PDA

View Full Version : Britain is in 'moral decline'



ahsan28
09-08-2007, 07:38 AM
Four in five people believe Britain is in 'moral decline'


Four out of five Britons think the nation is in moral decline, according to a poll published yesterday. Only one in ten said standards of behaviour were holding up.

The findings from the survey, which was carried out for the BBC, highlight growing worries over social breakdown and rising levels of crime. The poll was carried out for The Big Questions, a new religious programme on BBC One.

Most of those questioned thought the retreat of religious belief was a factor in moral decline. Nearly two thirds, 62 per cent, said religion was an important factor in guiding the morals of the nation. The proportion who considered religion important was higher among the young than the middle aged.

This week Church of England leaders expressed alarm over the moral direction of the Government, complaining that proposed equality laws will suppress religious belief and stop Christians from expressing their views.


8th September 2007

Daily Mail. Uk

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
glo
09-08-2007, 09:02 AM
Interesting that younger people consider religion more important than the older generation ...
What do you make of that?
Reply

Trumble
09-08-2007, 09:11 AM
Any social science 101 student will tell you that four out of five people will always say they believe that, in whatever year you ask the question. Just as they are always convinced crime levels are rising whether they actually are or not.

The past is always a 'golden age' and the present is always going downhill.
Reply

Lush
09-08-2007, 09:31 AM
Meh. Ever since Plato people have been saying the same thing, over and over again.

But no one wants to learn their history - hence the press is able to whip up "moral decline" hysteria every few years or so.

Pish posh.
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
Bittersteel
09-08-2007, 10:04 AM
moral decline eh?are extra-marital relations on the rise or what?crimes are definitely on the rise in UK from what I am reading from the Guardian and BBC.
Reply

nocturne
09-08-2007, 10:46 AM
They cant be as bad as they used to be ruling the world and stealing their riches.
Reply

ahsan28
09-08-2007, 11:03 AM
They are still doing the same by attacking other countries. Personalities change but policies don't :D
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
09-08-2007, 11:51 AM
Originally Posted by Trumble
Any social science 101 student will tell you that four out of five people will always say they believe that, in whatever year you ask the question. Just as they are always convinced crime levels are rising whether they actually are or not.

The past is always a 'golden age' and the present is always going downhill.
and i assume you take that in and understand that civilisation has indeed been going through a constant decline of morals and values and it is not just speculation !
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
09-08-2007, 11:54 AM
Originally Posted by Lush

But no one wants to learn their history - hence the press is able to whip up "moral decline" hysteria every few years or so.

Pish posh.
why call it hysteria? If anythng it is not hysterical enough because nothing is being done about this moral decline, i cant even take my own nephews nad nieces out without covering their eyes, At school at the tender age of 8 they are exposed to crude and abhorent words. People are stuck up, they think they are so clever and "understand" yet they are blind to the fact that their intelligence is helping nothing, society is drowning in shameless deeds
Reply

Ourra-Tul-'Ain
09-08-2007, 02:58 PM
Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
and i assume you take that in and understand that civilisation has indeed been going through a constant decline of morals and values and it is not just speculation !
its one of the signs, is it not?:-\
Reply

InToTheRain
09-08-2007, 03:05 PM
Originally Posted by ahsan28
Four in five people believe Britain is in 'moral decline'
That title is wrong, it should be:

Originally Posted by ahsan28
Four in five people know Britain is in 'moral decline'
^ That's more in accordance with people like me who live here and see it all!
Reply

czgibson
09-08-2007, 03:15 PM
Greetings,

Good old Daily Mail, whipping up the nation into a frenzy. The Mail reports a decline in moral standards every day of the week, and has done so for decades - this isn't anything new.

Anyone who hasn't seen this hysterical right-wing rag might want to check it out for a laugh. You'll notice it's high on celebrity gossip and shrill, "panic! panic!" ranting, but really rather low on anything you could call 'news'.

Peace
Reply

Amadeus85
09-08-2007, 03:16 PM
Its not only Britain, but the whole Europe too.
Reply

glo
09-08-2007, 03:33 PM
Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,

Good old Daily Mail, whipping up the nation into a frenzy. The Mail reports a decline in moral standards every day of the week, and has done so for decades - this isn't anything new.

Anyone who hasn't seen this hysterical right-wing rag might want to check it out for a laugh. You'll notice it's high on celebrity gossip and shrill, "panic! panic!" ranting, but really rather low on anything you could call 'news'.

Peace
Whilst I am not disagreeing with your perception of the Daily Mail, I have to say in fairness that the poll was conducted by BBC One.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pre...uestions.shtml

The TV programme 'The Big Question' will start tomorrow at 10 am.
It may be worth watching (If you are not in church, that is ... tee hee! :D )

Peace
Reply

InToTheRain
09-08-2007, 04:19 PM
Originally Posted by Aaron85
Its not only Britain, but the whole Europe too.
True. But Britain is the worst of them all:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../uasbo5003.xml

http://student.bmj.com/issues/02/07/news/223.php

http://www.eubusiness.com/Social/uk-drugs.36/
Reply

Amadeus85
09-08-2007, 05:55 PM
The whole moral decilne in Europe began in late 60's. It is so called counter revolution, against traditional values, family values, religion, church etc. You know hippies, LSD, sex drugs and rock and roll, sexual revolution. All those things are like cancer for Europe and they will destroy this continent, unless the europeans change their attitudes.
Reply

Isambard
09-08-2007, 05:56 PM
Meh. For those who have read Machievelli, you know this is BS. Even in his time he humourously pointed out that regardless of the era, people always whined that the generation(s) era was better.

You see this all the time in any time period. Whining about how the soceity has become 'morally corrupt' while ignoring progresses made. Machievelli also points out that such thinking is dangerous as it allows foolish laws to be passed and idiots to be put in power in an effort to go back to the fictional 'golden age'. Whats funny is when said retarding of customs and progress happens, then people complain about it and glorify the age before.

ie. Bush being elected because he had 'strong values'.

Now if we are done living in laalaa land how about we focus on the nasty things of the "golden age" that no longer appear today?hmm?

For example, the "moral ages" of britain had slavery, feudalism, monopolistic and cold techocratic capitalism, religious wars, lack of sanitation, rampant disease, rebellions and revolts, threat of invasion, kings and nobles kicking you in the pills for fun, lack of rights for all, poor literacy, poor nutrishion for the masses, racism galore. etc.

So if by returning to the morality of ages past, you mean living with the constant fear of being killed painfully, enslaved, tortured or other such fun activities, then all power to you ;)
Reply

Isambard
09-08-2007, 05:58 PM
Originally Posted by Aaron85
The whole moral decilne in Europe began in late 60's. It is so called counter revolution, against traditional values, family values, religion, church etc. You know hippies, LSD, sex drugs and rock and roll, sexual revolution. All those things are like cancer for Europe and they will destroy this continent, unless the europeans change their attitudes.
Yep, lets return Europe to the wonderful theocracies that they once were. They never fought any wars and were all about petting bunnies and kittens^o)
Reply

Amadeus85
09-08-2007, 06:11 PM
Originally Posted by Isambard
Yep, lets return Europe to the wonderful theocracies that they once were. They never fought any wars and were all about petting bunnies and kittens^o)
Did i say that i want theocracy? I just say that this moral relativism, atheism and decadence will destroy Europe. It is actually hapenning on our eyes. Just look where is Europe now, far far after USA, China, India. Who respects Europe now? Nobody i guess. And this process began in 60's.
Reply

Isambard
09-08-2007, 06:14 PM
Originally Posted by Aaron85
Did i say that i want theocracy? I just say that this moral relativism, atheism and decadence will destroy Europe. It is actually hapenning on our eyes. Just look where is Europe now, far far after USA, China, India. Who respects Europe now? Nobody i guess. And this process began in 60's.
So pre-60s europe was more moral eh? I guess World Wars, racism, not having equal rights for all makes a place happy and joyful.
Reply

Amadeus85
09-08-2007, 06:18 PM
Originally Posted by Isambard
So pre-60s europe was more moral eh? I guess World Wars, racism, not having equal rights for all makes a place happy and joyful.
No it wasnt good either. But for me things like abortion on demand, homosexual marriages, euthanasia etc are evil. Its a Babilon for me, Sodoma and Gomora. Of course you have right to disagree, but i will stay with my views.
Reply

