morality!

[Lynx]

Okay so on the question of absolute and objective and subjective morality.
Here is a small socratic analysis of the problem:

If god exists and if God is wholly good then he cannot do anything evil.
therefore, the rules that god has chosen are good OR since he is good the rules he chooses become Good to fit his good-ness.

If it is the latter than the rules are arbitrary and there is no absolute good or evil since they depend on the whim of god and can be otherwise.

If it is the former then there exists a moral good independent of God.

Either way God's existence does not change the metaphysical status of good or evil: his existence does not guarantee they exist absolutely nor does his exist entail that they are arbitrary; it is just as unknown.

Now, the obvious rejection is "well at least we have God to tell us whereas non-theists don't have god to tell them".

Well, sure. BUt just as there are many different religions competing there are many different ethical systems competing (for instance, consequentialism and deontological ethics) so the theist isn't any better off than the non-theist since the theist just picks their religion based on what makes sense to them and the atheist picks their ethical theory that they feel is most logical.

[Skavau]

Either way God's existence does not change the metaphysical status of good or evil: his existence does not guarantee they exist absolutely nor does his exist entail that they are arbitrary; it is just as unknown.

Indeed, a theist that claims to know that X is wrong is unable to explain how (in most instances) only that they know it is. There is a difference between knowing why something is true and knowing it is true.

Well, sure. BUt just as there are many different religions competing there are many different ethical systems competing (for instance, consequentialism and deontological ethics) so the theist isn't any better off than the non-theist since the theist just picks their religion based on what makes sense to them and the atheist picks their ethical theory that they feel is most logical.

Indeed. The human condition is still all-ever present in religious makeup. This is why we see schisms, differences of interpretation, different sects and in general thousands upon thousands of religious beliefs that many of which, in some particular way claim to be infallible.

Something in general, is very suspect.

[Dagless]

Well, sure. BUt just as there are many different religions competing there are many different ethical systems competing (for instance, consequentialism and deontological ethics) so the theist isn't any better off than the non-theist since the theist just picks their religion based on what makes sense to them and the atheist picks their ethical theory that they feel is most logical.

Why do people always assume the theist picks religion based on "feeling", many theists also logically weigh up the information and make an informed choice. You make it sound like whim when its not.
For the theist morality is clearly defined in religion, what is right and what is wrong are laid out and so those must be followed exactly. The atheist is choosing what is right and wrong based on social norms (which change) or their own moral compass (which could be broken). Its pointless to debate which is more correct because the choice is made after belief is decided (bearing in mind religion is not chosen only based on morals).

[CosmicPathos]

A hindu came up to me and criticized Allah (swt) for differentiating mankind into believers and kaafirs etc. Upon asking him what he believes in, he referred back to Bhagvad Gita and some similar texts. He also claimed that he does not believe in Prophets and that Hindu scriptures are works of scholars and are thus superior to Prophet's work. Well then I asked him how does he justify racial discrimination against the Shudras that was inherent in Brahmanical Hinduism and people seemed to be okay with it for nearly 2000 years! Sure, there were philosophical arguments against it but it is clear that some corrupt man/scholar got to say his say in the "divinely inspired scriptures" and hence his evil morals became justifiable by a scripture and most people did not find any problem with it. Then there is the issue of widow-burning called Sati. It took a Madrassa-educated Hindu who started the Brahmo Samaj movement to condemn the practice of Sati in british India.

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

[tetsujin]

I find it sad that Socrates was killed, or so the story goes.


Islamic philosophy trumps all other philosophy. Any ideas that might counter what cannot be deduced from Islamic teachings must be wrong. Any attempt to reconcile them is heresy, as we found out in the 9th century AD.

The ticket to heaven is not in thinking, it's in believing.


All the best,


Faysal

[CosmicPathos]

I find it sad that Socrates was killed, or so the story goes.


Islamic philosophy trumps all other philosophy. Any ideas that might counter what cannot be deduced from Islamic teachings must be wrong. Any attempt to reconcile them is heresy, as we found out in the 9th century AD.

The ticket to heaven is not in thinking, it's in believing.


All the best,


Faysal

Methodological thinking leads to believing. It leads to either a belief in God's existence or a belief in God's absence depending on the underlying assumptions. Certain assumptions are more valid than others. Unrestrained thinking leads to nihilism and agnosticism regarding God's existence.

[Dagless]

The ticket to heaven is not in thinking, it's in believing.

Please don't put words in other peoples mouths, since for most (if not all) Muslims thinking leads to certain belief.

[tetsujin]

Please don't put words in other peoples mouths, since for most (if not all) Muslims thinking leads to certain belief.

Sorry, I'll keep personal experiences out of this.

All the best,


Faysal

[Lynx]

Why do people always assume the theist picks religion based on "feeling", many theists also logically weigh up the information and make an informed choice. You make it sound like whim when its not.
For the theist morality is clearly defined in religion, what is right and what is wrong are laid out and so those must be followed exactly. The atheist is choosing what is right and wrong based on social norms (which change) or their own moral compass (which could be broken). Its pointless to debate which is more correct because the choice is made after belief is decided (bearing in mind religion is not chosen only based on morals).

Oh, I agree. I wrote my OP in a rush I guess. It should read "the theist [who reflects on these matters] picks what he believes is most logical and sticks to that and and the atheist [who reflects on these matters] picks what he thinks is the most logical.

Also, It's definitely not the case that atheists follow the social norms. A reflective atheist will consider competing ethical theories such as the ones I mentioned. Some atheists do of course follow social norms and some religious people follow social norms as their code of morals but this isn't the case for ALL atheists or theists. My point was theists make an unfair argument against atheists telling them they have no morals but theists aren't any more informed on the status of moral facts since whether or not God exists it makes no difference to whether or not moral absolutes exist.

As Skavu pointed out earlier, unless you can provide the reasons for why x is wrong you aren't any better than an atheist except you've subscribed to a religious system to give you the answers...but as I have shown, even subscribing to a religious statement won't get you out.

[Dagless]

My point was theists make an unfair argument against atheists telling them they have no morals but theists aren't any more informed on the status of moral facts since whether or not God exists it makes no difference to whether or not moral absolutes exist.

The morals given by God are the absolute morals. At the very least we can say you have that backwards, since for us whether or not independent moral absolutes exist makes no difference as to whether or not God exists.

As Skavu pointed out earlier, unless you can provide the reasons for why x is wrong you aren't any better than an atheist except you've subscribed to a religious system to give you the answers...but as I have shown, even subscribing to a religious statement won't get you out.

If we say that the rules given to us by God are the correct moral absolutes then you have your yardstick. Everyone is different, and some will see that yes that moral code is correct, and others will see it is correct after going the wrong way and realising the truth, while some may never see it.
It doesn't matter whether it is because God is good, or all God does is good, or a 3rd, 4th, or 5th option.

I can see this thread going the same way as the "free will" thread where you will say if some people cannot see that it is the correct moral code how can they be judged. To which I will say if that is the case how can you blame anyone for any moral action, and then give the murderer example and say he doesn't see killing people as wrong but is still tried and convicted etc. etc.

All your threads eventually water down to a form of nihilism.

[Lynx]

The morals given by God are the absolute morals. At the very least we can say you have that backwards, since for us whether or not independent moral absolutes exist makes no difference as to whether or not God exists.



If we say that the rules given to us by God are the correct moral absolutes then you have your yardstick. Everyone is different, and some will see that yes that moral code is correct, and others will see it is correct after going the wrong way and realising the truth, while some may never see it.
It doesn't matter whether it is because God is good, or all God does is good, or a 3rd, 4th, or 5th option.

I can see this thread going the same way as the "free will" thread where you will say if some people cannot see that it is the correct moral code how can they be judged. To which I will say if that is the case how can you blame anyone for any moral action, and then give the murderer example and say he doesn't see killing people as wrong but is still tried and convicted etc. etc.

All your threads eventually water down to a form of nihilism.

Well my point isn't whether God exists. I was just trying to show that belief in a God doesn't really tell us anything about morality. An atheist who is convinced by utilitarian ethics for instance is just as justified in his belief, if not more, as a theist in his divinely appointed code of ethics.

Also, you shouldn't confuse law and morality. Law is designed to get society to function. If you legalize murder, no matter what your moral beliefs are, your society will turn into anarchy. Ultimately, we don't want to suffer and if we don't make laws against murdering then the collective whole will suffer. It is my humble opinion that morality isn't anything beyond this collective agreement (social contract) and emotion to drive it.

[Dagless]

Well my point isn't whether God exists. I was just trying to show that belief in a God doesn't really tell us anything about morality. An atheist who is convinced by utilitarian ethics for instance is just as justified in his belief, if not more, as a theist in his divinely appointed code of ethics.

Isn't this why everyone is free to practice their own beliefs? (within reason). My point was the justification you use to define how absolute morals are reached doesn't matter for theists because absolute morals exist and have been defined. The mechanism or whether they are innate for everyone doesn't change that fact.

Also, you shouldn't confuse law and morality. Law is designed to get society to function. If you legalize murder, no matter what your moral beliefs are, your society will turn into anarchy. Ultimately, we don't want to suffer and if we don't make laws against murdering then the collective whole will suffer. It is my humble opinion that morality isn't anything beyond this collective agreement (social contract) and emotion to drive it.

I would argue that laws against things such as murder are based on morality.
Laws also aren't always for the collective, sometimes they are based entirely on morality. Animal welfare, for example, doesn't really impact on the community as a whole yet if you are cruel to an animal you can be put in prison.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:

On the subject of morality: if you break it down, it all comes to human emotion. Morality is just a word in that case - the real issue is emotion.

I would say religion, specifically Islam, helps you control your emotions and express them in all senses of the word.

[Lynx]

On the subject of morality: if you break it down, it all comes to human emotion. Morality is just a word in that case - the real issue is emotion.

I would say religion, specifically Islam, helps you control your emotions and express them in all senses of the word.

I think I agree halfway. Emotion is probably the basis for individual morality but social agreements is how we regulate everyone's individual emotions.

