of is that judgement and hence a sense of values was needed to get that far. Music is a good place to start as it is everywhere and it exists in many thousands of forms and science tells us we are almost built for it. So if I pick on say Mozart then to me his work is good, it brings joy and happiness and sometimes melancholy, it is social and brings people together and also helps us through difficulties and those I would class all these things as 'goods', worth creating, worth preserving. Therefore I am willing to exert some effort to get this music and share it with others.

You may have a different view or you may like to consider say books or art or football or cooking or religion or apostasy or philosophy or psychology so let's here what you have to say and an argument that supports it.

[PouringRain]

I would say that something is "good" if it 1) brings glory to God, or 2) benefits society, or 3) selfless acts. Any of those three could be labeled "good."

The problems I have with the three you suggested is that a) religious dogma, does not necessarily give any glory to God. It can become easy for someone to become dogmatically correct, but lacking in God's love for others or complacent in the acts. b) subjective. By whose standards? Which of course, leads to why you said point c) is related to b). So: c) the problem with agreed upon standards is that they are not necessarily "good." If the masses accept homosexuality it doesn't mean that it is a good thing.

[- Qatada -]

Anyone who even participates in such a discussion is wasting their time.


Why? There's so much angles that you can look at a thing from, that it's obvious we'll never reach a unified conclusion, ESPECIALLY when we know that there will be issues which we accept based on faith.

So i can assure you, this thread will just bring about useless emotional and heated debate, with final words being like "I believe it's good because I believe my religion is correct", and others discouraging this and saying we should argue logically. But what's the point when our religion is preferred even over our own desires?


Let's see if what i say comes into effect.

[Hugo]

I would say that something is "good" if it 1) brings glory to God, or 2) benefits society, or 3) selfless acts. Any of those three could be labeled "good."

If I may say so you are missing the point. For example a self-less act might be good but how are we to decide that it was selfless. In the same way how are we to decide the something is a benefit, how are we to decide that something brings glory to God? That is what my post was trying to outline.

The problems I have with the three you suggested is that a) religious dogma, does not necessarily give any glory to God. It can become easy for someone to become dogmatically correct, but lacking in God's love for others or complacent in the acts. b) subjective. By whose standards? Which of course, leads to why you said point c) is related to b). So: c) the problem with agreed upon standards is that they are not necessarily "good." If the masses accept homosexuality it doesn't mean that it is a good thing.

This gets nearer to what I was saying but here you are implying that motive or attitude is a part of deciding if something is good and I think that is unsound. It would imply that the same act can be good in one event but bad in another and that does not seem to make any sense. For example, for a person of faith the command to love the lord your God with all your heart and soul does not become a bad command because I lack love?

Of course it is subjective, how can it be anything else? No matter what standards you use they will always be a matter of judgement, even the decision as to whether the standards are good or bad is a judgements and our emotions not logic will play the most significant part. Here you show your own sense subjectivity by deciding that popularity does not mean a thing is good but I would guess that in other cases you would side with popularity. So what we are dealing with here is not simple and there are traps for the unthinking everywhere.

Try to take an example such as Music or something you feel deeply about and argue a case in the ways I suggested or ways you feel might me more appropriate that way you will get a feel for how hard this is to do and in so doing perhaps enlighten the rest of us on the notion of good.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Skavau]

Is music good or bad might be a place to start as its been debated hotly in this board but not as far as I can see in the term I have outlined and mostly in terms of dogma but what few seem to be aware of is that judgement and hence a sense of values was needed to get that far. Music is a good place to start as it is everywhere and it exists in many thousands of forms and science tells us we are almost built for it. So if I pick on say Mozart then to me his work is good, it brings joy and happiness and sometimes melancholy, it is social and brings people together and also helps us through difficulties and those I would class all these things as 'goods', worth creating, worth preserving. Therefore I am willing to exert some effort to get this music and share it with others.

I don't believe there's any possible common ground on this topic given present company. Muslims that reject the value of music will always reject it regardless of there being an objective or applicable reason to reject it. They simply believe that as it is considered impermissable that it is absolutely invalid to engage in it, or consider it beneficial (or moral). There is no breaking down that barrier. It is not one rooted in reason, but obedience to authority. Those that refer to this as their reason (no pun intended) for not engaging in said activities even take time to imply praise towards those more steadfast and consistent in their obedience and unwillingness to falter.

Now, I am aware that many Muslims explain that they are obedient and unquestioning towards Allah because of specific things regarding his character (his wisdom, might, position), or because of the proclaimed perspective that Allah always does things for a reason. I have observed however that these are always declared in hindsight. If it to be taken seriously, that everything Allah does is good and that consequently unquestionable faith in everything Allah decrees is necessary - we only know that things are a certain way. We are no closer to understanding why certain things are right or wrong and I have had Muslims interacting with me even admit such being the case. Whilst insisting that there is a reason behind why certain things are halal and haraam - they claim not to know it (sometimes declaring it is impossible to know it) instead opting to entirely trust the possibility that there is. This is, frankly not endearing to a secular observer and it comes across as completely arbitrary and faith-based.

[Justufy]

Good is simply Love, unconditional love for one another.

I try to attain it, and be perfect, just as our Lord jesus christ who was perfect himself.

God had only one son without sin but never one without suffering.

[PouringRain]

If I may say so you are missing the point. For example a self-less act might be good but how are we to decide that it was selfless. In the same way how are we to decide the something is a benefit, how are we to decide that something brings glory to God? That is what my post was trying to outline.

I wasn't missing the point. You asked what makes something good, and those are my answers to the question. :) To evaluate the value or something, or how good it is, those are things I believe are important. You may disagree, but it doesn't mean that I have missed the point of the question.

Often, we do not know if an act is selfless, but it has been my experience in life that the true motivations of the heart often come out in time. An act may appear good, but once the motive is revealed then the truth is known and can soil the entire act. The heart of a person is important in determining what is good or not.

How do we know if something brings glory to God? Sometimes it is obvious (as with motives of the heart), but sometimes it takes time to discover. A good tree bears good fruit, and a bad tree bears bad fruit, ...you will know a tree by its fruit (Matthew 7:17-20). Bringing glory to God can be accomplished through a number of ways.... it could be through the acts, through the talent, through the object, etc. All creation brings glory to God, because it was created by God and he has determined it is good. Man can look at creation and see the wonders of God in it. It reflects his power, his love, his creativity, etc.

Determining if something is good, is not something that should be done in haste.

This gets nearer to what I was saying but here you are implying that motive or attitude is a part of deciding if something is good and I think that is unsound. It would imply that the same act can be good in one event but bad in another and that does not seem to make any sense. For example, for a person of faith the command to love the lord your God with all your heart and soul does not become a bad command because I lack love?

I do believe that the motive/ attitude of the heart is important. And yes, it does mean that something can be good in one context and not good in another. The man who tells his wife she is beautiful, because he loves her, has done something good with a pure motive. The man who tells his wife she is beautiful, out of his guilt feelings because he is in secret having an affair, has not done something good. His motives have nullified his act, and when his wife discovers the affair all those words she thought were from love are discovered for what they were. Or how about the man on a date who tells the woman she is beautiful simply because he wants sex from her. There is no good in that.

To answer your question......... it is not the command to love God that becomes a bad command. It is your act that becomes the bad act. How can a person love God with all their heart if they have no love? It is the same like loving the spouse in the previous example. If you have no love for God, then none of your actions with regard to that are good actions. Without love for God, one cannot rightfully pray, worship, etc. How can someone express love if they have no love? I liken it to the previous example with the spouse simply because our relationship with God is like a marriage. He is the husband and we are the spouse. If we are unfaithful to him, then our acts towards him are not good.

Of course it is subjective, how can it be anything else? No matter what standards you use they will always be a matter of judgement, even the decision as to whether the standards are good or bad is a judgements and our emotions not logic will play the most significant part. Here you show your own sense subjectivity by deciding that popularity does not mean a thing is good but I would guess that in other cases you would side with popularity. So what we are dealing with here is not simple and there are traps for the unthinking everywhere.

No, I would not side with popularity in other cases. I have never been one to go with the crowd. :) Popular opinion means very little to me in any circumstance.

[Hugo]

Anyone who even participates in such a discussion is wasting their time. Why? There's so much angles that you can look at a thing from, that it's obvious we'll never reach a unified conclusion, ESPECIALLY when we know that there will be issues which we accept based on faith.

So i can assure you, this thread will just bring about useless emotional and heated debate, with final words being like "I believe it's good because I believe my religion is correct", and others discouraging this and saying we should argue logically. But what's the point when our religion is preferred even over our own desires? Let's see if what i say comes into effect.

This is an interesting post as it is in a way the first to attempt to say if something is good or bad. Here the arguments is based on there being no value, no benefit, nothing worth preserving and that it is impossible to reach a conclusion. So here we have an argument essentially about choice and Qattada advices you to choose not to participate because he feels it is a waste of time.

In terms of faith then I have already said a way to choose good or bad is based on dogma, someone or something tells you how to choose. If someone wants to go down this path then that is a matter for them and I would not want to interfere if that is what make them feel comfortable.

The trouble I suppose is that life is full of decisions and it is no possible to have a kind of right and wrong answer for everything and be dragged down by always having to ask someone. Even the founding fathers of Islam did not I think take that view but sought via Istihad to find a reasoned answer or at least to explain in some way the rationale.

On the matter of dogma it is easy if I just take the question of music to find reasoned arguments from scholars and often they reach different conclusions so it seems to me that we at least must read these arguments and test them and in that way we will end up knowing what we accept and believe. I cannot see as some do that this dishonours the scholars put in fact is respectful. Surely, anyone is pleased when others read their work?

So whilst I see that Qatada might be right it does not seem a good principle in general to says let's not discuss anything because we might never reach consensus. It is not necessary that we have to end up agreeing but only perhaps that we end up appreciating other points of view and that in my book would be a good in and of itself.

[Uthman]

If something is pleasing to Allah, then it is good. An example of this would be the willingness of Ibrahim to sacrifice his son.

If something is displeasing to Allah, then it is evil. An example of this is the refusal of Abu Talib, the Prophet's (:saws:) uncle, to become a Muslim even though the following things were true of him:

• He knew that Islam was the truth (which he made clear)
• He helped the Prophet a great deal throughout the tribulations he faced from the other tribes of Makkah who wanted him to stop preaching his message of pure monotheism.

I've deliberately chosen interesting examples here to illustrate that morality isn't always what we might expect.

[Hugo]

If something is pleasing to Allah, then it is good. An example of this would be the willingness of Ibrahim to sacrifice his son. If something is displeasing to Allah, then it is evil. An example of this is the refusal of Abu Talib, the Prophet's (:saws:) uncle, to become a Muslim even though the following things were true of him:

• He knew that Islam was the truth (which he made clear)
• He helped the Prophet a great deal throughout the tribulations he faced from the other tribes of Makkah who wanted him to stop preaching his message of pure monotheism.

I've deliberately chosen interesting examples here to illustrate that morality isn't always what we might expect.

I have no problem with the general proposition here only that it might not always be as cut and dry as you imply. In the case of Abraham we read that although he accepted the command to sacrifice he reasoned that God would find a way out because otherwise the promise that all nations would be blessed through Abraham could not be fulfilled so one might argue that what please God was really the faith that underpinned the willingness.

In the second case I have difficulty because Abu Talib seems to have done more than most others who claimed to be Muslim and nothing that looks like evil or bad. It would seem illogical that God would judge what otherwise would be a good act as evil just because they were not Muslim, it sounds unjust and injustice is not good is it? I am puzzled?

[Skavau]

In the second case I have difficulty because Abu Talib seems to have done more than most others who claimed to be Muslim and nothing that looks like evil or bad. It would seem illogical that God would judge what otherwise would be a good act as evil just because they were not Muslim, it sounds unjust and injustice is not good is it? I am puzzled?

Well, he said it himself:

If something is pleasing to Allah, then it is good. An example of this would be the willingness of Ibrahim to sacrifice his son.

If something is displeasing to Allah, then it is evil. An example of this is the refusal of Abu Talib....

With all that, he has defined 'good' only in terms of obedience or disobedience. The terms 'unjust' or 'just' (if he is true to what he stated in the above) can have no meaning beyond obedience to Allah. What he means when he goes on further to state that "morality isn't what we might always expect" is that he is referencing that to other, many things he believes may appear to be immoral. He is almost conceding that his moral understanding may appear to be counter-intuitive.

[Uthman]

Greetings Hugo,

In the case of Abraham we read that although he accepted the command to sacrifice he reasoned that God would find a way out

Do you know if this is this to be found in the Islamic narrative? Or just in the Biblical narrative?

In the second case I have difficulty because Abu Talib seems to have done more than most others who claimed to be Muslim

I'm not sure that's true. Some of the Prophet's (:saws:) companions also supported him a great deal, perhaps even more so than Abu Talib did, throughout the many hardships that he faced in delivering his message of pure monotheism and submission to one all-powerful deity.

It would seem illogical that God would judge what otherwise would be a good act as evil just because they were not Muslim

I think you have misunderstood. I did not claim that Allah judged Abu Talib's support for the Prophet (:saws:) to be an evil act. I said that, despite making it clear that he knew the Prophet (:saws:) was indeed a Prophet and that Islam was the truth, he still refused to become a Muslim, preferring instead to follow the polytheistic and idolatrous traditions of his forefathers. This was evil and, because of this, Abu Talib is destined to eternal punishment in the hereafter, although he does have the lightest punishment in Hell if that's any consolation to him.

[Eliphaz]

I think the only objective way of deciding if an act is "good" is if it benefits others. As such, acts like prayer, fasting and pilgrimage can in my mind not be seen as good despite bringing inner tranquility to the one who performs them. The Muslims argue that their book is the only objective example of moral guidance but to be honest such a perspective is in itself subjective to whether you are convinced by the arguments put forth for Islam.

[Hugo]

Greetings Hugo, Do you know if this is this to be found in the Islamic narrative? Or just in the Biblical narrative?

It is definitely in the Biblical narrative but I cannot say if is anywhere in Islamic writings. Obviously as you say Abraham was obedient but all I was adding was that that obedience was generated by faith in a promise and Isaac though not the first born physically was regarded as the son of the promise.

I'm not sure that's true. Some of the Prophet's (:saws:) companions also supported him a great deal, perhaps even more so than Abu Talib did, throughout the many hardships that he faced in delivering his message of pure monotheism and submission to one all-powerful deity.

I think you have misunderstood. I did not claim that Allah judged Abu Talib's support for the Prophet (:saws:) to be an evil act. I said that, despite making it clear that he knew the Prophet (:saws:) was indeed a Prophet and that Islam was the truth, he still refused to become a Muslim, preferring instead to follow the polytheistic and idolatrous traditions of his forefathers. This was evil and, because of this, Abu Talib is destined to eternal punishment in the hereafter, although he does have the lightest punishment in Hell if that's any consolation to him.

Yes, I think I understood that his sin if we can call it that would be regarded as shirk but his acts of support and kindness where of themselves good. It is an interesting point though to consider in what way intention or attitude colours or effects whether an act is good or bad. I can see that the right intention and the right attitude may in themselves be good or bad but how or why must we distinguish that from that act itself. My feeling is that an act can still be good no matter what the intention or attitude.

One thought though troubles me here and that is in Islamic theology as implied by your comments on punishment is that one builds up credit with God by actions but its obvious or at least possible that one can do good deeds and lead a holy life without being Muslim or anything else and indeed a non-Muslim may outstrip a Muslim in this regard so if God judges us on our actions what value or good is it to be Muslim since the standard is the same for all?

[Hugo]

I think the only objective way of deciding if an act is "good" is if it benefits others. As such, acts like prayer, fasting and pilgrimage can in my mind not be seen as good despite bringing inner tranquility to the one who performs them. The Muslims argue that their book is the only objective example of moral guidance but to be honest such a perspective is in itself subjective to whether you are convinced by the arguments put forth for Islam.

I tend to agree with this because if acts of prayer, fasting or pilgrimage don't manifest themselves in the life of a believer other than inwardly then that feels like they are of littler value because nothing has changed.

I also agree that any view of the Qu'ran or the Bible or any scripture for that matter as a moral guide is subjective. The fact that we can agree that certain moral standpoints are good and to be valued is in an objective sense no more than popularity or convenience within a certain community.

One final point is that often it seems to me that moral conformance is no more than cultural following. For example, Muslim and Christians say would probably easily agree on the 10 commandments as moral responsibilities. But sadly (to me) some go far beyond that to say as a simple example that woman wearing a headscarf is a moral act and therefore good? Let me be clear here, if a woman want to wear a headscarf then that is for her to decide but to say it is a moral act is entirely a subjective judgement

[Eliphaz]

If something is pleasing to Allah, then it is good. An example of this would be the willingness of Ibrahim to sacrifice his son.

Taking this analogy a step further, if God had asked Ibrahim to sacrifice his whole family would that have been "good" also? What about his entire tribe? Of course this is presuming that God was just bluffing, as per the story, to test Ibrahim's alliegance. But it begs the question, is killing right under any circumstances? Does killing benefit anyone apart from possibly the one who commits the act?

[Alpha Dude]

Taking this analogy a step further, if God had asked Ibrahim to sacrifice his whole family would that have been "good" also?

What about his entire tribe? Of course this is presuming that God was just bluffing, as per the story, to test Ibrahim's alliegance.

I think you misunderstand the concept of a God, if you have to ask such a question. God is almighty and full of ultimate wisdom. Anything he asks is bound to be good. No matter what.

The problem you have, is that since you don't accept God to exist in the first place, you'll look for the effects of the good in this world. Whereas not all acts have wordly benefits.

But it begs the question, is killing right under any circumstances? Does killing benefit anyone apart from possibly the one who commits the act?

A married couple have their first son and they are on their way home from the hospital. A crazy man known to inject random people with rabies tries to grab the baby out of the pram. The father without hesitation takes out his gun and aims it directly at the man's head and shoots him dead.

The killing benefited the couple in question. Killing is justified when there is an unjust situation. Killing for sport is not.

[Eliphaz]

I think you misunderstand the concept of a God, if you have to ask such a question. God is almighty and full of ultimate wisdom. Anything he asks is bound to be good. No matter what.

The problem you have, is that since you don't accept God to exist in the first place, you'll look for the effects of the good in this world. Whereas not all acts have wordly benefits.

I think where we disagree is over the definition of good. I think you see good as obedience to the Higher Power whereas I see that as simply obedience.

A married couple have their first son and they are on their way home from the hospital. A crazy man known to inject random people with rabies tries to grab the baby out of the pram. The father without hesitation takes out his gun and aims it directly at the man's head and shoots him dead.

The killing benefited the couple in question. Killing is justified when there is an unjust situation. Killing for sport is not.

Yes but there are always special cases. A better example would be a person who is terminally ill and suffering extreme inescapable pain. Killing them at their own request would actually be an act of mercy. But we both know here you are playing with semantics and what I am talking about is murder, genocide, or in the case of Ibrahim, infanticide.

So I would ask you again, is the example of infanticide justifiable as "good" under any circumstances? If so, is, by extension, genocide justifiable as "good" under any circumstances?

[Alpha Dude]

I think where we disagree is over the definition of good. I think you see good as obedience to the Higher Power whereas I see that as simply obedience.

Okay.

I wasn't playing semantics. From your question, it seemed you were talking about killing in general, as you said killing under any circumstance. I didn't realise you meant specifc to the case of murder.

So I would ask you again, is the example of infanticide justifiable as "good" under any circumstances? If so, is, by extension, genocide justifiable as "good" under any circumstances?

Infanticide is haram. Murder is haram. So, no. It is not good under any circumstance.

However, it was a commandment for the Prophet Ibrahim Alaihe Salam to follow, as a special test for him alone. Hence good, only for him.

[Eliphaz]

Okay.

I wasn't playing semantics. From your question, it seemed you were talking about killing in general, as you said killing under any circumstance. I didn't realise you meant specifc to the case of murder.

Infanticide is haram. Murder is haram. So, no. It is not good under any circumstance.

However, it was a commandment for the Prophet Ibrahim Alaihe Salam to follow, as a special test for him alone. Hence good, only for him.

How did he know it was a test? What made him so sure it was God speaking to him?

[Alpha Dude]

How did he know it was a test? What made him so sure it was God speaking to him?

He was a Prophet of God and Prophetic dreams are wahy (revelation).

[Eliphaz]

He was a Prophet of God and Prophetic dreams are wahy (revelation).

How did he know he was a Prophet of God?

Well of course we know the answer: because God spoke to him. So we are back to the question of how Ibrahim knew it was God speaking to him.

[Alpha Dude]

How did he know he was a Prophet of God?

Well of course we know the answer: because God spoke to him. So we are back to the question of how Ibrahim knew it was God speaking to him.

It is unimaginable that an Almighty being would send revelation upon a man without the man coming to know who the revelation is from.

[Hugo]

It is unimaginable that an Almighty being would send revelation upon a man without the man coming to know who the revelation is from.

If God is all powerful I cannot see that it can be unimaginable? Indeed there is a famous story in the Bible where a donkey speaks when he see the angel of the Lord. There are many other stories where God uses all sort of people to further his message. Can we set limits to how God works or his goodness?

[Alpha Dude]

Of course, a God can send messages without letting them know if we think about the attribute of All Powerful.

However, in the context of my discussion with Eliphaz, where God is choosing a man as a Prophet to spread his message, it is unimaginable that God would send messages to him yet not let him know who it is from. It is unimaginable that God would order Ibrahim to sacrifice his son, yet not let Ibrahim know that it was indeed God that sent the order.

[Hugo]

Of course, a God can send messages without letting them know if we think about the attribute of All Powerful.

However, in the context of my discussion with Eliphaz, where God is choosing a man as a Prophet to spread his message, it is unimaginable that God would send messages to him yet not let him know who it is from. It is unimaginable that God would order Ibrahim to sacrifice his son, yet not let Ibrahim know that it was indeed God that sent the order.

Well you might be right but we all get messages all the time in our heads so it is not obvious to me how we know this one is from God and that one is not - do you see the point? In Abraham's case he had visitors but he still had to somehow know? I suppose what I am saying is that anyone can say they have had a revelation and that it was God that spoke to them but on its own that would generally be an entirely private thing so it is others in a way that have to decide if it can be considered a revelation; not just because one person says so.

But in terms of this thread is your point that any revelation is good as long as we can know it is from God?

[Eliphaz]

It is unimaginable that an Almighty being would send revelation upon a man without the man coming to know who the revelation is from.

But the message you call revelation could come from any number of sources. For instance, as Muslims you believe in metaphysical beings called Jinn who are capable of both good and evil and who are also capable of communicating with us. We know that Jinns can imitate dead people, that they can perform magic and such. How do you know it is not the Jinns behind the revelation?

As Hugo has said, we all have dreams, hear voices inside our head. What criteria can the one who recieves these messages use to determine whether it is from God? This takes us back to the argument that morality (i.e. good and evil) is subjective because revelation from the Almighty is a subjective experience.

[Alpha Dude]

I suppose what I am saying is that anyone can say they have had a revelation and that it was God that spoke to them but on its own that would generally be an entirely private thing so it is others in a way that have to decide if it can be considered a revelation; not just because one person says so.

Oh yeah, of course. We have to look at the impact their words have had and deduce their credibility based on their lifestyles and evaluate the message to see if it makes sense.

But in terms of this thread is your point that any revelation is good as long as we can know it is from God?

Yes. I would say that.

For instance, as Muslims you believe in metaphysical beings called Jinn who are capable of both good and evil and who are also capable of communicating with us. We know that Jinns can imitate dead people, that they can perform magic and such. How do you know it is not the Jinns behind the revelation?

The example of jinns is not a coherent one. If we are to believe in jinns, it means we believe in Islam hence of course it was a revelation from God that was given to Ibrahim Alaihe Salam.

However, I do understand your point. Like I said in my above reply to Hugo, we have to assess those people who claim revelation from God and scrutinise them, their lifestyles and the impact that they have had, in order to ascertain whether what they said is true and possible.

[Eliphaz]

Oh yeah, of course. We have to look at the impact their words have had and deduce their credibility based on their lifestyles and evaluate the message to see if it makes sense.

Yes. I would say that.

The example of jinns is not a coherent one. If we are to believe in jinns, it means we believe in Islam hence of course it was a revelation from God that was given to Ibrahim Alaihe Salam.

I do not believe in Jinns, but I was just implying that if you do, then you must at least be open to the possibility that they could have falsely communicated to men by pretending to be God.

However, I do understand your point. Like I said in my above reply to Hugo, we have to assess those people who claim revelation from God and scrutinise them, their lifestyles and the impact that they have had, in order to ascertain whether what they said is true and possible.

[Mod edit]

Furthermore, how do we "assess" the people who recieve revelation. Are we not using our individual subjective perceptions to decide? Is therefore the whole concept of revelation not a subjective matter?

[Alpha Dude]

I do not believe in Jinns, but I was just implying that if you do, then you must at least be open to the possibility that they could have falsely communicated to men by pretending to be God.

That is illogical and circular reasoning. Islam pretty much tells us about jinns. It's absurd to be open to the possibility that something contained in a revelation could have been the cause of the revelation, thereby negating my belief in what's contained therein in the first place!

[Mod edit]

First of all. I don't like the way you've phrased that. It's offensive, rude and disrespectful. You've placed a deliberate negative and insulting spin on the life of a revered Prophet among muslims. Don't do that again. It's behaviour like this, in the guise of 'intellectual crititique', that causes muslims to be defensive of their faith and harms discourse. I hope you get infracted for it. You could have phrased it in a much more diplomatic and non-offensive manner. In fact, your case is worse. You are an apostate, you know muslims, therefore you ought to know just how much muslims get offended by such stuff and if you were sincere, you would have been uninsulting about it.

Nonetheless. The Prophet Muhammad Sallalahu Alaihe Wasalam said Ibrahim Alaihe Salam spoke no lie during his entire life, save 3. Those too, only out of genuine and sincere necessity. If he hadn't bended the truth in the case of his wife, the people would have taken her away from him. Haram becomes halal when it is a case of life or death. We are allowed to eat pork if we are dying of hunger.

The other bending of truths were for the purpose of directing the people toward God. They weren't for petty, trivial, wordly things.

Incidentally, how many lies do most people speak in an entire lifetime? From childhood to death?

Another issue is that you're looking at the case of Ibrahim Alaihe Salam in isolation. We muslims do not base our faith on what was revealed to Ibrahim Alaihe Salam. They lived in a different time. His message was specific to his people and his time. Some rules were different than they are now. Islam as revealed to Prophet Muhammad Sallalahu Alaihe Wasalam is for all of mankind. We are convinced that the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was indeed a Prophet and we base our faith on his life. Not on the life of Ibrahim Alaihe Salam. What we know of Ibrahim Alaihe Salam is what has been revealed through Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him.

From what I know, Sarah, upon her be peace, told him to marry Hajar, upon her be peace. Hence, your accusation of adultery (as you have alluded to) holds no water. It's baseless.

As to the issue of leaving them and sacrificing, we don't look at these things in isolation. Like I said, we base our faith on what Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him brought. Hence, if we accept that he was a Prophet, then automatically we accept Ibrahim Alaihe Salam was a Prophet too.

And hence, in light of believing Ibrahim Alaihe Salam was in contact with a Divine being, what happened during the tests that were placed upon him make sense. Furthermore, none of the participants complained. Ishmael Alaihe Salam told his father to sacrifice him! Why would he do that, if he wasn't convinced of his father's Prophethood?!

Furthermore, how do we "assess" the people who recieve revelation. Are we not using our individual subjective perceptions to decide? Is therefore the whole concept of revelation not a subjective matter?

This kind of questioning, I like to think of as intellectual nonsense.

If somebody came to you and said 'I have 5 fingers on each hand' and you saw it with your own eye, you should use your mental capacity and accept that it is true. Any sane person would. Likewise, if a person who has been seen as trustworthy in all matters throughout his entire life and brings to you a revelation and a dose of miraclous events, any sane person would accept it.

Allah (swt) has proven his existence, through his creation, and has done so definitively. The matter is just that it takes a sincere heart to recognise and, more importantly, accept, the writing on the wall. When Allah says in the Qur'an, "And from His signs is x,y,z.." "And in a,b,c their are signs...";, all these created things are pointed to as signs of His existence and His majesty. And they are defintive. It only takes sincere reflection upon them to reach that conclusion. Due to the fact that the matter is so plain, the disbelievers have no excuse and are destined to hell on count of their rejection.

[Hugo]

If somebody came to you and said 'I have 5 fingers on each hand' and you saw it with your own eye, you should use your mental capacity and accept that it is true. Any sane person would. Likewise, if a person who has been seen as trustworthy in all matters throughout his entire life and brings to you a revelation and a dose of miraclous events, any sane person would accept it.

So why do sane people reject it and rejected it at the time if it is so obviously true and in terms of this thread good? I think you are using circular reasoning here, you have decided that God must exist because a person is trustworthy so by a logical extension anyone who is trustworthy and says they have a revelation must be accepted? Such faulty reasoning was known in ancient Greek times and is summed up in the memorable line by Socrates "Is what is holy holy because the gods approve it, or do they approve it because it is holy."

However, to get the thread back on track I want to add a word on vagueness. One can be vague in logic because whilst in mathematics something can be either true or false with no middle ground in life generally there are plenty of grey areas. In fact vague ideas and concepts, concepts that are borderline cases play a hugely important role in our lives every day. Its easy to see that we have cold days and chilly days but these are not exact measures. So one might ask why do people all the time use words whose meaning is difficult to pin down. Indeed one line in artificial intelligence is that 'intelligent agents' will only be useful once they manage to use vague concepts.

So in judging what is good we are I would argue necessarily or perhaps instinctively vague and this might be because our emotions are central in making any judgement and that cannot be avoided as far as I can see. So oddly or paradoxically we can hide simple things by being precise so instead of saying "it was a fine day" which is vague but meaningful we say instead "A barometric low hung over the Atlantic and moved eastwards towards a high-pressure area over Russia......"

So I wonder in our assessment of good what part vagueness has, does it make us cover up things so that something sounds good for example, or can we try to be precise but it becomes another way of being vague? If you want to look at this further try Kees Van Deemter's book "not exactly: in praise of vagueness" ISBN 9780199 545902

So finally a question. In Islam (or any religion) one superposes that we want precision but it is unattainable and one might argue the more one seeks for minute exactitude the less accessible the religion becomes and the more its adherents rely on blind acceptance and I conjecture here that that is not good because that is not how we are made. In this context then is the Qu'ran or the Bible precise or vague? I would of course argue they are both vague if for no other reason than they use words and concepts and these are for the most part intrinsically vague. I rejoice in this vagueness because it means we have to work hard and search the scriptures to find out what God is saying so in a way vagueness is a kind of virtue, it is a good

[Alpha Dude]

So why do sane people reject it and rejected it at the time if it is so obviously true and in terms of this thread good? I think you are using circular reasoning here, you have decided that God must exist because a person is trustworthy so by a logical extension anyone who is trustworthy and says they have a revelation must be accepted? Such faulty reasoning was known in ancient Greek times and is summed up in the memorable line by Socrates "Is what is holy holy because the gods approve it, or do they approve it because it is holy."

I didn't say only base our acceptance on trustworthiness.

I also said we have to look at the impact their words have had and deduce their credibility based on their lifestyles and evaluate the message to see if it makes sense. We also take into consideration their miracles.

[Hugo]

I didn't say only base our acceptance on trustworthiness.

I also said we have to look at the impact their words have had and deduce their credibility based on their lifestyles and evaluate the message to see if it makes sense. We also take into consideration their miracles.

This is fair enough as a set of shall we say principles but in terms of recognising what might be good do you apply this everywhere not just is Islamic circles? For example, the apostle Paul was trustworthy, had a huge impact, led an exemplary life style, worked tirelessly in the spread of the gospel, was involved in miracles and his message was coincident with the rest of the Bible? Do you therefore accept his message and recognise him in the same way for example you recognize prophet Mohammed?

[Ramadhan]

This is fair enough as a set of shall we say principles but in terms of recognising what might be good do you apply this everywhere not just is Islamic circles? For example, the apostle Paul was trustworthy, had a huge impact, led an exemplary life style, worked tirelessly in the spread of the gospel, was involved in miracles and his message was coincident with the rest of the Bible? Do you therefore accept his message and recognise him in the same way for example you recognize prophet Mohammed?

There is no way you can ask a true muslim to accept and honor a man who elevated another man (even if he is a prophet) he'd never met into lesser god.

can you imagine a situation where a muslim who had never met prophet Muhammad SAW but then changed many of his teachings and elevated him SAW into a lesser god?
in a true Islamic state (khilafah), he would have been killed for heresy.

[Hugo]

There is no way you can ask a true muslim to accept and honor a man who elevated another man (even if he is a prophet) he'd never met into lesser god.

can you imagine a situation where a muslim who had never met prophet Muhammad SAW but then changed many of his teachings and elevated him SAW into a lesser god?
in a true Islamic state (khilafah), he would have been killed for heresy.

Let us be clear here this is your opinion and I am certain that you have never studied the letters of Paul else it would be impossible to come to such an erroneous conclusion so you are offering nothing but hearsay and that is never a good idea.

However, the point about the post was that Alpha Dude set some standards for men who might receive revelation and Paul meets those standards. If they are standards at all, they cannot just apply to Muslims can they?

[جوري]

Let us be clear here this is your opinion ?

It isn't only his opinion & I doubt rendering this a personal persuasion will do anything productive to counter-act that. else I'd start with the Jehovahs..

The BIGGEST Blunder of the Church for the past 2000 years!

Expect to be shocked!

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword" (Hebrews 4:12b)

Just as Judas was indwelled by Satan to betray Jesus, Paul was indwelled by Satan to destroy Christianity! Paul taught ANOTHER Gospel! Why else did Constantine and the Pagan leaders take out the books of the disciples and put in Paul's! To lead YOU away from the truth and into a FALSE Gospel!

Tribe Of Benjamin
Gen. 49:27 "Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf: in the morning he shall devour the prey, and at night he shall divide the spoil." Who was from the tribe of Benjamin? Paul!

Where The Churches Went Wrong:
The Deception of the Ages - by Sherry Shriner

Want to know the real Kingdom of God? Read it Here, undistorted, unpolluted, and uncontaminated.. http://www.justgivemethetruth.com/kingdom-of-God.htm

The Apostle Paul was a Deceiver! A Judas in the camp! Click Here

Those who opposed Paul, followed Jesus!

Led by James and Peter, the early church rejected Paul as a fraud.

The Problem With Paul

Paul built his own following preaching ANOTHER Gospel. In contrast to the truth he abolished the law and called it a curse (when Jesus came to fulfill it) and Paul replaced it with a distorted perception of grace, he replaced works with laziness and no fruit, and he replaced a life of faith and works with a 30 second salvation prayer and a false sense of eternal security. He gave a license to sin mentality and encouraged discrimination. God does not discriminate! How can you learn to hear His voice and follow Him if all you need to do is say a 30 second prayer of salvation? Yes, Salvation is mandatory, but it's not the end to the means. It's only the beginning! If you want to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven (later) then you must learn to live in it now! The Kingdom of God is within us!

The Bible Codes Confirm that Paul was a Judas, a Deceiver!

"...it is...a fact of history that St. Paul and his successors added to,..., or imposed upon, or substituted another doctrine for...the plain...teachings of Jesus..."
H.G. Wells (1866-1946)

There were 12 Apostles.

And Each one of the Names of the 12 Apostles are written on the Gates of the New Jerusalem.

Paul's Name is NOT one of them!

Yahweh told me in so many words, "Tell them there were only 12 Apostles." Why? Because if people can't understand that, they'll never get anything else! It's that simple!

Can you prove Paul was an apostle? No! The simple answer is NO. You cannot prove he was an apostle when there's mountains of evidence against him! Why doesn't this mountain of evidence exist against any of the others? Until you or somebody can affirmatively prove that Paul was a genuine apostle, it would be wrong for any follower or pastor of Yahshua to follow, preach or quote Pauline doctrine.

Matthias replaced Judas. Not Paul!!

October 18th, 2008

Scott McQuate

Blueprint for Bondage

Scott McQuate on TheEdgeAm.com

Listen to how the manipulation and takeover of the early church led to what we have today, the Great ***** of Babylon and her daughters...the utterly apostate Paul-worshipping churches of America

Yahushuah hand-picked His disciples who then became apostles because they witnessed His death and resurrection and had walked with Him during His ministry on earth. Did He handpick Paul? No! Paul claimed himself he was an apostle! The "road to Damascus story" was a lie! There were NO witnesses to verify Paul's claims! Why couldn't he produce just ONE soldier to verify his "Damascus road" story! Yahushua said by 2 or 3 witnesses is His Word established...where are Paul's witnesses, especially since he made such bold claims?? Why does the KJV hide the document of the Jerusalem letter of Paul's excommunication from the church by James and Peter and instead doctor up passages to make it appear they accepted Paul??

They'll Never Publicly Release or Adopt the Dead Sea Scrolls because they PROVE PAUL WAS A LIAR!

And since Paul was a Pharisee, and Yahushua specifically and emphatically warned us to be wary of the leaven of the Pharisees, it is an extraordinarily implausible and outrageous to assert that this murdering Pharisee could possibly be an apostle of Yahushua without supplying overwhelming affirmative proof of such a preposterous claim! Until you can prove Saul-Paul was a valid apostle, I respectfully remind you that it is a major sign of disrespect to Yahushua to continue to follow, preach or quote Pauline doctrine. Seriously, think about it.

Yahuah created the Garden of Eden. And in it He placed both the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Why? To Test Adam and Eve and their faithfulness to His commands to seek Him only and stay away from evil. He allowed His own creation, in His own garden, to become corrupted.
And He did the same thing with His Word. He allowed corruption to enter into it, to test His people and their faithfulness to follow His commands and to seek Him for guidance and the truth in all things.
And once again, man has failed. This time they refuse to even believe or see that corruption exists. Just as Eve was deceived, they've bitten into the same apple.
Yahuah calls the last days churches *****s. The *****s of Babylon. Why? Because they are filled with corruption, deceptions and lies. And 90% of them or more are based on the false apostle Paul and his blasphemous teachings that lead people away from the truth.

Yahushua, Jesus said, "did not I call 12 of you disciples, yet one of you is a devil?"

He called Judas one of His own, even though He knew Judas was a devil from the serpent seedline and would betray him.

Just as Paul is from the serpent seedline, and has infiltrated Christianity to corrupt it.

King James was a homosexual mason, 33rd degree. He hired Sir Francis Bacon to translate the KJV. Sir Francis Bacon, also a 33rd degree mason, was also known as Shakespeare. The Pauline doctrines would become dominant in the New Testament. Why? Because Paul was one of them. Steeped into Mithraism and the occult teachings of Rome, he had successfully infiltrated the early church.
"Has He not said?" You can hear the hissssss in Pauline teachings as he rewrites what the apostles taught who had walked and talked with Jesus, Yahushua.

Books Written by Paul and his 'disciples'
Mark, Luke, Acts, Romans, I & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillippians, Colossians, 1&2 Thessalonians, 1&2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, (and no one knows who wrote Hebrews).
Paul's disciples were not Yahushua's Disciples and Apostles! The Names of Yah's were...
Peter, James, John, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, Simon and Judas the brother of James (not the Judas Iscariot who betrayed Yahushua). Now who look replaces Judas, the one who betrayed Yahushuah....
Act 1:26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
Matthias replaced Judas Iscariot....NOT PAUL!
And who are Mark, Luke, Timothy, etc...? They were NOT Disciples of Yahushua they were disciples of Paul's! And even they LEFT PAUL and abandoned him because after following him for a while, realized what an apostate liar he was! Don't t hink so? Read the KJV! Satan doesn't even hide it, it's all right there for folks to read who will bother to do so!
It's even Luke who declares the qualifications to even be an apostle! They were NOT apostles and NEITHER WAS PAUL! He didn't qualify to be an apostle because PAUL didn't walk or even know Yahushua when He was alive on earth. A Qualification to be an APOSTLE!
Wake Up People!!

Solomon's Secret
The origins of Christianity and Judaism -
What the Early Church Really Believed
Paul or Jesus?
Paul and Ananias - You have to read this

Paul, James, and the Dead Sea Scrolls

The Excommunication of Paul

Paul, Apostle or Heretic?

The Synagogue of Satan

13 Apostles?

The Role of Women in Paul's Church

Paul the False Apostle

Is Paul a Liar

Paul the Coward

Did Peter Endorse Paul?

Who was the 12th Apostle?

Why the Apostles Rejected Paul

Who wrote the book of Hebrews

The Law Was Replaced by Grace??

The Law was a Curse?

The Role of Women in Yahushua's Teachings

Paul was the Founder of Paulianity

PAUL...TRUE FOLLOWER OF JESUS...
OR SUBVERTER OF THE FAITH OF JESUS AND FOUNDER OF A NEW RELIGION?

Church Myths: Church of Jesus or Paul?