Trumble
09-08-2007, 06:20 PM
Originally Posted by Aaron85
The whole moral decilne in Europe began in late 60's. It is so called counter revolution, against traditional values, family values, religion, church etc. You know hippies, LSD, sex drugs and rock and roll, sexual revolution. All those things are like cancer for Europe and they will destroy this continent, unless the europeans change their attitudes.
As Isambard says, "Meh.." It's a myth as even a cursory study of, say, the practical (as opposed to theoretical) morality of 18th and 19th century Europe will show you. I doubt the centuries before were much different, either, although I know less about them. The 'traditional values' in question had far more to do with ostracising those outside the 'norm' who did no harm, and sweeping 'immoral' behaviour under the carpet, than an ocean of moral sweetness and light. Instead of "abortion on demand" for example you had shotgun weddings and back-street abortionists.
Reply

Isambard
09-08-2007, 11:06 PM
Originally Posted by Aaron85
No it wasnt good either. But for me things like abortion on demand, homosexual marriages, euthanasia etc are evil. Its a Babilon for me, Sodoma and Gomora. Of course you have right to disagree, but i will stay with my views.
Please name me a "moral" decade
Reply

Eric H
09-09-2007, 04:41 AM
Greetings and peace be with you Isambard;

Please name me a "moral" decade
3010, That gives us a thousand years to practice getting it right.:D

Take care

Eric
Reply

Malaikah
09-09-2007, 05:42 AM
:sl:

Some interesting points raise- perhaps the problem is that the word moral is too general..

While it is true that "slavery, feudalism, monopolistic and cold techocratic capitalism, religious wars, lack of sanitation, rampant disease, rebellions and revolts, threat of invasion, kings and nobles kicking you in the pills for fun, lack of rights for all, poor literacy, poor nutrishion for the masses, racism galore." has improved for the better in some parts of the word, sexual morality appears to have gone down, as does manners of dressing and the like.
Reply

Isambard
09-09-2007, 05:52 AM
Originally Posted by Malaikah
:sl:

Some interesting points raise- perhaps the problem is that the word moral is too general..

While it is true that "slavery, feudalism, monopolistic and cold techocratic capitalism, religious wars, lack of sanitation, rampant disease, rebellions and revolts, threat of invasion, kings and nobles kicking you in the pills for fun, lack of rights for all, poor literacy, poor nutrishion for the masses, racism galore." has improved for the better in some parts of the word, sexual morality appears to have gone down, as does manners of dressing and the like.
Id say its a pretty far claim to equate 'imodest dressing' with any of the above.
Reply

Skavau
09-09-2007, 06:13 PM
Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
and i assume you take that in and understand that civilisation has indeed been going through a constant decline of morals and values and it is not just speculation !
Can you point to a better period of time in the United Kingdom?

Originally Posted by Aaron85
The whole moral decilne in Europe began in late 60's. It is so called counter revolution, against traditional values, family values, religion, church etc. You know hippies, LSD, sex drugs and rock and roll, sexual revolution. All those things are like cancer for Europe and they will destroy this continent, unless the europeans change their attitudes.
I would contest that there is anything inherently wrong with 'rock and roll' there.

And depending on what you mean by 'sexual liberation', that is not inherently wrong either.

Originally Posted by Aaron85
Did i say that i want theocracy? I just say that this moral relativism, atheism and decadence will destroy Europe.
Moral Relativism will perhaps cause disputes.

How will Atheism destroy anything?

Originally Posted by Aaron85
No it wasnt good either. But for me things like abortion on demand, homosexual marriages, euthanasia etc are evil.
Abortion is a tricky issue.

The other two are entirely consensual (or euthanasia ought to be) and there is nothing wrong with them.
Reply

Malaikah
09-09-2007, 11:48 PM
Originally Posted by Isambard
Id say its a pretty far claim to equate 'imodest dressing' with any of the above.
Probably, but that is because a lot of the things you mentioned aren't moral issues. For example lack of sanitation is not a moral issue, not is the spread of disease.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
09-09-2007, 11:50 PM
Originally Posted by Skavau
Can you point to a better period of time in the United Kingdom?
if i had a trophy which i could award to the one who succeeds in the most repetition in a forum, sir you would win ! please dont oblige me
Reply

wilberhum
09-10-2007, 12:46 AM
Many morals are not universal, they are mostly cultural.

It is no more valid to say a Westerner is immoral because he likes music that it is to say an Easterner is immoral for having more that one wife.
Reply

Isambard
09-10-2007, 02:07 AM
Originally Posted by Malaikah
Probably, but that is because a lot of the things you mentioned aren't moral issues. For example lack of sanitation is not a moral issue, not is the spread of disease.
It would be if I pooped in your drinking water and said "Screw you!" which is essentially what used to happen between surfs and nobles and later with the textile mills and other industrial waste.
Reply

czgibson
09-10-2007, 12:41 PM
Greetings,
Originally Posted by glo
Whilst I am not disagreeing with your perception of the Daily Mail, I have to say in fairness that the poll was conducted by BBC One.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pre...uestions.shtml
Ahem, good point! :embarrass

Originally Posted by Skavau
I would contest that there is anything inherently wrong with 'rock and roll' there.
Didn't you know that rock groups recruit teenagers for Satan through subliminal messages and backmasking? :rolleyes:

Peace
Reply

Skavau
09-10-2007, 01:08 PM
Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
if i had a trophy which i could award to the one who succeeds in the most repetition in a forum, sir you would win ! please dont oblige me
I think that's the first time I've asked that question on this forum.

I have though, not actually received an answer to it before.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
09-10-2007, 01:12 PM
Originally Posted by Skavau
I think that's the first time I've asked that question on this forum.
really lol? im embarassed now :embarrass


well i did answer it before :), i said forget UK as it was never truelly ruled by islam, but look at the caliphate of Umar ibn Al-Khattab, who ruled with 100% pure islamic teachings, and see how his times reigned justice across 3 quarters of the world :)


again i apologise if i offended you previously
Reply

InToTheRain
09-10-2007, 02:32 PM
Originally Posted by Isambard
It would be if I pooped in your drinking water and said "Screw you!" which is essentially what used to happen between surfs and nobles and later with the textile mills and other industrial waste.
Indeed that was the way of those without Religion and those following misguidance. Let's not forget who bought public sanitization to Europe, The Moors (African Muslims), and also introduced it to the Christians in Spain who slaughtered them during the crusades. They developed the use of public sanitation in the 9th and 10th centuries 700 years before Christian Europe realized it was important to take a bath.
Reply

Skavau
09-10-2007, 02:37 PM
Originally Posted by Z.AL-Rashid
Indeed that was the way of those without Religion and those following misguidance.
Evidence?
Reply

InToTheRain
09-10-2007, 02:39 PM
Originally Posted by Skavau
Evidence?
History!

http://www.masnet.org/takeaction.asp?id=3931

http://www.masnet.org/takeaction.asp?id=3931
Reply

Skavau
09-10-2007, 02:46 PM
I misread your statement. I thought you were implying that only irreligious people committed the negatives of history. (or at least what was described in Isambard's post).
Reply

ahsan28
09-15-2007, 02:27 PM
Archbishop: Parents as bad as gangs in pressurising children


Martin Hodgson
Saturday September 15, 2007
The Guardian


Middle class children made by their parents to rack up academic and sporting achievements are under pressure similar to young people caught up in gang culture, the Archbishop of Canterbury has said.

Children were not given the opportunity to grow up at their own pace, said Dr Williams. "What is lacking in children's lives is space. They are pressed into a testing culture, or even into a gang culture; they are bullied and manipulated until they fit in, they never have any time to develop in their own space," he told the Daily Telegraph.

Describing Britain as a "broken" and polarised society, Dr Williams said "There is a level of desolation and dysfunctionality which many people have very little concept of. If you sense that the world you live in is absolutely closed, that for all sorts of reasons you are unable to move outside, if nothing gives you aspirations, there is an imprisonment in that, there is a kind of resentment that comes with that - and a frustration that can boil over in violence and street crime."



http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/S...169879,00.html
Reply

Isambard
09-15-2007, 03:52 PM
You are being too generous. Muslim rulers also gave the world the first taste of mass genocide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide

That said, "moral decline" is a fallacy put forth by people's ignorance of history.

Overall, people proper alot more because of the rise of the secular state.
Reply

Muezzin
09-16-2007, 07:36 AM
I'd really like it if this thread didn't devolve into another 'X Religion VS Islam: Which killed more people, plants and cute furry animals?' thing.

