Is the idea of static fiqh rationally defensible?

[kadhim]

1 hour ago, VoidVortex said:

Is it worth including children in this thought process, because adults and children in Islam don't have the same rules. I might have misunderstood your thought process, could you expand on it? Also did you mean children in the sense of how society views children or did you mean the Islamic view. I don't think the view of society would be relevant though so I'll assume that you meant in the Islamic view but feel to free to correct me. Once you expand on the thought process question, I'll answer to the best of my ability inshaalah.

I’m including children in this because it’s important to the point. I know of course in traditional shariah there is a notion of baligh vs na-baligh, with certain traditional understandings of when one ends and the other begins, and the rights and duties that apply after that transition that don’t apply before. I’m aware of that.

Here I’m asking you to engage in some counter-factual thinking. That is, imagining a different world largely the same as this one, and imagining making rules for that world. Child vs adult I’m not thinking of any particular definition, and really it’s not important for the thought experiment. Let’s just think of it generically as young, small, not yet developed and mature people vs older, developed, mature people, without worrying too much where the boundary lies between the two categories.

Now you say God can make rule systems that are good for all time because God is all knowing, all wise, all just, etc. So I’m asking, if God approaches this alternate world to make new rules for a parallel world-mankind that is much like us, using all these infinite attributes of His, could He make one uniform set of rules that applies to everyone, adult and child alike, and that is good and fair for everyone? Can God design a well-ordered society that expects exactly the same things from both adults and children. Do you think this is a possible or conceivable thing? Or is that an impossible ask? Why or why not?

Transparency: I am going somewhere with this; this is a bit of a Socratic dialogue. It’s setting up a next point. But the question itself is not a trick question.    It’s relatively straightforward. 

[Abu_Zahra]

On 8/1/2022 at 9:17 AM, kadhim said:

That’s a fun non-sequitur, but can you answer the actual line of questioning from that exchange? 

If the question was 'is it possible for fiqh to be static' then the answer is, apparently yes based on the past 1400 years. 

On 8/1/2022 at 9:17 AM, kadhim said:

You can repeat that tortured caricature as much as you like; it doesn’t make it accurate. 

Ok it seemed like you pretty much recognized that this was indeed the case, but perhaps I have misunderstood you. 

On 8/1/2022 at 11:47 AM, VoidVortex said:

 

I disagree with your comparison. You can't compare what is mathematically impossible to creating a timeless legal code. Unless it can be proven that a timeless legal code is a logical impossibility, this argument won't work, and even if it did, there is perhaps evidence to suggest God can make something that would go against logical impossibility but I want dear brother @Mahdavist to correct me if I got this wrong.

Sounds right to me,  the apparent logical impossibility of a fixed legislation has yet to be demonstrated.  

[kadhim]

57 minutes ago, Mahdavist said:

If the question was 'is it possible for fiqh to be static' then the answer is, apparently yes based on the past 1400 years. 

The question is not “can people stubbornly decide to keep fiqh static.” Duh. Of course people can choose to do that. The question is obviously, “Can people do that and have it work effectively? Will that produce a result that reflects the true path of the Shariah in new contexts?”

 

1 hour ago, Mahdavist said:

Ok it seemed like you pretty much recognized that this was indeed the case, but perhaps I have misunderstood you. 

No, quite the contrary.  You stubbornly advanced this caricature that this is about playing a game to reach some predetermined result and each time I patiently corrected you that, no, that’s not what this is about at all. 

I’m a little baffled to be honest what you’re “misunderstanding” about this. 

1 hour ago, Mahdavist said:

Sounds right to me,  the apparent logical impossibility of a fixed legislation has yet to be demonstrated.  

The purpose of this discussion, in case you’ve forgotten, is to justify that it is possible. 

[kadhim]

On 8/1/2022 at 8:13 PM, kadhim said:

Can God design a well-ordered society that expects exactly the same things from both adults and children. Do you think this is a possible or conceivable thing? Or is that an impossible ask? Why or why not?

Transparency: I am going somewhere with this; this is a bit of a Socratic dialogue. It’s setting up a next point. But the question itself is not a trick question.    It’s relatively straightforward. 

So after a few invitations, no one has taken up this question so far. So I’ll skip to the end.

Copy paste from an article draft:

Let’s look at it this way. Imagine an alternate parallel universe basically identical to this one, and it is time for God to make laws for mankind. Now in humankind, there are adults and children. You can define the boundary between the two groups in different ways, but everyone generally acknowledges that there are children, who are younger, smaller, weaker, less intellectually developed, less mature psychologically, etc. And there are adults. Sufficiently developed, mature. 

So here’s a question. Could God create a complete, effective, optimal, just set of rules that apply the same and equally to both groups? Let us be clear. Not a set of rules for children and a separate set for adults. The exact same rules for both, and the exact same consequences for not following for both, same duties and expectations for both, with no consideration for different ages.  Could God create that legal code? Would it be a good legal code that worked well?

If we reflect on it for a moment, the answer would clearly seem to be “no.” There is no way we could picture that working even if God were to write the rules. The two groups are far too different in their characteristics to solve for both simultaneously. The undevelopedness and immaturity of children make it so that rules appropriate for adults would expect too much for children. It would not be just. Similarly, adults would find it painful and restrictive, even stifling, to follow rules appropriate for children. The nature—the fitrah—of an adult on a psychological level, needs more freedom to move than is safe to be trusted to an immature child. 

Any solution that works for the constraints of one group will be ill-fitted for the constraints of the other group, and vice versa. And indeed, even a traditional Muslim is forced to accept this reality, because the traditional Muslim thinks the classical rules represent an optimal solution and classical Islamic law reflects this basic reality and puts different duties, rights, and consequences for children as opposed to adults. As is the case in basically every human culture. 

So if we accept this, we see that there are possible and impossible tasks when it comes to law making. Even God can’t do some things when it comes to law making. 

So with this example of adults and children in mind, I present an analogy. In the past 12 centuries, the average psychology and development of intellect and level of civilization of humankind has advanced so much as to effectively change the background nature of humankind. Humankind is effectively a different creature compared to what was there earlier. Biology is largely the same, yes. But ultimately humans are more than just anatomy and physiology. Mankind is a thinking, social creature. We are also psychology, culture. A set of human subjects from the year 822 CE and a set of human subjects from the year 2022 CE, when placed in the same scenario, will tend to respond, on average, in dramatically different ways in many cases. For example, statistically speaking, people of today are much less likely to resort to physical violence to solve a conflict than earlier points in human history. And the intellectual development of the average person is much higher as well and much more capable of dealing with complexity. In 822 a person could enter adult life and marriage at the point of bulugh—puberty basically. Can anyone really imagine a 13 year old navigating the full slate of adult responsibilities in a more modern nation today? 

With this in mind, we can argue that the relation between the human of 822 and the human of 2022 is analogous to that between the child and the adult of any given time. The same chasm of relative maturity and level of development applies.

It becomes therefore unjust to apply the same total set of rules to both. Rules that fit the needs of one will in general be ill-fitted to the other, and vice versa.

[kadhim]

So … do I take it y’all give up?  

[Hameedeh]

54 minutes ago, kadhim said:

So … do I take it y’all give up?  

Sorry. Fell asleep after "Imagine an alternate parallel universe..." 

[kadhim]

26 minutes ago, Hameedeh said:

Sorry. Fell asleep after "Imagine an alternate parallel universe..." 