Paul and the Origins of Christianity

The Torah vs. The Talmud - A Comparative Look

http://www.justgivemethetruth.com/

I am amazed at the clarity with which this branch of christianity views saul/paul and exposes him for what he is!

all the best

[جوري]

Now to answer your original Q. 'Good' is what Allah swt declares to be good and bad is all that Allah swt. prohibited. If you are not sure then it is best to avoid it rather than render your own interpretation!

"The lawful is clear, and the unlawful is clear. But between the two are ambiguous matters not known to many people. Whosoever avoids these matters, has preserved his honour and his religion intact. But whosoever falls into them shall fall into the unlawful, in the fashion of a shepherd who grazes his flock around a sanctuary, so that he is near to violating it. Assuredly, every king has a sanctuary, and God's sanctuary on this earth is composed of his prohibitions."

[Hugo]

Now to answer your original Q. 'Good' is what Allah swt declares to be good and bad is all that Allah swt. prohibited. If you are not sure then it is best to avoid it rather than render your own interpretation!

"The lawful is clear, and the unlawful is clear. But between the two are ambiguous matters not known to many people. Whosoever avoids these matters, has preserved his honour and his religion intact. But whosoever falls into them shall fall into the unlawful, in the fashion of a shepherd who grazes his flock around a sanctuary, so that he is near to violating it. Assuredly, every king has a sanctuary, and God's sanctuary on this earth is composed of his prohibitions."

This is you interpretation but such statements in no way really help us to discover what principles there are to decide what is good which is really the theme of this thread. Surely it is acceptable to ask why God said A was good and B was bad, we are rational human beings after all. In any case there are a million and one things that Allah has not pronounced on and in the next 100 years there will be a million more so as a practical guide to everyday living this is helpful but limited. Has God really made us so that we have to look up in some big book what is good and what is bad, with no God given conscience to guide us?

[Skavau]

This is you interpretation but such statements in no way really help us to discover what principles there are to decide what is good which is really the theme of this thread. Surely it is acceptable to ask why God said A was good and B was bad, we are rational human beings after all. In any case there are a million and one things that Allah has not pronounced on and in the next 100 years there will be a million more so as a practical guide to everyday living this is helpful but limited. Has God really made us so that we have to look up in some big book what is good and what is bad, with no God given conscience to guide us?

This is irrelevant. It has to be irrelevant. If you take seriously the notion that actions are moral and immoral based on and because of God's blessing or contempt then any reasoning for their position becomes meaningless. It would in fact, contradict the claim that God arbitrates and controls all moral affairs.

Indeed even if someone could give reasons for why God declares certain things permissable and impermissable they have already made the biggest concession - that they only accept these things as true because God says so. The reasoning employed for their validity only has resourcefulness in apologetics and as a sidenote.

It is a morality of obedience and disobedience.

[Hugo]

This is irrelevant. It has to be irrelevant. If you take seriously the notion that actions are moral and immoral based on and because of God's blessing or contempt then any reasoning for their position becomes meaningless. It would in fact, contradict the claim that God arbitrates and controls all moral affairs.

This may be so but how is one to know in a given case? We can look at scripture and say stealing is bad because it says so but is taking a digital picture, an action good or bad - we cannot find the answer to that in scripture can we? Secondly, if God arbitrates and controls all moral affairs he is to be blamed when an immoral act occurs. Your reasoning such as it is only has value if you accept that God exists and he has given us moral laws - it follows that your way of telling wrong from right is useless to those who do not believe as you do.

Indeed even if someone could give reasons for why God declares certain things permissable and impermissable they have already made the biggest concession - that they only accept these things as true because God says so. The reasoning employed for their validity only has resourcefulness in apologetics and as a sidenote. It is a morality of obedience and disobedience.

This is very weak reasoning, there are any number of things in life where I accept something but do it without understanding. The point is that it is better to understand when that is possible rather that think that it is better to be blind. In any case if you look at Islamic law it did not come about blindly and answers to moral question were answered sometimes from the Qu'ran but its obvious that the Qu'ran or hadith does not legislate on everything so that vast majority of Islamic law came about by consensus and reasoning.

[جوري]

This is you interpretation but such statements in no way really help us to discover what principles there are to decide what is good which is really the theme of this thread. Surely it is acceptable to ask why God said A was good and B was bad, we are rational human beings after all. In any case there are a million and one things that Allah has not pronounced on and in the next 100 years there will be a million more so as a practical guide to everyday living this is helpful but limited. Has God really made us so that we have to look up in some big book what is good and what is bad, with no God given conscience to guide us?

And 'why' usually has an answer-- however, why will also not have an answer sometime..
Many things in this world even in science are arbitrary. Why do you scrub yourself a certain number of times before going into surgery? why is the diagnosis of schizophrenia given at the cut off point of 6 months why not 5 months and twenty nine days why not 4 months, are you any less or any more schizophrenic at 6 than you were at five and a half?
Why do you become of age at 18? how about 17 and a half?
Is there any logic in the previous that you can understand? NO, you put some faith in that a governing body convened and decided this is the cutoff point.
Now, unlike in real life which is rather unforgiving, with God, you are free to go into the path of your choosing. No one is holding a gun to your head to pray or give charity or fast or not eat pigs or drink liquor... you do it only if you love God and if you love God then God loves you. Then when it reaches that stage, then you are truly with God:

Allah (mighty and sublime be He) said:

Whosoever shows enmity to someone devoted to Me, I shall be at war with him. My servant draws not near to Me with anything more loved by Me than the religious duties I have enjoined upon him, and My servant continues to draw near to Me with supererogatory works so that I shall love him. When I love him I am his hearing with which he hears, his seeing with which he sees, his hand with which he strikes and his foot with which he walks. Were he to ask [something] of Me, I would surely give it to him, and were he to ask Me for refuge, I would surely grant him it. I do not hesitate about anything as much as I hesitate about [seizing] the soul of My faithful servant, he hates death and I hate hurting him.

[Bukhari]

And only a person who has reached that stage of being completely with God can tell you what it means.. I don't anyone in Christianity has ever reached or will ever reach that stage save for the few that Allah swt spoke of in the Quran!
I think that is one of the greatest problems with Christianity, you do away with everything God commanded and rationalize if not downright change his commandments to suit your whims and then come question other people on their rational..Wouldn't you be better suited to answer why God would decide to be born and die before you go into ancillary questions?

all the best

[جوري]

It is a morality of obedience and disobedience.

I imagine this concept of obedience vs. disobedience would be even more relevant for atheists? Surely you behave as you do because of the law.. I don't subscribe to the concept of empathy especially as dispensed with folks so concerned with material and mundane affairs. If you were really to commit the perfect crime and get away with it, why wouldn't you.. a large check from OPEC fell in your lap.. a company you deem evil to begin with, and it isn't hurting anyone to cash it then why not? give me one 'logical' reason why you wouldn't cash it and enjoy it especially if your circumstance is dire.. give me something I can sink my teeth into.. 'empathy' is too vague for someone who doesn't believe in the unseen!

I assure you most faithful people do what they do out of love for God and direct communication with him in a way you can't possibly begin to understand!

all the best

[Skavau]

I imagine this concept of obedience vs. disobedience would be even more relevant for atheists?

No it wouldn't.

Atheism, the term has nothing to do with obedience to authority, whether it is to do with or concerns morality or not. The term 'anarchist' is equally possible for an atheist just as it is to a non-specific theist.

Surely you behave as you do because of the law..

No I don't. I've told you this myself. You cannot even pretend to assume that I am being dishonest in such a response.

In any case even if it was true that my or any atheists behavioural constraints come from the aura of authority from the law it addresses nothing of any real significance. The first thing is, I accept the term 'law' as a man-made objective of imposing social order within societies. It is both necessary and good. The fact that I consider it to be good for independent reasons precludes me from being constrained by it, by definition. The fact that I deem it necessary is relative only to the impact it has for humans.

Regardless, it is not comparable (assuming your premise here) to the obedience rooted in your own moral system on the grounds that I do not consider the law necessary as far as natural law goes. You do. The importance you place towards 'obedience' and 'disobedience' to Allah is so ground-breaking valid at all times, so relevant to all peoples, so unmovable from criticism that no rhyme or reason can ever move it. You have decreed it beyond reason.

I don't subscribe to the concept of empathy especially as dispensed with folks so concerned with material and mundane affairs.

What do you mean by 'material' and 'mundane' affairs? I suspect you would go so far to declare concern with anything tangible as materialistic. I have no idea what you would label as mundane. In any case, this topic is about why specific actions are desirable and not desirable in the context of a community (morality).

But I'm interested on your first point, are you declaring that you don't have empathy? Because I've read many of your posts that suggest you do have empathy.

If you were really to commit the perfect crime and get away with it, why wouldn't you.. a large check from OPEC fell in your lap.. a company you deem evil to begin with, and it isn't hurting anyone to cash it then why not?

Because I happen to place value in the importance of human society. I don't deem it a valuable state of affairs to be an accomplice or play a role in the suffering of others for self-gain. If other people engaged in such actions themselves freely without fear of reprisal, then we would all suffer in some way or another in time.

I recognise that by consequence of your own moral compass, this means absolutely nothing to you. You as I know accept moral edicts based on whether Allah decrees it acceptable or not. But that is the fault of your ethics, not mine. I suspect already that passively, being able to evade responsibility for your actions plays a role in your behavioural constraints - which is why you bring these scenarios up, and it is why you have objectivified morality to nullify the possibility of not being caught.

I assure you most faithful people do what they do out of love for God and direct communication with him in a way you can't possibly begin to understand!

I've had people admit when cornered, that yes, pull apart the rhetoric, pull apart the references to love, god's love, the wonderful things he's done, to the prospect of paradise, the glory of nature etc - it all comes down to obedience. It all comes down to following the orders of God. All suspiciously and typically motivated by self-interest.

Indeed, the only defence you've offered for your own ethics here is to complain about the subjectivity of morality - a problem of the human condition.

[جوري]

No it wouldn't.

No you wouldn't what?

Atheism, the term has nothing to do with obedience to authority, whether it is to do with or concerns morality or not. The term 'anarchist' is equally possible for an atheist just as it is to a non-specific theist.

We are not discussing terms.. nowhere in my post did I seek definitions!

No I don't. I've told you this myself. You cannot even pretend to assume that I am being dishonest in such a response.

If all I have to go on is your word, then it isn't very weighty, anymore than when you assert that it is obedience that drives a theist!

In any case even if it was true that my or any atheists behavioural constraints come from the aura of authority from the law it addresses nothing of any real significance. The first thing is, I accept the term 'law' as a man-made objective of imposing social order within societies. It is both necessary and good. The fact that I consider it to be good for independent reasons precludes me from being constrained by it, by definition. The fact that I deem it necessary is relative only to the impact it has for humans

That is alot of meaningless carppola and again, I don't see why you fail to apply the same logic to theists?!

Regardless, it is not comparable (assuming your premise here) to the obedience rooted in your own moral system on the grounds that I do not consider the law necessary as far as natural law goes. You do. The importance you place towards 'obedience' and 'disobedience' to Allah is so ground-breaking valid at all times, so relevant to all peoples, so unmovable from criticism that no rhyme or reason can ever move it. You have decreed it beyond reason.

I am glad you don't find the law necessary as that is perhaps the most honest piece you have parted with. If you don't consider it necessary then indeed nothing should preclude you from subscribing to it, especially if you rationalize to yourself that it is 'good' or for the greater good!

What do you mean by 'material' and 'mundane' affairs? I suspect you would go so far to declare concern with anything tangible as materialistic. I have no idea what you would label as mundane. In any case, this topic is about why specific actions are desirable and not desirable in the context of a community (morality).

The topic is about 'good' and judging by your way of life, I don't know where your baseline starts or how you even begin to define it considering what an abstract concept it is for someone who doesn't believe in the unseen or the more esoteric things they deem a weakness of theism!

But I'm interested on your first point, are you declaring that you don't have empathy? Because I've read many of your posts that suggest you do have empathy.

I am not talking about me.. I am talking about you as a representative of atheism, you seem to key in to certain terms to exonerate yourselves from the real difficult moral questions..
so it is always 'consent' or empathy' or some other vague term whose definition by your standards is obscure to me!

Because I happen to place value in the importance of human society. I don't deem it a valuable state of affairs to be an accomplice or play a role in the suffering of others for self-gain. If other people engaged in such actions themselves freely without fear of reprisal, then we would all suffer in some way or another in time.

Ah, but there if there were no reprisal and no importance to society at least none that you can perceive then what is keeping you from cashing in an OPEC check?

I recognise that by consequence of your own moral compass, this means absolutely nothing to you. You as I know accept moral edicts based on whether Allah decrees it acceptable or not. But that is the fault of your ethics, not mine. I suspect already that passively, being able to evade responsibility for your actions plays a role in your behavioural constraints - which is why you bring these scenarios up, and it is why you have objectivified morality to nullify the possibility of not being caught.

What is decreed goes with the nature of man it is called fitrah, and there is no fault in that.. there is however fault in deviating from that and rationalizing it to yourself while at the same time failing to give a clear comprehensive answer as to why something that would be considered immoral from a religious stand is also immoral from an atheist stand if the given circumstances are deemed favorable or good by your standards.

I've had people admit when cornered, that yes, pull apart the rhetoric, pull apart the references to love, god's love, the wonderful things he's done, to the prospect of paradise, the glory of nature etc - it all comes down to obedience. It all comes down to following the orders of God. All suspiciously and typically motivated by self-interest.

If all we have to go on is your word and your word isn't very weighty then I think when it comes down to it, you are standing on equal if not lesser ground for if a theist admits that it is mere obedience to God, I think that has better value than obedience to the law of the land provided it doesn't catch up with you!

Indeed, the only defence you've offered for your own ethics here is to complain about the subjectivity of morality - a problem of the human condition.

No, it is universal to those subscribing to religion and the gradation of religiosity, contrast that with your own stance and you'll see you come up short time and again!

all the best

[Skavau]

No you wouldn't what?

Uhm, I said "No it wouldn't" in response to your claim that obedience vs. disobedience has more relevance to an atheist.

We are not discussing terms.. nowhere in my post did I seek definitions!

That's nice. I decided to clarify however because you claimed that somehow, obedience and disobedience have more relevance to an atheist. So I thought you needed the actual meaning of atheism repeated.

If all I have to go on is your word, then it isn't very weighty, anymore than when you assert that it is obedience that drives a theist!

You think it is becoming of a discussion to just assume everything I say is some deception of a sort, then why do you bother? For all you know everything I type and have typed has been to deliberately decieve you.

So why do you even pretend to be interested?

That is alot of meaningless carppola and again, I don't see why you fail to apply the same logic to theists?!

I go on to explain this in my original post.

I am glad you don't find the law necessary as that is perhaps the most honest piece you have parted with. If you don't consider it necessary then indeed nothing should preclude you from subscribing to it, especially if you rationalize to yourself that it is 'good' or for the greater good!

Huh?

Did you even understand what I meant when I didn't consider the law necessary? I meant it in terms of natural law. The universe cares not for our affairs, will bridge no gaps and will act with disinterest to our plight. That is what I meant and it is precisely where you and I completely differ on moral issues. You do believe the universe or forces in the universe have direct involvement and interest in our actions.

The topic is about 'good' and judging by your way of life, I don't know where your baseline starts or how you even begin to define it considering what an abstract concept it is for someone who doesn't believe in the unseen or the more esoteric things they deem a weakness of theism!

You don't know my way of life.

And actually, I don't really believe morality is that abstract. It is about what one ought to do or not do in the context of a group of people. At least that is practical morality.

I am not talking about me.. I am talking about you as a representative of atheism, you seem to key in to certain terms to exonerate yourselves from the real difficult moral questions..
so it is always 'consent' or empathy' or some other vague term whose definition by your standards is obscure to me!

Uh, no. You said that you don't buy into the concept of empathy. I know that unless I have misread around half of your posts, that you do feel empathy of some sort.

And consent and empathy aren't my moral standards. Consent removes the ethical dilemma and 'empathy' is specifically about understanding and feeling the plight of others, leading to a greater chance of compassionate behaviour.

[B]Ah, but there if there were no reprisal and no importance to society at least none that you can perceive then what is keeping you from cashing in an OPEC check?

Uhm, then it wouldn't be a moral issue would it?

You're simplifying the 'dilemma' (its not really a moral dilemma, its a choice between being selfish at the expense of others and not being selfish at the expense of others) by removing the consequences? What's the point in the dilemma then?

If all we have to go on is your word and your word isn't very weighty then I think when it comes down to it, you are standing on equal if not lesser ground for if a theist admits that it is mere obedience to God, I think that has better value than obedience to the law of the land provided it doesn't catch up with you!

I think I've already told you that 'obedience to the law' is not the only reason I do not commit wrongdoings.

Oh wait, you think I'm lying all the time.

No, it is universal to those subscribing to religion and the gradation of religiosity, contrast that with your own stance and you'll see you come up short time and again!

You contend it is universal, but offer little argument to suggest that it is so. By complaining about our ability to make concise and valid moral decisions you question the very value of human judgment in the absence of external interference. You are questioning our own intelligence collectively.

[جوري]

Uhm, I said "No it wouldn't" in response to your claim that obedience vs. disobedience has more relevance to an atheist.

well that comes down to your word against mine and I don't find yours credible given the way your previous post unraveled!

That's nice. I decided to clarify however because you claimed that somehow, obedience and disobedience have more relevance to an atheist. So I thought you needed the actual meaning of atheism repeated.

I think what you did was deflect from something you didn't have an adequate response to!

You think it is becoming of a discussion to just assume everything I say is some deception of a sort, then why do you bother? For all you know everything I type and have typed has been to deliberately decieve you.

Rather the way you perceive 'good' is distorted from where I stand!

So why do you even pretend to be interested?

I am not interested I clarified for you the theistic point of view which you are not equipped to devalue simply out of whim!

I go on to explain this in my original post.

I failed to glean anything of substance from it!

Huh?

Did you even understand what I meant when I didn't consider the law necessary? I meant it in terms of natural law. The universe cares not for our affairs, will bridge no gaps and will act with disinterest to our plight. That is what I meant and it is precisely where you and I completely differ on moral issues. You do believe the universe or forces in the universe have direct involvement and interest in our actions.

It doesn't matter whether it is involved or not I am talking of specific actions not the bigger picture. I asked you what it is to keep you from committing something that is deemed immoral to theists if you yourself find it good and moral!

You don't know my way of life.

You wrote atheist, that is all that is needed to assume certain things the way you assume certain things of theists, or are you too good to be true?

And actually, I don't really believe morality is that abstract. It is about what one ought to do or not do in the context of a group of people. At least that is practical morality.

And what is to keep you from doing something deemed 'evil' otherwise?

Uh, no. You said that you don't buy into the concept of empathy. I know that unless I have misread around half of your posts, that you do feel empathy of some sort.

I don't by the concept of 'empathy' as peddled by an atheist because it is immaterial!

And consent and empathy aren't my moral standards. Consent removes the ethical dilemma and 'empathy' is specifically about understanding and feeling the plight of others, leading to a greater chance of compassionate behaviour.

And if there were 'no feelings involved' on anyone part again, what keeps you from committing the perfect crime were it not for obedience to the law of the land?

You're simplifying the 'dilemma' (its not really a moral dilemma, its a choice between being selfish at the expense of others and not being selfish at the expense of others) by removing the consequences? What's the point in the dilemma then?

How are you being selfish? OPEC is deemed evil, they won't miss the check, you are in financial trouble now and you can even use some of that hefty sum to help your needy neighbors.

I think I've already told you that 'obedience to the law' is not the only reason I do not commit wrongdoings.

Then what is?

Oh wait, you think I'm lying all the time.

I think you are deeply confused and somehow convinced yourself that you are empathetic and that is so much better than adhering to some divine moral guidance!

You contend it is universal, but offer little argument to suggest that it is so. By complaining about our ability to make concise and valid moral decisions you question the very value of human judgment in the absence of external interference. You are questioning our own intelligence collectively.

I don't believe that moral judgment exists in the absence of divine interference.. that which you might deem instinctive or by way of feeling is a gift from God.. therein lies the difference.. you give credit to your conscious mind or whatever else and I believe said morals are instilled and created in us!

all the best

[Skavau]

well that comes down to your word against mine and I don't find yours credible given the way your previous post unraveled!

Not really, it was a general response. Atheism has nothing to say on morality, so it could not demand obedience to the law.

I think what you did was deflect from something you didn't have an adequate response to!

Could you tell me specifically what that something I did not have an adequate response to? I've already explained my perspective on the 'law'.

Rather the way you perceive 'good' is distorted from where I stand!

Uh, okay. Do you still think I'm lying all the time?

I am not interested I clarified for you the theistic point of view which you are not equipped to devalue simply out of whim!

You've barely defended the theistic point of view here, rather you have simply attacked my moral world view.

It doesn't matter whether it is involved or not I am talking of specific actions not the bigger picture. I asked you what it is to keep you from committing something that is deemed immoral to theists if you yourself find it good and moral!

This is sort of self-explanatory - nothing. Why would I? For example, most Muslims appear completely unified in declaring music as haraam. I happen to think music is great.

So why would I stop listening to music because a group of people who do not share my beliefs, who do not share my moral outlook happen to think it is wrong? I wouldn't have thought that you would do the converse, Skye.

You wrote atheist, that is all that is needed to assume certain things the way you assume certain things of theists, or are you too good to be true?

'Atheist' is often used as a catch-all term. As is theist, for that matter. When I talk about 'theistic morality' however, I am specifically refer to the notion that morality is by God, from God that almost every Muslim and to a lesser extent Christian I have conversed with holds to be true.

I am of course, not referring to the more liberal-leaning christians, or non-religious deists as they don't necessarily share such a viewpoint.

And what is to keep you from doing something deemed 'evil' otherwise?

What do you mean by 'otherwise' here?

Are you asking what is to keep me from doing evil in the absence of a community?

I don't by the concept of 'empathy' as peddled by an atheist because it is immaterial!

You believe that atheists and theists think empathy means two different things? Please explain the differences you think exist between the two.

And if there were 'no feelings involved' on anyone part again, what keeps you from committing the perfect crime were it not for obedience to the law of the land?

Your moral dilemmas seem to be based in a fantasy universe where you have to preclude certain parts of reality in order for them to try and fit. There are feelings involved. Any moral dilemma has to have tangible and meaningful consequences and be vested in communual interest in order to have any meaning, Skye.

How are you being selfish? OPEC is deemed evil, they won't miss the check, you are in financial trouble now and you can even use some of that hefty sum to help your needy neighbors.

You just declared, and I quote: "
Ah, but there if there were no reprisal and no importance to society at least none that you can perceive then what is keeping you from cashing in an OPEC check?" that there is no reprisal and no importance to society if I assist 'OPEC'. How exactly is that a moral dilemma if you have eliminated the consequences to society?

Then what is?

I am not repeating myself. Go and read my first post to you, in the first paragraph where I explained specifically my perspective on the law.

I don't believe that moral judgment exists in the absence of divine interference.. that which you might deem instinctive or by way of feeling is a gift from God.. therein lies the difference.. you give credit to your conscious mind or whatever else and I believe said morals are instilled and created in us!

What do you believe, precisely is the purpose of morality?

[جوري]

Not really, it was a general response. Atheism has nothing to say on morality, so it could not demand obedience to the law.

So basically a system of nihilism?

Could you tell me specifically what that something I did not have an adequate response to? I've already explained my perspective on the 'law'.

You have no perspective on the 'law' what I gleaned from you is that you have no respect for authority unless caught!

Uh, okay. Do you still think I'm lying all the time?

I have already stated I think your confused and tweak your raison d'être as suits the evolution of the thread!

You've barely defended the theistic point of view here, rather you have simply attacked my moral world view.

I am not under the impression that there is anything to defend.

This is sort of self-explanatory - nothing. Why would I? For example, most Muslims appear completely unified in declaring music as haraam. I happen to think music is great.

we don't function on what feels good rather what is correct!

So why would I stop listening to music because a group of people who do not share my beliefs, who do not share my moral outlook happen to think it is wrong? I wouldn't have thought that you would do the converse, Skye.

There is nothing moral or immoral about Music, the majority concede that it is a prohibition some have variance in opinion, in and of itself holds no moral value as say murder, or thievery or lying!

'Atheist' is often used as a catch-all term. As is theist, for that matter. When I talk about 'theistic morality' however, I am specifically refer to the notion that morality is by God, from God that almost every Muslim and to a lesser extent Christian I have conversed with holds to be true.

Morality is from God whether or not you divorce yourself from that notion. Until such a time you can elucidate to us in a scientific fashion what 'empathy' or 'consciousness' is, they shall remain inborn patterns instilled in us by the one who created us!

What do you mean by 'otherwise' here?

Are you asking what is to keep me from doing evil in the absence of a community?

Indeed, if no law of the land hovered over your being as a constant threat, what would keep you from doing something you deem moral that would be deemed immoral otherwise!

You believe that atheists and theists think empathy means two different things? Please explain the differences you think exist between the two.

I can't define for you, your desired renditions. I have already stated and to re-quote me:

Morality is from God whether or not you divorce yourself from that notion. Until such a time you can elucidate to us in a scientific fashion what 'empathy' or 'consciousness' is, they shall remain inborn patterns instilled in us by the one who created us!

Your moral dilemmas seem to be based in a fantasy universe where you have to preclude certain parts of reality in order for them to try and fit. There are feelings involved. Any moral dilemma has to have tangible and meaningful consequences and be vested in communual interest in order to have any meaning, Skye.

Again, you don't know anything about my 'moral dilemmas' I fear outside of your pedantic obedience vs. disobedience, which by the way you are yet to elucidate for us why the same standards don't hold true for atheists outside of the law of the land!

You just declared, and I quote: "
Ah, but there if there were no reprisal and no importance to society at least none that you can perceive then what is keeping you from cashing in an OPEC check?" that there is no reprisal and no importance to society if I assist 'OPEC'. How exactly is that a moral dilemma if you have eliminated the consequences to society?

That is a question I ask you.. if there were no moral dilemma nothing would hold you from committing a crime!

I am not repeating myself. Go and read my first post to you, in the first paragraph where I explained specifically my perspective on the law.

you have basically exempt yourself from the very fiber of morality in your

you: '' The fact that I consider it to be good for independent reasons precludes me from being constrained by it''

to sum it up if it is good because you deem it so, you'd abide by it as to not get caught, and if you don't agree with it then you are not constrained by it provided there is no consequence to it! Do I understand you correctly?

What do you believe, precisely is the purpose of morality?

The purpose of morality is to distinguish the difference between right and wrong, even in matters where a quick right or wrong motivation isn't clearly visible, how about you, what do you believe is the purpose of morality?

all the best

[Justufy]

Not really, it was a general response. Atheism has nothing to say on morality

"Away with the atheists!"

- St Polycarp of Smyrna

[Skavau]

So basically a system of nihilism?

Atheism is not a system of any sort. It is not an ideology, a world view, a philosophy or a way of life. Nihilism negates and rejects the very idea of meaning. An atheist does not necessarily have to do such.

You have no perspective on the 'law' what I gleaned from you is that you have no respect for authority unless caught!

Excuse me, when did I say that? When did I even imply that I only 'respect' (whatever that means in this context) authority if I am 'caught'?

What authority are you even referring to here precisely? I have already said that law has to be proposed and implemented for the establishment and progression of any society. I have also said that such a thing is a good thing.

I am not under the impression that there is anything to defend.

That's up to you. I made observations on what I view to be the obedience vs. disobedience mentality of morality from God and your only response to things I said has been to attack my own moral perspective.

we don't function on what feels good rather what is correct!

Right... although that's besides the point, isn't it? Why would I abandon a practice or a perspective I find moral because another group of people happen to deem it immoral? It is a nonsensical request.

There is nothing moral or immoral about Music, the majority concede that it is a prohibition some have variance in opinion, in and of itself holds no moral value as say murder, or thievery or lying!

Right, but that's again besides the point.

Let me change the example to something far closer to a unified agreement in Islam: alcohol. Muslims profess that it is wrong to consume alcohol, and yet I myself personally see no inherent flaw. Why would you expect me to forgo my own moral perspective because Islam or Muslims happen to disagree with it?

Morality is from God whether or not you divorce yourself from that notion. Until such a time you can elucidate to us in a scientific fashion what 'empathy' or 'consciousness' is, they shall remain inborn patterns instilled in us by the one who created us!

So you say.

Indeed, if no law of the land hovered over your being as a constant threat, what would keep you from doing something you deem moral that would be deemed immoral otherwise!

I'm really confused about how you phrase these questions.

If there is no community whatsoever and any actions that could be deemed immoral harm no-one in any way shape or form then there is no moral dilemma. Morality rests upon actions that effect a community. It has absolutely no meaning externally from that.

So for example, if I happen to be drunk and decide to drive my car on an old abandoned freeway - I am not being immoral. I am being stupid, and possibly endangering myself but as no-one is there to be affected by my actions, it has no moral consequences.

If however, I get in a car drunk and floor it down a busy high street then yes, my actions are endangering others, are foolish and rightfully immoral.

I can't define for you, your desired renditions. I have already stated and to re-quote me:

Morality is from God whether or not you divorce yourself from that notion. Until such a time you can elucidate to us in a scientific fashion what 'empathy' or 'consciousness' is, they shall remain inborn patterns instilled in us by the one who created us!

The part in bold is a silly claim. Are you claiming that if there is a gap in understanding, that we must thereby assume that a supernatural arbiter is responsible for it?

Again, you don't know anything about my 'moral dilemmas' I fear outside of your pedantic obedience vs. disobedience, which by the way you are yet to elucidate for us why the same standards don't hold true for atheists outside of the law of the land!

Yes I do. You keep bringing up your moral dilemmas.

The law exists, in case you were wondering because of and for us. We postulate, establish and impose systems of conduct between groups of people for the purposes of maintaining and improving upon co-existence.

How is that related to obedience at all? I do not inherently believe all law is necessarily valid, or moral. The law is a framework for control within a society. Whether or not it is moral or not depends on the impact it has and the ideals it promotes.

That is a question I ask you.. if there were no moral dilemma nothing would hold you from committing a crime!

Huh?!

This... doesn't even make any sense. How can something even be considered a crime if there are no consequences?!

to sum it up if it is good because you deem it so, you'd abide by it as to not get caught, and if you don't agree with it then you are not constrained by it provided there is no consequence to it! Do I understand you correctly?

No you don't.

A system of law is necessary for the progression of individuals within a society. If you do value co-existence with other human beings and value living a safe life, which I do - then you have to by consequence concede the necessity of a system of law and order that governs this society to assists its stability and progression. The value of the law is determined by us, and designed for us.

The purpose of morality is to distinguish the difference between right and wrong, even in matters where a quick right or wrong motivation isn't clearly visible, how about you, what do you believe is the purpose of morality?

To assist our social affairs and to work for unity in different groups of people. Morality is by us, for us.

I would ask on your own claims: what exactly does 'right' and 'wrong' mean to you, Skye?

[جوري]

Atheism is not a system of any sort. It is not an ideology, a world view, a philosophy or a way of life. Nihilism negates and rejects the very idea of meaning. An atheist does not necessarily have to do such.

actually the more your reduce atheism in terms the more it crystallizes that it is nothing but a system of nihilism..

Excuse me, when did I say that? When did I even imply that I only 'respect' (whatever that means in this context) authority if I am 'caught'?

That is what one deduces from your writing.

What authority are you even referring to here precisely? I have already said that law has to be proposed and implemented for the establishment and progression of any society. I have also said that such a thing is a good thing.

authority as in governing body (govt. the law your neighborhood watch etc.) If you find it good then you are obedient to it, if you find it bad and act on your intent then you are a criminal.. there really is no in between, so I'd get off your high horse and hand in that broad sweeping brush that you enjoy painting everyone with!

That's up to you. I made observations on what I view to be the obedience vs. disobedience mentality of morality from God and your only response to things I said has been to attack my own moral perspective.

I have clarified for you that your observation is incorrect and elucidated for you that the same is easily gleaned watching an atheist at work.

Right... although that's besides the point, isn't it? Why would I abandon a practice or a perspective I find moral because another group of people happen to deem it immoral? It is a nonsensical request.

Who asked you to give up anything? as far as I know you are the guest here not otherwise.. no one knocked at your door and asked you to give up your salacious lifestyle for a structured one. I find it absurd you'd even suggest that anyone had such interest as far as you are concerned!

Let me change the example to something far closer to a unified agreement in Islam: alcohol. Muslims profess that it is wrong to consume alcohol, and yet I myself personally see no inherent flaw. Why would you expect me to forgo my own moral perspective because Islam or Muslims happen to disagree with it?

See above comment. No one has asked you to give up anything, we are merely highlighting that you are a moegoe for suggesting that 'obedience' is the drive in theism when it is clearly the only motivation behind atheism.. why spend all this time projecting is beyond me.. as for how or where or why you choose to live your life as you do is no one's concern, I really doubt anyone cares.
Each soul is held in pledge by its own deeds:

كُلُّ نَفْسٍ بِمَا كَسَبَتْ رَهِينَةٌ {38}
[Pickthal 74:38] Every soul is a pledge for its own deeds;

this should be your take home message, how genuinely un-concerned we are of the choices you make!

I'm really confused about how you phrase these questions.

I am more confused by the detours you take to deflect from them!

If there is no community whatsoever and any actions that could be deemed immoral harm no-one in any way shape or form then there is no moral dilemma. Morality rests upon actions that effect a community. It has absolutely no meaning externally from that.

And that is why we say that the atheist moral compass isn't the measuring stick we live by.. you oscillate between fear of consequence for wrong doing or not placing any value on any particular situation that doesn't have a chance of consequence!

So for example, if I happen to be drunk and decide to drive my car on an old abandoned freeway - I am not being immoral. I am being stupid, and possibly endangering myself but as no-one is there to be affected by my actions, it has no moral consequences.

unless you are too duped up to notice that you've killed two young people who are to be wed. Which is exactly what happened to two of my friends on an abandoned highway, both killed by a stupid drunk driver who was too duped up to notice what he'd done. How sad that you should see a distinction between right and wrong only if there is consequence provided you are lucid to perceive it!

If however, I get in a car drunk and floor it down a busy high street then yes, my actions are endangering others, are foolish and rightfully immoral.

I guess one can safely conclude that an atheist isn't concerned with prevention but a cure that is only self-serving!

The part in bold is a silly claim. Are you claiming that if there is a gap in understanding, that we must thereby assume that a supernatural arbiter is responsible for it?

It isn't a silly claim at all, at least not anymore silly than you peddling around the term 'empathy' without accounting for how you found yourself upon those feelings!

The law exists, in case you were wondering because of and for us. We postulate, establish and impose systems of conduct between groups of people for the purposes of maintaining and improving upon co-existence.

But you have admitted a couple of paragraphs ago that you don't mind going out drunk on an old 'abandoned' freeway.. because in your mind you deemed certain things to be factual
1- that the freeway will be abandoned
2- that being drunk really doesn't harm anyone but you
3- there is no chance that one of the 6 billion people in existence will cross your path at a juncture on said freeway
then how is that any of this is about 'improving co-existence' when the whole formula is really about one?
also that is if I am to subscribe to your scenario as is, being a stupid drunk costs billions of health care money and impacts everyone in your path, from work missed, to family abused to tax dollars spent, to hospital beds that should better go serve someone who didn't bring their disease upon themselves!

How is that related to obedience at all? I do not inherently believe all law is necessarily valid, or moral. The law is a framework for control within a society. Whether or not it is moral or not depends on the impact it has and the ideals it promotes.

So where you deem the law to be invalid and carrying no morality you are free to do as you please, for instance go out on a freeway you deem empty while drunk?

This... doesn't even make any sense. How can something even be considered a crime if there are no consequences?!

:lol: that is really sad--
someone killed this woman:

and left her nude, dismembered body out on a field and got away with it.. it had no moral consequence.. Do you still not consider it a crime even though it had no consequence? further if you can commit a perfect crime as such and work it in your mind to not have any 'moral consequence' would you do it? be it theft or murder or anything to run the gamut?

No you don't.

A system of law is necessary for the progression of individuals within a society. If you do value co-existence with other human beings and value living a safe life, which I do - then you have to by consequence concede the necessity of a system of law and order that governs this society to assists its stability and progression. The value of the law is determined by us, and designed for us.

You can progress and be safe murdering and embezzling, society will still be 'stable and progressive'

To assist our social affairs and to work for unity in different groups of people. Morality is by us, for us.

Again, where is your baseline? you already admitted that How can something even be considered a crime if there are no consequences and that you are ok going out drunk on an empty freeway?

I would ask on your own claims: what exactly does 'right' and 'wrong' mean to you, Skye?

I have already defined that in my second response on this thread.. but I must thank you for clarifying that my suspicions of atheists were right all along!

all the best

[SMA89]

^^ that pic scared meeeeee!!!!!

[جوري]

^^ that pic scared meeeeee!!!!!

Then you should be grateful you didn't see the rest of her severed body which was left out like a piece of trash!

:w:

[Skavau]

actually the more your reduce atheism in terms the more it crystallizes that it is nothing but a system of nihilism..

Nihilism forgoes the possibility of Humanism. Atheism does not.

authority as in governing body (govt. the law your neighborhood watch etc.) If you find it good then you are obedient to it, if you find it bad and act on your intent then you are a criminal.. there really is no in between, so I'd get off your high horse and hand in that broad sweeping brush that you enjoy painting everyone with!

Observing authority here is not what I meant by obedience in this context. Deciding of your own free-will that something is worth following, or observing is not born out of obedience. I myself have decided to accept that the law is important both out of self-interest and out of ethical ideals. The law is a means to an end for social progression and not infallible in its own right. I have already told you there are systems of law that people rightfully oppose and act on it. I do not call the civic law of Saudi Arabia, China, North Korea, Zimbabwe moral. I call them oppressive, totalitarian and fascist in nature.

Now, you've made a false comparison regarding theistic morality and my morality here. Theistic morality can only mean morality from God. If it at any point refers to any independent concept, or invokes any exemption clause from this, or references any ideals outside of this - it becomes secular. The only definition of theistic morality can be morality ordered and decreed by God.

It can only define morality by what God says. It deem what is righteous not through rational enquiry or valued principles but through the declaration of might. God is the ultimate force of might in such a belief and therefore what God says goes. It is from this not interested in humanity, but furthering the objectives and agenda of God. It does not condemn things like murder, or theft wrong because they are intrinsically wrong in themselves or their impact on other people - but they are condemned because Allah has declared them so. This is a world view of effective moral failure because there is nothing moral about it. It isn't designed to be moral but simply to perpetuate what God says into the real world. It is a system of obedience, it is a world view where right is simply obey and where wrong is simply disobey. It is arbitrary, infinitely subjective and at its worst - destructive.

That is what I mean by obedience. You cannot ever consider the possibility that God is wrong. You cannot ever consider the possibility of a moral standard outside of what God decrees. I freely assert that law is valuable to the progression of a human society. I don't declare law to be infallible, untouchable and unquestionable. With Allah, you do.

Who asked you to give up anything? as far as I know you are the guest here not otherwise.. no one knocked at your door and asked you to give up your salacious lifestyle for a structured one. I find it absurd you'd even suggest that anyone had such interest as far as you are concerned!

You did for the purpose of discussion.

You specifically asked me: "I asked you what it is to keep you from committing something that is deemed immoral to theists if you yourself find it good and moral!"

My answer was to reference to things that Muslims find immoral (music and alcohol) and ask you why I would observe their contempt of them?

See above comment. No one has asked you to give up anything, we are merely highlighting that you are a moegoe for suggesting that 'obedience' is the drive in theism when it is clearly the only motivation behind atheism..

I think self-interest plays as much of a role by the way, in many theists. The repeated and consistent desire to enter paradise and avoid eternal torture The often declared reason for doing good by many Muslims from what I have observed and read is to specifically avoid such a fate.

One of the reasons that God's might and power mean anything to a believer is because of the proposed retribution for dissent. Another reinforcement to obedience.

And that is why we say that the atheist moral compass isn't the measuring stick we live by.. you oscillate between fear of consequence for wrong doing or not placing any value on any particular situation that doesn't have a chance of consequence!

Huh?

So you believe that there are such things as victimless crimes?

unless you are too duped up to notice that you've killed two young people who are to be wed. Which is exactly what happened to two of my friends on an abandoned highway, both killed by a stupid drunk driver who was too duped up to notice what he'd done. How sad that you should see a distinction between right and wrong only if there is consequence provided you are lucid to perceive it!

No. Do not rewrite my analogy and manipulate it in order to have it to suggest something I did not say. If a drunk driver, with full capacity, is on an abandoned stretch of road and knowingly decides to floor it then he is being foolish, but not immoral.

If your friends were there, then obviously the highway wasn't exactly as empty as he thought. My analogy is talking about a situation where the driver knows that it is empty. It was a crude example of a victimless crime.

I guess one can safely conclude that an atheist isn't concerned with prevention but a cure that is only self-serving!

How exactly do you conclude this from what I say?

But you have admitted a couple of paragraphs ago that you don't mind going out drunk on an old 'abandoned' freeway.. because in your mind you deemed certain things to be factual

No I didn't. I illustrated it for the purposes of discussion. I don't and would not ever drink and drive.

