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

To Atheists Who Support Same-Sex Marriage

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member

I don't think you can use the incident of Hitler's rule as evidence for your argument. Some did come to believe what he was doing was good (yes, he may of been an absolute douschbag but he was a pretty smart dude) and was able to manipulate the minds of many through the various forms of propaganda he used. With that being said, not everyone fell under his 'magic spell'. A good portion (arguably majority) of the population knew what was occurring was a bad thing but they were powerless to stop it. If you even spoke out you were sent off to a Gulag and either killed or starved to death.

Where should it come from then?

One decade homosexuality is considered the most vile of acts yet 30 odd years later it not only is perfectly normal but people are not allowed to get married to people of the same gender.

Why on earth would I want to get my morality from a society that changes every single decade, when I could get it from something set in stone (Qur'an & Islam)?

What lol, i cant use him as an example because according to you, he was a good persuader? Wow, its called free choice bro. What do you mean they were powerless, they had enough power to bring him into power, its not like one day he woke up and gave magic potions bro, come on. This isnt the only example, many events occurred like during stalin, or the west implementing the worst type of slavery in history.

That is a profoundly ignorant claim. I'm sorry to put it to you this way, but that's what it is. Please read up a little about the question of the basis of morality before making such absurd remarks. Here are a couple of places to start:

http://www.patheos.c...eists-morality/

http://atheism.about...heistsMoral.htm

Keep in mind that the issue of whether or not atheists have a basis for morality (they do) is not the same as whether or not objective/absolute morality exists (it doesn't). Every atheist has a basis for their morality, even though the scope of that moral code might be limited to just themselves.

lol thanks for ignoring my points. BTW, every atheist doesnt have the same basis of "morality", thats the point, morality cant be changing otherwise anyone can be right. It doesnt make sense.

Thats like asking, where does hunger come from? Its been built into us. It exists by the nature of what we are.

Some matters, do not alter our existence enough to be considered blatently moral or immoral, and so we find those to alter over time.

Also, many writings are set in stone, though, one thing that empowers natural morality, is its ability to adapt to what is around it. For example, lets say someone read the Quran, and with it, they didnt have a good tafsir and got the false idea that it was ok to harm non believers.

It is, within their internal empathy, to recognize that, such an interpretation is wrong. Which is something that words cannot do. Words, are like computer programs. You can tell a computer to make a calculation, but only the human body can make a calculation, and adapt to new calculations should it need to make them on the fly. It is what makes us human.

what lol? Bro, your beliefs are contradicting. In Islam we believe God dictated the moral code for humanity as he is our creator, he knows whats best and isnt. I agree with you that it has been built in us, but not entirely. That is the argument im trying to make. We need Allah's laws to complete the picture, those who dont believe in Allah can possible mix their innate morality and derive the wrong code. So how can this people on the form judging Islam on what is right or wrong, when their belief system cannot even derive it.The idea about someone "misinterpreting" the quran, is invalid, hence he is misinterpreting it, the divine code never changed. His source is wrong. Hence in Shia Islam, Quran and Ahlulbayt are vital.

Edited by PureEthics
Link to comment
Share on other sites

what lol? Bro, your beliefs are contradicting. In Islam we believe God dictated the moral code for humanity as he is our creator, he knows whats best and isnt. I agree with you that it has been built in us, but not entirely. That is the argument im trying to make. We need Allah's laws to complete the picture, those who dont believe in Allah can possible mix their innate morality and derive the wrong code. So how can this people on the form judging Islam on what is right or wrong, when their belief system cannot even derive it.The idea about someone "misinterpreting" the quran, is invalid, hence he is misinterpreting it, the divine code never changed. His source is wrong. Hence in Shia Islam, Quran and Ahlulbayt are vital.

One sec, just re read.

I agree that, people should use a combination of both scripture and internal morals to determine what is write and wrong.

How is it possible for people to derive morality without scripture? They can still, essentially build their own scripture based on what their internal morality provides.

While that may not be set in stone like scripture, it would certainly still be, likely, over time, good. For example, abolishment of slavery. People had to learn that slavery was wrong. They didnt just pick up scripture and instantly know. People used akhlaq to learn over time, then they took a pencil and paper and made an amendment that said, though shalt not own another. Its not scripture, but its a derivation from a message of Allah, built within us.

People of scripture seem to take another approach in that, we have scripture, but we still have to learn, and derive our understanding of scripture from multiple sources, before we can make morally good decisions.

We may as well be equals (in regards to morality, in many cases) as far as im concerned. We are both deriving answers from Allah, just in different ways. Both groups have good interpretations and bad. Both are useing the message. Which I think is fair. We can look around the world and, whether theists or muslims are more or less moral than any other religion or non religion...its hard to discern. There are good muslims and bad, good shia and bad, good sunni and bad, good non believers and bad, good christians and bad etc.

So, the paths of righteousness are different, but in a broad sense, appear equal.

Edited by iDevonian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Of course God dictates moral code, but how we view and interpret moral code is up in the air. Which means, by default we have to use our akhlaq to determine our morals, regardless of if youre a religious person or not.

Anyone can mix their innate morality and derive the wrong code, whether they believe in Allah or not.

Come on people. Look at the world around us, and tell me that non believers cannot derive legitimate morals from places other than scripture. And lets also look at the world around us, even people who read scripture and are true believers, get it wrong sometimes too.

okay but that doesnt change the fact that the point is, we are fallible, our ideas may contradict God's. Yes sometimes the believer is wrong and vis versa, but that doesnt make it right for the people to dictate morality as its impossible. It will never agree. As a HUMANE civilization, we need a non changing perfect system of morality. If what you say is implied, as I gave examples, what was innate in hitler, stalin, those who kill, north korea, and such types, they believe they are right, whether its majority or not, they derived it. SO according to you, who are we to challenge them, they may be right. After all, Allah wants us to find how to view it... Right? Wrong...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

What lol, i cant use him as an example because according to you, he was a good persuader? Wow, its called free choice bro. What do you mean they were powerless, they had enough power to bring him into power, its not like one day he woke up and gave magic potions bro, come on. This isnt the only example, many events occurred like during stalin, or the west implementing the worst type of slavery in history.

