Jump to content

.InshAllah.

Veteran Member
  • Content count

    3,181
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

.InshAllah. last won the day on June 17 2014

.InshAllah. had the most liked content!

About .InshAllah.

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 05/02/2005

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://godandphilosophy.wordpress.com/

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

6,301 profile views
  1. Qur'an on Racism

    وَمِنْ آيَاتِهِ خَلْقُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَاخْتِلَافُ أَلْسِنَتِكُمْ وَأَلْوَانِكُمْ ۚ إِنَّ فِي ذَٰلِكَ لَآيَاتٍ لِلْعَالِمِينَ And one of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and the diversity of your tongues and colours; most surely there are signs in this for people of knowledge. [Surah 30, verse 22] According to this verse the diversity of colours of people is a good thing - its one of the signs of God. I can imagine a black person 1400 years ago hearing this, having been told his whole life that he was inferior because of the colour of his skin, and now realising that differences in colours is a beautiful thing in Islam, and one of the many sign of Allah swt. It must have been a very liberating thing to grasp.
  2. is circumcision still necessary ?

    Circumcision reduces the risk STDs including HIV, and reduces the risk of urinary tract infections (which kill huge numbers every year), as well removing the risk of balanitis, phimosis and paraphimosis, This is why the prestigious American Academy of Pediatrics recommended newborn circumcision after a review of the evidence: After a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks The American Academy of Pediatrics If I wasn't Muslim I would still circumcise my children.
  3. Ammar Nakshawani on sex slaves

    With regards to Islam's approach to slavery, here are some possibilities (but these arent exhaustive) 1. Islam actively tried to stop slavery (through various religious injunctions) because Islam viewed slavery as intrinsically immoral 2. Islam encouraged the abolition of slavery (through encouraging emancipation, various injunctions etc) because Islam viewed slavery as generally immoral 3. Islam encouraged the abolition of slavery because Islam viewed emancipation to be better than slavery (although the latter was not necessarily immoral given the context of 7th century Arabia) 4. Islam was indifferent vis a vis slavery and emancipation 5. Islam was pro-slavery as slavery was good given the context of 7th century Arabia Notice that option 1 to 3 are all on the side of anti-slavery / pro-emancipation, but to different extents. Personally I believe a good case can be made that Islam was pro-emancipation, as freeing slaves is something encouraged in Islam. It doesnt follow from this that something like (1) is true however.
  4. The truth is that science has a bad reputation when it comes to accepting new ideas. As scientists, we like to think we are calm, objective, unbiased champions of the evidence. But if the evidence changes the paradigm, it often squanders the life's work of many proud people. This is just as true today as it was back in 1906 ... Scientists are not the paragons of mutual camaraderie we might imagine them to be – all hell-bent on uniting under one banner to seek the truth. They are human. Big intellects bring big egos. In Pursuit of Memory by Joseph Jebelli
  5. What's killing us