1- that the freeway will be abandoned
2- that being drunk really doesn't harm anyone but you
3- there is no chance that one of the 6 billion people in existence will cross your path at a juncture on said freeway

Again, the example was to represent a victimless crime.

then how is that any of this is about 'improving co-existence' when the whole formula is really about one?

It isn't. I never went and called the actions of the drunk driver moral.

also that is if I am to subscribe to your scenario as is, being a stupid drunk costs billions of health care money and impacts everyone in your path, from work missed, to family abused to tax dollars spent, to hospital beds that should better go serve someone who didn't bring their disease upon themselves!

Ah indeed, now that is a seperate discussion about how much assistance the state should give you if you cause yourself damage (and how much obligation you have to not harm yourself in specific ways). Again, my point was to merely invoke a crude example of a victimless crime.

So where you deem the law to be invalid and carrying no morality you are free to do as you please, for instance go out on a freeway you deem empty while drunk?

The law is oppressive and has outdeclared its purpose if it begins enacting and includes laws designed at the expense of the people. Designed to use the population to a means to an end.

and left her nude, dismembered body out on a field and got away with it.. it had no moral consequence.. Do you still not consider it a crime even though it had no consequence? further if you can commit a perfect crime as such and work it in your mind to not have any 'moral consequence' would you do it? be it theft or murder or anything to run the gamut?

Pictures like that do not shock me by the way, and your disingenuous response is noted.

There was a moral consequence to that action. That murderer killed someone. He took away someone's life for his own selfish desires. He decided her life was worth nothing compared to his specific desire to end it.

In fact, how could you reference a murder and decide there were no consequences? Do you even know what I meant by no consequences? I meant an action committed by someone where no-one was negatively impacted at all.

You can progress and be safe murdering and embezzling, society will still be 'stable and progressive'

No it won't.

One of the most important things for a group of people that decide to function as a community is that generally, killing each other for no reason will bring an end to their companionship. Any society that legalises murder is bound for social collapse at some point.

Again, where is your baseline? you already admitted that How can something even be considered a crime if there are no consequences and that you are ok going out drunk on an empty freeway?

What do you think I meant when I said 'no consequences'? I really don't think you got what I meant.

I have already defined that in my second response on this thread.. but I must thank you for clarifying that my suspicions of atheists were right all along!

I just read your second post to me and I did not see any references to right and wrong.

[جوري]

Nihilism forgoes the possibility of Humanism. Atheism does not.

what is humanistic about atheism. In fact it is the most un-feeling way of life in existence!

Observing authority here is not what I meant by obedience in this context. Deciding of your own free-will that something is worth following, or observing is not born out of obedience. I myself have decided to accept that the law is important both out of self-interest and out of ethical ideals. The law is a means to an end for social progression and not infallible in its own right. I have already told you there are systems of law that people rightfully oppose and act on it. I do not call the civic law of Saudi Arabia, China, North Korea, Zimbabwe moral. I call them oppressive, totalitarian and fascist in nature.

Pls spare your self-interest mambo jumbo you have already elucidated clearly in your previous posts that you have no regard for authority if you are not going to get caught, and I am certain the only impetus for atheists not to commit a crime is loss of that freedom rather than something far more visceral. To do for what you don't see knowing the possibility that it will completely go unaccounted for is not only altruistic but a meta state of existence, something no atheist can ever claim a drive for their being!

Now, you've made a false comparison regarding theistic morality and my morality here. Theistic morality can only mean morality from God. If it at any point refers to any independent concept, or invokes any exemption clause from this, or references any ideals outside of this - it becomes secular. The only definition of theistic morality can be morality ordered and decreed by God.

There is only one form of morality and that is a divine gift, it doesn't exist without God, and it doesn't exist under a different label-- whether you acknowledge that or not is inconsequential. The same way whether or not you recognize things in existence as having been created or simply appeared is inconsequential. You are free to think as you please!

It can only define morality by what God says. It deem what is righteous not through rational enquiry or valued principles but through the declaration of might. God is the ultimate force of might in such a belief and therefore what God says goes. It is from this not interested in humanity, but furthering the objectives and agenda of God. It does not condemn things like murder, or theft wrong because they are intrinsically wrong in themselves or their impact on other people - but they are condemned because Allah has declared them so. This is a world view of effective moral failure because there is nothing moral about it. It isn't designed to be moral but simply to perpetuate what God says into the real world. It is a system of obedience, it is a world view where right is simply obey and where wrong is simply disobey. It is arbitrary, infinitely subjective and at its worst - destructive.

You don't know the first thing about who was condemned or why... I suggest you get your knowledge form another place than the dawkin net. Not only do you appear an under-educated fool gauging topics completely beyond your sphere of expertise but you mouth off the same psycho babble they indoctrinate you with as if it were your mantra. That is a declaration of folly and stupidity and not a philosophical debate!

That is what I mean by obedience. You cannot ever consider the possibility that God is wrong. You cannot ever consider the possibility of a moral standard outside of what God decrees. I freely assert that law is valuable to the progression of a human society. I don't declare law to be infallible, untouchable and unquestionable. With Allah, you do.

You disgust me truly!

You did for the purpose of discussion.

You specifically asked me: "I asked you what it is to keep you from committing something that is deemed immoral to theists if you yourself find it good and moral!"

My answer was to reference to things that Muslims find immoral (music and alcohol) and ask you why I would observe their contempt of them?

And I told you that music doesn't hold a moral value rather it is a prohibition. Do you read at all?

I think self-interest plays as much of a role by the way, in many theists. The repeated and consistent desire to enter paradise and avoid eternal torture The often declared reason for doing good by many Muslims from what I have observed and read is to specifically avoid such a fate.

There is no guarantee that avoidance will spare your hell-fire, again I wonder why you gauge topics of theology when you have no idea of the basic tenets? Do you follow any threads here at all to learn the basics of the religion of your hosts? Your deeds don't earn you heaven or hell.. in fact all you do in this life is so you can have a decent life. If you don't drink you don't end up a drunk, if you pray you don't have to go on anti-depressants, if you give to charity you can live in a decent society where you don't have to fear snipers coming at you for a loaf of bread.. your deeds mean absolutely zilch -- if you took every second of every day to show gratitude it still wouldn't compass what God has given you so that you can go on the side and think '''he'' is a bad guy'

Huh?

So you believe that there are such things as victimless crimes?

It wasn't you who wrote this?
How can something even be considered a crime if there are no consequences?!

answering a question with a question is not an answer!

No. Do not rewrite my analogy and manipulate it in order to have it to suggest something I did not say. If a drunk driver, with full capacity, is on an abandoned stretch of road and knowingly decides to floor it then he is being foolish, but not immoral.

How does a drunkard reason? and how can you assume the road is abandoned? how can you account for every life in existence to deem it abandoned? maybe another moron drunk thought the same thoughts and went off on the same road!
and of course it has no moral consequences as per you, we have already established that yours isn't the measuring stick by which morality is established!

If your friends were there, then obviously the highway wasn't exactly as empty as he thought. My analogy is talking about a situation where the driver knows that it is empty. It was a crude example of a victimless crime.

Your analogy falls short on every level!

How exactly do you conclude this from what I say?

It was easy!

No I didn't. I illustrated it for the purposes of discussion. I don't and would not ever drink and drive.

Yeah, ok!

Again, the example was to represent a victimless crime.

you can justify it so that there are no victims. plus how is one victimized when life ceases and they have no family, where is the justice if nothing else?

It isn't. I never went and called the actions of the drunk driver moral.

Just inconsequential except to the drunk of course!

Ah indeed, now that is a seperate discussion about how much assistance the state should give you if you cause yourself damage (and how much obligation you have to not harm yourself in specific ways). Again, my point was to merely invoke a crude example of a victimless crime.

There is no such a thing and it is a shame the telescopic view of atheists!

The law is oppressive and has outdeclared its purpose if it begins enacting and includes laws designed at the expense of the people. Designed to use the population to a means to an end.

Every man made law is oppressive indeed!

Pictures like that do not shock me by the way, and your disingenuous response is noted.

How is it meant to shock you? it was meant to make a point. a murderer got away with his crime, there was no consequence as per you. What keeps you from committing a perfect crime like this if there were no consequences and you can actually stand to gain quite a bit from it? ''empathy''? how do you empathize with the dead?

There was a moral consequence to that action. That murderer killed someone. He took away someone's life for his own selfish desires. He decided her life was worth nothing compared to his specific desire to end it.

So? again, what makes a life worth anything if all we are slightly evolved animals that come and go, what difference does it make if she dies at 15 or 45 really in the scheme of things?

In fact, how could you reference a murder and decide there were no consequences? Do you even know what I meant by no consequences? I meant an action committed by someone where no-one was negatively impacted at all.

Who is negatively impacted here? the deceased has no feelings anymore and there was no family to claim her, and the murderer undoubtedly enjoyed it given the grotesque manner in which he posed her body!

No it won't.

One of the most important things for a group of people that decide to function as a community is that generally, killing each other for no reason will bring an end to their companionship. Any society that legalises murder is bound for social collapse at some point.

every society legalizes murder, especially atheistic societies where human life is worth even less so 15 million one shot, 20 million one shot, they might even think it good for the environment, over-crowding and God knows what else. Why do we have armies and navies and air forces, and death chambers and lethal injections if murder wasn't legal under the pretense of great duress?

What do you think I meant when I said 'no consequences'? I really don't think you got what I meant.

No, I think I got it!

I just read your second post to me and I did not see any references to right and wrong.

it wasn't my second post to you, rather the second on this thread!

[Skavau]

what is humanistic about atheism. In fact it is the most un-feeling way of life in existence!

Is this proposed as a real point? Humanism is a moral philosophy that considers all ethical claims to be considered in the context of human interests. Atheism does not oppose such an idea.

Pls spare your self-interest mambo jumbo you have already elucidated clearly in your previous posts that you have no regard for authority if you are not going to get caught

I never said that. I have never once even ever implied anything like that whatsoever.

and I am certain the only impetus for atheists not to commit a crime is loss of that freedom rather than something far more visceral

There we go then: you're again accusing me of lying. You don't believe that I have any moral ideology. What is the point of conversation if you just outright refuse to accept anything I say as sincere?

In any case, click here.

To do for what you don't see knowing the possibility that it will completely go unaccounted for is not only altruistic but a meta state of existence, something no atheist can ever claim a drive for their being!

So I take it you believe that Amnesty International is an organisation rooted in self-interest. I take you believe that all of these non-profit groups are somehow deceptive in their objectives?

There is only one form of morality and that is a divine gift, it doesn't exist without God, and it doesn't exist under a different label-- whether you acknowledge that or not is inconsequential.

I suspect that what you mean here is that our ability to consider what ought and ought not is a gift from God. This is just a claim and indeed, doesn't have much to do with my perspective on theistic morality.

I am talking about specifically those who make the claim that moral actions are justified by God's blessing and condemned by God's disapproval. I am talking about the idea that morality is decreed by God.

You don't know the first thing about who was condemned or why... I suggest you get your knowledge form another place than the dawkin net. Not only do you appear an under-educated fool gauging topics completely beyond your sphere of expertise but you mouth off the same psycho babble they indoctrinate you with as if it were your mantra. That is a declaration of folly and stupidity and not a philosophical debate!

Is something good because God declares it to be so, or does God declares it to be so because it is good?

Keep in mind, that it cannot be both.

You disgust me truly!

I'm touched. I didn't mean to offend, but I had to specifically explain what I meant.

And I told you that music doesn't hold a moral value rather it is a prohibition. Do you read at all?

I know you did. You complained about me answering your question. You asked me a frankly an incoherent question about whether or not I could guarantee that I would forgo any actions deemed immoral by theists that I see as permissable. My answer was, well, no I couldn't (and wouldn't) because obviously I don't see them as immoral.

There is no guarantee that avoidance will spare your hell-fire, again I wonder why you gauge topics of theology when you have no idea of the basic tenets?

We're not talking about theology. I made an observation about the behaviour of those who have a genuine belief that their beliefs and actions affect their position in the afterlife. I am well aware that Islamic doctrine declares no guarantee for paradise for a Muslim.

Do you follow any threads here at all to learn the basics of the religion of your hosts? Your deeds don't earn you heaven or hell.. in fact all you do in this life is so you can have a decent life. If you don't drink you don't end up a drunk, if you pray you don't have to go on anti-depressants, if you give to charity you can live in a decent society where you don't have to fear snipers coming at you for a loaf of bread.. your deeds mean absolutely zilch -- if you took every second of every day to show gratitude it still wouldn't compass what God has given you so that you can go on the side and think '''he'' is a bad guy'

Okay. All I did was make a simple observation about the role self-interest plays in religious ideologies that invoke a punishment vs. reward dichtonomy.

It wasn't you who wrote this?
How can something even be considered a crime if there are no consequences?!

Correct. I don't accept the concept of a 'victimless crime'. Which is why, as you know, I don't consider consensual incest as something that ought to be criminalised. It is why I don't accept censorship in the media in any form.

I think you misread or misunderstood what I meant by "no consequences". By "no consequences" I do not mean evading capture for say, murder (an action which has direct effects on others). I mean actions that involve in and of themselves no harm or negative impact to anyone. Actions that only concern you.

Is it clearer now? I am not saying that with knowledge and/or ability to get away with a crime, it is acceptable to commit it.

How does a drunkard reason? and how can you assume the road is abandoned? how can you account for every life in existence to deem it abandoned? maybe another moron drunk thought the same thoughts and went off on the same road!

In the context of the analogy, we are assuming it is an abandoned road.

Yeah, ok!

So do you think I am lying again?

you can justify it so that there are no victims. plus how is one victimized when life ceases and they have no family, where is the justice if nothing else?

I don't even know what this means.

There is no such a thing and it is a shame the telescopic view of atheists!

Do you even know what 'victimless crime' means? The word, I mean?

It is when a state criminalises things that cause people no harm. An example you are familiar with is apostasy in Islam under an Islamic state.

Every man made law is oppressive indeed!

Do you think the UN Declaration of Human Rights is oppressive?

How is it meant to shock you? it was meant to make a point. a murderer got away with his crime, there was no consequence as per you. What keeps you from committing a perfect crime like this if there were no consequences and you can actually stand to gain quite a bit from it? ''empathy''? how do you empathize with the dead?

When I am talking about consequences, I am not talking about consequences just to me - I am talking about consequences to everyone.

I already explained the distinction earlier.

So? again, what makes a life worth anything if all we are slightly evolved animals that come and go, what difference does it make if she dies at 15 or 45 really in the scheme of things?

We assert value on life. That's all that is necessary. If a million likeminded people come together with the notion that life is rather important both for our own individual survival and our survival as a community, then murder is easily considered at the very best an unacceptable anti-social practice.

Who is negatively impacted here? the deceased has no feelings anymore and there was no family to claim her, and the murderer undoubtedly enjoyed it given the grotesque manner in which he posed her body!

She did have feelings. A society can come to the thoroughly rational conclusion that for all involved, the illegalisation of murder safeguards everyone far better than the legalisation of it.

every society legalizes murder, especially atheistic societies where human life is worth even less so 15 million one shot, 20 million one shot, they might even think it good for the environment, over-crowding and God knows what else. Why do we have armies and navies and air forces, and death chambers and lethal injections if murder wasn't legal under the pretense of great duress?

You may not have noticed, but I don't know anyone who contends anything in the above is moral.

it wasn't my second post to you, rather the second on this thread!

Ah, thank you.

"Now to answer your original Q. 'Good' is what Allah swt declares to be good and bad is all that Allah swt. prohibited. If you are not sure then it is best to avoid it rather than render your own interpretation!"

So there we go - good and evil: obedience and disobedience. You just admitted it. So everything I said in my last post concerning theistic morality that you found disgusting happens to be true.

[جوري]

Is this proposed as a real point? Humanism is a moral philosophy that considers all ethical claims to be considered in the context of human interests. Atheism does not oppose such an idea.

Human interests at times denotes wiping out 15 million at a time and you are correct, I do find that to be in concert with atheism!

There we go then: you're again accusing me of lying. You don't believe that I have any moral ideology. What is the point of conversation if you just outright refuse to accept anything I say as sincere?

In any case, click here.

This site has a poor reputation. according to WOT
why do atheists like to hang in obscene crevices and expect that others should frequent their cesspools as well is beyond me!

So I take it you believe that Amnesty International is an organisation rooted in self-interest. I take you believe that all of these non-profit groups are somehow deceptive in their objectives?

What the hell are you talking about? Pls. try to focus I bore easily especially when you peddle psycho-babble!

I suspect that what you mean here is that our ability to consider what ought and ought not is a gift from God. This is just a claim and indeed, doesn't have much to do with my perspective on theistic morality.

As stated your feelings on the matter are inconsequential!

I am talking about specifically those who make the claim that moral actions are justified by God's blessing and condemned by God's disapproval. I am talking about the idea that morality is decreed by God.

Morality is an innate trait and it is indeed a god bestowed gift!

Is something good because God declares it to be so, or does God declares it to be so because it is good?

?

Keep in mind, that it cannot be both.

?

I'm touched. I didn't mean to offend, but I had to specifically explain what I meant.

and we concede that you spew drivel.. it would be a shame for me to acknowledge it beyond what I have written!

I know you did. You complained about me answering your question. You asked me a frankly an incoherent question about whether or not I could guarantee that I would forgo any actions deemed immoral by theists that I see as permissable. My answer was, well, no I couldn't (and wouldn't) because obviously I don't see them as immoral.

If you found it incoherent why must you strain so hard to exonerate yourself? I have already acknowledged that your baseline for morality isn't the measuring stick by which most live their lives and in general that is true for most atheists and those who live outside of God's guidance in varying degrees of kufr!

We're not talking about theology. I made an observation about the behaviour of those who have a genuine belief that their beliefs and actions affect their position in the afterlife. I am well aware that Islamic doctrine declares no guarantee for paradise for a Muslim.

If you are well aware then why make continuous non-points from which one can only deduce that you are an under-educated fool?

Okay. All I did was make a simple observation about the role self-interest plays in religious ideologies that invoke a punishment vs. reward dichtonomy.

And I have stated several posts ago, that with no visible guarantee one performs said duties out of love, devotion and a deep meta-interest that no atheist could possible fathom for their lives simply revolve around self-interest and acknowledgment in the here and now!

Correct. I don't accept the concept of a 'victimless crime'. Which is why, as you know, I don't consider consensual incest as something that ought to be criminalised. It is why I don't accept censorship in the media in any form.

Well here we have it.. thank you for that refreshing honesty!

I think you misread or misunderstood what I meant by "no consequences". By "no consequences" I do not mean evading capture for say, murder (an action which has direct effects on others). I mean actions that involve in and of themselves no harm or negative impact to anyone. Actions that only concern you.

Every negative action can be misconstrued to involve no harm if one convinces themselves of that and you have beautifully demonstrated!

Is it clearer now? I am not saying that with knowledge and/or ability to get away with a crime, it is acceptable to commit it.

It has been clear from the start!

It is when a state criminalises things that cause people no harm. An example you are familiar with is apostasy in Islam under an Islamic state.

Again gauging in a topic well beyond your one line quips and I think I am to fault here for thinking you capable of a conversation to a level!

all the best

[Skavau]

Human interests at times denotes wiping out 15 million at a time and you are correct, I do find that to be in concert with atheism!

How do human interests involve killing other humans? Do you even know what I meant by 'human interests'?

This site has a poor reputation. according to WOT
why do atheists like to hang in obscene crevices and expect that others should frequent their cesspools as well is beyond me!

WOT... I just googled that. Are you talking about a firefox extension which deals in safe browsing?

Anyway, it's completely safe if so.

What the hell are you talking about? Pls. try to focus I bore easily especially when you peddle psycho-babble!

You questioned the capacity of atheists to engage in altruistic acts. What about secular charities, which are no doubt assisted and funded by millions of atheists?

Morality is an innate trait and it is indeed a god bestowed gift!

That is what you believe and it is different to what I mean when I talk about 'theistic morality'. Indeed, even you have asserted a distinction by declaring that good and evil are directly related by God's approval and disapproval.

?

I'm sorry, the Euthyphro Dilemma confuses you?

Is an action morally good because God says so or does God say so because it is good? I can't put it in any simpler terms than that.

and we concede that you spew drivel.. it would be a shame for me to acknowledge it beyond what I have written!

No, you claim I spew drivel. It just happens that it is your primary argument against me.

If you found it incoherent why must you strain so hard to exonerate yourself? I have already acknowledged that your baseline for morality isn't the measuring stick by which most live their lives and in general that is true for most atheists and those who live outside of God's guidance in varying degrees of kufr!

Judging by what you think I believe, and what I actually believe I suspect your conclusions on what my "measuring stick" involves are inaccurate.

And I have stated several posts ago, that with no visible guarantee one performs said duties out of love, devotion and a deep meta-interest that no atheist could possible fathom for their lives simply revolve around self-interest and acknowledgment in the here and now!

How exactly would you pretend to know what motivates me in my life?

Well here we have it.. thank you for that refreshing honesty!

Now you know what I meant then. Can we move on with you claiming I think crime is perfectly acceptable if you can get away with it? It is untrue.

Every negative action can be misconstrued to involve no harm if one convinces themselves of that and you have beautifully demonstrated!

I'm not talking about a criminal that manipulates the authorities in order to make it appear he has done no wrong - I am talking about genuine victimless crimes. Things that states criminalise despite it affecting no-one.

Again gauging in a topic well beyond your one line quips and I think I am to fault here for thinking you capable of a conversation to a level!

Good day.

[Hugo]

And 'why' usually has an answer-- however, why will also not have an answer sometime.. Many things in this world even in science are arbitrary. Why do you scrub yourself a certain number of times before going into surgery? why is the diagnosis of schizophrenia given at the cut off point of 6 months why not 5 months and twenty nine days why not 4 months, are you any less or any more schizophrenic at 6 than you were at five and a half? Why do you become of age at 18? how about 17 and a half?
Is there any logic in the previous that you can understand? NO, you put some faith in that a governing body convened and decided this is the cutoff point.
Now, unlike in real life which is rather unforgiving, with God, you are free to go into the path of your choosing. No one is holding a gun to your head to pray or give charity or fast or not eat pigs or drink liquor... you do it only if you love God and if you love God then God loves you. Then when it reaches that stage, then you are truly with God:

Of course I agree that things in life are vague and if you look at my earlier post I discussed that at length. So its not just in science it also applies to almost if not all life's decisions and any written text because always one must interpret in some way.

I however cannot agree that one does good deeds, agrees to social norms or even prays because you love God though this might of course be true and we would hope it is true. If we take the case of good deeds then many who do not profess any faith engage in that activity.

And only a person who has reached that stage of being completely with God can tell you what it means.. I don't anyone in Christianity has ever reached or will ever reach that stage save for the few that Allah swt spoke of in the Quran!

I am not sure what you mean here since none of us is free from sin so one supposes none of us is completely with God?

I think that is one of the greatest problems with Christianity, you do away with everything God commanded and rationalize if not downright change his commandments to suit your whims and then come question other people on their rational..Wouldn't you be better suited to answer why God would decide to be born and die before you go into ancillary questions?

The trouble, if I may say so with you and many Muslims is that you decide what Christians believe and always in a derogatory manner. Almost always you have never read and studied the whole Bible and what you do have comes from questionable websites. I don't know any Christian who for example would change the 10 commandments to suit themselves. What I question here is you rational for perpetrating such falsities - that is not a good things is it?

[Pygoscelis]

I am suprised that this thread has gotten this far with nobody bringing up Steven Winebergs quote: "Good people do good things and bad people do bad things, but for good people to do bad things - that takes religion"

I'd change "religion" to "dogma", be it a religion or secular ideology. The people we have to be concerned about are those who blindly follow a charismatic leader, be it a pop star, a religious figure or author (including the authors of "holy books"), or a politician. The danger is in group think and in subjection or surrender of one's own mind to the dictates of another.

Freedom of thought is the only freedom that can't be taken by force, and yet so many are so eager to throw it away.

[Hugo]

I am suprised that this thread has gotten this far with nobody bringing up Steven Winebergs quote: "Good people do good things and bad people do bad things, but for good people to do bad things - that takes religion"

I'd change "religion" to "dogma", be it a religion or secular ideology. The people we have to be concerned about are those who blindly follow a charismatic leader, be it a pop star, a religious figure or author, or a politician. The danger is in group think and in subjection or surrender of one's own mind to the dictates of another.

Freedom of thought is the only freedom that can't be taken by force, and yet so many are so eager to throw it away.

But all you are doing here is trusting in a dogma stated by Steven Winebergs so that happens to be your religion. Of course religious people do bad things just like everyone else and one might argue here that you are blindly following Winebergs as a charismatic leader.

I agree with you about thinking freely but if I may say so your message here is one sided and tells me that you are just as blind as the rest of us. Extremism might be characterised as those that have a very very narrow mind and are convinced by their own arguments - is that you?

[Pygoscelis]

If I was following Wineberg as a charismatic leader would I disagree with his quote and modify "religion" to "dogma" and say it applies to any dogmatic person - be they religious or secular? No... that isn't how dogma works. Dogma is when people accept whatever somebody else or some book says and don't question or reason. Its when people essentially say "I believe X, because Y says so". X could be anything from certain foods being taboo, to positions on abortion, homosexual marriage, global warming, or universal health care. X could also be something odd like "black people have no souls" or "life begins at conception" or even "only humans, and not other animals, think/dream/are sentient/know they will die/etc". Y could be anyone from a religious icon, a holy book, a talk show host, a president, a pop star, or yes, even Richard Dawkins (I know some dogmatic Dawkins followers who will agree with anything he says without analysis and attack anybody who disagrees).

Do I have views and biases? Of Course. But my views are my own. I make an effort to develop my own views and think things through for myself, instead of surrendering my mind to another and following their dictates. I am not unique in this. Many, if not most do the same, including many religious people - as they interpret their religions to suit their own ideas. These are not the dogmatics.

[Skavau]

But all you are doing here is trusting in a dogma stated by Steven Winebergs so that happens to be your religion. Of course religious people do bad things just like everyone else and one might argue here that you are blindly following Winebergs as a charismatic leader.

That depends on why he trusts in it. If he trusts in what Steven Wineberg says because Steven Wineberg says it, then it would be obedience and trusting in authority. If he happens to agree with his statement, then he is just doing that - agreeing.

Additionally though, I would say more that religious justification or justification based on religion can act as a catalyst for evil.

[Hugo]

If I was following Wineberg as a charismatic leader would I disagree with his quote and modify "religion" to "dogma" and say it applies to any dogmatic person - be they religious or secular? No... that isn't how dogma works. Dogma is when people accept whatever somebody else or some book says and don't question or reason. Its when people essentially say "I believe X, because Y says so". X could be anything from certain foods being taboo, to positions on abortion, homosexual marriage, global warming, or universal health care. X could also be something odd like "black people have no souls" or "life begins at conception" or even "only humans, and not other animals, think/dream/are sentient/know they will die/etc". Y could be anyone from a religious icon, a holy book, a talk show host, a president, a pop star, or yes, even Richard Dawkins (I know some dogmatic Dawkins followers who will agree with anything he says without analysis and attack anybody who disagrees).

Do I have views and biases? Of Course. But my views are my own. I make an effort to develop my own views and think things through for myself, instead of surrendering my mind to another and following their dictates. I am not unique in this. Many, if not most do the same, including many religious people - as they interpret their religions to suit their own ideas. These are not the dogmatics.

You might have views of your own but they did not come on their own did they, you did not sit in a garret somewhere waiting for thoughts to come? None of us can be free of all the myriad influences around us or of culture or upbringing, the things we see or read. If we cannot free ourselves we can at least be aware of how they have and are colouring our thinking.

Here for example you show your bias, and that is a kind of mind surrender, but don't seem to be aware of it when you say things "they interpret their religions to suit their own ideas" so you equate it seems free thinking with what amounts to dishonesty

I endorse free thinking and rationality but I also insist that one does ones best to be self aware so at least you can begin to see how you think and appreciate how others do it. But free thinking and rationality cannot be divorced from our emotions because everywhere we are 'forced' to make judgements.

[Pygoscelis]

I don't think we disagree Hugo.

[جوري]

Of course I agree that things in life are vague and if you look at my earlier post I discussed that at length. So its not just in science it also applies to almost if not all life's decisions and any written text because always one must interpret in some way.

When one follows divine guidance then there is no vagueness!

I however cannot agree that one does good deeds, agrees to social norms or even prays because you love God though this might of course be true and we would hope it is true. If we take the case of good deeds then many who do not profess any faith engage in that activity.

I have no idea what this means, what I deduce from it, is your own personal feelings on something, surely you can't speak for everyone since you have no clue about the kind of relationships others have with God!

I am not sure what you mean here since none of us is free from sin so one supposes none of us is completely with God?

There are gradations of sins!

The trouble, if I may say so with you and many Muslims is that you decide what Christians believe and always in a derogatory manner. Almost always you have never read and studied the whole Bible and what you do have comes from questionable websites. I don't know any Christian who for example would change the 10 commandments to suit themselves. What I question here is you rational for perpetrating such falsities - that is not a good things is it?

I didn't learn of the bible from 'questionable websites' I learned from catholic school which I attended for three years. I doubt that any christian on board would say they have learned of Islam because they attended Islamic school for three years or even two weeks. Be that as it may, I don't need to learn little finite details of your religion to know it is disagreeable. And I certainly don't need to look at other branches of Christianity to make a point.. I don't believe in your basic tenet which according to gene (Grace seeker) feels can be far outweighs any commandments or books. It doesn't agree with me spiritually nor logically and I think if you personally are comfortable with your faith then it shouldn't matter what others think of it.

I'd no more consider Christianity a viable religion for today than you'd Judaism or mandeanism.. what matters is what you think of your beliefs as you'll take them to the grave, not what I or any other person thinks of them..


peace!

[Karl]

I think good or bad has nothing to do with religion or non religion. It may be a genetic thing. Some people are born good, some evil. As studies show serial and sadistic killers start as little children. A good child will stroke and cuddle a kitty a bad one will delight in torturing it. An archaic idea would be the bad one "has the devil in her/him". Good people lead good lives helping people and animals and cannot harm a thing willingly and eat the fruits off the trees or berrys, gifts from the plants. The evil ones get jobs as oppressors, toreturors, political leaders, used car salesmen, soldiers, vivesectionists, scientists, schoolteachers (indoctrinating fascists), preachers (hypocrites), assasins, communists and feminists. The evil vastly outnumber the good that is why the Earth is basically a Hell hole. By the way Mozart"s music is not good it's divine. Even his harpsichord is played by the angels in Heaven. :)

[SMA89]

I think good or bad has nothing to do with religion or non religion. It may be a genetic thing. Some people are born good, some evil. As studies show serial and sadistic killers start as little children. A good child will stroke and cuddle a kitty a bad one will delight in torturing it. An archaic idea would be the bad one "has the devil in her/him". Good people lead good lives helping people and animals and cannot harm a thing willingly and eat the fruits off the trees or berrys, gifts from the plants. The evil ones get jobs as oppressors, toreturors, political leaders, used car salesmen, soldiers, vivesectionists, scientists, schoolteachers (indoctrinating fascists), preachers (hypocrites), assasins, communists and feminists. The evil vastly outnumber the good that is why the Earth is basically a Hell hole. By the way Mozart"s music is not good it's divine. Even his harpsichord is played by the angels in Heaven. :)

I would disagree that it has anything to do with genetics. I believe every baby is born good but its their life experiences that make them become good or bad.

[KAding]

Good is when you generally increase happiness. Bad actions are those that overall make people less happy.

Quite simple really ;). Is it really necesarry to complicate matters any further?

[Karl]

I would disagree that it has anything to do with genetics. I believe every baby is born good but its their life experiences that make them become good or bad.

You believe in the nurture not nature argument. I do believe that nurture CAN contribute a part in how well an individual will turn out. But I do believe the main one is NATURE that determines how good or evil someone will be. There have been many situations where serial killers have had a very good upbringing. They are just downright evil people in which no nurture or religion can help them. Even the prophet himself said that the greater jihad is to fight the evil within one's self and to strive to be a better person. But some people are simply unable to fight this inner evil.

[KAding]

You believe in the nurture not nature argument. I do believe that nurture CAN contribute a part in how well an individual will turn out. But I do believe the main one is NATURE that determines how good or evil someone will be. There have been many situations where serial killers have had a very good upbringing. They are just downright evil people in which no nurture or religion can help them. Even the prophet himself said that the greater jihad is to fight the evil within one's self and to strive to be a better person. But some people are simply unable to fight this inner evil.

Isn't that a bit strange, since these people are creations of Allah. If they go wrong, they have themselves (or maybe their environment) to blame for it, not 'nature', which is essentially their creator right?

[Hugo]

Good is when you generally increase happiness. Bad actions are those that overall make people less happy.

Quite simple really ;). Is it really necesarry to complicate matters any further?

One can see the value of your definition but it implies for example that sadness is always a bad thing. But it seems obvious that is not the case as for instance sadness whatever the cause can bring about positive changes in our attitude and life.

[Hugo]

When one follows divine guidance then there is no vagueness!

I don't think think this make sense unless we know we have divine guidance and there are a million and one things in life where we might need such guidance but how can we know we have it? Neither the Bible not the Qu'ran pronounces on everything.

To reply to your point using your words as we have a measure of agreement: "Be that as it may, I don't need to learn little finite details of your religion to know it is disagreeable. And I certainly don't need to look at other branches of Islam to make a point.. It doesn't agree with me spiritually nor logically and I think if you personally are comfortable with your faith then it shouldn't matter what others think of it."

I'd no more consider Islam a viable religion for today than you'd Buddhism or mandeanism.. what matters is what you think of your beliefs as you'll take them to the grave, not what I or any other person thinks of them.. and only then will you know their truth or otherwise. Whether indeed Islam is good or bad

[SMA89]

One can see the value of your definition but it implies for example that sadness is always a bad thing. But it seems obvious that is not the case as for instance sadness whatever the cause can bring about positive changes in our attitude and life.

Completely agree. I went through a bad break up with my ex and she left me for another man. This made me feel horrible inside and I felt sad/depressed. I also felt as I wasn't too good enough so I basically thought about how I can change myself to become a better person and become a man with value/purpose. I ended up competing against 500 students from University for a Franchise Manager position and ended up getting the job after 3 interviews. Only 4 were chosen in the University. So when you are sad, you can make life changing decisions. There was a quote by Martin Luther King that states "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."

[جوري]

I don't think think this make sense unless we know we have divine guidance and there are a million and one things in life where we might need such guidance but how can we know we have it? Neither the Bible not the Qu'ran pronounces on everything.

Unfortunately that is only the case for Christianity Islam covered everything and didn't leave anything to chance or charlatans!

To reply to your point using your words as we have a measure of agreement: "Be that as it may, I don't need to learn little finite details of your religion to know it is disagreeable. And I certainly don't need to look at other branches of Islam to make a point.. It doesn't agree with me spiritually nor logically and I think if you personally are comfortable with your faith then it shouldn't matter what others think of it."

I'd no more consider Islam a viable religion for today than you'd Buddhism or mandeanism.. what matters is what you think of your beliefs as you'll take them to the grave, not what I or any other person thinks of them.. and only then will you know their truth or otherwise. Whether indeed Islam is good or bad

I am not sure how this spin concern me personally? I wasn't the one whining a couple of pages ago seeking validation, and again these words are only applicable to Christianity as firstly no 'branch of Islam' given that 85-90% are sunni can deem the majority heretical and they certainly don't have copies of the Quran with which they can erect sites alleging an entirely different book. The book is the exact same whether or not they choose to give it to their own rendition. Secondly I have compared Islam only to other has-been religions of Abrahamic faiths to make a point that you are obviously inept at using in the same fashion, and lastly and I think again most importantly Islam isn't a religion about a self-immolating man-god who impregnated a woman with his being, to be born (forgoing sustainability of the laws of the universe) choosing ineffectual apostles, praying to himself then dying and then appearing clandestinely to one man deemed his nemesis to throw the masses into further confusion. And certainly Islam doesn't center around just that one thing for sin abolition.. so what can I say, we are certainly not standing on equal grounds and even if, it really wouldn't matter.. what matters is what makes sense to one in terms of life affairs and spiritual guidance and I think ultimately what becomes of that faith in the hereafter is most pressing of all.. It is a sad thing to live ones life thinking 'for god' what is important and enabling a wrong doing after the next because in ones mind one has deemed such a prohibition insignificant or such a belief a focal point.

all the best

[Supreme]

Gossamer Skye, would you mind if I borrowed some of that post and put it in my signature?

[Justufy]

Gossamer Skye, would you mind if I borrowed some of that post and put it in my signature?

What part of it? <_<

[Justufy]

That depends on why he trusts in it. If he trusts in what Steven Wineberg says because Steven Wineberg says it, then it would be obedience and trusting in authority. If he happens to agree with his statement, then he is just doing that - agreeing.

Additionally though, I would say more that religious justification or justification based on religion can act as a catalyst for evil.

I think you are not understanding fully, what would be the problem trusting in what God says and obeying him? please note that God is a perfect omnipotent omnibenevolent Being, so what would be wrong in trusting what this omnipotent omnibenevolent says to do?

If this entity is as such (Omnipotent omnibenevolent and good) what evil could come from obeying its laws?

However if you trust yourself, a human imperfect being, of course there is a chance that some evil may come from it, because humans are not perfect such as God up above who himself is perfect. And how can you then objectively say that something is right or wrong? If you subbmit to your own moral code there is no way of saying that the holocaust is objectively wrong, or that raping and stealing are objectively wrong. Psycopaths may think otherwise! And who are you to tell them its objectively wrong to rape/kill and steal?

Picture this: if some aliens would invade our planet and that it was morally correct for them to Rape, there would be no way of saying that there raping here is objectively wrong that is, wrong no matter what.

[Skavau]

Justufy, I went through several pages with Skye on precisely this point and you are still asking at the end of your post the most childish of ethical questions.

I think you are not understanding fully, what would be the problem trusting in what God says and obeying him?

If you believe that a God exists, and believe that he declares to you things like, say murder, rape, theft and violence to others as wrong - then I have no problem whatsoever in your obedience to this God.

However, if you happen to believe this God you have you believe and support that the state you live in should be controlled by his will, that people's lifestyles should fall under the guidance or direction of lifestyles only he finds 'acceptable', then there is a issue because the direct consequences of your obedience to God is leading you to believe that others should be oppressed.

That is what the problem is. People believe that they have divine mandate to tell others what to do with their lives and the obedience they so decree as virtuous is the catalyst for this. There are several specific examples of users on this forum that hold exactly true to this (Amadeus85 is a good one).

please note that God is a perfect omnipotent omnibenevolent Being, so what would be wrong in trusting what this omnipotent omnibenevolent says to do?

From my perspective, absolutely nothing so long as this omniscient and omnibenevolent (how you determine that is suspect) arbiter didn't tell you things like homosexuals must lose equal rights, that the state should be governed by Christianity, that people who don't believe in this God go to hell etc.

Now I'm not saying that you do believe this or believe that a God would dictate such things, but other people do and for the exact same reasons that you are proposing: because God says so. Once you have declared God as omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent you lose the capacity to look at moral issues in a considerate way. Everything by consequence cannot be anything more than obedience to authority. If you really, truely believe that X is only right if God proposes X then it honestly does not matter what 'X' even is. If you were to discover that God was to declare that murder, or rape, or theft was morally acceptable or permissable you would have no mechanism to disagree with this God. You would have no actual valid reasoning process to declare this God as morally wrong because you've already made the biggest concession: something is right only if God says it is.

By consequence, good becomes obedience, bad becomes disobedience. Terms like 'justice' have no valid humanist meaning anymore. In fact, none of anything you say can have anything to do with humanism anymore. It is all about God. It is all about what God wants and humanity becomes a tool for this end.

If this entity is as such (Omnipotent omnibenevolent and good) what evil could come from obeying its laws?

Well, yes, precisely.

I mentioned earlier that your claim this being is omnibenevolent is suspect and now, I also suspect it is arbitrary. You have however merely self-declared this entity as omnibenevolent. You have merely decreed this entity is a representation of all good. I don't even know what you consider 'good' to be. What exactly do you think 'good' is?

However if you trust yourself, a human imperfect being, of course there is a chance that some evil may come from it, because humans are not perfect such as God up above who himself is perfect.

This is begging the question. It has to assume that God exists, and is morally perfect. The very essence of my problem with 'theistic morality' is that none of its claims of perfection, objectivity and rationality have ever in any meaningful way shown themselves to me to be anything other than a manifestation of self-interest, a problem with the human condition and a consequence and an obedience to authority mentality.

How exactly do you declare something to be 'evil'?

. And how can you then objectively say that something is right or wrong? If you subbmit to your own moral code there is no way of saying that the holocaust is objectively wrong, or that raping and stealing are objectively wrong. Psycopaths may think otherwise! And who are you to tell them its objectively wrong to rape/kill and steal?

