/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Child Unwell But Parents Did Not Seek Medical Attention



Hulk
04-24-2013, 06:50 AM
PHILADELPHIA (AP) — A couple serving probation for the 2009 death of their toddler after they turned to prayer instead of a doctor could face new charges now that another son has died.

Herbert and Catherine Schaible belong to a fundamentalist Christian church that believes in faith healing. They lost their 8-month-old son, Brandon, last week after he suffered from diarrhea and breathing problems for at least a week, and stopped eating. Four years ago, another son died from bacterial pneumonia.

Prosecutors said Tuesday that a decision on charges will be made after they get the results of an autopsy.

Catherine Schaible's attorney, Mythri Jayaraman, cautioned against a rush to judgment, and said the couple are good parents deeply distraught over the loss of another child.

"There are way more questions than answers at this point. We haven't seen the autopsy report. We don't know the cause of death of this child," Jayaraman told The Associated Press. "What we do know is Mr. and Mrs. Schaible are distraught, they are grieving, they are tremendously sad about the loss of their most recent baby."

A man who answered the phone at a listing for Herbert Schaible declined to comment and hung up.

A jury convicted the Schaibles of involuntary manslaughter in the January 2009 death of their 2-year-old son, Kent. The boy's symptoms had included coughing, congestion, crankiness and a loss of appetite. His parents said he was eating and drinking until the last day, and they had thought he was getting better.

The Schaibles were sentenced to 10 years' probation.

At a hearing Monday, a judge told the couple they had violated the terms of their probation, noting the Schaibles had told investigators that they prayed to God to make Brandon well instead of seeking medical attention.

"You did that once, and the consequences were tragic," Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Benjamin Lerner said, according to the Philadelphia Daily News.

Prosecutors on Monday sought to have the couple jailed, but Lerner permitted them to remain free because their seven other children had been placed in foster care.

"He feels they are a danger to their children — not to the community, but to their own children," Assistant District Attorney Joanne Pescatore, who prosecuted the couple in 2010, said Tuesday.

Herbert Schaible, 44, and his 43-year-old wife grew up in the First Century Gospel Church in northeast Philadelphia and have served as teachers there. The church's website has a sermon titled "Healing — From God or Medicine?" that quotes Bible verses purportedly forbidding Christians from visiting doctors or taking medicine.

"It is a definite sin to trust in medical help and pills; and it is real faith to trust on the Name of Jesus for healing," says the message, from last May.

A phone message left with the church on Tuesday was not immediately returned.

The church's pastor said in 2010 that the couple had never received medical care themselves beyond the help of a lay midwife who attends home births.

The Schaibles did take their children for medical checkups as required by their probation, according to Jayaraman, the defense attorney. Jayaraman said that Brandon was checked by a doctor when he was 10 days old, but she did not know whether the child had seen a doctor since.

"Nobody argues that these aren't very loving, nurturing parents," she said Tuesday. "Whether their religion had anything to do with the death of their baby, we don't know."
___


Source
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Pygoscelis
04-24-2013, 05:18 PM
This sort of thing happens far more often than it should, and it is very sad to see.

Too often the system will allow religion to either obstruct justice completely, or make the system more lenient than it would be if religion wasn't being pushed as an excuse.
Reply

جوري
04-24-2013, 05:40 PM
Actually doctors have the right to treat minors against their parents' will in life or death situations ONLY.
As for religion doing this or religion doing that. I don't know many religions that allow prayer without the use of medicine for it is the tool given us by God to treat out earthly ills!

best,
Reply

Naeema
04-24-2013, 05:46 PM
It's a fine balance in the US between permitting free exercise of religion, the rights of a parent, and the rights of a child. The older a child, the more they have the ability to consent or refuse consent, the worse the conflict can become. In Massachusetts, these cases pop up sometimes, possibly because we have a larger population of Christian Scientists. If my recollection is correct, the Massachusetts courts finally decided that refusing to treat a child did not automatically constitute neglect, but that the parents could be accused of manslaughter if the child dies.

This is also an issue for the mentally ill and prisoners. When do we intervene, such as forcing someone to take anti-psychotics, and when do we allow them to refuse?
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
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
glo
04-24-2013, 05:50 PM
I agree with Skye's post.
Medicine, science and human knowledge are gifts given by God.

Not many people would deny an ill and suffering person the benefits of medical intervention. (Although I can think of certain exceptions, such as organ transplants or blood donations for Jehovah's Witnesses)

As I understand, here in the UK an adult who has mental capacity can refuse medical treatment for him/herself, but not on behalf of a child.
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-24-2013, 06:50 PM
Parents do not own their children. They are care takers for their children, and what care taking becomes irrational to the point of endangering the child, the child should be removed from the household immediately. Refusing essential medical treatment form a child due to the PARENT'S religious beliefs is something I find beyond negligent. It is outright vile.
Reply

جوري
04-24-2013, 06:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Parents do not own their children.
Actually in medical ethics at least the American ones they're until the child is 18. There have been a few cases of emancipation and indeed if the child isn't in a life and death situation a parent can deny treatment and there's nothing a physician can do about it provided the other loop of caregiver competence is also met. That's not to say I don't agree with this part of your sentence:


format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
They are care takers for their children
That's in fact how it should be. Children are amanaat in Islam like everything else we're gifted with them and we will be asked on how we took care of that gift!
but before we all get our knickers in a knot it is silly to believe that any system medical or governmental cares more for the well-fare of a child .. rare, far and in between those who are altruistic most people don't give a fig... bottom line is a dollar and the practice of letting children just die goes back since the inception of history.. from my recent reading even the catholic church allowed it with children who were born with less than perfect health...
The notion of doing everything we can and well fare and this and that is a smoke screen of political correctness that only recently made it to the seen.

best,
Reply

glo
04-24-2013, 07:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Parents do not own their children. They are care takers for their children, and what care taking becomes irrational to the point of endangering the child, the child should be removed from the household immediately. Refusing essential medical treatment form a child due to the PARENT'S religious beliefs is something I find beyond negligent. It is outright vile.
I agree.

But it's hard when you love your child and you believe with every fibre of your heart that what you are doing is right and the best thing for him/her ...
Not just an issue for religious parents, I am sure.

I know of a number of parents who hold onto bizarre pseudo-scientific 'medical beliefs' which affect decisions they make on behalf of their children. (Take the refusal to immunise children for example, without good medical reasons) These are not religious reasons, but people hold to these beliefs nonetheless.
Reply

CosmicPathos
04-24-2013, 08:21 PM
What's news worthy in this?

If abortion is allowed, this should be okay too. Both parents should be released, as they only let disease take its natural course. They did not actively kill the patient.
Reply

Karl
04-25-2013, 12:18 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Parents do not own their children. They are care takers for their children, and what care taking becomes irrational to the point of endangering the child, the child should be removed from the household immediately. Refusing essential medical treatment form a child due to the PARENT'S religious beliefs is something I find beyond negligent. It is outright vile.
Christians believe their children belong to them. Otherwise they wouldn't be called "their children". Who do they belong to? Who are you to interfere? Who died and made you God? Not everyone is an arrogant godless collectivist totalitarian. These Christians made the mistake of living in a Zionist secularist collectivist totalitarian country. A country that murders children and then persecutes religious people for raising their children their way.
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-25-2013, 07:42 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Karl
Christians believe their children belong to them. Otherwise they wouldn't be called "their children". Who do they belong to?
They belong to themselves. We make decisions for them because they are too young to care for themselves. We do not own them. They are not our slaves. They are not our property to be used and abused however we want.

Who are you to interfere?
Somebody who cares about children, and other fellow human beings.

Who died and made you God? Not everyone is an arrogant godless collectivist totalitarian.
That is quite a word salad. I picture you frothing at the mouth as you type it.
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-25-2013, 07:46 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
What's news worthy in this?

If abortion is allowed, this should be okay too. Both parents should be released, as they only let disease take its natural course. They did not actively kill the patient.
Would you say the same if they starved the child to death? They would be letting nature take its course then too, keeping something the child needs away from the child so the child dies.
Reply

Eric H
04-25-2013, 08:19 AM
Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;

We allow twenty thousand children to starve to death every single day in the third world, we only start shouting when a child starves in our rich countries. Another twenty children will have died in the short time it has taken me to write this reply.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people.

Eric
Reply

ardianto
04-25-2013, 03:15 PM
Assalamualaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh. Greeting and peace be with you

The church's website has a sermon titled "Healing — From God or Medicine?" that quotes Bible verses purportedly forbidding Christians from visiting doctors or taking medicine.
I've visited a Christian website and I read an answer from a Pastor that Bible does not forbid Christians from visiting doctors or taking medicine, just forbid Christians from only visit doctors or taking medicine.

I understand what he meant because actually it's not different than concept of healing in Islam. As believers we must believe that God is the healer. So, we cannot just taking medicine but do not pray. However, it doesn't means we are not allowed to do attempt to heal the disease.

Frankly, when I read the quoted article part above, what in my mind was "if Bible realy forbid Christians from visiting doctors or taking medicine, must be there's no Christian doctor or Christian hospital".

Maybe sister Glo and brother Eric H want to add something? or correcting me if I'm wrong?

:)
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-25-2013, 03:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
We allow twenty thousand children to starve to death every single day in the third world, we only start shouting when a child starves in our rich countries. Another twenty children will have died in the short time it has taken me to write this reply.
Yes, and it is a travesty. We should bring more exposure to the starvation of people around the world (not just children in Africa or people in America), and we don't do nearly enough for them.

But that isn't the topic of this thread, and it isn't a very good analogy, nor an excuse for these abusive parents. We are not the parents of the starving African children. We did not bring them into the world. We are too apathetic towards them, but most of us are not actively and purposefully keeping food from them and intending them to starve, as these parents are actively and purposefully keeping medicine from the children and intending them to have none. We don't take pride in starving African children the way these parents take pride in denying their children medicine.

I would also point out that if the Catholic church encouraged rather than discouraged condom use and family planning in Africa, the situation there would not be as dire.
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-25-2013, 03:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ardianto
Frankly, when I read the quoted article part above, what in my mind was "if Bible realy forbid Christians from visiting doctors or taking medicine, must be there's no Christian doctor or Christian hospital".
The vast majority of Christians support medical intervention. There is a minority who do not, and who seek to rely on "faith healing". These are often the same people who handle dangerous snakes just to show off their faith that God will protect them, some of who have died from bites. It is insane and dangerous thinking and children should not be subjected to it.
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-25-2013, 03:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo
I know of a number of parents who hold onto bizarre pseudo-scientific 'medical beliefs' which affect decisions they make on behalf of their children. (Take the refusal to immunise children for example, without good medical reasons) These are not religious reasons, but people hold to these beliefs nonetheless.
Yes, I agree. It isn't always religion that causes this sort of thing. When parents refuse immunizations for their children, they not only put themsleves and their children at risk, but they put us all at risk if we fail to reach herd immunity threshhold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity

We've seen a few illnesses we thought we'd stomped out come back due to bizare and dangerous religious and pseudo-scientific beliefs.
Reply

ardianto
04-25-2013, 04:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
The vast majority of Christians support medical intervention. There is a minority who do not, and who seek to rely on "faith healing".
Different than Christians, Muslims have "Thibbun Nabawi" (Prophetic Healing). But vast majority of Muslims do not reject modern medicine and accept only Thibbun Nabawi.
Reply

Karl
04-26-2013, 12:21 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
They belong to themselves. We make decisions for them because they are too young to care for themselves. We do not own them. They are not our slaves. They are not our property to be used and abused however we want.



Somebody who cares about children, and other fellow human beings.



That is quite a word salad. I picture you frothing at the mouth as you type it.
If they belong to themselves then why does the state lord over them? We? What is that? The Athiest Overlords of Righteousness? It sounds that you believe that the children and the parents are slaves of the state. Do you believe the state is sovereign? You are always talking in the we and our, I assume you are just a part of many, you have been assimilated and lost your individuality. Try and speak for yourself, but my offspring belong to me!

Just because you care that dosen't give you the right to interfere in other peoples business.

I was not frothing at the mouth but I WOULD be if you self righteous collectivists ever interfered in my domestic affairs.
Reply

Futuwwa
04-26-2013, 11:45 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Karl
Not everyone is an arrogant godless collectivist totalitarian.
True dat. I'm an arrogant godly collectivist totalitarian :p
Reply

Futuwwa
04-26-2013, 11:53 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Yes, I agree. It isn't always religion that causes this sort of thing. When parents refuse immunizations for their children, they not only put themsleves and their children at risk, but they put us all at risk if we fail to reach herd immunity threshhold.
Actually, it's only the unvaccinated who are put at risk by the loss of herd immunity. But that is a real issue as well, as not everyone can be assumed to be vaccinated. A few have valid medical reasons not to be, and immigrants would not have been covered by the infant vaccination program.