It appears you have an elementary level of knowledge regarding Nazi Germany. No one brought him into power. The man did it himself. Legally too might I add. He broke no laws on his way to becoming Chancellor and then combining the position of Chancellorship and Presidency into one. Again, he did this all legally. It's what he did once he was in power that was bad. People didnt approve of it. You've got to be seriously kidding yourself if you think every Tom, Richard and Harry were walking down the road singing and holding hands because Sir Adolf was at the helm. The people lived in constant fear. There were SS and SA agents everywhere, the Gespeto were on streets and all the children were being constantly indoctrinated at School and he set up after school program's to prevent parents from spending too much time with their children. The children were told if their parents said anything against Hitler or Nazi ideology in private they were to go and report to Hitler's agents. They had these dudes sitting on the streets who people were told to go up and report their own parents for speaking against the government. His hope was that the older generations would simply die out and the younger ones that his program's have indoctrinated would succeed him and carry on his sick little fantasy.

So no, they didn't have a choice.

Again, Stalin was just bad. Full stop. Majority of people didn't approve of what he was doing. He executed and had an estimated 20 Million of his own people killed. I'm just saying you can't use these examples.

So according to your logic whoever is in power must be approved of by the people? Well I guess you'd have a hard time coming to terms with how Abu Bakr and co were 'evil'. What about Bani Ummayh? Guess the Imams and the Shi'a were cool to see them bad boys in power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

It appears you have an elementary level of knowledge regarding Nazi Germany. No one brought him into power. The man did it himself. Legally too might I add. He broke no laws on his way to becoming Chancellor and then combining the position of Chancellorship and Presidency into one. Again, he did this all legally. It's what he did once he was in power that was bad. People didnt approve of it. You've got to be seriously kidding yourself if you think every Tom, Richard and Harry were walking down the road singing and holding hands because Sir Adolf was at the helm. The people lived in constant fear. There were SS and SA agents everywhere, the Gespeto were on streets and all the children were being constantly indoctrinated at School and he set up after school program's to prevent parents from spending too much time with their children. The children were told if their parents said anything against Hitler or Nazi ideology in private they were to go and report to Hitler's agents. They had these dudes sitting on the streets who people were told to go up and report their own parents for speaking against the government. His hope was that the older generations would simply die out and the younger ones that his program's have indoctrinated would succeed him and carry on his sick little fantasy.

So no, they didn't have a choice.

Again, Stalin was just bad. Full stop. Majority of people didn't approve of what he was doing. He executed and had an estimated 20 Million of his own people killed. I'm just saying you can't use these examples.

So according to your logic whoever is in power must be approved of by the people? Well I guess you'd have a hard time coming to terms with how Abu Bakr and co were 'evil'. What about Bani Ummayh? Guess the Imams and the Shi'a were cool to see them bad boys in power.

I dont think you understand the concept that people dont get to a high position out of thin air. It is the society/people that makes them into that position. This is my point, Hitler had all these people, because that same people wanted him in that position since they believed he was doing good. What you are confusing is the after math of their decision just like in lybia or egypt or iraq. I dont undertsand what does abu baker and choosing him have to do with deriving morality. Once again my point is, if atheists dictate morality by the majority/general choice by time, then there have been many majorities who viewed what is known to be "bad and evil" in their eyes as good. In this case, according to atheists they are correct. Therefore, their innate moral decision was right and a good decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I dont think you understand the concept that people dont get to a high position out of thin air. It is the society/people that makes them into that position. This is my point, Hitler had all these people, because that same people wanted him in that position since they believed he was doing good. What you are confusing is the after math of their decision just like in lybia or egypt or iraq. I dont undertsand what does abu baker and choosing him have to do with deriving morality. Once again my point is, if atheists dictate morality by the majority/general choice by time, then there have been many majorities who viewed what is known to be "bad and evil" in their eyes as good. In this case, according to atheists they are correct. Therefore, their innate moral decision was right and a good decision.

I'm not going to bother arguing this. It's irrelevant and seems rather pointless.

I agree with you, one day we might all turn in a Paganistic Society where daily sacrifices to Goats and the Sun is a norm and considered a perfectly moral practice.

And everyone might even be cool with it. Like in ancient Mexico.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

okay but that doesnt change the fact that the point is, we are fallible, our ideas may contradict God's. Yes sometimes the believer is wrong and vis versa, but that doesnt make it right for the people to dictate morality as its impossible. It will never agree. As a HUMANE civilization, we need a non changing perfect system of morality. If what you say is implied, as I gave examples, what was innate in hitler, stalin, those who kill, north korea, and such types, they believe they are right, whether its majority or not, they derived it. SO according to you, who are we to challenge them, they may be right. After all, Allah wants us to find how to view it... Right? Wrong...

I dont think that, us using akhlaq to determine morality, is impossible.

The key about morals are, they cannot come to light through the actions of a single individual. We find truth in prosperity over time. Hitler has proven to have a false interpretaion of morals, simply because in the end, what happened? He is gone. His existence is over and ended earlier than natural. His beliefs and ideas, all whiped out and now, most in this world oppose.

One individual who does wrong, doesnt give a good picture of what truly good morals are. You need many individuals over time.

Now, we can learn, just as we learned about the wrongs of slavery, with use of our Akhlaq. By the faults of one individual, a community has properly derived a morally good idea, that whiping out jews over race, is wrong, without use of scripture.

This is why basic law systems are built by communities as well, rather than individuals. It is how we went from, cave men waging war in tribes, to major nations and ideas of unity world wide. It is our own derivation, built by communities, over time.