Isn't this why everyone is free to practice their own beliefs? (within reason). My point was the justification you use to define how absolute morals are reached doesn't matter for theists because absolute morals exist and have been defined. The mechanism or whether they are innate for everyone doesn't change that fact.

Yeah, but my point was you don't know what absolute morals are even if Islam was true. Again if God arbitrarily picks them then they aren't absolute because if God did not exist they wouldn't be good and absolute implies in all cases. Conversely, if God picks them because they are good absolutely then it just shows you can have an ethical basis without God. Maybe some sort of Platonism is true or something. I guess what I am trying to say is that morals derived from religion are not any more legitimate than an atheist deriving morals from the categorical imperative or something.

I would argue that laws against things such as murder are based on morality.
Laws also aren't always for the collective, sometimes they are based entirely on morality. Animal welfare, for example, doesn't really impact on the community as a whole yet if you are cruel to an animal you can be put in prison.

Yeah that is true. I suppose some laws have a moral basis (like Rights especially) as well as a social basis. In most cases though, law isn't equivalent to morality. Law is a subset of rules contained in Morality.

[What Is Truth?]

If god exists and if God is wholly good then he cannot do anything evil.
therefore, the rules that god has chosen are good OR since he is good the rules he chooses become Good to fit his good-ness.

If it is the latter than the rules are arbitrary and there is no absolute good or evil since they depend on the whim of god and can be otherwise.

If it is the former then there exists a moral good independent of God.

Your analysis assumes that God chooses moral laws - but there is also the possibility that they flow from God's essence (goodness).

I think the main problem for an atheistic meta-ethic that wants to affirm objective moral laws has to do with not having an objective standard of goodness. I find it helpful to think of the analogy of someone recording a piece of orchestral music. The sound quality of recording is judged on the basis of what the orchestra actually sounds like. Similarly, the moral quality of an action is said to be good if it measures up to some predefined standard of what it means to be good. An atheistic meta-ethic must come up with some arbitrary standard of goodness, as there is nothing actual to ontologically ground that standard. The theistic meta-ethic has no problems in this regard, however, as God's essence is goodness. Of course both the atheist and the theist still have to do ethics - finding out what exactly goodness is and how to deduce moral laws from it - but only the theist can affirm that an objective standard actually exists.

[tetsujin]

Your analysis assumes that God chooses moral laws - but there is also the possibility that they flow from God's essence (goodness).

I think the main problem for an atheistic meta-ethic that wants to affirm objective moral laws has to do with not having an objective standard of goodness. I find it helpful to think of the analogy of someone recording a piece of orchestral music. The sound quality of recording is judged on the basis of what the orchestra actually sounds like. Similarly, the moral quality of an action is said to be good if it measures up to some predefined standard of what it means to be good. An atheistic meta-ethic must come up with some arbitrary standard of goodness, as there is nothing actual to ontologically ground that standard. The theistic meta-ethic has no problems in this regard, however, as God's essence is goodness. Of course both the atheist and the theist still have to do ethics - finding out what exactly goodness is and how to deduce moral laws from it - but only the theist can affirm that an objective standard actually exists.

It's the same issue/problem with or without a deity.

If we're going to ask these questions it may do good to refer to Euthyphro.

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html


All the best,


Faysal

[Nokiacrazi]

God created good and bad. He wants human beings to do good, but he knows some will do bad. He knows who will go to hell and heaven even before he created us. It is just so that when he places us in hell/heaven on day of judgement we will be shown why we were placed where we were. It is said our own body will be a witness against us. SubhanAllah.

[What Is Truth?]

It's the same issue/problem with or without a deity.

Which problem are you referring to?

If we're going to ask these questions it may do good to refer to Euthyphro.

I countered with the rather well-known response of saying that Euthyphro's dilemma is false: goodness is neither independent from God nor "chosen" by God arbitrarily, but is God's very nature.

[Skavau]

I countered with the rather well-known response of saying that Euthyphro's dilemma is false: goodness is neither independent from God nor "chosen" by God arbitrarily, but is God's very nature.

'Good' being God's nature appears to negate morality down to some kind of 'essence'. If good is just God's nature, then what does that even mean? It is an incoherent response and does not address the origin of morality as per a theist would understand it.

A more prudent question that I think you ought to ask yourself (and theists, in general) on this issue would be whether or not you would always, under all circumstances obey what God commanded you to do. Your answer to that question would inform others of where your priorities lie.

[Dagless]

The main hurdle in this thread, and what's leading to atheists thinking that their valid points are not being addressed, is belief. For the theist its a black and white answer - nothing can exist without God. Therefore the avenue of whether there is an absolute good or evil independent of God isn't something we understand, because nothing can be independent of God, and so its not even an argument.

How about:

Definitions of good and evil are created by God. We are created by God with a capacity for both. There is an absolute scale but only in relation to that which God has created.
The theist can see the rules for both roads on the map (good and evil). The atheist cannot see the map and so bumps around and finds things which work and don't work. How does he decide what works and what doesn't? Well there is no way to test this exhaustively over one lifetime, though you can roughly see over the course of your life - the rules are made so that good is always better for you overall in the long run, whereas evil is always worse for you in the long run.

[What Is Truth?]

'Good' being God's nature appears to negate morality down to some kind of 'essence'. If good is just God's nature, then what does that even mean? It is an incoherent response and does not address the origin of morality as per a theist would understand it.

Identifying goodness with God's nature is only a "negation" if we have a poor conception of God's nature. Coming from a Christian perspective, I find the Trinitarian conception of God provides a rich and profoundly meaningful conception of goodness. If you think grounding morality in this way is incoherent, you're going to have to be more specific as to why that is.

A more prudent question that I think you ought to ask yourself (and theists, in general) on this issue would be whether or not you would always, under all circumstances obey what God commanded you to do. Your answer to that question would inform others of where your priorities lie.

Again, it depends on what kind of God we're talking about. If God's nature is goodness, then his commands will be good. If goodness is independent of God's nature then we cannot infer that all of his commands will be good (though they might be). For me, I believe that God has revealed his nature to be love through the way he has acted in the world through history and in my own experience, and on that basis trust in him and try to obey his Law and follow his guidance.

[aadil77]

Well, sure. BUt just as there are many different religions competing there are many different ethical systems competing (for instance, consequentialism and deontological ethics) so the theist isn't any better off than the non-theist since the theist just picks their religion based on what makes sense to them and the atheist picks their ethical theory that they feel is most logical.

Ultimately were do you think morals came from? People from abrahamic faiths know that adam and eve were the first people on earth and were taught morals, thats the only way they would have spread and become known to others, theres no way to just discover or create morals

[Lynx]

Your analysis assumes that God chooses moral laws - but there is also the possibility that they flow from God's essence (goodness).

I think the main problem for an atheistic meta-ethic that wants to affirm objective moral laws has to do with not having an objective standard of goodness. I find it helpful to think of the analogy of someone recording a piece of orchestral music. The sound quality of recording is judged on the basis of what the orchestra actually sounds like. Similarly, the moral quality of an action is said to be good if it measures up to some predefined standard of what it means to be good. An atheistic meta-ethic must come up with some arbitrary standard of goodness, as there is nothing actual to ontologically ground that standard. The theistic meta-ethic has no problems in this regard, however, as God's essence is goodness. Of course both the atheist and the theist still have to do ethics - finding out what exactly goodness is and how to deduce moral laws from it - but only the theist can affirm that an objective standard actually exists.

This is Aquinas's view right? In any case I am not sure what it means to say Goodness flows from God. Is it then the case that there are objects in existence that we can say is good? I think I agree with Skavu that statements like "it flows from God" don't really shed any light. Do they exist like a Platonic form? Also, how do you account for changes in what we define as goodness or even changes in God's moral law?

Dagless: I don't think there is a system on Earth that gives us a set of rules that will work in all systems in all situations. The four wife thing for instance is a law that has conferred much unhappiness rather than happiness.

[Lynx]

Ultimately were do you think morals came from? People from abrahamic faiths know that adam and eve were the first people on earth and were taught morals, thats the only way they would have spread and become known to others, theres no way to just discover or create morals

Emotions and social agreements to regulate emotions. I don't buy Adam and Eve were taught morals since morals have changed over time.

[aadil77]

Emotions and social agreements to regulate emotions. I don't buy Adam and Eve were taught morals since morals have changed over time.

yes they are changing over time, as people stray away from morals brought about from religion, murder, adultery, sodomy, stealing, drugs, promiscuity etc become more frequent

[Dagless]

Dagless: I don't think there is a system on Earth that gives us a set of rules that will work in all systems in all situations. The four wife thing for instance is a law that has conferred much unhappiness rather than happiness.

I'd like to see some kind of study on this. Were the laws followed to the letter? Like all wives being treated equally? Or was it only an excuse for man's desire.

[Alpha Dude]

Morality and goodness have no objective basis in the absence of God. It's just what one person thinks is good or evil against what someone else thinks.

There is no case for moral obligation. Nobody can say rationally that the nazi's were evil for example, without reference to God.

[Lynx]

I'd like to see some kind of study on this. Were the laws followed to the letter? Like all wives being treated equally? Or was it only an excuse for man's desire.

Do you think if your wife had 4 husbands including you as one of them and gave all of you equal time that you would not feel unhappy? Let's say she's just doing it because she has a strong sexual appetite. This is an entirely pointless allowance in Islam and I don't see any benefit that could incur. If there was a stipulation that the husband should ask the first wife's permission to get married then you'd have something. But to say that the rules make sense in the long run is far from accurate.

There is no case for moral obligation. Nobody can say rationally that the nazi's were evil for example, without reference to God.

The whole point of my OP, if you read it, was that even if you had God you wouldn't be able to justify an absolute morality. You would still be in the dark.

[Dagless]

Do you think if your wife had 4 husbands including you as one of them and gave all of you equal time that you would not feel unhappy? Let's say she's just doing it because she has a strong sexual appetite. This is an entirely pointless allowance in Islam and I don't see any benefit that could incur. If there was a stipulation that the husband should ask the first wife's permission to get married then you'd have something. But to say that the rules make sense in the long run is far from accurate.