As for those who plead individual sovereignty to refuse vaccinations, I wonder if they would be willing to assume individual legal liability for any infections caused by them.
Reply

Futuwwa
04-26-2013, 11:58 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Karl
Christians believe their children belong to them. Otherwise they wouldn't be called "their children".
And the parents are called "their parents". The siblings "their siblings". The grandparents "their grandparents". The cousins "their cousins". Does that mean that the children own their relatives? Do I own my boss? If not, why is he referred to as "my boss"?
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-26-2013, 02:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Karl
Try and speak for yourself, but my offspring belong to me!
They are not your slaves. They are not your property. And if you see them that way then you are dangerous and they should be removed from you immediately.
Reply

Karl
04-27-2013, 12:30 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
They are not your slaves. They are not your property. And if you see them that way then you are dangerous and they should be removed from you immediately.
Who says so the UN red terror? FYI, I do not recognize the UN or other international charters. Typical stateworshipping leftist athiest comments. This is the problem with athiests they are the most self righteous pontificating totalitarian bigots. Your a hypocrite because the way you talk about my domestic affairs is as if I am YOUR slave, because my domestic affairs have nothing at all to do with you. We are slaves of God. I am dependant on God and my offspring are dependant on me. When my offspring are no longer dependant on me I will bestow independence on them. You and people like you are the dangerous ones, attacking and killing people worldwide for being different. Who should remove them from me? Godless totalitarian bigots the pontificators of false righteousness? People like you lead situations to the massacres of Christians in Waco. Massacres of Muslims in Afghanistan and the Middle East.
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-27-2013, 12:37 AM
I can't tell if you are just trolling at this point. I suspect you are. You seem to be defending your right to abuse your children as you see fit and balk when I say we shouldn't allow you to. And then you follow that up with a bunch of straw man attacks having nothing to do with me or anything I have said. I really don't know what more can be said to you or about you.
Reply

Karl
04-27-2013, 01:39 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
I can't tell if you are just trolling at this point. I suspect you are. You seem to be defending your right to abuse your children as you see fit and balk when I say we shouldn't allow you to. And then you follow that up with a bunch of straw man attacks having nothing to do with me or anything I have said. I really don't know what more can be said to you or about you.
Stop being a lying twisting snake. That my offspring are my property is my inexorable position and I don't tolerate Godless commies telling me what's what in my domestic affairs. Any usurpers who wish to challenge my parental sovereignty will be in for a war. End of story don't bother writing back.
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-27-2013, 03:51 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Karl
Stop being a lying twisting snake. That my offspring are my property is my inexorable position and I don't tolerate Godless commies telling me what's what in my domestic affairs. Any usurpers who wish to challenge my parental sovereignty will be in for a war. End of story don't bother writing back.
Ok now I know you're trolling. LOL Poe's law in action.
Reply

Futuwwa
04-27-2013, 07:00 AM
I honestly don't think he is, he has held the same position in a number of threads.
Reply

Eric H
04-27-2013, 07:15 AM
Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;

But that isn't the topic of this thread, and it isn't a very good analogy, nor an excuse for these abusive parents. We are not the parents of the starving African children. We did not bring them into the world. We are too apathetic towards them, but most of us are not actively and purposefully keeping food from them and intending them to starve, as these parents are actively and purposefully keeping medicine from the children and intending them to have none. We don't take pride in starving African children the way these parents take pride in denying their children medicine.
These children who starve to death in the Third World don’t have access to medicine either. We have a heated discussion about two children in America, but we don’t have the same passion about the millions who go without medicine and die in the Third world.

I believe we all have some responsibility towards these deprived children, we can petition our governments, we can give to charity, we can sponsor a child.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people.

Eric
Reply

Insaanah
04-27-2013, 09:59 PM
Please keep comments civil.

Another thought. I wonder if this couple went to work, to earn money, or went shopping for groceries. If so, why did they not just pray, "Give us this day our daily bread" (Matthew 6:11) and wait for their sustenance to fall out of the sky? If they actually actively made an effort to earn money, or to go out and get groceries, but made no active effort to obtain medical help and attention for their children, then their priorities were wrong.
Reply

Karl
04-28-2013, 12:42 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Ok now I know you're trolling. LOL Poe's law in action.
Just because I do not have a left wing position on these matters that does not make me a troll.
Why don't you accuse all the religious of being trolls just because they are not on the same page in their beliefs to you?
Reply

Hulk
04-28-2013, 03:04 AM
We have rights over our children but that right is not without responsibility. Unfortunately in this case I think the parents believed that they were being responsible. I wonder what their views are now, and what they would say if someone were to point out that even when someone goes for medical treatment, it will not be successful unless it is willed so by God.
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-28-2013, 03:40 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Insaanah
Please keep comments civil.

Another thought. I wonder if this couple went to work, to earn money, or went shopping for groceries. If so, why did they not just pray, "Give us this day our daily bread" (Matthew 6:11) and wait for their sustenance to fall out of the sky? If they actually actively made an effort to earn money, or to go out and get groceries, but made no active effort to obtain medical help and attention for their children, then their priorities were wrong.
Very good point.
Reply

CosmicPathos
04-28-2013, 03:41 AM
Psygo: If man or woman has the right to do whatever they wish with their sperm or egg, they also then have the right to do whatever they wish with the product that forms from the union of their sperm and egg. Only if you were more logical and rational and kept emotion at bay.
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-28-2013, 03:50 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Karl
Why don't you accuse all the religious of being trolls just because they are not on the same page in their beliefs to you?
Very very few will claim a right to abuse and endanger, and kill their children.
Reply

CosmicPathos
04-28-2013, 03:57 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Very very few will claim a right to abuse and endanger, and kill their children.
their not claiming then is from their ignorance.

you have not refuted my argument.

Red herrings wont help you.
Reply

ardianto
04-28-2013, 05:11 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Karl
but my offspring belong to me!
Our offsprings are not belong to us but belong to Allah.

We live in the world because Allah. We can reproduce descendants because Allah. If Allah did not create us, if Allah did not give life to us and our offsprings, we would not exist.
Reply

ardianto
04-28-2013, 05:12 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
If man or woman has the right to do whatever they wish with their sperm or egg, they also then have the right to do whatever they wish with the product that forms from the union of their sperm and egg.
Who create your kids?. You or Allah?
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-28-2013, 07:30 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
you have not refuted my argument.

Red herrings wont help you.
Because I wasn't addressing your argument. I was directly addressing the text I quoted. Perhaps you could try that too. Perhaps you could also try speaking with some civility.

Psygo: If man or woman has the right to do whatever they wish with their sperm or egg, they also then have the right to do whatever they wish with the product that forms from the union of their sperm and egg. Only if you were more logical and rational and kept emotion at bay.
You regard the death of a sperm cell and the death of your neighbours as equally tragic? You somehow think this follows so obviously (it doesn't) that you give no explanation for the link, and just say ", they also ...." ?

And you seriously endorse murder so long as it is of your own descendents? Would you be ok with grandparents butchering entire families of children and grandchildren?

I still think this defending of child abuse and murder has got to be trolling.
Reply

CosmicPathos
04-28-2013, 12:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Because I wasn't addressing your argument. I was directly addressing the text I quoted. Perhaps you could try that too. Perhaps you could also try speaking with some civility.



You regard the death of a sperm cell and the death of your neighbours as equally tragic? You somehow think this follows so obviously (it doesn't) that you give no explanation for the link, and just say ", they also ...." ?

And you seriously endorse murder so long as it is of your own descendents? Would you be ok with grandparents butchering entire families of children and grandchildren?

I still think this defending of child abuse and murder has got to be trolling.
I go where ever truth leads me to.

You still have not refuted my argument. Except that you have used words like "butcher" to taint my position so that people begin to hate me based on their knee jerk reaction.

This is the max you can do. Ad hominems. I feel pity for your mental impotence.
Reply

Futuwwa
04-28-2013, 02:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
Psygo: If man or woman has the right to do whatever they wish with their sperm or egg, they also then have the right to do whatever they wish with the product that forms from the union of their sperm and egg.
Do they? Why does that follow?
Reply

CosmicPathos
04-28-2013, 05:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
Do they? Why does that follow?
why should it not follow? you have reasons?

In the absence of reasons, which you are free to provide, Occam's razor should be used. They have right over their sperm and egg, they also have right over the product of union/fusion of that sperm and egg.
Reply

sister herb
04-28-2013, 05:20 PM
Salam alaykum

Sorry but it sounds quite harsh to call your own children as "product" (but anyways you have right to that of course - then they might call you as manufacturer, not a father). So, you agree that parents in the first post (if we could stay on topic) had full right not to take they child to medical care when child was sick but decided that praying was enough? I wonder how many would do the same if they child for example be in a bad accident and bleeding a lot; then do nothing else than pray that God will stop bleeding and safe they child. I don´t see diffrence between being sick or in accident.
Reply

Futuwwa
04-28-2013, 05:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
why should it not follow? you have reasons?
You have reasons for why it should follow? If you can't give any, I don't have to provide any reasons to the contrary. Proving that one statement does not follow from another is technically impossible, unless the statement is a contradiction.

format_quote Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
In the absence of reasons, which you are free to provide, Occam's razor should be used. They have right over their sperm and egg, they also have right over the product of union/fusion of that sperm and egg.
Ockham's Razor is an epistemological doctrine, not a law of logic. It categorically cannot be used to prove anything.
Reply

Futuwwa
04-28-2013, 06:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Karl
Who says so the UN red terror? FYI, I do not recognize the UN or other international charters. Typical stateworshipping leftist athiest comments. This is the problem with athiests they are the most self righteous pontificating totalitarian bigots. Your a hypocrite because the way you talk about my domestic affairs is as if I am YOUR slave, because my domestic affairs have nothing at all to do with you.
No, he isn't. His objection to your claim of ownership over your children is based on a moral principle he maintains to be universal, and which he adheres to himself. It is not based on claimed ownership over you. He is defending the personal sovereignty of the child, not violating your.
Reply

CosmicPathos
04-28-2013, 06:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
You have reasons for why it should follow? If you can't give any, I don't have to provide any reasons to the contrary. Proving that one statement does not follow from another is technically impossible, unless the statement is a contradiction.



Ockham's Razor is an epistemological doctrine, not a law of logic. It categorically cannot be used to prove anything.
It can be used to narrow down the alternative explanations.

I think the product of fusion of sperm and egg is governed by same laws by which the individual egg and sperm are governed. hence, it does follow. Occam's razor says that is the most simple explanation.
Reply

Hulk
04-28-2013, 06:16 PM
I think a lot of muslims are aware of this hadith..

Narrated Abdullah bin Umar: Allah's Apostle said, "A lady was punished because of a cat which she had imprisoned till it died. She entered the (Hell) Fire because of it, for she neither gave it food nor water as she had imprisoned it, nor set it free to eat from the vermin of the earth."


Reply

IAmZamzam
04-28-2013, 06:18 PM
These Christians made the mistake of living in a Zionist secularist collectivist totalitarian country. A country that murders children and then persecutes religious people for raising their children their way.

Wow. People can just take anything and make it about Zionism!

Psygo: If man or woman has the right to do whatever they wish with their sperm or egg, they also then have the right to do whatever they wish with the product that forms from the union of their sperm and egg. Only if you were more logical and rational and kept emotion at bay.

You’re probably trying to set him up for something (I can’t see Pygoscelis’s posts anymore) but since people here are interpreting it as a serious argument I may as well do the same:

Have you considered the seed you spill? Do you yourselves create it, or are We the Creators? (Qur’an 56:58-59, Arberry)

As for what these parents did I can’t help but think of James Wood’s speech to the weird couple who want to ride their homemade ark in the town that’s about to be flooded to make the reservoir in Northfork:

Now I'm not saying that this boat you have built isn’t worthy. From the look of it, you’ve done a mighty fine job. But for the sake of my job, let’s just say…your boat doesn’t float. Imagine this, if you will. One day, a town on the plains, let’s say Northfork, was hit by a catastrophic flood, similar to the days of Noah, and you husband and yourselves are standing out there on the roof waiting to be rescued. A friendly neighbor comes paddling by in his little wooden boat, and he yells, ‘Hey, there, Mr. and Mrs. Stalling, and... uh, Mrs. Stalling, jump on in and I’ll take you to dry land.’ What do you say? The water’s rising. You shout back, ‘No, thank you, thy friendly neighbor. I’m waiting for a sign from God.’ And your friendly neighbor paddles away.

A few days later a state rescue team comes by in a larger boat. And let’s just say me and Willis are on board. And we offer you the same deal. ‘Jump on in, and you, Mrs. Stalling and...Mrs. Stalling, will be saved.’ And you say...No, thank you. We’re waiting for a sign from God.’

A few more days pass, and the water level has risen. It has risen above the roof. And unfortunately, you and Mr. Stalling have drowned and now are in heaven in front of God. Oh, yes, you three have died because you waited for a sign from God and it never came…But why? That's the exact question you would ask God. You would say, ‘We waited for the sign and it never came.’…Now what do you suppose God is going to say to you both? I’ll tell you what God will say. ‘l sent you two boats...Two boats to save your lives. What more of a sign did you three want?’
Reply

Futuwwa
04-28-2013, 06:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
I think the product of fusion of sperm and egg is governed by same laws by which the individual egg and sperm are governed. hence, it does follow.
And that, sir, is known as the fallacy of composition.
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-28-2013, 07:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
why should it not follow? you have reasons?

In the absence of reasons, which you are free to provide, Occam's razor should be used. They have right over their sperm and egg, they also have right over the product of union/fusion of that sperm and egg.
That is not an argument. You have presented no reason why A follows B. And you have created an absurdity, as I pointed out, where grand parents and great grand parents would be entitled to whipe out entire villages of descendents. If that is your position then you are simply a danger to society and should be locked up. Simple as that.
Reply

IAmZamzam
04-28-2013, 08:29 PM
Just in case I've been misinterpreted let me clarify: nobody has the right to do whatever they wish with anything, because nothing is ours to do anything with. That's not the right attitude to begin with. There is only one entity who is The Originator, The Provider and The Owner of the Kingdom. Hence the Koranic passage, which was saying the same thing. It doesn't really matter whether it's an egg or an embryo or a baby or an old man: it's all under Him all the same, and He's the one who gave us what we have. That's what I was trying to say--but now after reading CosmicPathos's oddly worded statement again I'm beginning to think it was actually supposed to be some sort of off topic swipe regarding abortion. Best to stick to the news story we're supposed to be talking about.
Reply

CosmicPathos
04-28-2013, 10:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
That is not an argument. You have presented no reason why A follows B. And you have created an absurdity, as I pointed out, where grand parents and great grand parents would be entitled to whipe out entire villages of descendents. If that is your position then you are simply a danger to society and should be locked up. Simple as that.
the reason is that C is governed by same laws as A + B is. Hence C is no different from A + B.

sure if your grand parents and great grand parents did that, you wont be here to object it and there wont be any objection to their practice.
Reply

CosmicPathos
04-28-2013, 10:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
And that, sir, is known as the fallacy of composition.
Wrong. Totally wrong. I have no where argued that sperm and egg are part of the whole. You are interpreting it that way. sperm and egg are NOT part of zygote. Sperm and egg are one form of it, and then zygote is another form of sperm and egg. Ink + water = diluted ink/dirty water.