Originally Posted by Isambard
Meh. For those who have read Machievelli, you know this is BS. Even in his time he humourously pointed out that regardless of the era, people always whined that the generation(s) era was better.

You see this all the time in any time period. Whining about how the soceity has become 'morally corrupt' while ignoring progresses made. Machievelli also points out that such thinking is dangerous as it allows foolish laws to be passed and idiots to be put in power in an effort to go back to the fictional 'golden age'. Whats funny is when said retarding of customs and progress happens, then people complain about it and glorify the age before.
Machiavelli also tells you how to take over a country in his times and that it's better to be feared than to be loved. :p

But anyway, yeah, that is correct. Didn't Neitzche also say something about this sort of thing? The Eternal Return of the Same or something?

In common English the principle can be understood, somewhat more crudely, as: 'Same *BEEP*, different day'.

My own personal view on the matter is that existence is continuous adaptation, rather than regression. Time moves faster if you're standing still, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't learn from the past. On the other hand, what worked in the past won't necessarily work in the present or the future, because each individual has different tastes, which influence and inform their decisions and reactions (this is why heated political debates are so hysterically pointless).

However, I believe there are core values (call them morals, ethics or whatever you like) that govern all humans to an extent. Different cultures or religions simply accenuate certain of these values over others, just as different people will naturally do according to their own life experience. I'm not going to argue the rights or wrongs of this, I'm just stating how I see things.

As to Britain being in moral decline - there seems to be something wrong, what with all the ineffective ASBO's (and destructively unruly chavs in general :p), binge drinking, overcrowded prisons, terrorism etc. I dunno. Maybe I'm just naming moral panics constant throughout history. Funny thing, perception.

I'd also say that religion can indeed foster moral codes. Equally important is the presence of parental figures for children, if at all possible. A lot of kids go wrong because they lack either a father or mother figure to show them the way. I know life ain't perfect, or fair, but there it is.
Reply

ahsan28
09-16-2007, 09:59 AM
Faith schools 'cherry picking'


Jamie Doward and Anushka Asthana
Sunday September 16, 2007
The Observer


Faith schools are 'cherry picking' too many children from affluent families and contributing to racial and religious segregation, according to the most extensive research of its kind, based on the government's own data.

The findings - which last night drew a fierce response from the Church of England - will reignite the debate about the role of religion in the education system and come as the government attempts to reassure critics that faith schools do not favour the selection of middle-class, white pupils.

'This research shows once and for all that so-called faith schools are simply private schools on the rates for those who know how to play the system,' said Terry Sanderson, the president of the National Secular Society.



http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...170337,00.html
Reply

Isambard
09-16-2007, 02:25 PM
Originally Posted by Muezzin
I'd really like it if this thread didn't devolve into another 'X Religion VS Islam: Which killed more people, plants and cute furry animals?' thing.


Machiavelli also tells you how to take over a country in his times and that it's better to be feared than to be loved. :p

But anyway, yeah, that is correct. Didn't Neitzche also say something about this sort of thing? The Eternal Return of the Same or something?

In common English the principle can be understood, somewhat more crudely, as: 'Same *BEEP*, different day'.

My own personal view on the matter is that existence is continuous adaptation, rather than regression. Time moves faster if you're standing still, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't learn from the past. On the other hand, what worked in the past won't necessarily work in the present or the future, because each individual has different tastes, which influence and inform their decisions and reactions (this is why heated political debates are so hysterically pointless).

However, I believe there are core values (call them morals, ethics or whatever you like) that govern all humans to an extent. Different cultures or religions simply accenuate certain of these values over others, just as different people will naturally do according to their own life experience. I'm not going to argue the rights or wrongs of this, I'm just stating how I see things.

As to Britain being in moral decline - there seems to be something wrong, what with all the ineffective ASBO's (and destructively unruly chavs in general :p), binge drinking, overcrowded prisons, terrorism etc. I dunno. Maybe I'm just naming moral panics constant throughout history. Funny thing, perception.

I'd also say that religion can indeed foster moral codes. Equally important is the presence of parental figures for children, if at all possible. A lot of kids go wrong because they lack either a father or mother figure to show them the way. I know life ain't perfect, or fair, but there it is.

I think you may be on to something...thou for a very ironic reason.

Simply put, Britain isnt going to get much better, and has already advanced beyond anything it was thruout its history. So why then the rise in idiocy? Boredom. Ppl no longer have to fear being poisened, tortured, killed, being stolen from etc.

So because people are bored from too much properity and peace, ppl find something to fill the void.

I can only imagine to what extreme a utopian society may achieve lol
Reply

ahsan28
09-16-2007, 02:46 PM
Originally Posted by Isambard

I can only imagine to what extreme a utopian society may achieve lol

U mean attacking another country :D
Reply

Isambard
09-16-2007, 04:12 PM
Originally Posted by ahsan28
U mean attacking another country :D
I think you misread my post
Reply

czgibson
09-16-2007, 04:16 PM
Greetings,
Originally Posted by Muezzin
Machiavelli also tells you how to take over a country in his times and that it's better to be feared than to be loved. :p
Yep. The guy was a political genius. Read all about him here.

Didn't Neitzche also say something about this sort of thing? The Eternal Return of the Same or something?
Yep - the Eternal Recurrence of the Same. One of Nietzsche's more 'out there' teachings. He wasn't the first, though, as you can see in the link.

A quote from Edward Gibbon comes to mind on the topic of decline in societies (and let's face it, he should know):

Originally Posted by Edward Gibbon (1737-1794)
There exists in human nature a strong propensity to depreciate the advantages, and to magnify the evils, of the present times.

- The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Chapter 31)
Peace
Reply

Muezzin
09-16-2007, 04:25 PM
True, but that characteristic also tends to facilitate change.

Like that somewhat annoying Honda advert - 'Hate something. Change something. Hate something, change something, make something better!'

:p :)
Reply

Isambard
09-16-2007, 05:44 PM
Originally Posted by Muezzin
True, but that characteristic also tends to facilitate change.

Like that somewhat annoying Honda advert - 'Hate something. Change something. Hate something, change something, make something better!'

:p :)
What are worried about, is people changing things on the notion that the past was better when in reality it wasnt. That sort of thinking tends to lead to some very bad decisions and in some cases, the actual decline of the civilization.
Reply

Pygoscelis
09-17-2007, 04:08 AM
As Trumble said, everybody thinks they live in a declining age and looks back fondly to the golden days (that never actually existed). Today will be "the golden age" to people 50 or so years from now.

Also, doesn't this whole thing hinge rather heavily on what we define as "moral"? I know that what many of you here would call imoral I find quite ok (ie, homosexuality, pornography, alcohol, music, etc) and that much of what is celebrated and pushed by you folks I would call imoral.

It is all in the eye of the beholder. And this survey appears to have asked "in your view are we in moral decline". A mere increase in cultural diversity will make that a yes, regardless of any objective changes.
Reply

Eric H
10-13-2007, 03:22 PM
Greetings and peace be with you all,

There are so many reasons as to why morality is on the decline in the UK, but there are people working towards change. An initiative called ‘Street Pastors was launched four years ago and it involves people of faith going out in the streets late at night amongst the drugs, violence and alcohol, trying to bring about some peace.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2834993.stm

Although this is a Christian response to social disorder I would also like to see other faith groups doing something similar. There seems a great need to try and reverse the trends in moral decline and the brake up of the family and community values. It involves a certain amount of risk taking being out on the streets after midnight amongst all the drunks. So far there are around a thousand people doing this up and down the country and the majority are women, and that is a point to ponder on.

In the spirit of praying for peace in our towns

Eric
Reply

Karina
10-13-2007, 08:24 PM
But are people's opinions are generally shaped by the media though?

And what sells papers and keeps our attention? What creates "moral panic"?

Do the people surveyed have their own experiences of "moral decline" or are they purely influenced by what they have read in the paper that morning?

It is in our nature to notice all the bad news and not the good, and also to cast sweeping generalisations.

People talk so much less about the positive changes in UK attitudes to racism and prejudice, slavery, human rights abuses, ecological destruction.

:sunny:
Reply

Eric H
10-14-2007, 08:23 AM
Greetings and peace be with you Karina;
But are people's opinions are generally shaped by the media though?
People’s opinions may be influenced by the media but I feel the greater problem, is a lack of faith in God. There appears to be little love or fear of God now, and if I can just give one example of how fear in God can be positive.

