Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله


Advanced Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About mun3t

  • Rank
    Allah keeps His promise

Profile Information

  • Religion

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Please, go ahead a post an article where they argue about the benefits of pornography, a rational argument that is. There isn't... and they have observed the harm it carries. Hypocrisy at its best. That is, even though the preaches relative morality, it is irrational if society cannot agree upon something. There are always those who support this vices and those who doesn't. Can morality then really be relative? Or is it solely based moral if it benefits you? Well, the latter is most likely the case if morality isn't universal and not intended to benefit the entire society. Besides, my post isn't about his argument for relative morality but his claim that they concluded something moral through a consensus. Ask anyone from his society whether they even think about or go with the flow, that is mainstream. By the way, this post is intended to you and your friend. As an example, a rationalwiki -- random search on google: This website claims that pornography has decreased the sex crime in the United States. Whilst a professional psychologist says that in 50% of rape cases, the perpetrator always, ehm... arouses or prepares himself, by watching pornography to feel excitatory. If these guys partake in a rational argument, which they claim they do, then only remnants will remain of their society. Besides, do you not claim that evil is caused by the free-will?
  2. It seems like the British Empire sought to explore Africa and fought to defend itself whilst people were still taken captive or killed. That, and they sought power. Otherwise, they would not have expended their empire. And of course you cannot expand your empire without undermining the other societies. Is it something particular you got in mind that you may want to mention? I disagree, it is most likely to return. Even though the western regime are trying to halt the progress of the Islamic Republic of Iran, there is still a spark. These are all factors that has there role. However, the main factor is the people itself. You've mentioned growing populations and diminishing resources? Are you aware of the oil that still remains intact? And other riches of the seas and land. Still, the countries doesn't seem to take these in consideration, they seem to be on-sided and seek the benefit of one path, rather diverse path that all leads to the success. As for the growing populations I do not find any problem in that, take India and China for example, both are countries with possibilities especially the latter, even though the high populations. Hence as long as you can relocate your resources, like the Iran did when sanctions were brought up to the neck -- and tilting or turning became difficult, they managed to remain. I haven't seen survival of the fittest practical in a great scale, only in minor scales. Take the Roman Empire for example, a highly advanced society with plenty of man -- and the size of your resources is in accordance with the size of your fleet. Were crushed from the inside by the grace of God -- like the Jews of Badr. That, and because of their greatness they earned their name in history. Isn't interesting that every empire based upon oppression are all destroyed?
  3. Well, this is awkward. Considering that I do not roomer around peoples profile and the users choice of picture, at least the colors. I thought he was a she. That, and the title. Sorry, perfectionist. The financial situation of the parents affects the child, it may restrict it or give it entire freedom. Irrelevant examples, what about your child example? Why should the child be free and the parents have too remain captive. That is, if it is truly evil. Then neither the parents or the children deserve to be captives. Hence, the examples of the how the actions affect the child. And how society may receive a child. Because I am not narrow-minded and wish to see it from every angle. Why won't you come down to earth and understand that the actions of the parents affect the child and that war is inevitable and being captured or killed alike. Besides, if the parents of the child is their masters property it is only reasonable to own the child of their captives, it is after all the meat and blood of the parents. And if you argue about it not being its choice. The parents didn't either choose to be captive. Those who fought were killed and those who remained at their fortress became captives, hence you either die in battle or become enslaved, unless the champions chooses to wipe of the entire tribe or clan. You are correct, there is a difference. After all, aren't we all born free? No...? Well, then no one can claim it is a natural right to be free and none can complain it is unjust to be captive. Or do you claim freedom because your parents, 'Adam and Eve, were free? This, or your parents are free. What about if you roll-back? You might find it there, lost amongst the many ignored questions -- and believe me, when I ask question it is a hailstorm of questions. So that we may ponder upon it and so they we may understand.
  4. Fair enough. It seems being captive is inevitable, that is if you do not wish too shed any further blood -- perhaps the ancient civilizations find benefits in slavery? Of course, a dead slave is a bad slave, terms is necessary. Not that I encourage slavery. Great that we agree! Sister, do you know of the two Islamic golden eras? Do you know through which centuries they span? The situation Muslims, their oppression and being scattered throughout the world reluctantly or willingly is because they didn't urge one another to good and prohibit vices. Hence they experienced suffering and they, the later ones, experience suffering. And each nation has their tyrant. And each nation shall be tested, perhaps their Lord may grant them respite and forgive them their sins and bring out a great nation -- He loves them and they love Him -- out of His mercy. "Indeed Allah does not change a people's lot unless they change what is in their souls." - Quran, al-Ra'd, 13:11