If you can simply destroy a sperm and egg, you can and should also be able to destroy a zygote, a product of those very sperm and eggs.

if you cannot provide any reason for why zygote should not be destroyed, it comes to down to individual's discretion what they should do with their zygotes.
Reply

Futuwwa
04-28-2013, 10:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
If you can simply destroy a sperm and egg, you can and should also be able to destroy a zygote, a product of those very sperm and eggs.
Saying that it is so doesn't make it so. You're asserting that having a right to X categorically implies a right to everything X develops into. You have yet to make a case for why it is so. All you have done is to have invoked Ockham's Razor in a way that reveals your utter cluelessness both about what it prescribes and about what its field of applicability is.

format_quote Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
if you cannot provide any reason for why zygote should not be destroyed, it comes to down to individual's discretion what they should do with their zygotes.
I thought we were talking about children, not zygotes.
Reply

CosmicPathos
04-28-2013, 10:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
I thought we were talking about children, not zygotes.
children were once zygotes. zygote is a name we have given to one form of children. They all are the same, just different phases of existence. be it a zygote or a child.

format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
Saying that it is so doesn't make it so. You're asserting that having a right to X categorically implies a right to everything X develops into. You have yet to make a case for why it is so. All you have done is to have invoked Ockham's Razor in a way that reveals your utter cluelessness both about what it prescribes and about what its field of applicability is.
one asserts an argument. I have given the reason that if one can destroy their sperm and egg, they can also destroy their zygote as it is a product of their own sperm. it is as simple as that. if one can burn one's paper money, one can also buy a car from that money and then destroy that car instead.

if it does not get through your thick skull, blame your parents dude.
Reply

Futuwwa
04-28-2013, 10:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
children were once zygotes. zygote is a name we have given to one form of children. They all are the same, just different phases of existence. be it a zygote or a child.

one asserts an argument. I have given the reason that if one can destroy their sperm and egg, they can also destroy their zygote. it is as simple as that.

if it does not get through your thick skull, blame your parents dude.
And you keep insisting that what is true for X is also always true for everything X develops into. You have substantiated this assertion in no way whatsoever, you have simply rephrased the original assertion a number of times.

I'm glad my skull is thick enough that I don't start to believe things simply because someone repeats them often enough :D
Reply

IAmZamzam
04-28-2013, 11:18 PM
Personally I've always suspected Ockham's Razor to be overrated to begin with. Experience has led me to understand that "simpler solution" is, at least nine times out of ten, a euphemism for "solution that fits with my preexisting biases or beliefs". Or even "whatever solution happens to be most convenient for me". If you look carefully at what the person appealing to the rule is saying then you will find that the subject of complexity almost invariably has nothing to do with anything.
Reply

Karl
04-28-2013, 11:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Very very few will claim a right to abuse and endanger, and kill their children.
I never said these things you say. You have an evil streak. You need an all powerful state to control you and take away all your God given rights. That will suit you fine. But for me who loves my property, I don't need your diabolical masters and I don't want them. These Christians love their children and most are doing fine, the ones that died, they believe will be in a better place. So the persecution of these Christians is just a persecution of God from your ilk. The crocodile tears from state worshippers are as false as the smiles from the devil.
Reply

Karl
04-29-2013, 12:07 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ardianto
Our offsprings are not belong to us but belong to Allah.

We live in the world because Allah. We can reproduce descendants because Allah. If Allah did not create us, if Allah did not give life to us and our offsprings, we would not exist.
Yeah everything belongs to Allah but He does not nurse babies and raise the children. They wouldn't live long if we just put the babies out the back for Allah to look after. Remember "trust in God but tie up your camel" Allah is almighty creator and everything belongs to Him but He is not a wet nurse that's what women are for.
Reply

Karl
04-29-2013, 12:29 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
Psygo: If man or woman has the right to do whatever they wish with their sperm or egg, they also then have the right to do whatever they wish with the product that forms from the union of their sperm and egg. Only if you were more logical and rational and kept emotion at bay.
Perfect reason you have CosmicPathos. The union of a man and woman makes a child. Therefore if they made it then by reason the child is of their making and belongs to them NOT to the state which uses force to interfere. The state may have the power but it has not got the God given right.
Reply

Futuwwa
04-29-2013, 12:29 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by IAmZamzam
Personally I've always suspected Ockham's Razor to be overrated to begin with. Experience has led me to understand that "simpler solution" is, at least nine times out of ten, a euphemism for "solution that fits with my preexisting biases or beliefs". Or even "whatever solution happens to be most convenient for me". If you look carefully at what the person appealing to the rule is saying then you will find that the subject of complexity almost invariably has nothing to do with anything.
The preference for the "simplest explanation" is the popular, dumbed-down version of the Razor. Ockham himself never said anything about simplicity. What he said was entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, i.e. entities should not be added beyond what is necessary, i.e. we should prefer explanations that require as few postulates as possible. Which sometimes but not always leads to simplicity.

The Razor deals with choice of rival explanations for a specific, already observed, known outcome. Not with what outcome will actually happen.

And it is an epistemological doctrine, not a law of logic. It cannot be used to prove anything. At the very most, it can be used to make a case for why one explanation would be more probable than another.
Reply

IAmZamzam
04-29-2013, 01:22 AM
And Hitchcock originally defined a MacGuffin as the mechanical object driving the plot forward which the characters care about but the audience has no interest in. Meanings change. There is an old legend that the design of St. Paul's cathedral was selected for being the most "awful and artificial" of them all (i.e. the most awe-inspiring one, made with the best artifice). As for that "number of postulates you have to make" thing, quality over quantity, man.
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-29-2013, 01:39 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Karl
I never said these things you say.
You certainly seem to have, as anybody reading here, including your own brothers and sisters in Islam can see. You and Cosmic Pathos both seem to be claiming that you have a right to kill and abuse your children however you see fit. You seem to be saying this because they are your property. He seems to be saying this because he created them.

So why not take this opportunity to clear up any misconception?

Do you or do you not claim you have the right to kill and abuse your children however you see fit? You have given us the impression that you will take up arms and go to war with the police if they try to take children away from parents who abuse or attempt to kill their children. Is this a false impression?
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-29-2013, 01:43 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
the reason is that C is governed by same laws as A + B is. Hence C is no different from A + B.
Why do you assert that C is governed by the same laws as A + B is? You have given no proof for this.

sure if your grand parents and great grand parents did that, you wont be here to object it and there wont be any objection to their practice.
Seriously? If a murderer kills his victim, his victim is not around to object, so you say its ok he did it? Would that not excuse all murder?
Reply

CosmicPathos
04-29-2013, 04:47 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
And you keep insisting that what is true for X is also always true for everything X develops into. You have substantiated this assertion in no way whatsoever, you have simply rephrased the original assertion a number of times.

I'm glad my skull is thick enough that I don't start to believe things simply because someone repeats them often enough :D
it should be true unless you can show it should not be true.
Reply

Futuwwa
04-29-2013, 07:34 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
it should be true unless you can show it should not be true.
No, it isn't. Statements are not true by default unless proven otherwise. I could provide a counterexample that proves the assertion untrue, but I won't, because I don't have to. That would mean for me to accept the burden of proof and to validate your approach to proof.

But if you think statements are true until proven untrue, let's play that game. You owe me $1000. Prove that you don't, or pay up.
Reply

sister herb
04-29-2013, 07:42 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Karl
Yeah everything belongs to Allah but He does not nurse babies and raise the children. They wouldn't live long if we just put the babies out the back for Allah to look after. Remember "trust in God but tie up your camel" Allah is almighty creator and everything belongs to Him but He is not a wet nurse that's what women are for.
Salam alaykum

I admit that it is the duty of parents of the child to take care about him/her at the first but if we still remember the original post of this thread, in that case parents didn´t take care about they child as they should but left child without usefull care and child died. By that news, it wasn´t even the first of they child who died by the similar reasons.

If parents don´t do they duties, then better if society react to the situation (or state if someone wants to call society by that name) and makes what is possible to protect the other children of the parents (like in that case, took them away from parents and put them to the foster home). Or should society just wait they will make the same with they other children too?

Basic question is: can parents do what ever they want for they child because they are the parents or should society has right to "interfere" the situation if it cause harm or danger to the child?
Reply

Karl
04-29-2013, 10:45 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
You certainly seem to have, as anybody reading here, including your own brothers and sisters in Islam can see. You and Cosmic Pathos both seem to be claiming that you have a right to kill and abuse your children however you see fit. You seem to be saying this because they are your property. He seems to be saying this because he created them.
Yes, that is correct. My offspring are my biological property by virtue of the fact that I created them.


format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
So why not take this opportunity to clear up any misconception?
Do you or do you not claim you have the right to kill and abuse your children however you see fit?
Yes, my fierce and inexorable stance as a parental sovereigntist is that I regard it my natural right as I see fit to do ANYTHING I like with my own offspring. This is because they are simply none of your business to begin with, nor any other outside party's business. They are as much your business as they are the business of some Amazonian tree frog. Yes I can kill my offspring if I want, but I have no actual REASON why I would WANT to kill my offspring. My offspring and I get along just fine. What I was trying to say to you before was that I did not have any INTENTION of killing my offspring. But you were implying that I DID. You were purposefully lying.



format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
You have given us the impression that you will take up arms and go to war with the police if they try to take children away from parents who abuse or attempt to kill their children. Is this a false impression?

You understood right, I would take up arms and defend against any usurpers of my parental sovereignty. I don't care WHAT reason they have for wanting to seize my offpring off me. What you were WRONG about is that I'd take up arms against usurpers if they tried to take offspring away from OTHER parents. Their problems with usurpers are simply not my business. I would ONLY take up arms if any usurper(s) ever attempted to trespass on MY private property and attempt to seize MY offspring. I emphasise MY offspring, NOT others.
Reply

Karl
04-29-2013, 11:31 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by sister harb
Salam alaykum

I admit that it is the duty of parents of the child to take care about him/her at the first but if we still remember the original post of this thread, in that case parents didn´t take care about they child as they should but left child without usefull care and child died. By that news, it wasn´t even the first of they child who died by the similar reasons.

If parents don´t do they duties, then better if society react to the situation (or state if someone wants to call society by that name) and makes what is possible to protect the other children of the parents (like in that case, took them away from parents and put them to the foster home). Or should society just wait they will make the same with they other children too?

Basic question is: can parents do what ever they want for they child because they are the parents or should society has right to "interfere" the situation if it cause harm or danger to the child?

Read the reply I just made to Pygoscelis. My answer to your question is YES, I regard it the absolute right of parents to do what EVER they want with their OWN offspring because it is simply no external entity's BUSINESS TO BEGIN WITH! Collectivism is my ENEMY, not my friend. I have said here many times before that I regard leftist "governments" and "states" etc as my sworn enemy so why would I think they have a right to interfere in my domestic affairs?? "Society" you say? "Society", "states" and the U.N Red Terror etc etc are my ENEMY and I will always defy them until the end. I simply don't recognise any of those entities, particularly when it comes down to my DOMESTIC affairs. I regard domestic affairs to be something that is sacrosanctly private. If any outside party ever dared interfered in my domestic affairs and lectured me what I should and shouldn't do with my offspring I'd be so utterly furious that I'd put a bullet through them for the audacity. I simply don't tolerate communist Nanny State interference into my domestic life! I will always stand my ground and defend against usurpers and tyrants, to the death if absolutely necessary. If other parents wish to tolerate such intrusive audacity from these busybody scum then that's their downfall, not mine. You need to realise that I'm not Jewish. I don't live in a kibbutz where everyone's business is each others. My domestic business is my business alone as far as I'm concerned.
Reply

IAmZamzam
04-29-2013, 12:43 PM
“Society” you say? “Society”, “states” and the U.N Red Terror etc etc are my ENEMY and I will always defy them until the end. I simply don’t recognise any of those entities, particularly when it comes down to my DOMESTIC affairs. I regard domestic affairs to be something that is sacrosanctly private. If any outside party ever dared interfered in my domestic affairs and lectured me what I should and shouldn’t do with my offspring I’d be so utterly furious that I’d put a bullet through them for the audacity. I simply don’t tolerate communist Nanny State interference into my domestic life! I will always stand my ground and defend against usurpers and tyrants, to the death if absolutely necessary. If other parents wish to tolerate such intrusive audacity from these busybody scum then that’s their downfall, not mine. You need to realise that I’m not Jewish. I don’t live in a kibbutz where everyone’s business is each others. My domestic business is my business alone as far as I’m concerned.

I have already reported your post but I can hardly help responding to it as well. If you regard things like domestic affairs and being a Gentile as more sacrosanct than human life then that’s your problem: extend the same courtesy and don’t bring it to our own doorstep. These are highly sensitive times, when dangerous—sometimes lethal—hate crimes are being foisted on innocent brothers and sisters out of the belief that all Muslims are extremists who don’t value human life. What kind of an impression do you think you’re giving by writing posts like that? Congratulations: you might have just contributed to the motives of a real case of someone putting a bullet through someone else. Through a Muslim, specifically.
Reply

ardianto
04-29-2013, 02:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Karl
Yeah everything belongs to Allah but He does not nurse babies and raise the children. They wouldn't live long if we just put the babies out the back for Allah to look after. Remember "trust in God but tie up your camel" Allah is almighty creator and everything belongs to Him but He is not a wet nurse that's what women are for.
Children are amanah or 'something' that trusted to us by the owner. Our children are given by Allah because Allah trust us to raise them. We nurse them, we raise them because we hold this amanah, and later in hereafter we will be asked how we raise them in dunya. If our children are really belong to us, so in the hereafter we don't need to responsible about how we raise them in dunya.