People often don't notice, but theists tend to have the same problem. A non-explanation, a fanciful empty remedy is invoked to resolve it and to many seems superficially acceptable (not to me). You have already told me that your morality is nothing more than obedience and disobedience to God. Terms like 'good' and 'evil' by necessary consequence of this have no meaning outside this. This is your objective criteria? Your absolute world view? A system based wholly on obedience to a prevailing voice is not objective, it is arbitrary. It is to the whim of the self-declared dictator. How is your moral world view anything but this?

In any case, I don't declare objective morality, not anymore. All actions can only be viewed morally in terms of their consequence to others. Humans are, by the way a social species. This is the first and effectively only reason why we put moral value on decisions we make in life. I said morality earlier was derived from humanism - and it is. Morality is about what we ought and ought not do in the environment of other humans, and indeed more recently other animals. It is an adaptable and by definition completely subjective setup that changes with new attitudes, new situations and new populations.

We now however, many of us - live in multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-religious societies. We learn very quickly that the majority of us will benefit unmeasurably so if things such as theft, murder and rape are considered unacceptable. (Remember, a thief has no gain if there is no value held in private property.) It would be the collapse of society if we simply legalised them and so it is in all of our interests to condemn them, and deal with those who would soon commit them.

Another reason is a specifically humanitarian reason. Morality means nothing if the individual is ignored or used (which is part of the reason why theocratic states, no matter how wonderful their streets look fail). We have learned that despite the leanings of the sadist psychopaths (those who lack empathy, and by definition cannot be moral arbiters in any case) that you appeal towards - nobody wants to be raped or murdered. They by definition involve actions where one person does not consent to what is happening to them. It would be a reasonable response in terms of the persistency of society to declare murder and rape unacceptable for not only the good of society, but for the interests of the individual.

In fact the above is why we have human rights. Have you read them? Do you consider them valid? They're an entirely secular and humanistic document based on interest in other human beings.

Picture this: if some aliens would invade our planet and that it was morally correct for them to Rape, there would be no way of saying that there raping here is objectively wrong that is, wrong no matter what.

Okay. How would that devalue the relevance of any resistance?

[Pygoscelis]

I think you are not understanding fully, what would be the problem trusting in what God says and obeying him? please note that God is a perfect omnipotent omnibenevolent Being, so what would be wrong in trusting what this omnipotent omnibenevolent says to do?

If you defer your moral judgments to another, you throw out your moral compass. This would leave you with nothing but obedience, which is very easily used and abused by those you follow (religious leaders or writers you believe to speak for your God in this case, but this isn't exclusive to religion). History shows this again and again. Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things, due to their own moral compass or lack thereof, but for good people to do bad things, that requires the good people to throw out their moral compas, and as shown here one way to do that is to replace it with obedience. This is how good, kind, loving people can commit attrocity with joy.

Obedience and morality do not equate.

[ccc]

everything is made in Christ is good.I would say that everything is made because of sincere searching of the good or god or healing is good.

[Justufy]

Justufy, I went through several pages with Skye on precisely this point and you are still asking at the end of your post the most childish of ethical questions. (snip)

I think I can agree with most of what you said here, forgive me if I you have already talked about it in this topic and I have not seen it, but I tend to ignore posts made towards (and by) a particular user on this forum, for personal reasons of course.
On another front it would appear to me that a natural selection of ''good people'' is already in effect in our societies partly because of course a society where no one respects any rules/rape and kill would be a society that ultimately would destroy itself.

I think the tendency to do good is already in ourselves from the beginning, (here I would share Rousseau’s idea of the man at his beginnings). We must also remember that the Qu’ran or bible are not perfect also, they were created by men and could have been influenced by the context at the time, things may have been added or modified to answer particular social problems or situations, as I view great admiration in these attempts to establish a code with desirable rules I don’t accept all of them blindly, my morality is in my heart.

As I believe in God, and this belief is entirely personal to me, I also believe that people have the law or the tendency to do good engraved deep within their hearts, as for your notion of Good and evil I would answer that evil does not exist, it is simply the absence of Good, there can be good without evil but no evil without Good.

For some things to be said objectively wrong, God has to exist, because things ( and I know so) are wrong no matter what, no matter what context, situation, and the rest... And I think that in some cases its no more than a Gut feeling that learns us that this or that is objectively wrong.

[Skavau]

I think I can agree with most of what you said here, forgive me if I you have already talked about it in this topic and I have not seen it, but I tend to ignore posts made towards (and by) a particular user on this forum, for personal reasons of course.

Understood. When I referred to your dilemma at the end being 'childish', I did not mean it as to be disrespectful, or insulting - it was precisely that I believed it to be an oversimplification, loaded question and something that demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of morality.

On another front it would appear to me that a natural selection of ''good people'' is already in effect in our societies partly because of course a society where no one respects any rules/rape and kill would be a society that ultimately would destroy itself.

Indeed.

Of course, that's only one part of morality. A persistent society able to maintain itself is not in and of itself, necessarily a moral one.

I think the tendency to do good is already in ourselves from the beginning, (here I would share Rousseau’s idea of the man at his beginnings). We must also remember that the Qu’ran or bible are not perfect also, they were created by men and could have been influenced by the context at the time, things may have been added or modified to answer particular social problems or situations, as I view great admiration in these attempts to establish a code with desirable rules I don’t accept all of them blindly, my morality is in my heart.

I would agree with a tendency for good, but it would be for different reasons - related to our human origins.

As I believe in God, and this belief is entirely personal to me, I also believe that people have the law or the tendency to do good engraved deep within their hearts, as for your notion of Good and evil I would answer that evil does not exist, it is simply the absence of Good, there can be good without evil but no evil without Good.

I would disagree with that. The absence of good is amorality. If I eat a bag of crisps, it is neither good nor bad - it is amoral. For evil to mean something, it has to involve a specific negative action.

For some things to be said objectively wrong, God has to exist, because things ( and I know so) are wrong no matter what, no matter what context, situation, and the rest...

But that's precisely the unexplained claim. How would God existing mean that certain things become inherently wrong in and of themselves? What does that even mean?

And I think that in some cases its no more than a Gut feeling that learns us that this or that is objectively wrong.

That doesn't sound really objective to me.

[Hugo]

Unfortunately that is only the case for Christianity Islam covered everything and didn't leave anything to chance or charlatans!

This is simply nonsense, how can Islam 'cover everything'? Just to be simplistic there is nothing in the Qu'ran, Sunna or Hadith about aeroplanes, or lasers, or pianos or football, or organ transplants or a million and one other things.

Similarly, in our daily life we all have to make decisions; for example, I see a job I want to apply for, how can I know its right to do that etc - we cannot look up the answer in a book can we?

Secondly I have compared Islam only to other has-been religions of Abrahamic faiths to make a point that you are obviously inept at using in the same fashion, and lastly and I think again most importantly Islam isn't a religion about a self-immolating man-god who impregnated a woman with his being, to be born (forgoing sustainability of the laws of the universe) choosing ineffectual apostles, praying to himself then dying and then appearing clandestinely to one man deemed his nemesis to throw the masses into further confusion. And certainly Islam doesn't center around just that one thing for sin abolition.. so what can I say, we are certainly not standing on equal grounds and even if, it really wouldn't matter.. what matters is what makes sense to one in terms of life affairs and spiritual guidance and I think ultimately what becomes of that faith in the hereafter is most pressing of all.. It is a sad thing to live ones life thinking 'for god' what is important and enabling a wrong doing after the next because in ones mind one has deemed such a prohibition insignificant or such a belief a focal point.

You simply let you bias rule your reason. You talk about apostles but their teaching is followed by billions their inspired writings are outstanding by any standard and any one almost can have it in their own language. The Bible overwhelmingly speaks of love and devotion to a holy and Godly life. Christians let God be God in their lives, not a distant God but one who is alive and vibrant and through prayer have a real and living continual communion with Him.

Trusting daily in a living God is a good thing and indeed its the centre of our lives and we do what we do not because the law says so but because we strive always to do it out of love for God, not wanting in anyway to offend or abuse His grace - that too is good and can have a powerful impact in our lives outworking in sacrifice and unselfishness.

[جوري]

This is simply nonsense, how can Islam 'cover everything'? Just to be simplistic there is nothing in the Qu'ran, Sunna or Hadith about aeroplanes, or lasers, or pianos or football, or organ transplants or a million and one other things.

exactly what is it about football and lasers where you should seek some moral guidance or divine guidance? Sometimes I wonder how your brain is wired

Similarly, in our daily life we all have to make decisions; for example, I see a job I want to apply for, how can I know its right to do that etc - we cannot look up the answer in a book can we?

surely in Islam if we are looking to see that a particular aspect is right or wrong for us we can perform salat al'istikhara!

You simply let you bias rule your reason. You talk about apostles but their teaching is followed by billions their inspired writings are outstanding by any standard and any one almost can have it in their own language. The Bible overwhelmingly speaks of love and devotion to a holy and Godly life. Christians let God be God in their lives, not a distant God but one who is alive and vibrant and through prayer have a real and living continual communion with Him.

I suppose that is reflected deeply in the secular societies you live in which are moving further and further away from what is considered very archaic and obsolete form of morality. I love your use of words though, I'll give you that much 'outstanding'

Trusting daily in a living God is a good thing and indeed its the centre of our lives and we do what we do not because the law says so but because we strive always to do it out of love for God, not wanting in anyway to offend or abuse His grace - that too is good and can have a powerful impact in our lives outworking in sacrifice and unselfishness.

You can pacify yourself that you are living a good sacrificial and unselfish life all you want!

all the best

[Justufy]

But that's precisely the unexplained claim. How would God existing mean that certain things become inherently wrong in and of themselves? What does that even mean?

When I come to think about It.

I have to agree that the existence or inexistence of God would not make them any more good or evil, In fact , in all honesty, God and whatever decrees he decides to author are in no way necessary to the existence of Good or evil ( abscence of good). However I think that these laws and ‘’moral codes’’ that have been written by men, (and I will in no way assert here that they were ‘’God decreed’’ or ‘’God given’’) Yes, they were written by simple human beings, but these had to have some sort of notion of good to begin with.

I think that this notion is transmitted by our human nature and the societies we live in; I think this is why the moral code of some religions is at odds with present day concerns and modern societies by this I mean concerns such as homosexuality, abortion and so forth.
I follow my own heart.

You can pacify yourself that you are living a good sacrificial and unselfish life all you want!

all the best

what is this babble?? how can you be in any position to judge the lives of anyone on an internet forum??? lives of people you don't even know, this shows how precarious your grasp of morality actually is.

I suppose that is reflected deeply in the secular societies you live in which are moving further and further away from what is considered very archaic and obsolete form of morality.

Congratz on getting this straight, indeed the ''morality'' of some belief systems can be considered in some modern societies as archaic and obsolete, take Sharia law for example, this would be in its environement in some obscur tribal medieval village, but not in today's societies.

[Hugo]

exactly what is it about football and lasers where you should seek some moral guidance or divine guidance? Sometimes I wonder how your brain is wired.

I want to know are these things good or bad. Islam has a lot to say for example about music so what has it got to say about football - is football morally good or bad? Do you see what I am asking? There are a million and one thing we might want to ask about that are not, could not be covered in any ancient scripture.

surely in Islam if we are looking to see that a particular aspect is right or wrong for us we can perform salat al'istikhara!

This is a very odd understanding of salat al'istikhara - I have never heard any one say it allows you to make perfect decisions?

I suppose that is reflected deeply in the secular societies you live in which are moving further and further away from what is considered very archaic and obsolete form of morality. I love your use of words though, I'll give you that much 'outstanding'

I think you might be right but history does seem to show this kind of thing happening all the time in every society there seems to be a kind of moral death wish so it nothing new is it?

[جوري]

I want to know are these things good or bad. Islam has a lot to say for example about music so what has it got to say about football - is football morally good or bad? Do you see what I am asking? There are a million and one thing we might want to ask about that are not, could not be covered in any ancient scripture.

A general principal can be applied. If something is harmful for you then leave it, if it is good for you then go for it.

This is a very odd understanding of salat al'istikhara - I have never heard any one say it allows you to make perfect decisions?

You should seek all matters with Allah's guidance:

Salat Al-Istikhara in Arabic

Chinese Muslims praying in Xinjiang China

Reprinted from IslamicAcademy.org:

"Istikhara" means to seek goodness from Allah (Exalted is He), meaning when one intends to do an important task they do istikhara before the task.
The one who does the istikhara is asking Allah Almighty, the Knower of Unseen (Exalted is He) to guide him or her to know whether the task is better for him or not.
Salat al-Istikhara is a powerful tool that Allah has given us to ask His guidance in all matters. We should not hesitate to pray Istikhara before making any choice in our lives, big or small.
It's important to do this prayer with sincerity, knowing in our hearts that only Allah can give us the guidance we seek, and resolved to follow the guidance He gives us, even if it clashes with our own desires.
We should also say the duaa with firm conviction, not begging or pleading, but asking Allah clearly for guidance.
And we should not be impatient after our duaa. We do not put Allah on a timetable. We say our prayers and trust that Allah has heard us and will answer us in the way that is best.
We have several articles about Salat-al-Istikhara on this website, IslamicAnswers.com. Take the time to read the articles and learn how to perform the Istikhara prayer properly. It will benefit you tremendously in your life choices.
According to Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 21, Number 263:
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: The Prophet (Sallal Laho Alaihi Wasallam) used to teach us the way of doing Istikhara, in all matters as he taught us the Suras of the Quran. He said, "If anyone of you thinks of doing any action he should offer a two Rakat prayer other than the compulsory ones and say (after the prayer):

Salat Al-Istikhara in Arabic

TRANSLATION: "O Allah! I seek goodness from Your Knowledge and with Your Power (and Might) I seek strength, and I ask from You Your Great Blessings, because You have the Power and I do not have the power. You Know everything and I do not know, and You have knowledge of the unseen. Oh Allah! If in Your Knowledge this action ------------------------------------------------ (which I intend to do) is better for my religion and faith, for my life and end [death], for here [in this world] and the hereafter then make it destined for me and make it easy for me and then add blessings [baraka'] in it, for me. O Allah! In Your Knowledge if this action is bad for me, bad for my religion and faith, for my life and end [death], for here [in this world] and the hereafter then turn it away from me and turn me away from it and whatever is better for me, ordain [destine] that for me and then make me satisfied with it."
WAY TO PERFORM ISTIKHARA:
First pray Two Cycles (raka') of ritual Prayer (nafil) such that in the first raka' after Surah Fatiha (Allhamd"¦) recite Surah al-Kafirun (Chapter 109) and in the second raka' after Fatiha (Allhamd"¦) recite Surah al-Ikhlas (Chapter 112). After finishing prayer recite this (supplication/dua'): Dua in Arabic Text above.
How many times?
It depends. Sometimes it takes only once to get the answer and sometimes it takes longer. It is better to do istakhara seven (7) times. If you have received an answer, you may stop doing istikhara. You do not have to continue to do isitkhara for 7 days. It is better that right after reciting the supplication, given above, sleep with ablution (people who cannot keep the ablution for longer times due to health problems do not have to worry about ablution before falling asleep) facing the direction of the Qibla (facing the Qibla is not required but it is a Sunnat of our beloved Prophet Peace Be Upon Him). It is better to recite salutations (durood/ salawat) on the Prophet Allah's Grace and Peace be upon him before and after the above Dua (supplication).

I think you might be right but history does seem to show this kind of thing happening all the time in every society there seems to be a kind of moral death wish so it nothing new is it?

It is sad in my opinion..

all the best

[Hugo]

Just like to add in some new ideas and they relate to the idea of liberty and is liberty a good thing, something we should strive to create and preserve. So some preliminary thoughts:

1. Those who control information control liberty and authority opposes liberty.

2. We are creatures of faith and reason and we only interfere with faith when it proportional to how it affects the liberty of others.

3. Freedom is the right to choose; the right to create for oneself the alternatives of choice. Without the possibility of choice a man is not a man but a member, an instrument, a thing (MacLeish). Indeed there seems very good research evidence that that people denied choices are less able to cope with life's vicissitudes. The pre frontal cortex in humans is larger than in any other species, granting us an unparalleled ability to choose rationally' and in a way superseding all other competing instincts - in short 'choosing' is part of our most basic human faculty and if its taken away it can have a profound affect on who we are and on society.

3. Liberty is a right and rights are a good thing and in England perhaps the first right was articulated in the 17th century in a new way. The question was how can people with strongly conflicting religious beliefs live peaceably together and what was striking was that people stopped saying religious belief is supremely important therefore everyone should have my faith. and instead they said everyone should have the right to the faith that they in conscience believe. So in one simple move religeon becomes a friend of liberty.

How do people feel about this, this basic right, to believe as your conscience dictates - to me this is a supreme good and something that has been shown to be good in its effects.

[Pygoscelis]

1. Those who control information control liberty and authority opposes liberty.

God is the ultimate authority figure, therefore by the above God oppose liberty.

2. We are creatures of faith and reason and we only interfere with faith when it proportional to how it affects the liberty of others.

Faith is trusting in somebody else's ideas and decisions, it is opting not to exercise one's liberty.

[Hugo]

God is the ultimate authority figure, therefore by the above God oppose liberty.

Faith is trusting in somebody else's ideas and decisions, it is opting not to exercise one's liberty.

Let us assume God exits then what you say would only make sense if God had made us in some other way, made us into some kind of Zombie but all we know about the way humans react is that they want to make choices, they want liberty, they are anything but Zombies, just read the Bible and see almost every character there arguing and railing against God and often walking away from him?

Faith is trusting in something but you are assuming it is always completely blind. Your logic is also flawed as you seem to think that agreeing through faith is not an excise in liberty, a choice, but disagreeing, abandoning faith is.

[Pygoscelis]

Let us assume God exits then what you say would only make sense if God had made us in some other way, made us into some kind of Zombie but all we know about the way humans react is that they want to make choices, they want liberty, they are anything but Zombies, just read the Bible and see almost every character there arguing and railing against God and often walking away from him?

You just said that authority is against liberty. God is authority. Therefore God is against liberty. Perhaps it is your own premise you should take issue with :)

Faith is trusting in something but you are assuming it is always completely blind.

It is. If there is reason and logic, if there is any pondering or considering on your part in reaching the answer, then you are not taking it on faith.

[Hugo]

You just said that authority is against liberty. God is authority. Therefore God is against liberty. Perhaps it is your own premise you should take issue with :)It is. If there is reason and logic, if there is any pondering or considering on your part in reaching the answer, then you are not taking it on faith.

I think you misunderstand what constitutes discussion. In my posts I offered some thoughts not dogma and one of those is that authority is against liberty and you can subscribe to that idea or not as you please. You are the one who is using dogma, you are the one basing his argument on the premise that God is authority and one might as well argue that since liberty exists God exercises no authority or does not exist or just chooses not to use his authority; there is more that one possibility.

You also it seems are an all or nothing person and cannot see the liberty does not mean to most people that you can do anything as some of my other opening remarks indicated. Or that authority means one has no choice at all. A simple example is chess, there are rules but within the rules you can move as you please and indeed its the rules that make it free. We are all bound by physical laws but one can view those laws as they very things that give us freedom.

I cannot quite see what your logic is as in life I take a huge number of things on trust, faith, one would hardly be able to live otherwise. For instance I cannot prove my wife loves me in any absolute sense but I can see evidences of it in all the large and small things she does for me - but of course I may be wrong, but that is the deal in live we have. It is much the same with religious faith, I can see things that convince me of it truth and value, they may not convince you but that does not mean they are invalidated does it.

When we come to reason its is not a simpler matter either and logic itself has limits as any paradox will tell you. But we do not as human being use unaided reason, for example, to make any judgement one needs emotions as well as reason, indeed one cannot make a judgement without emotions. For instance, when I buy a care I can make out a list of criteria but those very choices are essentially emotional judgements and even if a car meets my criteria I can still reject it. If we move from there to say choosing a wife then its easy to see the logic and reason are simply not enough.

[Pygoscelis]

you are the one basing his argument

I have made no argument. I have simply pointed out an implication of your thought to see if you've thought it out. I don't think many God believers will dispute that God is an authority figure (most will tell you we all are to obey him - hence the ten commandments, heaven and hell, etc).

[Hugo]

I believe I have thought it out and certainly God can be thought of as an authority figure but in every day life it does not look like that does it? I have to make my own decisions, I cannot stop it raining or prevent illness. So if God has authority I am not sure how he exercises it apart from the workings of nature perhaps. Hence I have to use my own moral judgements all the time even though I might accept say the 10 commandments I still have to decide to follow them and as far as I know God does not interfere with my choices?

[Skavau]

I believe I have thought it out and certainly God can be thought of as an authority figure but in every day life it does not look like that does it? I have to make my own decisions, I cannot stop it raining or prevent illness. So if God has authority I am not sure how he exercises it apart from the workings of nature perhaps. Hence I have to use my own moral judgements all the time even though I might accept say the 10 commandments I still have to decide to follow them and as far as I know God does not interfere with my choices?

He is not suggesting you are controlled by God, he is suggesting that you are subservient to the concept of God. That it directs your moral philosophy.

Here's the key: would you ever disobey God? Would you ever consider it possible for God to be wrong about anything?

[Hugo]

He is not suggesting you are controlled by God, he is suggesting that you are subservient to the concept of God. That it directs your moral philosophy. Here's the key: would you ever disobey God? Would you ever consider it possible for God to be wrong about anything?

Well perhaps its splitting hairs but my moral philosophy is largely based in what I see as God's message and I see that as a message of both justice and love. But of course that message does not speak about every possible thing and so I have to interpret the message and in a sense apply it to today. Much of what is written in the Bible is about circumstances and institutions that no longer apply and things that are no more than ritual. So I would hope not to disobey that message but of course I know that is ultimately impossible and at the same time I have to interpret and perhaps re-interpret what is there. So I might argue that God cannot be wrong but I would argue that He can in some strange way change his mind and there is ample Biblical evidence that prayers is one vehicle for that. One supposes that even if you do not believe in God one goes through a similar process and it seems to me even the most immoral person desires justice though perhaps only for himself.

[Skavau]

Well perhaps its splitting hairs but my moral philosophy is largely based in what I see as God's message and I see that as a message of both justice and love.

Okay

But of course that message does not speak about every possible thing and so I have to interpret the message and in a sense apply it to today. Much of what is written in the Bible is about circumstances and institutions that no longer apply and things that are no more than ritual. So I would hope not to disobey that message but of course I know that is ultimately impossible and at the same time I have to interpret and perhaps re-interpret what is there. So I might argue that God cannot be wrong but I would argue that He can in some strange way change his mind and there is ample Biblical evidence that prayers is one vehicle for that. One supposes that even if you do not believe in God one goes through a similar process and it seems to me even the most immoral person desires justice though perhaps only for himself.

Yes, self-interest is justice without the concerns of others.

I am not challenging your perspective scripturally - I talk about it philosophically. My biggest problem with the specific idea of theistic morality (morality from God) is that is thoroughly deceptive. It presents an image of piety, and an objective one at that but in actuality, in my observation represents a glorified system of obedience towards God with humanity being an agenda towards that. Such that all must be sacrificed and disregarded in the pursuit of gaining God's acknowledgment. That all personal liberties are defunct if God mandates it, and any disagreement with this analysis is moot once declared.

You can actually see this at times with how various organisations function in the world, and what people say. Some examples include the issued fatwas around the Muslim world, the actions of Mother Teresa in her life and her God-centric motivation, the Catholic church itself declaring condoms worse than Aids, the general state of the evangelical movement within the United States and the general state of theocratic states across the world. In none of these examples were those involved motivated for humanist reasons but were motivated entirely to please God, and do what they thought God demands - and (no pun intended) to hell with everyone else. It's dangerous, disturbing and has been a historical (and continues in many places) warrant for destruction.

You yourself do not appear to hold the traditional conception of God of omniscience, since you've stated that perhaps God can be in error. Are you a Process Theologian?

[Hugo]

I am not challenging your perspective scripturally - I talk about it philosophically. My biggest problem with the specific idea of theistic morality (morality from God) is that is thoroughly deceptive. It presents an image of piety, and an objective one at that but in actuality, in my observation represents a glorified system of obedience towards God with humanity being an agenda towards that. Such that all must be sacrificed and disregarded in the pursuit of gaining God's acknowledgment. That all personal liberties are defunct if God mandates it, and any disagreement with this analysis is moot once declared.

You can actually see this at times with how various organisations function in the world, and what people say. Some examples include the issued fatwas around the Muslim world, the actions of Mother Teresa in her life and her God-centric motivation, the Catholic church itself declaring condoms worse than Aids, the general state of the evangelical movement within the United States and the general state of theocratic states across the world. In none of these examples were those involved motivated for humanist reasons but were motivated entirely to please God, and do what they thought God demands - and (no pun intended) to hell with everyone else. It's dangerous, disturbing and has been a historical (and continues in many places) warrant for destruction.

You yourself do not appear to hold the traditional conception of God of omniscience, since you've stated that perhaps God can be in error. Are you a Process Theologian?

I am not sure I said God can be in error but only that he can change his mind. But I suppose philosophically I find dogma difficult and I am not very happy about people telling me what is right and wrong - well I don't mind them telling me as long as they don't demand that I accept it as truth because God or Allah says so or some scholar writing 14 centuries ago is infallible; that is just a route to intolerance and oppression.

Though I strongly subscribe to Biblical principles of morality I do still like (if that is the right word) to think it through. There are perhaps two ways of dealing with right and wrong. In simple terms we can use dogma (someone tells you it is wrong) or you can use argument (you explain why it is wrong) and this is the basis of ethics. A simple example here is that the Jewish and Muslim faiths forbid the eating of pork. This is dogma, believers are told this is the truth this is right. But that is quite a different thing to trying to form an argument as to why it is true and right.

The trouble with dogma is that it can stop you thinking so that one blindly accepts things without much in the way of critical thought or open discussion. When this happens, it is not a very big step to utter intolerance and repression of those that don’t agree or toe the line and we can see that in many places the world over. Mary Warnock has suggested that there are three underlying principles of ethics or I think you can say morals. She called them:

Altruism – this is perhaps easy to understand if we think of the word unselfish and wanting to do good.

Sympathy – this just means we feel some “pain” for another person.

Imagination – this sounds perhaps a bit odd but in fact it is probably the hinge on which ethics works. If you have no imagination or never employ it then you cannot see how another person or persons might feel or respond to what you are doing or believing and often you care only for yourself

[Hugo]

I would now like to move the debate on to specifically faith related matters of good and bad. One area of specific interest to me is the place of women in Islam and whether that 'place' is morally justifiable, indeed good, best or better than elsewhere or specifically better than that typically found in Western or other religious cultures. For purposes of continuity here and to allow those who want to follow it up I will paraphrase from Wafa Sultan's book "A God who Hates" published in 2009 with ISBN 9780312 538354.

The Koran says: "There is a good example in Allah's apostle" (33:21). So it has relevance to this thread, do we simply accept that because a certain persoin performed and act it is automatically 'good' and the act itself need not be considered?

In this instance, the Prophet contracted his marriage with Aisha when she was six years old and he was fifty. The marriage was consummated when she was nine. If we consider now the book "Wives of Mohammed" written in 1959 by the very well respected scholar, Bint al-Shati' she describes that day for us in Aisha's words:

"The Prophet married me when I was six years old and the marriage was consummated when I was nine. The Prophet of God came to our home in company with men and women who were among his followers. My mother came [to me] while I was in a swing between the branches of a tree and made me come down. She smoothed my hair, wiped my face with a little water then came forward and led me to the door. She stopped me while I calmed myself a little. Then she took me in. The Prophet of God was sitting on a bed in our home, and she sat me in his lap. Everyone jumped up and went out, and the Prophet consummated his marriage with me at our home."

Here can we discuss its moral importance and what it has done, and is still doing, to destroy the moral and mental fibre of Muslim men and women. A fifty-year-old man marries a six-year-old girl and consummates their marriage when she turns nine. The question is simple was this act a crime or an example, indeed an ideal example to be followed?

If we step aside from the event itself and look at the religious and legal legitimization it has been accorded it is the moral example that the individual Muslim extracts from this incident which invest it with its importance and gravity. So Islamic custom attaches no value to childhood. A child is his father's property, who has the right to dispose of him as he would of any other property. When a mother picks up her young daughter of no more than nine years and places her in the arms of a man her grandfather's age, her daughter's child-hood has surely been irreparably violated. When the mother's action acquired religious and legal legitimacy, it became a way of life for fourteen centuries. I cannot see any other way to view this but I wait to see what others might add.

[جوري]

I would now like to move the debate on to specifically faith related matters of good and bad. One area of specific interest to me is the place of women in Islam and whether that 'place' is morally justifiable, indeed good, best or better than elsewhere or specifically better than that typically found in Western or other religious cultures. For purposes of continuity here and to allow those who want to follow it up I will paraphrase from Wafa Sultan's book "A God who Hates" published in 2009 with ISBN 9780312 538354.

The Koran says: "There is a good example in Allah's apostle" (33:21). So it has relevance to this thread, do we simply accept that because a certain persoin performed and act it is automatically 'good' and the act itself need not be considered?

In this instance, the Prophet contracted his marriage with Aisha when she was six years old and he was fifty. The marriage was consummated when she was nine. If we consider now the book "Wives of Mohammed" written in 1959 by the very well respected scholar, Bint al-Shati' she describes that day for us in Aisha's words:

"The Prophet married me when I was six years old and the marriage was consummated when I was nine. The Prophet of God came to our home in company with men and women who were among his followers. My mother came [to me] while I was in a swing between the branches of a tree and made me come down. She smoothed my hair, wiped my face with a little water then came forward and led me to the door. She stopped me while I calmed myself a little. Then she took me in. The Prophet of God was sitting on a bed in our home, and she sat me in his lap. Everyone jumped up and went out, and the Prophet consummated his marriage with me at our home."

Here can we discuss its moral importance and what it has done, and is still doing, to destroy the moral and mental fibre of Muslim men and women. A fifty-year-old man marries a six-year-old girl and consummates their marriage when she turns nine. The question is simple was this act a crime or an example, indeed an ideal example to be followed?

If we step aside from the event itself and look at the religious and legal legitimization it has been accorded it is the moral example that the individual Muslim extracts from this incident which invest it with its importance and gravity. So Islamic custom attaches no value to childhood. A child is his father's property, who has the right to dispose of him as he would of any other property. When a mother picks up her young daughter of no more than nine years and places her in the arms of a man her grandfather's age, her daughter's child-hood has surely been irreparably violated. When the mother's action acquired religious and legal legitimacy, it became a way of life for fourteen centuries. I cannot see any other way to view this but I wait to see what others might add.

Much of what you have written here is a great deal of nonsense.. and I quote Ansar from another thread:

This is a misunderstanding of Islamic law. Actions which the Prophet did do not automatically become part of the religion unless he recommended them, in which case they become Sunnah. Riding a camel is not considered part of the religion, for example.

Also, the Prophet pbuh normally married women much older than A'isha, so why would the exception and not the norm become the tradition to be followed?



the topic is discussed here at length:
http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...et-pbuh-6.html

Aisha (ra) was in fact engaged to someone else before her marriage to the prophet, I don't know if that is something you are aware? I also don't know if you are aware of biblical law, (whether or not you choose to follow them) plus secular laws not a century or so ago:

What is the minimum age of marriage according to Jewish law?
by Rabbi Naftali Silberberg

Our Sages state1 that "it is forbidden for one to marry off his daughter until she is an adult and says 'this is the one I want to marry.'" It is forbidden for one to marry off his daughter until she is an adult and says 'this is the one I want to marry'!
In ancient (and not so ancient) times however, marriage was often-times celebrated at a rather young age. Although we do not follow this dictum, technically speaking, a girl may be betrothed the moment she is born, and married at the age of three.2 A boy may betroth and marry at the age of thirteen.3

Add a comment
Footnotes

• 1. Talmud Kiddushin 41a.
• 2. Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 37:1.
• 3. Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 43:1.

What is the minimum age of marriage according to Jewish law? | AskMoses.com - Judaism, Ask a Rabbi - Live


this one is from bringhamton.edu
of most states set the age of consent at the age of ten or twelve, and in one state, Delaware, the age of consent was only seven. Women reformers and advocates of social purity initiated a campaign in 1885 to petition legislators to raise the legal age of consent to at least sixteen,

website

Campaign to Raise the Legal Age of Consent, 1885-1914, Lesson Plan

and lastly,

Abishag Was a young virgin from the town of Shunem, North of Jezreel and Mount Gilboa, in the territory of Issachar. (Jos 19:17-23) She was "beautiful in the extreme" and was chosen by David's servants to become the nurse and companion of the king during his final days.
see 1Ki 1:1-4.
David was now about 70 years of age (2Sa 5:4, 5), and as a result of debilitation he had little body heat. Abishag waited on him during the day, doubtless brightening the surroundings with her youthful freshness and beauty, and at night she "lay in the king's bosom"


The age of consent or marriageability isn't an injunction to be of a certain age to follow in the lead of the prophet.. else people should also be marrying folks 20 years their senior, for his first wife was exactly that.. Do you find something wrong marrying a younger person but not an older one?

try some common sense please and familiarize yourself with your own books, with secular society laws and then put everything into perspective, so that someone's practices millenniums ago or even a century ago can be put into proper context rather than made into some sort of religious injunction!

[Zafran]

salaam

Yes its one rule for Islam - but another for his own religion. Its like talking to a brick wall.

peace

[CosmicPathos]

Being selfish is good.

Why? By being selfish, one ensures that one tries to benefit oneself to the maximum. If one properly benefits himself then and only then will he be in a position or would want to benefit others, at least I would.

I do not have any moral obligation to be good to humans at the expense of being good to myself. That is how I view world from secular perspective. And I cannot be wrong because its my choice based on what benefits me. Everyone has the right to make their choices. No one's choice is superior to other's. As such you cannot call a self-sacrificing humanitarian atheist to be better than a selfish atheist.

Islamically, I am wrong though.

[Asiyah3]

The Koran says:

You've been long enough in the forum to know that it's called the Qur'aan.

"There is a good example in Allah's apostle" (33:21). So it has relevance to this thread, do we simply accept that because a certain persoin performed and act it is automatically 'good' and the act itself need not be considered?

Hugo you are disregarding too many things. You can't just say that a fifty year-old man marrying a 9 year old = wrong and so claim that their marriage was wrong. Allah's messenger's (Peace and blessings be upon him) marriage with 'Aisha (May Allah be pleased with her) was divinely decreed and it had religious purposes. She was a great scholars in Islam and conveyed us over a thousand hadiths. In addition, you seem to forget that Allah's messenger (pbuh) and 'Aisha were very happy together and they loved and cared for each other dearly.

Here can we discuss its moral importance and what it has done, and is still doing, to destroy the moral and mental fibre of Muslim men and women. A fifty-year-old man marries a six-year-old girl and consummates their marriage when she turns nine. The question is simple was this act a crime or an example, indeed an ideal example to be followed?

The prophet's (pbuh) patience and understanding, love, tenderness, care and the way he (pbuh) treated Aisha is a great example to be learned from.

If we step aside from the event itself and look at the religious and legal legitimization it has been accorded it is the moral example that the individual Muslim extracts from this incident which invest it with its importance and gravity. So Islamic custom attaches no value to childhood. A child is his father's property, who has the right to dispose of him as he would of any other property. When a mother picks up her young daughter of no more than nine years and places her in the arms of a man her grandfather's age, her daughter's child-hood has surely been irreparably violated. When the mother's action acquired religious and legal legitimacy, it became a way of life for fourteen centuries. I cannot see any other way to view this but I wait to see what others might add.

It was narrated from Khansa’ bint Khizaam al-Ansaariyyah that her father married her off when she had been previously married, and she did not like that. She went to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and he annulled the marriage. Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 4845.

‘Aa’ishah reported that a girl came to her and said, “My father married me to his brother’s son in order to raise his social standing, and I did not want this marriage [I was forced into it].” ‘Aa’ishah said, “Sit here until the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) comes. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) came and she told him about the girl. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) sent for her father, then he gave the girl the choice of what to do. She said, “O Messenger of Allaah, I have accepted what my father did, but I wanted to prove something to other women.” (Reported by al-Nisaa’i, 3217).

If a woman doesn't want to be married, Islam grants her her rights for divorce (Khula').

The wife of Thaabit ibn Qays ibn Shammaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) came to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and said, “O Messenger of Allaah, I do not find any fault with Thaabit ibn Qays in his character or his religious commitment, but I do not want to commit any act of kufr after becoming a Muslim.” The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to her, “Will you give back his garden?” Because he had given her a garden as her mahr. She said, “Yes.” The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to Thaabit: “Take back your garden, and divorce her.”

(Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 5273).

That's some food for thought.

[Hugo]

But Hugo you are disregarding many things. You can't just say that a fifty year-old man marrying a 9 year old =wrong and so claim that their marriage was wrong. Allah's messenger's (Peace and blessings be upon him) marriage with 'Aisha (May Allah be pleased with her) was divinely decreed and it had religious purposes. She was a great scholars in Islam and conveyed us over a thousand hadiths. In addition, you seem to forget that Allah's messenger (pbuh) and 'Aisha were very happy together and they loved and cared for each other dearly.

Interesting reply, but I think if you read my post again I am not stating it is wrong or right and it occurred 1400 years ago. But any modern Western reader will feel only shock and condemnation when they read Aisha's words not only towards the Prophet but towards Aisha's parents. So my point is to ask you do you think the prophet's example here was a good one, one to be followed and secondly, what impact on the rights of woman and the responsibility of parents towards their children does a story like that have? Alternatively, are you saying that no lessons are drawn or can be drawn from this story, it had no impact on Islamic law, it is a one-off and only of historical interest?

[جوري]

Interesting reply, but I think if you read my post again I am not stating it is wrong or right and it occurred 1400 years ago. But any modern Western reader will feel only shock and condemnation when they read Aisha's words not only towards the Prophet but towards Aisha's parents. So my point is to ask you do you think the prophet's example here was a good one, one to be followed and secondly, what impact on the rights of woman and the responsibility of parents towards their children does a story like that have? Alternatively, are you saying that no lessons are drawn or can be drawn from this story, it had no impact on Islamic law, it is a one-off and only of historical interest?

Did you read anything I have posted at all?
1- that the age of consent in the west was 7 in states such as Delaware for instance.. do the 'modern western readers' feel shock at that?
2- that just because this was the norm millenniums ago doesn't mean that it is incorporated as part of the religion and incorporated into sunnah anymore than the prophet's marriage to a woman 20 yrs his senior!-- unlike christianity divorce is always an option in Islam if there were a coercion or the woman isn't satisfied in her marriage!
3- that this is in fact common so whether the 'modern western reader' has shed his judeo/christian roots or secular ones, there is in fact no getting away from them?

What ails you that you persist in posing already answered questions? Are you simply looking to elicit a particular reply that will not cater to reality as history records biblical or secular but only to your very narrow world views?

[Asiyah3]

Interesting reply, but I think if you read my post again I am not stating it is wrong or right and it occurred 1400 years ago.

You especially highlighted the one-sided part that a fifty-year-old man married a six-year-old and then consummated their marriage at the age of nine. And then you asked if it is a crime or an ideal example to be followed. So yeah, as if you're saying that the Allah's messenger's (pbuh) marrying a nine-year-old and so by that we are supposed to judge. Even though there is a decent explanation of the age matter well-explained in sis τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ's post. Hopefully my point is clear.

So my point is to ask you do you think the prophet's example here was a good one, one to be followed

That happened in a totally different time. If you want me to answer to the question that can a guy who lived at the time of the Prophet (pbuh) with the same circumstances and conditions do the same thing then i'll say that if the girl has reached the age of puberty and is willing to marry the guy and she's not forced to it and the guy is understanding, caring, respectful and righteous then I see nothing to revolt against.

I used the word can, because as τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ put it; the actions which the Prophet (pbuh) did do not automatically become part of the religion unless he recommended them, in which case they become Sunnah.

and secondly, what impact on the rights of woman and the responsibility of parents towards their children does a story like that have?

The "responsibility" of parents to be learned from that story is that they should marry their daughter to a righteous husband.

Alternatively, are you saying that no lessons are drawn or can be drawn from this story, it had no impact on Islamic law, it is a one-off and only of historical interest?

The marriage has had great benefits and impacts on Islamic laws, can't even count how many laws where lead thanks to 'Aisha's role and the hadiths, may Allah be pleased with her.

[Rhubarb Tart]

It was not long ago where 10 years old were getting married in the UK.
A child is no longer a child once she reached puberty, scientifically. The normal age of starting puberty for girl is 8. There is no set age whereby a child physically mature. Some girls can physically mature at 9. And there is no set age in psychology either, the opinions varies. Some say the age people mature psychologically is 25. Are we going to say a man who marries a girl aged 22 is child abuse or any other forms of psychologically abuse? There is no real evidence to suggest a girl of aged nine cannot be mature physically and psychologically. However it is very very rare, Muslims should take this into account.

