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

Ayuoobi

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    255
  • Joined

  • Last visited

7 Followers

About Ayuoobi

  • Rank
    Level 2 Member

Contact Methods

  • Facebook
    https://www.facebook.com/themuslimtheist/
  • Website URL
    themuslimtheist.com

Profile Information

  • Religion
    Shia Muslim

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2,462 profile views
  1. You guys are taking western definitions of prostitution and applying it to Islam. In Islam, a prostitute is a woman who commits zina for money. Not marriage for money. Even if I conceded your point (which I am sympathetic to, actually, because I do think that there is something inherently wrong with the distinction between fiqh and akhlaq), this doesn't get us to saying something is haraam. You cannot get around the fact that evidence is required to make universal declarations about the Will of the Lord of the Universe. Your or my personal anecdotal evidence, your or my feelings and the social biases of one society =/= the Will of Allah.
  2. I did, but it was a while ago. I think my debate reviews have to be fresh for me to really get into it. I'm not sure it would be worth it to watch Feser vs Oppy all over again. I will say, the host from Capturing Christianity seriously ruined both debates by imposing a time limit that was too short and trying to move the conversation in directions it wouldn't take place naturally. Had the livestream simply been like 3 hours straight with no interruptions, I think they would have bottomed out somewhere and Feser would have pinned Oppy at least on one or two points.
  3. The neoplatonic proof I do not think successfully prooves that the perfectly simple being must be an intellect, at least using Feser's arguments. I think you could modify the proof to make it successful. The Aristotelian proof and the Rationalist proof were particularly strong, and i think both of those are successful. The Augustinian and Thomistic proofs I will have to revist again at a later date.
  4. I haven't looked into what the fuqahaa' have said on this. Something's being disgusting does not mean it's morally wrong or that it causes long term harm. For example, I can go into the bathroom and smear feces all over my face and body, then proceed to take a shower. This is utterly disgusting, it does not mean harm has been inflicted or that there needs to be a legal prohibition on me doing so, or even that I've sinned against Allah. Consider another thing: it is perfectly permissible and legal for you to garggle your own urine. This, again, is utterly disgusting. I can give a million examples of things that are disgusting, but which cause no harm and are not haraam in and of themselves. I'd rather not.
  5. If you can demonstrate there is even a significant risk of harm, then this argument makes sense. I am proposing that the very idea that non-penetrative acts are harmful really has no basis and is rooted in modern biases which come with extremely loaded metaphysical assumptions about the nature of sexuality, sexual autonomy, the atomized individual, family, and a whole other host of ideas. Do you or do you not want less control?
  6. I will admit, I was slightly trolling. It was not meant to be vicious. I suspected you wanted "less control in most other areas." What are those areas?
  7. I mean I looked it up in the dictionary. That's what it means. At any rate, this is a semantical difference. Usually children who go through this in our society are involved in situations where violence, penetration, verbal abuse, unstable households, incest, secrecy, and other factors are involved. Our perception of the harm comes because it is correlated with these other demonstrable harms. I am asking if it is something like thighing itself which is causing the harm, or these other factors. Correlation is not causation. I do know it's difficult to find that, which is why I maintain an agnostic position towards the harm, rather than accusing the fuqahaa' of being ignoramouses who can't see the obvious. I don't know exactly what it was like to live in premodern society, so there are many things about which I leave moral judgements to the people of that time. Premodern fuqahaa did not see a harm to this practice in their society, and we lack evidence, so on what basis are we saying that they're wrong?
  8. Most Muslims are complaining that Islam is too totalitarian because it penetrates into every aspect of life. @Muhammed Ali has surprised me in that he appears to be saying that Islam is not totalitarian enough, and needs to control even more behaviour. *shrug*
  9. Sexual relations in the English languages means penetration, which no faqih permits. What is permitted are non-penetrative acts like thighing, and no, I don't think that in principle it causes any physical or psychological harm to the child, at least not in premodern society. In modern society due to social tabboos it might cause psychological harm that is contingent (similar to child-marriages). I came to realize after some elementray research in this matter that our perceptions of what causes harm are largely due to the internalized biases of our society rather than on any solid data. At any rate, I might be wrong, so if you can show me the data that demonstrate that this leads to significant harm, I'm all ears.
  10. Demonstrate that this harm is strong enough to merit a legal prohibition. Demonstrate the harmful consequences.
  11. 1. If materialism is true then the mind is a by-product of the processes of brain activity (and nervous system etc.) 2. If mereological nihilism is true, then there are no brains. 3. If there are no brains then there are no brain activities. 4. If there no brain activities, then there are no by-products of brain activities. 5. If there are no by products of brain activities and materialism is true, then there are no minds. 6. Therefore, if both materialism and mereological nihilism are true, there are no minds. 7. There are minds. 8. Therefore, it is not the case that both materialism and mereological nihilism are true.
  12. Yeah, it's completely irrelevant to the argument I was making. Whether it's the brain or the brain + nervous system, the point is that on mereological nihilism none of those exist. All that exists are fundamental particles.
  13. As she gets older, the men will start lose interest. She will eventually settle down with what she can get. She is going through a phase, probably due to some deeper issues which people close to her should talk to her about. As far as the shariah is concerned. she is not doing anything haraam.
×
×
  • Create New...