This is what Ulema said.

format_quote Originally Posted by Karl
The union of a man and woman makes a child. Therefore if they made it then by reason the child is of their making and belongs to them NOT to the state which uses force to interfere. The state may have the power but it has not got the God given right.
The children are citizen of the state. So, the state has duty to protect them from abuse or anything that endanger them, whoever do this.

Also, God does not give right for parents to do something bad to their children.
Reply

sister herb
04-29-2013, 03:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Karl
"Society", "states" and the U.N Red Terror etc etc are my ENEMY and I will always defy them until the end.
Salam alaykum

What if you could forget for a little time that every societies would be all the time something "red" or "leftist". Society is the place you live and it can be also islamic society. Do you think that it is ok in islamic society that parents can make to they children what ever they want - even seriously risk they lives? In this the first post parents didn´t make sure that they child get enough medical care and caused death of the child (as judge thinks). Do you think that islamic society should to be just quiet in kind of situation and let parents to continue similar kind of behavior with they other children too? Or should islamic society ensure the basic security of all of its citizens - including those whose are defenceless by age or by some other reason?

Of my mind it should and I would like to know what Islam and/or sharia says about kind of matter.
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-29-2013, 03:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Karl
Yes, my fierce and inexorable stance as a parental sovereigntist is that I regard it my natural right as I see fit to do ANYTHING I like with my own offspring. This is because they are simply none of your business to begin with, nor any other outside party's business. They are as much your business as they are the business of some Amazonian tree frog. Yes I can kill my offspring if I want, but I have no actual REASON why I would WANT to kill my offspring. My offspring and I get along just fine. What I was trying to say to you before was that I did not have any INTENTION of killing my offspring. But you were implying that I DID. You were purposefully lying.
Is this because you created them or because you are an anarchist? Would you equally claim a right to kill your parents, or does this right you claim only run down the family tree and not up it? From what you have written may I assume you have no problem with honour killings and that sort of things that may happen in other families which are not yours?

This is a rare find for me. Do you know many others who share your view? Do you find any foundation for this view in Islam?
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-29-2013, 03:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IAmZamzam
I have already reported your post but I can hardly help responding to it as well. If you regard things like domestic affairs and being a Gentile as more sacrosanct than human life then that’s your problem: extend the same courtesy and don’t bring it to our own doorstep. These are highly sensitive times, when dangerous—sometimes lethal—hate crimes are being foisted on innocent brothers and sisters out of the belief that all Muslims are extremists who don’t value human life. What kind of an impression do you think you’re giving by writing posts like that?
I would prefer he speak freely and openly. Silencing him will not in any way hide the fact that people think as he does. We already know they are out there. We just rarely get to hear from them. I could do without the constant string of personal attacks and straw men, but I would like to hear more from both Karl and Cosmic Pathos (who has in the past said he would like atheists to die and has called for the hunting down of homosexuals). What makes somebody think this way? Is it Islam? Or is it something else entirely? I'm betting on the latter, as we have many Muslims in this very thread, including yourself, who strongly disagree with them. Only by getting to the root of it can we hope to understand and address it.

And yes, I know you have childishly put me on ignore, but I'm writing this for the others who are reading (and for you should they quote me to you).
Reply

Insaanah
04-29-2013, 04:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Karl
The union of a man and woman makes a child.
format_quote Originally Posted by Karl
My offspring are my biological property by virtue of the fact that I created them.
I am afraid it is not you who created your child, nor union between man and woman, but God. Many men and women have unions but are unable to have children, which shows that it is not the union that creates it. Nor is it you. Our children, are a trust and a gift bestowed on us by God, and let us never lose sight of that, somehow thinking that we are their creators.

format_quote Originally Posted by Karl
Yes, my fierce and inexorable stance as a parental sovereigntist is that I regard it my natural right as I see fit to do ANYTHING I like with my own offspring.
format_quote Originally Posted by Karl
Yes I can kill my offspring if I want, but I have no actual REASON why I would WANT to kill my offspring.
format_quote Originally Posted by Karl
My answer to your question is YES, I regard it the absolute right of parents to do what EVER they want with their OWN offspring because it is simply no external entity's BUSINESS TO BEGIN WITH!
You cannot do whatever you like with your children. In Islam, even for those things which are permissible, we have certain limits we must not cross.

An Islamic state, whether you personally like it or not, would have every right to intervene in cases of child neglect/abuse.

If a girls father in his capacity as wali (male guardian for marriage) unreasonably stops her from being married, the state can remove him as wali and appoint another wali to act on her behalf. Yet, that is a situation that is not life threatening.

So, if it becomes evident to the society at large, to the ummah, that their little brothers and sisters, (ie children) are suffering abuse or neglect, then it should be found out why, is the family suffering from financial hardship, do they need support, whether from the state or elsewhere etc. It is not only the states duty, but the states right towards those children, to protect them, and to work with the parents/guardians for the well-being of those children.

They may be your children, but they are also citizens of the state, and a just ruler would feel responsible for every member of society.

It may be the case, that despite the above, intervention must be made to save the lives of the children. This is allowed, in the same way that we are allowed to eat pork if we were dying of starvation and that was the only thing available to us, as the saving of a life takes priority.

In this case too, saving the lives of children would take priority over anybody's ownership of them.

And Allah knows best.
Reply

CosmicPathos
04-29-2013, 09:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Why do you assert that C is governed by the same laws as A + B is? You have given no proof for this.
I dont need proof for that. all cells are governed by same dogma of molecular bio.

format_quote Originally Posted by Insaanah
An Islamic state, whether you personally like it or not, would have every right to intervene in cases of child neglect/abuse.
says who?

format_quote Originally Posted by Insaanah
In this case too, saving the lives of children would take priority over anybody's ownership of them.
again, says who? does not say so in quran. It would be man-made ijtihad done by people who are taken to be pious (ironically they have their fair share of sins) to come to that conclusion.

If God is the only sovereign, then who gave the right to state to control people's lives? Is there any difference between islamic state and Orwellian state?

format_quote Originally Posted by Karl
Read the reply I just made to Pygoscelis. My answer to your question is YES, I regard it the absolute right of parents to do what EVER they want with their OWN offspring because it is simply no external entity's BUSINESS TO BEGIN WITH! Collectivism is my ENEMY, not my friend. I have said here many times before that I regard leftist "governments" and "states" etc as my sworn enemy so why would I think they have a right to interfere in my domestic affairs?? "Society" you say? "Society", "states" and the U.N Red Terror etc etc are my ENEMY and I will always defy them until the end. I simply don't recognise any of those entities, particularly when it comes down to my DOMESTIC affairs. I regard domestic affairs to be something that is sacrosanctly private. If any outside party ever dared interfered in my domestic affairs and lectured me what I should and shouldn't do with my offspring I'd be so utterly furious that I'd put a bullet through them for the audacity. I simply don't tolerate communist Nanny State interference into my domestic life! I will always stand my ground and defend against usurpers and tyrants, to the death if absolutely necessary. If other parents wish to tolerate such intrusive audacity from these busybody scum then that's their downfall, not mine. You need to realise that I'm not Jewish. I don't live in a kibbutz where everyone's business is each others. My domestic business is my business alone as far as I'm concerned.
I love your contrarian and dissenting views. your willingness to fight the collective madness of society (muslim or kaafir) with your own beliefs. I am sick and tired of having people impose their version of Islam on me and then deem me impious cuz I rejected their belief. And then there are 50,000 versions, and all claim to be truthful.

Bravo comrade.

I say it again. If couples are free to abort their fetuses, then couples can and should do whatever they want to with their zygotes, embryo, fetuses, neonates, infants and adolescents. the pathetic human society does not see its own hypocrisy and psygo has already called on for me being locked up cuz I unveiled his hypocrisy.

format_quote Originally Posted by Insaanah
If a girls father in his capacity as wali (male guardian for marriage) unreasonably stops her from being married, the state can remove him as wali and appoint another wali to act on her behalf. Yet, that is a situation that is not life threatening.
you are an intelligent person, mashAllah. Do you really think it is as simple as that? What is the definition of unreasonable? What if the wali has valid reasons but the state thinks his reasons are not reasonable. One encounters this all the time in all fields of work such as medicine or law.

In fact my mother thought it was reasonable for me to buy a bmx when I was a kid. My dad thought that was unreasonable. Who was right and who wrong?

format_quote Originally Posted by ardianto
Children are amanah or 'something' that trusted to us by the owner. Our children are given by Allah because Allah trust us to raise them. We nurse them, we raise them because we hold this amanah, and later in hereafter we will be asked how we raise them in dunya. If our children are really belong to us, so in the hereafter we don't need to responsible about how we raise them in dunya.
Sure they are. And that is MY business and I will be answerable to Allah swt on how I treated my children. It is NOT state's or any one's right to take my children away from me whatsoever. I reject government infringement in my private life, be it a "super pious" khalifah or a President.
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-30-2013, 01:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
I dont need proof for that. all cells are governed by same dogma of molecular bio.
What on earth is "dogma of molecular bio"?

say it again. If couples are free to abort their fetuses, then couples can and should do whatever they want to with their zygotes, embryo, fetuses, neonates, infants and adolescents. the pathetic human society does not see its own hypocrisy and psygo has already called on for me being locked up cuz I unveiled his hypocrisy.
What hypocrisy? I am pro-life when it comes to fetuses. I have never said otherwise.

I would like you to answer directly the question I put to Karl, since you seem to be implying your agreement without outright stating it (and you will no doubt try to say I put words in your mouth). So clear up any misconception for us. Do you or do you not claim to have a right to kill and abuse your children however you see fit? How about your parents and other family members? Should society ever have a right to interfere in your family matters and stop you from doing harm to your family members?
Reply

Hulk
04-30-2013, 01:39 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
again, says who? does not say so in quran. It would be man-made ijtihad done by people who are taken to be pious (ironically they have their fair share of sins) to come to that conclusion.

If God is the only sovereign, then who gave the right to state to control people's lives? Is there any difference between islamic state and Orwellian state?
This is a very weak argument brother. I think you know that, unless you are so adamant in defending your position regardless of whether you're right or wrong. I remind you of your earlier post about going where the truth leads you to. That is a good way to go by and I hope you would follow it even if it means to realise that your position is wrong.
Reply

CosmicPathos
04-30-2013, 01:49 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hulk
This is a very weak argument brother. I think you know that, unless you are so adamant in defending your position regardless of whether you're right or wrong. I remind you of your earlier post about going where the truth leads you to. That is a good way to go by and I hope you would follow it even if it means to realise that your position is wrong.
bro, what's weak in it?

Gone are the days when one could blindly trust in the likes of great people like Umar or Ali because we knew they were trained by the Prophet himself (saw). I cannot put trust in random joe sheikhs/khalifahs today, who are separated by the wall of 1500 years from the legacy of Prophet, to interfere in my or any Muslim's personal life. Religion today is being used as a tool of manipulation. And I cant let any snake use that tool to manipulate me!

I will change my position if you can provide me with a better alternative in this regards. Trust me on that.
Reply

CosmicPathos
04-30-2013, 01:51 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
What on earth is "dogma of molecular bio"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central...ecular_biology
Reply

CosmicPathos
04-30-2013, 01:55 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Do you or do you not claim to have a right to kill and abuse your children however you see fit?
As a Muslim, I do not have such a right in the court of God. Outside of that, no frigging Homo sapien has the right to tell me what I can or cannot do with my own children.
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-30-2013, 02:11 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Your wikipedia link
The central dogma of molecular biology deals with the detailed residue-by-residue transfer of sequential information. It states that such information cannot be transferred back from protein to either protein or nucleic acid.
What does that have to do with morality?

format_quote Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
As a Muslim, I do not have such a right in the court of God. Outside of that, no frigging Homo sapien has the right to tell me what I can or cannot do with my own children.
Interesting... so let's turn it around then. If you had it in your power to easily prevent a stranger from killing and abusing his children, would you? Or would you give him his right to do this and stand back and wait for Allah to deal with him after the damage is done?
Reply

CosmicPathos
04-30-2013, 02:16 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Interesting... so let's turn it around then. If you had it in your power to easily prevent a stranger from killing and abusing his children, would you? Or would you give him his right to do this and stand back and wait for Allah to deal with him after the damage is done?
you asked me about my belief. I answered that. I am not responsible for what someone else does.
Reply

CosmicPathos
04-30-2013, 02:17 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
What does that have to do with morality?
it means that sperms and eggs and zygotes are governed by same laws.
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-30-2013, 02:21 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
you asked me about my belief. I answered that. I am not responsible for what someone else does.
Yes, of course. But I didn't ask if you were responsible for what somebody else does. I asked if you would interfere and stop them from killing or abusing their children.

it means that sperms and eggs and zygotes are governed by same laws.
By the same moral laws? Also, why have we switched from fetuses to zygotes?
Reply

Futuwwa
04-30-2013, 05:55 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
it means that sperms and eggs and zygotes are governed by same laws.
Physical laws, not moral or legal laws. Physical "laws" are not laws in the same sense, they are simply observed, factual descriptions of how the universe works, and have no normative implications.
Reply

Karl
04-30-2013, 09:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by IAmZamzam
If you regard things like domestic affairs and being a Gentile as more sacrosanct than human life then that’s your problem.
Not my problem, it's my POSITION. Big difference.