The thing is that in Islam, the parents nor the girls get any extra reward for marrying under the age of puberty or just passed puberty but allah (swt) may punish those who endanger their children. And if the father arranges the marriage, they still need the woman/young girl consent. Some marry their daughters off young but in order for the marriage to be valid, she should be physically and psychologically mature and she should be able to give consent. When i mean consent i do not mean when parents come to their daughters and say “oh you are going to marry this man today” indicating no option to say no that she is forced to say yes. Until then the marriage is not valid. Unfortunately, there are still some cultures that practice forced marriages and none is more susceptible to force marriage then those of young age.

There is loads of information on other threads in this forum that goes into great detail and is more knowledgeable then mines. Take care

[Supreme]

A child is no longer a child once she reached puberty, scientifically. The normal age of starting puberty for girl is 8. There is no set age whereby a child physically mature. Some girls can physically mature at 9. And there is no set age in psychology either, the opinions varies. Some say the age people mature psychologically is 25. Are we going to say a man who marries a girl aged 22 is child abuse or any other forms of psychologically abuse? There is no real evidence to suggest a girl of aged nine cannot be mature physically and psychologically. However it is very very rare, Muslims should take this into account.

Menstruation is hardly indicative of a girl's physical (and even more importantly, psychological) maturity; and while the "age of consent" is indeed pretty much based on arbitrary cultural preferences for the most part, sexual advances *do* have a devastating effect on the minds of children who have not yet matured to the point where their psyche has been sufficiently developed

[جوري]

you don't know what actually is a measure of 'maturity' physical or psychological.. given the enormous divorce rate in the west:

http://www.divorcerate.org/

a successful union could be an adequate measure of 'maturity' though not necessarily but given the stats, I'd hazard speak at all of anyone's marriage because of a preconceived and telescopic nonesuch that was created early to middle of last century!

[Rhubarb Tart]

Menstruation is hardly indicative of a girl's physical (and even more importantly, psychological) maturity; and while the "age of consent" is indeed pretty much based on arbitrary cultural preferences for the most part, sexual advances *do* have a devastating effect on the minds of children who have not yet matured to the point where their psyche has been sufficiently developed

I did not say menstruation was indicative of a girl's physical and psychological maturity. I clearly said puberty, that includes other aspect of development such as breast, hip and the mind. All I said was puberty can start at 8 and all other aspect of development can develop by 9. I also clearly stated that this was very very rare and Muslims should take that into account. I clearly stated that there is not age set psychologically or scientifically. But if a child starts their puberty aged 9, s/he is no longer a child, there at the stage of adolescences and some even say adult. I say adolescences.

Every one of us develops differently; some don’t mature still age 18. The parents are the most knowledgeable about their own children but let face it culture has much more of greater impact then education. In fact those that still marry their children young that have not clearly developed psychologically or physically often come from a poor background, village of some sort i.e. parts of Yemen.

take care:statisfie

[Supreme]

I did not say menstruation was indicative of a girl's physical and psychological maturity. I clearly said puberty, that includes other aspect of development such as breast, hip and the mind. All I said was puberty can start at 8 and all other aspect of development can develop by 9. I also clearly stated that this was very very rare and Muslims should take that into account. I clearly stated that there is not age set psychologically or scientifically. But if a child starts their puberty aged 9, s/he is no longer a child, there at the stage of adolescences and some even say adult. I say adolescences.

Every one of us develops differently; some don’t mature still age 18. The parents are the most knowledgeable about their own children but let face it culture has much more of greater impact then education. In fact those that still marry their children young that have not clearly developed psychologically or physically often come from a poor background, village of some sort i.e. parts of Yemen.

take care:statisfie

Yeah, I take it that some Middle Eastern countries still marry pre-pubescent girls off to elderly men. I remember the case of that Yemenite girl who walked hundreds of miles just to make some court take care of her divorce.

[Supreme]

There is no particular, magical age line that could be drawn to accomodate all, as each individual develops differently.

But suffice to say that a child who has just entered puberty (as evidenced by the onset of menstruation) lacks both the physical and the mental maturity necessary to handle sexual advances without suffering trauma.

[جوري]

Yeah, I take it that some Middle Eastern countries still marry pre-pubescent girls off to elderly men. I remember the case of that Yemenite girl who walked hundreds of miles just to make some court take care of her divorce.

marriage is at least more noble than incest and child porn.. very prevalent in the west!

[جوري]

There is no particular, magical age line that could be drawn to accomodate all, as each individual develops differently.

But suffice to say that a child who has just entered puberty (as evidenced by the onset of menstruation) lacks both the physical and the mental maturity necessary to handle sexual advances without suffering trauma.

suffice it to say because you said so?
we have people entering universities at the age of four and nominated for a Nobel at 12 like Gregory Smith

http://express.howstuffworks.com/ep-gsmith.htm

akrit jaswal a surgeon at age 7
aelita andre painting at the age of 2
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=aelit...2ba8543c4f91ab

people running kingdoms at age 13.

and you say obviously? the only obvious thing is that you are used to lazy assed under-achievers in every sense of the word and think that, that should be the norm!

[Asiyah3]

There is no particular, magical age line that could be drawn to accomodate all, as each individual develops differently.

But suffice to say that a child who has just entered puberty (as evidenced by the onset of menstruation) lacks both the physical and the mental maturity necessary to handle sexual advances without suffering trauma.

I see here and there 11-14 year-olds dating? (and carrying beer bottles during weekends on the streets.)

[Supreme]

Gossamer, if you have nothing else to add to the conversation other than strawman arguments or ad hominems, then kindly bow out of the discussion.

[جوري]

I see here and there 11-14 year-olds dating? (and carrying beer bottles during weekends on the streets.)

well that is different of course.. they're just 'being kids'

anyhow in light of this.. I thought I'd end it on this high note

[جوري]

Gossamer, if you have nothing else to add to the conversation other than strawman arguments or ad hominems, then kindly bow out of the discussion.

adhoms when you mention young overachievers, mature functioning 'children' who put your theories to total annihilation .. but not strawman or adhoms, when you tinkle your pearls and add 'obviously'?

you take every post to a whole new level of folly that it isn't even worth it to dignify you with a response.. if it weren't so relaxing and virtually appealing to do so!

[FS123]

Some type of good everybody realizes, some things people consider good are relative and dependent on culture. In the end what matters is what God considers good.

[Rhubarb Tart]

There is no particular, magical age line that could be drawn to accomodate all, as each individual develops differently.

But suffice to say that a child who has just entered puberty (as evidenced by the onset of menstruation) lacks both the physical and the mental maturity necessary to handle sexual advances without suffering trauma.

It really depends on the individual, some develop so quick whereas other may develop mentally before starting menstruation, some physically develop (hips, breast etc) before menstruation. The parents would know best, whether or not their child has developed. But many have this misconception that once someone starts their puberty, they have matured mentally, but that is not always the case. That girl in yemen, did not have sex with him, she demanded a divorce because her parents forced her to marry. Well at least the situation had people talking about age of marriage and consent in Yemen. If you look at the whole islamic communities in this world, child marriages is rare.
Anyways, it is not a sunnah like Lilly has stated.

[Rhubarb Tart]

Are we even on topic? I think we are off topic. Anyways there are many discussions about this in the forum. I think we should say on topic.

[Supreme]

It really depends on the individual, some develop so quick whereas other may develop mentally before starting menstruation, some physically develop (hips, breast etc) before menstruation. The parents would know best, whether or not their child has developed. But many have this misconception that once someone starts their puberty, they have matured mentally, but that is not always the case. That girl in yemen, did not have sex with him, she demanded a divorce because her parents forced her to marry. Well at least the situation had people talking about age of marriage and consent in Yemen. If you look at the whole islamic communities in this world, child marriages is rare.
Anyways, it is not a sunnah like Lilly has stated.

This is where the legal age lines come into play - not because they accurately manage to handle each particular case, but because they err on the side of caution.
The further you move towards the twenties, the higher the percentage of people who *have* reached a sufficient physical and mental maturity level.
Most Western countries grant full adult status to teenagers above the age of 18, some others restrict some liberties to those above 21, and usually, there is at least *some* leeway for those above the age of 16.

It's not perfect, it doesn't assess each case correctly, but as I said: it errs on the side of caution. It may not do justice to exceptionally mature 14- or 16-year-olds, but it suffices to protect the bulk of the immature from harm by supposing that the vast majority of people have left puberty behind by the time they are 18 years old.

[Rhubarb Tart]

This is where the legal age lines come into play - not because they accurately manage to handle each particular case, but because they err on the side of caution.
The further you move towards the twenties, the higher the percentage of people who *have* reached a sufficient physical and mental maturity level.
Most Western countries grant full adult status to teenagers above the age of 18, some others restrict some liberties to those above 21, and usually, there is at least *some* leeway for those above the age of 16.

It's not perfect, it doesn't assess each case correctly, but as I said: it errs on the side of caution. It may not do justice to exceptionally mature 14- or 16-year-olds, but it suffices to protect the bulk of the immature from harm by supposing that the vast majority of people have left puberty behind by the time they are 18 years old.

If you are from the UK, 16 years old are allowed to get married with parent consent. I thought I would let you know because you are talking about legal limits of 18. maybe it has changed, but last time I checked it was 16. I dont know...

[Hugo]

Are we even on topic? I think we are off topic. Anyways there are many discussions about this in the forum. I think we should say on topic.

I think we are on topic because the 'new' dimension I have suggested here is that something good/bad might be defined not by the act itself but by the person who carries it out

[Hugo]

Some type of good everybody realizes, some things people consider good are relative and dependent on culture. In the end what matters is what God considers good.

Interesting idea and fits in with the current theme of defining good by a person not an act - but here how can we know the mind of God? Certainly we can use scripture but of course that does not define everything so we have to fall back on what we know and rationality

[Mohamed_Sadiq]

I saw this thread now and the question was; what makes something good? and i say Love lol

[Supreme]

If you are from the UK, 16 years old are allowed to get married with parent consent. I thought I would let you know because you are talking about legal limits of 18. maybe it has changed, but last time I checked it was 16. I dont know...

Yes, that's why I mentioned there is *some* leeway for 16 year olds- you can get married, but only with consenting parents.

[Hugo]

1- that the age of consent in the west was 7 in states such as Delaware for instance.. do the 'modern western readers' feel shock at that?2- that just because this was the norm millenniums ago doesn't mean that it is incorporated as part of the religion and incorporated into sunnah anymore than the prophet's marriage to a woman 20 yrs his senior!-- unlike christianity divorce is always an option in Islam if there were a coercion or the woman isn't satisfied in her marriage! 3- that this is in fact common so whether the 'modern western reader' has shed his judeo/christian roots or secular ones, there is in fact no getting away from them?

I see you are unable to answer the question which was: is the Prophet's prophet's example with Aisha a good one, one to be followed and honoured and secondly, what impact on the rights of woman and the responsibility of parents towards their children does a story like that have? Alternatively, are you saying that no lessons are drawn or can be drawn from this story, it had no impact on Islamic law, it is a one-off and only of historical interest?

It seems to me that if one accepts it as an example to follow then what are you legitimising?
If you accept that a parent can offer up their children without a thought for their emotional well being then what kind of family trust are you creating?

[Hugo]

You especially highlighted the one-sided part that a fifty-year-old man married a six-year-old and then consummated their marriage at the age of nine. And then you asked if it is a crime or an ideal example to be followed. So yeah, as if you're saying that the Allah's messenger's (pbuh) marrying a nine-year-old and so by that we are supposed to judge. Even though there is a decent explanation of the age matter well-explained in sis τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ's post. Hopefully my point is clear.

It was a legitimate question and yes I do think we have to make a judgement for we either legitimise what happened and it become an example to follow or we reject it say in this case the example must not be followed.

That happened in a totally different time. If you want me to answer to the question that can a guy who lived at the time of the Prophet (pbuh) with the same circumstances and conditions do the same thing then i'll say that if the girl has reached the age of puberty and is willing to marry the guy and she's not forced to it and the guy is understanding, caring, respectful and righteous then I see nothing to revolt against.

She was nine. But I was not asking you to justify or explain the action, it happened and cannot be undone. My question again is do you regard it as an example to follow now? To put it in your words, if you had a nine year old daughter and a 50 year old man asked to marry her would you consider her (not you) competent to take that decision?

I used the word can, because as τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ put it; the actions which the Prophet (pbuh) did do not automatically become part of the religion unless he recommended them, in which case they become Sunnah.

I did not say that this was so, I asked what effect the story has on law and on the way Muslim act towards their daughters? If you like, what effect does it have on you and your attitude to your daughters if or when you have any?

The "responsibility" of parents to be learned from that story is that they should marry their daughter to a righteous husband. The marriage has had great benefits and impacts on Islamic laws, can't even count how many laws where lead thanks to 'Aisha's role and the hadiths, may Allah be pleased with her.

I see your point but it implies the daughter, as in the story had no choice. I can see that you or indeed anyone can justify what happened and it is not unusual for a good to be created out of a bad so if I may say so one wonders if you are struggling with what you know to be wrong? Anyway, perhaps could give one example of a law that arose out of this situation?

[جوري]

I see you are unable to answer the question which was: is the Prophet's prophet's example with Aisha a good one, one to be followed and honoured and secondly, what impact on the rights of woman and the responsibility of parents towards their children does a story like that have?

the question was answered here:
-here and again here I really can't help it if you have a comprehension impediment.. which part of

This is a misunderstanding of Islamic law. Actions which the Prophet did do not automatically become part of the religion unless he recommended them, in which case they become Sunnah. Riding a camel is not considered part of the religion, for example.

Also, the Prophet pbuh normally married women much older than A'isha, so why would the exception and not the norm become the tradition to be followed?

was difficult for you to understand?
This is a matter of personal discretion. If I marry as 63 year old man and I am a good 30 years younger than he, is there really an impact of this on anyone else other than my person? sure you can sit and judge he is a sugar daddy she is a gold digger but outside of the mediocre gossip like snicker does this impact anyone else, and if it does in which ways exactly?

Alternatively, are you saying that no lessons are drawn or can be drawn from this story, it had no impact on Islamic law, it is a one-off and only of historical interest?

I don't think it has a historical interest when it comes to their age and certainly no impact on the law. I had an aunt who married at 42 and a cousin who married at 16.. let me know which one of those should be the law if we are to follow your tract of thought? both of them are practicing Muslims and so are their husbands!

It seems to me that if one accepts it as an example to follow then what are you legitimising?

I have no idea what this means? you want to create a scenario and to create a theme based on that? Is there anything factual as far as Islamic jurisprudence is concerned with your above statement?

If you accept that a parent can offer up their children without a thought for their emotional well being then what kind of family trust are you creating?

A parent can't offer a child, haven't you come across this?

Al-Khansaa’ bint Khidaam complained to the Prophet that her father wanted her to marry someone she didn’t want, saying “I do not wish to accept what my father has arranged.” The Prophet said, “Then this marriage is invalid, go and marry whomever you wish.” Al-Khansaa’ said, “I have actually accepted what my father has arranged, but I wanted women to know that fathers have no right in their daughter’s matters” (i.e. they have no right to force a marriage on them). (Fath Al-Barî Ibn Hajr, Sunan Ibn Mâjah)

I know I have posted the above to your person more than once, then why do you keep asking for implications when there are none as far as Islam is concerned, are you that desperate for validation?

plus the conditions of marriage met:

The Different Types of Shuroot (Conditions or Prerequisites)

At this point, we need to learn the definition of some general terms in Islamic fiqh which come up in many subject areas, including the one at hand.
Sahih (Sound). A contract which fulfills all of the arkaan and the shuroot and has full effect in the law. Baatil (Void). A contract that has failed to fulfill specific arkaan or vital shuroot. A contract which is baatil is the opposite of one which is sahih and has no legal effect at all. If a marriage contract is found to be void, even if it is only discovered after consummation, the legal condition will be as if it never happened at all. The lineage of the father will not be established and there is no waiting period ('iddah) upon the woman. An example of this would be if a man married a woman who was married to someone else at the time. Faasid (Defective). This is a contract which fails to fulfill some of the shuroot, but not the arkaan. For non-Hanafis, faasid and baatil have the same meaning. In Hanafi fiqh, a marriage which was faasid has some legal ramifications, especially if it was consummated. With respect to marriage, there are four different kinds of conditions which must be met:

1. Conditions Required for Initiating the Contract (shuroot al-in'iqaad). These are the conditions that must be present with respect to the arkaan or fundamentals of the marriage contract.
2. Conditions Required for the Soundness of the Contract (shuroot as-sihha). These are conditions which must be fulfilled in order for the marriage to have its proper legal effect. If these conditions are not met, the contract is "defective" (faasid), according to Hanafi fiqh, "void" (baatil) according to the others.
3. Conditions Required for the Execution of the Contract (shuroot an-nifaadh). These are conditions which must be met for the marriage to have actual practical effect. If these conditions are not met, then the marriage is "suspended" (mauqoof) according to Hanafi and Maliki fiqh. For example, a minor girl until she reaches puberty.
4. Conditions Required for Making the Marriage Binding (shuroot al-luzoom). If these conditions are not met, then the marriage is non-binding meaning that either of the two parties or others may have the right to anull the marriage. If they accept the marriage with such shortcomings, it becomes binding.

First: Shuroot Required for Initiating the Contract

In this category, there are conditions concerning the two who are getting married as well as the form in which the contract takes place.
Concerning the Two Getting Married

The two people must meet the qualification of legal competence, i.e, they must be adult and sane. If they are not, the marriage will be invalid.
Secondly, the woman cannot be from those categories of women that are forbidden for a man to marry. For example, suppose a man married a woman and later discovered that they had been breastfed by the same woman. In this case, it is as if the marriage never took place because those two were not qualified or allowed to marry each other and the marriage becomes null and void.
Concerning the Contract

There is near complete agreement on the following conditions relating to the transaction of the marriage contract:

1. The offer and acceptance must be done in one sitting. In general, this means that the response must be immediate. Exactly what is considered a "sitting" depends on custom and related factors.
2. The acceptance must correspond to what is being offered. If the guardian says: "I marry you to Khadijah", a response of "I accept Fatimah as my wife" would not constitute a valid contract. An exception to this is if the wali mentions a specific dowry amount and the groom responds with a higher amount. It is regarded that there is no reason for dispute since it is assumed that a higher dowry will be acceptable.
3. The wali cannot rescind the offer. Unlike transactions of selling, neither party can say "I have changed my mind" once they have uttered the offer/acceptance. It is immediately binding. In a sale, they both continue to have the option to change their mind until the "sitting" is over and they part.
4. The marriage must be effective immediately. If the wali says "I will marry her to you after one month", there is not marriage and the two remain unmarried.

Note that the custom of saying "I accept" three times common in some Muslim cultures has no legal significance. Once the first "I accept" has been uttered, everything after that is meaningless - whether positive or negative.
Adding Stipulations to the Marriage Contract

This is where one party states a stipulation binding on the other party for specific reasons or goals. The offer/acceptance are tied to this stipulation by mention. There is a difference of opinion among the scholars concerning the validity of conditions of this nature.
Conditions of contracts are two types: 1) those imposed directly by the shari'a and 2) those drawn up by one or more of the parties. When any contract is entered into, the first type of conditions are covered automatically even if they are not stated in the contract.
Understood Conditions Based on what is Customary

It is a general principle in fiqh that customs can take the status of law. It becomes understood that people are going to behave in a certain fashion. Since that is understood, one party has the right to ask it of the other even if it is not stated in the contract. In the area of marriage, there are some stipulations that are known by custom. These do not have to be mentioned in the contract to be considered binding. However, there are some strict conditions that must be met before a customary act is considered something equivalent to a legal stipulation. These conditions are as follows:

1. The customary practice cannot contravene or contradict anything expressly laid down by the shari'a. For example, it is custom in some parts of the world for the woman to pay dowry to the man. In other parts, it is customary to prepare two or three times amount of food that the guests could possibly eat at the walima (wedding feast). Neither party has the right to demand of the other the fulfillment of such customs.
2. The customary act must be common, well-known and universal and not something practiced only by some portions of the population.
3. The custom must have been in existence and known before the marriage contract took place.

Other conditions Laid Down by the Two Parties

Any condition which contradicts, compromises or nullifies the main goals and purposes of the marriage contract itself are rejected and, even if stated, are of no legal consequence. For example conditions which state that the woman receives no dowry or that he does not have to support her or that they will not consummate the marriage are all null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
Such conditions must be stipulated and agreed upon at or before the time of the offer/acceptance. Even those scholars who accept such stipulations do not accept them if they are made after the offer/acceptance.
Sound and Acceptable Stipulations

There are two types of sound and acceptable stipulations:

1. Those embodied in the contract even if they are not stated. This includes conditions known from the shari'a as well as those known from custom as discussed previously. The Prophet (sas) said:
   
   "Ahaqqu maa aufaitum min ash-shurooti maa istahlaltum bihi al-furooj."
   "The conditions which you have the most duty to fulfill are those by which you have made marital relations lawful." Bukhari & Muslim
   
   Many scholars understand this hadith to be referring to these kinds of conditions only, that is, those that are covered by the shari'a in the first place. This is the view of the shafi'i school. They do no allow any additional stipulations to be added to the marriage contract.
2. Those conditions not covered by the essential nature of the contract but which are agreed upon by the contracting parties. These are those stipulations that do not contradict the general goals of the contract, do not bring harm to anyone and which apply to things which are permissible and within the right of the person to agree - that is something that does not go against the shari'a. They are laid out in the beginning to avoid any conflict or hardship in the future.

In General, Muslims Must Fulfill Their Agreements

Generally speaking, Muslims must comply with any agreements that they make. Allah said about the believers:

{...Wa al-moofoona fi 'ahdihim idhaa 'aahadoo...}
{...And those who fulfill their pacts when they make one...} Al-Baqara:177
{Yaa ayyuhaa alladhina aamanoo aufoo bi al-'uqood...}
{O you who believe fulfill your contracts...} Al-Ma'idah:1

The Prophet (sas) said:

"Al-muslimoona 'alaa shurootihim."
"Muslims are bound by their stipulations." Abu Daud & Al-Hakim (sahih)

During the time of Umar ibn Al-Khattab, a man married a woman upon the condition that he would not move her from his house. The time came when he wanted to move her. They took their dispute to Umar and he said: "She has the right to her stipulation." The man said, "In that case, they will certainly end the marriage." He said, "The rights are broken off due to the stipulations." This was the view of many of the Companions, Followers and scholars including Saad ibn Abi Waqqas, Mu'awiyah, Amr ibn Al-Aas, Shuraih, Umar ibn Abdul Aziz, Tawoos, Al-Awzaa'i and Ishaq.
There is another opinion which says that external stipulations - those not covered by the nature of the contract itself - carry no weight and need not be met. This was the opinion of Abu Hanifa, Ash-Shafi'i, Malik, Az-Zuhri, Qatada, Al-Laith, Ath-Thauri, Ibn Al-Mundhir and has been narrated from Ali.
The Proofs of Those Who Say that Such Stipulations are Neither Binding nor Valid

"Kullu shartin laisa fiy kitaabi Allahi fahuwa baatil wa in kaana mi'atu shartin."
"Every stipultion which is not in the book of Allah is void even if it be one hundred stipulations." Muslim & Bukhari

They also cite the following extension to the hadith mentioned earlier about stipulations:

"Al-Muslimoon 'alaa shurootihim illa shartin ahalla haraaman au harrama halaalan."
"Muslims are bound by their stipulations except for a stipulation which makes the unlawful lawful or makes the lawful unlawful."

However, this version of the hadith with the added sentence is weak and cannot be used as evidence. As for the hadith mentioned earlier that "The conditions which you have the most duty to fulfill are those by which you have made marital relations lawful.", they claim that this only applies to the conditions which are essential parts of the nature of the contract itself.
Response to Those Arguments

The scholars who permit such stipulations in the marriage contract have responded to the above. As for the hadith "Every stipulations which is not in the book of Allah...", they say that for a woman's wali to make some conditions to her advantage is something permissible and does not go against the Book of Allah.
Actually, such conditions do not violate the Book of Allah and do not make anything forbidden permissible, etc. They simply give the woman the right to annul the marriage if the condition is not satisfied.
Also, there remains no real meaning to the hadith "The conditions which you have the most duty to fulfill..." if one says that it only applies to conditions that are already in force due to the nature of the contract anyway.
The Crux of this Difference of Opinion

This discussion boils down to the understanding of two seemingly contradictory hadith:

"Every stipulation which is not in the book of Allah is void even if it be one hundred stipulations." Muslim & Bukhari

"The conditions which you have the most duty to fulfill are those by which you have made marital relations lawful." Bukhari & Muslim

It seems clear from the second hadith along with the fatwa of Umar mentioned earlier that there is some room for adding stipulations to a marriage contract. It also seems clear from the first hadith that there are limits on what can be stipulated. Specifically, any stipulations which go against the basic goals and principles of the marriage contract and not allowed and, if stated, are null and void. Thus, the only remaining problem is understanding exactly how this principle applies in practical situations.
For those scholars who don't accept such external stipulations at all, they have no effect, are not binding, and don't affect the validity of the underlying contract. For those who accept them, they give the woman the option to annul the marriage upon he request if the condition is violated. We only mention the woman because the man can divorce at any time with or without a particular cause and so has no need of such an option. Notice that even in the fatwa of Umar, he didn't require the man to fulfill the condition, rather he allowed that she could end the marriage if she so demanded.
Conditions for Which there is Agreement that they are Invalid

Even those who accept these stipulations all agree that certain conditions are not allowed. Among them are the following:

1. Nikaah Ash-Shighaar. This is where the two dowries are stolen and "exchanged". For example a man marries his son to another's daughter in "exchange" for the other marrying his daughter to the first one's son. Neither woman receives their dowry.
2. Nikaah Al-Mut'a. Any kind of marriage with a stipulated time limit.
3. Nikaah At-Tahleel. A woman who has been divorced three times and wishes to return to her first husband marries a man on the condition that he divorce her. If this is discovered or if this is her intention, the first husband still does not become lawful for her in spite of this marriage.

Second: Conditions for the Soundness of a Marriage Contract

There are ten conditions (shuroot) in this category. Some are agreed upon by virtually all the scholars while others are the subject of some disagreement.
The woman is permissible to the man.
i.e., that she is not one of those forbidden to him by relation, nursing or other existing and conflicting marriage. Some would consider this on of the arkaan (pillars) or one of the conditions for initiating the contract. In any case, this condition must definitely be met.
The offer and acceptance is of a permanent nature and not temporary.
All forms of temporary marriage are forbidden in Islam. If anything stated in the offer and acceptance indicates a temporary nature, the marriage is not valid.
Two non-discredited witnesses.
There is some difference of opinion on this issue, but in the final analysis, the hadith is clear.
Ibn Taimia mentioned four existing opinions on this issue:
(1) The marriage must be announced and made public, regardless of whether the contract was actually witnessed or not. This was the opinion of Malik as well as the scholars of hadith, the Dhaahiris and one opinion reported from Ahamd.
(2) It is obligatory to have witnesses, regardless of whether the marriage contract is made public or not. This was the view of Abu Hanifah, Ash-Shafi'iy and another opinion reported from Ahmad.
(3) Both witnesses and a public announcement are necessary. This is a third narration from Ahmad.
(4) Either one of the two is necessary. This is a fourth narration from Ahmad.

Ibn Taimia himself felt that the second opinion (only witnesses required) is weak. He claimed that there was no authentic source for same and that it was not widely known among the Muslims. Instead, what is required is the public pronouncement letting the people know that the parties got married. He says that if a marriage takes place without witnesses or public announcement it is definitely invalid, if it takes place with witnesses but no announcement it is questionable and if it takes place with both it is definitely valid.

The portion of Ibn Taimia's opinion which finds the witnesses NOT a requirement must be rejected, because the hadith on this subject has been found to be sahih:

"Laa nikaaha illa bi waliyin wa shaahidaiy 'adlin"
"No marriage except with a guardian and two non-discredited witnesses."

So the bottom line here is that BOTH the witnesses AND the public announcement are required. In fact, regarding public announcement, the Maliki school says that if the other parties ask the witnesses to keep it silent that the marriage is not valid and the two are to be separated - PERMANENTLY! The Hanbali school holds that such a marriage is not invalid although it is disliked to do so. The witnesses must be two adult and sane Muslim men whose testimony has not been previously discredited.
Both parties to the contract and the bride have willingly accepted the marriage.
The Hanafis say that this is not a condition, but their position is unacceptable and rejected because of ample evidence from the Qur'an and the Sunnah to the contrary. In the jahiliya, Arabs used to "inherit" (i.e., forcibly marry) their brothers wives if they died. Allah forbid this saying:

{Yaa ayyuhaa alladhina aamanoo, laa yahillu lakum an tarithoo an-nisaa'a karhan...}
{O, you who believe, it is not lawful for you to inherit women against their will...} An-Nisaa:19

Non-abridged full source here

[Zafran]

Salaam

The Hanafis say that this is not a condition, but their position is unacceptable and rejected because of ample evidence from the Qur'an and the Sunnah to the contrary. In the jahiliya, Arabs used to "inherit" (i.e., forcibly marry) their brothers wives if they died. Allah forbid this saying

The hanifi proof for there position

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13296013/E...-Guardian-Wali

anyway informative article.

peace

[جوري]

Salaam



The hanifi proof for there position

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13296013/E...-Guardian-Wali

anyway informative article.

peace

:sl:

Thanks for that.. I was trying to elucidate that a valid marriage under sharia'a law is far more complicated in legality and principal than is peddled here, though I understand the need of our dear friend to derange it into something that completely differs from reality to suit his purposes..

"Laa tunkahu al-ayyimu hatta tusta'mara wa laa tunkahu al-bikru hatta tusta'dhana qaaloo yaa rasoolu Allahi kaifa idhinihaa? Qaala: an taskut."
"A previously married woman cannot be married until her order is sought and a virgin cannot be married until her premission is sought. They said: How does she give permission? He (sas) said: If she keeps quiet." Bukhari & Muslim


he is often quoting either un-Islamic sources or deranged shiite sources and expects that we should humor it somehow.. I am not sure why?

[Asiyah3]

It was a legitimate question and yes I do think we have to make a judgement for we either legitimise what happened and it become an example to follow or we reject it say in this case the example must not be followed.

She was nine. But I was not asking you to justify or explain the action, it happened and cannot be undone. My question again is do you regard it as an example to follow now? To put it in your words, if you had a nine year old daughter and a 50 year old man asked to marry her would you consider her (not you) competent to take that decision?

I did not say that this was so, I asked what effect the story has on law and on the way Muslim act towards their daughters? If you like, what effect does it have on you and your attitude to your daughters if or when you have any?

I see your point but it implies the daughter, as in the story had no choice. I can see that you or indeed anyone can justify what happened and it is not unusual for a good to be created out of a bad so if I may say so one wonders if you are struggling with what you know to be wrong? Anyway, perhaps could give one example of a law that arose out of this situation?

Oh, okay. The prophet's (pbuh) marriage to 'Aisha (May Allah be pleased with her) doesn't have any effect on me or other Muslims, because we simply don't see that as an example. What I mean is that by the same token because the Prophet (pbuh) married Khadijah (May Allah be pleased with her) who was his first and only wife till her death does that mean that we should follow his example and marry old women who are almost twice our age?

On the contrary, the Prophet (pbuh) himself encouraged us to get married to virgins - even though most of his wives had been previously married. 'Aisha was the only virgin whom he (pbuh) married.

Jaabir ibn ‘Abd-Allaah (may Allaah be pleased with them both) narrated: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to me, when I asked his permission (to participate in jihaad), “Have you married a virgin or a previously-married woman?” I said, “A previously-married woman.” He said, “Why did you not marry a virgin whom you could play with and she could play with you?” I said, “O Messenger of Allaah, my father has died (or has become a shaheed/martyr), and I have young sisters, so I did not want to marry someone like them who could not discipline them or take care of them, so I married a previously-married woman who could take care of them and discipline them.”’

Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2805) and Muslim (715):


If some few rare Muslims give their young daughters in marriage in some Timbuktu whether it'd be a matter of culture, has nothing to do with the Prophet (pbuh).

[Hugo]

This is a misunderstanding of Islamic law. Actions which the Prophet did do not automatically become part of the religion unless he recommended them, in which case they become Sunnah. Riding a camel is not considered part of the religion, for example.

This is off the point as I was asking what implications in law were derived from the Aisha incident? We know the prophet married other women some old some younger, some virgins some not but again where I am seeking clarification is what implications for law or social behaviour were derived from these incidents some of which I regard as reprehensible?

If I look at the Bible there are many incidents recorded were I have trouble because of their moral dimensions, I accept that they happened but I don’t try to justify them and neither do I or Christianity or Judaism attempt in any shape or form to derive lessons of practice from them. It seems rational to me that you are able to consider any action by the prophet in the same way. But it is a general principle fiqh that customs can take the status of law so it is easy to see how the action of the prophet can be taken as endorsing customs so it would be easy for a man to say I have taken a nine year old bride and justify it on the basis of the prophet’s example

This is a matter of personal discretion. If I marry as 63 year old man and I am a good 30 years younger than he, is there really an impact of this on anyone else other than my person? sure you can sit and judge he is a sugar daddy she is a gold digger but outside of the mediocre gossip like snicker does this impact anyone else, and if it does in which ways exactly

If this is YOUR personal choice rather than a decision imposed on you then I have nothing to say but presumably you would not consider a 63 year old man and a bride of 9 as being appropriate or acceptable based on the example of the prophet? Of course these incidents have an impact in law as one naturally feels a line must be drawn somewhere and no one would disagree that children must be protected but also in this case because the prophet is so revered one has to consider whether you are able to consider his action in any give situation as unacceptable or at least not a case for imitation.

A parent can't offer a child, haven't you come across this?

I accept the hadith you quoted but are you claiming that women, children are never forced to marry in Islamic societies? In the case of Aisha there is no hint of her making a choice and the literature is sadly full of stories of abuse in this way and in some Islamic countries it is the norm – do you deny all of them?

Of course there is law relating to marriage as there is in any society: they must be adult, sane and any marriage contract is within the law including any stipulations and allowed by or understood customs and if not the marriage will be invalid. What was interesting in your very long post was that there seemed no clarity in who was actually qualified to make the contract but certainly not the bride to be.

[Hugo]

Oh, okay. The prophet's (pbuh) marriage to 'Aisha (May Allah be pleased with her) doesn't have any effect on me or other Muslims, because we simply don't see that as an example. What I mean is that by the same token because the Prophet (pbuh) married Khadijah (May Allah be pleased with her) who was his first and only wife till her death does that mean that we should follow his example and marry old women who are almost twice our age?

This is an eminently rational argument that there are cases where we should not follow or need not follow the example of another. What I would be interested to hear from you is how you decided or more generally how anyone decides that the prophets example need not be emulated: because the prophet did something wrong, because the prophets example is just an incident from history, because the prophets example was carried out under extreme circumstances, what? You might illustrate your answer by considering the Aisha incident?

[جوري]

This is off the point as I was asking what implications in law were derived from the Aisha incident? We know the prophet married other women some old some younger, some virgins some not but again where I am seeking clarification is what implications for law or social behaviour were derived from these incidents some of which I regard as reprehensible?

1- No one cares for that you regard. Joseph was said to be 95 when he married Mary a girl of 12~13 so frankly the hypocrisy seems to fall only on your blind eyes!
2- You have been repeatedly told that there were no implications with regard to the law
3- Aisha (ra) was the only virgin the messenger married..

it tires people to repeat themselves because you in your own mind think you have a point and can't reason or comprehend beyond it!

If I look at the Bible there are many incidents recorded were I have trouble because of their moral dimensions, I accept that they happened but I don’t try to justify them and neither do I or Christianity or Judaism attempt in any shape or form to derive lessons of practice from them. It seems rational to me that you are able to consider any action by the prophet in the same way. But it is a general principle fiqh that customs can take the status of law so it is easy to see how the action of the prophet can be taken as endorsing customs so it would be easy for a man to say I have taken a nine year old bride and justify it on the basis of the prophet’s example

Again, there are no implications with regard to law and I don't have problems at all with the incident, somethings are right for some people and not for others, When I lived in KSA our neighbor and after the death of her father engaged her daughter to a man when she was at the age of 8.. this actually happens modern day, so I can't even begin to see what 'implications' you have millenniums ago and frankly again don't care.. if I'd lived back then I'd have probably been a grandmother by now.. neither the life expectancy nor the quality of life was what it is today.. there are still many parts of the world where the life expectancy is 44 years of age. Try to imagine a world beyond your sheltered life before you tell us what you find 'morally reprehensible' I have walked in this old grave yard once where practically several children of the same father and mother were dead before the age of nine.. people had more children then because not many of them survived childhood, and married young because many of them didn't survive childbirth, and married more than once for that exact same reason as well. Once you put things into proper context, life will make much more sense to you!

If this is YOUR personal choice rather than a decision imposed on you then I have nothing to say but presumably you would not consider a 63 year old man and a bride of 9 as being appropriate or acceptable based on the example of the prophet? Of course these incidents have an impact in law as one naturally feels a line must be drawn somewhere and no one would disagree that children must be protected but also in this case because the prophet is so revered one has to consider whether you are able to consider his action in any give situation as unacceptable or at least not a case for imitation.

See two previous replies.. as for where you personally 'draw the line' that is your own business, I have amply clarified that no woman is to be married against her will and that in fact makes her marriage null and void as per Islamic law!

I accept the hadith you quoted but are you claiming that women, children are never forced to marry in Islamic societies? In the case of Aisha there is no hint of her making a choice and the literature is sadly full of stories of abuse in this way and in some Islamic countries it is the norm – do you deny all of them?

Stories of abuse happen all over, Europe has been notoriously famous of late of incestuous charges of men fathering their own grandchildren with their daughters, or even marrying cats.. do you deny any of them? and how is this law derived from the bible do you think? is it because lut slept with his daughters as per your book that, you feel it is OK and natural to have that kind of relationship?

S I wouldn't speak on behalf of any Islamic personalities if I were you, you seem so ignorant of what lies patently in front of yours eyes, including that Aisha (ra) was engaged to someone else before the messenger ..

Of course there is law relating to marriage as there is in any society: they must be adult, sane and any marriage contract is within the law including any stipulations and allowed by or understood customs and if not the marriage will be invalid. What was interesting in your very long post was that there seemed no clarity in who was actually qualified to make the contract but certainly not the bride to be.

Who said the bride to be doesn't have a say in her contract? further who said only 'sane people' get married.. do you deny marriage to people who have mental illness? this reminds me of a laws that were instituted which forced sterilization on people with disability.. people like you sometimes disgust me when we take out that layer of superficiality we'll find a vicious, bigoted human being who feigns morality but has no such regard for folks who would remote fall outside his own created bell curve!

http://lsrj.org/documents/09_Women_w...sabilities.pdf

[Asiyah3]

This is an eminently rational argument that there are cases where we should not follow or need not follow the example of another. What I would be interested to hear from you is how you decided or more generally how anyone decides that the prophets example need not be emulated: because the prophet did something wrong, because the prophets example is just an incident from history, because the prophets example was carried out under extreme circumstances, what? You might illustrate your answer by considering the Aisha incident?

Peace,
Would you ask those same questions about the marriage to Khadijah (May Allah be pleased with her)?

[جوري]

as an addendum to my previous:


Marriage

It is probably at Nazareth that Joseph betrothed and married her who was to become the Mother of God. When the marriage took place, whether before or after the Incarnation, is no easy matter to settle, and on this point the masters of exegesis have at all times been at variance. Most modern commentators, following the footsteps of St. Thomas, understand that, at the epoch of the Annunciation, the Blessed Virgin was only affianced to Joseph; as St. Thomas notices, this interpretation suits better all the evangelical data.
It will not be without interest to recall here, unreliable though they are, the lengthy stories concerning St. Joseph's marriage contained in the apocryphal writings. When forty years of age, Joseph married a woman called Melcha or Escha by some, Salome by others; they lived forty-nine years together and had six children, two daughters and four sons, the youngest of whom was James (the Less, "the Lord's brother"). A year after his wife's death, as the priests announced through Judea that they wished to find in the tribe of Juda a respectable man to espouse Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age. Joseph, who was at the time ninety years old, went up to Jerusalem among the candidates; a miracle manifested the choice God had made of Joseph, and two years later the Annunciation took place. These dreams, as St. Jerome styles them, from which many a Christian artist has drawn his inspiration (see, for instance, Raphael's "Espousals of the Virgin"), are void of authority; they nevertheless acquired in the course of ages some popularity; in them some ecclesiastical writers sought the answer to the well-known difficulty arising from the mention in the Gospel of "the Lord's brothers"; from them also popular credulity has, contrary to all probability, as well as to the tradition witnessed by old works of art, retained the belief that St. Joseph was an old man at the time of marriage with the Mother of God.



http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08504a.htm

there you go the 'mother of God' was a little girl, married to a 95 year old man!
it seems when their god was born he didn't protest to this abomination!

got to admit that christians often give me a hearty chuckle.. shameless creatures who know nothing of their own religion, but feel so free to speak of other people's religions and with such moxie!