The contemplative life is not for everyone. I wouldn’t beat yourself up about it. 

[kadhim]

On 8/3/2022 at 9:19 PM, kadhim said:

So after a few invitations, no one has taken up this question so far. So I’ll skip to the end.

Copy paste from an article draft:

Let’s look at it this way. Imagine an alternate parallel universe basically identical to this one, and it is time for God to make laws for mankind. Now in humankind, there are adults and children. You can define the boundary between the two groups in different ways, but everyone generally acknowledges that there are children, who are younger, smaller, weaker, less intellectually developed, less mature psychologically, etc. And there are adults. Sufficiently developed, mature. 

So here’s a question. Could God create a complete, effective, optimal, just set of rules that apply the same and equally to both groups? Let us be clear. Not a set of rules for children and a separate set for adults. The exact same rules for both, and the exact same consequences for not following for both, same duties and expectations for both, with no consideration for different ages.  Could God create that legal code? Would it be a good legal code that worked well?

If we reflect on it for a moment, the answer would clearly seem to be “no.” There is no way we could picture that working even if God were to write the rules. The two groups are far too different in their characteristics to solve for both simultaneously. The undevelopedness and immaturity of children make it so that rules appropriate for adults would expect too much for children. It would not be just. Similarly, adults would find it painful and restrictive, even stifling, to follow rules appropriate for children. The nature—the fitrah—of an adult on a psychological level, needs more freedom to move than is safe to be trusted to an immature child. 

Any solution that works for the constraints of one group will be ill-fitted for the constraints of the other group, and vice versa. And indeed, even a traditional Muslim is forced to accept this reality, because the traditional Muslim thinks the classical rules represent an optimal solution and classical Islamic law reflects this basic reality and puts different duties, rights, and consequences for children as opposed to adults. As is the case in basically every human culture. 

So if we accept this, we see that there are possible and impossible tasks when it comes to law making. Even God can’t do some things when it comes to law making. 

So with this example of adults and children in mind, I present an analogy. In the past 12 centuries, the average psychology and development of intellect and level of civilization of humankind has advanced so much as to effectively change the background nature of humankind. Humankind is effectively a different creature compared to what was there earlier. Biology is largely the same, yes. But ultimately humans are more than just anatomy and physiology. Mankind is a thinking, social creature. We are also psychology, culture. A set of human subjects from the year 822 CE and a set of human subjects from the year 2022 CE, when placed in the same scenario, will tend to respond, on average, in dramatically different ways in many cases. For example, statistically speaking, people of today are much less likely to resort to physical violence to solve a conflict than earlier points in human history. And the intellectual development of the average person is much higher as well and much more capable of dealing with complexity. In 822 a person could enter adult life and marriage at the point of bulugh—puberty basically. Can anyone really imagine a 13 year old navigating the full slate of adult responsibilities in a more modern nation today? 

With this in mind, we can argue that the relation between the human of 822 and the human of 2022 is analogous to that between the child and the adult of any given time. The same chasm of relative maturity and level of development applies.

It becomes therefore unjust to apply the same total set of rules to both. Rules that fit the needs of one will in general be ill-fitted to the other, and vice versa.

I want to kick this one up again. I want to see if anyone has anything new or useful to offer. 

Let me summarize some wordy material. 

Traditional narrative / assumption : legal verses in Quran and legal statements in hadith are by default for all time. In exceptional cases, rulings can change if for a certainty the reasons behind the law passed. 

Alternate view: Generally in the world, laws are related to context. If the context changes, due to change in time, place, situations of life, the law changes. The correct default is to assume that any law given in a time is only applicable to that time, and gets less valid as time goes by.

Claim: It is impossible to give a set of laws that are effective and optimal for all time.

Objection: This is for human law-givers. For God, who knows all, and is the most wise, and the most powerful, all things are possible.

Response: It is not theologically sound to claim all things are possible for God. Some things are logically impossible. Some things are mathematically impossible. Some things are ethically impossible given God’s status as the most good. Some things are impossible for even God to do.

Objection: Law-giving is not like this.

Claim: In fact it is. Creating a law is about solving a problem, given the dynamics of some part of the human world and the conditions and constraints. You can’t form one solution that satisfies the constraints and conditions of all times, because too much changes. It is mathematically impossible to give a set of laws that hold for all time. 

Objection: Elaborate. 

Response: As an analogy, think of the case of children and adults as groups. Imagine trying to make one set of rules that is exactly the same for both and works for both. Could that work? Would whatever anyone came up with be effective, and be tolerable? Answer: No. Adults and children have different levels of maturity, different capabilities, different needs. What makes sense for adults doesn’t make sense for children. What makes sense for children doesn’t work for adults. Can we imagine even God being able to do such a thing? No. Both because of reason, and because we see from our texts that God have different rules for adults and children in the same time period.

Proved: It is impossible for even God to make rules that apply equally to groups of people who are too different in their characteristics. God cannot “do anything” when it comes to lawmaking. 

Question: Ok, but what does this have to do with this discussion? 

Answer: In the same way children are too different from adults to be governed by exactly the same rules, people today are too different in terms of knowledge, intelligence, and intellectual maturity from people 1400 years ago to be governed by the same rules. 
 

Any responses?

 

[Guest Guest 12345]

7 hours ago, kadhim said:

Response: As an analogy, think of the case of children and adults as groups. Imagine trying to make one set of rules that is exactly the same for both and works for both. Could that work? Would whatever anyone came up with be effective, and be tolerable? Answer: No. Adults and children have different levels of maturity, different capabilities, different needs. What makes sense for adults doesn’t make sense for children. What makes sense for children doesn’t work for adults. Can we imagine even God being able to do such a thing? No. Both because of reason, and because we see from our texts that God have different rules for adults and children in the same time period.

Proved: It is impossible for even God to make rules that apply equally to groups of people who are too different in their characteristics. God cannot “do anything” when it comes to lawmaking. 

Question: Ok, but what does this have to do with this discussion? 

Answer: In the same way children are too different from adults to be governed by exactly the same rules, people today are too different in terms of knowledge, intelligence, and intellectual maturity from people 1400 years ago to be governed by the same rules. 
 

Any responses?

 

Salam,

If the situation is as you claim, what level of intellectual maturity [or "x" quality] would require a revision of the current laws? Is there an objective standard or, as others have pointed out, something seen as likely subjective?

On a side note, suppose the situation reaches a near perfect level of objectivity, would the edge cases be enough to warrant a revision of then current system?

Now, suppose the edge case do warrant a revision, are there edicts that are immutable?

Finally, if we have objective immutable edicts, wouldn't that be an answer to your question?

[Ashvazdanghe]

13 hours ago, kadhim said:

Proved: It is impossible for even God to make rules that apply equally to groups of people who are too different in their characteristics. God cannot “do anything” when it comes to lawmaking. 

Question: Ok, but what does this have to do with this discussion? 

Answer: In the same way children are too different from adults to be governed by exactly the same rules, people today are too different in terms of knowledge, intelligence, and intellectual maturity from people 1400 years ago to be governed by the same rules. 
 

Salm whole your  logic is based on that you know God more than yourself so therfore you can analyze him under microscope in similar fashion of studying E. Coli Bacteria which absolutly your logic based on totally wrong basis which even  prophet Muhammad (pbu) & Imam Ali (عليه السلام) couldn't describe God because knowing him  has been  more than their knowledge but on the other hand by this false logic you claim that you know god more than himself which you can recognize limitation of God .