And, having scripture set in stone is great, but if people cant interpret it correctly, then they are no better than anyone who doesnt have a more flexible set of morals. Which would then turn us to the question of, well how do we interpret scripture properly? Well, you begin with universal teachings of Islam, which are essentially, common sense teachings of akhlaq. Love, sharing, modesty etc.

Edited by iDevonian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

One sec, just re read.

I agree that, people should use a combination of both scripture and internal morals to determine what is write and wrong.

How is it possible for people to derive morality without scripture? They can still, essentially build their own scripture based on what their internal morality provides.

While that may not be set in stone like scripture, it would certainly still be, likely, over time, good. For example, abolishment of slavery. People had to learn that slavery was wrong. They didnt just pick up scripture and instantly know. People used akhlaq to learn over time, then they took a pencil and paper and made an amendment that said, though shalt not own another. Its not scripture, but its a derivation from a message of Allah, built within us.

People of scripture seem to take another approach in that, we have scripture, but we still have to learn, and derive our understanding of scripture from multiple sources, before we can make morally good decisions.

We may as well be equals (in regards to morality, in many cases) as far as im concerned. We are both deriving answers from Allah, just in different ways. Both groups have good interpretations and bad. Both are useing the message. Which I think is fair. We can look around the world and, whether theists or muslims are more or less moral than any other religion or non religion...its hard to discern. There are good muslims and bad, good shia and bad, good sunni and bad, good non believers and bad, good christians and bad etc.

So, the paths of righteousness are different, but in a broad sense, appear equal.

Brother, once again, these examples were set from the beginning. That is the point. People learning over time is different from them deriving it literally. How can people derive their own scriptures (moral code)? They are fallble and they are not god. It is illogical to assume that as I have provided examples, of how people differ on their own fallible interpretation of morality. They took a paper and wrote amendments? sorry brother but your confusing laws provided by the prophets of Allah set to guide us, with some sort of different interpretation. Once again, faith has nothing to do with morality. You are talking about two different issues here. Someone being a bad muslim, just means they have faith, but their source for morality is wrong, hence its not divine other wise they wouldnt be bad. Hence, technically, he is muslim by name and not actual muslim as he/she is not adhering to ALL of God's Laws. Just like mac was saying earlier, you cannot pick and choose and call yourself a muslim. Islam means submission. Either you follow it or you dont.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats a really good point right there. How do people interpret scripture? Yes, we have hadith, but clearly, even with many many hadith, we still find many many derivations of interpretation in every religion.

So how do we properly interpret scripture? It is only through Akhlaq that we could ever truly understand Islam. That is my opinion.

Well what does that mean? It is, the universal teachings of Islam, which are essential those teachings that can be found, still remnant, even amongst other religions, and these are ideas that non believers have come to find as well. Humbleness, who of any faith thinks that being humble is immoral? None. Its a basic teaching of Islam, that exists everywhere, even within ourselves, and even the atheists know this. Just because it isnt written on paper, doesnt mean people dont know.

These i believe are the teachings of Islam, that matter most. Theyre the ones that Allah has made clear for...the majority (i say majority because we have loonatics like hitler influence by who knows what). But again hitler was just an individual. The rugged individualism of a grain of sand, doesnt alter truth of a desert.

Brother, once again, these examples were set from the beginning. That is the point. People learning over time is different from them deriving it literally. How can people derive their own scriptures (moral code)?

Ask people without scripture, how they know that being humble, is morally good. And lets find out, how they derive a truthful moral decision, without scripture.

The question isnt whether or not, someone without scripture can determine a morally good decision. It is a question of how they do it. It has to come from within.

I think I see what you mean, if for example someone could say.... well, id rather learn, and have truth in front of me (scripture), than learn on my own without (as an atheist),

I would ask these people, well, how do you interpret scripture? You do so, with the same source of morality, that the atheists use to make their own. Which is why we cant statistically demonstrate that...people with scripture are more moral than people without. Its because we both use the same methods to figure things out.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, Ali Musa could say, well, systematic, you are an atheist, how do you know what is right or wrong? (you interpret hadith and scripture and reality around you through your eyes with use of akhlaq)

Systematic could ask Ali Musa the same question. As a theist, how do you know whats right or wrong? (you interpret hadith and scripture and reality through your eyes with use of akhlaq)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Lets say an atheist sees something, with a false tafsir saying that its ok to hurt non believers in Islam. Well, he can say, well, id rather trust in other sources more so. He then uses his inner morals to find another route. Or he ay accept the idea, convert and ultimately destroy himself through falsehood.

B. Lets say the atheist sees something with a correct tafsir giving a truthful statement in Islam, well, then the atheist converts. Or he denies and through falsehood destroys himself as a nonbeliever without morally good decisions.

C. Lets say a theist sees something with a false tafsir, well, he may turn out to be one of the bad muslims we see in the news. Or he may decide to apostate.

D. Lets say a theist sees something with a correct tafsir, well, now he knows truth and is a true muslim. Or he denies and implodes.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No matter what route we choose, each subject is still using the divinly inspired morals from within.

A isnt necesserily false. A may have derived truth elsewhere, and is able to write on paper, his truth, which through trial and error, A's option over time will be more and more likely to coincide with Islam (like the topic of slavery). Or he may turn into a hitler and implode.

B Also uses this akhlaq and it coincides with Islam so he converts and is perfect. Or he denies and implodes.

C Uses Akhlaq, but his derivation through conflict destroys his idea. It is destroyed because it doesnt coincide with Islam or truth. Hitlers ideas have been destroyed and so has he because they didnt coincide with truth and Islam. Or Person C apostates and turns into an A or a B.

Then there is D, who is just perfect. of denies and implodes.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In summary, so matter what path anyone chooses, believer or non believer, each path, essentially forces a person toward truth with Allah.

But also, everyone is using the same method to derive truth. We all use akhlaq.

And I hope that word means what I think it does haha.