Since my wife wouldn't be allowed to have 4 husbands it would be worrying :)
Just because you see it as pointless and without benefit does not mean it is pointless and without benefit. Isn't this just you using your own (possibly broken) moral compass?

[Lynx]

Since my wife wouldn't be allowed to have 4 husbands it would be worrying :)
Just because you see it as pointless and without benefit does not mean it is pointless and without benefit. Isn't this just you using your own (possibly broken) moral compass?

Yeah, who said Islam was sexist. I see no sexism there.

But anyway, yeah you are right. It could be my broken compass telling me that it's wrong. The only problem is you brought up the issue of happiness so if you would, I would like to see you backup your statement: show the long term happiness involved. Clearly on a personal level it does not produce happiness for the wife in the same you wouldn't be too happy about her sleeping with a bunch of other men. Unless your position is there might be useful benefit and happiness that we just don't know about.

[Dagless]

Yeah, who said Islam was sexist. I see no sexism there.

But anyway, yeah you are right. It could be my broken compass telling me that it's wrong. The only problem is you brought up the issue of happiness so if you would, I would like to see you backup your statement: show the long term happiness involved. Clearly on a personal level it does not produce happiness for the wife in the same you wouldn't be too happy about her sleeping with a bunch of other men. Unless your position is there might be useful benefit and happiness that we just don't know about.

The sexes are different, and recognised as different in Islam. Its not sexism, its just difference.

"It may happen that you hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you" (2:216)
How do you know it doesn't give the initial wife happiness? Maybe it stops him having lots of affairs or leaving her? Maybe it gives him the children she cannot?
What you're saying is 'I think this' and 'Imagine this', when neither of us have been in the situation, and so we should not construct our own version of how life would be. There are already people out there who have more than one wife. They are the people to ask and study. I am sure you will find some of them happy and some unhappy; my point is the ones who are happy should be the ones who've followed the rules completely and not only the parts which appeal to them.

[Lynx]

The sexes are different, and recognised as different in Islam. Its not sexism, its just difference.

"It may happen that you hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you" (2:216)
How do you know it doesn't give the initial wife happiness? Maybe it stops him having lots of affairs or leaving her? Maybe it gives him the children she cannot?
What you're saying is 'I think this' and 'Imagine this', when neither of us have been in the situation, and so we should not construct our own version of how life would be. There are already people out there who have more than one wife. They are the people to ask and study. I am sure you will find some of them happy and some unhappy; my point is the ones who are happy should be the ones who've followed the rules completely and not only the parts which appeal to them.

Half of that is appeal to ignorance. the point is you claimed that the rules lead to happiness so i am asking you to provide reasons for that claim. or maybe you should admit you made a hasty generalization. Either way, natural intuition tells us if your spouse goes and sleeps with 3 other women you are going to get really angry and unhappy about it. If you don't have any actual reasons to claim that the rules lead to happiness then go for it. contrary to the fact hypotheses don't work . you can't say well if he didn't get married it would lead to many affairs or whatever because you don't know what would be the case if he hadn't married another couple of wives to satisfy his sexual needs. By the way, all the reasons you mentioned could very well be used for a woman to argue that she should have four husbands. This is a failed rule for a society of patriarchs. It doesn't take a genius to figure out who is benefiting from this particular law. But anyway I know there aren't studies done to prove what you claim I take it you made a hasty comment but I understand your point . In general the rules of religion lead to happiness in a society. which is respectable and i agree for the most part..but we can do without them too.

[What Is Truth?]

This is Aquinas's view right? In any case I am not sure what it means to say Goodness flows from God. Is it then the case that there are objects in existence that we can say is good? I think I agree with Skavu that statements like "it flows from God" don't really shed any light. Do they exist like a Platonic form? Also, how do you account for changes in what we define as goodness or even changes in God's moral law?

I'm no Thomist, so I'm really not sure. Aquinas identified God's essence with his existence which complicates things, and I don't know if he brought that idea into his virtue ethics (given the colossal amount he wrote, it's pretty likely he did).

I'm not saying that goodness flows from God, but that moral laws flow from God's essence (which is goodness itself). You seem to be mixing up the two in your post - for me, goodness is the moral standard, whereas moral laws are "commands" that tell us how to attain that standard (in a particular context).

[Dagless]

Half of that is appeal to ignorance. the point is you claimed that the rules lead to happiness so i am asking you to provide reasons for that claim. or maybe you should admit you made a hasty generalization.

I have provided reasons; if the woman cannot have children it would make her happy to see her husband be given children by another woman, since it is one task she could not fulfil. It is not a generalisation because I am not saying this is the only reason or even a common reason but it could be a reason.

Either way, natural intuition tells us if your spouse goes and sleeps with 3 other women you are going to get really angry and unhappy about it.

Natural intuition says that radiation is bad for you yet you're more likely to live with radiation therapy if you have cancer than without it.

If you don't have any actual reasons to claim that the rules lead to happiness then go for it. contrary to the fact hypotheses don't work . you can't say well if he didn't get married it would lead to many affairs or whatever because you don't know what would be the case if he hadn't married another couple of wives to satisfy his sexual needs.

I said in my initial post that it could not be measured exhaustively in a lifetime but you can see it as you live your life, that following the religion and doing good is good for you. Why is it all about sexual needs? People marry for other reasons too, you make it sound so perverted :)

By the way, all the reasons you mentioned could very well be used for a woman to argue that she should have four husbands. This is a failed rule for a society of patriarchs. It doesn't take a genius to figure out who is benefiting from this particular law. But anyway I know there aren't studies done to prove what you claim I take it you made a hasty comment but I understand your point . In general the rules of religion lead to happiness in a society. which is respectable and i agree for the most part..but we can do without them too.

The reasons for 4 wives and not husbands have been mentioned many times. Its not a debate for this thread.
I agree that studies should be done. I have seen long (10-20 year) "happiness" studies in other fields (such as marriage) but I think religion is neglected. It might make a nice project for a psych student.

[aamirsaab]

.....which is respectable and i agree for the most part..but we can do without them too.

One question: why?

You pretty much just said that those rules were awesome. So why would you want to do without them?

p.s; on the subject of multiple wives and husbands: Male's psychological make up is different to female's (just like their biology and chemistry) - a system that recognises that is a clever system indeed!

[Skavau]

Identifying goodness with God's nature is only a "negation" if we have a poor conception of God's nature. Coming from a Christian perspective, I find the Trinitarian conception of God provides a rich and profoundly meaningful conception of goodness. If you think grounding morality in this way is incoherent, you're going to have to be more specific as to why that is.

Because it appears to outright ignore or forgo defining any practical objectives or utilities for morality. I mean, it is purely white noise to me to declare that morality is part of God's nature. It all comes across as rather vague and meaningless to me. I can't change that.

Again, it depends on what kind of God we're talking about. If God's nature is goodness, then his commands will be good.

On what criteria would God's goodness be based on?

If goodness is independent of God's nature then we cannot infer that all of his commands will be good (though they might be). For me, I believe that God has revealed his nature to be love through the way he has acted in the world through history and in my own experience, and on that basis trust in him and try to obey his Law and follow his guidance.

If goodness was to be independent of God's nature then it would be possible for God to order or confirm evil.

[Skavau]

Ultimately were do you think morals came from? People from abrahamic faiths know that adam and eve were the first people on earth and were taught morals, thats the only way they would have spread and become known to others, theres no way to just discover or create morals

Morals are an emergent property in our species on what we ought to or ought not do within the context of a community.

yes they are changing over time, as people stray away from morals brought about from religion, murder, adultery, sodomy, stealing, drugs, promiscuity etc become more frequent

How do you know that religion bought about, or was the only effective source for condemnation of these things? Historically, murder has always existed and been far more prevalent or taken forms so extreme it has been genocidal (religious or ethnic in nature).

I ask this of many, but can you name me a better time to live historically than living in a first-world secular nation now? Are you really going to claim that you would rather live in some historical religious nation over a first-world secular nation?

[Skavau]

Morality and goodness have no objective basis in the absence of God. It's just what one person thinks is good or evil against what someone else thinks.

There is no case for moral obligation. Nobody can say rationally that the nazi's were evil for example, without reference to God.

Sorry, I don't buy this claim.

With or without a concerned deity there is no 'objective' cause to say anything concerning morality is evil or not. I do not see how you simply believing there to be an interested third-party somehow makes your perspective absolute.

[What Is Truth?]

Because it appears to outright ignore or forgo defining any practical objectives or utilities for morality. I mean, it is purely white noise to me to declare that morality is part of God's nature. It all comes across as rather vague and meaningless to me. I can't change that.

It is certainly a bit vague so far, but this is only the scaffolding of a theistic meta-ethic. Again, you are mixing terms - goodness and morality are not the same thing. I recognize (not "declare") that God's nature is good. How one can come to recognize that is an epistemological question, rather than ontological, which is why this all seems like empty theorizing thus far. But since this thread opened with the claim that necessarily God's existence has no bearing on meta-ethics, I have only sought to show that this claim is not true. Any appearance that my meta-ethic ignores practicality or utility is simply due to the fact that it has not been necessary to go into any more depth than I have done so far. Your claim was general, and so I've outlined a general framework for a theistic meta-ethic.

On what criteria would God's goodness be based on?

Why is this problem any different from judging between the definitions of goodness given by two meta-ethical theories? If you are happy judging between a utilitarian definition and a deontological definition, say, why can't we apply the same method and criteria to assess God's nature?

If goodness was to be independent of God's nature then it would be possible for God to order or confirm evil.

Exactly what I was saying. :thumbs_up

[aadil77]

Morals are an emergent property in our species on what we ought to or ought not do within the context of a community.

Not really look at the 'morals' emerging in the community now, some how its moral to commit sodomy, its moral to have sex with as many partners as you want. Morals have been set and perfected by Islam since time of prophet Adam

How do you know that religion bought about, or was the only effective source for condemnation of these things?

