Child Unwell But Parents Did Not Seek Medical Attention

[Futuwwa]

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.

 

[IAmZamzam]

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.

 

[Pygoscelis]

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?

 

[Pygoscelis]

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?

 

[CosmicPathos]

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

it should be true unless you can show it should not be true.

 

[Futuwwa]

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.

 

[sister herb]

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?

 

[Karl]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Karl]

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.

 

[IAmZamzam]

“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.

 

[ardianto]

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.

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.

 

[sister herb]

"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.

 

[Pygoscelis]

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?

 

[Pygoscelis]

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).

 

[Insaanah]

The union of a man and woman makes a child.

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.

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.

Yes I can kill my offspring if I want, but I have no actual REASON why I would WANT to kill my offspring.

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.

 

[CosmicPathos]

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.

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

says who?

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?

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.

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?

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.

 

[Pygoscelis]

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?

 

[Hulk]

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.

 

[CosmicPathos]

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.

 

[CosmicPathos]

What on earth is "dogma of molecular bio"?

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