format_quote Originally Posted by IAmZamzam
extend the same courtesy and don’t bring it to our own doorstep
Ummm, this IS a discussion forum. You can discuss YOUR position and I can discuss MINE.


format_quote Originally Posted by IAmZamzam
What kind of an impression do you think you’re giving by writing posts like that?
I'm not some kind of poster boy for politically correct version Islam. Different people will obviously feel differently about my worldview, just as they will with yours. No big deal is it?


format_quote Originally Posted by IAmZamzam
Congratulations: you might have just contributed to the motives of a real case of someone putting a bullet through someone else. Through a Muslim, specifically.
Just because one labels themselves a "Muslim" doesn't automatically mean that that should get them off the hook if they trespass. I have stated you my parental sovereignty position. It is an ABSOLUTE UNCONDITIONAL POSITION I hold and it applies to ALL outsiders regardless of whether the trespasser happens to have the world "Muslim" or "communist" or "Christian" (or whatever else) tattooed on his or her forehead or not.
Reply

Karl
04-30-2013, 09:52 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ardianto
The children are citizen of the state. So, the state has duty to protect them from abuse or anything that endanger them, whoever do this.
It depends WHAT state you are talking about though. Statism is NOT some kind of universal monolithic thing even if your beloved United Nations Communist Terror organization likes to dictate that it is. I admit that most modern day secularist totalitarian states have usurped parental sovereignty and forcibly subsumed parents in to an official status of subservience to the state. But that doesn't mean to say that I for one am going to AGREE and COOPERATE with the state. I have told you over and over and over again that my OWN position is that I do simply not recognise at all state authority over my DOMESTIC AFFAIRS. That the state has the POWER to invade my private property and usurp my parental authority DOESN'T change the fact that in the hypothetical event of any state intrusion into my domestic affairs I WILL fight them to the death to defend my private property and parental sovereignty which I passionately consider to be my God Given Right. You are simply wasting your time if you think you can ever change my mind on this.


format_quote Originally Posted by ardianto
Also, God does not give right for parents to do something bad to their children.
That might be true, ok. BUT I regard this matter as something that is strictly between ME and ALLAH (SWT). If I ever need to be "punished" for anything I ever do "wrong" in my domestic affairs I will ONLY accept ALLAH (swt) judging me on that, NOT any external third party Earthly entity such as a "state" or "collective".
Reply

Trumble
04-30-2013, 10:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by CosmicPathos

I say it again. If couples are free to abort their fetuses, then couples can and should do whatever they want to with their zygotes, embryo, fetuses, neonates, infants and adolescents. the pathetic human society does not see its own hypocrisy and psygo has already called on for me being locked up cuz I unveiled his hypocrisy.
There is no 'hypocrisy'. There is no reason whatsoever that the 'then' should follow from the 'if', something easily understood by the millions/billions who reject abortion while also rejecting the abusers' charter labelled 'parental sovereignty'. The statement only makes logical sense if fetuses, infants and adolescents are identical. They are not, a fact that remains true whatever your position on abortion may be, or when 'life' may happen to start.

I'm not sure what's worse, the 'rights' claimed by some posters here or the nonsensical arguments attempting to justify them. The only good news is that you will both still be waving your arms, going red in face, 'rejecting' whatever you like and holding whatever 'positions' you like in total futility while the authorities act in the best interests of your children and society as a whole.
Reply

Karl
04-30-2013, 10:06 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by sister harb
What if you could forget for a little time that every societies would be all the time something "red" or "leftist". Society is the place you live and it can be also islamic society. Do you think that it is ok in islamic society that parents can make to they children what ever they want - even seriously risk they lives? In this the first post parents didn´t make sure that they child get enough medical care and caused death of the child (as judge thinks). Do you think that islamic society should to be just quiet in kind of situation and let parents to continue similar kind of behavior with they other children too? Or should islamic society ensure the basic security of all of its citizens - including those whose are defenceless by age or by some other reason?
I don't wish to speak on behalf of everyone. I only wish to speak on behalf of MYSELF. As a staunch isolationist and patriarchalist I don't acknowledge the authority of ANY modern state whatsoever to interfere in my domestic affairs. PERIOD. Is that so hard to understand? I don't consider myself (nor my offspring) to be a "citizen" of any state, even the nation of which I reside in now. I am my own freestanding autonomous separatist self. I want nothing at all to do with anyone's "society" and I don't want them to have anything to do with me either. I am none of their inherent business and they are none of my business. If however different parents such as yourself wish to ACCEPT to be subservient slaves to a state then that is your choice. If you ACCEPT the state usurpation of your parental sovereignty then that is your choice to accept it. To each their own..

format_quote Originally Posted by sister harb
Of my mind it should and I would like to know what Islam and/or sharia says about kind of matter.
There are many forms of Islam. Shafii Islam in particular supports my position and comes quite close to the Patria Potestas principle of old Roman law. (Absolute powers of the father over his offspring). Like old Roman law, under Shafii civil law, it is illegal to initiate force against non domestic EXTERNAL entities, but this does not apply to a father in regards to his own offspring. So for example I can not legally go and kill some stranger down the road, but what I do with my own offspring is no external entity's business whatsoever. This is why (apparently) Shafii Islam is the only form of Islam I can accept.
Reply

Karl
04-30-2013, 10:33 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Is this because you created them or because you are an anarchist?
Definitely because I fathered them yes. Perhaps I am an anarchist as well? If I am then I guess that's another reason.



format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Would you equally claim a right to kill your parents, or does this right you claim only run down the family tree and not up it?
It only runs DOWN the family tree, not up it. One can't procreate their parents. My offspring are the possessions of me, I am not the possession of them. My position accords similarly to how it used to be in the old Roman times. A father could kill his offspring but offspring had no authority to kill parents.



format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
From what you have written may I assume you have no problem with honour killings and that sort of things that may happen in other families which are not yours?
Yes I have no problem with honour killing. I have not the arrogance nor interest to interfere into anyone else's domestic affairs no matter what they get up to in their domestic affairs. What they do is their own business, not mine.



format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
This is a rare find for me. Do you know many others who share your view?
Yes, I would imagine it is quite a rare stance nowadays. It is certainly not mainstream or "top of the pops" you could say. My passionate worldview has been gradually in decline particularly since the popular rise of socialism and Marxism during the course of the 20th and early 21st centuries as well as socialist cultural imperialism that has been foisted onto non Western countries as well (including Islamic ones). Believe it or not though, recognition of parental sovereignty WAS once extremely mainstream. My position would have been actually the norm and yours would have been considered "odd" to say the least. Interfering in someone else's domestic affairs was considered one big no go zone. Fathers would have reacted violently if outsiders dared attempted to interfere in how they chose to raise their offspring. It would have been regarded as about as confrontationally audacious as trying to burn down his house or abduct his wife.



format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Do you find any foundation for this view in Islam?
You can read what I said to "sister harb" above. Several years ago I went to great lengths to get to the bottom of this before I would convert to Islam. I consulted several imams about this because it was one of the issues of paramount importance to me. I was told that under shafii school of jurisprudence that only Allah (swt) can make judgment upon a father in what he does in his DOMESTIC affairs. He can NOT be judged by an EARTHLY COURT. Only in incidents in which he initiates force against EXTERNAL entities can he be judged in an Earthly court.
Reply

Karl
04-30-2013, 10:46 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
I love your contrarian and dissenting views. your willingness to fight the collective madness of society (muslim or kaafir) with your own beliefs. I am sick and tired of having people impose their version of Islam on me and then deem me impious cuz I rejected their belief. And then there are 50,000 versions, and all claim to be truthful.

Bravo comrade.

I say it again. If couples are free to abort their fetuses, then couples can and should do whatever they want to with their zygotes, embryo, fetuses, neonates, infants and adolescents. the pathetic human society does not see its own hypocrisy and psygo has already called on for me being locked up cuz I unveiled his hypocrisy.
Thank you, brother! You are one of the best! :statisfie :thumbs_up May Allah bless you a billion times over.
Reply

Eric H
04-30-2013, 11:09 AM
Greetings and peace be with you Karl,

There are many forms of Islam.
You are making it sound as if there is a Karl Islam,

Shafii Islam in particular supports my position and comes quite close to the Patria Potestas principle of old Roman law.
Old Roman Law and Islam, this sounds like Karl Islam again.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people

Eric
Reply

ardianto
04-30-2013, 01:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Karl
I was told that under shafii school of jurisprudence that only Allah (swt) can make judgment upon a father in what he does in his DOMESTIC affairs. He can NOT be judged by an EARTHLY COURT. Only in incidents in which he initiates force against EXTERNAL entities can he be judged in an Earthly court.
Don't make a fitnah toward Shafi'i school.
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-30-2013, 02:27 PM
Karl, thank you for your responses.

One more question. Do you extend your claimed parental sovereignty past adolescence and into adulthood for your children? So long as you live are you the owner of your children, even once they have children of your own? Are you the owner of your grand children and great grand children and all of your descendents downwards?
Reply

LauraS
04-30-2013, 05:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
As a Muslim, I do not have such a right in the court of God. Outside of that, no frigging Homo sapien has the right to tell me what I can or cannot do with my own children.
Please don't have children.

I can't believe I'm reading people saying they ave a right to harm their children is they wish, forget other "homo sapiens" telling you what to do, what about morals?

So I couple of years ago a man killed his seven year old daughter with an axe, should he not be charged by the police because he can do what he wants with his own children?
Reply

CosmicPathos
04-30-2013, 06:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by LauraS
So I couple of years ago a man killed his seven year old daughter with an axe, should he not be charged by the police because he can do what he wants with his own children?
yup, Allah swt will punish him for his wrong doings.



format_quote Originally Posted by LauraS
Please don't have children.
Yes, I will have children, inshAllah. And I will love them. But you are nobody to tell me if I should have children or not and if I should love them or hate them. Mind your own friggin business.
Reply

sister herb
04-30-2013, 06:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
Mind your own friggin business.
Is it also your own business do you answer to others here using dirty expressions or answer in a polite and kind way? May Allah guide you.
Reply

LauraS
04-30-2013, 06:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
yup, Allah swt will punish him for his wrong doings.





.
What, so he shouldn't be dealt with by man made law too?
Reply

IAmZamzam
04-30-2013, 07:49 PM
“Do not take any human beings life—[the life] which God has willed to be sacred—other than in [the pursuit of] justice.” (Quran 25:68, Asad)
Reply

CosmicPathos
04-30-2013, 08:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by sister harb
Is it also your own business do you answer to others here using dirty expressions or answer in a polite and kind way? May Allah guide you.
Allhamdulillah, I am already guided and blessed.

worry about your grave and your boat load of sins!
Reply

CosmicPathos
04-30-2013, 08:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IAmZamzam
“Do not take any human beings life—[the life] which God has willed to be sacred—other than in [the pursuit of] justice.” (Quran 25:68, Asad)
one can argue that children are not human beings. Just like how Muslims argue that fetus is not a human being and can therefore be aborted.
Reply

CosmicPathos
04-30-2013, 08:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by LauraS
What, so he shouldn't be dealt with by man made law too?
I hereby reject all man-made law.
Reply

جوري
04-30-2013, 08:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
Just like how Muslims argue that fetus is not a human being and can therefore be aborted.
I haven't been following this thread. But in Islam a fetus is a human being at 4 months of age- that is when it is 'Ensouled' ..

Narrated Jarir: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: He who is deprived of gentleness is deprived of good.

:w:
Reply

CosmicPathos
04-30-2013, 08:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by العنود
I haven't been following this thread. But in Islam a fetus is a human being at 4 months of age- that is when it is 'Ensouled' ..

Narrated Jarir: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: He who is deprived of gentleness is deprived of good.

:w:
I've read 40 days. Not 4 months. Human heart starts beating by 35 days.

Please take that hadith in context. Many kaafirs during Prophet's time were gentle. Abu Jahal etc.

w salam.
Reply

جوري
04-30-2013, 08:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
I've read 40 days. Not 4 months.
Please take that hadith in context. Many kaafirs during Prophet's time were gentle. Abu Jahal etc.
w salam.
It pays to read twice:
http://books.google.com/books?id=agq...hadith&f=false

Your behavior should be yours regardless of whom it is you are dealing with.


Not telling you not to be firm but firmness built upon principle.. I see you direct the same behavior toward Muslims here, even though none of them have imposed opinion on you, they're merely stating the facts!

:w:
Reply

CosmicPathos
04-30-2013, 08:38 PM
^^ I stand corrected on the 40 days part. It is 120 days, not 40. Regardless, i think aborting cuz one decided to have a swing one night is an abhorring act.

I've done that only with few Muslims here, if you note. Especially Tyrion and Futuuwa. Others are my brothers and sisters and I have no ill feelings towards them.

w salam
Reply

جوري
04-30-2013, 08:41 PM
Ok :jz: I saw your post toward sr. Insaanah and I wasn't sure what your objections were.
I am glad you agree that abortion is abhorrent and that children are our amanat and that they're all born on fitrah and have no hand in how they're being treated and handled.

:w:
Reply

CosmicPathos
04-30-2013, 08:43 PM
Of course. Children are amazing. I loved neonatology.

My only issue was with other ppl trying to dictate what we should do with our own children.

w salam
Reply

Insaanah
04-30-2013, 09:54 PM
The manly among men, is not he who says, "My wife and children are my property, so I can do absolutely whatever I like to them."