William Wilberforce stood up in parliament year after year for twenty years to try and abolish slavery in Britain, and every year he was defeated. That is until he stood up in parliament and said..

Every one of you will have to stand before God at some point, how will you justify your stance on slavery to God.

He won a landslide victory. If politicians feared God today that argument should have been used to prevent the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are all created by the same God and we have no right to harm God’s creation.

This lack of love for God and fear of God is also reflected in society, sadly we put very little value on marriage, the family and community. The challenge for faith communities is to try and restore God and morals in our society.

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth

Eric
Reply

Trumble
10-14-2007, 09:57 AM
I actually find Wilberforce in that context a rather worrying example, as it has far more to do with manipulation than with the "fear of God". That has to come from inside.

Wilberforce, like so many others before and since, was playing on people's faith and fear to get them to do what he wanted them to do, which may or may not co-incide with what God might want. Of course, Wilberforce's motives were entirely noble and I think all of us would accept that God (or nearest equivalent for non-theists) does not want slavery. But remember religion and the Will of/fear of God has been used to justify slavery in the past, too.

There is a huge danger here; someone with sufficient authority invokes the Will of/fear of God as justification for what they want to happen. Nobody should have to think too hard to come up with examples of where this is a very bad thing indeed. People should be left alone with their faith and to act as their (God given) conscience dictates.. not pointed in the 'right' direction by those who assume their will and the Will of God are one and the same.
Reply

ahsan28
10-15-2007, 01:14 PM
We are failing our children, and we are all culpable


Published: 15 October 2007


The cultural environment is contaminating the lives of young people.

Last week, once again, we were told of an overwhelmed younger generation and approaching crisis. The second arrow to puncture the balloon of indifference was a report by Cambridge Professor Robin Alexander which revealed that our primary schools are being torn apart by anti-social behaviour, crass popular culture, casual violence, deep unhappiness, and unnamed anxiety. The imposition of a testing environment was not helping, and these tinies had less nurturing than their peers round the world and felt uniquely vulnerable.

Unicef findings released in February this year were even more alarming. In a comparison of the 21 richest nations in the world, using 40 indicators including poverty, family relations and health, Britain's kids came bottom.

Last autumn, 110 prominent Britons, including children's authors Philip Pullman and Jacqueline Wilson, Baroness Greenfield, a professor of physiology, and others, wrote an open letter to The Telegraph expressing concern that British children are being poisoned by a culture of processed food, computer games, over-competitive education and unrestrained adult behaviour.

Britons grab defensive postures when confronted by bitter truths. This toxic nation still proclaims itself the greatest of countries. And our children fall like leaves from an over-watered plant, which is dying and will not recover.


Independent.UK

http://comment.independent.co.uk/com...cle3061153.ece
Reply

Muezzin
10-15-2007, 05:19 PM
British kids are thick and/or lazy, and their teachers are thick and/or lazy and/or underpaid. I don't know if that has anything to do with moral decline, but there it is.

Note to BNP friends/nutters: I am British. Go and lick your Nick Griffin posters.
Reply

ISLAMASWEENEY
10-15-2007, 08:54 PM
Iam seen as a traitor in Britain because of my revertion to Islam.
Reply

Amadeus85
10-15-2007, 10:07 PM
Originally Posted by ISLAMASWEENEY
Iam seen as a traitor in Britain because of my revertion to Islam.
I know that its oftopic but do your parents know that you are a muslim now? :?
Reply

Isambard
10-16-2007, 12:05 AM
Originally Posted by ISLAMASWEENEY
Iam seen as a traitor in Britain because of my revertion to Islam.
How's that?
Reply

Isambard
10-16-2007, 12:10 AM
Originally Posted by ISLAMASWEENEY
Iam seen as a traitor in Britain because of my revertion to Islam.
How's that?
Reply

Qingu
10-16-2007, 05:19 AM
Originally Posted by Eric H
People’s opinions may be influenced by the media but I feel the greater problem, is a lack of faith in God. There appears to be little love or fear of God now, and if I can just give one example of how fear in God can be positive.

William Wilberforce stood up in parliament year after year for twenty years to try and abolish slavery in Britain, and every year he was defeated. That is until he stood up in parliament and said..

Every one of you will have to stand before God at some point, how will you justify your stance on slavery to God.
What a strange argument to make, since slavery is expressly allowed in both the Bible and the Quran.

The roots of the abolitionist movement are in secular humanism, not in religion.

If politicians feared God today that argument should have been used to prevent the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are all created by the same God and we have no right to harm God’s creation.
But again, look in both the Bible and the Quran and you will find no end of justifications to go to war against the unbelievers. In fact, the Bible is unique among religious and philosophical texts in its command to commit genocide (Deuteronomy 20:15, and the book of Joshua). Most wars throughout history were fought over religion in one way or another, both in Christendom and in Islam.

I always find it strange when religious people lament about a "decline in morals" in society. I think what they really are lamenting is a decline in religious belief.
Reply

جوري
10-16-2007, 05:26 AM
interesting... between stalin, Mao Xedong, Saloth sar Enver Hoxa, sung I1-- I'd say atheists have had the highest justification to commit genocide..
what was it 15 million for Xedong, 20 million for stalin, 2 million for sar etc etc etc.. but who is really counting? I would have a recount not just for most wars but most casualties-- if human life meant anything I'd say Atheists are writing their own bible as of late...

cheers!
Reply

Qingu
10-16-2007, 05:36 AM
Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
interesting... between stalin, Mao Xedong, Saloth sar Enver Hoxa, sung I1-- I'd say atheists have had the highest justification to commit genocide..
what was it 15 million for Xedong, 20 million for stalin, 2 million for sar etc etc etc.. but who is really counting? I would have a recount not just for most wars but most casualties-- if human life meant anything I'd say Atheists are writing their own bible as of late...

cheers!
I don't recall any of these figures killing people in the name of atheism.

Rather, they killed people in the name of their own brand of pseudo-religious dogmas.

Atheism is simply the lack of a certain kind of belief. Stalin and Mao did not believe in gods—they also did not believe in leprechauns or the tooth fairy, and yet nobody would say that "a-leprechaun-ism was responsible for 20 million deaths under Mao Zedong."
Reply

جوري
10-16-2007, 05:42 AM
I always find that to be a refreshing excuse peddled by Ahtiests once they have a look at what their ilk have done-- don't you? Godless people have killed hordes and sure they've done it in the name of Atheism .. read up more especially on Enver Hoxha

cheers
Reply

Qingu
10-16-2007, 05:53 AM
Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
I always find that to be a refreshing excuse peddled by Ahtiests once they have a look at what their ilk have done-- don't you? Godless people have killed hordes and sure they've done it in the name of Atheism .. read up more especially on Enver Hoxha

cheers
Again, I'm not sure why this counts as an "excuse" since I don't see how atheism influenced or rallied any of these atrocities.

Stalin and Mao killed people in the name of pseudo-Marxist mythology. Stalin in particular created a literal cult around the figure of Lenin, elevating him to the status of a demigod. Inasmuch as these people opposed religions, they did so because religions served as a counter-rallying-point to their own cultish ideologies.

And again: neither Stalin nor Mao nor Osama bin Ladin nor Pope Innocent the Third believed in leprechauns. All of these people were "a-leprechauns." Would you seriously claim that the lack of belief in leprechauns was behind the 9/11 attacks or the Third Crusade? Atheism, like a-leprechaunism, is not an ideology, it is the absence of a belief. I don't understand how you can pin any action on the absence of a belief. Perhaps you'd care to explain how this is possible?

I glanced at Hoxha's Wikipedia article and I'm not sure why you brought him up.
Reply

جوري
10-16-2007, 05:58 AM
I leave with this Quote.. I get bored quickly with redundancy and exculpations.. and I dislike repeating myself!

1967 - The suppression of religion intensifies. As part of the Cultural and Ideological Revolution, Hoxha calls on students to embark on a struggle against "religious superstition". He declares that "the Religion of Albania is Albanianism". By May over two thousand churches, mosques, monasteries, and other religious institutions have been closed or converted to other uses.

Clerics of all faiths are imprisoned or forced to seek work in industry or agriculture. Decrees sanctioning organised religion are annulled.