[جوري]

Peace,
Would you ask those same questions about the marriage to Khadijah (May Allah be pleased with her)?

how about some questions about the marriage of 'the mother of god' instead?

[Supreme]

1- No one cares for that you regard. Joseph was said to be 95 when he married Mary a girl of 12~13 so frankly the hypocrisy seems to fall only on your blind eyes!

I'm sorry, but do you make half of this up? Who the heck told you that Mary was 12-13 when she was married? And what nonsensical source states Joseph was 95?

[Hugo]

Again, there are no implications with regard to law and I don't have problems at all with the incident, something are right for some people and not for others.

Well perhaps here we end our discussion as there is no possibility of common ground, you see no shame or discredit in a 50 year old man consummating (and we must not shy away from exactly what that means) a marriage to a nine year old girl who had been minutes before playing on a swing in the garden. I don't deny that the world over, Muslim counties included, that children are abused and we should all be shocked to the core when we see it but you display no shock, your own shameful words condemn you "Again, there are no implications with regard to law and I don't have problems at all with the incident, some things are right for some people and not for others - Josef Fritzl who physically assaulted, sexually abused, and raped his daughter for 26 years would find comfort in your words

[Salahudeen]

I'm sorry, but do you make half of this up? Who the heck told you that Mary was 12-13 when she was married? And what nonsensical source states Joseph was 95?

Regarding the Marriage of Mary to Joseph, Catholic Encyclopaedia ( http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08504a.htm), says:

"When forty years of age, Joseph married a woman called Melcha or Escha by some, Salome by others; they lived forty-nine years together and had
six children, two daughters and four sons, the youngest of whom was James (the Less, "the Lord's brother"). A year after his wife's death, as the priests announced through Judea that they wished to find in the tribe of Juda a respectable man to espouse Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age, Joseph, who was at the time ninety years old, went up to Jerusalem among the candidates; a miracle manifested the choice God had made of Joseph, and two years later the Annunciation took place."

Note: That article on Catholic Encyclopaedia obtains its information from early
Christian writing including apocryphal writings.

The Catholic Encyclopaedia goes on to conclude "...retained the belief that St. Joseph was an old man at the time of marriage with the Mother of God." If Christians do not find any difficulty in accepting "Mother of God" (according to Catholic Encyclopaedia), who was 12-14, marrying a 90 year old man then why do they raise objection towards the marriage of Aisha (RA) to the Prophet?

[Hugo]

Peace, Would you ask those same questions about the marriage to Khadijah (May Allah be pleased with her)?

Well yes I would in this case since the prophet's example is regarded as paramount in Islam so one assume that everything he did or said can be, ought to be examined?

[Hugo]

It is off point but lets end it here. The trouble with this nonsense about Joseph is that it gets endlessly circulated through Islamic websites so all sight of its source are lost. Most scholar however agree the notion comes from The History of Joseph the Carpenter an apocryphal text probably written in Egypt in the 5th century and purports to be an extended statement that Mary was a virgin not merely prior to and during the birth of Christ, but throughout her life. It is framed as a biography of Joseph dictated by Jesus, and describes how Joseph, aged 90, following the death of his first wife and already with four sons and two daughters, is given charge of the twelve year old Mary, who lives in his household raising his youngest son James the Less, along with Judas, until she is ready to be married at age 14½. It then paraphrases "James", stopping at the point of Jesus' birth. Joseph's death at the age of 111, attended by angels and asserting the perpetual virginity of Mary, takes up approximately half the story.

In terms of this thread it is simply a distraction designed to defect from consideration of the Aisha incident - that is it is never an argument that something is legitimate because someone else did something similar at some time. If you want to argue that case for deciding whether something is good or bad then do that not just fling in spurious materials.

[Asiyah3]

Well yes I would in this case since the prophet's example is regarded as paramount in Islam so one assume that everything he did or said can be, ought to be examined?

My point is I fail to see his (pbuh) marrying a woman 'this and that' age or a woman with a specific height or hair color is ought to be followed. On the other hand, I can proclaim that marrying a righteous woman leads to successful life.

It was narrated that Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqaas said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “There are four things that are essential for happiness: a righteous wife, a spacious home, a good neighbour and a sound means of transportation. And there are four things that make one miserable: a bad neighbour, a bad wife, a small house and a bad means of transportation.”

Narrated by Ibn Hibbaan in his Saheeh (1232) and classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in al-Silsilah al-Saheehah (282) and Saheeh al-Targheeb (1914).

[Hugo]

My point is I fail to see his (pbuh) marrying a woman 'this and that' age or a woman with a specific height or hair color is ought to be followed. On the other hand, I can proclaim that marrying a righteous woman leads to successful life. It was narrated that Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqaas said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “There are four things that are essential for happiness: a righteous wife, a spacious home, a good neighbour and a sound means of transportation. And there are four things that make one miserable: a bad neighbour, a bad wife, a small house and a bad means of transportation.”Narrated by Ibn Hibbaan in his Saheeh (1232) and classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in al-Silsilah al-Saheehah (282) and Saheeh al-Targheeb (1914).

I think I find myself agreeing with you that we need not blindly follow any example or for select a spouse specific reasons. I love your quote though more for its stark contrasts that the ideas but would add the notion of love of course as being a kind of cornerstone, or you might say saheed, of any good marriage.

[جوري]

I'm sorry, but do you make half of this up? Who the heck told you that Mary was 12-13 when she was married? And what nonsensical source states Joseph was 95?

check out your bible and do some math.. other than that if you can't tie the points together, then no one can help you there!

Well perhaps here we end our discussion as there is no possibility of common ground, you see no shame or discredit in a 50 year old man consummating (and we must not shy away from exactly what that means) a marriage to a nine year old girl who had been minutes before playing on a swing in the garden.

as opposed to a 95 year old man copulating with a 12 year old? you are right.. I don't have much in common with pure hypocrites..
btw, I still play on the swings and with nintendo wii and I have a doctorate, so I am not sure if you had a point with that picture you painted?

I don't deny that the world over, Muslim counties included, that children are abused and we should all be shocked to the core when we see it but you display no shock, your own shameful words condemn you "Again, there are no implications with regard to law and I don't have problems at all with the incident, some things are right for some people and not for others - Josef Fritzl who physically assaulted, sexually abused, and raped his daughter for 26 years would find comfort in your words

rather he'd be confused with yours.. you feign goodness, but beneath it all, you are two faced hypocrite who can't be bothered to see things in his own book before pointing the finger.. further feels the freedom to define for people and I am not talking sick incestuous pedophiles but regular everyday folks for whatever reason, whether due to disability or life expectancy or customs the freedom to choose a contract that works for the satisfaction and well being of all parties.. it is so typical of you to bring everything sacred to the level of a cesspool that is on a level with your concocted and sanctimonious beliefs...

all the best as always!

[جوري]

It is off point but lets end it here. The trouble with this nonsense about Joseph is that it gets endlessly circulated through Islamic websites so all sight of its source are lost. Most scholar however agree the notion comes from The History of Joseph the Carpenter an apocryphal text probably written in Egypt in the 5th century and purports to be an extended statement that Mary was a virgin not merely prior to and during the birth of Christ, but throughout her life. It is framed as a biography of Joseph dictated by Jesus, and describes how Joseph, aged 90, following the death of his first wife and already with four sons and two daughters, is given charge of the twelve year old Mary, who lives in his household raising his youngest son James the Less, along with Judas, until she is ready to be married at age 14½. It then paraphrases "James", stopping at the point of Jesus' birth. Joseph's death at the age of 111, attended by angels and asserting the perpetual virginity of Mary, takes up approximately half the story.

In terms of this thread it is simply a distraction designed to defect from consideration of the Aisha incident - that is it is never an argument that something is legitimate because someone else did something similar at some time. If you want to argue that case for deciding whether something is good or bad then do that not just fling in spurious materials.

as for the accuracy of your apocrypha.. well it doesn't really matter in the scheme of things (we don't know which parts of your books to keep and which to throw out) and a half concocted religion can't be the word of God!.. what you choose to believe or not believe is also equally inconsequential.. what is of importance however is to understand that this was common for the culture and customs at the time, and I have no reservation whatsoever quoting sources upon sources from your bible that testify to the same thing..
as stated and repeatedly, this isn't the 'law' what is considered very appropriate thousands or even hundreds of years ago is of no relevance today.. anymore than treating tuberculosis with malaria is of relevance to the way we practice medicine today.. that had its rationale and was appropriate for its time.. I'll not pass judgment for instance that you are curing a man of a deadly disease by giving him a deadly disease.. it was cutting edge.. we equally have treatments today that do the same thing, make you impotent at the cost of curing you of a lymphoma.. which is more impressive for a person, impotence or death? It doesn't mean that a hundred years from now this will be the standard treatment or that we are all 'immoral' beings for opting for something so lethal..

again, this all shows your linear tract of thought, your inability to put things into historical perspective, or even the bare minimum which is reading what is being offered you and understanding it so that you are not posting the same question which is your bread and butter, hoping to elicit a response that will be satisfactory to you!

[Hugo]

as for the accuracy of your apocrypha.. well it doesn't really matter in the scheme of things (we don't know which parts of your books to keep and which to throw out) and a half concocted religion can't be the word of God!.. what you choose to believe or not believe is also equally inconsequential.. what is of importance however is to understand that this was common for the culture and customs at the time, and I have no reservation whatsoever quoting sources upon sources from your bible that testify to the same thing..

You do seem to have a unique line in consistency, you quote with seeming authority from apocryphal writing and then tell us they are not to be trusted so you are supporting your own argument with evidence YOU consider false. This all shows your linear tract of thought, your inability to put things into historical perspective, or even the bare minimum which is reading from the source or even knowing what it is so there is no possibility with you of finding any common ground or shared though not necessarily an agreed understanding so you post spurious answers more in the hope of deflecting the discussion or preferably ending it. If you are wrong or make a mistake do what the rest of us do and own it then move on.

[جوري]

You do seem to have a unique line in consistency, you quote with seeming authority from apocryphal writing and then tell us they are not to be trusted so you are supporting your own argument with evidence YOU consider false. This all shows your linear tract of thought, your inability to put things into historical perspective, or even the bare minimum which is reading from the source or even knowing what it is so there is no possibility with you of finding any common ground or shared though not necessarily an agreed understanding so you post spurious answers more in the hope of deflecting the discussion or preferably ending it. If you are wrong or make a mistake do what the rest of us do and own it then move on.

That was funny... it doesn't matter whether or not I subscribe to your beliefs.. what matters is that the contents of your beliefs aren't in concert with your own 'moral compass' once you resolve that issue to satisfaction can you come questioning cultural or Islamic practices!

all the best

[Predator]

Well perhaps here we end our discussion as there is no possibility of common ground, you see no shame or discredit in a 50 year old man consummating (and we must not shy away from exactly what that means) a marriage to a nine year old girl who had been minutes before playing on a swing in the garden.

What about your own lord Jesus ? He had no shame ordering the Killing of young Palestinian virgins and then consumating himself with 32 of them ?

Numbers 31:17-18

Now therefore KILL every male among the little ones, and
KILL every woman (female) that hath known man by lying
(having sex) with him.But keep ALIVE for yourselves all the GIRLS and all the
women who are VIRGINS."

There was no saliva test for virginity in those old days, the only way for those Jewish soldiers to find out whether a woman was a virgin to rape and verify it himself

Numbers 31:40 and 16,000 virgin girls, of whom 32 were the LORD's share.

So Jesus almighty also needed his share in the pound of flesh and so 32 were his share and he cohabited with 32 raped and ravished palestinian girls in heaven .

Imagine In a Book of God , God giving instruction that you verify whether the women is a virgin or not and uttering this filth and dirt , "kill every little child male or female .Kill them all "

Why the double standard ?

[Supreme]

check out your bible and do some math.. other than that if you can't tie the points together, then no one can help you there!

Why am I not surprised- backing down when approached for a source. You see, this is what happens when you create an argument and don't have the intellect/capacity to back it up.

[Rhubarb Tart]

Does anyone know how Aisha looked? How this (or in fact most) nine years old backed then look like? Her behaviour?

I think it unfair to be judgement based on what today’s society is like. We have to take into account the environment she was brought up in too. The environment has huge impact on how someone matures as well.

I think one has to be foolish to make judgement on someone they have not seen! And someone that was 1000s years ago!

Like I said it was not long ago when 10 years old were getting married in the UK. And there still is no age limit when someone matures now! So if no one can establish an age limit when someone matures yet, how dare you judge this man especially when you personally do not know how Aisha looked like and acted like?
Oh I am playing in the swing right now! Therefore I am still a bloody child! Bo!

[espada]

Is friendship good?

Namely the trust between close friends?

[Rhubarb Tart]

@hugo

I clearly advised you to read on this matter in this forum as this particular "issue" was discussed again and again in this forum. It would also limit your ingorance on the matter as you are incorrect about Aisha having no say on the marriage and you clearly think she was forced to marry and to stay with the prophet mohammed (pbuh) when there evidence to suggest she wasnt. Please do your research. Take care sister


best regards
sweet106

[Supreme]

you don't know what actually is a measure of 'maturity' physical or psychological.. given the enormous divorce rate in the west:

http://www.divorcerate.org/

a successful union could be an adequate measure of 'maturity' though not necessarily but given the stats, I'd hazard speak at all of anyone's marriage because of a preconceived and telescopic nonesuch that was created early to middle of last century!

Maturity plays a very minor role in that context, unless we use it in a *much* more colloquial sense that could even attest immaturity in fully grown adults well past their twenties or even thirties. The complex socio-economic reasons for increased divorce rates in the west are an interesting topic, but none that would link it to the debate on child abuse.

[جوري]

Why am I not surprised- backing down when approached for a source. You see, this is what happens when you create an argument and don't have the intellect/capacity to back it up.

the source is included with the original claim.. all you are to do it but click on it and then superimpose it on your biblical passages. I'd do that before I speak of 'intellect' the term and what it entails eludes you, but I have no desire to descend down to word play with an ambitious child!

Maturity plays a very minor role in that context, unless we use it in a *much* more colloquial sense that could even attest immaturity in fully grown adults well past their twenties or even thirties. The complex socio-economic reasons for increased divorce rates in the west are an interesting topic, but none that would link it to the debate on child abuse.

We are not debating 'child abuse' -- I don't know whether to be amused or annoyed by your lack of reading and comprehension!

all the best

[espada]

Is friendship good?

Namely the trust between close friends?

This is for either Mr. Supreme or Mr. Hugo (both) to answer, if it does not trouble them.

Please indulge me.

[Supreme]

the source is included with the original claim.. all you are to do it but click on it and then superimpose it on your biblical passages. I'd do that before I speak of 'intellect' the term and what it entails eludes you, but I have no desire to descend down to word play with an ambitious child!

I think it was when I saw that you were arguing off the back of Apocrypha, which no Christian denomination includes in their canon, that was when I realized just how bad things were for you on the argument front.

We are not debating 'child abuse' -- I don't know whether to be amused or annoyed by your lack of reading and comprehension!

You were equating marriage to the betrothal of underage minors, or, in legal terms, child abuse.

[جوري]

I think it was when I saw that you were arguing off the back of Apocrypha, which no Christian denomination includes in their canon, that was when I realized just how bad things were for you on the argument front.

and believe me I can understand your need to do so.. whether in the Gospel of James or the forgeries of Saul.. it doesn't matter to me which of your 'bibles' you choose to subscribe to, in fact it is a further elucidation to the corruption and forgeries of your religion. The fact that it is recorded as such even if in 'one' of your books is enough of a testimony. You can work out on your own private time, which parts of your bibles you should keep and which you should throw out!

You were equating marriage to the betrothal of underage minors, or, in legal terms, child abuse.

No, I wasn't.. and again, I'd urge you to work on your reading and comprehension before engaging in dialogues.. I prefer to ignore your all too frequent bêtise, since I haven't the time nor the interest to engage puerile minors with concocted ideals!

all the best

[Supreme]

and believe me I can understand your need to do so.. whether in the Gospel of James or the forgeries of Saul.. it doesn't matter to me which of your 'bibles' you choose to subscribe to, in fact it is a further elucidation to the corruption and forgeries of your religion. The fact that it is recorded as such even if in 'one' of your books is enough of a testimony. You can work out on your own private time, which parts of your bibles you should keep and which you should throw out!

You really don't read what I write, do you? I just referenced that I'm talking about apocryphal writings, that is non Christian writings, in the very lines you quoted!!! Gosh, man, pull yourself together, will you?
If you prefer to continue to babble such unfathomably stupid arguments, hey, be my guest! It's not something that has any bearing on Christian theology, but as long as you don't expect to be taken seriously, it's none of my business.

[جوري]

You really don't read what I write, do you? I just referenced that I'm talking about apocryphal writings, that is non Christian writings, in the very lines you quoted!!! Gosh, man, pull yourself together, will you?

did you do poopy in your diepy and that is why you are so grumpy... aohhhhhhh

If you prefer to continue to babble such unfathomably stupid arguments, hey, be my guest! It's not something that has any bearing on Christian theology, but as long as you don't expect to be taken seriously, it's none of my business.

Better yet since you are unable and unwilling to carry yourself to a level or sustain your position with common sense simply buzz off in lieu of asking others to subscribe to what you deem part of 'christian theology'?


you have more sects than listed here:

• 1.1 Roman Catholic Church
  
  • 1.1.1 Latin Rite
  • 1.1.2 Eastern Catholic Churches
  
  
• 1.2 Eastern Orthodox Church
• 1.3 Oriental Orthodox Church
• 1.4 Assyrian Church of the East
• 1.5 Anglican Communion
• 1.6 Other churches self-identified as Catholic
  
  • 1.6.1 Independent
  • 1.6.2 Orthodox
    
    • 1.6.2.1 Byzantine
    • 1.6.2.2 Oriental
    • 1.6.2.3 Western-Rite
    
    
  • 1.6.3 Assyrian
  • 1.6.4 Anglican
  
  

• 2.1 Pre-Lutheran Protestants
• 2.2 Lutheranism
• 2.3 Anglican Churches
• 2.4 Reformed Churches
• 2.5 Presbyterianism
• 2.6 Congregationalist Churches
• 2.7 Anabaptists
• 2.8 Brethren
• 2.9 Methodists
• 2.10 Pietists and Holiness Churches
• 2.11 Baptists
  
  • 2.11.1 Spiritual Baptists
  
  
• 2.12 Apostolic Churches - Irvingites
• 2.13 Pentecostalism
• 2.14 Charismatics
  
  • 2.14.1 Neo-Charismatic Churches
  
  
• 2.15 African Initiated Churches
• 2.16 United and uniting churches
• 2.17 Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
• 2.18 Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement
• 2.19 Southcottites
• 2.20 Millerites and comparable groups
  
  • 2.20.1 Sabbath Keeping Churches, Adventist
  • 2.20.2 Sabbath-Keeping Churches, Non-Adventist
  • 2.20.3 Sunday Adventists
  • 2.20.4 Sacred Name Groups
  
  
• 2.21 British-Israelism
• 2.22 Miscellaneous/Other

• 3.1 "Prairie Saint" denominations
• 3.2 Rocky Mountains denominations
• 3.3 Other denominations

• 4.1 Oneness Pentecostalism
• 4.2 Unitarianism and Universalism
• 4.3 Bible Student groups
• 4.4 Swedenborgianism
• 4.5 Other non-Trinitarians

and as many bibles, with each sect deeming the other heretic.. and you want to speak of taking this corrupted text over that corrupted text? aside from all of that, it isn't the first incident of 'pedophilia' in your bible if we are to go by dear Hugo's definition, it is certainly riddled with, scatology, concubines and incest of 'god's holy' men .. not to mention positively no agreement between your 'accepted' texts.
I really don't think you want to go down that track if you want to have some semblance of credibility!




all the best as usual

[CosmicPathos]

@ Hugo: So what if she was "swinging" on a swing in a garden? How does that affect her ability to marry? I've seen 40 year old men playing with toy cars. I've seen 35 year old blokes playing with cell phones gadgets as if they are toys. Just because you think that only chidren swing on swings, it does not mean that ONLY children swing on swings. I'd like to swing too if I am in the mood. What a foolish argument.

[Hugo]

What about your own lord Jesus ? He had no shame ordering the Killing of young Palestinian virgins and then consumating himself with 32 of them ?
[B]Numbers 31:17-18 Now therefore KILL every male among the little ones, and KILL every woman (female) that hath known man by lying (having sex) with him.But keep ALIVE for yourselves all the GIRLS and all the women who are VIRGINS." So Jesus almighty also needed his share in the pound of flesh and so 32 were his share and he cohabited with 32 raped and ravished palestinian girls in heaven. Imagine In a Book of God , God giving instruction that you verify whether the women is a virgin or not and uttering this filth and dirt , "kill every little child male or female .Kill them all Why the double standard ?

You ignorance is mind boggling. Firstly, 'Palestinian' is a modern term and Jesus was not even on the scene until at least 1,600 years after the incident in numbers. Or are you conceding that Jesus is God?

Secondly, if you look at my earlier posts you will see that I have stated that I find many things in the Bible very very troubling and though I believe they took place I take no pleasure in them, I do not ever draw ANY lessons from them and unlike Muslim killings I do not teach them to children as a something to be proud of as you do.

You seem equally ignorant of Islam for in Q8.41 we read that Mohammed was entitled to his share of the booty (including women), in fact 1/5 of it and his followers might have thought that unfair but conveniently the name of God is appended to that of the prophet so how exactly was Allah supposed to take his share of the booty including the women?

[CosmicPathos]

You ignorance is mind boggling. Firstly, 'Palestinian' is a modern term and Jesus was not even on the scene until at least 1,600 years after the incident in numbers. Or are you conceding that Jesus is God?

Secondly, if you look at my earlier posts you will see that I have stated that I find many things in the Bible very very troubling and though I believe they took place I take no pleasure in them, I do not ever draw ANY lessons from them and unlike Muslim killings I do not teach them to children as a something to be proud of as you do.

You seem equally ignorant of Islam for in Q8.41 we read that Mohammed was entitled to his share of the booty (including women), in fact 1/5 of it and his followers might have thought that unfair but conveniently the name of God is appended to that of the prophet so how exactly was Allah supposed to take his share of the booty including the women?

If what you say is true regarding booty then it was the best chance for Muhammad's followers to rebel against him cuz after all then it would seem they were being used and abused under the name of an imaginary God by Muhammad? Right? Or you think that his followers were dumb, all of them? Especially affter Uhud's defeat, these followers would have every reason to reject Muhammad because apparently Muhammad's "imaginary" God did not even help Muhammad win the battle....

[Hugo]

@ Hugo: So what if she was "swinging" on a swing in a garden? How does that affect her ability to marry? I've seen 40 year old men playing with toy cars. I've seen 35 year old blokes playing with cell phones gadgets as if they are toys. Just because you think that only chidren swing on swings, it does not mean that ONLY children swing on swings. I'd like to swing too if I am in the mood. What a foolish argument.

I mentioned the swing because that comes from the words of Aisha herself. If you think it right that a 50 year old man can have sexual relations with a 9 year old girl then say so openly so we KNOW what and how you think and one presumes that you would allow it to happen to your daughter?

If I look at your argument it appears to be that because grown men like small cars or cell phone gadgets or fancy a ride on a swing then logically according to you sex with children is legitimate - if my argument was foolish yours is abhorrent.

[CosmicPathos]

I mentioned the swing because that comes from the words of Aisha herself. If you think it right that a 50 year old man can have sexual relations with a 9 year old girl then say so openly so we KNOW what and how you think and one presumes that you would allow it to happen to your daughter?

If I look at your argument it appears to be that because grown men like small cars or cell phone gadgets or fancy a ride on a swing then logically according to you sex with children is legitimate - if my argument was foolish yours is abhorrent.

Why do you assume that just because I believe in something then I should follow it? I believe that Muhammad pbuh had the exclusive right to marry a 9 year old. This belief of mine can remain intact even if I would not want my 9 year old daughter to be married off. Of course if Muhammad pbuh were to ask for her hand, I'd have no hesitance in giving her away to him (pbuh). But the question is that would he want to marry a 9 year old if he were to be present in today's world? God knows but by no means was his marriage to Aisha, a girl of 9 years, a criminal act in 7th century AD.

The point is that Aisha was not a child at 9 years old. You think she was. I think she was not.

Secondly, Aisha (ra) does not claim anywhere that she feels she was married off early and she seems to have no concerns with it.

[جوري]

There are those that try to claim that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) might have possibly had wealth as a motive to fabricate Islam and his Prophethood.
However, when one examines the life of the Prophet (peace be upon him) one would see that this does not seem at all to be plausible.
One argument that opponents put forth is the fact that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) had several houses and they would quote Surah 33:53 in order to demonstrate this. However, just because one has several houses this does not necessarily imply that the houses are luxurious or are filled with luxurious possessions.
The Prophet's house was not built of any precious stones just like the Kings of the past:
Nearby, rooms reserved for the Prophet's household were built of stones and adobe bricks with ceilings of palm leaves. [Bukhari 1/71,555,560; Za'd Al-Ma'ad 2/56], cited here)
Umar ibn Al Khattab (arguably, the second greatest companion of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and is also the second caliph after Abu Bakr) states that:


Saheeh Muslim


Book 009, Number 3507

I visited Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he was lying on a mat. I sat down and he drew up his lower garment over him and he had nothing (else) over him, and that the mat had left its marks on his sides. I looked with my eyes in the storeroom of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). I found only a handful of barley equal to one sa' and an equal quantity of the leaves of Mimosa Flava placed in the nook of the cell, and a semi-tanned leather bag hanging (in one side), and I was moved to tears (on seeing this extremely austere living of the Holy Prophet), and he said: Ibn Khattab, what wakes you weep?

I said: Apostle of Allah, why should I not shed tears? This mat has left its marks on your sides and I do not see in your storeroom (except these few things) that I have seen; Caesar and Chosroes are leading their lives in plenty whereas you are Allah's Messenger. His chosen one, and that is your store! He said: Ibn Khattab, aren't you satisfied that for us (there should be the prosperity) of the Hereafter, and for them (there should be the prosperity of) this world? I said: Yes.


So here we observe that the Prophet (peace be upon him) definitely did not live in a palace nor slept on luxurious beds.

Others argue that Allah made the Prophet (peace be upon him) wealthy through conquests and they put forth the following narration:

Saheeh Bukhari
Volume 3, Book 37, Number 495

Narrated Abu Huraira:
Whenever a dead man in debt was brought to Allah's Apostle he would ask, "Has he left anything to repay his debt?" If he was informed that he had left something to repay his debts, he would offer his funeral prayer, otherwise he would tell the Muslims to offer their friend's funeral prayer. When Allah made the Prophet wealthy through conquests, he said, "I am more rightful than other believers to be the guardian of the believers, so if a Muslim dies while in debt, I am responsible for the repayment of his debt, and whoever leaves wealth (after his death) it will belong to his heirs."


They would also state that the Qur'an says that the Prophet would receive a fifth of the war booty and cite verses from the Qur'an such as Surah 8, Verses 1 and 41.

However, as we can see the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not take this money in order to live luxuriously. He used to take that money and give it away in charity instead of keeping it for himself. (See Saheeh Bukhari, Volume 4, Book of One-fifth of Booty to the Cause of Allah, Hadith number 326, where Umar ibn Al Khattab says "So this property was especially given to Allah's Apostle, but, by Allah, neither did he take possession of it and leave your, nor did he favour himself with it to your exclusion, but he gave it to all of you and distributed it amongst you till this property remained out of it. Allah's Apostle used to spend the yearly expenses of his family out of this property and used to keep the rest of its revenue to be spent on Allah's Cause. Allah's Apostle kept on doing this during all his lifetime.")

The Prophet (peace be upon him) would use whatever wealth was necessary in order to take care of his family. Now one may argue that the Prophet (peace be upon him) used this (i.e. fabricating Islam) as a means to take care of himself and family.

However, this doesn't seem to be very convincing. Couldn't the Prophet (peace be upon him) find an easier way to earn a living? Why did he go through years of persecution in Mecca and endure humiliation and ruin his reputation amongst his friends and relatives for this purpose?

The Prophet (peace be upon him) used to actually be wealthy before his Prophethood (while he was trading with his wife Khadija). Thus, why the need to fabricate a religion?

Also, the Meccans offered the Prophet (peace be upon him) wealth and fame in return for him to stop preaching Islam, but he refused. To this offer he replied:


By Allah, if they put the sun on my right and the moon on my left to leave this matter, I would not, until Allah shows me otherwise or I die trying for its sake. (Ibn Hisham, As-Sirah an-Nabawiyyah, Volume 1, page 265)


If his motive really was for wealth then he would have taken the deal.

Also, it's not like the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his wives were living luxuriously:


Saheeh Muslim

Volume 7, Number 324

Narrated Abu Hazim:

I asked Sahl bin Sad, "Did Allah's Apostle ever eat white flour?" Sahl said, "Allah's Apostle never saw white flour since Allah sent him as an Apostle till He took him unto Him." I asked, "Did the people have (use) sieves during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle?" Sahl said, "Allah's Apostle never saw (used) a sieve since Allah sent him as an Apostle until He took him unto Him," I said, "How could you eat barley unsifted?" he said, "We used to grind it and then blow off its husk, and after the husk flew away, we used to prepare the dough (bake) and eat it."

Book 024, Number 5185:

A'isha reported that the pillow on which Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) reclined was of leather stuffed with palm fibre. (See also Saheeh Bukhari, Volume 8, Book Pertaining to Making the Heart Tender, Hadith number 463)


Despite his responsibilities as a prophet, a teacher, a statesman, and a judge, Muhammad (peace be upon him) used to milk his goat, mend his clothes, repair his shoes, help with the household work, (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith number 23606 and declared authentic by Shaykh Albani in Saheeh Al Jaami', Hadith number 4937)

Opponents would cite the following verse from the Qur'an:
Surah 93:6-8
Did He not find you (O Muhammad (Peace be upon him)) an orphan and gave you a refuge? And He found you unaware (of the Qur'an, its legal laws, and Prophethood, etc.) and guided you? And He found you poor, and made you rich?

They would then argue that this refers shows that Allah made the Prophet (peace be upon him) wealthy.
However, we have to put into consideration that this Surah was revealed early in Mecca and that is why Ibn Abbass was of the opinion:
And he also said: (Did He not find thee) O Muhammad (destitute) poor (and enrich (thee)) with the wealth of Khadijah; and it is also said this means: and made you content with that which He gave you? The Prophet (pbuh) said: "Yes, O Gabriel!" (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ?Abbâs, Commentary on Surah 93:8, Source)

The Prophet (peace be upon him) married Khadija who was wealthy. However, the Prophet married Khadija way before he became a Prophet. So it's not like the Prophet (peace be upon him) used Islam to gain wealth.
Or it could simply mean that Allah made him rich in a spiritual sense:

æóÞóÇáó ÇöÈúä ÚóØóÇÁ : æóæóÌóÏóß ÝóÞöíÑó ÇáäøóÝúÓ , ÝóÃóÛúäóì ÞóáúÈß

And Ibn Attaa' said: And He found you poor in spirit, so He enriched your heart. (Abu 'Abdullah Al-Qurtubi, Tasfir al Jami' li-ahkam al-Qur'an, Commentary on Surah 93:8, Source)


Furthermore, the Prophet (peace be upon him) could have easily stolen the goods of the Meccan Kuffar that he had in his possession (since one of his jobs was being a caretaker of people's goods) while migrating to Medinah. Rather, he ensured that their property was fully returned to them despite their ill treatment of him. (This also goes to show how the Kuffar still trusted him with their property even though they accused him of fabricating Islam):


On the night of the Hijrah, Muhammad confided his plan to 'Ali ibn Abu Talib and asked him to cover himself with the Prophet's green mantle from Hadramawt and to sleep in the Prophet's bed. He further asked him to tarry in Makkah until he had returned all things left with Muhammad to their rightful owners. (Muhammad Husayn Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, Chapter: Al Hijrah or the Prophet's Emigration, Source)


This event is also recorded by Al-Bayhaqî in As-Sunan Al-Kubrâ Volume 6, page289 and Sheikh Al-Albânî declared it to authentic (hasan) in Erwaa Al Ghaleel, Hadith no.1546.

In conclusion, the argument that money could have been a motive for the Prophet (peace be upon him) to fabricate Islam does not really hold any water. If he was really in it for the money then we would expect to have seen him living a lavish life, yet this is far from reality. Just because the Prophet (peace be upon him) had much wealth in his possession, that doesn't mean that he spent it on himself. Rather, he used it for the benefit of society (e.g. helping orphans).


Feel free to contact me at b_zawadi@hotmail.com

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/wa...bricate_islam_

[جوري]

I mentioned the swing because that comes from the words of Aisha herself. If you think it right that a 50 year old man can have sexual relations with a 9 year old girl then say so openly so we KNOW what and how you think and one presumes that you would allow it to happen to your daughter?

If I look at your argument it appears to be that because grown men like small cars or cell phone gadgets or fancy a ride on a swing then logically according to you sex with children is legitimate - if my argument was foolish yours is abhorrent.

isn't it equally abhorrent for the 'mother of god' to be wed to a 95 year old man while she herself is a child? or even if I am to ignore that the 'mother of god' married a 95 year old, don't you think it is abhorrent that god should impregnate a child with himself? what a terrible burden for a little girl to come back to her village and be viewed as an adulteress at 12 yrs of age.. Do you also find it equally abhorrent that in your bible virgins should be kept for 'war booty' and the rest killed, and how about finding it abhorrent for a 'righteous man' to get drunk and bed both his daughters and father his grandchildren?

I mean if your level of 'abhorrence' is this fantastic, it is a wonder to me at all why you subscribe to Christianity?

all the best

[Hugo]

Why do you assume that just because I believe in something then I should follow it? I believe that Muhammad pbuh had the exclusive right to marry a 9 year old. This belief of mine can remain intact even if I would not want my 9 year old daughter to be married off. Of course if Muhammad pbuh were to ask for her hand, I'd have no hesitance in giving her away to him (pbuh). But the question is that would he want to marry a 9 year old if he were to be present in today's world? God knows but by no means was his marriage to Aisha, a girl of 9 years, a criminal act in 7th century AD. The point is that Aisha was not a child at 9 years old. You think she was. I think she was not. Secondly, Aisha (ra) does not claim anywhere that she feels she was married off early and she seems to have no concerns with it.

This is an interesting point and argument (which I do not subscribe to) and the way you have constructed it not on a mass of evidence but on a single event and person and as it happens this way of thinking is the focus of a lot of research. I am out of station right now so if you will allow I will respond fully in a few days time because the ideas are in fact central to truth and falsehood and in religion where material evidence for God is absent, crucial.

[Hugo]

I should follow it? I believe that Muhammad pbuh had the exclusive right to marry a 9 year old. This belief of mine can remain intact even if I would not want my 9 year old daughter to be married off. Of course if Muhammad pbuh were to ask for her hand, I'd have no hesitance in giving her away to him (pbuh). But the question is that would he want to marry a 9 year old if he were to be present in today's world? God knows but by no means was his marriage to Aisha, a girl of 9 years, a criminal act in 7th century AD.

I appreciate your honesty here even though I find what you say shocking and that you would not admit of any consent by your daughter. But this does open up a point of discussion and I think you will easily see its relevance to the Aisha story and how you or I might see it and learn from it. I wonder do you even ask yourself why we have such difficulty learning what we most need to know to mitigate our most destructive behaviours. It’s a kind of self induced stupidity where we are wholly unable to learn what others are telling us and often those others are the most gifted and insightful of people.

Take the famous stoic Greek philosopher Epictetus (AD55), who commented on human behaviour this way "it is not things in themselves that trouble us, but our opinion of things". In other words it is not what happens to us that determines our behaviour but how we interpret it. For example, facing a failure of some kind one person sees it as a new challenge, another as abject defeat while someone else will see it as punishment he or she deserves. So critically, our decisions about what to do follow from the interpretation we have made surrounding what has happened or what we see or hear or read. So this uncertainty lies at the heart of what we need to know to understand ourselves and behave differently. So more often than not we are not responsible for what happens to us but we are always responsible for how we interpret it. Sadly, though we seem to dislike taking responsibility for ourselves as much as we dislike uncertainty.

Modern neuroscience has shown that we cannot see reality directly, all we ever get are guesses or interpretations that our mind creates about what is going on and since no two people ever have exactly the same neuroanatomy or experience, no two people ever interpret anything in exactly the same way. In a way this is frightening as it means that each of us lives alone, in our own world of meaning so if everything is a guess and approximation, events can and will invalidate our ideas, show them to be false or weak and all we can do is hold on to what we really know is untrue, get rid of what we thought was true and replace it with new ideas or possibly modify our previous knowledge. All this can be traumatic and cause considerable stress and tension but inescapably your future depends on how you respond.

We have all had the experience of feeling good, being in control then suddenly you see you have made an error of judgement or an unavoidable fact emerges that shakes the many ideas underpinning your whole sense of being a person - the “I”, the “me” the “myself” gets invalidated by events. Meaning that now you have to go through a period of uncertainty until new ideas or understanding emerges. That is why we cling to supposed certainties because we are terrified of new ideas sometimes this goes as far as breakdown or panic disorders. If you get through it you emerge wiser and stronger from the invalidation of your ideas. For example, in the Wizard of Oz Dorothy and her companions emerge wiser and stronger from the invalidation of their idea that the Wizard could solve all their problems. Paradoxically and in contrast Othello in the Shakespeare play is destroyed by the invalidation of his belief that his wife Desdemona had been unfaithful.

One way of escaping this dilemma is to lie to ourselves because we don't have the courage and strength to face the truth of the situation - indeed we often lie about lying by saying is its denial or someone is economical with the truth or white lies. We lie at a public level as well and conspiracy theories abound and these give us a way of avoiding the truth or taking the blame and better still we can put the blame and responsibility on someone else!

Unlike lies, truth requires evidence to support it. But no matter how much evidence we accumulate, our truths will be an approximation not absolute certainty - certainty exists only in our fantasies. Lying give us the temporary delusion that our personal and social worlds are intact, that we are loved, that we are safe, that we are right so we are not likely to be overwhelmed by the uncertainty in a living world we can never fully know. But we cannot escape uncertainty: it's part of our very being and sooner or later we have to confront it. Lies always have a network of consequences we did not expect or intend. In the short term lies will protect us but in a linked-up, complex world the consequences can be mega disastrous. After all when we lie, we multiply the inherent difficulty we have in trying to determine what is going on around us. Lying damages our brains and we create confusion around us. (Based on the article: New Scientist, 19 June 2010 "Tell me lies, tell me sweet lies" by Dorothy Rowe page 28)

[aamirsaab]

Judging an act that occured 1400 years ago by the standards of today is a flawed argument. If one were to bring such an argument into an essay, and have it marked, it would fail. For two reasons:
* you are failing to understand retrospective data, and then making an argument around it
* in this particular case, you are also using appeal to emotion.

Both of these fly in the face of logic.

Now, with that cleared up, shall we get back on topic?

[Rhubarb Tart]

I think we are on topic because the 'new' dimension I have suggested here is that something good/bad might be defined not by the act itself but by the person who carries it out

According Hugo, he is on topic.....

[Hugo]

Judging an act that occured 1400 years ago by the standards of today is a flawed argument. If one were to bring such an argument into an essay, and have it marked, it would fail. For two reasons: * you are failing to understand retrospective data, and then making an argument around it * in this particular case, you are also using appeal to emotion.
Both of these fly in the face of logic. Now, with that cleared up, shall we get back on topic?

This I find intriguing, for you moral standards are relative and I assume therefore that Sharia and the sayings and doings of the prophet can be safely consigned to history because our modern standards are so much superior to them.

I am not sure how many essays you have written but usually the idea is to include examples and discuss them because one hopes it is possible to learn from the past. Of course we have to see things in context but that does not mean we have no values with which to judge, commend or condemn the past. On your argument and flawed logic I simply dismiss Hitler's atrocities as being a product of its time and therefore understandable and pardonable.

The reason this is on topic is that we are looking at what makes something good and one possible way is to consider past events as exemplars. I see nothing wrong with that and we logically should not automatically sanctify or condemn the past.

[جوري]

Judging an act that occured 1400 years ago by the standards of today is a flawed argument. If one were to bring such an argument into an essay, and have it marked, it would fail. For two reasons:
* you are failing to understand retrospective data, and then making an argument around it
* in this particular case, you are also using appeal to emotion.

Both of these fly in the face of logic.

Now, with that cleared up, shall we get back on topic?

ah but you forgot one thing, which is his inability to defend similar incidents if not far 'worse' by his understanding/judgment in the religion he chooses to subscribe to.. does that make him the very definition of cognitive conservatism?

Still waiting on why a 12 year old was wed to a 95 year old, and why god would choose a young child to carry him and give birth to him!

:w:

[جوري]

This I find intriguing, for you moral standards are relative and I assume therefore that Sharia and the sayings and doings of the prophet can be safely consigned to history because our modern standards are so much superior to them.