Your knowledge & inforamtion about humans is highly just limited to western propaganda about knowing anything about anyone around the world which in similar fashion of knowing God by you is totally insufficient & wrong which ther is some examples that some people have no difference in terms of "knowledge, intelligence, and intellectual maturity from people 1400 years ago" even some of them have "lesser knowledge, intelligence, and intellectual maturity from people 1400 years ago" which clear example of it is emerging Daesh/ISIS which it's mebers have been more stupid & immature with lesser knowledge & lesser  intelligence from people 1400 years ago also your definition from childhood & maturity is totally wrong which in countries likewise Yemen & Syria definition of childhood is differnt from your weterner viewpoint which these children due to losing parents have hasd to act in similar fashion of adults in order to protect their younger members of their family in totall absence of their parents although they have been under protection of age limit in Fiqh  which another fallcy in your logic is defining 1400 years old rules as too old & obsolete rules while  all of these rules are more fresh than all of so called modern westerner rules  are just reapeting tto old & obsolete  laws of christanity & Judaism & obsolete greek ideas .

[kadhim]

1 hour ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salm whole your  logic is based on that you know God more than yourself so therfore you can analyze him under microscope in similar fashion of studying E. Coli Bacteria which absolutly your logic based on totally wrong basis which even  prophet Muhammad (pbu) & Imam Ali (عليه السلام) couldn't describe God because knowing him  has been  more than their knowledge but on the other hand by this false logic you claim that you know god more than himself which you can recognize limitation of God .

Dude, what are you even talking about? For real.

1 hour ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

ther is some examples that some people have no difference in terms of "knowledge, intelligence, and intellectual maturity from people 1400 years ago" even some of them have "lesser knowledge, intelligence, and intellectual maturity from people 1400 years ago"

This is not a relevant observation. You’re talking about “some;” I’m talking about the overall average state of people. 

Objectively, if you took an average, or even somewhat smart for his time person from 1400 years ago, and put them here today, they would need adult supervision. Not only because of their lack of knowledge of how the world works. But just basic intelligence, IQ. The average person from 1400 years ago would probably test as mentally challenged by modern standards. 

1400 years ago a 13 year old boy would be considered a mature adult ready for the adult world of the day.  

What is the likelihood even a pretty well-educated 13 year old could navigate the adult world on their own today? Honestly? 

And if you want to argue with that, put your money where your mouth is, and go lobby your government to let young people vote at the age of bulugh. And go find a clever 13 year old boy to manage your finances. 
 

1 hour ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

your definition from childhood & maturity is totally wrong which in countries likewise Yemen & Syria definition of childhood is differnt from your weterner viewpoint which these children due to losing parents have hasd to act in similar fashion of adults in order to protect their younger members of their family in totall absence of their parents although they have been under protection of age limit in Fiqh

People can do all kinds of things in extreme situations, but again, that’s not a relevant response here. For one, you’re again confusing “the some” for the “average.” And second, it’s not even coherent. 

Ultimately, as you yourself acknowledge, even classical Islamic Law recognizes that there is some dividing line between “children” and “mature adults,” with capabilities that are very different, and these two groups are given differing levels of responsibility according to that.

[kadhim]

10 hours ago, Guest Guest 12345 said:

If the situation is as you claim, what level of intellectual maturity [or "x" quality] would require a revision of the current laws? Is there an objective standard or, as others have pointed out, something seen as likely subjective?

I think you’re not completely understanding the argument here. The argument is not that fiqh should be static up until a certain point, and then a threshold is reached and things are different enough that they have to change. I think you’re maybe understanding the example of children and adults too broadly literally as an analogy.  The argument is simply that the whole idea of the rules being fixed for all time was incorrect and impossible all along. Because in crucial ways relevant to law-making humans are not a constant.

The fact that even in the traditional period, there was a recognition that laws need to be different because of the age-related maturity level of an individual human being is explicit proof of that principle, but no, I’m not saying there is a discrete, two stage immature vs mature movement for all of humanity. It’s more continuous in the case of mankind as the whole. 

And because the assumption that you can in general legislate everything once and for all, for all time is incorrect, that means the default assumption is that the rules will change in an ongoing basis over time. 

10 hours ago, Guest Guest 12345 said:

Now, suppose the edge case do warrant a revision, are there edicts that are immutable?

By default, the assumption is that rules will change over time to reflect the changing needs, knowledge, awareness, abilities, and other characteristics of humankind. But, on some specific cases, it is conceivable that some rules for some things will remain equally useful over time. For example, we might expect that a lot of the basics of prayer and fasting and hajj would remain largely constant. If a rule is provably still useful, it can remain. If it ain’t broke, we don’t need to fix it. 
 

10 hours ago, Guest Guest 12345 said:

Finally, if we have objective immutable edicts, wouldn't that be an answer to your question?

No, because the question is about a set of laws as a system as opposed to specific individual edicts. 

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 1/24/2023 at 4:14 PM, kadhim said:

Dude, what are you even talking about? For real.

Salam you clearly have understood it so then you have used your typical saecasm defense for escaping to forward which your conclusion is against holy Quran.

يَمْحُو اللَّهُ مَا يَشَاءُ وَيُثْبِتُ ۖ وَعِندَهُ أُمُّ الْكِتَابِ ‎﴿٣٩﴾‏

Allah effaces and confirms whatever He wishes and with Him is the Mother Book. (39)

Quote

Whether We show you a part of what We promise them, or take you away [before that], your duty is only to communicate, and it is for Us to do the reckoning. (40) Have they not seen how We visit the land diminishing it at its edges? Allah judges, and there is none who may repeal His judgement, and He is swift at reckoning. (41) Those who were before them [also] schemed; yet all devising belongs to Allah. He knows what every soul earns. Soon the faithless will know in whose favour the outcome of that abode will be. (42)

https://tanzil.net/#trans/en.qarai/13:39

A discussion about divine decrees.

According to what is obtained from the verses and narrations, Allah's decrees are of two types:

1- Matters that have a permanent interest and therefore the law is also permanent. Like the verses:(ما يبدّل القول لدّي )  (334) There is no way to change in our words. (كل ءك ءك عنده ج قدار) (335) Everything in the sight of the Lord has an accurate account and book. Such fates are recorded in the reserved tablet (S. Loh Tawafooz) (336) and only those who are close to Allah  with the permission of Allah can become aware of it. (كتاب مرقوم . يلاك ده اثقرّبون ).

(337)

2- Matters that are uncertain and their interests are subject to people's actions and behavior, such as people repenting of their sins which leads to the benefit of forgiveness, or giving charity which brings the benefit of warding off calamity, or oppression and injustice which is due to its corruption , It will be followed by  divine wrath. It means that Allah Almighty does not have his hands tied in managing the system of creation and with his infinite wisdom and knowledge, he can make changes in the creation and its laws by changing the conditions. It is obvious that these changes are not a sign of ignorance of the Almighty Allah or His reconsideration and regret, but rather these changes are based on the wisdom and change of conditions or the end of the period of that matter.

The Holy Qur'an has many examples in this field, we mention a few examples:

الف A: (ادعوص استجب لكم ) (338) : Pray that I will answer for you. Man can get his benefits and change his destiny by supplication.

 B : Allah's law is not fixed everywhere, maybe Allah will create a new plan when the necessary conditions appear.