  5. Brother Haydar, do you mean the part when he says people repudiate an act in their scripture? Considering you wanted to discuss this with Muslims you may refer to, in this case, to Muslims. Unfortunetly, that is true. However, these questions are usually brought to Muslims who lack knowledge [about this matter] and doesn't even know why they practice it. Hence they cannot give an answer for their reason. Except for the fact that it is written in our scriptures. However, if you bring such a question to a forum, like this one, there will always be those who give you a reason for that act. For example, the currently hot discussion about slavery. That explains your many posts. So is your rational discussion also based upon his way of thinking? Besides, he doesn't mention their ugly bits in their books of law, such as pornography -- is this the conclusion of a rational discussion or simply desires and emotions? The difference between black and gay people. Is that people undermined the black because of their color and not an hideous act, that has been considered as such through the centuries -- then where is the logic in permitting it? Or do they claim it is solely the faithfuls? Most surely, it was abhorred by the faiths and communities long before Christians and Jews prohibited it. By the way, there are black people who are gay. It isn't like black people and black gay guys are two different races. Are you like those Muslims who continuously blame Ayatollah Sayyid al-Sistani for not engaging in politics? Then blame yourselves, why do you not seek knowledge? Besides, our scholars have a more important mission than to debate the faithless. This, and debating is not permitted -- only dialogus.
  6. This is great! It makes it easier to visualize the wisdom behind these beautiful words besides from the fact that you are spreading the name of the immaculate progeny. May God lead you to success and reward you for your effort.
  7. In truth, slave trade is discouraged. However, the outcome of war is of three: death, captive, or come to terms. Out of the three options captive is the most reasonable, even though come to terms is highly favored it isn't realistic. Do you find in of the prophets campaigns the third option, to come to terms? Or do you find it in any time of history? The outcome is either the end or to be captive. You can even witness the first option in the Syrian war going on right now -- a video has been posted in ShiaChat. Anyway, this will only derail us from your claim. So, is slavery abhorred (makruh) if not prohibited? The fact that the progeny of the prophet and himself practiced slavery means that it is permitted. Even though the reason might be to show us how to treat slaves. Unfortunately, you are right -- however God alone is the judge of their actions. At least the prophet provided them with a good example so that they may at least improve. Or so they cannot claim 'there was no warner'. It has already been mentioned how people are captured. It is indeed true that slavery played a great role in their community. The most reasonable reason to why the prophet (pbuh) practiced is that he wanted to provide the people with a good example. Even though he discouraged it. This is a hilarious comment! I keep hearing this example, especially by those who for some reason turn red eyed to ascetic submitters. Nevertheless, this is correct and your example is true. Too much western? You should spend more time with the faithful Muslims and the faithful Muslims from east -- we aren't ignorant. And how does the camel symbolize a faithful Eastern ideology? There isn't any justice in comparing an old tradition to a modern one.
  8. Isn't already apparent that if the parents are slaves the children are inevitably slaves, barring from the example of Moses (as) and the family of Pharaoh? Nevertheless, you are correct. It is interesting that you mentioned the child of a free master is also a slave; something that is very true, yet, people seem to neglect it. It has been reported, once a youth complained to the prophet about his father taking his money. The prophet (pbuh) replied that the youth and his money all belong to his father.
  9. Alright. Then, do you agree that the difference between us human from one another are 1%?
  10. وعليكم السلام Every action is the effect of an intention. For example, a person might ask you a question and you answer the question then you say: 'Why do you ask?' Even though the reply might be 'Just asking' there is a reason behind it. Perhaps, curiosity or to shatter the ice. It is most likely your emotion. As previously mentioned there is always a reason behind every action. You'll read the situation. Are they more then you? Perhaps that person is stronger? Is it reasonable to fight back? The consequence of my action? Or is it immature -- perhaps due to your manner your remain patient? If we conclude that logic is to save you from harm and it is entirely good, and emotions are based upon your whims and may cause you harm. Then, is it logical to lie in a situation to save yourself? Isn't this bad then? Then we cannot claim that logic is to save you from harm, on the contrary emotions may save you from harm. But why does your emotions save you from harm? Of course it is so that you may continue your enjoyment. Then what is the benefit of logic? It is the truth. If you do not fear death and consequently losing your enjoyment you will tell the truth