    From: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2017/10/whats_killing_u.html What's killing us? I made the following graph. I include the top ten causes of death in the U.S., plus homicide and illegal drug overdoses, because the latter two are actually discussed in political discourse. Observations: 1. The top causes of death almost never appear in political discourse or discussions of social problems. They're almost all diseases, and there is almost no debate about what should be done about them. This is despite that they are killing vastly more people than even the most destructive of the social problems that we do talk about. (Illegal drugs account for 0.7% of the death rate; murder, about 0.6%.) 2. This is not because there is nothing to be done about the leading causes of death. Changes in diet, exercise, and other lifestyle changes can make very large differences to your risk of heart disease, cancer, and other major diseases, and this is well-known. 3. It's also not because it's uncontroversial what we should do about them, or because everybody already knows. The government could, for example, try to discourage tobacco smoking, alcohol use, and overeating, and encourage exercise. There are many ways this could be attempted. Perhaps the government could spend more money on trying to cure the leading diseases. There obviously are policies that could attempt to address these problems, and it would certainly not be uncontroversial which ones, if any, should be adopted. Those who support social engineering by the government might be expected to be campaigning for the government to address the things that are killing most of us. 4. Most of these leading killers are themselves mainly caused by old age. If "Old Age" were a category, it would be causing by far the majority of deaths. Again, it's not the case that nothing could be done about this. We could be doing much more medical research on aging. 5. It's also not that we just don't care about diseases. *Some* diseases are treated as political issues, such that there are activists campaigning for more attention and more money to cure them. There are AIDS activists, but there aren't any nephritis activists. There are breast cancer walks, but there aren't any colon cancer walks. 6. Hypothesis: We don't much care about the good of society. Refinement: Love of the social good is not the main motivation for (i) political action, and (ii) political discourse. We don't talk about what's good for society because we want to help our fellow humans. We talk about society because we want to align ourselves with a chosen group, to signal that alignment to others, and to tell a story about who we are. There are AIDS activists because there are people who want to express sympathy for gays, to align themselves against conservatives, and thereby to express "who they are". There are no nephritis activists, because there's no salient group you align yourself with (kidney disease sufferers?) by advocating for nephritis research, there's no group you thereby align yourself *against*, and you don't tell any story about what kind of person you are. In conclusion, this sucks. Because we actually have real problems that require attention. If we won't pay attention to a problem just because it kills a million people, but we need it also to invoke some ideological feeling of righteousness, then the biggest problems will continue to kill us. And by the way, the smaller problems that we actually pay attention to probably won't be solved either, because all our 'solutions' will be designed to flatter us and express our ideologies, rather than to actually solve the problems. *** My Take: He has a point. But he overstates it. We care about drug-related deaths not just as a cause of premature death, but because drugs ruin lives. And as someone points out in the comments, the age at which death occurs is also relevant. These criticisms notwithstanding, he has a point. And I think we can make the same argument if we focus on violent deaths. Why do 'muslim' terrorism related deaths get far more media attention than other violent crime related deaths? Its because many people in the West are aligned with groups such as evangelicals, zionists, anti-religion groups, and focusing on muslim-related violence expresses alignment with these groups, and may also give these groups a sense of legitimacy, as well as helping further their goals. It's not because these groups care about the good of society.
  6. Our view on the omnipotence paradox

    Salam From : A Commentary on Theistic Arguments by Ayatollah Jawadi Amuli
  7. I Am Abbas