بB : (لعل ّاللّله ب دث بعد ذلك امرا)  لَعَلَّ اللَّهَ يُحْدِثُ بَعْدَ ذَٰلِكَ أَمْرًا ‎﴿١﴾

(339)  You never know maybe Allah will bring off something new later on. (1)

Quote

O Prophet! When you divorce women, divorce them at [the conclusion of] their term and calculate the term, and be wary of Allah, your Lord. Do not turn them out from their homes, nor shall they go out, unless they commit a gross indecency. These are Allah’s bounds, and whoever transgresses the bounds of Allah certainly wrongs himself. You never know maybe Allah will bring off something new later on. (1)

https://tanzil.net/#trans/en.qarai/65:1

Quote

C:Everyone in the heavens and the earth asks Him. Every day He is engaged in some work. (29)

https://tanzil.net/#trans/en.qarai/55:29

D:So when they swerved [from the right path], Allah made their hearts swerve, and Allah does not guide the transgressing lot. (5)

https://tanzil.net/#trans/en.qarai/61:5

E:If the people of the towns had been faithful and Godwary, We would have opened to them blessings from the heaven and the earth. But they denied; so We seized them because of what they used to earn. (96)

https://tanzil.net/#trans/en.qarai/7:96

F: except those who repent, attain faith, and act righteously. For such, Allah will replace their misdeeds with good deeds, and Allah is all-forgiving, all-merciful. (70)

https://tanzil.net/#trans/en.qarai/25:70

G:but if you revert, We [too] will revert

https://tanzil.net/#trans/en.qarai/17:8

H:Indeed Allah does not change a people’s lot, unless they change what is in their souls.

https://tanzil.net/#trans/en.qarai/13:11

https://library.tebyan.net/fa/Viewer/Text/60909/39

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 1/24/2023 at 4:14 PM, kadhim said:

Dude, what are you even talking about? For real.

Salam you clearly have understood it so then you have used your typical saecasm defense for escaping to forward which your conclusion is against holy Quran.

On 1/24/2023 at 12:51 AM, kadhim said:

Proved: It is impossible for even God to make rules that apply equally to groups of people who are too different in their characteristics. God cannot “do anything” when it comes to lawmaking. 

 

On 1/24/2023 at 12:51 AM, kadhim said:

Response: It is not theologically sound to claim all things are possible for God. Some things are logically impossible. Some things are mathematically impossible. Some things are ethically impossible given God’s status as the most good. Some things are impossible for even God to do.

 

On 1/24/2023 at 12:51 AM, kadhim said:

Response: As an analogy, think of the case of children and adults as groups. Imagine trying to make one set of rules that is exactly the same for both and works for both. Could that work? Would whatever anyone came up with be effective, and be tolerable? Answer: No. Adults and children have different levels of maturity, different capabilities, different needs. What makes sense for adults doesn’t make sense for children. What makes sense for children doesn’t work for adults. Can we imagine even God being able to do such a thing? No. Both because of reason, and because we see from our texts that God have different rules for adults and children in the same time period.

Question: If Allah's knowledge is the same as His essence and cannot be changed, then whatever has passed in His knowledge must reach the stage of action, otherwise it will be ignorance.

Answer: Allah's knowledge is based on the system of causes and means, in such a way that he knows that if this means is used, this result will follow if another menas is used so then  there will be another resulst, and his knowledge is not separate from the knowledge of causes and maens. .. (346) One of the objections that Sunnis make against Shia is that they say:

Shia accuse  Allah to "Bada'" and according to them, "Bada'" means a change in divine knowledge and the discovery of a contradiction to Allah, while the Shia's definition of Bada' is the appearance of something that we humans thought was contrary about it.

((Bada')) in creation is like abrogation in the law, like when we think from the appearance of a law or a ruling that it is permanent, but after a while we see that it has changed. Of course, this does not mean the legislator's regret or ignorance, but the circumstances caused this change in the law, just like the prescription that the doctor writes according to the patient's current condition, but as soon as his condition changes, he prescribes a new prescription. Therefore, just as the abrogation of verses, which is actually a type of bada', has been accepted by all Islamic sects from Shia and Sunni, they should accept bada' with the same meaning and expression. So Bada' means our ignorance, not Allahd's ignorance.

Examples of Bada'

1- We thought that God, who commanded Ibrahim (عليه السلام) to slaughter his son, wanted Ismail (عليه السلام) to be killed and his blood spilled on the ground, but later it appeared that Allah's will was a test of the father. It is not the killing of the boy.

2- We thought from the promise of allah to Prophet Musa (عليه السلام) that the prayer period was thirty nights, (and we promised thirty nights) (347), but later it appeared that the program was forty nights from the beginning, but allah made it a test. He announced it in two stages, first thirty nights and then ten nights.

3- We used to think that the Qiblah of the Muslims is forever Bayt al-Maqdis, but the verses of changing the Qiblah revealed to us that the permanent Qiblah was the Kaaba.

4- When the signs of allah's wrath appeared, even Prophet Yunus (عليه السلام) was sure that Allah's punishment would descend and his unbelieving people would be destroyed, so he went out from among the people, but the people believed and allah's wrath was removed. .

(348) In any case, it does not mean Allah's ignorance and changing His knowledge d, because allah knew from the beginning that Ishmael's blood would not be shed, the duration of Moses' prayers is forty nights, the permanent Qibla of Muslims will be the Kaaba, and the people of Yunus are the people of salvation. But the appearance of orders and events was such that people had a different idea. So there has been no change in allah's knowledge and we are the ones who have gained a new vision.

Bada' in this sense has many educational effects, such as the fact that a person remains hopeful for a change in conditions until the last moment of his life, the spirit of trust is revived in him, he does not become a prisoner of appearances, man's faith in the unseen and the power of Allah Almighty will become greater. it is possible. He tries to change the course of events and allah's wrath with repentance, charity, prayers and supplications.

Imam Sadiq ((عليه السلام).) said: allah has made a covenant with all the prophets along with monotheism, to believe in bada'. In another hadith, we read: Whoever thinks that a new issue has become clear to allah, which he did not know before, abandon him.. (349)

Messages:

1-Allah's hand is open for change in the formation or legislation system. (Allah willing)

2- allah has not left his creation alone.

3- It is in the hands of Allah to erase or prove the rules governing the universe. (By Allah...)

4- Allah's erasure and proof is based on wisdom and knowledge. . (و عنده ام الكتاب )

6- The world of creation has a book in which all events are recorded. (Al-Kitab)

https://library.tebyan.net/fa/Viewer/Text/60909/39

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Bada'

http://www.shiapen.com/comprehensive/bada/nawasib-contaminate-bada.html

Question: If Allah's knowledge is the same as His essence and cannot be changed, then whatever has passed in His knowledge must reach the stage of action, otherwise it will be ignorance.

Answer: Allah's knowledge is based on the system of causes and means, in such a way that he knows that if this means is used, this result will follow if another menas is used so then  there will be another resulst, and his knowledge is not separate from the knowledge of causes and maens. .. (346) One of the objections that Sunnis make against Shia is that they say:

Shia accuse  Allah to "Bada'" and according to them, "Bada'" means a change in divine knowledge and the discovery of a contradiction to Allah, while the Shia's definition of Bada' is the appearance of something that we humans thought was contrary about it.