Islam didn't just condemn them it, it prevented them with effective punishments unlike the punishments that have been chosen by the 'community' now a days.

Historically, murder has always existed and been far more prevalent or taken forms so extreme it has been genocidal (religious or ethnic in nature).

Ofourse murder has always existed, its never been genocidal under islam

I ask this of many, but can you name me a better time to live historically than living in a first-world secular nation now?

Yes, during the khalifate period at the time of the prophet

Are you really going to claim that you would rather live in some historical religious nation over a first-world secular nation?

Ofcourse, its part of our beliefs that we should want to live under Allah's law - shariah, if you look how society was run during that period it was the best place to live, free of corruption and evils that are now present in most of the world

Have a look at how a shariah state was run in the past, read up on the laws that would control the justice, economic and social systems, it was all based on divine law from Allah - no man made laws present - so it is best for everyone

[Skavau]

Not really look at the 'morals' emerging in the community now, some how its moral to commit sodomy, its moral to have sex with as many partners as you want. Morals have been set and perfected by Islam since time of prophet Adam

This response is loaded with bias. You, of course are compelled to believe that sodomy and sexual liberty are immoral because that is what Islam claims it is. I do not share this perspective. In any case, it does not address the fact that morals by their nature are a system of compromise within groups of people regarding what actions ought and ought not be taken.

Islam didn't just condemn them it, it prevented them with effective punishments unlike the punishments that have been chosen by the 'community' now a days.

I am not talking about Islam - I am asking how you know that religion has or was the only system ever to condemn murder.

Ofourse murder has always existed, its never been genocidal under islam

Thoroughly debatable, but outright off-topic.

Yes, during the khalifate period at the time of the prophet

I am not a Muslim. Why would I want to live under a theocratic state? I certainly would not want to live in that time. Lower life expectancy, less outlets for entertainment, less knowledge about how the world works. Why would it be of value to me?

[Lynx]

I'm no Thomist, so I'm really not sure. Aquinas identified God's essence with his existence which complicates things, and I don't know if he brought that idea into his virtue ethics (given the colossal amount he wrote, it's pretty likely he did).

I'm not saying that goodness flows from God, but that moral laws flow from God's essence (which is goodness itself). You seem to be mixing up the two in your post - for me, goodness is the moral standard, whereas moral laws are "commands" that tell us how to attain that standard (in a particular context).

I don't know what you mean when you say Goodness flows from God. I am inclined to agree with Skavu that you're just saying something for the sake of saying it. Too vague to be considered. Perhaps you can clarify. Also, you did not answer my question about morals changing. If morality is based on the goodness that flows from God why does morality change? After reading your other post again, I think it is entirely necessary for you to define Goodness and the terms contained in your posts. My point wasn't that we can calculate goodness from a deontological viewpoint or anything of the sort; my point was either way the theistic metaethic isn't in any better position than the atheistic since it seems to be thrown around here that atheists are morally bankrupt.

I have provided reasons; if the woman cannot have children it would make her happy to see her husband be given children by another woman, since it is one task she could not fulfill. It is not a generalization because I am not saying this is the only reason or even a common reason but it could be a reason.

Hm, the Quran doesn't say if your wife is barren you can marry another wife to have children with. It doesn't mention that at all. you are trying to defend the rule by appealing to a possible way it can be used for good but the rule itself allows for a man to marry for less than noble reasons. So the rule in itself is either poorly thought out or sexist or doesn't lead to happiness or all 3.

Natural intuition says that radiation is bad for you yet you're more likely to live with radiation therapy if you have cancer than without it

That isn't what I mean by natural intuition. What I meant was on the face of it, having your spouse sleep with others is a serious cause of unhappiness. So the burden of proof lies on the Muslims supporting this rule to show the benefits. That person is you since you are claiming it will lead to happiness in the long run: you should therefore provide reasons for all instances permitted by the rule including a man marrying 3 times against his wife's wishes for no other reason but to sleep with more than one woman. This is an injustice don't you think? Wouldn't you find it bad treatment by your wife if she was sleeping with a different man every other night (or however she divides the time)? Clearly, this rule was meant for a certain type of people during a certain period of time for certain conditions.

I said in my initial post that it could not be measured exhaustively in a lifetime but you can see it as you live your life, that following the religion and doing good is good for you. Why is it all about sexual needs? People marry for other reasons too, you make it sound so perverted

This general statement is not true is what I am trying to say.

One question: why?

You pretty much just said that those rules were awesome. So why would you want to do without them?

p.s; on the subject of multiple wives and husbands: Male's psychological make up is different to female's (just like their biology and chemistry) - a system that recognises that is a clever system indeed!

The problem with these rules are that things change and a static set of rules cannot keep up with change. The 4 wives thing is one example. If you have a bunch of laws and morals set in stone then you're going to face serious problems. Secular laws have that advantage of dogmatic laws in the bible or quran because they can account for changes in multiculturalism or technological advancements, scientific advancements etc. Like I mentioned in another thread, slavery doesn't work for a capitalist society that is why it was abolished in the U.S civil war: laws changed for the benefit of the society.

People have always thought women were different from men. How do you think sexism is justified? And I am no psychologist but I think women get a little upset, as do men, when their partners start sleeping with others. Lol.

[What Is Truth?]

I don't know what you mean when you say Goodness flows from God. I am inclined to agree with Skavu that you're just saying something for the sake of saying it. Too vague to be considered. Perhaps you can clarify. Also, you did not answer my question about morals changing. If morality is based on the goodness that flows from God why does morality change? After reading your other post again, I think it is entirely necessary for you to define Goodness and the terms contained in your posts. My point wasn't that we can calculate goodness from a deontological viewpoint or anything of the sort; my point was either way the theistic metaethic isn't in any better position than the atheistic since it seems to be thrown around here that atheists are morally bankrupt.

Like Skavau you are also mixing up morality, moral laws and goodness. I expressly stated that:

1. Goodness is God's essence
2. Moral Laws flow from God's nature (goodness)

which is not the same as saying "goodness flows from God".

The point of this identification is to give an ontological account of what goodness is, as well as being a response (and I think a correct one) to the Euthyphro dilemma which was the topic of the OP. If this account has successfully split the horns of the dilemma then it has achieved what I intended. However, what it has also done is provide a (natural) ontology of goodness which a non-theistic realistic (in the sense of moral realism) meta-ethic struggles to do.

Unpacking the theistic meta-ethic I've described from a Trinitarian perspective then take some time, and it stands or falls on the conception of goodness that it uncovers. As I said to Skavau, my posts so far have been vague because it has not been necessary to get into any of this unpacking. I'm happy to do so if you like, but I've hesitated to do so because it would take us away from the dilemma (which is one of meta-ethics) into actually doing ethics.

As for your point about morality changing: if you can show that objective moral laws have changed then I would be extremely interested to see how you do that. Our understanding of moral laws has certainly changed over time, but to identify that change with a change in the moral laws themselves actually denies their being objective (since, at least for most philosophers, objective basically means "independent of human minds").

And for the record, I certainly don't think that atheists have no conception of goodness, morality, moral laws, etc. Indeed, in my experience, atheists often have a better understanding of these things than theists.

"[Gentiles] show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, ..." Romans 2:15a (TNIV)

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Interesting view, this is an interesting exchange that brings up the same point

Atheism and Morality: William Lane Craig vs Lewis Wolpert

[aadil77]

Originally Posted by Skavau

This response is loaded with bias. You, of course are compelled to believe that sodomy and sexual liberty are immoral because that is what Islam claims it is. I do not share this perspective. In any case, it does not address the fact that morals by their nature are a system of compromise within groups of people regarding what actions ought and ought not be taken.

As a muslim I believe that those filthy and disgusting acts are forbidden by Allah, so yes you can say its biased but I'm pretty sure even if I weren't muslim I'd still have the same views. Like you said morals require compromise which is where your view of choosing whats moral and what isn't is flawed. You have a look at todays society and how many acts deemed immoral in the past are now somehow moral, you can see that there is no consistency, tribes in africa will have different views of morals, redknecks in america will have different views of morals. There is no set of decreed morals for the whole world, this is where religion makes life easy.

I am not talking about Islam - I am asking how you know that religion has or was the only system ever to condemn murder.

I doubt it was the only system as murder is something that affects society quite badly, it wouldn't be hard to work out its wrong, but for other acts which aren't harmful (in plain view) but are immoral according to certain religions how would people work out they're wrong, obviously they need to be told its wrong.

Thoroughly debatable, but outright off-topic.


I am not a Muslim. Why would I want to live under a theocratic state? I certainly would not want to live in that time. Lower life expectancy, less outlets for entertainment, less knowledge about how the world works. Why would it be of value to me?

hmm yh I can't see it appealing to non-muslims too much, but non-muslims did get benefits such as housing and allowances, also benefited from alot less crime, less evil in society - don't know if that appeals to you? Obviously if such a islamic state existed today I bet they would be milestones ahead in knowledge and healthcare, you just need to look at how this was already happening at the time under the islamic empire

[Skavau]

As a muslim I believe that those filthy and disgusting acts are forbidden by Allah, so yes you can say its biased but I'm pretty sure even if I weren't muslim I'd still have the same views.

That of course, depends on the environment you were bought up in and by who. If you say, left Islam for whatever reason I daresay you would maintain many biases from your beliefs, at least for a while.

Like you said morals require compromise which is where your view of choosing whats moral and what isn't is flawed.

You are saying that morality is a system of compromise? I also say that. It is, at the very least a considerable aspect of how it functions. So in what way is my perspective here specifically flawed?

You have a look at todays society and how many acts deemed immoral in the past are now somehow moral, you can see that there is no consistency, tribes in africa will have different views of morals, redknecks in america will have different views of morals. There is no set of decreed morals for the whole world, this is where religion makes life easy.

I'm not sure why clarity matters so much. I don't take moral advice from small animistic tribes in Africa. Their moral conduct is often based on survival and superstition. We have moved on past that for a very good reason.