I am not sure how many essays you have written but usually the idea is to include examples and discuss them because one hopes it is possible to learn from the past. Of course we have to see things in context but that does not mean we have no values with which to judge, commend or condemn the past. On your argument and flawed logic I simply dismiss Hitler's atrocities as being a product of its time and therefore understandable and pardonable.

your very definition of 'atrocity' is rather fickle and makes you a hypocrite in the process at best..

why do you deflect away from answering the tough questions? firstly in the comparative thread, secondly in the health and science section where I posted two very specific questions in which you are to apply the knowledge you know to practical purposes and then here where you fail to defend the happenings of your own book and the god you worship before quickly making far less illogical events akin to a hitleresque act!

no one is interested in a 500 word essay that has no relevance to the topic at hand, least of which when said topic is introduced by you!

[aamirsaab]

This I find intriguing, for you moral standards are relative and I assume therefore that Sharia and the sayings and doings of the prophet can be safely consigned to history because our modern standards are so much superior to them.

Not everything is black and white. Some things have changed since 1400 years ago (like social customs), but I'm sure you will agree that today the following are still crimes, which have not changed over the past: theft, murder, alcohol related crimes and so on and so forth.

I am not sure how many essays you have written but usually the idea is to include examples and discuss them because one hopes it is possible to learn from the past. Of course we have to see things in context but that does not mean we have no values with which to judge, commend or condemn the past. On your argument and flawed logic I simply dismiss Hitler's atrocities as being a product of its time and therefore understandable and pardonable.

Except you didn't take the social context into consideration. You are ranting about the Aisha marriage (keyword is MARRIAGE which you critics seem to forget), which has been explained millions of times AND the social context is there for you to read/understand - you ignore this and then make an argument surrounding that ignorance, which is why it would fail in an essay (not to mention there are hadith stating she was older than 6, showing your bias and appeal to emotion argument).
Your counter argument of Hitler is embarassing; you and I both know genocide is a crime today as it was also during Hitler's time and centuries before it.

The reason this is on topic is that we are looking at what makes something good and one possible way is to consider past events as exemplars. I see nothing wrong with that and we logically should not automatically sanctify or condemn the past.

Indeed, there is nothing wrong with that. Except, as already stated, you choose to ignore the sole factor as to why such an event was considered good. It's not merely the fact that it occured that makes it good, but the reason (and in this case, social customs) behind it.

[Hugo]

Not everything is black and white. Some things have changed since 1400 years ago (like social customs), but I'm sure you will agree that today the following are still crimes, which have not changed over the past: theft, murder, alcohol related crimes and so on and so forth.

I quite agree but you were the one calling for modernity and all I was doing, as you are now doing is saying that that past is the only place we can learn from

Except you didn't take the social context into consideration. You are ranting about the Aisha marriage (keyword is MARRIAGE which you critics seem to forget), which has been explained millions of times AND the social context is there for you to read/understand - you ignore this and then make an argument surrounding that ignorance, which is why it would fail in an essay (not to mention there are hadith stating she was older than 6, showing your bias and appeal to emotion argument).

Firstly, I did not 'rant' but quoted from the book "Wives of Mohammed" written in 1959 by the very well respected scholar, Bint al-Shati' - unless of course you regard al-Shati' as ranting? You speak of social context and it is fair to bring that in. I have not ignored context and the fact that this happened and cannot be undone. But are you now saying that child marriage was acceptable then and therefore moral or are you saying, as others have done that this was a special case? But what my whole post is about, my substantive point is what teaching do you take from the Prophet's example with Aisha - does that example mean that marriage and its full consummation with a child is acceptable in Islam, is it therefore good and to be emulated - do you now see what these posts are about?

[جوري]

Firstly, I did not 'rant' but quoted from the book "Wives of Mohammed" written in 1959 by the very well respected scholar, Bint al-Shati' - unless of course you regard al-Shati' as ranting? You speak of social context and it is fair to bring that in. I have not ignored context and the fact that this happened and cannot be undone. But are you now saying that child marriage was acceptable then and therefore moral or are you saying, as others have done that this was a special case? But what my whole post is about, my substantive point is what teaching do you take from the Prophet's example with Aisha - does that example mean that marriage and its full consummation with a child is acceptable in Islam, is it therefore good and to be emulated - do you now see what these posts are about?

You in fact do a great deal of rant.. btw I am quite familiar with Aisha abdur'rahman and her work, which part of your quote is a direct quotation of her writing? further, Aisha (bint as'shati') had her scholarship and PhD in Arabic language and literature, which doesn't make her a scholar in theology.
lastly, which part of the 12 pages here did you find difficult to understand with regards of customs and laws, and most importantly.. should child marriages be sanctioned in christianity given that your God slept with a 12 year old, was born of her while she was married to a 95 year old? Hopefully you can move beyond your inertia and offer a response to the tough questions, I think you've tired all of us with your, well rant/diatribe!

all the best

[Hugo]

Looking through the last series of post I want to restate an earlier one and essentially its about honesty. Epictetus (AD55), commented on human behaviour by saying "it is not things in themselves that trouble us, but our opinion of things".

In other words it is not what happens that determines our behaviour but how we interpret it. For example, facing a failure of some kind one person sees it as a new challenge, another as abject defeat while someone else will see it as punishment he or she deserves. So critically, our decisions about what to do follow from the interpretation we have made surrounding what has happened or what we see or hear or read. So this uncertainty lies at the heart of what we need to know to understand ourselves and behave differently. So more often than not we are not responsible for what happens to us but we are always responsible for how we interpret it. Sadly, though we seem to dislike taking responsibility for ourselves as much as we dislike uncertainty.

In a way this is frightening because events can and will invalidate our ideas, show them to be false or weak and all we can do is hold on to what we really know is untrue, get rid of what we thought was true and replace it with new ideas or possibly modify our previous knowledge. All this can be traumatic and cause considerable stress and tension but inescapably your future depends on how you respond. Unlike lies, truth requires evidence to support it. But no matter how much evidence we accumulate, our truths will be an approximation not absolute certainty - certainty exists only in our fantasies.

The difficulties outlined above are often multiplied with matters of faith because when we hear something it may well shake our certainty about what we believe and then there are only two ways to go: lie to ourselves or face up to what we have no uncovered. Anyone who seriously takes part in these discussions is bound to hear differing views and once you have heard them you cannot go back.

Be interested to hear wheat you think?

[aamirsaab]

.....But are you now saying that child marriage was acceptable then and therefore moral or are you saying, as others have done that this was a special case?

First off, I'm not a scholar or sheik.
Secondly, I've read around this subject and I don't know for 100% exactly what age she was when the marriage took place (I've read conflicting hadith).

But what my whole post is about, my substantive point is what teaching do you take from the Prophet's example with Aisha - does that example mean that marriage and its full consummation with a child is acceptable in Islam, is it therefore good and to be emulated - do you now see what these posts are about?

Just because the Prophet did it, does not automatically mean it is to be emulated. There is a concept in Islam called urf (or in laymens terms, social customs/norms) that covers things like this (one in particular is the Prophet's use of Gold as a currency, but we can save that for another discussion). Also, there were certain Sunnah that only the Prophet was to do (because he was a Prophet), and were not to be emulated.

If the marriage of Aisha was indeed a case of urf, it is not to be emulated since the social customs are not the same.
If it was a case of only the Prophet can do it, again we are left with the same outcome: it is not to be emulated.
If it was a special case, then again not to be emulated because it was a unique case (from what I have read, it was the fact that Aisha had an excellent memory, greater than others older than her)

[Hugo]

First off, I'm not a scholar or sheik. Secondly, I've read around this subject and I don't know for 100% exactly what age she was when the marriage took place (I've read conflicting hadith). Just because the Prophet did it, does not automatically mean it is to be emulated. There is a concept in Islam called urf (or in laymens terms, social customs/norms) that covers things like this (one in particular is the Prophet's use of Gold as a currency, but we can save that for another discussion). Also, there were certain Sunnah that only the Prophet was to do (because he was a Prophet), and were not to be emulated.

If the marriage of Aisha was indeed a case of urf, it is not to be emulated since the social customs are not the same.
If it was a case of only the Prophet can do it, again we are left with the same outcome: it is not to be emulated.
If it was a special case, then again not to be emulated because it was a unique case (from what I have read, it was the fact that Aisha had an excellent memory, greater than others older than her)

I think this is a fair answer and urf in some cases can be equivalent to other forms of deriving law and in any case it is acknowledged that not every possibility or case is covered by the sacred texts and this may be one of them. But it seems rational and reasonable to me that one does not automatically have to follow the practice of a person no matter how eminent or revered without careful and considered thought. We can and must make a judgement on past events since they may be taken as precedents. From here we therefore might ask are there any principles or guidelines we might use when examining an action to help us decide if it was 'good' and therefore worthy of emulation?

[Hugo]

You in fact do a great deal of rant.. btw I am quite familiar with Aisha abdur'rahman and her work, which part of your quote is a direct quotation of her writing? further, Aisha (bint as'shati') had her scholarship and PhD in Arabic language and literature, which doesn't make her a scholar in theology. lastly, which part of the 12 pages here did you find difficult to understand with regards of customs and laws, and most importantly.. should child marriages be sanctioned in christianity given that your God slept with a 12 year old, was born of her while she was married to a 95 year old? Hopefully you can move beyond your inertia and offer a response to the tough questions, I think you've tired all of us with your, well rant/diatribe!

Please read my post and you will see where the quote is and it. I find your words about Mary are inappropriate and only a sullied mind would think like that. The Bible teaches that Mary would be with child by the Holy spirit - how that came about we cannot say but to describe it as you have done is scandalous. Secondly, you repeatedly mention this 95 years old man but cannot support this nonsense with a source or show that source to be a valid one.

[aamirsaab]

... From here we therefore might ask are there any principles or guidelines we might use when examining an action to help us decide if it was 'good' and therefore worthy of emulation?

This can be answered very simply (and didn't require bringing in the marriage of Aisha into it): what determines something is good, is not only the action BUT also the intention behind it. Again, understanding social norms is key here, because as we know laws and social customs change throughout time, thus limiting what can and cannot be emulated.

If, however we are talking specifically about the Aisha Marriage and whether or not to emulate this, then you would have to consult a scholar, sheik or imaam because as I said previously I have conflicting knowledge on the matter.

[جوري]

Please read my post and you will see where the quote is and it. I find your words about Mary are inappropriate and only a sullied mind would think like that. The Bible teaches that Mary would be with child by the Holy spirit - how that came about we cannot say but to describe it as you have done is scandalous. Secondly, you repeatedly mention this 95 years old man but cannot support this nonsense with a source or show that source to be a valid one.

Who cares what your bible teaches? you haven't established validity or textual integrity for the bible.. all it is are fairy tales of old.. Perhaps next time you come up with venomous crap against the prophet Mohammed (PBUH) the Quran, and Muslims at large, you'll think twice considering the horrendous implications that your book is studded with.. as for not supporting what I have written, It has been supported amply, your desire to bury your head in the sand again has little consequence in the matter, and if you consider the source less than adequate then perhaps you'll again think twice before using pieces of trash from 'your scholars' and passing it off as a valid when it comes to Islam!

You want to speak of a sullied mind, I am surprised the mods let you go this far and get away with this much!

[Hugo]

This can be answered very simply (and didn't require bringing in the marriage of Aisha into it): what determines something is good, is not only the action BUT also the intention behind it. Again, understanding social norms is key here, because as we know laws and social customs change throughout time, thus limiting what can and cannot be emulated. If, however we are talking specifically about the Aisha Marriage and whether or not to emulate this, then you would have to consult a scholar, sheik or imaam because as I said previously I have conflicting knowledge on the matter.

It is always necessary to bring in examples because at the end of the day it is the way things work out that matters no matter what the intention. There is a famous Biblical parable that deals with this idea and it is related in Matthew 21:28-33 (NIV) "What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, 'Son, go and work today in the vineyard.' 'I will not,' he answered, but later he changed his mind and went. "Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, 'I will, sir,' but he did not go. "Which of the two did what his father wanted?" "The first," they answered. Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him. So you can see here the whole focus is on doing not intention because 'intention' can let you off the hook - well I intended to do good but but ....

Many others have commented in a similar way and Rousseau looked backwards to actions and said "It is not when one has just performed a wicked action that it tortures one. It is when one remembers it long afterwards; for the memory of it never disappears. In the case of Aisha one might cite Rousseau again as to whether the action was good or not with his aphorism "Private interest never gives rise to great or noble actions". In short the consensus of the Bible and many philosophers is that intention is a good thing but it is not pivotal, but the action is.

[Muezzin]

Generally, academic* debates are not good.

They may have the best of intentions, but they're still utterly ineffective, unless one is not seeking truth so much as he or she is seeking to sharpen his or her intellectual tools.

*not of practical relevance; of only theoretical interest

[Hugo]

Generally, academic* debates are not good. They may have the best of intentions, but they're still utterly ineffective, unless one is not seeking truth so much as he or she is seeking to sharpen his or her intellectual tools. *not of practical relevance; of only theoretical interest

I am not sure what this post is saying, is it opening another stream of ideas and in this case that academic debate is not good, never good? If that is the case then I refer you to my post 187 which is about actions. Also you seem to be dismissing science because often, very often it begins with an idea, an idea that may have no practical relevance. For example, Boolean algebra when it was first proposed was just a curiosity of no more value that that. Similarly, Einstein's theory of relativity had no physical proof and lingered like that as just an academic discussion for 11 years until a British Astronomer verified one of its his predications. One can move this to the spiritual realm where for instance talk about heaven or hell can only be academic since there is no material evidence for either. Might be an interesting direction for this thread.

Alternatively, you may have been giving an example of intention and action?

[جوري]

I am not sure what this post is saying, is it opening another stream of ideas and in this case that academic debate is not good, never good? If that is the case then I refer you to my post 187 which is about actions. Also you seem to be dismissing science because often, very often it begins with an idea, an idea that may have no practical relevance. For example, Boolean algebra when it was first proposed was just a curiosity of no more value that that. Similarly, Einstein's theory of relativity had no physical proof and lingered like that as just an academic discussion for 11 years until a British Astronomer verified one of its his predications. One can move this to the spiritual realm where for instance talk about heaven or hell can only be academic since there is no material evidence for either. Might be an interesting direction for this thread.

Alternatively, you may have been giving an example of intention and action?

theorizing in science can lead to progress, theorizing in history leads to hearsay (amongst other things).. unless of course like your good friends the Zionists you'd like to re-write history to suit your personal needs?

http://rupeenews.com/2008/05/08/isra...ri-avnery-jvp/

[Hugo]

theorizing in science can lead to progress, theorizing in history leads to hearsay (amongst other things).. unless of course like your good friends the Zionists you'd like to re-write history to suit your personal needs? http://rupeenews.com/2008/05/08/isra...ri-avnery-jvp/

Now I see where you might be coming from. But I think you miss the point about history, it is to do with facts of course as far as they can be established but more often than not, and this is true of Islamic history as well the historical accounts differ often markedly. So always historians attempt a harmonisation and that involved an interpretation and that cannot be avoided. Theorising is not hearsay it is just an attempt to explain, it is always speculative. Of course one historian will call it a massacre and another justice.

A second point is that much in religious history is problematic since there is often no possibility of corroboration - for example, Mohammed is supposed to have had is heart removed and washed with snow or the Qu'ran given via an angel. Therefore a historian must not get the two kinds of event muddled up, so normal (shall I say) events can mostly be corroborated but mystical ones cannot.

One final point, are you seriously of the opinion that Zionists (for example) re-write history but Muslim never do?

[جوري]

Now I see where you might be coming from. But I think you miss the point about history, it is to do with facts of course as far as they can be established but more often than not, and this is true of Islamic history as well the historical accounts differ often markedly. So always historians attempt a harmonisation and that involved an interpretation and that cannot be avoided. Theorising is not hearsay it is just an attempt to explain, it is always speculative. Of course one historian will call it a massacre and another justice.

A second point is that much in religious history is problematic since there is often no possibility of corroboration - for example, Mohammed is supposed to have had is heart removed and washed with snow or the Qu'ran given via an angel. Therefore a historian must not get the two kinds of event muddled up, so normal (shall I say) events can mostly be corroborated but mystical ones cannot.

One final point, are you seriously of the opinion that Zionists (for example) re-write history but Muslim never do?

Harmonization is only needed for the bible on the account of differing stories all completely at odds. If you have a long chain of narrations all attesting to one thing, then there is no need for 'harmonization' we don't call it 'harmonization' we call it 'fabrication'!!
I don't see a need to 'harmonize' given the Quran by an angel. we have the Quran in pur possession and hadith completely different style of writing, the Quran written and spoken so that the most eloquent poets of the time couldn't produce the shortest sura akin to it (being three verses) do we need to see the bee to know where the honey came from? articles of faith need no harmonization, anymore than 'miracles' need harmonization you either believe them or you don't! Nothing is going to be watered down or switched to cater to Hugo or be in concert with Hugo's wants so that all books can be taken down to the lowest common denominator and be akin to the conundrum that is the bible or the christian faith!
Muslims have no need to re-write history, they have no need to go into zionist books and change words from Nakbah into denial to suit their purposes and further their agenda:
http://www.palestineremembered.com/A...Story1649.html

you should start a website on drivel and nonsense.. I think there is a market for that!

[Pygoscelis]

From reading this thread I am left with the understanding that both Islam and Christianity have stories in their holy books about marriages to children. Is that the correct understanding? Now, I see that you may argue whether this is incidental and more due to culture than the religions, and not therefore meant to be followed today, and therefore that these religions do not endorse or encourage child marriage. But that holy people did this would also seem to indicate that these religions are not OPPOSED to child marriage.

So that leads me to wonder how Christian society developed the concepts of statutory rape and of an age of maturity for marriage. Did that come with change in culture and secularization? Or did the religion have something to do with it?

And it leaves me to ask if these concepts exist in Islam? And if so how they developed if not from the Quran?

[syed_z]

From reading this thread I am left with the understanding that both Islam and Christianity have stories in their holy books about marriages to children. Is that the correct understanding? Now, I see that you may argue whether this is incidental and more due to culture than the religions, and not therefore meant to be followed today, and therefore that these religions do not endorse or encourage child marriage. But that holy people did this would also seem to indicate that these religions are not OPPOSED to child marriage.

So that leads me to wonder how Christian society developed the concepts of statutory rape and of an age of maturity for marriage. Did that come with change in culture and secularization? Or did the religion have something to do with it?

And it leaves me to ask if these concepts exist in Islam? And if so how they developed if not from the Quran?

Hello... well the Marriage of Prophet Muhammad (Saw) to Aisha (r.a) is not 100% authentic that, marriage was consummated at the Age of 9 .... rather there are many books written by many other Islamic Scholars, which say that Aisha (r.a) age was around about 17 or more, because he had married her when they were in Madinah, and if understood properly, during the days of Madinah her sister Asma bint Abu Bakr was 27 years old and Aisha (r.a) was 10 years younger than her.... in many books her age is 27 years old in Madinah, or at the time of Migration from Makkah to Madina... and since that would make Aisha about 17 years old....

thats why many scholars of Islam, think that the Authentic Tradition that is quoted in the Hadith Book, of Aisha being 9 at the time of consummation of Marriage with Muhammad (Saw), could be an error!


The Laws for Humanity which are to be seen after West was Secularized, or as the West developed them because of the Rennaisance period and when West moved away from Christianity.... in Islam they were handed down to us 1400 years ago in the Law of Quran and Sunnah....

We did not Develop them with time!

[syed_z]

As Marmaduke Pickthall once said Not very long time ago as Muslim Condition around the world began to deteriorate ..

"It was not until the Western Nations broke away from their religious Law that they became more tolerant, and it was only when Muslims fell away from their religious Law that they declined in tolerance."

[Predator]

So that leads me to wonder how Christian society developed the concepts of statutory rape and of an age of maturity for marriage. Did that come with change in culture and secularization? Or did the religion have something to do with it?

And it leaves me to ask if these concepts exist in Islam? And if so how they developed if not from the Quran?

Let us first examine how Christianity deals with the rapist:

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. ( Deuteronomy 22:28)"

Although this Verse from the Bible only talks about virgins, but its the only verse in the entire Bible that talks about raping single women. Not to be biased or anything, but the Bible seems to have quite weird things in it that are quite irrational and quite ridiculous. Deuteronomy 22:28 forces the raped woman to marry her rapist.
And why in the world would any raped female victim want to be in the same town, not the same bedroom !! with her rapist?.

Also, the Bible seems to promote raping of single women:

"But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. ( Deuteronomy 22:25)"

This is quite an interesting verse. We see in Deuteronomy 22:28 that if a man rapes a single woman then she will be forced to be his wife, while if a man rapes a married woman or a woman who is spoken for, in Deuteronomy 22:25, then he shall be put to death. There is absolutely no punishment for the rapist of a single woman in the Bible

InIslam ,The punishment for rape exists in the Sayings of our beloved Prophet peace be upon him, Let us look at what Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him said regarding this issue:

Narrated Wa'il ibn Hujr:

"When a woman went out in the time of the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) for prayer, a man attacked her and overpowered (raped) her. She shouted and he went off, and when a man came by, she said: That (man) did such and such to me. And when a company of the Emigrants came by, she said: That man did such and such to me.


They went and seized the man whom they thought had had intercourse with her and brought him to her.

She said: Yes, this is he. Then they brought him to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him). When he (the Prophet) was about to pass sentence, the man who (actually) had assaulted her stood up and said: Apostle of Allah, I am the man who did it to her.


He (the Prophet) said to the woman: Go away, for Allah has forgiven you. And about the man who had intercourse with her, he said: Stone him to death.


He also said: He has repented to such an extent that if the people of Medina had repented similarly, it would have been accepted from them. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, Number 4366)"

[syed_z]

Well actually .... sorry to say this... but Worst is that Even the Western Secular States do not Punish those criminals who Sexually Molest Children and Young Girls.... rather after a few Years, they let them go on Parole and then those same people do the same things when they go out....

Usually the Child Molesters and Criminals who have done rape are usually, let go on parole... Consider the recent allegations of Church abuse taking place, and Pope keeps protecting those Bishops...

[Pygoscelis]

That particular bible verse I think is better understood in the context of the society viewing women as having no legal standing as equals and needing to be looked after. It was a very mysogenistic society. I think that rape verse is essentially saying "You broke it, you bought it" and I think its concerned entirely with the man and his having to look after the woman he deflowered, and not even holding the woman's perspective as an afterthought.

I still ask my question above though. How these religions address rape is one thing, but what about statutory rape (meaning having sex with anybody under a set age is deemed as rape even if they are willing) and marriages to children? Does Islam address that in any way? Or is it just silent on the issue (not for or against)?

[جوري]

From reading this thread I am left with the understanding that both Islam and Christianity have stories in their holy books about marriages to children. Is that the correct understanding? Now, I see that you may argue whether this is incidental and more due to culture than the religions, and not therefore meant to be followed today, and therefore that these religions do not endorse or encourage child marriage. But that holy people did this would also seem to indicate that these religions are not OPPOSED to child marriage.

So that leads me to wonder how Christian society developed the concepts of statutory rape and of an age of maturity for marriage. Did that come with change in culture and secularization? Or did the religion have something to do with it?

And it leaves me to ask if these concepts exist in Islam? And if so how they developed if not from the Quran?

raising the age of consent was a movement that started in 1885 so it is quite recent, as even under 'secular laws' marriage was at a pretty young age for a number of factors, 1- children didn't always survive childhood and 2-women didn't always survive childbirth..
men not so different from yourself, paupers and kings alike were succumbing to spirochetes!

I think along with raising the age of consent, lowering the limit for abstract thought and deductive reasoning has been reduced drastically during the last century and a half as well!

American reformers were shocked to discover that the laws of most states set the age of consent at the age of ten or twelve, and in one state, Delaware, the age of consent was only seven. Women reformers and advocates of social purity initiated a campaign in 1885 to petition legislators to raise the legal age of consent to at least sixteen,

http://womhist.alexanderstreet.com/teacher/aoc.htm

all the best!

[syed_z]

I still ask my question above though. How these religions address rape is one thing, but what about statutory rape (meaning having sex with anybody under a set age is deemed as rape even if they are willing) and marriages to children? Does Islam address that in any way? Or is it just silent on the issue (not for or against)?

A woman in Islam , whether Virgin or older, cannot be married against her will, girls who are children, their consent cannot be taken as they are young and not mature enough to think for themselves... it is when a Girl is mature and reaches the age of puberty is when she is allowed to give her consent to marry and her consent become Legally acceptable in Islam...


In Islam, specifically in Quran, it is the Husband and Wife both, of their mutual agreement is needed for all decisions regarding family matters..... and if one of them is immature then there cannot be a successive marriage life.... in Islam a girls needs to be mature .....




Prophet Muhammad (Saw) said "Whoever supports 2 daughters daughters till they mature, he and i will come in the day of Judgment as this (and he pointed with his two fingers)"

he said till they mature....


Also there is an event recorded in which a Girl came to Prophet (Saw) to complain that her parents were forcing her to marry, and he gave her the choice to reject the marriage, because if she does not consent then it CANNOT be a marriage....


Ibn Abbass (r.a) reported that a girl came to Messenger of Allah (Saw) and reported that her father had forced to marry without her consent. The Messenger of Allah (saw) gave her the choice (between accepting the marriage or invalidating it) (Ibn Hanbal No. 2469) In another version the girl said "actually i accept this marriage but i wanted the women to know that parents have no right (to force a husband on them)." (Ibn Majah No. 1873)


So how can there be a marriage of a Child, who hasnt reached puberty and is immature with any person in Islam ? it is not permissible in Islam...

[Hugo]

Harmonization is only needed for the bible on the account of differing stories all completely at odds. If you have a long chain of narrations all attesting to one thing, then there is no need for 'harmonization' we don't call it 'harmonization' we call it 'fabrication'!!
I don't see a need to 'harmonize' given the Quran by an angel. we have the Quran in pur possession and hadith completely different style of writing, the Quran written and spoken so that the most eloquent poets of the time couldn't produce the shortest sura akin to it (being three verses) do we need to see the bee to know where the honey came from? articles of faith need no harmonization, anymore than 'miracles' need harmonization you either believe them or you don't! Nothing is going to be watered down or switched to cater to Hugo or be in concert with Hugo's wants so that all books can be taken down to the lowest common denominator and be akin to the conundrum that is the bible or the christian faith! Muslims have no need to re-write history, they have no need to go into zionist books and change words from Nakbah into denial to suit their purposes and further their agenda: you should start a website on drivel and nonsense.. I think there is a market for that!

I think you are missing the point. The Qu'ran's content cannot be corroborated by anyone, it is technically hearsay and never can be anything else. Secondly, it is absolutely preposterous to even suggest that Muslims have not or cannot manipulate history to their own ends - EVERY Muslim scholar knows this, that is why there is a science of hadith - unless you think that all those thousands of suspect hadith were written by Jews or Christians or little green men? Why don't you go and read what Bukhari has to say and the methods he used?

[syed_z]

I think you are missing the point. The Qu'ran's content cannot be corroborated by anyone, it is technically hearsay and never can be anything else. Secondly, it is absolutely preposterous to even suggest that Muslims have not or cannot manipulate history to their own ends - EVERY Muslim scholar knows this, that is why there is a science of hadith - unless you think that all those thousands of suspect hadith were written by Jews or Christians or little green men? Why don't you go and read what Bukhari has to say and the methods he used?

Quran's comparison with Bible, was done NOT by Muslims, but by European Christians in Germany ... and Quran was Unchanged while Bible had thousands of Errors...

please view this...

http://www.islamicboard.com/discover...n-changed.html



And Hadith literature has also proved to be written down word to word from the Days of Prophet Muhammad (Saw)... and i can give you proof for that as well...

[جوري]

I think you are missing the point. The Qu'ran's content cannot be corroborated by anyone, it is technically hearsay and never can be anything else. Secondly, it is absolutely preposterous to even suggest that Muslims have not or cannot manipulate history to their own ends - EVERY Muslim scholar knows this, that is why there is a science of hadith - unless you think that all those thousands of suspect hadith were written by Jews or Christians or little green men? Why don't you go and read what Bukhari has to say and the methods he used?

No points are missed since we have already discussed witnesses to the events and 'corroborations' which you refuse to accept, not only making it tedious to address the same points over and over but tells one clearly that you have no indication of an exchange or a willingness to learn.. secondly merely saying that 'Muslims have manipulated history' and they all know this is as empty as just about everything else you write hopefully you can see that, since wasting your time is all fine and dandy but wasting mine is something I take seriously .. the methods of Isnad for hadith are given to you in full in a book in your possession by Dr. Al-Azami.. perhaps if you'd spend less time searching the net for Ibn Waraq statements and read actual scholarly books in full you wouldn't ask the same questions over and over and make a complete fool of yourself time and again?

Don't you get tired of being so resistant to anything that doesn't cater to your views that you have to repeat it all over like a schizophrenic and never be remedied after pages and pages of supported text, and in the end you bring an article from wikipedia or a former apostate? that is how you level allegations whilst alleging free of bias?

[Zafran]

I think you are missing the point. The Qu'ran's content cannot be corroborated by anyone

yes it can - one word Muttawatir.

[Muezzin]

I am not sure what this post is saying, is it opening another stream of ideas and in this case that academic debate is not good, never good? If that is the case then I refer you to my post 187 which is about actions. Also you seem to be dismissing science because often, very often it begins with an idea, an idea that may have no practical relevance. For example, Boolean algebra when it was first proposed was just a curiosity of no more value that that. Similarly, Einstein's theory of relativity had no physical proof and lingered like that as just an academic discussion for 11 years until a British Astronomer verified one of its his predications. One can move this to the spiritual realm where for instance talk about heaven or hell can only be academic since there is no material evidence for either. Might be an interesting direction for this thread.

Alternatively, you may have been giving an example of intention and action?

Well, I intended the post to illustrate my scepticism about these kinds of debates. There will never be an objective standard of 'good' and 'evil', partly because they are impossible to quantify and partly because people, even when they're doing the morally wrong thing, tend to see their actions as justified, often because they're acting in their own self-interest, or the interests of those they care about. No villain thinks he's a bad guy.

That is not to say morality has no place in society - of course it does, it is an imperative pillar of civilisation. And it's not to justify clear injustice, even if the unjust do not think they are behaving in such a manner.

But here's the thing - different societies and cultures have different moral codes. Which can to lead to, or exacerbate, conflict when different societies, or even different individuals, meet.

Do certain peoples, cultures or religions have superior moral codes to others? That is for the individual to decide in light of the information presented to them.

P.s. I'm not sure how simply describing a discussion as 'academic' constitutes a dismissal of science... What gave you that impression?

[Rhubarb Tart]

A woman in Islam , whether Virgin or older, cannot be married against her will, girls who are children, their consent cannot be taken as they are young and not mature enough to think for themselves... it is when a Girl is mature and reaches the age of puberty is when she is allowed to give her consent to marry and her consent become Legally acceptable in Islam...


In Islam, specifically in Quran, it is the Husband and Wife both, of their mutual agreement is needed for all decisions regarding family matters..... and if one of them is immature then there cannot be a successive marriage life.... in Islam a girls needs to be mature .....




Prophet Muhammad (Saw) said "Whoever supports 2 daughters daughters till they mature, he and i will come in the day of Judgment as this (and he pointed with his two fingers)"

he said till they mature....


Also there is an event recorded in which a Girl came to Prophet (Saw) to complain that her parents were forcing her to marry, and he gave her the choice to reject the marriage, because if she does not consent then it CANNOT be a marriage....


Ibn Abbass (r.a) reported that a girl came to Messenger of Allah (Saw) and reported that her father had forced to marry without her consent. The Messenger of Allah (saw) gave her the choice (between accepting the marriage or invalidating it) (Ibn Hanbal No. 2469) In another version the girl said "actually i accept this marriage but i wanted the women to know that parents have no right (to force a husband on them)." (Ibn Majah No. 1873)


So how can there be a marriage of a Child, who hasnt reached puberty and is immature with any person in Islam ? it is not permissible in Islam...

Sorry brother, don’t you need to correct this? I mean parents are allowed to "promise" their child to a man before puberty. When the child is older she can refuse but have to seek divorce like in Yemen (although sometimes divorce is refused). So if that is the case, then this can be categories under "marriage" since the young girl has to seek for divorce. And I read many scholars and preachers have said this. Bilal Phillips and Zakir Naik is a few out of many preachers that have said this. And many scholars have said this.

Edit: I deleted the last sentence because of ignorance. Ignore my ignorance. I am sorry if I caused offence and confusion.

[جوري]

Aslam

Title

Enacting Laws Specifying the Age of Marriage

Question

Recently, we have heard about some Muslim countries issuing laws stating a minimum age for marriage. Is there a minimum age for marriage in Islam? Is enacting such laws permitted?

Date

18/Oct/2003

Name of Counsellor

`Atiyyah Saqr, Husam al-Din Ibn Musa `Afana

Topic

Marriage

Answer

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.


Dear questioner! Thank you for your question and the confidence you place in our service, and we pray to Allah to enable us render this service purely for His Sake.


As far as the issue of enacting laws specifying the minimum age of marriage, this issue is subject to debate among Muslim scholars. Some of them say that the ruler cannot enact such a law, while others say the ruler is entitled to issue such laws as long as the public interest of the society is maintained.


Shedding more light on this issue, the prominent Muslim scholar Dr. Husam Al-Din Ibn Musa `Afana, professor of Fiqh and the Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence at the University of Jerusalem, Palestine states:


"There is much fuss about the issue of early marriage with many calls to delay the age of marriage. Here I wish to start with some texts that encourage Muslims to hasten marriage. Almighty Allah says: “And marry such of you as are solitary and the pious of your slaves and maid servants. If they be poor, Allah will enrich them of His bounty. Allah is of ample means, Aware.” (An-Nur: 32) Almighty Allah also says: “marry of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four” (An-Nisaa’: 3) The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is reported to have said: “O young people! Who of you is able to marry, let him marry, for this will help him lower his gaze and preserve his chastity. As for him who is unable to marry, let him fast for this will help him stop the (evil) desires.” Also in a hadith, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “…and I marry women. So, whoever abstains from following my example does not belong to me.”


From all these texts, it is clear that as far as Islam is concerned, there is no specific minimum age for marriage. Muslim scholars even said that a minor boy and girl who are under the age of puberty can get married.


Scientifically and medically speaking, the real meaning of early marriage for a girl is that marriage that takes place before a girl starts to menstruate. As for branding marriages that take place before the age of 18 as early marriages, this has no scientific or legal basis. The whole issue of marriage depends on reaching the age of menstruation. Once the girl has reached the age of menstruation, she is no longer out of the scope of marriage.


According to a scientific study conducted by the Jordanian University, the age of the onset of menstruation world-wide is between 9 and 16 years of age, while in the Arab countries it is between 11 and 12 years.


I’d like to say to those who oppose early marriages that the Personal Status Act that prevents the marriage of minors is based on the juristic point of view which prevents that marriage.


The Act stipulates that girls not marry before they reach the age of 15 and that boys not marry before they reach the age of 16. These are the average ages of the onset of puberty for girls and boys that render them legally responsible. Hence, the call to delay the age of marriage of young people until they are 18 or over presumes that they are not responsible for their actions and prevents them from exercising their right of freedom.


According to trustworthy scholars, authentic reports proved that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) married `A’ishah, Mother of the Faithful (may Allah be pleased with her) when she was nine years old. I have never come across a reference that contradicts that.


Based on the above mentioned, I conclude that it is not permitted to pass a law specifying the age of marriage to be 18 and above, for this causes great hardship.


Though I encourage young people to marry at an early age, yet I see also that they should wait until they are graduated. But this does not mean that I oppose marriages at an age earlier."


On the same subject, the prominent Muslim scholar Sheikh `Atiyya Saqr, former Head of Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee, adds:


"In the first volume of my Muslim Family Encyclopedia, I noted that early laws showed no care to determine the age of marriage. Roman Emperor Justinian was the first one to set the age of marriage for females at 12 years and 14 for males. After the advent of Christianity in Europe, such a law was no longer followed. Mary Stewart married Henry VIII when she was only six. Early marriages were predominant in some Eastern countries and are still carried out in places like India.


Islam does not specify a certain minimal age for marriage; rather, it placed a certain age for shouldering religious obligations in general. This age is the age of puberty, either by natural sign (the ability to ejaculate semen for a boy and menstruation for a girl) or by reaching the age of 15 lunar years. However, reaching this age is not necessary for validating the marriage contract, for it is up to the guardians to conduct marriages before [the bride or groom or both] have reached this age.


In spite of the fact that there is no specific age for marriage in Islam, it is preferred to make it early so as to protect young people, both males and females, from deviation. However, this may lead in certain cases to placing some hardship on the shoulders of the parties involved due to the financial and other responsibilities entailed by marriage. Based on this understanding, I think that enacting some laws to specify the age of marriage, as done by some governments, is a good step. However, these governments should take into consideration all the circumstances relating to the subject and specific to the society. Obeying the ruler in following such laws is surely an obligation so long as they bring about benefit to the whole society. Almighty Allah says: “O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger and those of you who are in authority; and if ye have a dispute concerning any matter, refer it to Allah and the Messenger if ye are (in truth) believers in Allah and the Last Day. That is better and more seemly in the end." (An-Nisaa’: 59)"


Based on the above fatwas, it can be said that the issue of enacting laws specifying the age of marriage is governed by the public interest of the Muslim society taking into consideration the Shari`ah-based objectives in this regard."


Also read:

The Philosophy of Marriage in Islam

The Islam's Stand on Early Marriages

Addressing Misconceptions about Prophet’s Marriage to `Aisha

Read more: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...#ixzz0spolMZXi

:w:

[Rhubarb Tart]

Edit: ignore whatever you saw. Ignore my ignorance and offence. Sorry for any confusion I caused with any new revert or muslims starting to learn Islam.

[syed_z]

Asalaam o Alaikum to all....

thanks for the Article sister Lilly...

Sorry brother, don’t you need to correct this? I mean parents are allowed to "promise" their child to a man before puberty. When the child is older she can refuse but have to seek divorce like in Yemen (although sometimes divorce is refused). So if that is the case, then this can be categories under "marriage" since the young girl has to seek for divorce. And I read many scholars and preachers have said this. Bilal Phillips and Zakir Naik is a few out of many preachers that have said this. And many scholars have said this.

In fact child marriages are permissible under Islam.

Hope your doing fine Sister... well from what you have said... i know that Proposals DO take place... but before the actual Marriage ceremony, the Girl HAS to be asked at the time of Nikah (Marriage) ... 'Do you Agree'... if she says NO then that marriage is unacceptable...

for the Law of Yemen, i think this is a very unfair Law.... because how could a proposal be equivalent to Marriage ? The soul reason for Proposal to be a Proposal is that once the girl and boy are mature, then they can accept or reject the Marriage, which is a their Right given by Allah (swt) and His Messenger (saw)... so no one has the right to make it automatically in to a Marriage Contract and then the girl/boy are stuck and they have to RUN around to get it cancelled, leaving them at the mercy of corrupt judges and lawyers... this doesn't make any sense right ?

So if Yemen does such, then that is Unfair Practice and it seems very much against what Allah has given us our rights to excercise.... its like taking your right of accepting or rejecting ... so may Allah (Swt) guide those in Yemen...

[syed_z]

Salaam Sister sweet 106...

you remember that there was this Post ..'Marriage' in which we had discussed the issue of Aisha (r.a) marriage to Muhammad (Saw) ?

we already have done it soo many times ... just asking why do we need to bring it up again... :)


So im sure you understand.. there is no need of discussing it as we already have done it... and as life goes on, different Scholars will give their opinions regarding that Marriage... i would say, and i hope you agree.... that ....Allah Knows best about it... simple...

[Zafran]

Asalaam o Alaikum to all....

thanks for the Article sister Lilly...







Hope your doing fine Sister... well from what you have said... i know that Proposals DO take place... but before the actual Marriage ceremony, the Girl HAS to be asked at the time of Nikah (Marriage) ... 'Do you Agree'... if she says NO then that marriage is unacceptable...

for the Law of Yemen, i think this is a very unfair Law.... because how could a proposal be equivalent to Marriage ? The soul reason for Proposal to be a Proposal is that once the girl and boy are mature, then they can accept or reject the Marriage, which is a their Right given by Allah (swt) and His Messenger (saw)... so no one has the right to make it automatically in to a Marriage Contract and then the girl/boy are stuck and they have to RUN around to get it cancelled, leaving them at the mercy of corrupt judges and lawyers... this doesn't make any sense right ?

So if Yemen does such, then that is Unfair Practice and it seems very much against what Allah has given us our rights to excercise.... its like taking your right of accepting or rejecting ... so may Allah (Swt) guide those in Yemen...

salaam

I agree with you clearly a women has to say yes for the marriage for it even take palce - thats the whole point of the Nikah.

peace

[Rhubarb Tart]

Asalaam o Alaikum to all....

thanks for the Article sister Lilly...