((Bada')) in creation is like abrogation in the law, like when we think from the appearance of a law or a ruling that it is permanent, but after a while we see that it has changed. Of course, this does not mean the legislator's regret or ignorance, but the circumstances caused this change in the law, just like the prescription that the doctor writes according to the patient's current condition, but as soon as his condition changes, he prescribes a new prescription. Therefore, just as the abrogation of verses, which is actually a type of bada', has been accepted by all Islamic sects from Shia and Sunni, they should accept bada' with the same meaning and expression. So Bada' means our ignorance, not Allahd's ignorance.

Examples of Bada'

1- We thought that God, who commanded Ibrahim (عليه السلام) to slaughter his son, wanted Ismail (عليه السلام) to be killed and his blood spilled on the ground, but later it appeared that Allah's will was a test of the father. It is not the killing of the boy.

2- We thought from the promise of allah to Prophet Musa (عليه السلام) that the prayer period was thirty nights, (and we promised thirty nights) (347), but later it appeared that the program was forty nights from the beginning, but allah made it a test. He announced it in two stages, first thirty nights and then ten nights.

3- We used to think that the Qiblah of the Muslims is forever Bayt al-Maqdis, but the verses of changing the Qiblah revealed to us that the permanent Qiblah was the Kaaba.

4- When the signs of allah's wrath appeared, even Prophet Yunus (عليه السلام) was sure that Allah's punishment would descend and his unbelieving people would be destroyed, so he went out from among the people, but the people believed and allah's wrath was removed. .

(348) In any case, it does not mean Allah's ignorance and changing His knowledge d, because allah knew from the beginning that Ishmael's blood would not be shed, the duration of Moses' prayers is forty nights, the permanent Qibla of Muslims will be the Kaaba, and the people of Yunus are the people of salvation. But the appearance of orders and events was such that people had a different idea. So there has been no change in allah's knowledge and we are the ones who have gained a new vision.

Bada' in this sense has many educational effects, such as the fact that a person remains hopeful for a change in conditions until the last moment of his life, the spirit of trust is revived in him, he does not become a prisoner of appearances, man's faith in the unseen and the power of Allah Almighty will become greater. it is possible. He tries to change the course of events and allah's wrath with repentance, charity, prayers and supplications.

Imam Sadiq ((عليه السلام).) said: allah has made a covenant with all the prophets along with monotheism, to believe in bada'. In another hadith, we read: Whoever thinks that a new issue has become clear to allah, which he did not know before, abandon him.. (349)

Messages:

1-Allah's hand is open for change in the formation or legislation system. (Allah willing)

2- allah has not left his creation alone.

3- It is in the hands of Allah to erase or prove the rules governing the universe. (By Allah...)

4- Allah's erasure and proof is based on wisdom and knowledge. . (و عنده ام الكتاب )

6- The world of creation has a book in which all events are recorded. (Al-Kitab)

http://www.shiapen.com/comprehensive/bada/nawasib-contaminate-bada.html

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Bada'

https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234931143-badah/

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 1/24/2023 at 4:14 PM, kadhim said:

1400 years ago a 13 year old boy would be considered a mature adult ready for the adult world of the day.  

What is the likelihood even a pretty well-educated 13 year old could navigate the adult world on their own today? Honestly?

Salam Imam Jawad  (عليه السلام) has became Imam of all shias  when he has been only 7 years old which in simialr fashion imam Hadi (as) has became Imam at age of 9 which  in similar fashion Imam Mahdi (aj) has became Imam at age of 5 so according  to your logic you would deny their Imamate i because you don't believe that they couldn't "navigate the adult world on their own today"

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Imam_Muhammad_b._Ali_al-Jawad_(a)

https://hawzah.net/fa/Magazine/View/89/3441/16104/بررسی-امامت-حضرت-مهدی-"عج"-در-خردسالی

On 1/24/2023 at 4:14 PM, kadhim said:

And if you want to argue with that, put your money where your mouth is, and go lobby your government to let young people vote at the age of bulugh. And go find a clever 13 year old boy to manage your finances. 

Men  at Iran vote since age of Bulugh which based  Iran's law men can vote since when they become 18  solar years old which is very near to 15 lunar years old as age of Bulugh also I trust anyone that can manage   my finance better than myself even if he is 13 years old which for manging finance age is not important factor but on the other hand intelligence & ability of managing finance is important hther that person be 13 years old or younger .

https://www.imna.ir/news/500235/حداقل-سن-رای-دهندگان-انتخابات-۱۴۰۰

https://dolat.ir/detail/176459/اهمیت-کاهش-سن-راى-دهندگان-از-18-سال-به-15-سال

https://www.iribnews.ir/fa/news/3133551/سن-رای-دهندگان-باید-۱۸-سال-تمام-باشد

On 1/24/2023 at 4:14 PM, kadhim said:

People can do all kinds of things in extreme situations, but again, that’s not a relevant response here. For one, you’re again confusing “the some” for the “average.” And second, it’s not even coherent. 

It's not coherent according to your westerner viewpoint which in opposition majority of people can't manage situation in extreme situations which majority just do reaction but on the other hand only few people can mange situation

 

On 1/24/2023 at 4:14 PM, kadhim said:

Ultimately, as you yourself acknowledge, even classical Islamic Law recognizes that there is some dividing line between “children” and “mature adults,” with capabilities that are very different, and these two groups are given differing levels of responsibility according to that.

this is only statemanet that I have agreement with you .

On 1/24/2023 at 4:14 PM, kadhim said:

The average person from 1400 years ago would probably test as mentally challenged by modern standards.

Black Friday in western world refutes it because your so called intelligent westerners show  how much they are stupid & naive & even babaric .

 

On 1/24/2023 at 4:14 PM, kadhim said:

But just basic intelligence, IQ.

it's fixed in all times which we don't have someone likewise Edison , Tesla , Eineistein or Leonardo Davinci or Ibn Sina & etc which according to you logic you would call  Leonardo Davinci or Ibn Sina even Eineistein Edison , Tesla as stupid people according to your so called modern standards .

[kadhim]

2 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam you clearly have understood it so then you have used your typical saecasm defense for escaping to forward which your conclusion is against holy Quran.

 

 

Question: If Allah's knowledge is the same as His essence and cannot be changed, then whatever has passed in His knowledge must reach the stage of action, otherwise it will be ignorance.

Answer: Allah's knowledge is based on the system of causes and means, in such a way that he knows that if this means is used, this result will follow if another menas is used so then  there will be another resulst, and his knowledge is not separate from the knowledge of causes and maens. .. (346) One of the objections that Sunnis make against Shia is that they say:

Shia accuse  Allah to "Bada'" and according to them, "Bada'" means a change in divine knowledge and the discovery of a contradiction to Allah, while the Shia's definition of Bada' is the appearance of something that we humans thought was contrary about it.

((Bada')) in creation is like abrogation in the law, like when we think from the appearance of a law or a ruling that it is permanent, but after a while we see that it has changed. Of course, this does not mean the legislator's regret or ignorance, but the circumstances caused this change in the law, just like the prescription that the doctor writes according to the patient's current condition, but as soon as his condition changes, he prescribes a new prescription. Therefore, just as the abrogation of verses, which is actually a type of bada', has been accepted by all Islamic sects from Shia and Sunni, they should accept bada' with the same meaning and expression. So Bada' means our ignorance, not Allahd's ignorance.

Examples of Bada'

1- We thought that God, who commanded Ibrahim (عليه السلام) to slaughter his son, wanted Ismail (عليه السلام) to be killed and his blood spilled on the ground, but later it appeared that Allah's will was a test of the father. It is not the killing of the boy.