In any case, your premise appears to be an impossibility. You are proposing an unrealistic ideal. That every single human on the entire planet agrees absolutely on what standards we all ought to live by. How exactly can that happen? And how exactly is religion the only unique foundation for that? We see that a redneck Christian has a specifically different view on morality than a practicing Catholic living in Italy. We can see that a Hindu living in India has also a different moral system than a Cambodian Buddhist, or an Iranian Muslim, or a Israeli Orthodox Jew, or a Russian Orthodox Christian. Many of the affiliations I referenced above also claim to be divine, or represented by the divine. The adherents, as you do claim to be privy to a unique insight of human behaviour and yet we still have this inconsistency. Not only do all the major religions disagree, but they also schism and differentiate further.

hmm yh I can't see it appealing to non-muslims too much, but non-muslims did get benefits such as housing and allowances, also benefited from alot less crime, less evil in society - don't know if that appeals to you? Obviously if such a islamic state existed today I bet they would be milestones ahead in knowledge and healthcare, you just need to look at how this was already happening at the time under the islamic empire

I disagree in living under a state where the elect claim to have divine guidance, insight, or divine powers.

[Dagless]

Hm, the Quran doesn't say if your wife is barren you can marry another wife to have children with. It doesn't mention that at all. you are trying to defend the rule by appealing to a possible way it can be used for good but the rule itself allows for a man to marry for less than noble reasons. So the rule in itself is either poorly thought out or sexist or doesn't lead to happiness or all 3.

As long as the man follows it for a reason which is not labelled as wrong under Islam it IS a noble reason.

That isn't what I mean by natural intuition. What I meant was on the face of it, having your spouse sleep with others is a serious cause of unhappiness. So the burden of proof lies on the Muslims supporting this rule to show the benefits.

No, the burden of proof would lie on you if anyone (since it is your thread and you wishing to prove good and bad are not dependant on God, therefore you need to provide proof against established Islamic belief for us).
You are stating that it leads to unhappiness based on your own moral compass and not on fact. Do a study which meets the requirements stated, going against what I wrote, and then the burden of proof will be on me.

This general statement is not true is what I am trying to say.

And that's fine. Nobody is stopping you from saying it, but it doesn't change that it is merely your opinion and not a fact.

[Lynx]

As long as the man follows it for a reason which is not labelled as wrong under Islam it IS a noble reason.




No, the burden of proof would lie on you if anyone (since it is your thread and you wishing to prove good and bad are not dependant on God, therefore you need to provide proof against established Islamic belief for us).
You are stating that it leads to unhappiness based on your own moral compass and not on fact. Do a study which meets the requirements stated, going against what I wrote, and then the burden of proof will be on me.




And that's fine. Nobody is stopping you from saying it, but it doesn't change that it is merely your opinion and not a fact.

Yes, and that is why religious dogma fails. No matter what is written down it is to be accepted as true & noble even if confers no advantage to society except unhappiness.

Also, my point in the thread is not that we don't need God to have absolute morals; my point was even if you assumed God existed, without the reasoning behind his decisions as to what is morally right or wrong, you are in no better position than the atheist except you have someone forcing you to agree with the threat of Hellfire.

Lastly, happiness and unhappines have nothing to do with what moral standards are right; they're objective feelings that either exist or don't. My moral compass does not change whether or not a person feels happy. Their happiness is purely a biological phenomenon and it is either objectively true or objectively false that person x feels unhappy. I Don't know how honest you are being with yourself. If you demand proof about whether or not a woman who does not want her husband to marry another woman is unhappy after he does marry another woman...then you imagine how you would feel if your wife married another man and was sleeping with him; then imagine how much worse it would feel if it actually happened. This is simply a natural feeling we have towards our partners. The literature on human jealousy is vast. But anyway this particular discussion, although interesting, has nothing to do with my OP. Even if the rules of religion led to overall happiness (which is clearly debatable and probably not true) it wouldn't matter. Lots of things keep lots of people happy including secular laws (perhaps especially secular laws more than any other set of laws in history).

[aadil77]

You are saying that morality is a system of compromise? I also say that. It is, at the very least a considerable aspect of how it functions. So in what way is my perspective here specifically flawed?

I was reffering to your idea of society being able to choose whats moral and whats not, as you can see people have different ideas of morals throught history and throughout the world, which is why the world needs a set of guidelines from a more knowledgable source, rather than man made ideas. If you believe in god then obviously you'd know the best source of such guidlines is from divine law because god knows everything, everything that is good for us and everything that is bad for us.

I'm not sure why clarity matters so much. I don't take moral advice from small animistic tribes in Africa. Their moral conduct is often based on survival and superstition. We have moved on past that for a very good reason.

In any case, your premise appears to be an impossibility. You are proposing an unrealistic ideal. That every single human on the entire planet agrees absolutely on what standards we all ought to live by. How exactly can that happen?

Theres no way you can get everyone to agree with morals either from god or from people. The idea is not to please everyone, rather to benefit everyone. Will it hurt anyone to have such a standard? Its kind of like human rights, no govt will claim to disagree with them

And how exactly is religion the only unique foundation for that? We see that a redneck Christian has a specifically different view on morality than a practicing Catholic living in Italy. We can see that a Hindu living in India has also a different moral system than a Cambodian Buddhist, or an Iranian Muslim, or a Israeli Orthodox Jew, or a Russian Orthodox Christian. Many of the affiliations I referenced above also claim to be divine, or represented by the divine. The adherents, as you do claim to be privy to a unique insight of human behaviour and yet we still have this inconsistency. Not only do all the major religions disagree, but they also schism and differentiate further.

Well of course they don't agree with everything, but you can atleast set laws on the things they all agree on, such as most major religions disagreeing with adultery and out of marriage relationships.

I disagree in living under a state where the elect claim to have divine guidance, insight, or divine powers.

So do I, I've never heard of anyone who has, give us some examples please

I know it may seem unrealistic, cause you're ideas are already in place through democratic law etc but it is something that could work

[aamirsaab]

....

The problem with these rules are that things change and a static set of rules cannot keep up with change. The 4 wives thing is one example.

Polygamy is not a problem if there is an imbalance of women to men. But, you are oversimplifying the matter anyhow - we're told in the Qur'an that we can never do complete justice to more than one. The ruling is there for us to recognise an upper limit. It's not obligatory.

If you have a bunch of laws and morals set in stone then you're going to face serious problems. Secular laws have that advantage of dogmatic laws in the bible or quran because they can account for changes in multiculturalism or technological advancements, scientific advancements etc. Like I mentioned in another thread, slavery doesn't work for a capitalist society that is why it was abolished in the U.S civil war: laws changed for the benefit of the society.

See this is the problem you critics have. You honestly think all the sharia laws are set in stone and there is no room for movement? I'll give you some food for thought. CCTV wasn't around during prophet's time. But, it is now and it can be used as a valid form of evidence in a sharia based court for murder/rape etc. The concept of sharia is justice - that's why there's a court proceeding with a judge and not mob mentality.

I've said it before but you are supposed to use your God-given common sense when practicing Islam. When you don't use that, you get stupid cases that all the critics love to whip out.

People have always thought women were different from men. How do you think sexism is justified?

The two sexes ARE different at a biological level. There are no female quarter-backs in the NFL - sexist? No. Female toilets don't have standing urinals - sexist? No Only female humans can give birth - sexist? No. You have to accept these things as differences - that's not to make one inferior or superior, just different. It's when you abuse those sexes because of their differences - that's when it becomes sexism.

And I am no psychologist but I think women get a little upset, as do men, when their partners start sleeping with others. Lol

Of course. That's why adultery is a crime in Islam, punishable by death.

[Skavau]

I was reffering to your idea of society being able to choose whats moral and whats not, as you can see people have different ideas of morals throught history and throughout the world, which is why the world needs a set of guidelines from a more knowledgable source

And so how do we measure the 'best' set of guidelines for society to use? I would even go so far as to ask what would these guidelines be for? What would the set objective guidelines set out to achieve? In short, to proclaim that you have some specific insight as to what the objective code of conduct ought to me tells me very little about how you view morality and what you think it is aimed for, and to what end.

rather than man made ideas. If you believe in god then obviously you'd know the best source of such guidlines is from divine law because god knows everything, everything that is good for us and everything that is bad for us.

As above, even if God existed and divine law was morally true you would only know that it is so and not necessarily why so. This is key. Morality is all about behavioural constraints within the context of a community - what you ought to do, or ought not do with absolute consideration of the impact on others. If you cannot identify why people ought to function in specific ways, your claim of insight is in a practical sense meaningless.

Theres no way you can get everyone to agree with morals either from god or from people.

Indeed. Which is why the idea of some hypothetical bsolute moral collective remains just that - hypothetical. It is borderline fantasy in terms of practicality and likelihood of existing.

The idea is not to please everyone, rather to benefit everyone. Will it hurt anyone to have such a standard? Its kind of like human rights, no govt will claim to disagree with them

Some governments whether or not they claim to agree with human rights or not do disagree with them in action. China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe are all examples of states that act as if human rights exist only some of the time, and when it suits them.

In any case, I'd like to you to elaborate on the part in bold. What exactly do you mean here? I accept that the laws, or at least one of the objectives of the law of any nation should be there to protect every citizen from oppression and corruption and encourage personal liberty and opportunity. This is beneficial to everyone. What does your beneficial ideals include?

Well of course they don't agree with everything, but you can atleast set laws on the things they all agree on, such as most major religions disagreeing with adultery and out of marriage relationships.

Okay.

So? Why should the disagreement of the 'virtuous' impact on the lives of others? Are you implying that religious consensus ought to control or directly influence the lives of others?

So do I, I've never heard of anyone who has, give us some examples please

?!

The Sharia Law ideal claims to be the implementation of divine law. It is the very definition of the state decreeing law from God. Currently, the North Korean state claims their 'dear leader' is something more than human. Adolf Hitler claimed to be divine, or was presented as something greater than human. The Emperor of Japan during their militaristic years in the 20th Century was considered by their own constitution as divine.

The Catholic Church, which declares itself to be run by a representative of God historically controlled the lives of millions across europe and launched/participated in religious genocide and wars in God's name.

