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

Everything posted by Ayuoobi

  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.
  14. It is more like a sugar daddy/ sugar baby relationship than prostitution. Prostitution involves seeing mulitiple men at the same time, whereas the 'idda prevents this. The woman is more like what would be called a "kept woman." This didn't make sense, can you clarify?
  15. That is the world we live in. Look at what's happened to the Islamic Republic of Iran - the entire world has put sanctions on it in an attempt to starve Muslim children. Lebanon and Iraq have been bombarded to smitherenes several times in the past 50 years. The threat of violence is constant to anyone who dares defy the liberal world order because the white man must invade and educate these ignorant savages and bring them freedom and democracy by the sword.
  16. WS as long as she observes all the shar3ee restrictions, it's halal. Why is this disturbing?
  17. Imagine if you were talking to a rapist who thought rape was morally okay and wanted to practice it. Then he said "if i were to rape someone in a restaurant, would you defend my right to rape, or would you want me killed?" Then when you said you want him arrested he said "you know, regardless of what you believe, I would defend your life, but you would not defend mine. And I think that is deeply troubling." That's literally this conversation. It's not that hard to understand that leading people to hellfire is a tangible harm which must be prevented.
  18. This is the key difference between us. I don't view atheism as an "expression of faith" i view it as a vicious lie which leads people into eternal torment. I was comparing killing people with machine guns to leading people to eternal torment. I would encourage you to just fakely profess faith even if you don't believe it, and then go about living your pointless atheist life until you reach eternal damnation. I believe in the seperation of atheism and state. My position is that atheism should be kept in the private sphere, not the public sphere where we judge things based on rational beliefs, not delusional fantasies or baseless emotions.
  19. I would not let you get killed by a mob, because I believe in due process. But, in the same way I would want someone who was waving a threatening machine gun around at people at the restaurant, I would want you arrested for public safety. I now have a question for you: do you believe that by me yelling that I am a loud and proud Muslim, or making youtube videos, I am leading people to hellfire?
  20. What I said is that on materialism the mind is just the brain. That is not my view, that is the materialist's view. I was arguing against materialist mereological nihilism by showing that it is incoherent.
  21. What you're talking about is allowing people to lead others to hellfire, which is worse than any kind of physical violence. You're not engaging at all with the several arguments I've laid out and are just repeating liberal tropes. It seems you are not really willing to consider that the liberal worldview is not "common sense" but a particularly philosophical conception that must be defended. Also, nobody believes that only physical harm should be prevented; for example do you believe that people should be able to discriminate in their hiring practices? That does not entail physical harm, yet it is illegal in every liberal country out there. There are many counter examples of how absurd it would be to base law only off of physical harm, which is why no country currently or historically has ever actually done that. I just explained how you would be given 3 days to give a fake recantation and go about living your life as an atheist. You would be silenced, not killed - unless you insisted on dying a martyr. Islam is a religion of mercy and justice. Is merely bringing a machine gun into a school a comparable event to a mass shooting? Should we let people open carry on school property? If you can show this claim to be true, I would be happy to reconsider my arguments. As it stands, there is no country which allows a liberal conception of free speech which has not been seriously damaged in terms of religious practice. I mean this is just a statement of emotion, which is understandable as I am essentially smashing your sacred idol with these arguments. I'll leave it to you to think about how absurd this statement is. Also, every country that currently exists or has ever existed has both legal and social sanctions put on speech. There is no such thing as completely free speech, there are always limits and a country's values determine what speech is allowed and what is not. The difference here is in which values are correct more than anything.
  22. This is like saying "by allowing jail, you open the door for radicals to put people who have been charged for literring the ability to sentence people to life imprisonment." It just doesn't follow. I don't believe in the Wahhabi view, the wahhabi view is not normative islam, and normative Islam (including blasphemy laws) were practiced for centuries prior to the bloody imposition of secular liberalism on the Muslim world by the sword. No, the crime is not believing something false. The crime is a) expressing a particular kind of false belief in the public sphere that is a public harm (i.e. leading people to hellfire) and b) refusing to recant after 3 days after a proper trial has been conducted. Do you think it's okay for someone to lead others to hellfire? If so, explain why it's not okay to torture, rape, steal, or inflict any other harm which entails far less suffering than hellfire. Islam is not a subjective position, it is the objective truth. My life is not intrinsicly more valuable than my neighbors, we are simply trying to curtail the harm of people going to hellfire. The way to stomp out hellfire is by persecuting people who call towards it, and arguing against it. So actually, liberalism is playing with fire because it entails that Satan has free reign to decieve God's creatures into rebelling against Him. The result, as we see in all secular liberal societies, is widespread irreligion within 200 years. Hardly anyone actually follow God's commandments anymore, if they believe in God or some vague "higher power" it is hardly relevant to their lives. If you can show me a model religious society where there are no social, legal, or other penalties inflicted upon defectors, I would be happy to consider that as an alternative model. What you have on offer is a completely irreligious, godless society, a generation of shameless adulterers, the rule of liars and userers and you're bringing that as an alternative model to traditional Islamic society. Excuse me if I'm not convinced.
×
×
  • Create New...