2- We thought from the promise of allah to Prophet Musa (عليه السلام) that the prayer period was thirty nights, (and we promised thirty nights) (347), but later it appeared that the program was forty nights from the beginning, but allah made it a test. He announced it in two stages, first thirty nights and then ten nights.

3- We used to think that the Qiblah of the Muslims is forever Bayt al-Maqdis, but the verses of changing the Qiblah revealed to us that the permanent Qiblah was the Kaaba.

4- When the signs of allah's wrath appeared, even Prophet Yunus (عليه السلام) was sure that Allah's punishment would descend and his unbelieving people would be destroyed, so he went out from among the people, but the people believed and allah's wrath was removed. .

(348) In any case, it does not mean Allah's ignorance and changing His knowledge d, because allah knew from the beginning that Ishmael's blood would not be shed, the duration of Moses' prayers is forty nights, the permanent Qibla of Muslims will be the Kaaba, and the people of Yunus are the people of salvation. But the appearance of orders and events was such that people had a different idea. So there has been no change in allah's knowledge and we are the ones who have gained a new vision.

Bada' in this sense has many educational effects, such as the fact that a person remains hopeful for a change in conditions until the last moment of his life, the spirit of trust is revived in him, he does not become a prisoner of appearances, man's faith in the unseen and the power of Allah Almighty will become greater. it is possible. He tries to change the course of events and allah's wrath with repentance, charity, prayers and supplications.

Imam Sadiq ((عليه السلام).) said: allah has made a covenant with all the prophets along with monotheism, to believe in bada'. In another hadith, we read: Whoever thinks that a new issue has become clear to allah, which he did not know before, abandon him.. (349)

Messages:

1-Allah's hand is open for change in the formation or legislation system. (Allah willing)

2- allah has not left his creation alone.

3- It is in the hands of Allah to erase or prove the rules governing the universe. (By Allah...)

4- Allah's erasure and proof is based on wisdom and knowledge. . (و عنده ام الكتاب )

6- The world of creation has a book in which all events are recorded. (Al-Kitab)

https://library.tebyan.net/fa/Viewer/Text/60909/39

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Bada'

http://www.shiapen.com/comprehensive/bada/nawasib-contaminate-bada.html

Question: If Allah's knowledge is the same as His essence and cannot be changed, then whatever has passed in His knowledge must reach the stage of action, otherwise it will be ignorance.

Answer: Allah's knowledge is based on the system of causes and means, in such a way that he knows that if this means is used, this result will follow if another menas is used so then  there will be another resulst, and his knowledge is not separate from the knowledge of causes and maens. .. (346) One of the objections that Sunnis make against Shia is that they say:

Shia accuse  Allah to "Bada'" and according to them, "Bada'" means a change in divine knowledge and the discovery of a contradiction to Allah, while the Shia's definition of Bada' is the appearance of something that we humans thought was contrary about it.

((Bada')) in creation is like abrogation in the law, like when we think from the appearance of a law or a ruling that it is permanent, but after a while we see that it has changed. Of course, this does not mean the legislator's regret or ignorance, but the circumstances caused this change in the law, just like the prescription that the doctor writes according to the patient's current condition, but as soon as his condition changes, he prescribes a new prescription. Therefore, just as the abrogation of verses, which is actually a type of bada', has been accepted by all Islamic sects from Shia and Sunni, they should accept bada' with the same meaning and expression. So Bada' means our ignorance, not Allahd's ignorance.

Examples of Bada'

1- We thought that God, who commanded Ibrahim (عليه السلام) to slaughter his son, wanted Ismail (عليه السلام) to be killed and his blood spilled on the ground, but later it appeared that Allah's will was a test of the father. It is not the killing of the boy.

2- We thought from the promise of allah to Prophet Musa (عليه السلام) that the prayer period was thirty nights, (and we promised thirty nights) (347), but later it appeared that the program was forty nights from the beginning, but allah made it a test. He announced it in two stages, first thirty nights and then ten nights.

3- We used to think that the Qiblah of the Muslims is forever Bayt al-Maqdis, but the verses of changing the Qiblah revealed to us that the permanent Qiblah was the Kaaba.

4- When the signs of allah's wrath appeared, even Prophet Yunus (عليه السلام) was sure that Allah's punishment would descend and his unbelieving people would be destroyed, so he went out from among the people, but the people believed and allah's wrath was removed. .

(348) In any case, it does not mean Allah's ignorance and changing His knowledge d, because allah knew from the beginning that Ishmael's blood would not be shed, the duration of Moses' prayers is forty nights, the permanent Qibla of Muslims will be the Kaaba, and the people of Yunus are the people of salvation. But the appearance of orders and events was such that people had a different idea. So there has been no change in allah's knowledge and we are the ones who have gained a new vision.

Bada' in this sense has many educational effects, such as the fact that a person remains hopeful for a change in conditions until the last moment of his life, the spirit of trust is revived in him, he does not become a prisoner of appearances, man's faith in the unseen and the power of Allah Almighty will become greater. it is possible. He tries to change the course of events and allah's wrath with repentance, charity, prayers and supplications.

Imam Sadiq ((عليه السلام).) said: allah has made a covenant with all the prophets along with monotheism, to believe in bada'. In another hadith, we read: Whoever thinks that a new issue has become clear to allah, which he did not know before, abandon him.. (349)

Messages:

1-Allah's hand is open for change in the formation or legislation system. (Allah willing)

2- allah has not left his creation alone.

3- It is in the hands of Allah to erase or prove the rules governing the universe. (By Allah...)

4- Allah's erasure and proof is based on wisdom and knowledge. . (و عنده ام الكتاب )

6- The world of creation has a book in which all events are recorded. (Al-Kitab)

http://www.shiapen.com/comprehensive/bada/nawasib-contaminate-bada.html

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Bada'

https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234931143-badah/

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is all totally irrelevant. None of this has anything to do with the concept of bada’. God’s knowledge—which is constant and all-encompassing—is not part of the discussion. Rather, what is mathematically possible. 

Edited January 26 by kadhim

[kadhim]

51 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam Imam Jawad  (عليه السلام) has became Imam of all shias  when he has been only 7 years old which in simialr fashion imam Hadi (as) has became Imam at age of 9 which  in similar fashion Imam Mahdi (aj) has became Imam at age of 5 so according  to your logic you would deny their Imamate i because you don't believe that they couldn't "navigate the adult world on their own today"

Again, this is mixing up statements about isolated individuals with statements about the overall average of people. Law-making is not based on the exceptional. It is based on the larger overall mass of people. 

51 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Men  at Iran vote since age of Bulugh which based  Iran's law men can vote since when they become 18  solar years old which is very near to 15 lunar years old as age of Bulugh

You’re contradicting yourself in the same sentence. 
 

51 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

it's fixed in all times which we don't have someone likewise Edison , Tesla , Eineistein or Leonardo Davinci or Ibn Sina & etc which according to you logic you would call  Leonardo Davinci or Ibn Sina even Eineistein Edison , Tesla as stupid people according to your so called modern standards .

There is a link there, so unfortunately, “is not” doesn’t cut it as an answer. And the link already answered this.

Intelligence is not only genetics. It’s the nutrition of the mother while in the womb, the stimulation of the early environment, the nutrition of early childhood. And other factors. Average intelligence is substantially higher than it was in the premodern period. 

And again, we’re talking about overall averages here. Isolated exceptional people of the past are not a response to this. 