How can you not have heard of it?

I know it may seem unrealistic, cause you're ideas are already in place through democratic law etc but it is something that could work

It is not that seems 'unrealistic', but that it would be done at the expense of me. That my own personal liberty would decline in favour of the 'virtuous' doing deeds for God. Why would I accept that? You would not accept living under a Christian fascist state. Same for me with an Islamic flavoured one.

[Lynx]

Polygamy is not a problem if there is an imbalance of women to men. But, you are oversimplifying the matter anyhow - we're told in the Qur'an that we can never do complete justice to more than one. The ruling is there for us to recognise an upper limit. It's not obligatory.


See this is the problem you critics have. You honestly think all the sharia laws are set in stone and there is no room for movement? I'll give you some food for thought. CCTV wasn't around during prophet's time. But, it is now and it can be used as a valid form of evidence in a sharia based court for murder/rape etc. The concept of sharia is justice - that's why there's a court proceeding with a judge and not mob mentality.

I've said it before but you are supposed to use your God-given common sense when practicing Islam. When you don't use that, you get stupid cases that all the critics love to whip out.

Alright so my common sense tells me that women should be asked for their permission before a husband decides to marry another wife. I also think men should not have the right to keep concubines. I am glad my common sense is allowed to override Shariah. I think I'd do a better job anyway ;p

The two sexes ARE different at a biological level. There are no female quarter-backs in the NFL - sexist? No. Female toilets don't have standing urinals - sexist? No Only female humans can give birth - sexist? No. You have to accept these things as differences - that's not to make one inferior or superior, just different. It's when you abuse those sexes because of their differences - that's when it becomes sexism.

Of course they are different. No body said they weren't different. But just because they are different in some respects it does not follow that ANY form of differing treatment should be allowed. I think it IS abuse when a man who has a larger sexual appetite than his wife is allowed to marry 3 more times despite the *obvious* emotional distress that might follow for the first wife. Most people (men & women) do not like when their husbands or wives start sleeping with other people. This is not one of those biological differences so why bring it up? I never claimed that they are exactly the same; I claimed that not wanting their partners cheating on them or having affairs outside of their relationship is a similarity that BOTH man and woman share.

Of course. That's why adultery is a crime in Islam, punishable by death.

A tad inconsistent with concubine permissibility & multiple wife permissibility. But at least it's there.

[aamirsaab]

Alright so my common sense tells me that women should be asked for their permission before a husband decides to marry another wife.

Sharia agrees with you

I also think men should not have the right to keep concubines.

Sharia agrees with you (see below)

I am glad my common sense is allowed to override Shariah. I think I'd do a better job anyway ;p

Sorry but Sharia is a lot better than you take it for.

Of course they are different. No body said they weren't different. But just because they are different in some respects it does not follow that ANY form of differing treatment should be allowed. I think it IS abuse when a man who has a larger sexual appetite than his wife is allowed to marry 3 more times despite the *obvious* emotional distress that might follow for the first wife.

That's why the male has to get permission from the first wife. If she says no, then that second marriage is not islamically valid. If it's wife number three, he has to get permission from 1 and 2 etc.

Most people (men & women) do not like when their husbands or wives start sleeping with other people.

There is a difference between adultery and a polygamous marriage.

This is not one of those biological differences so why bring it up? I never claimed that they are exactly the same; I claimed that not wanting their partners cheating on them or having affairs outside of their relationship is a similarity that BOTH man and woman share.

You bought the 4 wives up...I was merely addressing it. And FYI, polygamous marriage does tie in with man's psycholog being different to females. Men have a bigger sexual appetite than females. It's how we roll. I'm not asking you to like it, but that's the way it is. Besides, if you can stomach the concept of crapping or intercourse this really isn't that much of a deal.

A tad inconsistent with concubine permissibility & multiple wife permissibility. But at least it's there.

Concubines were only allowed at a specific point in history. It has since then been classified as haram - impermissable - so the issue is moot.

Multiple husbands? This is why you should study psychology. You know what number 1 thing women look for in a relationship? Stability. Do you know where polyandery (multiple husbands) occur? In crap-economic places. Like tiny villages in the outskirts of 3rd world countries. Where the average income of one man can barely support himself - so a female has to take multiple husbands for stability in the hope that the sum will bring more than the parts. Oh and males outnumber females at a ratio of at least 2:1.

Multiple wives? This occurs in places with a high female to male ratio amd where one man is capable of sustaining multiple wives. Note I said sustaining - this is not the same as doing justice.

Polyandery and polygamy are not ideals, make no mistake. But, on balance, polygamy has more advantages to polyandery.

[Lynx]

[QUOTE=aamirsaab;1316829]Sharia agrees with you

Sorry but Sharia is a lot better than you take it for.


That's why the male has to get permission from the first wife. If she says no, then that second marriage is not islamically valid. If it's wife number three, he has to get permission from 1 and 2 etc.

I've never come across a verse in the quran, a hadith in any sound hadith book (or even unsound to be honest), or a legitimate scholar that says what you say. I have read many scholars in different websites in different books that claim that the husband does not need the permission. If you can supply me the evidence for this claim I would love to see it.

There is a difference between adultery and a polygamous marriage.

Possibly.

You bought the 4 wives up...I was merely addressing it

I meant the biological differences. There is no need to bring it up since when it comes to possessiveness, men and women both feel BAD about their spouses running off to sleep with others.

. And FYI, polygamous marriage does tie in with man's psycholog being different to females. Men have a bigger sexual appetite than females. It's how we roll. I'm not asking you to like it, but that's the way it is.

But God made men like that so the more noble thing would be to control their desires and try to not sleep with another woman if it is against the wife's wishes. And your line of reasoning, if it is an attempt to justify this rule, can also be applied to homosexuals...

Besides, if you can stomach the concept of crapping or intercourse this really isn't that much of a deal.

what?

Concubines were only allowed at a specific point in history. It has since then been classified as haram - impermissable - so the issue is moot.

WHAT lol . Did you get this from the same scholar that told you a husband needs to ask his first wife's permission before getting married again? I think you ought to get new ones ;p. Anyway, jokes aside, I THINK a long time ago I recall reading something on how some scholars said this is not permissible. But if you can supply the source that would be great because I have read more scholars saying otherwise because I did a quick search on islamonline.net which I find to be a liberal site and I don't see any support for what you claim.

Multiple husbands? This is why you should study psychology. You know what number 1 thing women look for in a relationship? Stability. Do you know where polyandery (multiple husbands) occur? In crap-economic places. Like tiny villages in the outskirts of 3rd world countries. Where the average income of one man can barely support himself - so a female has to take multiple husbands for stability in the hope that the sum will bring more than the parts. Oh and males outnumber females at a ratio of at least 2:1.

Multiple wives? This occurs in places with a high female to male ratio amd where one man is capable of sustaining multiple wives. Note I said sustaining - this is not the same as doing justice.

I don't get what this has to do with the section you quoted from my post. My point was just a general remark of the irony that Islam outlaws adultery but it sanctions something similar. I cannot see a sufficient difference between having sex with a concubine or a mistress when the wife is against both. Such a strict religion when it comes to sex life but at the same time so liberal.

Polyandery and polygamy are not ideals, make no mistake. But, on balance, polygamy has more advantages to polyandery.

Sure.

[aamirsaab]

...
I've never come across a verse in the quran, a hadith in any sound hadith book (or even unsound to be honest), or a legitimate scholar that says what you say. I have read many scholars in different websites in different books that claim that the husband does not need the permission. If you can supply me the evidence for this claim I would love to see it.

My bad, he doesn't need permission from 1st wife. But, common courtesy and the mere fact that the male has to treat both equally tells us such polyganous relationships are going to be minute in number anyway. Out of the 500+ muslims I know (i.e friends and family), not one has a polyganous relationship. Point being even thought is is sanctioned by Islam, doesn't mean people do it.

Maybe I should turn it around: do you know of any muslims that have a second wife?

I meant the biological differences. There is no need to bring it up since when it comes to possessiveness, men and women both feel BAD about their spouses running off to sleep with others.

And if it becomes a problem one can always divorce. It's quite simple really.

But God made men like that so the more noble thing would be to control their desires and try to not sleep with another woman if it is against the wife's wishes.

If she is truly unhappy about the situation, she can file a divorce.

And your line of reasoning, if it is an attempt to justify this rule, can also be applied to homosexuals...

Except for the part where homosexuality is haram in Islam.

WHAT lol . Did you get this from the same scholar that told you a husband needs to ask his first wife's permission before getting married again? I think you ought to get new ones ;p. Anyway, jokes aside, I THINK a long time ago I recall reading something on how some scholars said this is not permissible. But if you can supply the source that would be great because I have read more scholars saying otherwise because I did a quick search on islamonline.net which I find to be a liberal site and I don't see any support for what you claim.

I got confused with muta marriage (I know you critics love waving that around in my virtual face). In any case, concubines were linked with slavery which is now abolished world-wide. There is no issue here.

I don't get what this has to do with the section you quoted from my post. My point was just a general remark of the irony that Islam outlaws adultery but it sanctions something similar. I cannot see a sufficient difference between having sex with a concubine or a mistress when the wife is against both. Such a strict religion when it comes to sex life but at the same time so liberal.

As I said there is a difference between adultery and polygamous (or rather, polyganous) marriage; Concubine ruling no longer applies and any one of the married wives are allowed to divorce the husband if she feels treated unfairly.

So to put it simply: there is no issue here.

[Lynx]

My bad, he doesn't need permission from 1st wife. But, common courtesy and the mere fact that the male has to treat both equally tells us such polyganous relationships are going to be minute in number anyway. Out of the 500+ muslims I know (i.e friends and family), not one has a polyganous relationship. Point being even thought is is sanctioned by Islam, doesn't mean people do it.

Maybe I should turn it around: do you know of any muslims that have a second wife?

This is irrelevant. Even if no Muslims practices this it wouldn't matter because Islam as a system of morality sanctions it. Muslims constantly say 'judge the religion by its religion not by its followers' and this is exactly what I am doing.
And yes, I know Muslims who have/had second wives.