Hope your doing fine Sister... well from what you have said... i know that Proposals DO take place... but before the actual Marriage ceremony, the Girl HAS to be asked at the time of Nikah (Marriage) ... 'Do you Agree'... if she says NO then that marriage is unacceptable...

for the Law of Yemen, i think this is a very unfair Law.... because how could a proposal be equivalent to Marriage ? The soul reason for Proposal to be a Proposal is that once the girl and boy are mature, then they can accept or reject the Marriage, which is a their Right given by Allah (swt) and His Messenger (saw)... so no one has the right to make it automatically in to a Marriage Contract and then the girl/boy are stuck and they have to RUN around to get it cancelled, leaving them at the mercy of corrupt judges and lawyers... this doesn't make any sense right ?

So if Yemen does such, then that is Unfair Practice and it seems very much against what Allah has given us our rights to excercise.... its like taking your right of accepting or rejecting ... so may Allah (Swt) guide those in Yemen...

Why is such practices called marriage then? Why do many educated scholars call it marriage? They shouldnt call it marriage or marrying someone if parents promises the girl to the man.

[Rhubarb Tart]

Salaam Sister sweet 106...

you remember that there was this Post ..'Marriage' in which we had discussed the issue of Aisha (r.a) marriage to Muhammad (Saw) ?

we already have done it soo many times ... just asking why do we need to bring it up again... :)


So im sure you understand.. there is no need of discussing it as we already have done it... and as life goes on, different Scholars will give their opinions regarding that Marriage... i would say, and i hope you agree.... that ....Allah Knows best about it... simple...

I did not want it brought up again, but didnt the prophet peace be upon him marry Aisha (r.a) aged six then had intercourse aged nine. Thus that means children can be promised to marriage right? But the actual marriage has to be when they are mature?

[syed_z]

Why is such practices called marriage then? Why do many educated scholars call it marriage? They shouldnt call it marriage or marrying someone if parents promises the girl to the man.

There are many misguided people in the world sister... and so there can also be scholars among them... im not saying that All scholars are misguided .... but what Muhammad (saw) said... i read the Hadith which are one of the Minor Signs of the Last Days... in which Muhammad (Saw) did say ....


“In the last times men will come forth who will fraudulently use religion for worldly ends. They will wear long woolen garments (sign of Sufi). Their tongues will be sweeter than sugar, but their hearts will be the hearts of wolves." (Tirmidhi)


... governments hiring Scholars, like specially governments like Pakistan, Egypt, Yemen, they all have Puppet regimes backed by USA and other Western Countries, and for the Money they are ready to give any Fatwa in favor of the Oppressive Regime... so i see it that way.... also there are many 'Scholars' these days who are misguided....

they give Fatwas which rather than solving problems, increase them.... so you need to understand the World and future according to what Muhammad (saw) prophesied.... we live in the Age of Ignorance.... this is true... so you have to be careful... just read Quran with famous Tafsirs, and keep asking Allah for guidance...

[syed_z]

I did not want it brought up again, but didnt the prophet peace be upon him marry Aisha (r.a) aged six then had intercourse aged nine. Thus that means children can be promised to marriage right? But the actual marriage has to be when they are mature?

well the last time we discussed... you closed the topic and then there was no more discussion... so even if you Want to discuss the Marriage of Children in the Light of Islam, then there is no point of bringing marriage of Aisha (r.a) with prophet Muhammad (Saw)... again ... because the marriage is NOT a marriage unless the Girl accepts it consciously or has the ability to think for herself, knows whats right whats wrong....


and about your question children are NOT necessarily supposed to be proposed when they are young in Islam... it is NOT obligatory or something... it depends different cultures different places... Most Muslims don't do it...

And Yes the Actual marriage is only when they are mature, and able to think for themselves .... :)

[Zafran]

well the last time we discussed... you closed the topic and then there was no more discussion... so even if you Want to discuss the Marriage of Children in the Light of Islam, then there is no point of bringing marriage of Aisha (r.a) with prophet Muhammad (Saw)... again ... because the marriage is NOT a marriage unless the Girl accepts it consciously or has the ability to think for herself, knows whats right whats wrong....


and about your question children are NOT necessarily supposed to be proposed when they are young in Islam... it is NOT obligatory or something... it depends different cultures different places... Most Muslims don't do it...

And Yes the Actual marriage is only when they are mature, and able to think for themselves .... :)

salaam

Yes and one hadith isnt a good enough to prove to make an entire ruling on it, I'm sure many of us would agree that the marriage of the prophet pbuh and aisha (ra) clearly was for a specfic reason.

peace

[Rhubarb Tart]

well the last time we discussed... you closed the topic and then there was no more discussion... so even if you Want to discuss the Marriage of Children in the Light of Islam, then there is no point of bringing marriage of Aisha (r.a) with prophet Muhammad (Saw)... again ... because the marriage is NOT a marriage unless the Girl accepts it consciously or has the ability to think for herself, knows whats right whats wrong....


and about your question children are NOT necessarily supposed to be proposed when they are young in Islam... it is NOT obligatory or something... it depends different cultures different places... Most Muslims don't do it...

And Yes the Actual marriage is only when they are mature, and able to think for themselves .... :)

Okay brother

understood. not marriage just promise. Sorry I just read it and watch lot of people calling it marriage. Oh I closed the topic because I thought most of things were answered. Just to make sure I am clear, the promise of marriage of a child is allowed but the actual marriage isnt. Understood.

I was just confused.com

You forgot to include saudi arabia into that list.

Thanks

[syed_z]

@Zafran... Agreed brother...


@Sweet106.... may be many would disagree with me... i think and i have reasons to believe Saudi Arabia, is the main cause of Disunity in the Ummah... they are NOT playing the role which they should, as being Custodians of the 2 Holy Mosques...

[Pygoscelis]

So from what you guys have written above, Islam forbids marriage before a woman is menstruating and it must be of her own choosing? And yet the Prophet married a woman at 6 years old? How is this conflict resolved? Or is it not seen as a conflict? Are 6 year olds seen as able to make informed decisions on this matter?

[Rhubarb Tart]

So from what you guys have written above, Islam forbids marriage before a woman is menstruating and it must be of her own choosing? And yet the Prophet married a woman at 6 years old? How is this conflict resolved? Or is it not seen as a conflict? Are 6 year olds seen as able to make informed decisions on this matter?

The prophet peace be upon him did not marry her aged six, there was consensus amongst her parent in particular her father and the prophet Mohammed. Otherwise she would have lived with him but she did not. In fact, she moved out once she was mature and agreed to marry him. Does that make sense?

[Hugo]

Well, I intended the post to illustrate my scepticism about these kinds of debates. There will never be an objective standard of 'good' and 'evil', partly because they are impossible to quantify and partly because people, even when they're doing the morally wrong thing, tend to see their actions as justified, often because they're acting in their own self-interest, or the interests of those they care about. No villain thinks he's a bad guy. That is not to say morality has no place in society - of course it does, it is an imperative pillar of civilisation. And it's not to justify clear injustice, even if the unjust do not think they are behaving in such a manner. But here's the thing - different societies and cultures have different moral codes. Which can to lead to, or exacerbate, conflict when different societies, or even different individuals, meet. Do certain peoples, cultures or religions have superior moral codes to others? That is for the individual to decide in light of the information presented to them.

P.s. I'm not sure how simply describing a discussion as 'academic' constitutes a dismissal of science... What gave you that impression?

An interesting post and in our current world we are of course exposed to all sorts of cultures. I suppose we are all disposed to think our culture is superior and I have no issue with that as long it is not forced down my throat and indeed I very much like the idea of borrowing cultures from each other.

Of course I do want to even suggest that all cultural practices are good and some perhaps we should condemn such as genital mutilation or a culture of drunkenness or intolerance. However, we are all products of our culture, our education, our families, our religion and in general there is nothing much we personally can do about that but it does colour our thinking whether we like it or not.

What is interesting here and in some ways disturbing is that many social groups come say to the UK and want to create or recreate their culture there even though often the have fled oppression or violence within it in the homelands. One then finds that them demand to be able to do this using democratic freedoms whereas if that culture was fully implement such freedoms would disappear - I don't understand this.

Finally, I mention something written by the stoic Greek philosopher Epictetus who commented on human behaviour this way "it is not things in themselves that trouble us, but our opinion of things". In other words it is not what happens to us that determines our behaviour but how we interpret it. Thus facing a failure of some kind one person sees it as a new challenge and the other as abject defeat while someone else will see it as punishment he or she deserves.

So this brings us to you question, which if any cultures are good and therefore we should emulate. Which historically shall we say have led to peace, development and prosperity, which societies are tolerant, which care for the poor, which promote equality and so on or whatever other measure you care to suggest.

[Hugo]

There have been one or two post about democracy and government so I though I would add something here. I suppose we need to ask ourselves "is development good" or is a static society better. In terms of Islam a kind of fence was drawn in about the 11th century and Islam become fixed though I am not sure who decided, or who could decide this or whether it has any legitimacy. Nothing really stands still and we cannot know what the future holds and in life generally we acquire knowledge and often this means we set aside old notions and embrace new ones and in a way we daily unlearn some things that in some cases has cost us no small labour. In order to make the post manageable I will explain the idea over 2 or 3 posts and you may comment on each of them.

Democracy existed way back in Greek times so it’s not new. Often we read about “pure Islam” and Islamic government being an ideal but history simply tells us that those governments were autocratic and often despotic who would want to return to that? I have chosen to use the work of Al Tahtawi and if you want to follow up these posts there are several books but some are very expensive but go to Amazon and have a look.

Barbara Winckler, "Rifa'a Rafi' al-Tahtawi: France as a Role Model
Daniel L. Newman, An Imam in Paris: Al-Tahtawi's Visit to France (1826-31) (a tranaltion of Rifa'a Al-Tahtawi’s work
Eugene Rogan, The Arabs: A history (I hasve used this as a source books as it is the easiest one to get)

The comments in my next three post are extracts with some editing from Rogan's book

Al-Tahtawi was a famous Muslim cleric and in the 1850's or thereabouts wrote his brilliant reflections on France. As a Muslim and an Egyptian Ottoman, he was confident of the superiority of his faith and culture. Yet his firsthand observations left him in no doubt of Europe's superiority in science, technology, government and thought – one of his observations was "By God, during my stay in France, I was grieved by the fact that it had enjoyed all those things that are lacking in Islamic kingdoms,"

Science and Technology - To give some sense of the gulf that al-Tahtawi believed separated his readers from Western science, he judged it necessary to explain that European astronomers had proven that the earth was round. He realized how much the Islamic world had fallen behind Europe in the sciences and believed that the Islamic world had a duty and a right to recover this knowledge, given that Western advances since the Renaissance had been built on medieval Islam's progress in the sciences and that Islam in its turn had built on Greek and Indian knowledge. He argued that the Ottomans were only calling due the West's debts to Islamic science by borrowing European advances in modern technology but sadly they waited nearly 10 centuries – that is the trouble with religious and cultural arrogance; you think you have made it, you think there is nothing more to learn, its stops you thinking and asking questions.

[Hugo]

This is my second post on the thoughts of Al Tahtawi and again if you want to follow up these posts use the books I listed earlier.

Government - al-Tahtawi's book made its most substantial contribution to political reform with his analysis of constitutional government. He translated all seventy-four articles of the 1814 French constitution and wrote a detailed analysis of its key points. Al-Tahtawi believed the constitution to hold the secret of French advancement.

"We should like to include this," he explained to his elite readership, "so that you may see how their intellect has decided that justice and equity are the causes for the civilization of kingdoms, the well-being of subjects, and how rulers and their subjects were led by this, to the extent that their country has prospered, their knowledge increased, their wealth accumulated and their hearts satisfied."

These were dangerous new ideas with no roots in Islamic tradition. As he confessed, most of the principles of the French constitution "cannot be found in the Qur'an nor in the sunna of the Prophet." He may have feared the reaction of his fellow Muslim clerics to these dangerous innovations, but he took the even greater risk of provoking the disfavour of his rulers. After all, the constitution applied to the king and subjects alike, and it called for a division of powers between the monarch and the elected legislature. This is shocking really when you recall that at the time the Muslim world was ruled by absolute monarchies or some other form of autocratic state as it had been from the time of the prophet.

[جوري]

I think you have drawn the fence sometime around age 11, and then come here expecting folks to not only honor but work from your apriori judgment and selective reading..
I think you are a sick individual who constantly needs to feed his hatred by affirmation and validation of those he despises!

good luck with all of that!

[Hugo]

This is my last post on the thoughts of Al Tahtawi and again if you want to follow up these posts use the books I listed earlier.

Free Thinking and Rights - The reformist cleric was captivated by the way the French constitution promoted the rights of common citizens rather than reinforcing the dominance of elites. Among the articles of the constitution that most impressed al-Tahtawi were those asserting the equality of all citizens before the law and the eligibility of all citizens "to any office, irrespective of its rank." The possibility of such upward mobility, he maintained, would encourage "people to study and learn" so that they might "reach a higher position than the one they occupy," thereby keeping their civilization from stagnating. Here again, al-Tahtawi was treading a fine line. In a rigidly hierarchical society like Ottoman Egypt, ideas of social mobility would have struck the elites of his time as a dangerous notion.

Al-Tahtawi went further, praising French rights of free expression. The constitution, he explained, encouraged "everybody freely to express his opinion, knowledge and feelings." The medium by which the average Frenchman made his views known, Al-Tahtawi continued, was something called a "journal" or a "gazette." This would have been the first time many of al-Tahtawi's readers would have heard of newspapers, which were still unknown in the Arabic-speaking world.

Both the powerful and the common people could publish their views in the newspapers, he explained. Indeed, he stressed the importance of commoners having access to the press "since even a lowly person may think of something that does not come to the mind of important people." Yet it was the power of the press to hold people to account for their actions that struck the cleric as truly remarkable. "When someone does something great or despicable, the journalists write about it, so that it becomes known by both the notables and the common people—to encourage the person who did something good, or to make the person who has done a despicable thing forsake his ways."

[Zafran]

I think you have drawn the fence sometime around age 11, and then come here expecting folks to not only honor but work from your apriori judgment and selective reading..
I think you are a sick individual who constantly needs to feed his hatred by affirmation and validation of those he despises!

good luck with all of that!

salaam

preety much I second that - I think its a good idea of leaving Hugo with this one

Democracy existed way back in Greek times so it’s not new

peace

[جوري]

salaam

preety much I second that - I think its a good idea of leaving Hugo with this one



peace

My father wrote a book in his youth comparing Roman 'democracy' with Islamic Shura and it was really well received, and the stark differences between how the plebeians had no political rights under such a system compared to the prophet PBUH taking shura even from 13 year olds and women giving their support makes you know that there is no object of comparison whatsoever..

Again this fellow fails to acknowledge the divide and conquer rule that they have employed and corrupt system that allowed them to besiege entire sovereign empires even completely irreligious ones like in China and mistakes pillaging and lack of conscientiousness for progress to which they later turn around and have the audacity to point shortcomings of others.. despicable all throughout history and despicable still in their word warfare...

but it won't last for long-- despots instated and implementing western agendas won't be around for long and certainly those previously mired in fascination of such corrupt systems are starting to wake up to a stark reality that demands change back to the caliphate and a complete Islamic system..

:w:

[syed_z]

Finally, I mention something written by the stoic Greek philosopher Epictetus who commented on human behaviour this way "it is not things in themselves that trouble us, but our opinion of things". In other words it is not what happens to us that determines our behaviour but how we interpret it. Thus facing a failure of some kind one person sees it as a new challenge and the other as abject defeat while someone else will see it as punishment he or she deserves.

So this brings us to you question, which if any cultures are good and therefore we should emulate. Which historically shall we say have led to peace, development and prosperity, which societies are tolerant, which care for the poor, which promote equality and so on or whatever other measure you care to suggest.

Good questions... Which cultures are good and therefore we should emulate.... and which historically shall we say have led to peace, development, and prosperity ?

Which society has been tolerant caring for poor, promoted equality and other measure? which inshA Allah i will add and see Hugo whether which Culture in the past has provided best guidelines for a society to be an example for all future societies... :)



We should start by asking question as to whether the Present day standards of excellence, - that is values and ideals which are accepted and upheld by enlightened sections of humanity, and ask question...... What is the Origin of all such ideals ? Whence have they come from ? And in particular then ask ourselves whether such standards and values were commended or enjoined by any pre-Islamic religious teachings ?


If we were to reach the conclusion that all such present day set of ideals and values which is considered worthy for a civilized nation to adopt and accept were for the 1st time revealed in Islam, then we should come to the conclusion that the Islamic ideals are still alive, even though they were given to the world, 1400 years back which then proves that Quran is even today the acceptable Gospel.


Negatively if it could be shown that the principles or set of standards of excellence as given by the teachings Of Islam, were outdated or if the values and ideas gained in modern times are absent in the Quran and mankind has learned something new, then we can say that the Quran is a book out of date...so lets see...

If we were to put the Ideals and Values in a list and see whether such would be accepted as the best norms for a civilized society in 21st century....


1. Equality, dignity and brotherhood of man.
2. Value of universal education with emphasis on spirit of free inquiry and importance of scientific knowledge.
3. Practice of religious tolerance.
4. Liberation of the woman and her spiritual equality with man.
5. Freedom from slavery and exploitation of all kinds.
6. Dignity of manual labor.
7. Integration of mankind in a feeling of oneness irrespective of their differences in race and color.
8. The devaluation of arrogance and pride based on superiority of race, color, wealth, etc and the founding of society on principle of Justice.
9. Rejection of the philosophy of asceticism.


Each one of these said above, are included in the Injunctions of Quran and they are practically shown in the Life of Prophet Muhammad (Saw)....


So any unbiased inquiry in to the past, would be able to give us the answer that such norms were not held by any Pre Islamic civilizations before and the world has come to conclude that above norms are needed for a civilized society, and came to be known after the revelation of Quran...

[syed_z]

This is my last post on the thoughts of Al Tahtawi and again if you want to follow up these posts use the books I listed earlier.

Free Thinking and Rights - The reformist cleric was captivated by the way the French constitution promoted the rights of common citizens rather than reinforcing the dominance of elites. Among the articles of the constitution that most impressed al-Tahtawi were those asserting the equality of all citizens before the law and the eligibility of all citizens "to any office, irrespective of its rank." The possibility of such upward mobility, he maintained, would encourage "people to study and learn" so that they might "reach a higher position than the one they occupy," thereby keeping their civilization from stagnating. Here again, al-Tahtawi was treading a fine line. In a rigidly hierarchical society like Ottoman Egypt, ideas of social mobility would have struck the elites of his time as a dangerous notion.

Al-Tahtawi went further, praising French rights of free expression. The constitution, he explained, encouraged "everybody freely to express his opinion, knowledge and feelings." The medium by which the average Frenchman made his views known, Al-Tahtawi continued, was something called a "journal" or a "gazette." This would have been the first time many of al-Tahtawi's readers would have heard of newspapers, which were still unknown in the Arabic-speaking world.

Both the powerful and the common people could publish their views in the newspapers, he explained. Indeed, he stressed the importance of commoners having access to the press "since even a lowly person may think of something that does not come to the mind of important people." Yet it was the power of the press to hold people to account for their actions that struck the cleric as truly remarkable. "When someone does something great or despicable, the journalists write about it, so that it becomes known by both the notables and the common people—to encourage the person who did something good, or to make the person who has done a despicable thing forsake his ways."

Well lets see Hugo how much has the French really acted upon their words.... because Actions speak louder than words...


Islamophobia has always been always been a mission of French Government and its Media...a European who knows says...

"It is not a recent phenomena but was already established as early as the 1st World War. A highly racialized stereotypes of Algerians as criminals, primitive savages, rapists, transmitters of venereal disease and tuberculosis, was widely diffused through the French press." (Neil MacMaster "Islamophobias in France and the 'Algerian Problem'," in The New Crusades: Constructing the Muslim Enemy, Emran Qureshi and Michael Sells, eds., (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003)


Just by analyzing the French rule over the Algerian and their post occupation attitude is sufficient enough for us to come to the conclusion that French Government and its attitude towards Islam and Muslims is nowhere near to what Tahtawi says... not in the past nor in present...

To this day the French Media outlets routinely carry inflammatory anti-Islamic articles, headlines, and pictures. Hijab has been a major target of this long, vicious media campaign. The French had gone to Algeria for good, or so they thought declaring, it a department of France. So the Algerian, War of Independence (1954-1962) was traumatic and France is still bitter over their defeat. Toward the end of that War France sowed seeds of large scale immigration of Algeria by uprooting more than 3 million peasants and destroying Algerian economic infrastructure. This immigration was considered necessary as France needed man power for development after the 2nd World War.

In the 1970s and 1980s these immigrants began to bring in their families and slowly started to settle in the new land. Naturally, they demanded basic rights for themselves and their families, Masajid, schools, cemeteries, Halaal Food, time for prayers etc) As they did the campaign for demonization began and Islamic "threat" began ..... and So Neil MacMaster says ....

"The increased visibilty of Muslims was used by the extremists to generate fear. Muslims were not only bad people to be hated, they were also dangerous people to be feared because they were there to 'takeover' the country. The Machiavellian propaganda campaign is showcased by one example. In 1981-9182 an anonymous forged letter was widely circulated in Dreux where extremists National Front would score a decisive electoral victory a year later. The forged letter was supposedly written by an Algerian to a friend in Algeria. It said :


"My dear Mustapha. By the grace of a the all-powerful Allah we have become lords and masters of Paris... Come quickly, we expect you in large numbers, since Mitterand has promised that we shall soon get the right to vote. We kicked the French out of Algeria, why shouldn't we do the same here ? (Neil MacMaster "Islamophobias in France and the 'Algerian Problem')


The above reminds me of those Fake Bin Laden tapes which were circulated which justified the attacks on Afghanistan, a nation who had no role in 9/11.... those tapes were called forged by many, as the face of Bin Laden was not even his...


So the 'Democratic' west, has used democracy as a cover to continue their ongoing Colonial, rule, and i suggest Hugo to look at the reality that is beyond what appears as reality....

[Hugo]

Good questions... Which cultures are good and therefore we should emulate.... and which historically shall we say have led to peace, development, and prosperity. If we were to put the Ideals and Values in a list and see whether such would be accepted as the best norms for a civilized society in 21st century....

1. Equality, dignity and brotherhood of man. 2. Value of universal education with emphasis on spirit of free inquiry and importance of scientific knowledge. 3. Practice of religious tolerance. 4. Liberation of the woman and her spiritual equality with man. 5. Freedom from slavery and exploitation of all kinds.
6. Dignity of manual labor. 7. Integration of mankind in a feeling of oneness irrespective of their differences in race and color. 8. The devaluation of arrogance and pride based on superiority of race, color, wealth, etc and the founding of society on principle of Justice. 9. Rejection of the philosophy of asceticism.

It is nonsense in my opinion to say that Islam brought civilization or any of the things you mention as if they were new. If we take the middle east as the cradle of civilization then its history that we know about goes back 7000 years prior to Islam and as far as we know they were magnificent civilizations. Even if we look at the Greeks some 3000 years before Islam we see greatness and the writings they bequeathed to us probably added more to thought and logic than any other people on earth. If we exclude the purely Islamic historical things from the Qu'ran then everything else has been mentioned elsewhere long before 600 AD. I have already shown in my others posts that the brilliant observer and Islamic cleric, al-Tahtwai, thought so.

In the above list it is patently obvious that no one of them is true and easily demonstrable. For the purposes of this thread we can take any of them. But perhaps we can start with your 'free spirit of enquiry' and let us really see if that spirit is there or not. I will begin by saying Homer, Socrates, and Shakespeare have, perhaps, contributed more to the intellectual enlightenment of mankind than any other three writers and way beyond anything we find in the Qu'ran or Hadith.

Now can you even consider that idea - or will I get the usual stream of abuse?

[جوري]

I will begin by saying Homer, Socrates, and Shakespeare have, perhaps, contributed more to the intellectual enlightenment of mankind than any other three writers and way beyond anything we find in the Qu'ran or Hadith.

Now can you even consider that idea - or will I get the usual stream of abuse?

I am sure Homer and Socrates and even Shakespeare would be amused by your words, 1.8 billion adherents to Islam with all that it entails of literature, astronomy, mathematics, architecture, spiritual enlightenment, prophetic medicine, compared to the diminutive fanfare of the former.. Not very difficult for men of reflection and intellect to pick out who offered intellectual enlightenment.. 'the stream of abuse' you receive if we can call it that, will usually crop up when buffoons pose themselves as scholars!

all the best

[Hugo]

So the 'Democratic' west, has used democracy as a cover to continue their ongoing Colonial, rule, and i suggest Hugo to look at the reality that is beyond what appears as reality....

Let me ask you, do you agree with Al-Tahwai's analysis as I presented it, do you agree that constitutional government, freedom of speech are much to be desired?

The trouble is that you see every criticism or question about Islam as ant-Islamic. Muslim's in France have full citizen ships rights and no more and no less and way more than they would every get under and Islamic government. Yes they demanded rights, rights granted them by a free society and if those same people were in power those same rights would be abolished overnight. You speak of colonialisms and FORGET that the Islamic empires were the result of invasions and subjugation of peoples and slavery - these Muslim conquerors did not give rights they took them away, destroyed cultures and demanded payment and total obedience. NO you don't, can't see it like that can you?

[Zafran]

Let me ask you, do you agree with Al-Tahwai's analysis as I presented it, do you agree that constitutional government, freedom of speech are much to be desired?

The trouble is that you see every criticism or question about Islam as ant-Islamic. Muslim's in France have full citizen ships rights and no more and no less and way more than they would every get under and Islamic government. Yes they demanded rights, rights granted them by a free society and if those same people were in power those same rights would be abolished overnight. You speak of colonialisms and FORGET that the Islamic empires were the result of invasions and subjugation of peoples and slavery - these Muslim conquerors did not give rights they took them away, destroyed cultures and demanded payment and total obedience. NO you don't, can't see it like that can you?

Although I didnt want to get in this discussion I have to point out 3 things

1 - You say that muslims have great rights in france and are equal - well they are not - Burkha is banned - so if a muslim believes that the burkha is part of her faith well gues what she has zero right to wear it france - why beacsue the french say so. Same thing can be said about all religous symbols in public places - France is an exteme secular society

2 - You talk about Muslim empire being so evil - they were way better on the level of tolerance then anything in europe at the time. Which is odd for any pre modern society If you were a christain you could survive in muslim lands - you couldnt do that in europe if you were a muslim.

3 - You forget that the same tyrants that oppress people in the muslim lands are supported by the west as long as they comply with the western agenda - Saddam Hussien is agreat study so is saudia arabia.

4 - The Quran is a religous book that has followers of over a billion - the same cannot be said for any greek work or work of poetry like shakespeare.

[Woodrow]

You speak of colonialisms and FORGET that the Islamic empires were the result of invasions and subjugation of peoples and slavery - these Muslim conquerors did not give rights they took them away, destroyed cultures and demanded payment and total obedience. NO you don't, can't see it like that can you?

Are you certain this statement reflects the true history or is it just the views of one side?

My ancestors the Tatars (Mongols) were quite bllod thirsty and horrific in their conquests. The children of Genghis and Kubla Khan expanded their progeny throughout nearly all of Asia and into much of Europe. The expansion would have continued if they had not attempted to conquer the Arabs and as a result of the Arab influence accepted Islam and turned to peace. Another side of the picture you present, Islam kept my ancestors from marching into the UK. You should view Muslims as having saved much of the world from what would have been a very barbaric and bloody invasion. My ancestors were not very nice or peaceful people before Islam.

[Hugo]

1 - You say that muslims have great rights in france and are equal - well they are not - Burkha is banned - so if a muslim believes that the burkha is part of her faith well gues what she has zero right to wear it france - why beacsue the french say so. Same thing can be said about all religous symbols in public places - France is an exteme secular society

I said, Muslims have the SAME rights as everyone else. You argument is totally empty because logically I can argue, according to you, that my religion demands genital mutilation, setting myself on fire or any other idiotic idea so it should be allowed. Similarly, if my wife were in Saudi Arabia she would have to cover her head so her rights therefore would be infringed.

2 - You talk about Muslim empire being so evil - they were way better on the level of tolerance then anything in europe at the time. Which is odd for any pre modern society If you were a christain you could survive in muslim lands - you couldnt do that in europe if you were a Muslim.

I don't think I said Muslim empires were evil - you invented that idea. I said that in general they were no different to anywhere else. There were times when Jews for example were welcomes in Muslim lands though ALWAYS as second class citizens and vice versa. One might look today at say Iran or Pakistan and see how Christians are persecuted as well as those Muslims who are not quite of the right brand. The point I am making is that once we start saying "we don't persecute" it stops you seeing wrong when it staring your face. Let me ask you, a Christian Pastor, a convert from Islam, was murdered on July 16th in the Islamic republic of Dagestan - if the murderer turns out to be Muslim will you speak out against that outrage?

I guess I would find it hard to accept a story of Christians persecuting someone else and you I think would perhaps reject or want to reject the idea that Muslims persecute anyone - that is perhaps natural but neither of us would be honest would we?

3 - You forget that the same tyrants that oppress people in the muslim lands are supported by the west as long as they comply with the western agenda - Saddam Hussien is agreat study so is saudia Arabia.

Are you saying that before the West intervened that Muslim land were governed by benevolent rulers who listened to their people? Its time you took your head out of the sand. If Saudi Arabia is so bad why is it that not a single Muslim cleric there that I know of has objected to the way the place is run? You might also like to know that the Sunni's driven out of Iraq by the Shia speak longingly of the days of Saddam Hussien. I have read Arab history extensively and you will find great individuals who can be admired by anyone but you will not find any who wanted any kind of constitutional rule and I cannot think of a single case were it was not absolute monarchy or some other kind of autocratic rule and one wonders if it will ever be different.

4 - The Quran is a religious book that has followers of over a billion - the same cannot be said for any Greek work or work of poetry like Shakespeare.

True but how many of those billion have actually read the Qu'ran and read it in the own language and if they do and have any education at all they will see it recounts the very same stories found elsewhere centuries before it was known? I don't know how many copies say of Homer's Odyssey have been printed over its 3,000 year existence but I am absolutely sure its several millions and to anyone who has read it is is beyond price and totally unique.

[Hugo]

Are you certain this statement reflects the true history or is it just the views of one side? My ancestors the Tatars (Mongols) were quite bllod thirsty and horrific in their conquests. The children of Genghis and Kubla Khan expanded their progeny throughout nearly all of Asia and into much of Europe. The expansion would have continued if they had not attempted to conquer the Arabs and as a result of the Arab influence accepted Islam and turned to peace. Another side of the picture you present, Islam kept my ancestors from marching into the UK. You should view Muslims as having saved much of the world from what would have been a very barbaric and bloody invasion. My ancestors were not very nice or peaceful people before Islam.

Of course it is true and ANY Arab or Muslim history will show this. Just consider the Ottoman empire and see how it was created and maintained essentially through slavery. You will also see how the conquered lands fought back in one way or another and how in the end the whole thing collapsed through shifting loyalties, greed, colonialism and lastly perhaps nationalism. There is nothing special here and its just another story of empire building and destruction.

[جوري]

I said, Muslims have the SAME rights as everyone else.

:haha:you do have a point-- I guess when everyone gets a scarlet letter and gets hauled to some concentration camp we'll have to ponder your wise words!

all the best

[Woodrow]

Peace Hugo,

Perhaps this thread can be simplified. Maybe we can discuss one point at a time and avoid sensorary overload. At my age it is difficult to see beyond one sentence at a time. In your opinion what one aspect of Islam do you feel is the most unfair to non-Muslims who lived in Islamic lands?

[Zafran]

I said, Muslims have the SAME rights as everyone else. You argument is totally empty because logically I can argue, according to you, that my religion demands genital mutilation, setting myself on fire or any other idiotic idea so it should be allowed. Similarly, if my wife were in Saudi Arabia she would have to cover her head so her rights therefore would be infringed.

No they dont a muslim wearing the burkha in public does not have the same rights as a person who doesnt wear the burkha - You seriously picked the worst example out there. Your wife isnt in saudi arabia and any other irrelevent unrealistic tangent you like to keep going on about. by the way if you have a problem with saudi arabia talk to the saudi government!

I don't think I said Muslim empires were evil - you invented that idea. I said that in general they were no different to anywhere else. There were times when Jews for example were welcomes in Muslim lands though ALWAYS as second class citizens and vice versa. One might look today at say Iran or Pakistan and see how Christians are persecuted as well as those Muslims who are not quite of the right brand. The point I am making is that once we start saying "we don't persecute" it stops you seeing wrong where it right in your face.

I guess I would find it hard to accept a story of Christians persecuting someone else and you I think would perhaps reject or want to reject the idea that Muslims persecute anyone - that is perhaps natural buy it is not honest is it?

Yes the Jews were treated better in muslim lands - most of the time they had it better then in Christain Europe at the time. Yes and you have a problem with Iran and pakistan but have no idea how muslims are also being restricted in europe - france and the burkha, swiss and the minerats - nobody lives in a eutopia - europe is also going through an increase of Islamaphobia as we speak. But you like to brush that under the carpet - lets not even talk about the newspapers.

You have the copts of egypt - a very old christain community thats been in muslim lands for a long time - nothing similar in europe.

Are you saying that before the West intervened that Muslim land were governed by benevolent rulers who listened to their people? Its time you took your head out of the sand. If Saudi Arabia is so bad why is it that not a single Muslim cleric there that I know of has objected to they way the place is run? You might also like to know that the Sunni's driven out of Iraq speak longingly of the days of Saddam Hussien. I have read Arab history extensively and you will find great individuals but you will not find any who wanted any kind of constitutional rule and I cannot thing of a single case were it was not absolute monarchy or some other kind of autocratic rule and one wonders if it will ever be different

I said what i said - its not what you put above. I think you need to get your head out of the sand and see there is constitutional rule out there in the arab world! you seriously dont even know that just shows how much you have read of arab history. Although the rulers may not follow the constitution is another matter (maybe part of the problem). A great individual is purely subjective - saddam hussien was great in the 8os for the west but a bad guy in the 90s. Yes nice to be pessimistic about other cultures but think your own is a eutopia. Give me a break Hugo - your tangents need to stop and you need use your head a bit more - seriously.

True but how many of those billion have actually read the Qu'ran and read it in the own language and if they do and have any education at all they will see it recount the very same stories found elsewhere centuries before it was known? I don't know how many copies say of Homer's Odyssey have been printed over its 3,000 year existence but I am absolutely sure its several millions and to anyone who has read it is is beyond price and totally unique.

a billion dont think the odyssey is the literal word of God. You seem to have little knowledge of what Islam calls for - it calls people back to the messege of God thats started with Adam! Come on man how long have you been on this forum and you dont even know the basics of Islam.

[Zafran]

Of course it is true and ANY Arab or Muslim history will show this. Just consider the Ottoman empire and see how it was created and maintained essentially through slavery. You will also see how the conquered lands fought back in one way or another and how in the end the whole thing collapsed through shifting loyalties, greed, colonialism and lastly perhaps nationalism. There is nothing special here and its just another story of empire building and destruction.

They were in power for 800 years! some say the longest living dynasty in the world. slavery which was also happeing all over the world was not just essential for the Ottomans but also for any economic power at its time. Your forgeting about the millet system is an intresting thing to look at maybe it was the main thing that helped them last so long.

[جوري]

some how they were in power for 800 years! some say the longest living dynasty in the world. slavery which was also happeing all over the world was not just essential for the Ottomans but also for any economic power at its time. Your forgeting about the millet system is an intresting thing to look at maybe it was the main thing that helped them last so long.

he should teach you about 'trials by ordeal' as was the case in the enlightened west before speaking of Islamic injustices.. isn't it amazing what the ignorant can do once they finally have a keyboard? practically re-write history and believe their own lies.. sob7an Allah, will wonders ever cease?

[جوري]

shouldn't this forum have some standards? I find it a shame to enable the ignorant to disseminate with such erroneous information. I understand their need to have such beliefs but what is our need to yield to the platitudes of the ignorant?

:w:

[Zafran]

he should teach you about 'trials by ordeal' as was the case in the enlightened west before speaking of Islamic injustices.. isn't it amazing what the ignorant can do once they finally have a keyboard? practically re-write history and believe their own lies.. sob7an Allah, will wonders ever cease?

Tell me about - he likes to repeat the same things over and over again and then expects muslims to agree with him. When we have shown him where he is clearly losing the plot. His long tnagent is a great example of that.

[جوري]

Tell me about - he likes to repeat the same things over and over again and then expects muslims to agree with him. When we have shown him where he is clearly losing the plot. His long tnagent is a great example of that.

It is called logorrhea.. it is pathological and incoherent.. in 'the real world' he'd be receiving treatment for that.. over here, he gets to pretend that it is a sufficient investment.. man-worshiping satanists have many tools up their sleeve, wasting everyone's time with illogical, historically and intellectually dishonest drivel is one of them!

6:68
When thou seest men engaged in vain discourse about Our Signs, turn away from them unless they turn to a different theme. If Satan ever makes thee forget, then after recollection, sit not thou in the company of those who do wrong.


man worshipers often like to convolute and pervert, so they can feel better about their beliefs!

:w:

[espada]

:sl:

i really have no idea what this thread is about so i decided to look at the first post.

i couldn't possibly go through all 17 pages (even though i did try to participate to no avail) but post #3 back in March is interesting ... here in July.

Anyone who even participates in such a discussion is wasting their time.


Why? There's so much angles that you can look at a thing from, that it's obvious we'll never reach a unified conclusion, ESPECIALLY when we know that there will be issues which we accept based on faith.

So i can assure you, this thread will just bring about useless emotional and heated debate, with final words being like "I believe it's good because I believe my religion is correct", and others discouraging this and saying we should argue logically. But what's the point when our religion is preferred even over our own desires?


Let's see if what i say comes into effect.

So to the OP ask yourself a question (please don't reply to me).

Christians do believe in the Day of Judgment as far as i know.

How are you going to explain this 4 month, 17 page thread to Allah?

As i just typed, don't answer me - that's between you and Allah.


And to my fellow muslim brothers and sisters.

Steer clear of threads like this. They are like Shaytan's Merry Go Round.

You think you can step on, make your point and leave but once you get on ...

[Ramadhan]

:sl:

So to the OP ask yourself a question (please don't reply to me).

Christians do believe in the Day of Judgment as far as i know.

How are you going to explain this 4 month, 17 page thread to Allah?

As i just typed, don't answer me - that's between you and Allah.

I am just going to address this, as I think you have made conclusion based on fallacious assumption.

Christians think as long as they have accepted that Jesus as their savior, they will go to heaven no matter what.
Unlike muslims who believe that all our deeds big and small will be judged by Allah SWT, christians do not believe that.

[Hugo]

Peace Hugo, Perhaps this thread can be simplified. Maybe we can discuss one point at a time and avoid sensorary overload. At my age it is difficult to see beyond one sentence at a time. In your opinion what one aspect of Islam do you feel is the most unfair to non-Muslims who lived in Islamic lands?

Yes I would prefer this and earlier I suggested that we think about freedom of thought and whether Islam encourages one to think for yourself and question openly even the most sacred things and I suppose we then ask can we re-interpret Islam or is one forever fixed with what has been given? This really is the import of my three posts on al Al-Tahwai's analysis.

[Hugo]

I am just going to address this, as I think you have made conclusion based on fallacious assumption. Christians think as long as they have accepted that Jesus as their savior, they will go to heaven no matter what. Unlike muslims who believe that all our deeds big and small will be judged by Allah SWT, christians do not believe that.

This does not quite explain the Christian view. In particular no Christian would even begin to argue that their deeds can ever bring us to God but we do believe all will have to be judged but the Christian is considered as covered by God's righteousness effected through faith in Jesus. In simple terms this means we have a hope not in any way centred on how good we are but on a work already accomplished in Jesus.

[Hugo]

And to my fellow muslim brothers and sisters. Steer clear of threads like this. They are like Shaytan's Merry Go Round. You think you can step on, make your point and leave but once you get on ...

This is an interesting post in that here we see that freedom of thought, asking questions, testing ones faith is not recommended so no growth or development seems possible with that view?

[Woodrow]

Yes I would prefer this and earlier I suggested that we think about freedom of thought and whether Islam encourages one to think for yourself and question openly even the most sacred things and I suppose we then ask can we re-interpret Islam or is one forever fixed with what has been given? This really is the import of my three posts on al Al-Tahwai's analysis.

For beginners I find Islam to be much more receptive of free thought than Catholicism was. After leaving Catholicism I found some denominations too much freedom in the interpretation of scripture and expression of worship.

In Islam I find encouragement for sincere questioning and enough legalism to prevent nonsensical arguments for the sake of argument.

I found a genuine freedom in Islam I never found in Christianity. I am not going to be kicked out of Islam or punished for expressing doubts and wanting clarification. Although I most likely will have somebody correct me, usually in a loving and understanding manner. I did run into one exception, a dear friend who sort of likes to bash me in the head if I disagree with him. But, then again I have been known to sort of back hand him a few times. But, this is only because we are very close and dear friends.