Edited January 26 by kadhim

[Guest Guest 12345]

On 1/24/2023 at 10:38 AM, kadhim said:

I think you’re not completely understanding the argument here. The argument is not that fiqh should be static up until a certain point, and then a threshold is reached and things are different enough that they have to change. I think you’re maybe understanding the example of children and adults too broadly literally as an analogy.  The argument is simply that the whole idea of the rules being fixed for all time was incorrect and impossible all along. Because in crucial ways relevant to law-making humans are not a constant.

The fact that even in the traditional period, there was a recognition that laws need to be different because of the age-related maturity level of an individual human being is explicit proof of that principle, but no, I’m not saying there is a discrete, two stage immature vs mature movement for all of humanity. It’s more continuous in the case of mankind as the whole. 

And because the assumption that you can in general legislate everything once and for all, for all time is incorrect, that means the default assumption is that the rules will change in an ongoing basis over time.

The argument wasn't addressing the impossibility of a static fiqh.

Rather, it was pointing out the issues with a dynamic fiqh, i.e. subjectivity, which you haven't fully addressed.

So, I gotta ask again, by what means do you determine a change/revision is necessary? I really don't think you can answer that objectively, which is the crux of the prior argument.

For example, you previously mentioned an exemption should be made for homosexuals based on, please correct me if I am wrong, the difficult arising with controlling a natural urge, which has no approved outlet.

My question for the example above is: Is there a threshold of difficulty? If so? Would you apply the same to someone looking to get married (temp and perm) but after sometime hasn't been able to get married, would they be able to claim a similar exemptions, for their difficulties, and maybe opt to self-pleasure?

If so, is there a hard line in the sand for difficulties that should be endured?

On 1/24/2023 at 10:38 AM, kadhim said:

The fact that even in the traditional period, there was a recognition that laws need to be different because of the age-related maturity level of an individual human being is explicit proof of that principle, but no, I’m not saying there is a discrete, two stage immature vs mature movement for all of humanity. It’s more continuous in the case of mankind as the whole. 

And because the assumption that you can in general legislate everything once and for all, for all time is incorrect, that means the default assumption is that the rules will change in an ongoing basis over time.

I do think it's possible to legislate laws all at once, as you can embed exemptions that cover all possible cases, as we're dealing with a limited scope, not infinities (the world will end and so will its laws). Exemptions don't take away from "timelessness" of a legal code.

Additionally, the legal code hasn't been fully flushed out, so the change you might be referring to "could" have been addressed by an exemption. The issue of contention is that you might be suggesting a highly subjective processes of determining said exemptions.

On 1/24/2023 at 10:38 AM, kadhim said:

By default, the assumption is that rules will change over time to reflect the changing needs, knowledge, awareness, abilities, and other characteristics of humankind. But, on some specific cases, it is conceivable that some rules for some things will remain equally useful over time. For example, we might expect that a lot of the basics of prayer and fasting and hajj would remain largely constant. If a rule is provably still useful, it can remain. If it ain’t broke, we don’t need to fix it.

The issue I have is, what is considered useful? As, mentioned above, the exercise seems prone to excessive subjectivity and potentially misuse.

[kadhim]

8 hours ago, Guest Guest 12345 said:

The argument wasn't addressing the impossibility of a static fiqh.

Rather, it was pointing out the issues with a dynamic fiqh, i.e. subjectivity, which you haven't fully addressed.

So, I gotta ask again, by what means do you determine a change/revision is necessary? I really don't think you can answer that objectively, which is the crux of the prior argument.

Yeah, again, it’s not a valid question, because logically and practically the default is that rules are contextual and continually need to evolve to stay relevant to reality. So the real question is more the inverse of this.

How do we identify the few key things that deserve to remain constant? This is where the burden of proof actually lies. 
 

8 hours ago, Guest Guest 12345 said:

For example, you previously mentioned an exemption should be made for homosexuals based on, please correct me if I am wrong, the difficult arising with controlling a natural urge, which has no approved outlet.

You’re misrepresenting the argument there a fair bit actually. The difficulty faced by these people was raised, but largely to motivate the need to take a second look at the situation. The actual argument for an exemption for these people is not based simply on the difficulty, but on the fact that the act in itself is not harmful to anyone, rather the problem is larger social effects if it becomes chosen in too widespread a fashion by people who would otherwise marry as heterosexuals and have families, that purely gay and lesbian people, lacking heterosexual desire, have no connection to those dynamics, they weren’t even known about classically, etc. 

So the example/analogy is not relevant to the question at hand. And again, your question is not valid. I’m not arguing rules are static until some threshold; I’m saying the default is things change. So I don’t see any reason I would have to define a line in the sand where between before and after. The needs of reality change all the time. 

Now. There is a certain social stability involved in not changing the rules every other day, so practically, as lawmakers, we need to handle change in steps. Law is a step function discretely approximating a continuous curve rather than a continuous curve. Keep it here for a while, then adjust, keep it there for a while, adjust. There’s a balance between stability and responsiveness that has to be managed. That’s where the actual question is. How long can we reasonably keep a rule static (5 years? 10 years? 20 years? 100 years?) amidst a changing world for these reasons of buffering to legal and social stability concerns? 
 

9 hours ago, Guest Guest 12345 said:

I do think it's possible to legislate laws all at once, as you can embed exemptions that cover all possible cases, as we're dealing with a limited scope, not infinities (the world will end and so will its laws). Exemptions don't take away from "timelessness" of a legal code.

Additionally, the legal code hasn't been fully flushed out, so the change you might be referring to "could" have been addressed by an exemption. The issue of contention is that you might be suggesting a highly subjective processes of determining said exemptions.

The idea of reform by incremental exemptions is interesting and I think works for some cases but I don’t think it’s a general solution or general approach.

The incremental approach works when we have some phenomenon which is for the most part, all things being equal, problematic, in some pretty stable or universal way. But where, as time goes by and our understanding grows, we uncover corner cases where the “general truth” doesn’t apply. Same sex activity is in fact an example I think where it makes sense to handle it like that. There is a pretty good lasting reason to tell most people not to do gay stuff. Population, lineage. That holds up Ok. But time goes by we understand there are smaller groups where the same reasoning doesn’t apply, and you can relax for them alone without upsetting the broader balance. Some cases that works out. I don’t think it’s a general approach though. 

And the problem with the idea of legislating all the corner cases and exceptions all at once. It becomes unwieldy to present it. And you also have the problem that your audience might not even be at the level yet mentally to conceptualize all the cases. How do you give the case for a group no one even knows exists yet? It’s a challenge for the audience and a challenge for the lawbringer who has to try to explain this to the people.

The homosexuality example again. People knew about same sex activity. But they conceptualized it as people can get turned on by both men and women, but people really need to stick to the opposite sex, because that’s how babies are made and the show must go on. The idea that some people were wired to only want to be with the same sex? Incomprehensible to the people of the day. 

Or slavery. Imagine trying to explain the case or virtue of a world without slavery in 600 CE. It was just everywhere. 

Or a world without patriarchy in the same time period. 

Even if it were theoretically possible to give, once and for all, the Napoleonic Codex of Islamic Law like that — which, again, it isn’t — you wouldn’t be able to unpack it in one shot anyway. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 1/26/2023 at 2:44 PM, kadhim said:

And again, we’re talking about overall averages here. Isolated exceptional people of the past are not a response to this.