Edited by iDevonian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Thats a really good point right there. How do people interpret scripture? Yes, we have hadith, but clearly, even with many many hadith, we still find many many derivations of interpretation in every religion.

So how do we properly interpret scripture? It is only through Akhlaq that we could ever truly understand Islam. That is my opinion.

Well what does that mean? It is, the universal teachings of Islam, which are essential those teachings that can be found, still remnant, even amongst other religions, and these are ideas that non believers have come to find as well. Humbleness, who of any faith thinks that being humble is immoral? None. Its a basic teaching of Islam, that exists everywhere, even within ourselves, and even the atheists know this. Just because it isnt written on paper, doesnt mean people dont know.

These i believe are the teachings of Islam, that matter most. Theyre the ones that Allah has made clear for...the majority (i say majority because we have loonatics like hitler influence by who knows what). But again hitler was just an individual. The rugged individualism of a grain of sand, doesnt alter truth of a desert.

With due respect, but I feel as if either I dont understand you properly or your confusing concepts. However, I would like to point out, how we interpret quran and hadith are by the quran and hadith. Hadith coming from divinely chosen beings. Shia Islam is the only religion where we have infallible prophets and imams, perfect, and chosen by Allah, which makes interpretation significant. Once again aqlaq has to have a basis a foundation, which must come from Allah only.

inshAllah, we will continue this tomm if you want. I have to finish up an essay. Dont take anything offensive, if my tone of writing seemed like that, as my thought to typing comes out in the wrong way sometimes. Wa Salaam

Ask people without scripture, how they know that being humble, is morally good. And lets find out, how they derive a truthful moral decision, without it.

The question isnt whether or not, someone without scripture can determine a morally good decision. It is a question of how they do it. It has to come from within.

This is what im saying. They didnt derive it, it was innate in them and because of all this for ever ongoing guidance Allah has set for mankind (From prophets to scriptures) we know what is good and bad. The problem is when people decide to determine it "ON THEIR OWN" and make the wrong choice. Once again, because coming from within can be wrong sometimes ie killers and such , coming from within cannot be the set basis of morality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, if anyone touched even a hair on her head her Father and I would do all we could do to protect/avenge her. It is called honour, you might want to think about that concept. Oh and perhaps you should think carefully about having a family yourself.

Except that you wouldn't really be protecting her!

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what im saying. They didnt derive it, it was innate in them and because of all this for ever ongoing guidance Allah has set for mankind (From prophets to scriptures) we know what is good and bad. The problem is when people decide to determine it "ON THEIR OWN" and make the wrong choice. Once again, because coming from within can be wrong sometimes ie killers and such , coming from within cannot be the set basis of morality.

You said

"This is what im saying. They didnt derive it, it was innate in them and because of all this for ever ongoing guidance Allah has set for mankind "

If it is innate within them (and they have adequately derived a morally good decision) and they are atheists who didnt use scripture or prohets, then they dont need scripture or prophets to derive a morally good decision. Do you agree with that?

The difference in the question is, what if they didnt use scripture, but still found a morally good choice? Wouldnt that prove that its possible to create a moral set of rules without scripture, given that they make a collection of good rules and throw out the bad ones? Like with slavery, throwing out the bad ones once they figure out that they are bad.

Edited by iDevonian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, if anyone touched even a hair on her head her Father and I would do all we could do to protect/avenge her. It is called honour, you might want to think about that concept. Oh and perhaps you should think carefully about having a family yourself.

Don't try reasoning with a cowardly mentality. Queen Yoda, one thing I have realized is, that it's always the ones who are worried about their lives or possessions being spared who end up being humiliated and subjugated in the end. (for example Palos)

They are blinded by their dreams of decorated women following them around.

Except that you wouldn't really be protecting her!

Actually smart one, with correct planning it's not impossible unless you are a hollywood type slave locked in chains and dungeons.

So you agree that consent of the slave/wife is NOT an Islamic requirement. That was exactly my point before you jumped in with your pointless denial. Please read the post carefully before replying. You're just wasting everyone's time.

You think incorrectly. eThErEaL: "the Master is supposed to really have the consent of the woman"

Khul' is only applicable to married women. You seem to forget that the slave-girl who the master decides to have sex with is NOT married to him. (She is married to someone else.) So, no, she cannot obtain khul` divorce from her master to save herself from having sex with him, because in your religion the master does not need to marry his slave girl in order to have sex with her.

It's interesting that you bring this up.

Do you know what the punishment is in Islam for a man who holds down his wife (or slave-girl) and has sex with her without her consent?

For example, if a man grabs someone else's wife and holds her down while he has sex with her (non-consensual, of course), then this man's punishment is death (according to Islam).

But can you tell me what the punishment is for this man if he holds his own wife (or slave) down and has sex with her without her consent?

Go ahead, look it up, and report back what you find. A lot of people on this site already know the answer, but I doubt they will be eager to post it. Probably out of embarrassment is my guess.

You are arguing with a bunch of boys and young men who have yet to be wed. I'm sure it will go down quite well when they tell their wives "how it is" if the time actually does come.

Edited by ImAli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes she isn't supposed to refuse sex even if she was preparing to ride a camel, it's the right of the husband who clothes and feeds and forgives her ignorant remarks. I don't think ethereal disagrees with me here, im just saying the ideal remedy to this wasn't just penetrating her on the spot to teach the prudish hoe a lesson. The husband also isn't supposed to refrain from providing her clothing and sustenance. There's mutual love that arises out of mutual assistance of this kind, so it wouldn't be a travesty for a woman to sexually gratify him when the demand was there (with obvious exceptions). If a woman really was repelled by the man, there's khul3 which she could always resort to and the two would depart their own ways. And the man presumably has no right to be sexually gratified if he fails his compulsory marital duties. I think the problem here is people aren't looking at the master/slave relation in its proper context, it wasn't a matter of consent or compulsion, it was a matter of obedience and disobedience.