  8. Calling it an illness doesn't mean it's outside the persons control, or that they need medication. If that was the case then counselling and other types of talking therapies would be ineffective, yet we know they can be extremely effective. Compare this to biological illnesses such as diabetes and heart disease which can't be cured by talking to someone or examining your thought process. Usually (although not always) there is an obvious trigger followed by an unhelpful reaction to that trigger eg someone loses their job > thinks life is over.
  9. انا لله وانا اليه راجعون I will read juz' 26
  10. Charlie Hebdo May Now Be Criticized Because It Mocked White Texans Rather Than Muslims by Glenn Greenwald THE NEWFOUND FREE SPEECH crusaders borne of the January 2015 murders of 10 Charlie Hebdo cartoonists in Paris sought to promulgate a new and quite dangerous standard. It was no longer enough to defend someone’s right to express their ideas while being free to condemn those ideas themselves — long the central tenet of the free speech movement (I defend their right to free speech even while finding them and their ideas repugnant). In the wake of the Hebdo killings, one had to go much further than that: It was a moral imperative to embrace and celebrate the ideas under attack and to glorify those who were expressing them, even to declare ourselves to be them (#JeSuisCharlie). As a result, criticizing the content of Charlie Hebdo’s often-vile cartoons became virtually blasphemous. It became common to demand that one not only defend the right of the cartoonists to publish them but also, to show “solidarity,” one had to republish those cartoons no matter how much one objected to their content — thus adopting that speech as one’s own. Opposition to lavishing these cartoonists with honors and prizes was depicted as some sort of moral failure or at least insufficient commitment to free speech rights, as evidenced by the widespread, intense scornheaped on the writers who spoke out in opposition to bestowing Charlie Hebdo with an award at a PEN America gala. A dangerous conflation was thus imposed between the right to express Idea X and one’s opinion of Idea X. Of all the articles I’ve written in the last several years, perhaps the most polarizing and anger-generating were the ones I wrote in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo killings: one article that rejected the demand that one must celebrate and even republish Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons by criticizing those cartoons and illustrating the results of applying this new, dangerous standard (celebrate offensive and blasphemous cartoons by republishing them) universally; and then a series of articles defending the PEN America writers who objected to the Charlie Hebdo award on the ground that one could simultaneously defend free speech while refusing to praise, honor, and glorify those whose speech rights were under attack. The most dishonest and confused commentators distorted my critique (and others) of the content of Charlie Hebdo’s speech into an opposition to free speech itself. “When Glenn Greenwald castigates the dead Charlie Hebdo cartoonists for racism,” decreed the anti-Islam high priest of New Atheism, Sam Harris, “he’s not only proving that he’s a moral imbecile; he’s participating in a global war of ideas over free speech — and he’s on the wrong side of it.” Similarly confusing these distinct concepts was Quillette’s Jamie Palmer, who, after surveying my years of work defending free speech rights for everyone both as a lawyer and a journalist, somehow concluded that “it would seem logical to suppose that Greenwald’s solidarity with the staff of Charlie Hebdo could be taken for granted.” What was clear all along, and what I argued repeatedly, was that it was not a belief in free speech that was driving these demands that Charlie Hebdo cartoonists be honored and revered and their cartoons be celebrated. Free speech was just the pretense, the costume. Indeed, most of the political leaders who led the “free speech parade” in Paris (pictured above) had long records of suppressing free speech, and few of these new free speech crusaders uttered a word as the free speech rights of Muslims have been assaulted and eroded throughout the West in the name of the war on terror. What was driving this love of Charlie Hebdo was approval of the content of its cartoons: specifically, glee that it was attacking, mocking, and angering Muslims, one of the most marginalized, vulnerable, and despised groups in the West. THE PROOF OF THIS was delivered yesterday. Charlie Hebdo published a characteristically vile cartoon depicting drowning victims of Hurricane Harvey in Houston as being neo-Nazis, with the banner that declared “God Exists”: because, needless to say, white people in Texas love Hitler, and it’s thus a form of divine justice if they drown. That led to a virtually unanimous tidal wave of condemnation of Charlie Hebdo, including from many quarters that, just two years ago, were sanctifying the same magazine for its identical mockery of Muslims. Yesterday’s assault on white sensibilities also led many people to suddenly rediscover the principle that one can simultaneously defend a person’s free speech rights while expressing revulsion for the content of their speech. The examples are far too numerous to comprehensively cite; some representative samplings will have to suffice. Here was Piers Morgan in January 2015, with a beloved tweet that was re-tweeted by almost 24,000 people: View image on Twitter Twitter Ads info and privacy Here was the same Piers Morgan yesterday: View image on Twitter Twitter Ads info and privacy For the crime of mocking white Americans, vehement scorn for Charlie Hedbo was commonplace yesterday. “An evil, despicable cover,” opinedNational Review’s Tiana Lowe, who nonetheless added that “the losers at Charlie Hebdo have a God-given right to publish it.” Infowars’ Paul Joseph Watson, long a fan of Charlie Hebdo’s anti-Muslim cartoons and an advocate of the duty to republish its content, yesterday announced that, actually, one may hate and denounce the cartoons while still supporting the cartoonists’ free speech rights: “The Charlie Hebdo cover is offensive & dumb, and I fully support their right to be as offensive & dumb as they like.” The right-wing actor James Woods announced: “So much for ‘Je Suis Charlie,’ I guess,” calling the cartoonists “French traitors” in a hastag he added. National Review’s Byron York, showing a picture of the new cover, was similarly candid: “Today, we are not all Charlie Hebdo.” One popular tweet, from journalist Jason Howerton of the conservative Independent Journal Review — who previously mocked news outlets for not showingthe full Charlie Hebdo anti-Islam cartoons — declared that one should not, after all, share Charlie Hebdo cartoons that one finds objectionable: “Was going to go off on Charlie Hebdo for that sick Texas cover. But then I realized that’s what they want. [Edited Out] you. I’m not sharing it.” It’s almost as if the glorification and praise for Charlie Hebdo that became morally mandatory in 2015 had nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with love of the anti-Islam content of Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons. This new rule that one must not only defend Charlie Hebdo’s free speech rights but also honor and praise its work seems to have disappeared rather instantly, violently even, as soon as its targets stopped being Muslims and began being white Americans. This person put it best: Twitter Ads info and privacy What happened here is beyond obvious: Charlie Hebdo was fun, delightfully provocative, bold, and deserving of awards when it was publishing mockery of Muslims. When its cartoonists began publishing exactly the same sort of thing aimed at white Americans, they became “vile,” “evil,” “despicable,” “losers,” and “traitors.” As the author Robert Wright put it this morning: “I’m guessing PEN won’t be giving Charlie Hebdo an award this time around.” The viral 2015 Twitter hashtag campaign would have been much more honest had it read: “#JeSuisCharlie (*pour les bandes dessinées sur les musulmans”): “#IAmCharlie (*for cartoons about Muslims).” Whatever else is true, let this episode bring about the full and permanent death to the new, warped principle that to defend free speech, one must celebrate the ideas under attack and honor those expressing them. It should have never been difficult to grasp the basic yet vital distinction between defending the right of ideas to be expressed and celebrating those ideas. Now that a Charlie Hebdo cartoon has been aimed at white Americans, offending white Westerners, it seems the wisdom of this principle has been rediscovered. Top photo: Prime Minister David Cameron joined other world leaders at the start of the defiant march through Paris, France, in the wake of the terror attacks at the offices of Charlie Hebdo. Glenn Greenwaldglenn.greenwald@theintercept.com@ggreenwald
  11. Depressing thought about Religion