Finally, Albanian proclaims itself as the world's first atheistic state.
Reply

Isambard
10-16-2007, 06:01 AM
Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
I leave with this Quote.. I get bored quickly with redundancy and exculpations.. and I dislike repeating myself!
Do you deny there has been a marked increase of overall standard of living as secularism became more popular?
Reply

Qingu
10-16-2007, 06:06 AM
Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
I leave with this Quote.. I get bored quickly with redundancy and exculpations.. and I dislike repeating myself!
So this guy simultaneously says:

1. Albania is an atheistic state
2. The religion of Albania is Albanianism

Something tells me that atheists in Albania might not be convinced that Albania is an "atheistic state." From what I've read, it sounds like he was in fact propping up a new sort of religion, or at the very least a religion-like ideology, where dissenters from the dogmatic party line were punished.

In any case—I completely fail to see how atheism caused or even contributed to Hoxha's actions. What about the lack of a belief in gods do you think contributed to Hoxha's atrocities? I ask you again: how can a lack of a belief contribute to anything?

If Hoxha made Albania into "the world's first anti-astrology state" and outlawed astrology, punishing any astrologers with death, would you seriously argue that a lack of belief in astrology was the cause of his atrocities? I'd appreciate it if you could respond to these questions directly.
Reply

جوري
10-16-2007, 06:15 AM
Originally Posted by Isambard
Do you deny there has been a marked increase of overall standard of living as secularism became more popular?
No... and I wouldn't propose, that it is because of secularism.. these are simply cyclical events.. there was a time when under Muslim empires a period of history was known as the age of enlightenment.. there was a time in ancient Samaria was the height of civilization .. there was a time when Mesopotamia was considered the very birth of several ancient civilizations.. there was a time when pharaonic, babylonic, Phoenician world were the zenith of cultivated.. there was a time when a Persian king Darius I was named the 'great' for a reason..

societies have their moments in the lime light and then have a decline.. there was a time when the small Island of Japan defeated big bear (Russia) 1905 .. pushing it in the fore front of world power... there was a time when England was the empire where the 'sun never set' look how they pale now to the U.S blair often tought of as 'Bush's poodle'.. at least that is how he was described when I visited three yrs ago...

In a nutshell.. I don't think religion or secularism has anything to do with it... and everything to do with corruption of men... If I wanted this to get really heated I'd say Atheist men as nothing holds them back.. but I'll just say men often justify their grounds with one brilliant piece of BS or another!!!!!!

cheers
Reply

Qingu
10-16-2007, 06:22 AM
Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
No... and I wouldn't propose, that it is because of secularism.. these are simply cyclical events.. there was a time when under Muslim empires a period of history was known as the age of enlightenment.. there was a time in ancient Samaria was the height of civilization .. there was a time when Mesopotamia was considered the very birth of several ancient civilizations.. there was a time when pharaonic, babylonic, Phoenician world were the zenith of cultivated.. there was a time when a Persian king Darius I was named the 'great' for a reason..

societies have their moments in the lime light and then have a decline.. there was a time when the small Island of Japan defeated big bear (Russia) 1905 .. pushing it in the fore front of world power... there was a time when England was the empire where the 'sun never set' look how they pale now to the U.S blair often tought of as 'Bush's poodle'.. at least that is how he was described when I visited three yrs ago...

In a nutshell.. I don't think religion or secularism has anything to do with it... and everything to do with corruption of men... If I wanted this to get really heated I'd say Atheist men as nothing holds them back.. but I'll just say men often justify their grounds with one brilliant piece of BS or another!!!!!!

cheers
In one sense I agree with you. There has been a cycle of "pecking orders" with one group taking on the role of the "civilized/enlightened people" and other groups taking on the role of "barbarians." Empires throughout history have had a higher standard of living than surrounding areas and cultures, and this is as true today as it has always been.

But at the same time, I think you are missing something important in that there is a non-cyclical progression here. If given the choice—if you had a time machine—I doubt you would choose to go back in time to any of these ancient empires. I doubt you would choose to be even a Roman empress over your current life here, with your computers and your medicine and your humanist laws and your air-conditioning and heating.

Maybe I'm presuming too much. But looking back on the history of the world, I don't really see many places that I'd rather live than here. For most of history, slavery was an established moral fact, blasphemy was punishable by death, and you had to obey the whims of your political leaders or risk facing execution. And I won't even get in to women's rights. So even though we are still trapped in a cycle of pecking orders, I do think humanity has progressed morally—in the simple fact that most people would rather live now than at any other time.
Reply

ISLAMASWEENEY
10-16-2007, 06:34 AM
Originally Posted by Aaron85
I know that its oftopic but do your parents know that you are a muslim now? :?
No brother i dont want them to either i will get killed lol.
Reply

ISLAMASWEENEY
10-16-2007, 06:35 AM
Originally Posted by Isambard
How's that?
Because iam white they think iam a suicide bomber all the time ...they make ticking noises at me aswell.
Reply

جوري
10-16-2007, 06:44 AM
Originally Posted by Qingu
In one sense I agree with you. There has been a cycle of "pecking orders" with one group taking on the role of the "civilized/enlightened people" and other groups taking on the role of "barbarians." Empires throughout history have had a higher standard of living than surrounding areas and cultures, and this is as true today as it has always been.

But at the same time, I think you are missing something important in that there is a non-cyclical progression here. If given the choice—if you had a time machine—I doubt you would choose to go back in time to any of these ancient empires. I doubt you would choose to be even a Roman empress over your current life here, with your computers and your medicine and your humanist laws and your air-conditioning and heating.

Maybe I'm presuming too much. But looking back on the history of the world, I don't really see many places that I'd rather live than here. For most of history, slavery was an established moral fact, blasphemy was punishable by death, and you had to obey the whims of your political leaders or risk facing execution. And I won't even get in to women's rights. So even though we are still trapped in a cycle of pecking orders, I do think humanity has progressed morally—in the simple fact that most people would rather live now than at any other time.


Are you kidding? I don't consider myself much of a stoic but I don't think I am spoiled enough that if one cataclysmic event took place, that I wouldn't be able to survive or even function...

I won't tell you I can be drafted back in time and remember how to synthesize acetaminophen given some raw material of liquid hydrocarbon and save the day... I don't think I'd do that modern day if I were stranded without medicine...

I really don't think a girl today is very different from a girl 1000 yrs ago?.. Maybe they didn't use GHD and spray on wax to get those same bouncy waves but some cotton rolls and a head wrap would grant same results, at least without the damage... I don't know.. priorities always remain the same... just the little intricacies and you'd be surprised how much you can do without... but that it a topic for another day..

I'd very much love to go back to not one but several periods of History.. Would love to see Petra in its glory.. or city of Erum before its destruction...I'd love to change events that took place.. and there are a ton of people I'd love to meet.. I can't imagine anything more robust and animating than re-living a period of history...

Not to be galling but we have just a 'barbaric' laws today as we did a thousand yrs ago.. You'll forgive me but I feel a great justice in Islamic jurisprudence.. and it is a topic well expansive that can't be delved into with a cut and paste.. as you know you don't go to law school in a day.. like wise Islamic jurisprudence in its entirety can't be discussed in a paragraph.. It is not meant to be oppressive .. Islam was abolishing to slavery and is evidenced not only by the number of slaves embracing Islam.. there is a very well noted incident where the leaders of the people was a slave set free, which I'll get to and quote some other time as it is 2:39Am and I am not quite as dextrous or lucid at this hour.. but will leave with this Quote from the noble Quran

It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces towards East or West; but it is righteousness to believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and practise regular charity, to fulfil the contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the God-fearing. 2:177
cheers and Gnight
Reply

Qingu
10-16-2007, 07:03 AM
Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
Are you kidding? I don't consider myself much of a stoic but I don't think I am spoiled enough that if one cataclysmic event took place, that I wouldn't be able to survive or even function...
That's not what I meant. I think I could survive too, if modern society somehow collapsed, but that wasn't the question.

The question was, if you had the choice, would you rather live now or in some past society?

I really don't think a girl today is very different from a girl 1000 yrs ago?.. Maybe they didn't use GHD and spray on wax to get those same bouncy waves
Please. I know you're being a little sarcastic, but I hope I don't need to tell you that a woman's social position today is vastly different than it was 1,000 years ago, at least it is in most Western countries. For most of history, women were legally considered the property of men, first of their fathers and then of their husbands. With few exceptions, women had zero political and legal power and never received educations. Some forms of rape—such as marital rape—were not even conceived of as a crime.

I'd very much love to go back to not one but several periods of History.. Would love to see Petra in its glory.. or city of Erum before its destruction...I'd love to change events that took place.. and there are a ton of people I'd love to meet.. I can't imagine anything more robust and animating than re-living a period of history...
Don't get me wrong, I'd love more than anything to visit past civilizations, to learn from them and see what was really happening.