The manly among men, the defender of his family, is he who says, "Allah has given me a wife and gifted me children, and I fear Allah regarding my treatment of them, and never wish to do any wrong to them. I am their leader and have a big responsibility, and will be questioned as to my treatment of them and behaviour towards them. The Prophet :saws: was the best towards his family, and I wish to emulate his example, and to do all halal, kind and desirable things with them. "

It's been said in this thread that a bullet would be put through anyone who told anyone how to treat their family, and also that no homo sapien has the right to tell one how to treat ones family. Among Muslims, we also have those well versed in fiqh of the family, but also practical aspects of family life, marriage maintenance, bringing up kids Islamically, etc. Much can be learned from them. Yet somehow, it is taken that anyone that may attempt to impart good information and tips, is interfering with your family life, and has no right to do so, and such a person should be shot and anything they say rejected outright, or not even listened to.

Words and machoism and exalting of one's own sovereignty is being thrown around here in a manner that is bewildering. Some participating in this thread that might not yet be married, and although we pray it's the case, being gifted with children is ultimately under Allah's control, and you don't even know yet if you'll be able to have any. Similarly, you should know, that when you do have them, you should fear Allah regarding them, and it should not lead you to become proud or pompous and regard them as material property. Some here would say that it can be argued that children are not human. When you have your own children, I wonder if you'll say that about them.

As Muslims, the ummah is supposed to be one body, such that when one part is hurt, the rest responds with wakefulness and fever. We are also told that we are the best of nations because we enjoin the right and forbid the wrong. We are also told, that if we see something wrong, we should change it with our hands, if not with our hands then speak out against it, and if not that, then to hate it in our heart is the weakest of faith.

I hope we can all agree that no parent has the "right" to neglect or abuse the child under their care.

I sincerely hope that every child, Muslim or not, that is starving, abused, neglected, gets the help they deserve, ideally within the context of a family trying their best to improve.

May we all fear Allah as He should be feared and humble ourselves towards Him, ameen.
Reply

IAmZamzam
05-01-2013, 12:57 AM
One can argue that children are not human beings. Just like how Muslims argue that fetus is not a human being and can therefore be aborted.

Why not one-hundred-and-twenty-year-olds too, while we're at it?

I’ve done that only with few Muslims here, if you note. Especially Tyrion and Futuuwa. Others are my brothers and sisters and I have no ill feelings towards them.

We’re all your brothers and sisters. It is synonymous with the very term “Muslim”. And “none of us will ever have faith until he likes for his brother what he likes for himself” (Sahih Bukhari 2:12 I believe).
Reply

Berries'forest
05-01-2013, 12:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Karl
Yes, I would imagine it is quite a rare stance nowadays. It is certainly not mainstream or "top of the pops" you could say. My passionate worldview has been gradually in decline particularly since the popular rise of socialism and Marxism during the course of the 20th and early 21st centuries as well as socialist cultural imperialism that has been foisted onto non Western countries as well (including Islamic ones). Believe it or not though, recognition of parental sovereignty WAS once extremely mainstream. My position would have been actually the norm and yours would have been considered "odd" to say the least. Interfering in someone else's domestic affairs was considered one big no go zone. Fathers would have reacted violently if outsiders dared attempted to interfere in how they chose to raise their offspring. It would have been regarded as about as confrontationally audacious as trying to burn down his house or abduct his wife.
Well perhaps it's because you went against your own conscience this is why it seems so rare to you. You admitted it yourself you are driven by passion. I think the equivalent arabic word for that (I read on a translated note) was Himya or Hamiya it is an ignorant trait. I also noticed that you've missed the whole chapter in the Quran that condemed arab men who burried their daughters alive because they were considered to be a disgrace to the household or clan. No I'm sorry to disappoint you, but you are not as remarkably outstanding as you seem to think you are and yet ironically it is you who denotes that he is not as arrogant and conceited so as to 'interfere' and save a child from a wrteched infliction caused by their own 'caring' parents. You know many of your likes still exist today and have existed throughout history and for your dismay they weren't prophets nor were they truly believing people either. We can't help it if you don't feel compassionate enough to care about the well-being of your own children. I suppose you'd still stand firmly on your stance if your parents have claimed this right to parental soveregeinty as well?. Or perhaps they already did and it was just a trait that you've inherited from them. But since we 'do' "create "our children then for all we care we can burn them alive now can't we?. Kudos to the merciless empire of parental soveregeinty launching one of the most significant and remotely disasterous revolutions in all history. More power to abusive parents and downplaying to 'evil wicked nosey wretches' who dare to interfere. Funny though you seem to be placing burning down someone's house or abducting his wife on the same footing as 'interfering' with the way they treat their children. *Note: This whole thread by the way is about specifically that; How they treat their children and not how they raise them;big difference*. But hey, why should anyone concern themselves with burning down or abducting the wife of such a man I mean he would eventaully have done it himself anyway; no need to be concerned over that.

Karl, I said this to you before and I'll say it again. It's hightime you get a load of yourself. Seriously.

This behavior in earth language and substracting all those fancy and sophisticated words like 'anarchist' and 'non-conformist' it's simply called being possessive a trait that is driven by the ego. The need to control someone and exhibit absolute power over them even if that someone was your poor helpless child.
Reply

sister herb
05-01-2013, 01:22 PM
Salam alaykum

Hopely things will change at the some day and people learn to think that everything is not just only "interfere" of the domestic matters if there is some sort of abusing/violence inside of the family. I just found from other forum kind of link (sorry it is only by Arabic):


Saudi Arabia launches first anti-domestic violence ad

http://www.kkf.org.sa/ar/Pages/nomoreabuse.aspx

Hopely that wasn´t off topic... :phew
Reply

Hulk
05-01-2013, 01:58 PM
I understand why there are people who do not want their domestic affairs to be interfered with by anyone, your children are your responsibility and you will raise them as you see fit. We are however not perfect beings so if I am doing something that might be putting my children in harm's way unknowingly I think I would certainly want people to stop me from doing so.

Narrated Anas: Allah's Apostle said, "Help your brother, whether he is an oppressor or he is an oppressed one. People asked, "O Allah's Apostle! It is all right to help him if he is oppressed, but how should we help him if he is an oppressor?" The Prophet said, "By preventing him from oppressing others."


Reply

Pygoscelis
05-01-2013, 04:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
I hereby reject all man-made law.
All man-made law? I thought we were only talking about your own children, but this goes a lot further. Do you also claim to have a right to kill and abuse me and my children if were unable to stop you? And were you to do so, would you say the Police have no business arresting you and that the courts have no business judging and convicting you?

format_quote Originally Posted by Insaanah
I hope we can all agree that no parent has the "right" to neglect or abuse the child under their care.
I appreciate your sentiment, but this is obviously false hope, given what we have read here.

I do appreciate the other muslims writing in the thread, and I am convinced that this view Karl and CosmicPathos hold has little to do with Islam. There is something else going on here.
Reply

Hulk
05-01-2013, 05:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
All man-made law? I thought we were only talking about your own children, but this goes a lot further. Do you also claim to have a right to kill and abuse me and my children if were unable to stop you?
Since I am not Br Cosmic I can't really answer for him but killing innocent people is against Islam so it is unlikely that he would think that he has the right to kill you or any member of your family.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-01-2013, 05:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hulk
Since I am not Br Cosmic I can't really answer for him but killing innocent people is against Islam so it is unlikely that he would think that he has the right to kill you or any member of your family.
His children are innocent people and he has already said he has the right to kill them, so don't be so sure.
Reply

sister herb
05-01-2013, 05:42 PM
^^ Sure. But you are not member of his family and family matters we have (even mostly) discussed in here. I hope we could stay on original topic, not try to go too far from it.
Reply

LauraS
05-01-2013, 07:24 PM
So according to Cosmic child murderers should just be allowed to walk free until they die and can be judged by God.

I don't believe either Cosmic or Karl truly believe they have a right to kill their children to be honest. It's all very well saying I have a right to raise my children as I wish but if children are being abused by their parents then there obviously needs to be intervention and I don't believe any sane person could disagree with this.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-01-2013, 07:45 PM
To be fair to Karl and Cosmic, neither of them are saying it is good to kill their children, or that they would do so, or that they should not be punished if they did. I have no doubt that they love their children, and I doubt they would kill or abuse them. From what I can tell they are just saying they will leave punishment up to Allah and that human society shouldn't interfere. Cosmic has now taken this position for not just child abuse, but for all human-made law. I ask them to correct anything I just said.

This position seems to run against any sense of protecting the innocent from wrongdoing. If Allah doesn't exist (my view), then this position leads to absolutely no personal accountability for ones actions. If Allah does exist (the majority view here) then this position leads to an after the fact punishment for wrongdoing rather than an impetus to prevent it.

Are there not numerous calls in the Quran for us to actively protect the innocent from harm, or have I been reading that in? If you saw a man torturing a child, or killing children, would you not feel compelled to stop them? Does the Quran not instruct you to stop them? Pretty much every other moral code I have come across does.
Reply

Berries'forest
05-01-2013, 08:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
To be fair to Karl and Cosmic, neither of them are saying it is good to kill their children, or that they would do so, or that they should not be punished if they did.
They were implying that it is a-okay for anyone to just do anything and everything they want with their children. Since they are their property and even killing them wouldn't be good enough for parents to be dubbed as murderers. And maybe you missed the post but CosmicPathos made it quite clear that parents should not be punished if they were ever to kill their children deliberitly.

They could've expressed their desire to raise their children however they wish with out those uncalled for hyper induced arguments they've made. What on earth, does someone have to go through all these great lengths of porfessing their unique sentiments regading such topics just to finish off with saying despite all the outlandish comments and remarks they've made about children they still love them?. There will be one day that comes when children denounce and run away from their parents and a wife casts her husband away. Fear God before you publish whatever you write because we are not the only ones who see this but God above all is well aware of what you do. Bottomline is Your children will never be your property. Simply because you are only the mere intermediate for their existance but their tru owner is God. There is no court that can give you victory in their custody over God because it is God whose created them and not you.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-01-2013, 09:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Berries'forest
And maybe you missed the post but CosmicPathos made it quite clear that parents should not be punished if they were ever to kill their children deliberitly.
I didn't miss it. I am the one that drew it out of him. I wanted to clarify his view and gave an example that both he and I realize is extreme to test its limits. That he feels he has the right to kill his kids, doesn't mean he would actually do so. I find his position scary, because as the OP demonstrates there are parents who would do so, and he feels we have no right to stop them.

Fear God before you publish whatever you write because we are not the only ones who see this but God above all is well aware of what you do.
I find this pretty disturbing as well. Treat people well and be good towards your fellow humans because you Fear God? No. Way too authoritarian for my comfort. Treat people well and be good towards your fellow humans because you have empathy and compassion.

Bottomline is Your children will never be your property. Simply because you are only the mere intermediate for their existance but their tru owner is God. There is no court that can give you victory in their custody over God because it is God whose created them and not you.
They own themselves. I disapprove of ownership of human beings. Slavery is wrong. Hence my sig below.
Reply

Karl
05-02-2013, 12:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Karl, thank you for your responses.

One more question. Do you extend your claimed parental sovereignty past adolescence and into adulthood for your children? So long as you live are you the owner of your children, even once they have children of your own? Are you the owner of your grand children and great grand children and all of your descendents downwards?
I don't believe in adolescence. Adulthood at twelve is my ancestors custom. I am not concerned with age but if they have the maturity to be independant of me. I will bestow independence on them. And to the rest of your questions the answer is no and btw I would have to be immortal to own my descendants anyway.
Reply

sister herb
05-02-2013, 07:58 PM
Salam alaykum

12 is adult? He can marry at that age and start to take care about his own family alone?

Does 12 year old is real mature to understand to how to rise his children? Isn´t 12 year old is still in mind as child?

^o)
Reply

CosmicPathos
05-02-2013, 09:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
I do appreciate the other muslims writing in the thread, and I am convinced that this view Karl and CosmicPathos hold has little to do with Islam. There is something else going on here.
Islam's reason d'etre is to make us recognize one God who has created us and to follow His last Prophet. That is it.

Islam has given me the freedom to create my own views in all other aspects of life.
Reply

sister herb
05-02-2013, 10:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
Islam has given me the freedom to create my own views in all other aspects of life.
Islam Cosmic as like Islam Karl? Be carefull little brother that you don´t create own views what aren´t islamic at all. Fear Allah.
Reply

CosmicPathos
05-02-2013, 10:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by sister harb
Islam Cosmic as like Islam Karl? Be carefull little brother that you don´t create own views what aren´t islamic at all. Fear Allah.
Half of what you (or any human being really from sister insaanah to bro hulk) write on these forums are your views with your biases, not Islam's views or Prophet's views. So why do you not fear Allah and only want me or Karl to fear Allah?

I do fear Allah swt and I do think most humans only pay lip service to Allah swt. So I am baagi/rebel/contrarian to most human values/societies.

@Psygo: If we interfered in a person who was about to commit sin, he would never commit the sin and then would never be punished by God for something he did not do. Is not it then better to let him commit that sin and then let God distribute justice in the perfect way? Just an interesting question, not that I believe in that.
Reply

sister herb
05-02-2013, 11:09 PM
It is great that you fear Allah, my brother Cosmic. May Allah guide you to see your biases too as well us all to understand basics of Islam.

I am more interesting to talk about matters of original post, not about personal matters of singural members here.
Reply

Karl
05-02-2013, 11:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by sister harb
Salam alaykum

12 is adult? He can marry at that age and start to take care about his own family alone?

Does 12 year old is real mature to understand to how to rise his children? Isn´t 12 year old is still in mind as child?

^o)
It all depends on the individual growth hormone levels and genetics.
Reply

sister herb
05-02-2013, 11:31 PM
It also depends how mature someone is, not only hormones or genetics. :embarrass With animals we could talk about them only.
Reply

titus
05-02-2013, 11:31 PM
If we interfered in a person who was about to commit sin, he would never commit the sin and then would never be punished by God for something he did not do. Is not it then better to let him commit that sin and then let God distribute justice in the perfect way?
That can be taken as arguing against hijab, since isn't part of the reason for hijab to keep others from sinning? It could actually be taken as an argument that there should be absolutely no rules or laws on Earth since God would be giving out perfect justice.