    @Tango Yes. From what I understand of the Quran, the absolute minimum is belief in God, afterlife, and doing good deeds: 2:62 - Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve Perhaps a vague belief in some kind of power beyond nature qualifies as belief in God. And perhaps a vague belief that justice will be eventually done qualifies as belief in akhira. If so, then many people who call themselves atheists would also qualify as they wouldnt actually be atheists. Beyond this, if you reject specific doctrines because you didnt know about them, then you arent blameworthy. 3:106 - On the day when (some) faces shall turn white and (some) faces shall turn black; then as to those whose faces turn black: Did you disbelieve after your believing? Taste therefore the chastisement because you disbelieved. ^ Disbelief after knowing the truth 3:86 - How shall Allah guide a people who disbelieved after their believing and (after) they had borne witness that the Messenger was true and clear arguments had come to them; and Allah does not guide the unjust people. ^ They knew the Messenger was the truth and they were given clear arguments but rejected them 27:14 - And they rejected those Signs in iniquity and arrogance, though their souls were convinced thereof: so see what was the end of those who acted corruptly! ^ Their souls were convinced of the Truth by they rejected. 17:15 - Who receiveth guidance, receiveth it for his own benefit: who goeth astray doth so to his own loss: No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another: nor would We visit with Our Wrath until We had sent an messenger Being sent a Messenger is a pre-requisite to being punished, i.e. being given the Truth
  12. Depressing thought about Religion

    Its not enough to not follow the path God has set out - you have to reject the path whilst knowing that its the Truth.
  13. Two quick comments. He says its difficult to define life. Well its difficult to define a lot of things, including science (look up the demarcation problem)... therefore science doesnt exist? He says there's no clear cut off the separates life from non-life. For the sake of argument, lets grant this is true. Why does there have to be a clear cut off? Theres no clear cut-off that separates the colour red from the colour orange, or a table from a pile of logs, or even a good argument from a bad argument: Is a good argument one that 51% plausible, or 60% plausible, or 90% plausible. If its 51% plausible, why not 50.9% etc. Therefore there are no arguments, and the argument he gave doesnt exist?
  14. Regarding OCD in religious people.

    Salam brother, The Imams talked about obsessive behaviours in religious acts. I recommend you read this : https://www.al-islam.org/forty-hadith-an-exposition-second-edition-imam-khomeini/twenty-fifth-hadith-satanic-insinuation
×