That is exactly what I meant. Thank you Jahan.

What I meant is that she shouldn't be physically coerced into sexual activity with the Master. By consent of the slave girl, I didn't have in mind that she should "happily or gladly agree to have sex" (which is possible of course), but what I had in mind by consent was that she should not physically resist him to the point where he has to force himself into her (and in the process harm her). Because if the Master does that then God will punish him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

The slaves which were bought wished to sell themselves while knowing the result. Some were lucky enough to be under the then Muslims who had protection under law. I was watching this movie called Django unchained and could see that there were no laws prescribed for them neither did they have any rights.

It doesn't exist today as it has been replaced by complicated employer-employee contracts many of which in the future will be called immoral and unjustified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The slaves which were bought wished to sell themselves while knowing the result. Some were lucky enough to be under the then Muslims who had protection under law. I was watching this movie called Django unchained and could see that there were no laws prescribed for them neither did they have any rights.

It doesn't exist today as it has been replaced by complicated employer-employee contracts many of which in the future will be called immoral and unjustified.

it's called an indentured servant......

Most slaves did not sell themselves into servitude, most were captured, some in war time and some during the very UNJUST slave raids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what lol? Bro, your beliefs are contradicting. In Islam we believe God dictated the moral code for humanity as he is our creator, he knows whats best and isnt.

What do you mean by moral code? What to do and what not to do? Idevonian seems to have something else in mind I think. He is talking about character or khuluq (خلق) which is intrinsically connected with creation or khalq (خلق). Notice how even the way these two are written are seemingly identical. It suggests that character is something rooted not in outward actions (which then have to be conformed to certain laws whether secular or divine), but in the very make-up of the human being as such. It is what characterizes the human. It suggests something universal, not something confined to a particular nation at a particular time period. In fact, the divine laws change from time to time (they may even get abrogated), but this khuluq (خلق) does not.

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Just came across these and i thought I should share them here. So, please share yours thoughts. These videos actually have to do with the subject of this thread.

Not much to say really, these are typical westernized islamic scholars who mostly cater well to their intended audience: the relatively more tolerant and open minded muslims/non muslims in the west. They are forced to sugar coat, diverge, omit and deflect in order maintain relevance and not lose their target audience. For the most part I think it is a good strategy and a predictable one, because it allows muslims in the west to hold onto their faith and remain engaged in the democratic process. Lets face it, if most muslims in the west were simply presented the cold, hard facts about their faith, they would have an incredibly difficult time holding onto it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not much to say really, these are typical westernized islamic scholars who mostly cater well to their intended audience: the relatively more tolerant and open minded muslims/non muslims in the west. They are forced to sugar coat, diverge, omit and deflect in order maintain relevance and not lose their target audience. For the most part I think it is a good strategy and a predictable one, because it allows muslims in the west to hold onto their faith and remain engaged in the democratic process. Lets face it, if most muslims in the west were simply presented the cold, hard facts about their faith, they would have an incredibly difficult time holding onto it.

Can you explain to us not why, but how you think they are sugar-coating the subject matter? What are they diverging from exactly? What are they omitting exactly? And what are they deflecting from?

I found these videos interesting because I arrived at about the same conclusions before listening to them.

Not much to say really, these are typical westernized islamic scholars

I know for a fact Hamza Yusuf is not a westernized scholar. Hehe

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, Ali Musa could say, well, systematic, you are an atheist, how do you know what is right or wrong? (you interpret hadith and scripture and reality around you through your eyes with use of akhlaq)

Systematic could ask Ali Musa the same question. As a theist, how do you know whats right or wrong? (you interpret hadith and scripture and reality through your eyes with use of akhlaq)

The argument is an atheist cannot derive morals because their only source is empirical observation. Even if they have that "innate" morality, we say it came from God anyway, and even then because of their free will, sometimes what they perceive as morality can be wrong since it is always changing according to them and how can the essence of good or bad change? Then atheists must comply with killers and such, since in their eyes the killers perceived and derived morality from the same non divine (fallible) way.

This is the difference, one, we Muslims have a non changing morality. Good is good and bad is bad. Something that is good before cannot become bad later and vice versa. One this implies a non godly attribute since God being God he cannot change his views, it is illogical, he i all knowing. Two, God created us and therefore he knows what is best for us. Just as a inventor would know best about its invention. Interpretation ones again falls into categories of free will and rejecting the true command. Interpretation must be done by a infallible divinely chosen beings hence what they imply is what Allah wants. The message stays perfect, the meaning stays perfect. Once again why Shia Islam is the most logical religion in my opinion.

All your options must fall under what I just typed above. If them, somehow coming to a wrong conclusion based off of reading revelation, this doesnt have to do with the essence of where morality comes from. This is them deriving it from their own fallible mind or them just misunderstanding something. I still dont think you understand my morality argument. Im saying yes we have morality innate, but its not enough, because we still need divine laws, revelation, prophets, and imams, to truly show us morality as a whole. Everything which is bad that is bad and vice versa. Having it innate is like its there we know it, we just have to fully grasp it. I am against gays. Why is it that gay people in the us back a few years was a "bad" and "evil" thing? They used their innate morality as a majority and sought it that way.But that same innate morality now is chosen that being gay is a "good" and "free" thing. This is a contradiction to the concept of good and bad. This methodology will break mankind apart.

Wa Salaam

You said

"This is what im saying. They didnt derive it, it was innate in them and because of all this for ever ongoing guidance Allah has set for mankind "

If it is innate within them (and they have adequately derived a morally good decision) and they are atheists who didnt use scripture or prohets, then they dont need scripture or prophets to derive a morally good decision. Do you agree with that?

The difference in the question is, what if they didnt use scripture, but still found a morally good choice? Wouldnt that prove that its possible to create a moral set of rules without scripture, given that they make a collection of good rules and throw out the bad ones? Like with slavery, throwing out the bad ones once they figure out that they are bad.