And if it becomes a problem one can always divorce. It's quite simple really.

I don't know why you think divorce is so easy. Divorce is a lengthy process involving multiple factors; having kids adds onto the complications. It is almost never easy to divorce especially in the Islamic world. It's not like a boyfriend and girlfriend dumping each other which is what you are trying to make it out to be.

If she is truly unhappy about the situation, she can file a divorce.

Because not giving them the right to marry against the wife's permission in the first place isn't a more efficient solution for both parties...?

Except for the part where homosexuality is haram in Islam.

In other words, the natural state of a man to want more sex cannot be used a justification.

I got confused with muta marriage (I know you critics love waving that around in my virtual face). In any case, concubines were linked with slavery which is now abolished world-wide. There is no issue here.

Muta is JUST prostitution. But of course this is a Sunni forum so Muta can't be criticized since Sunnis don't believe in it. Yeah, slavery is abolished. But the argument is in principle that it is allowed. Theoretically there can be an Islamic state waging Jihad against some oppressor state and the women captured can still be used as concubines. Not only that, THIS WAS the case during the Prophet's era and subsequent generations.

[What Is Truth?]

Unpacking the theistic meta-ethic I've described from a Trinitarian perspective then take[s] some time, and it stands or falls on the conception of goodness that it uncovers. As I said to Skavau, my posts so far have been vague because it has not been necessary to get into any of this unpacking. I'm happy to do so if you like, but I've hesitated to do so because it would take us away from the dilemma (which is one of meta-ethics) into actually doing ethics.

Following on from what I said here about ethics from a Trinitarian perspective, you might be interested in having a look at this thread on the subject of personhood which I think gives a useful insight into the way theology can have a bearing on an understanding of morality.

[aamirsaab]

This is irrelevant. Even if no Muslims practices this it wouldn't matter because Islam as a system of morality sanctions it. Muslims constantly say 'judge the religion by its religion not by its followers' and this is exactly what I am doing.
And yes, I know Muslims who have/had second wives.

Yes and I already told you polgyanous marriages have advantages, moral ones no less.

I don't know why you think divorce is so easy. Divorce is a lengthy process involving multiple factors; having kids adds onto the complications. It is almost never easy to divorce especially in the Islamic world. It's not like a boyfriend and girlfriend dumping each other which is what you are trying to make it out to be.

So? The option is there at least.

Besides, getting a second wife isn't exactly easy. That's also a lengthy process, where the husband actually has to prove he can (at the very least) financially support both wives. And the second wife has to agree to the marriage i.e. be told that hubby has another wife and does she agree with this or not.

Because not giving them the right to marry against the wife's permission in the first place isn't a more efficient solution for both parties...?

This is where you need to educate yourself about polgyanous marriages. I already told you it occurs in places where there are more females to males - so it is dependant entirely on the social circumstances and in such cases is a neccessity (because there aren't enough males for all members in that society to have a 1:1 relationship). Besides, the second wife can always say no to the marriage.

In other words, the natural state of a man to want more sex cannot be used a justification.

That's not what I said. There are reasons for homosexuality being haram that I'm not going to get into in this thread (mainly because it's already been done ---> search function)

...But the argument is in principle that it is allowed. Theoretically there can be an Islamic state waging Jihad against some oppressor state and the women captured can still be used as concubines. Not only that, THIS WAS the case during the Prophet's era and subsequent generations.

No, it was allowed because of the social climate at those time. Slavery is abolished in all current islamic states and Islam's ethos on the matter was to free slaves and thus halt slavery altogether (as I have already explained to Hugo in another thread quite recently). So in the event of an Islamic state waging jihad against some oppressor state, any women captured WOULD NOT be used as concubines because slavery no longer exists and thus the rulings on the matter don't either.

If you really want to argue principles and morality, you would be saying Islamic teachings lead to overpopulation via polyganous marriages. There you may have a point. But in all my 5 years on the internetz I have never seen that argument ever raised in a debate by critics/orientalists which leads me to believe you guys don't know jack about Islam and just pick on out-dated and obsolete rulings instead.

[Dagless]

Yes, and that is why religious dogma fails. No matter what is written down it is to be accepted as true & noble even if confers no advantage to society except unhappiness.

You seem to completely overlook the fact that you're on a forum where the majority are Muslim and so have already accepted the religion because it DOES offer advantages and happiness in every way. Your position should be one which offers evidence for the contrary view; but instead you give us your personal opinion on right/wrong, happiness/unhappiness. None of these things can be confirmed without evidence. You cannot make a statement true by saying "imagine how she'd feel" because that is not how she feels, it is how you think she feels.
That is why atheist dogma fails :)

[Lynx]

You seem to completely overlook the fact that you're on a forum where the majority are Muslim and so have already accepted the religion because it DOES offer advantages and happiness in every way. Your position should be one which offers evidence for the contrary view; but instead you give us your personal opinion on right/wrong, happiness/unhappiness. None of these things can be confirmed without evidence. You cannot make a statement true by saying "imagine how she'd feel" because that is not how she feels, it is how you think she feels.
That is why atheist dogma fails :)

Yes, it is up for debate whether women feel unhappy when their husbands marry again against their wills because women are different from men and they don't feel anything remotely similar to the men here who would cringe at the thought that their wives were sleeping with another man. /sarcasm

Yes and I already told you polgyanous marriages have advantages, moral ones no less.

And I told you how the advantages aren't the only occassions where a polygamous relationship is allowed. It is also allowed for non-moral reasons.

So? The option is there at least.

Lol. right. Islam isn't a practical religion I think.

And the second wife has to agree to the marriage i.e. be told that hubby has another wife and does she agree with this or not.

Great, you forgot about the first wife.

This is where you need to educate yourself about polgyanous marriages. I already told you it occurs in places where there are more females to males - so it is dependant entirely on the social circumstances and in such cases is a neccessity (because there aren't enough males for all members in that society to have a 1:1 relationship). Besides, the second wife can always say no to the marriage.

Again, you forgot about the first wife. Also, you're quite funny. You seem to be saying that it only happens in those places but that is totally untrue. These marriages happen everywhere in all parts of the world; even in the west you find polygamous marriages that are done illegally. Furthermore, you seem to be ignoring the cases where men just marry out of lustful purposes which is the point I am trying to get across.

That's not what I said. There are reasons for homosexuality being haram that I'm not going to get into in this thread (mainly because it's already been done ---> search function)

Okay so I take it that your original statement about men psychologically being given a greater sexual appetite and that I should just accept that God made them like that was a totally irrelevant statement.

No, it was allowed because of the social climate at those time. Slavery is abolished in all current islamic states and Islam's ethos on the matter was to free slaves and thus halt slavery altogether (as I have already explained to Hugo in another thread quite recently). So in the event of an Islamic state waging jihad against some oppressor state, any women captured WOULD NOT be used as concubines because slavery no longer exists and thus the rulings on the matter don't either.

If you really want to argue principles and morality, you would be saying Islamic teachings lead to overpopulation via polyganous marriages. There you may have a point. But in all my 5 years on the internetz I have never seen that argument ever raised in a debate by critics/orientalist

So, you are telling me that if a new Islamic state was established with a caliph, and if he wanted to take some slaves, he would be forbidden to do so? Yes Islam encourages freeing the slaves but it does not prohibit taking slaves altogether. If an Islamic state were to arise and the caliph wanted slave girl concubines and followed the guidelines set out by the Quran and Sunnah on how to get concubines, the most a scholar could do is remind the caliph that he ought to be freeing slaves but he cannot declare the caliph to be sinning since it appears to be a recommended act to end slavery but NOT mandatory. Anyway, even if it wasn't allowed now for whatever reason...it does not make all the concubine relationships throughout the centuries after the advent of Islam any less ridiculously immoral. Face it pal, women get the short end of the stick when it comes to pretty much every religion ever. Not surprising though since men run the religious institutions and the POV of the Quran is, to me anyway, the POV of a man. But I do think Muhammad was ahead of his time and made women's rights better.

[aamirsaab]

...
And I told you how the advantages aren't the only occassions where a polygamous relationship is allowed. It is also allowed for non-moral reasons.

Like what?

Lol. right. Islam isn't a practical religion I think.

Oh please, enough with your bull****. When it suits you principles matter but when anyone else says the same you mock them.

Great, you forgot about the first wife.

No you forget muslims are human beings that use their God-given common sense when following Islamic teachings.

Again, you forgot about the first wife. Also, you're quite funny. You seem to be saying that it only happens in those places but that is totally untrue. These marriages happen everywhere in all parts of the world; even in the west you find polygamous marriages that are done illegally.

If it's done illegaly it is considered haram.

Furthermore, you seem to be ignoring the cases where men just marry out of lustful purposes which is the point I am trying to get across.

So what? People commit adultery for the same reasons. How is polgyamous marriage worse than adultery in such cases?
But if it makes you feel better, we're supposed to control our lust in Islam.

Okay so I take it that your original statement about men psychologically being given a greater sexual appetite and that I should just accept that God made them like that was a totally irrelevant statement.

What? You decided to link that with homosexuality - not me.

So, you are telling me that if a new Islamic state was established with a caliph, and if he wanted to take some slaves, he would be forbidden to do so?

YES!

Yes Islam encourages freeing the slaves but it does not prohibit taking slaves altogether. If an Islamic state were to arise and the caliph wanted slave girl concubines and followed the guidelines set out by the Quran and Sunnah on how to get concubines, the most a scholar could do is remind the caliph that he ought to be freeing slaves but he cannot declare the caliph to be sinning since it appears to be a recommended act to end slavery but NOT mandatory.

Wow I didn't know you were a sheik! Where did you get your degree?

Anyway, even if it wasn't allowed now for whatever reason...it does not make all the concubine relationships throughout the centuries after the advent of Islam any less ridiculously immoral.

Now you're judging yesterday's standard by today's.

Face it pal, women get the short end of the stick when it comes to pretty much every religion ever.