But I'm not talking about visiting like on vacation, I'm talking about living there permanently. Would you really want to spend the rest of your life in Petra or in 7th century Medina? You're used to a higher standard of living—and this "higher standard" entails much more than mere superficialities like hair treatments.

Not to be galling but we have just a 'barbaric' laws today as we did a thousand yrs ago..
Not nearly as many, I would argue.

I don't mean to suggest that our current laws are better for all cultures and all times. I think societies evolve bit by bit, and the laws are a part of that—I certainly don't think you can simply drop your laws and your political ideology onto an alien society and expect it to magically work better (as Bush apparently thought about Iraq).

But that said, I do think there are certain cultures that are simply better than others. "Better" is not a vague, subjective term here—it is measurable, and it is easy to measure. All you have to do is look at the number of people who choose to move from one culture to another.

Islam was abolishing to slavery
I wholeheartedly disagree. If Muhammad was serious about abolishing slavery then he would not have allowed it in the Quran. Christians make the same arguments about the Bible, which also expressly allows slavery. There is a reason that both Muslims and Christians held and traded in slaves for thousands of years, with no large abolitionist movements in either culture until the advent of secular humanism.

That slaves embraced Islam in no way means Islam is inherently abolitionist. In America, most slaves converted to Christianity. Why? Because their masters told them to. Many of their descendents are still fervent Christians today. While I admit I am not quite as familiar with Islam's history with slavery, I fail to see how it is much different.

And I'm off to bed now too. Good night!
Reply

believer
10-16-2007, 11:25 AM
Originally Posted by ISLAMASWEENEY
Because iam white they think iam a suicide bomber all the time ...they make ticking noises at me aswell.
:D :happy: ... if they do that ticking noise again.... just keep silent for about 10 seconds... then with a loud sudden voice shout "BOOOOOM!" - I'm sure it will break the ice. :D

I believe we need to really break the ice. This is the challenge every Muslim (Revert) faces in these times. The enemy has demonize the face of our religion at the same time subliminally brainswashed most of humanity with the wrong value system.

As a revert, we need to reinvent the wheel so to speak. It's not easy to be a New Muslim... but - just have more SABR (patience)... just keep yur relationship to Allah strong and in tact... I guarantee you - You will never feel worried, anxiouss, fearful or grief anytime. Moreover, if they mock at us - who cares?...

Better be mocked by human, than earn the curse of Allah... let's all face thie challenge with a cheerful heart. and the countdown begins....:D

Allah Hafiz!
Reply

Amadeus85
10-16-2007, 02:04 PM
Originally Posted by ISLAMASWEENEY
No brother i dont want them to either i will get killed lol.
Its not my buisness but i think that your parents should have noticed.
Reply

جوري
10-16-2007, 07:27 PM
Originally Posted by Qingu
That's not what I meant. I think I could survive too, if modern society somehow collapsed, but that wasn't the question.
I believe I did say for a 'visit' I'd not want to be a part of Aad or Thamud.. old Petra and Erum cities known for decadence and moral corruption and be corrupt along with them..
The question was, if you had the choice, would you rather live now or in some past society?
I wouldn't mind so long as it is Islamic and I of course a Muslim!


Please. I know you're being a little sarcastic, but I hope I don't need to tell you that a woman's social position today is vastly different than it was 1,000 years ago, at least it is in most Western countries. For most of history, women were legally considered the property of men, first of their fathers and then of their husbands. With few exceptions, women had zero political and legal power and never received educations. Some forms of rape—such as marital rape—were not even conceived of as a crime.
I think a many women still have the misfortune to be married to batterers modern day.. It has more to do with the nature of some men than the will of some women. I don't think I'd be any different a person then than I am today in an Islamic soceity.. you should read about women in Islam instead of focusing on the bad news that made it, you should focus on the good news that didn't?


Don't get me wrong, I'd love more than anything to visit past civilizations, to learn from them and see what was really happening.
Me too.. I think the 'pioneer' era is behind us.. how many 16 year olds do you know have mastered engineering like say Bernini or Borromini? It is rather sad the state of affairs of the world... TV may have taken us forward.. but in many ways it has taken us backwards if you stop and think about it.. same for internet.. everyone is an insta scholar from a google search.. How many people do you know actually sit down and give some thought to what they think or write before loaning credence or quoting a questionable website for a source... a sad state indeed the affairs of our modern world....

Also I'd be very careful speaking for women in general... Most of my female colleagues already have a graduate education and about 3/4 of them are on antidepressants.. some where along the way, society's expectation have forced them to give up so much of what they should be naturally given and endowed.Education in all its levels should be granted to both sexes, but becoming the opposite sex in the process is a sad price to pay for it!

But I'm not talking about visiting like on vacation, I'm talking about living there permanently. Would you really want to spend the rest of your life in Petra or in 7th century Medina? You're used to a higher standard of living—and this "higher standard" entails much more than mere superficialities like hair treatments.
Not Petra but certainly Medina.. I am sure they had better more natural 'herbal' hair treatments back then that didn't entail that every woman should go for hair dye number 5 with p-Phenylenediamine, Toluene-2,5-Diaminesulfate ,to end up with that same homogenous shade of orange brass, even on women whose skin tone and hair texture shouldn't appropriate such a change... What is wrong with natural endowment and the herbs of the earth?



I don't mean to suggest that our current laws are better for all cultures and all times. I think societies evolve bit by bit, and the laws are a part of that—I certainly don't think you can simply drop your laws and your political ideology onto an alien society and expect it to magically work better (as Bush apparently thought about Iraq).
This is a long expansive topic and I said I wouldn't get into Islamic Jurisprudence on a forum.. partially because I am not an Islamic scolar and partly because there are intricacies that we'll have to omit out of ignorance!

But that said, I do think there are certain cultures that are simply better than others. "Better" is not a vague, subjective term here—it is measurable, and it is easy to measure. All you have to do is look at the number of people who choose to move from one culture to another.
This has to do more with socio-economic and geo-political situations of the world, and very little to do with religion.


I wholeheartedly disagree. If Muhammad was serious about abolishing slavery then he would not have allowed it in the Quran. Christians make the same arguments about the Bible, which also expressly allows slavery. There is a reason that both Muslims and Christians held and traded in slaves for thousands of years, with no large abolitionist movements in either culture until the advent of secular humanism.
I think recorded history paints a different picture for us.. I can't speak for christianity that is something you'll have to advert to our christian members...
from the Quran however I quote
Allah (SWT) says in Surat Al-Hujurat, "O Mankind! We have created you from a male and female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Verily, the most honorable of you in the sight of Allah is he who has most Taqwa among of you. Verily, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware." Noble Qur'an (49:13)
With this verse, Islam declares equality among people as one human race, one humanity, that is because Islam respect a human for being a human not for any other reason; Islam does not distinguish between two races, or two groups of people, or between two colors, and the Prophet Muhammad (saw) addressed the people signifying that concept during the last Hajj pilgrimage, saying: "O People! Your God is one; your father is one; no preference of an Arab neither over non-Arab nor of a non-Arab over an Arab or red over black or black over red except for the most righteous. Verily the most honored of you is the most righteous."
"O Messenger of Allah, I have neither wealth nor beauty; nor I have a noble descent or lineage. Who will marry me? And which woman likes to be wife of a poor, short, black and ugly man like me?"

"O Jowaibir! God has changed the individual's worth through Islam. Many people were high-placed in the pre-Islamic society and Islam brought them down. Many were despised non-entities and Islam bestowed them with honor and high rank and brought them up. Islam abolished the un-Islamic discrimination and pride of lineage. Now all people irrespective of their color and origin are equal. Nobody has superiority over others but through piety and obedience to Allah. Among the Muslims, only that person would be higher than YOU whose virtues and deeds are better than you. Now do as I tell you."

These words were exchanged one day between the Prophet Muhammad (saw) and Jowaibir when the Prophet Muhammad (saw) came to see the Companions of the Suffa (Ashab al-Suffa).
One of many.. so I suggest rather than reading Pipes or some 'Humanist manifesto' you actually read about the religion you wish to devalue.. in the very least going to the source and reading Islamic books would dispel the myths for you?