even if it may harm you. Accordingly, in this situation if you do not find the benefit of hitting back then it is due to your logic. But if you are ashamed of being undermined you act based upon your emotions. If you hit for the the sake of enjoyment, fun, then it is due to your emotions. Fear of being hit may cease (such as death, harm of limbs) your enjoyment. It is most likely to be based upon emotions. However, if you treat people like you want to be treated, this is due to your intellect (logic). Why? You do not fear death and nor do you seek enjoyment in it; it is simply justice. The example of this world is like salt water. Those who seek to quench their thirst with it continues to drink until they die of thirst. This is an example of those who do not act upon logic but on emotions. Likewise, this tyrant of yours is also acting upon emotions. There is no good in it so that we may claim it is logic but only enjoyment, hence based upon his whims. Is it then correct to claim logic is only good in this sense, that it is truth even though it may harm you, and emotions even though bad it may save you from harm?
  11. Thanks! This is about epigenetics. It is somewhat related to what I am speaking about. However, you will find some difference between us -- (my point:) before birth and (this video:) after birth.
  12. Please, go ahead and show me an example where newborns choose to live in a wealthy or poor family, or as free or captive. Then you may claim that the actions of the parents doesn't affect the children. By the way, you do know that the free-will is not confined to the master, the slave may still escape but meet the consequence. As for your ideal society, there is abortion, taken in care of the government, captive through war, parents failed to pay the rent, forced labour, etc. These condition are relate to the freedom of man and the consequences of the parents action. Upset? Isn't you guys who are ranting about it? The master may do as he wants and because he is obliged to the rules of Islam I do not have to worry that he may trangress -- if he is a faithful Muslim that is. On the other hand, slavery by non-Muslim is hideous and it was this type of slavery that people abhorred. And why did you ignore my question? If you have a shred of knowledge about history you should at least be able to give me a simple answer. Or do you argue without knowledge? Then why do you argue without knowledge? Slaves are captured only through war. Whatever means besides this is not Islamic. Therefore, these are the only circumstances you may own a slave by. Will you answer these questions now?
  13. At least there will be a little fewer snakes in your bushes. By the way, a beautiful way to say I didn't get anything. What a coincidence! I am also finding it extremely difficult to have a rational discussion with a pro anti-slavery section. Perhaps to much sentiment? And yes, we would give our lives for our Lord. I am pretty sure you would do that for your desires as well? This is truly frustrating. By the way, the thing you are trying to defining is called drug abuser mentality, this applies to you and any human as well. The only difference between you and us, is that we are protecting the wisdom of God, and you the ignorance of the devil -- trying to satisfy the one who feeds you from the forbidden tree. Putting the dot under the Ba, you have been given Islamic references, part of history, and logical reasons [for slavery in Islam] and in exchange you have only been ranting about your sentimental opinions without any historical facts excepts that you live in a country without slavery, at least apparent slavery, and questions like: what if this happened to you? Where is your rationality if you are truthful?!
  14. You previously mentioned the existence of neutrality, it can even be seen in nature -- that is agreeable. The reality of neutrality completely relinquish this statement of yours. Even though it is an example, the world doesn't apply to your laws. The consequence of every action varies in intensity. For example, the trunk of a tree is thick but its branches are thin. That is, even though it is all a part of the same tree, the pattern of the trunk doesn't apply to the entire tree. Or like the intensity of fire, the bottom is always more intensive in heat then the upper, yet it is still considered a single fire, or simply fire. Perhaps, you need to review the basic tents of justice before you enter into these questions? The harm of a crime varies, therefore the punishment have to expiate for the harm by being equal. Even though God, out of his mercy, lessens the punishment for his servants. However, an evil deed is still an evil deed, and this is derived from the inner, hidden or outer, apparent harm. This is were the free-will has it parts. Because opinions are the product of the free-will people may justify an evil act for their own benefits. Glad that you agree! Therefore, scriptures with prescribed rules are required to decrease the evil effect or completely relinquish it. By the way, the right of the first night is not a right, it is a tradition and the couples have the right to not do it; but I assume this was an example, therefore it doesn't really matter. Well, now that we agree upon neutrality. This statement of yours doesn't apply any longer, perhaps in your world, but not in reality. Nevertheless, the opposite of evil is good like the opposite of north is south, and east is west; even a child can figure this out -- not that I am claiming you are a child, only for the sake of ease.
  15. iDevonian, the book is only available for those who are participating in the course of evolution and biology. I have already finished that course and I didn't find it at the library. God-willing, if I find something relating to it I will share it with you.
  • Create New...