Rofl. 20,000 american females convert to Islam and you come out with this crap?

[Lynx]

Like what?

Marriage to satisfy sexual urges despite the wife's opposition.

Oh please, enough with your bull****. When it suits you principles matter but when anyone else says the same you mock them.

Well how should I respond when your response is "get a divorce" as if it was the easiest thing in the world. Like I said before it is far more effecient if the conditions were spelled out clearly in the Quran or even the Sunnah.

No you forget muslims are human beings that use their God-given common sense when following Islamic teachings.

Nothing common about common sense-unfortunately.

If it's done illegaly it is considered haram.

Doesn't matter the point is people do it anyway even if there isn't a 2:1 ration of women to men.

So what? People commit adultery for the same reasons. How is polgyamous marriage worse than adultery in such cases?
But if it makes you feel better, we're supposed to control our lust in Islam.

Lol, exactly. There isn't a significant difference between adultery and polygamous marriages.

What? You decided to link that with homosexuality - not me.

To show you the problem with what you said. But as you say, it's a side issue so forget it.

YES!

Wow I didn't know you were a sheik! Where did you get your degree?

I could ask you the same thing. But so you know: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...=1119503545776
http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/12562

Both sites show that although its rare it is OKAY in principle.

Now you're judging yesterday's standard by today's.

I don't think this particular problem was much different back then.

Rofl. 20,000 american females convert to Islam and you come out with this crap?

People convert for all sorts of reasons.

[sunnyhayat]

Morals given by GOD are always absolute but those professed and given by any person are subject to change as and when required. One must follow GOD's morals always

[Beardo]

Marriage to satisfy sexual urges despite the wife's opposition.

Well how should I respond when your response is "get a divorce" as if it was the easiest thing in the world. Like I said before it is far more effecient if the conditions were spelled out clearly in the Quran or even the Sunnah.


Nothing common about common sense-unfortunately.

Doesn't matter the point is people do it anyway even if there isn't a 2:1 ration of women to men.

Lol, exactly. There isn't a significant difference between adultery and polygamous marriages.


To show you the problem with what you said. But as you say, it's a side issue so forget it.



I could ask you the same thing. But so you know: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...=1119503545776
http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/12562

Both sites show that although its rare it is OKAY in principle.


I don't think this particular problem was much different back then.




People convert for all sorts of reasons.

I hope you realize that you have a lot of pre-misconceptions about Islam.

- You cannot marry a second wife if your first wife does not appreciate it. Besides, the ruling is that you have to be equal to all of your wives. If you can't commit to that, it is not permissible to marry a second wife. Marrying multiple wives is not for sexual urges. And even if it was, wouldn't you say non-Muslims were even more immoral because most of them don't even have the decency to marry? Anyway, the reason for this is that we have more women than men. Most women want a companion but cannot find one. This takes care of that problem but not against their wishes.

- The conditions are spelled out clearly in the Qur'an and Sunnah. You obviously have not been researching properly or have been misinformed. It's important you intake information with a critical mind, my dear brother in humanity. It's people like you that distort it. Otherwise, the Qur'an and Sunnah are literally perfect.

- If you're expecting all Muslims to follow their religion, then you should expect the same from your own faith. We're only humans and that is one (among many other things) that Islam recognizes. We are easily forgiven and religion has been made easy for us, believe it or not.

- There is quite a significant difference between polygamy and fornication. Believe me. First of all, 4 wives is the max. Where as, fornication is with literally tens of women. Look into society, boy.

- When people convert to Islam, there is no worldly affair here. It's between them and their Lord. For you to have insubstantial accusations is really unfair. You just slammed down a huge group of people. Have you not heard the quote "All generalizations are faults"? Looks like you need to brush up on your religion AND basic morals.

Also, I hope I have not offended you. Typically people have a more gentle approach when speaking in regards to religion but you were not confirming with us the points you mentioned. Rather, you just slammed them down as if you were a professional in this field. At any rate, I apologize for jumping between the exchange you had with bro aamirsaab.

[Lynx]

I hope you realize that you have a lot of pre-misconceptions about Islam.

- You cannot marry a second wife if your first wife does not appreciate it. Besides, the ruling is that you have to be equal to all of your wives. If you can't commit to that, it is not permissible to marry a second wife. Marrying multiple wives is not for sexual urges. And even if it was, wouldn't you say non-Muslims were even more immoral because most of them don't even have the decency to marry? Anyway, the reason for this is that we have more women than men. Most women want a companion but cannot find one. This takes care of that problem but not against their wishes.

I don't think you were keeping up with the discussion so far. In any case, I provided 2 opinions from 2 scholars one of which is a moderate-type from islamonline & the other a more hardliner type from Islamqa. I appreciate your willingness to correct me but I think you ought to research your own faith before spreading falsehoods. Whether or not the first wife appreciates the second wife is irrelevant for the second marrage would still be valid. I challenge you to find credible scholars that state otherwise.

What non-muslims do is a red-herring so I will not address it & the last statistics i checked on world populations is that there are currently more men than women.

- The conditions are spelled out clearly in the Qur'an and Sunnah. You obviously have not been researching properly or have been misinformed. It's important you intake information with a critical mind, my dear brother in humanity. It's people like you that distort it. Otherwise, the Qur'an and Sunnah are literally perfect.

The only one spreading misconceptions is you since you are claiming that the wife needs to appreciate the second wife for the marriage to be sound however this isn't the case.

- If you're expecting all Muslims to follow their religion, then you should expect the same from your own faith. We're only humans and that is one (among many other things) that Islam recognizes. We are easily forgiven and religion has been made easy for us, believe it or not.

okay but I am not sure what this has to do with anything I've said.

- There is quite a significant difference between polygamy and fornication. Believe me. First of all, 4 wives is the max. Where as, fornication is with literally tens of women. Look into society, boy.

Well I said adultery and polygamous marriage.

- When people convert to Islam, there is no worldly affair here. It's between them and their Lord. For you to have insubstantial accusations is really unfair. You just slammed down a huge group of people. Have you not heard the quote "All generalizations are faults"? Looks like you need to brush up on your religion AND basic morals.

What was my accusation?

Also, I hope I have not offended you. Typically people have a more gentle approach when speaking in regards to religion but you were not confirming with us the points you mentioned. Rather, you just slammed them down as if you were a professional in this field. At any rate, I apologize for jumping between the exchange you had with bro aamirsaab.

No offense received and likewise none intended.

[nihil est]

Morals given by GOD are always absolute

Why?

but those professed and given by any person are subject to change as and when required.

Is this a bad thing?

One must follow GOD's morals always

Why?

Nobody can say rationally that the nazi's were evil for example, without reference to God.

Okay...so why do you think Nazis were evil, with reference to God?

[Al-Indunisiy]

nihil est quid?

[nihil est]

nihil est quid?

Nihilista sum, ita dicta mihi decorum est videtur. Sed etiam, ludebam dictis.

[nihil est]

Ehem, replace decorum est with decora esse. It's been a while since I had to use my Latin. Is there an edit button here?

[Al-Indunisiy]

Es femina! Expectabam quod esse virum.

[nihil est]

Es femina! Expectabam quod esse virum.

Triste est dicere, sed vir sum. Nihilista verbum masculinum est, simile nauta e.g. nauta/nihilista bonus est. Ultima 'a' oculos fallet. Scio autem multas feminas qui sentiunt velut ego.

It's sad to say, but I am a guy. The word nihilist is in the masculine case, like the word sailor. For example, this sentence: the sailor/nihilist is good. The final 'a' gives a wrong impression. But I do know many women who think like I do.

Nihilista sum, ita dicta mihi decora esse videtur. Sed etiam, ludebam dictis.

I'm a nihilist, and so the words (for the name) seemed to me to be appropriate. But I was also just playing around with words.

[Al-Indunisiy]

Utirisne Latinam Classicam, Mediaevalem, Modernam, aut alias? Egomet utor Latinam Mediaevalem, simplicior quam Classica est. Versionem personalemque utor (mixta Italiana, Arabica, aliis linguis antiquisque), amo ludere linguabus/linguis.

[cat eyes]

what exactly is the big problem with polygamy marriage brother lynx? look at the state of how non muslims carry on. if a man wants another woman in islam at least he has the decency to marry her and look after there kids. im so happy that Allah blessed me to be apart of this ummah. id rather be thrown in the hellfire rather then live a life as a dirty kafir with no morals.

[Lynx]

what exactly is the big problem with polygamy marriage brother lynx? look at the state of how non muslims carry on. if a man wants another woman in islam at least he has the decency to marry her and look after there kids. im so happy that Allah blessed me to be apart of this ummah. id rather be thrown in the hellfire rather then live a life as a dirty kafir with no morals.

I don't have a problem with polygamy in itself. I just think it's wrong for someone to marry another wife/husband without seeking the permission of the first. And you know not every Kafir is so dirty and immoral ;p

[Al-Indunisiy]

Why?
Quia iste Dominus universi. Toti subter voluntate sua.

Is this a bad thing?
Est res mala quia homines sunt fallibiles. Est possibilitas ibi errare.
Why?
Videas responsionem primam.
Okay...so why do you think Nazis were evil, with reference to God?
Nihil commentarius de me.

Ita responsiones mihi.

[Al-Indunisiy]

Triste est dicere, sed vir sum. Nihilista verbum masculinum est, simile nauta e.g. nauta/nihilista bonus est. Ultima 'a' oculos fallet. Scio autem multas feminas qui sentiunt velut ego.

It's sad to say, but I am a guy. The word nihilist is in the masculine case, like the word sailor. For example, this sentence: the sailor/nihilist is good. The final 'a' gives a wrong impression. But I do know many women who think like I do.


Nihilista sum, ita dicta mihi decora esse videtur. Sed etiam, ludebam dictis.

I'm a nihilist, and so the words (for the name) seemed to me to be appropriate. But I was also just playing around with words.

Mea culpa. My bad.

[Zafran]

salaam

God is beyond good and evil - morality is created by God - so the Lord of morality decides whats Good and bad.

peace