I think I answered this already. Them "possible" finding the basic notion of good and bad is just by chance then. It still doesnt make their notion of morality right or wrong. That is my whole point. People have different views and ideas. This will cause problems. There is no way everyone will see good and bad the same way even if every has that same notion of good being love and bad being evil or kill and what not. There will always be something they will disagree on breaking their essence of morality, from the view point of someone who believes in God. ie. Example of gays

What do you mean by moral code? What to do and what not to do? Idevonian seems to have something else in mind I think. He is talking about character or khuluq (خلق) which is intrinsically connected with creation or khalq (خلق). Notice how even the way these two are written are seemingly identical. It suggests that character is something rooted not in outward actions (which then have to be conformed to certain laws whether secular or divine), but in the very make-up of the human being as such. It is what characterizes the human. It suggests something universal, not something confined to a particular nation at a particular time period. In fact, the divine laws change from time to time (they may even get abrogated), but this khuluq (خلق) does not.

What i mean when I use the term code with morality is the notion of a set of derivations for it. Its already given by Allah. Morality and Ethics go hand and hand in islam. Even to a point of permissible things and not permissible things, the harams and the halals and things in that nature. So morality is given to us by Allah, one the original essence which is innate in us (the notion of good and bad), and the guiding essence which we get by scripture prophets imams and hadiths. As I explained above what I mean by these two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

The discussions on this topic always puzzle me. I can understand the following reactions to it:

- try to find some way of positively understanding why Islam accepts and incorporates slavery

- admit that it causes personal unease in one's self, but none the less grant that God and His Messenger (sawa) know best and leaving it at that

- consider it unreconcilable to one's belief and so leave Islam

I think its true that some people find it hard to accept that the Quran doesnt explicity condemn slavery, but for most people i dont think thats the issue. I think its these interpretations of the Qurans stance on slavery and the details that people are attmpting to justify (like the treatment of slaves) that causes the issues for most people. Because its more an issue of interpretation, rather than anything explicitly stated in Quran, for most people its not something that would shake their faith. But when interpretations of the religion appear to sanction or encourage behaviour which contradicts virtues explicitly promoted in the Quran (and that we intuitively experience as good) like compassion, restraint and sexual continency, there is obviously going to be conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

^ I meant the interpretation of the Quran regarding slavery being a situation of the time that was not explicitly encouraged, but rather allowed with the encouragment of eventual disolution (because of the references to freeing slaves being so important). In some Surahs, freeing slaves is linked with being a believer (Al-Balad). It makes no sense that freeing slaves would be so important if slavery was something to be encouraged, even if it wasnt an intrinsic evil. The Quran talks about the permissability of marrying of slaves who are married to non believers quite explicitly yes, although, once again, the details of that are not explicitly stated. 'Guarding of private parts' has debateable meaning for sure, but it at least indicates that the same hijab is not required in front of slaves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Sometimes it very much looks like people are looking at Quranic (or non Quranic) instructions as arbitrary and in isolation of one another, instead of trying to find the connections and overall flow of purpose that makes things fit well with one another.

Hit the nail on the head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
What are you talking about? There was no one posting in that thread any more. What am I supposed to do, start posting random, unrelated comments there to keep the thread going???
I'm surprised you didn't reply to the last post I made in that thread. Don't you want to describe the sublime metamorphosis you went through to become the vastly superior Atheist you are today lol.
I didn't turn this thread into anything. It's your Muslim buddies who get all butt-hurt when I bring up Islam's stance on rape, slavery, theft, etc., and they feel the need to go on for pages defending those practices.
True, some of them do, but then you can't blame them really as they are unmarried (therefore don't understand women at all yet) and don't have children (therefore have no bond with a daughter) and are probably virgins (therefore are frustrated and primarily view women as sex objects).

For brothers like this, females are mainly an abstract and obscure "theory" which they have little real world knowledge or experience of. They are only half-Muslims who are still waiting to complete their deen. Naturally this will mould their interpretation of Islam, which obviously lacks the full scope and perfect balance of the religion and its deeper spirituality.

You do realise this right? Don't let their inadequacies colour your own judgement of Islam my friend.

Been there, done that.
Care to elaborate brother...
What the heck is wrong with you guys? Why do you people care so much about my needs and hopes and desires? Can't an atheist post [Edited Out] on the internet these days without being pestered about his emotional satisfaction? What happened to the good ol' days when it was automatically assumed that an atheist does whatever he/she does because they are evil. Buncha friggin' psychologists we got gathered in here.
Why not lie down on the couch Systematic... now where did we get to in our last session... oh yes, you think you've found proof that God doesn't exist... by reading a blog post on the internet... please do continue... lol.
Let me answer it instead of you answering it for me and putting words in my mouth. If I were in that situation I would first ask the Master to please leave my daughter alone! But if I see he doesn't care and threatens me, then I would warn him about the wrath of God. And if he still doesn't care and I see that he is getting even more angry (that he will even beat me and my daughter) THEN I would leave everything in God's hands knowing full well that there is nothing I can do to help!
No, he wouldn't because he wouldn't be able to. If he could do that he wouldn't have ended up being enslaved in the first place. And if he does skin his master alive, then the society would retaliate and probably end up skinning you and him alive. So, what would your husband do if he is wise? What would you do?

Well being a Shia, I would follow the example of Imam Hussain and die fighting to protect my faith and my family. I guess a non-Shia like you doesn't learn much from the tragedy of Karbala, which is a great shame my friend.

Still, I do admit, your approach of being a coward so you can cling to this duniya for a little while longer, is very logical from an Atheistic perspective. Brother Systematic can finally find common ground with someone on this forum lol.

No, if anyone touched even a hair on her head her Father and I would do all we could do to protect/avenge her. It is called honour, you might want to think about that concept. Oh and perhaps you should think carefully about having a family yourself.