While I admit I am not quite as familiar with Islam's history with slavery
I will accept that through the other extraneous details...

thank you

Peace!
Reply

islamirama
10-16-2007, 07:42 PM
Originally Posted by Qingu
I wholeheartedly disagree. If Muhammad was serious about abolishing slavery then he would not have allowed it in the Quran. Christians make the same arguments about the Bible, which also expressly allows slavery. There is a reason that both Muslims and Christians held and traded in slaves for thousands of years, with no large abolitionist movements in either culture until the advent of secular humanism.
Islam came at a time when slavery was deeply entrenched in the society, so Islam worked towards the gradual elimination of slavery.
  • Islam encouraged the emancipating of slaves; The Qur'an does so in many places: 4:92, 5:89, 58:3, 90:13, 24:33, 9:60, 2:177, 2:221, 4:25, 4:36.
The Prophet said: "A person who frees a Muslim slave, Allah will deliver every one of his limbs from the fire of Hell in return for each of the limbs of the slave (Sahîh Bukhârî, and Sahîh Muslim)
Shaykh Abu Bakr Al-Jazâ'iry writes:
Islam orders making an agreement to facilitate a slave in buying back his freedom if he requests such an agreement, and it encourages helping him in that with shares or wealth. Allah the Almighty said:
And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation) give them such writing, if you find that there is good and honesty in them. And give them something (yourselves) out of the wealth of Allah which He has bestowed upon you. (Qur'an 24:33)

(Al-Jaza'iry, Minhaj Al-Muslim, vol. 2, p.551)
The Prophet said: "If any of you have a slave girl, whom he gives good education and excellent training, and then he emancipates her and marries her, he shall have a two-fold reward. " (Sahîh Bukhârî)
  • Islam eliminated and restricted the sources of slavery, prohibiting the enslavement of free people, the Prophet said:
The Prophet said, "Allah says, 'I will be against three persons on the Day of Resurrection: [...] One who sells a free person (as a slave) and eats the price (Sahîh Bukhari)
"There are three people whose prayers are not accepted. And one of these three is a man who enslaves a free person (Rajulun iitabada muharraran)" (Sunan Abî Dawûd)


More @ Slavery and Islam


That slaves embraced Islam in no way means Islam is inherently abolitionist. In America, most slaves converted to Christianity. Why? Because their masters told them to. Many of their descendents are still fervent Christians today. While I admit I am not quite as familiar with Islam's history with slavery, I fail to see how it is much different.


African Slaves and Islam 1/2

African Slaves and Islam 2/2
Reply

wilberhum
10-16-2007, 07:58 PM
Originally Posted by islamirama
Islam came at a time when slavery was deeply entrenched in the society, so Islam worked towards the gradual elimination of slavery.
  • Islam encouraged the emancipating of slaves; The Qur'an does so in many places: 4:92, 5:89, 58:3, 90:13, 24:33, 9:60, 2:177, 2:221, 4:25, 4:36.
The Prophet said: "A person who frees a Muslim slave, Allah will deliver every one of his limbs from the fire of Hell in return for each of the limbs of the slave (Sahîh Bukhârî, and Sahîh Muslim)
Shaykh Abu Bakr Al-Jazâ'iry writes:
Islam orders making an agreement to facilitate a slave in buying back his freedom if he requests such an agreement, and it encourages helping him in that with shares or wealth. Allah the Almighty said:
And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation) give them such writing, if you find that there is good and honesty in them. And give them something (yourselves) out of the wealth of Allah which He has bestowed upon you. (Qur'an 24:33)

(Al-Jaza'iry, Minhaj Al-Muslim, vol. 2, p.551)
The Prophet said: "If any of you have a slave girl, whom he gives good education and excellent training, and then he emancipates her and marries her, he shall have a two-fold reward. " (Sahîh Bukhârî)
  • Islam eliminated and restricted the sources of slavery, prohibiting the enslavement of free people, the Prophet said:
The Prophet said, "Allah says, 'I will be against three persons on the Day of Resurrection: [...] One who sells a free person (as a slave) and eats the price (Sahîh Bukhari)
"There are three people whose prayers are not accepted. And one of these three is a man who enslaves a free person (Rajulun iitabada muharraran)" (Sunan Abî Dawûd)


More @ Slavery and Islam






African Slaves and Islam 1/2

African Slaves and Islam 2/2
So why were Islamic/Muslim Countries the last to outlaw slavery? :hmm:
Reply

islamirama
10-16-2007, 08:02 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
So why were Islamic/Muslim Countries the last to outlaw slavery? :hmm:
can you show me the info?

If you visit those links you will see islam came when slavery was already part of the pagan society. Islam worked towards eliminating it. Only new "slaves" were what you refer to as prisoners of war, nothing like Europeans who went to another land to take free people and force them into slavery.

btw, slavery still exists in US today. Look at how many people are in prison working for a nickle an hour doing their "time". Welcome to modern day slavery...
Reply

wilberhum
10-16-2007, 08:08 PM
Originally Posted by islamirama
can you show me the info?

If you visit those links you will see islam came when slavery was already part of the pagan society. Islam worked towards eliminating it. Only new "slaves" were what you refer to as prisoners of war, nothing like Europeans who went to another land to take free people and force them into slavery.

btw, slavery still exists in US today. Look at how many people are in prison working for a nickle an hour doing their "time". Welcome to modern day slavery...
1952 Qatar abolishes slavery
1962 Saudi Arabia abolishes slavery
1962 Yemen abolishes slavery
1963 United Arab Emirates abolishes slavery
1970 Oman abolishes slavery
1980 Mauritania abolishes slavery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboliti...avery_timeline
btw, slavery still exists in US today.
Of course if you redefine terms and twist them you can make any point you want. A wife is a slave to some. How many other twisted analogies do you want? :(
Reply

islamirama
10-16-2007, 08:52 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
1952 Qatar abolishes slavery
1962 Saudi Arabia abolishes slavery
1962 Yemen abolishes slavery
1963 United Arab Emirates abolishes slavery
1970 Oman abolishes slavery
1980 Mauritania abolishes slavery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboliti...avery_timeline

That's very recent, too recent. Even the last khilafah was abolished in 1924. All these "islamic" countries are nothing but secular power hungry men, no one representing Islam. I believe we were discussing slavery from the old ages, a time when others were thriving with slavery and capturing free people to slave them while islam was working towards eradicating this.
Of course if you redefine terms and twist them you can make any point you want. A wife is a slave to some. How many other twisted analogies do you want? :(
Actually i never thought of it that way till i heard a lecture on it and realized the reality of the situation. It is modern slavery if look at it realistically. As for wife statement, your home is what you make of it...
Reply

Amadeus85
10-16-2007, 09:04 PM
It is also worth to mention that Brittish Crown was encouraging other countries (its colonies, also muslim countries) to ban slavery since the beggining of XIX century. When Ottoman Sultan wanted to abolish slavery in XIX century , his decision brought big resist from conservative muslim scholars from Arabia. They said that people cant abolish something that Allah permits.Just like people cant allow something that Allah forbids.
Reply

wilberhum
10-16-2007, 09:08 PM
Originally Posted by Aaron85
It is also worth to mention that Brittish Crown was encouraging other countries (its colonies, also muslim countries) to ban slavery since the beggining of XIX century. When Ottoman Sultan wanted to abolish slavery in XIX century , his decision brought big resist from conservative muslim scholars from Arabia. They said that people cant abolish something that Allah permits.Just like people cant allow something that Allah forbids.
all that is old news and doesn't even count. Well at least one seams to think that. :-\
I guess the US should cut off all the prisoners left hand and let them out. :?
Reply

islamirama
10-16-2007, 09:34 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
all that is old news and doesn't even count. Well at least one seams to think that. :-\
I guess the US should cut off all the prisoners left hand and let them out. :?
are all prisoners thieves? i thought there were rapists and killers too in prisons?

if you are so keen on implementing the shar'iah then start from the top, you need proper gov't in place without corrupt politicians and cops.

During the caliphate of one of the Sahabans (companions of the Prophet), a man was brought before him to be punished for stealing. The ruler inquired about it and found that the man did have a job but was not paid enough and therefore he stole to feed his family. The ruler called the boss of the man and told him to pair the man fair wages and if he steals against because of this (poverty) then the employer will be held accountable for it.

Not everything is as western non-Muslims paint it out to be.
Reply

Amadeus85
10-16-2007, 09:43 PM
Originally Posted by islamirama
are all prisoners thieves? i thought there were rapists and killers too in prisons?

if you are so keen on implementing the shar'iah then start from the top, you need proper gov't in place without corrupt politicians and cops.