I think that it is the role of mankind to help and protect each other, and I don't see not helping someone who is being abused or attacked or killed by their parents as an exception. That is just taking an opinion to an absurd extreme.
Reply

Karl
05-02-2013, 11:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Berries'forest
Well perhaps it's because you went against your own conscience this is why it seems so rare to you. You admitted it yourself you are driven by passion. I think the equivalent arabic word for that (I read on a translated note) was Himya or Hamiya it is an ignorant trait. I also noticed that you've missed the whole chapter in the Quran that condemed arab men who burried their daughters alive because they were considered to be a disgrace to the household or clan. No I'm sorry to disappoint you, but you are not as remarkably outstanding as you seem to think you are and yet ironically it is you who denotes that he is not as arrogant and conceited so as to 'interfere' and save a child from a wrteched infliction caused by their own 'caring' parents. You know many of your likes still exist today and have existed throughout history and for your dismay they weren't prophets nor were they truly believing people either. We can't help it if you don't feel compassionate enough to care about the well-being of your own children. I suppose you'd still stand firmly on your stance if your parents have claimed this right to parental soveregeinty as well?. Or perhaps they already did and it was just a trait that you've inherited from them. But since we 'do' "create "our children then for all we care we can burn them alive now can't we?. Kudos to the merciless empire of parental soveregeinty launching one of the most significant and remotely disasterous revolutions in all history. More power to abusive parents and downplaying to 'evil wicked nosey wretches' who dare to interfere. Funny though you seem to be placing burning down someone's house or abducting his wife on the same footing as 'interfering' with the way they treat their children. *Note: This whole thread by the way is about specifically that; How they treat their children and not how they raise them;big difference*. But hey, why should anyone concern themselves with burning down or abducting the wife of such a man I mean he would eventaully have done it himself anyway; no need to be concerned over that.

Karl, I said this to you before and I'll say it again. It's hightime you get a load of yourself. Seriously.

This behavior in earth language and substracting all those fancy and sophisticated words like 'anarchist' and 'non-conformist' it's simply called being possessive a trait that is driven by the ego. The need to control someone and exhibit absolute power over them even if that someone was your poor helpless child.
All I get is attacked for my beliefs from all except one. All believe they are overlords of my family and children except one. It was written that the world will be filled with hypocrites and sychophants and the truly faithful will be few, how true this is.
Reply

sister herb
05-02-2013, 11:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Karl
All I get is attacked for my beliefs from all except one. All believe they are overlords of my family and children except one. It was written that the world will be filled with hypocrites and sychophants and the truly faithful will be few, how true this is.
Salam alaykum

Do you represent similar way of thinking than in original post (I think they are christians in that family who left they child without medical care but instead of it decided to pray than go to doctor)? What if we could go back to topic? Your personal way to behave must be important and interesting to you but it isn´t thread in here.
Reply

CosmicPathos
05-02-2013, 11:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Karl
All I get is attacked for my beliefs from all except one. All believe they are overlords of my family and children except one. It was written that the world will be filled with hypocrites and sychophants and the truly faithful will be few, how true this is.
These people do not realize that Prophet Muhamamd pbuh was the most influential person and thinker of his time. He went against societal customs. He challenged all notions prevalent in his society. From concept of God to relations between men and women, to children.

We can never be like the Prophet, but I am thankful to Allah for bestowing us with this unique ability to see things the way they are.

It makes me wonder if these people were present during Prophet's time when he started his call, would these people have supported him or criticized him? Wallahu aalim, but humans are the most scary creatures.
Reply

Karl
05-02-2013, 11:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by sister harb
It also depends how mature someone is, not only hormones or genetics. :embarrass With animals we could talk about them only.
My spiezes is fully grown and mentally mature by 12 years old. Hindu used to get married at 5 years old. It's only marriage not trying to rule the world.
Btw people are animals. What else can they be?
Reply

CosmicPathos
05-02-2013, 11:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
I think that it is the role of mankind to help and protect each other, and I don't see not helping someone who is being abused or attacked or killed by their parents as an exception. That is just taking an opinion to an absurd extreme.
All revolutionary ideas start as absurdities. Islam was an absurdity to Arabs when Prophet started his call. Now not for a moment think that I believe what I am saying is anyway closer to the call of Prophet, but that is the basic difference in those who follow the crowd and those who travel the uncharted territory.

"Not all those who wander are lost." J.R.R Tolkien
Reply

CosmicPathos
05-03-2013, 12:00 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Karl
My spiezes is fully grown and mentally mature by 12 years old. Hindu used to get married at 5 years old. It's only marriage not trying to rule the world.
Btw people are animals. What else can they be?
Any ideas why all Prophets at one time were sheep-herders? Because humanity is like sheep. And Prophets need that patience and that tenderness to lead the humanity to success, just like the sheep need it.
Reply

sister herb
05-03-2013, 12:10 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Karl
Btw people are animals. What else can they be?
What about being as humans? Mature people whose understand also what means humanity and being responsible adult? If Hindus, some of them marry at 5 years old, have muslims make same mistake that marry when they still are as children?

What if 12 year old child doesn´t want to marry but stay at home and play with dolls?
Reply

sister herb
05-03-2013, 12:21 AM
********************
Reply

Karl
05-03-2013, 12:37 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by sister harb
Salam alaykum

Do you represent similar way of thinking than in original post (I think they are christians in that family who left they child without medical care but instead of it decided to pray than go to doctor)? What if we could go back to topic? Your personal way to behave must be important and interesting to you but it isn´t thread in here.
I am just replying to people here. People just like to badger me for my beliefs. They are pulling this thread off topic not me. Also let's look at it from another angle, these Christians might want to have strong children so if they are weak they die and go to God. People today do everything they can to preserve the sickly and weak. Is this the right path? Would it be better to let them die so their genetic line gets stronger? So many babies are born premature and have to be kept in intensive care in incubators, is this right and natural? Will the people in the future become so weak that they will have to rely on machines to live?
Reply

Karl
05-03-2013, 12:56 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
These people do not realize that Prophet Muhamamd pbuh was the most influential rebel and thinker of his time. He went against societal customs. He challenged all notions prevalent in his society. From concept of God to relations between men and women, to children.

We can never be like the Prophet, but I am thankful to Allah for bestowing us with this unique ability to see things the way they are.

It makes me wonder if these people were present during Prophet's time when he started his call, would these people have supported him or criticized him? Wallahu aalim, but humans are the most scary creatures.
The scary thing is their lack of tolerance. They all gang up and attack individuals like a school of sharks. They are always iching to persecute someone who might be different to them and they love to interfere with other peoples private affairs. Sometimes I wonder if there are only a few people and the rest are Jinns in human form to make our lives miserable.
Reply

IAmZamzam
05-03-2013, 01:25 AM
The scary thing is their lack of tolerance. -Karl

“Society” you say? “Society”, “states” and the U.N Red Terror etc etc are my ENEMY and I will always defy them until the end. I simply don’t recognise any of those entities, particularly when it comes down to my DOMESTIC affairs. I regard domestic affairs to be something that is sacrosanctly private. If any outside party ever dared interfered in my domestic affairs and lectured me what I should and shouldn’t do with my offspring I’d be so utterly furious that I’d put a bullet through them for the audacity. I simply don’t tolerate communist Nanny State interference into my domestic life! I will always stand my ground and defend against usurpers and tyrants, to the death if absolutely necessary. If other parents wish to tolerate such intrusive audacity from these busybody scum then that’s their downfall, not mine. You need to realise that I’m not Jewish. I don’t live in a kibbutz where everyone’s business is each others. My domestic business is my business alone as far as I’m concerned. -Karl

I admit that most modern day secularist totalitarian states have usurped parental sovereignty and forcibly subsumed parents in to an official status of subservience to the state. But that doesn’t mean to say that I for one am going to AGREE and COOPERATE with the state. I have told you over and over and over again that my OWN position is that I do simply not recognise at all state authority over my DOMESTIC AFFAIRS. That the state has the POWER to invade my private property and usurp my parental authority DOESN’T change the fact that in the hypothetical event of any state intrusion into my domestic affairs I WILL fight them to the death to defend my private property and parental sovereignty which I passionately consider to be my God Given Right. You are simply wasting your time if you think you can ever change my mind on this. If I ever need to be “punished” for anything I ever do “wrong” in my domestic affairs I will ONLY accept ALLAH (swt) judging me on that, NOT any external third party Earthly entity such as a “state” or “collective”. -Karl
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-03-2013, 02:31 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
@Psygo: If we interfered in a person who was about to commit sin, he would never commit the sin and then would never be punished by God for something he did not do. Is not it then better to let him commit that sin and then let God distribute justice in the perfect way? Just an interesting question, not that I believe in that.
So.... you are saying that religion can logically lead one to wish people to do each other harm, rather than hoping to stop them. I guess we don't disagree on everything.
Reply

CosmicPathos
05-03-2013, 04:08 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
So.... you are saying that religion can logically lead one to wish people to do each other harm, rather than hoping to stop them. I guess we don't disagree on everything.
you do not need religion to think that.

some people think karma would do it.

other's think that nature will do it via mutations.
Reply

titus
05-03-2013, 04:21 AM
All revolutionary ideas start as absurdities. Islam was an absurdity to Arabs when Prophet started his call.
There is truth in that, but that does not mean that all absurd ideas should be taken seriously. The fact is that most absurd ideas are, deep down, truly absurd. I easily categorize the right to treat your children as property to the extent that someone believes they have the right to kill them if they wish as an extremely absurd one.

People today do everything they can to preserve the sickly and weak. Is this the right path? Would it be better to let them die so their genetic line gets stronger?
As a Muslim how do you think your Prophet would answer that?
Reply

CosmicPathos
05-03-2013, 05:01 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
they have the right to kill them if they wish as an extremely absurd one.
Then what right do they have to create life by having sex?

You cannot have your cake and then eat it too. If they have the right to have sex to produce babies, they should have the right to kill too. No?
Reply

Eric H
05-03-2013, 07:46 AM
Greetings and peace be with you CosmicPathos;

You cannot have your cake and then eat it too. If they have the right to have sex to produce babies, they should have the right to kill too. No?
What specific passages in the Quran give you this right?

How many passages tell you about the sanctity of life in the Quran?

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people

Eric
Reply

Eric H
05-03-2013, 07:55 AM
Greetings and peace be with you Karl;

People today do everything they can to preserve the sickly and weak. Is this the right path? Would it be better to let them die so their genetic line gets stronger? So many babies are born premature and have to be kept in intensive care in incubators, is this right and natural?
These premature babies die in the Third World, so in a way the rich countries play God and they decide who lives and who dies.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people

Eric
Reply

Hulk
05-03-2013, 08:20 AM
No, human beings does not equal animal.

"We have indeed created man in the best of moulds,"
Quran Sura At-Tin


Your Creator has spoken highly about the human beings. Even when the angels compared themselves to us they were reminded of their lack of knowledge compared to Allah.

We have the potential to be worse than animals, but we also have the potential to be in a status higher than angels.
Reply

Berries'forest
05-03-2013, 10:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Karl
All I get is attacked for my beliefs from all except one. All believe they are overlords of my family and children except one. It was written that the world will be filled with hypocrites and sychophants and the truly faithful will be few, how true this is.
How would anyone be so sure that they are not?. Hypocrisy at the time of the prophet was kept secret it was only the prophet and one companion who knew them by name and their identification was very confidential. Anyway, we weren't attacking you that's a bit too strong. We were trying to make you distinguish betweeen your personal beliefs and islamic view of things. You've never even qouted one hadith or verse from the quran to support your premises instead you said it was the shafaeh way of doing things and that Islam has many 'versions'. So why should we take your stance as gospel truth when you'd already aligned your beliefs with the old roman law. If you also haven't noticed the tone of your posts were imposing.
Reply

Berries'forest
05-03-2013, 10:45 AM
It seems there are supposed muslims who want us to put Islam aside and adopt their 'logical deductions' after many years of observing humanity and it's social dimensions. Exhibiting a lack of empathy and reinforcing darwinian beliefs in the name of speaking their minds and later accusing others of intolerance. I'm glad pygo expressed to Cosmic how similar alike their views are afterall. It pretty much says well enough for one to understand. The prophets message is to be perserved since the 'revolution' is done and overwith but thanks to darwinian theories it seems that even Islam should be evolved into something that suits one taste. Nice recipe: Psuedo Islam+Roman law+ Evolution theory anything else?. We we charge 50 cents for adding toppings.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-03-2013, 01:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Berries'forest
Exhibiting a lack of empathy and reinforcing darwinian beliefs in the name of speaking their minds and later accusing others of intolerance.
I see it pretty often in creationists, this attack on evolution as encouraging such things. Evolution is not a manifesto. It does not say what should be. It just attempts to describe what is. Calls to "push evolution along" as if it is heading towards something "better" is entirely a product of the mind of the speaker, and has nothing to do with evolution theory.