Alhamdellah I have a husband that would blow the world up in such a situation and skin his "master" alive.

Sisters you have married fine men, true Muslims as opposed to the many wannabe Muslims around here.

Perhaps you could persuade your husbands to join the forum - when it comes to issues concerning women, it would help to redress the balance of opinion between Virgin Males versus Non-Virgin Males.

Nice, I notice a few posts of people who don't agree with slavery are mysteriously disappearing.

Is there a rogue Moderator running around?
One of the things i find most puzzling when it comes to slavery is that it's quite clear that slavery as an institution was looked down upon after the advent of our Prophet(saw), and quite a few measures were taken to free slaves and incentivize freeing slaves, along with offering them sympathetic treatment. Freeing Bilal from slavery serves as such an extraordinary symbolism for revolutionizing how slavery is seen. Yet even with all that, we see hadith that view slavery no different that it usually was viewed in pre-modern times. The contradiction is quite puzzling. I still haven't resolved this. Why would Imam Ali(as) free a thousand or so slaves, and then substantiate the institution of slavery? I personally still need to reflect further.
It is always the Hadiths that confuse matters and cause conflict and misunderstanding brother.

Anything that does not follow the Quran and the spirit of Islam, and goes against the character and conduct of the Ahlul Bayt, should be considered dubious at best, or ideally discarded - unfortunately many people think they are being true Muslims by doing the exact opposite.

Edited by Perfectionist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I'm surprised you didn't reply to the last post I made in that thread.

lol! It's funny that you think that post of yours was worthy of a response. Clearly your opinion of yourself is undeservedly high.

Don't let their inadequacies colour your own judgement of Islam my friend.

I never did. Don't let your blind loyalty color yours.

oh yes, you think you've found proof that God doesn't exist... by reading a blog post on the internet...

Actually, it was proof that God cannot freely create. To no surprise, you still haven't been able to provide a refutation of it. Perhaps I should've referred you to something more suitable for a younger audience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
lol! It's funny that you think that post of yours was worthy of a response.
Is that because I asked if you are gay? If you are, then I can understand your bitterness.
Clearly your opinion of yourself is undeservedly high.
Great, not only have you left Islam, you're also beginning to sound like my mother-in-law lol.
I never did. Don't let your blind loyalty color yours.
You mean my loyalty to God? Why would that be blind?
Actually, it was proof that God cannot freely create. To no surprise, you still haven't been able to provide a refutation of it. Perhaps I should've referred you to something more suitable for a younger audience.
Has your "proof" changed the world?

No?

Well it can't be all that much of a "proof" then can it brother.

True. If a plethora of random slaves could be freed, why not the rest of them? If slaves were such a vital aspect of that socio-economic setting, as is oft quoted, wouldn't freeing so many of them be a detriment to society? It's definitely a logical dilemma.

Not a dilemma at all my friend. Freeing each and every slave, all at the same time, would have caused chaos. Therefore freeing them in small and large numbers over the course of time, would makes perfect sense.
I was of the same impression before but as I thought more about it I realized that even though Islam encourages the freeing of slaves, it doesn't imply that Islam sees the institution of slavery as an evil which then needs to be eradicated.
Incorrect. Slavery, and in particular the mechanics of its function were strongly condemned, which indicates a clear drive to reduce and eventually eradicate it.

Slavery wasn't considered "evil" in the same way that divorce is not considered "evil" - both are allowed if there is no alternative, but neither is encouraged.

Otherwise the Imams (being the best examples for mankind) would never have bought a slave to keep for themselves. If Islam encourages the freeing of slaves that just implies that it is a noble act to free slaves, but not that the institution itself is evil.
Slavery was a necessity in the times of the Imams. At best the Imams treated them as members of their family (even marrying them), at worst they were treated as valued and respected employees.

This was not how slavery operated in the centuries after the Imams, which is why it causes such contention.

In fact one can argue that the institution is necessary and good because it is a condition of possibility for there to even be the good act of emancipating a slave.
Lol! Let me rephrase that for you in contemporary terms my friend.

In fact one can argue that the "invasion of Iraq" is necessary and good because it is a condition of possibility for there to even be the good act of "withdrawing from Iraq"

Yes she isn't supposed to refuse sex even if she was preparing to ride a camel, it's the right of the husband who clothes and feeds and forgives her ignorant remarks. I don't think ethereal disagrees with me here, im just saying the ideal remedy to this wasn't just penetrating her on the spot to teach the prudish hoe a lesson.
A slave-girl is a hoe, and if she refuses to have sex, she is a prude...

Yes, I know you were only trying to make a point, but the manner you make them in most of your posts is undeniably transparent of your underlying character.

Im sorry, but how irrelevant is it bringing a hypothetical example of whether you'd like your family members enslaved? That's like asking if you would like to be in the place of the man who suffers 100 lashes due to fornication (even though you haven't committed any sin like him).

Same could be said about hypothetically believing women didn't really feel true love in ancient times, yet paradoxically thinking slave-girls would learn to love their captors if they fed and clothed them etc etc. Even more hypothetical is that a male thinks he knows how a female would feel in such circumstances.

I wonder if your next post will be about how it feels to have a menstrual cycle...

You see, the problem with your line of thought here, is that, in essence, it is ironically just a different form of misongyny. A pretty sounding misogyny, but a misogyny nonetheless. It makes women into these weak, fragile little helpless flower petals driven by their hearts and helplessly attached to one true love. As opposed to actual, real world women who, in addition to their flowery exterior and graceful ways, can also be cold, calculating, pragmatic, and moved by material and power-related considerations. The sort that will drop a man for losing a job, let alone getting enslaved.
My God, you mean some women can be just as bad as men!

Glad you pointed that out brother, because now we can obviously separate girls in to the "nice" and "nasty" categories, so that only the cold and calculated ones were used as slaves.