During the caliphate of one of the Sahabans (companions of the Prophet), a man was brought before him to be punished for stealing. The ruler inquired about it and found that the man did have a job but was not paid enough and therefore he stole to feed his family. The ruler called the boss of the man and told him to pair the man fair wages and if he steals against because of this (poverty) then the employer will be held accountable for it.

Not everything is as western non-Muslims paint it out to be.
Islamirama, notice that the harshest laws we have, the less crimes we have.In USA there are about 2 million people in prisons, but USA has 300 millions of citizens.Personally i think that resocializing doesnt work in most of the cases.Someone must spend some time in prison to understand that he/she cant do this anymore.
Reply

wilberhum
10-16-2007, 09:47 PM
i thought there were rapists and killers too in prisons?
So then is it ok to keep them as slaves? :uuh:
Reply

islamirama
10-16-2007, 09:59 PM
Originally Posted by Aaron85
Islamirama, notice that the harshest laws we have, the less crimes we have.In USA there are about 2 million people in prisons, but USA has 300 millions of citizens.Personally i think that resocializing doesnt work in most of the cases.Someone must spend some time in prison to understand that he/she cant do this anymore.
2 million ppl in prison? don't you think that is a bit high? i recall reading there are more ppl in prison then in universities. The Us "re-socializing" plan doesn't work, they need to go back to the drawing board. What they need is some good Singapore style canning.

Here's your "re-socializing" plan...

Do a crime, go to prison and get:
-free food
-free housing
-free cable
-free educational material
-free recreation, esp. weights to buff up
-free gang building and crime intelligence sharing

Sometimes i wonder why don't the homeless do the crime so they can go get all those amenities.

Did you know a prisoner gets more than what an average working american can afford? i did a report on this topic in my speech class in univ a while back. And i convinced my whole class and teacher (was a persuasive speech) that what we need is corporal punishment and not "vacations" for the criminals to recharge and go out and do the crime again.
Reply

wilberhum
10-16-2007, 10:06 PM
Originally Posted by islamirama
2 million ppl in prison? don't you think that is a bit high? i recall reading there are more ppl in prison then in universities. The Us "re-socializing" plan doesn't work, they need to go back to the drawing board. What they need is some good Singapore style canning.

Here's your "re-socializing" plan...

Do a crime, go to prison and get:
-free food
-free housing
-free cable
-free educational material
-free recreation, esp. weights to buff up
-free gang building and crime intelligence sharing

Sometimes i wonder why don't the homeless do the crime so they can go get all those amenities.

Did you know a prisoner gets more than what an average working american can afford? i did a report on this topic in my speech class in univ a while back. And i convinced my whole class and teacher (was a persuasive speech) that what we need is corporal punishment and not "vacations" for the criminals to recharge and go out and do the crime again.
Boy, you have all the answers. We should make you warden. :D
You have sucesfully identified one of the thousands of causes. :?

Most criminals think they are so smart that they won't get caught.
I would bet that a better peanal system would have a minimal impact on crime.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
10-16-2007, 10:13 PM
Originally Posted by islamirama
2 million ppl in prison? don't you think that is a bit high? i recall reading there are more ppl in prison then in universities. The Us "re-socializing" plan doesn't work, they need to go back to the drawing board. What they need is some good Singapore style canning.

Here's your "re-socializing" plan...

Do a crime, go to prison and get:
-free food
-free housing
-free cable
-free educational material
-free recreation, esp. weights to buff up
-free gang building and crime intelligence sharing

Sometimes i wonder why don't the homeless do the crime so they can go get all those amenities.

Did you know a prisoner gets more than what an average working american can afford? i did a report on this topic in my speech class in univ a while back. And i convinced my whole class and teacher (was a persuasive speech) that what we need is corporal punishment and not "vacations" for the criminals to recharge and go out and do the crime again.
Or we can do as the Russians did and send the misfits to Siberia.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
10-16-2007, 10:40 PM
I personally like the idea of so called working camps, where the inmates would learn how incredibly wrong their crime was and at the same time pay off their debt to the society.
Reply

islamirama
10-18-2007, 06:07 PM
Originally Posted by believer
I used to work as an independent contractor of a certain type of consultancy firm... in every project we had... they would really virtually, literally own my life more than 24 hours a day for 14 days straight or as needed. And while I was working there... I am really not allowed to be myself... I was a mean, analytical, thinking, inhuman- machine.... and I have to look at people as mathematical figures...
Comes with the territory bro. Look at doctors, they don't have a life either, always on call. Maybe you should go independent or start your own firm. Anyways, lets get back to the topic :)
Reply

Muezzin
10-18-2007, 06:09 PM
Somehow this thread about moral decline segued into a debate about communism, amongst other things. I've moved those posts to the Recycling Bin, as they're off-topic.

Originally Posted by islamirama
Anyways, lets get back to the topic :)
I agree.
Reply

believer
10-18-2007, 06:53 PM
Originally Posted by islamirama
Comes with the territory bro. Look at doctors, they don't have a life either, always on call. Maybe you should go independent or start your own firm. Anyways, lets get back to the topic :)
I agree... sorry, I must've been typing fast - I wasn't paying attention to the topic.

Peace!
Reply

ahsan28
10-21-2007, 09:25 PM
The British public is in danger of losing its 'moral focus' on abortion

Sunday October 21, 2007
The Observer


The British public is in danger of losing its 'moral focus' on abortion and treating the procedure as normal, rather than a last resort, says the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The leader of the Church of England claims the growing belief that 'abortion is essentially a matter of individual decision' means it is no longer 'the kind of major moral choice that should involve a sharing of perspective and judgment'.


http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...196030,00.html
Reply

wilberhum
10-22-2007, 03:07 AM
So the sum of all morals lies on the abortion question? :-\
Reply

Isambard
10-22-2007, 05:42 AM
Originally Posted by Muslim Girl(MG)
moral decline is one of the signs of the end, hence moral decline will always be happening, you wont find it going in the opposite direction .....
I hope this doesnt sound rude, but I think you should read the entire thread...

As has been demonstrated in previous pgs, 'moral environment' has bee increasing progressively over the decades.
Reply

Isambard
10-22-2007, 06:16 AM
You really should read all of it :P

Some hightlights

-We no longer have slaves
-No longer have child labour
-Standard of living across the board is much greater than it was
-Greatly decreased child mortality rate
-No longer have to subjugate yourself to the wiles of a monarch/Pope
-Can believe w/e you wish w/o fear of being impaled

etc.

Id say past ages were alot more barbaric wouldnt you?:P
Reply

Arrakis
10-22-2007, 08:58 AM
Originally Posted by Lush
Meh. Ever since Plato people have been saying the same thing, over and over again.

But no one wants to learn their history - hence the press is able to whip up "moral decline" hysteria every few years or so.

Pish posh.
Couldn't agree more, it's practically natural for each generation to see decline in the next, not because it is actually declining, but because generations change.

Someone said on page one of this thread, "that is actually because it has been declining more and more as time has gone on", well no actually that is wrong also. Looking through history we are still not the most depraved of any generation at any time.

Which means it's just an up and down thing when it comes to human morality, rather than a consistant gradual decline.

As you said, if people would but learn their history they would see this themsleves.
Reply

Skavau
10-31-2007, 12:35 AM
Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
I always find that to be a refreshing excuse peddled by Ahtiests once they have a look at what their ilk have done
I just noticed this. Can you please explain first of all, why all Atheists ought to account for injustice committed by other Atheists and can you perhaps (if you think it exists) show precisely how Atheism itself was the inspiration for killing carried out in the past by many Atheists.

I also resent "what their ilk have done". Atheism is not a coherent ideology. It is a negative standpoint on a single metaphysical position.

Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
-- don't you? Godless people have killed hordes and sure they've done it in the name of Atheism .. read up more especially on Enver Hoxha
Please provide evidence on how people have killed in the name of, quite literally no God. Specifically can you provide evidence on how Enver Hoxha killed and oppressed in the name of Atheism.

Also, Communism implies Atheism. Atheism does not imply Communism.
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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 74
    Last Post: 06-06-2011, 03:44 AM
  2. Replies: 44
    Last Post: 08-10-2010, 02:16 AM
  3. Replies: 41
    Last Post: 07-15-2010, 09:57 AM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-14-2010, 05:07 PM
  5. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 02-07-2009, 06:33 PM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!