Salam , I have not talked about exceptional people of the past while you deny everything because every rule is related to people of the past.

On 1/26/2023 at 2:44 PM, kadhim said:

You’re contradicting yourself in the same sentence. 

Both of Men & women in Iran can vote since becoming 18 years old which for men is near to 15 lunar years old anyway there is suggestions about reducing it to 15 solar years old .

On 1/26/2023 at 2:44 PM, kadhim said:

Again, this is mixing up statements about isolated individuals with statements about the overall average of people. Law-making is not based on the exceptional. It is based on the larger overall mass of people. 

you have taken my examples about isolated individuals while Ihave talked about averge people which you have claimed any average people at our era are more intelligent from from any intelligent person from people of past .

On 1/26/2023 at 2:44 PM, kadhim said:

There is a link there, so unfortunately, “is not” doesn’t cut it as an answer. And the link already answered this.

Intelligence is not only genetics. It’s the nutrition of the mother while in the womb, the stimulation of the early environment, the nutrition of early childhood. And other factors. Average intelligence is substantially higher than it was in the premodern period. 

And again, we’re talking about overall averages here. Isolated exceptional people of the past are not a response to this. 

it's just your claim which you have claimed any average people at our era are more intelligent from from any intelligent person from people of past .

Quote

Like most aspects of human behavior and cognition, intelligence is a complex trait that is influenced by both genetic and environmental factors. Intelligence is challenging to study, in part because it can be defined and measured in different ways.

https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/traits/intelligence/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-intelligence-hereditary/

https://www.nature.com/articles/5201588

[kadhim]

5 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

it's just your claim which you have claimed any average people at our era are more intelligent from from any intelligent person from people of past .

I didn’t make that claim. I said an average person from today would be above average intelligence in the past. That doesn’t mean they would be a genius beating every genius of the past. It just means the average person of today sent back in time would be considered quite smart. 

[Ashvazdanghe]

16 hours ago, kadhim said:

It just means the average person of today sent back in time would be considered quite smart. 

Salam that person maybe considered as most knowledgeable or highly educated but there is no guarantee that average  person is considered as quit smart because any average person in our era nearly have easy access to any source of knowledge through many means likewise internet & etc but on the other hand majority of people of past likewise people at 19th century only have had limited access to sources of knowledge just through hard copies of books & limited number of knowledgeable  persons which due that many smart people until 20th century before advent of internet couldn't receive enough education .

[kadhim]

14 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam that person maybe considered as most knowledgeable or highly educated but there is no guarantee that average  person is considered as quit smart because any average person in our era nearly have easy access to any source of knowledge through many means likewise internet & etc but on the other hand majority of people of past likewise people at 19th century only have had limited access to sources of knowledge just through hard copies of books & limited number of knowledgeable  persons which due that many smart people until 20th century before advent of internet couldn't receive enough education .

Books and learning resources and education have an impact on people realizing their capabilities. But there is also an impact even earlier in the first years just from spending the first years in a more informationally complex environment. There is also, prenatally the factor of better maternal nutrition and prenatal care. All of these factors add up to modern people being on the average inherently more intelligent, and also more able to realize the potential of that intelligence. 

Altogether, this makes the difference between the average modern person and the average premodern/medieval person as something like the difference between that of an adult and a child. 

[Ashvazdanghe]

6 hours ago, kadhim said:

Altogether, this makes the difference between the average modern person and the average premodern/medieval person as something like the difference between that of an adult and a child. 

Salam certainly their difference is not too much as you have stated which all of well nutrition & high quality education & other factors of good nurture maybe lead to around  10%-20%  increasing of general intelligence also a premodern/medieval person maybe  has stronger intelligence for survival  like EQ in hard situation due to living in harsher situation than an average modern person so therefore their difference won't be too much which even if you can replace thm with each other after a while their ability of survival & flexibility & compatibility can makes their score near to each other .

[Ashvazdanghe]

6 hours ago, kadhim said:

Books and learning resources and education have an impact on people realizing their capabilities. But there is also an impact even earlier in the first years just from spending the first years in a more informationally complex environment. There is also, prenatally the factor of better maternal nutrition and prenatal care. All of these factors add up to modern people being on the average inherently more intelligent, and also more able to realize the potential of that intelligence. 

Altogether, this makes the difference between the average modern person and the average premodern/medieval person as something like the difference between that of an adult and a child. 

Salam you have a point in first paragraph anyway respectfully i don't agrre with your conclusion in second paragraph which your conclusion is just based on insisting about your ideas which has no relation to first paragraph .

[Evolution of human brain and intelligence]

Quote

The main drive of improving manual actions and tool making could be to obtain more food. Our ancestor got more meat due to more successful hunting, resulting in more caloric intake, more protein and essential fatty acid in the meal. The nervous system uses disproportionally high level of energy, so better quality of food was a basic condition for the evolution of huge human brain. The size of human brain was tripled during 3.5 million years, it increased from the average of 450 cm3 of Australopithecinae to the average of 1350 cm3 of Homo sapiens. A genetic change in the system controlling gene expression could happen about 200 000 years ago, which influenced the development of nervous system, the sensorimotor function and learning ability for motor processes. The appearance and stabilisation of FOXP2 gene structure as feature of modern man coincided with the first presence and quick spread of Homo sapiens on the whole Earth. This genetic modification made opportunity for human language, as the basis of abrupt evolution of human intelligence. The brain region being responsible for human language is the left planum temporale, which is much larger in left hemisphere. This shows the most typical human brain asymmetry. In this case the anatomical asymmetry means a clearly defined functional asymmetry as well, where the brain hemispheres act differently.

 

 

Quote

Nevertheless, the human intelligence is extremely flexible and different, while the animal intelligence is specialised, producing one thing at high level. Based on recent knowledge the level of intelligence is related anatomically to the number of cortical neurons and physiologically to the speed of conductivity of neural pathways, the latter being dependent on the degree of myelinisation. The improvement of cognitive functions including language is driver by the need of more effective communication requiring less energy, the need of social dominance, the competitive advantages within smaller groups and species or against other species, which improves the opportunity for obtaining food. Better mental skills give also sexual dominance, which is beneficial for stabilising "cleverness" genes. The evolutionary history of human consciousness emphasises its adaptive survival helping nature. The evolution of language was the basic condition of conscious thinking as a qualitative change, which fundamentally differentiate us from all other creatures.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18763477/

The emergence of humans: The coevolution of intelligence and longevity with intergenerational transfers

Quote

The large human brain is an investment with initial costs and later rewards, which coevolved with increased energy allocations to survival. Not only does this theory help explain life history variation among primates and its extreme evolution in humans; it also provides new insight into the evolution of longevity in other biological systems.

 

Quote

To understand this relationship, it is necessary to model the simultaneous action of natural selection on brain size and longevity. However, most studies of brain evolution have ignored longevity and have focused either on the benefits or the costs of brains, but not both.

 

Quote

The action of natural selection on the neural tissue involved in learning, memory, and the processing of stored information depends on the costs and benefits realized over the organism's lifetime. There are potentially substantial energetic costs of growing the brain early in life and of maintaining neural tissue throughout life. Among humans, for example, about 65% of all resting energetic expenditure is used to support the maintenance and growth of the brain in the first year of life (16). Another potential cost of the brain is lower performance early in life. The ability to learn may entail reductions in “preprogrammed” behavioral routines and so decrease early performance. The incompetence of human infants, and even children, in many motor tasks is an example.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.152502899