I do concede though, painting all women as angels can be considered a form a misogyny, but a far worse form is when they are all painted as devils. The implications of the latter brings disgrace to your own and every other Muslim family in the world, especially the Holy Family.

Anyway, did you have any luck finding some "hard research" to justify your previous posts, or were you just imagining things about women, like the rest of the unmarried "Defenders Of Islam" on here?

Edited by Perfectionist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument is an atheist cannot derive morals because their only source is empirical observation. Even if they have that "innate" morality, we say it came from God anyway, and even then because of their free will, sometimes what they perceive as morality can be wrong since it is always changing according to them and how can the essence of good or bad change? Then atheists must comply with killers and such, since in their eyes the killers perceived and derived morality from the same non divine (fallible) way.

This is the difference, one, we Muslims have a non changing morality. Good is good and bad is bad. Something that is good before cannot become bad later and vice versa. One this implies a non godly attribute since God being God he cannot change his views, it is illogical, he i all knowing. Two, God created us and therefore he knows what is best for us. Just as a inventor would know best about its invention. Interpretation ones again falls into categories of free will and rejecting the true command. Interpretation must be done by a infallible divinely chosen beings hence what they imply is what Allah wants. The message stays perfect, the meaning stays perfect. Once again why Shia Islam is the most logical religion in my opinion.

All your options must fall under what I just typed above. If them, somehow coming to a wrong conclusion based off of reading revelation, this doesnt have to do with the essence of where morality comes from. This is them deriving it from their own fallible mind or them just misunderstanding something. I still dont think you understand my morality argument. Im saying yes we have morality innate, but its not enough, because we still need divine laws, revelation, prophets, and imams, to truly show us morality as a whole. Everything which is bad that is bad and vice versa. Having it innate is like its there we know it, we just have to fully grasp it. I am against gays. Why is it that gay people in the us back a few years was a "bad" and "evil" thing? They used their innate morality as a majority and sought it that way.But that same innate morality now is chosen that being gay is a "good" and "free" thing. This is a contradiction to the concept of good and bad. This methodology will break mankind apart.

Wa Salaam

I think I answered this already. Them "possible" finding the basic notion of good and bad is just by chance then. It still doesnt make their notion of morality right or wrong. That is my whole point. People have different views and ideas. This will cause problems. There is no way everyone will see good and bad the same way even if every has that same notion of good being love and bad being evil or kill and what not. There will always be something they will disagree on breaking their essence of morality, from the view point of someone who believes in God. ie. Example of gays

What i mean when I use the term code with morality is the notion of a set of derivations for it. Its already given by Allah. Morality and Ethics go hand and hand in islam. Even to a point of permissible things and not permissible things, the harams and the halals and things in that nature. So morality is given to us by Allah, one the original essence which is innate in us (the notion of good and bad), and the guiding essence which we get by scripture prophets imams and hadiths. As I explained above what I mean by these two.

Maybe were just talking in circles here.

Theists determine their ideas on morality, through interpretations and "chance", just as atheists do.

People, even with scripture are using innate morals to determine how they act, just as atheists are.

Are you saying that this isnt true?

--------------------------------------------

You said

"The argument is an atheist cannot derive morals because their only source is empirical observation. Even if they have that "innate" morality, we say it came from God anyway, and even then because of their free will, sometimes what they perceive as morality can be wrong since it is always changing according to them and how can the essence of good or bad change?"

But theists do the same thing. Sometimes theists percieve scripture in morally wrong ways too. Theists depends upon free will and perception just as atheists do.

"This is the difference, one, we Muslims have a non changing morality. Good is good and bad is bad. Something that is good before cannot become bad later and vice versa. "

Theists and or muslims cant say what is good, to determine that good is good and bad is bad. So, it doesnt...the statement is "fruitless".

"Interpretation ones again falls into categories of free will and rejecting the true command. Interpretation must be done by a infallible divinely chosen beings hence what they imply is what Allah wants."

In this case, people are incapable of deriving morals? If so, then it would put theists and atheists on an even playing field in regards to deriving morals. Though I in part do agree with you there, which is why, I dont think atheists are any less moral than theists. Its because they do just what we all do. Use interpretation. And so, why ask where atheists get morals? If they determine morals the same way we do?

"Im saying yes we have morality innate, but its not enough, because we still need divine laws, revelation, prophets, and imams, to truly show us morality as a whole."

I would then ask, how do we as muslims derive morality? If we have no observable Imam now, how do we know if our interpretations are right or wrong? Just as atheists are interpretting their observations, so are we.

Edited by iDevonian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incorrect. Slavery, and in particular the mechanics of its function were strongly condemned, which indicates a clear drive to reduce and eventually eradicate it.Slavery wasn't considered "evil" in the same way that divorce is not considered "evil" - both are allowed if there is no alternative, but neither is encouraged.

Imam Ali (as) And Fatimah (as) would never have wanted a slave for themselves if it was discouraged or condemned. But eventually they got Hafsa.

Slavery was a necessity in the times of the Imams. At best the Imams treated them as members of their family (even marrying them), at worst they were treated as valued and respected employees.

So you agree that it is necessary. Or, that certain conditions make slavery necessary. I am saying the same thing. And like I already mentioned to you in the other thread that that the Islamic notion of slavery cannot be compared to what people nowadays think of slavery.

This was not how slavery operated in the centuries after the Imams, which is why it causes such contention.

Exactly.

Lol! Let me rephrase that for you in contemporary terms my friend.

In fact one can argue that the "invasion of Iraq" is necessary and good because it is a condition of possibility for there to even be the good act of "withdrawing from Iraq"

By institution of slavery I have in mind the Islamic notion of slavery which exists only out of necessity (as you yourself agree) because of certain conditions of war. So I was pointing to these conditions which are divinely determined. And so I was saying that these conditions for slavery are divinely determined to allow for the greater good. I had in mind a theodicy argument, because I believe this issue of evil is connected to the argument of evil.

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...