I'm glad pygo expressed to Cosmic how similar alike their views are afterall. It pretty much says well enough for one to understand.
This is ironic. All Cosmic and I agreed on is that God belief can logically lead one to his position. He has God belief, and so do you. I don't.
Reply

Berries'forest
05-03-2013, 02:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Evolution is not a manifesto. It does not say what should be. It just attempts to describe what is. Calls to "push evolution along" as if it is heading towards something "better" is entirely a product of the mind of the speaker, and has nothing to do with evolution theory.
I wasn't really attacking Evolution afterall it's only a theory one day it might be universally disproven. But there isn't a single statement made without the refernce of evolution theory. Evolving is an ongoing process it doesn't just stop it adapts and alters conditions. Off topic.


format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
This is ironic. All Cosmic and I agreed on is that God belief can logically lead one to his position. He has God belief, and so do you. I don't.
I don't think it's ironic it's more obscure. His position or rather positions of which he consistently insists on their utter accuracy should be distinguished from Islamic viewpoint. Cosmic (a theist) agrees with you (an atheist) that belief in God can lead to his orchastrated position. I hear loud bells ringing. I don't share that view with niether of you which disqulaifies me from being counted in.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-03-2013, 04:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Berries'forest
I don't think it's ironic it's more obscure. His position or rather positions of which he consistently insists on their utter accuracy should be distinguished from Islamic viewpoint. Cosmic (a theist) agrees with you (an atheist) that belief in God can lead to his orchastrated position. I hear loud bells ringing. I don't share that view with niether of you which disqulaifies me from being counted in.
I see one muslim saying one thing and another rmuslim saying something else, and both claiming their positions are consistent with Islam. I, as an outsider to Islam, have no reason to doubt either of you. You both seem straightforward and honest about your positions and about your faith. Cosmic has said some alarming things and has been rude towards me ("psygo"), but he doesn't seem dishonest.
Reply

Berries'forest
05-03-2013, 06:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
I see one muslim saying one thing and another rmuslim saying something else, and both claiming their positions are consistent with Islam. I, as an outsider to Islam, have no reason to doubt either of you. You both seem straightforward and honest about your positions and about your faith. Cosmic has said some alarming things and has been rude towards me ("psygo"), but he doesn't seem dishonest.
I've said nothing in regards the Islamic verdict on the main issue. The posts I made were directed to Karl particularily. Karl has said that his views don't represent Islam and it seems the same with Cosmic. I was actually pointing to the fact that Cosmic's opinions on matters should also not be considered the standard Islamic position. About the other comment I think it was pretty clear since it is suspicious how you both agree on thinking that faith in God specifically leads people into commiting bad things. Why didn't he blame it on zeslousy, fanaticism or better yet their failure in interpreting religious texts.
Reply

Muhammad
05-03-2013, 07:09 PM
:salamext:

Before closing this thread which has gone very off-topic, I hope the following will be useful to mention by way of clarification of some points mentioned earlier.


O you who have believed, enter into Islam completely [and perfectly] and do not follow the footsteps of Satan. Indeed, he is to you a clear enemy. [Al-Baqarah: 208]

The first point we should remind ourselves with is that Islam is complete submission to the will of Allaah :swt:. We cannot pick and choose which parts we want to follow. Before we adamantly forward our opinions on certain issues, it would be wiser to check what guidelines there are in Islam and whether we might be inadvertently opposing them. As already noted, there hasn't been a single verse from the Qur'an or citation of hadeeth, or action of the pious predecessors, or saying of any Muslim scholar, quoted in support of some of the opinions here. Yet those evidences provided to show the teachings of Islam appear to have been disregarded. The only reference is to 'Shafi'i Islam'. There is no such thing as 'Shafi'i Islam' as if it were a different form of Islam to what the rest of us are following. Imam Shafi'i, may Allaah :swt: have mercy upon him, and those adhering to his school of jurisprudence, followed the same Qur'an and the same Prophet :saws: as all the other righteous Imams. Whatever is attributed to his teachings should be verified and checked. And what should be checked even prior to that is our hearts, in that we do not form our opinions and then find justification for them in the scripture.

O you who have believed, do not put [yourselves] before Allah and His Messenger but fear Allah . Indeed, Allah is Hearing and Knowing. [Al-Hujurat: 1]

Islam's reason d'etre is to make us recognize one God who has created us and to follow His last Prophet. That is it.

Islam has given me the freedom to create my own views in all other aspects of life.
When we follow Allaah :swt: and when we follow His last Prophet :saws:, we will realise that they provide guidance in all spheres of life. Broadly speaking, the law of Islam deals with man’s life in four categories of rights and obligations, or relationships: (1) man’s relationship with Allaah, his Creator, (2) his relationship with himself, or his own rights upon himself, (3) his relationship with other people, and (4) his relationship with his natural environment, or in other words, the rights of those resources which Allaah has placed within his power and has allowed him to use for his benefit.The teachings with regards to good behaviour and excellence pertain to all these spheres:

Indeed, Allah orders justice and good conduct and giving to relatives and forbids immorality and bad conduct and oppression. He admonishes you that perhaps you will be reminded. [An-Nahl:90]

The Prophet :saws: said, 'Verily Allaah has prescribed Ihsaan (proficiency, perfection) in all things...' [Reported by Muslim]

Those who are arguing for complete freedom to do as they wish in personal affairs should kindly explain where such an exception to do so exists.

I have not the arrogance nor interest to interfere into anyone else's domestic affairs no matter what they get up to in their domestic affairs. What they do is their own business, not mine.

The believers, men and women, are supporters of one another; they enjoin good, and forbid evil; they perform the Salah, and give the Zakah, and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah will have His mercy on them. Surely, Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.
[At-Tawbah: 71]

There have already preceded some of the teachings in Islam regarding the responsibility of a Muslim towards others. Islam pays great attention to the needs of a community and is against a self-centred way of thinking. A clear example of this is the system of Zakah, which is the bridge between the various economic levels of the society. Not only does it have an economic and social function, but it also fosters in the Muslim qualities of sacrifice and rids him of selfishness and avarice. The Muslim society is a society of cooperation and mutual support. A Muslim is required to wish the best for others to bring about the best for them if he has the ability to do so. Here follow some more teachings with regards to this:

Ibn Abi’l-Dunya narrated from Ibn ‘Umar that the Prophet :saws: said: “The most beloved of people to Allaah is the one who brings most benefit to people, and the most beloved of deeds to Allaah is making a Muslim happy, or relieving him of hardship, or paying off his debt, or warding off hunger from him. For me to go with my Muslim brother to meet his need is dearer to me than observing i’tikaaf in this mosque – meaning the mosque of Madeenah – for a month… whoever goes with his Muslim brother to meet his need, Allaah will make him stand firm on the Day when all feet will slip.” Classed as hasan by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Targheeb wa’l-Tarheeb, 2623.

The Prophet :saws: said: “Whoever relieves a Muslim of one of the hardships of this world, Allaah will relieve him of one of the hardships of the Day of Resurrection, and whoever helps one who is financial difficulty, Allaah will help in this world and in the Hereafter, and whoever conceals a Muslim’s (fault), Allaah will conceal his (fault) in this world and in the Hereafter. Allaah will help a person so long as he helps his brother.” Narrated by Muslim, 2699.

The Prophet :saws: said, 'The Deen (religion) is naseehah (advice/sincerity)'. We said 'To whom?' He said 'To Allah and His Book, and His Messenger, and to the leaders of the Muslims and their common folk.' [Related by Muslim]

The Prophet :saws: said : None of you [truly] believes until he loves for his brother that which he loves for himself. [Related by al-Bukhaaree and Muslim]

In particular, our neighbours, families, relatives, fellow Muslims, those under our care, all of have rights upon us. What happens to them is most certainly our business. If we see they need our help, we are obliged to give it. If they are falling into error, we are obliged to advise them. And when we are in need of them, they are obliged to fulfil that need.

Worship Allah and associate nothing with Him, and to parents do good, and to relatives, orphans, the needy, the near neighbor, the neighbor farther away, the companion at your side, the traveler, and those whom your right hands possess. Indeed, Allah does not like those who are self-deluding and boastful. [An-Nisa: 36]

You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah . If only the People of the Scripture had believed, it would have been better for them. Among them are believers, but most of them are defiantly disobedient. [Aal-Imraan: 110]

Allaah’s Messenger :saws: has given us a clear picture of these mutual responsibilities by saying: "The likeness of the man who observes the limits prescribed by Allah and that of the man who transgresses them is like the people who get on board a ship after casting lots. Some of them are in its lower deck and some of them in its upper (deck). Those who are in its lower (deck), when they require water, go to the occupants of the upper deck, and say to them : 'If we make a hole in the bottom of the ship, we shall not harm you.' If they (the occupants of the upper deck) leave them to carry out their design they all will be drowned. But if they do not let them go ahead (with their plan), all of them will remain safe". [Al- Bukhari Book 1, Hadith 187].

Gone are the days when one could blindly trust in the likes of great people like Umar or Ali because we knew they were trained by the Prophet himself (saw). I cannot put trust in random joe sheikhs/khalifahs today, who are separated by the wall of 1500 years from the legacy of Prophet, to interfere in my or any Muslim's personal life. Religion today is being used as a tool of manipulation. And I cant let any snake use that tool to manipulate me!
Islam has legislated that there be people in authority concerned with the welfare of society. Clearly, we are not talking about random people, but those who have the pre-requisites like knowledge and piety. The legacy of the Prophet :saws: was not lost 1500 years ago - it has been transmitted to us in the Qur'an and Sunnah. And that is why the scholars are called the 'inheritors of the Prophets' because they are a means by which such legacy is continued. So in this context, a judge applies the injunctions of Islamic Law, and we are not talking about someone acting of their own personal wishes. The Prophet :saws: undertook this responsibility and appointed judges in the regions that were under Islamic rule, and so did the Caliphs that succeeded him. Furthermore, Muslim scholars agree uniformly on the necessity of assigning judges to settle disputes among people. We find this concept of leadership in the Qur'an:

O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and those of you who are in authority. If you differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if you believe in Allah and in the Last Day. That is better and more suitable for final determination. [An-Nisa: 59]

Allaah :swt: further gives guidance to those in authority:

Verily, Allaah commands that you should render back the trusts to those, to whom they are due; and that when you judge between men, you judge with justice.
[al-Nisa’ 4:58].

Imam Ahmad said, 'There must be a judge among people so that rights are not lost.'

My offspring are the possessions of me,
Nothing is truly within our possession. Everything we have is given to us by Allaah :swt:, for He is Al-Malik, the Owner of everything. He is the One who brought us into being and gave us what we have:

And Allah has extracted you from the wombs of your mothers not knowing a thing, and He made for you hearing and vision and intellect that perhaps you would be grateful. [An-Nahl:78]

The action of procreation in no way means that it is we who have 'created' life or that we own it:

We have created you, so why do you not believe? Have you seen that which you emit? Is it you who creates it, or are We the Creator? [Al-Waqi'ah: 57-59]

Rather it is Allaah :swt: who causes the semen to remain in the wombs and creates life from it therein, stage after stage.

To Allah belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth. He creates what He wills. He bestows female (offspring) upon whom He wills, and bestows male (offspring) upon whom He wills. Or He bestows both males and females, and He renders barren whom He wills. Verily, He is the All-Knower and is Able to do all things. [Ash-Shura: 49-50]

Our very own bodies are not owned by us, as we have the responsibility of nourishing and maintaining them, and it is not for us to harm them. How is it then with other creations of Allaah :swt:?

My only issue was with other ppl trying to dictate what we should do with our own children.
On the specific issue of children, firstly, it should be no surprise that Islam has prescribed a number of guidelines with regards to children. Allaah :swt: and His Prophet :saws: have every right to dictate what we should do with them, as we all belong to Allaah :swt: in the first place. Here follow some important teachings with respect to children:

The child has a right to life. Neither the father nor the mother have the right to take the life of the child, whether a boy or a girl, by killing it or burying it alive, as was done by some Arabs during the period of Pre-Islamic Ignorance.

And kill not your children for fear of poverty. We shall provide for them as well as for you. Surely, the killing of them is a great sin. [Al-Isra: 31]

And when the female (infant) buried alive (as the pagan Arabs used to do) is questioned: For what sin, was she killed? [At-Takwir: 8-9]

Narrated `Abdullah bin Mas`ud: I said, "O Allah's Apostle! Which is the biggest sin?" He said, "To set up rivals to Allah by worshipping others though He alone has created you." I asked, "What is next?" He said, "To kill your child lest it should share your food..." [Al-Bukhari]

The Prophet :saws: took an oath of allegiance from both men and women at the time of their accepting Islam. This oath of allegiance included the condition that they would not kill their children and would consider it an absolutely prohibited crime:

O Prophet! When believing women come to you to give you the Bai'ah (pledge), that they will not associate anything in worship with Allah, that they will not steal, that they will not commit illegal sexual intercourse, that they will not kill their children... (Al-Mumtahinah:12)

There are many other rights of a child in Islam, such as the right to having a good name, a right to sustenance, education, and proper care. The parents are not permitted to neglect the child's needs nor to abuse it:

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar: The Messenger of Allah :saws: as saying: Each of you is a shepherd and each of you is responsible for his flock. The amir (ruler) who is over the people is a shepherd and is responsible for hs flock ; a man is a shepherd in charge of the inhabitants of his household and he is responsible for his flock ; a woman is a shepherdess in charge of her husband's house and children and she is responsible for them; and a man's slave is a shepherd in charge of his master's property and he is responsible for it. So each of you is a shepherd and each of you is responsible for his flock. [Sunan Abi Dawud 2928]

The Prophet :saws: also taught us to treat our children equally:

The Prophet :saws: said: Act equally between your children; Act equally between your sons. [Sunan Abi Dawud 3544]


In conclusion, let us be very cautious about forwarding views that contradict the teachings of Islam. Let us reflect on what Islam says about these issues and let us check our hearts and alter our views when they go against the Words of Allaah :swt: and His Messenger :saws:.

The Messenger (Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) believes in what has been sent down to him from his Lord, and (so do) the believers. Each one believes in Allah, His Angels, His Books, and His Messengers. (They say), "We make no distinction between one another of His Messengers" - and they say, "We hear, and we obey. (We seek) Your Forgiveness, our Lord, and to You is the return (of all)." [Al-Baqarah: 285]
Reply

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
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!