Richard Dawkins will give away The God Delusion to Muslims

[miandadrules]

Try David Sloan Wilson.

I’m familiar with his work. Not surprising you’d try and clutch at straws.

But I’m more the happy to go down this route.

What are his most compelling points which you feel refute Dawkins work and his points that have influenced posters on here to dismiss the God delusion (which is what my original point was)?

Who are you going to reference next, Jordan Peterson?

 

[miandadrules]

I love how you take the directive from me to my “belief system”. Instead of recognizing the historical context and what it did, you judge it based on 21st century outlooks. Slaves in 7th century Arabia were freed by their owners who wanted to rid themselves of sin. Granted not all of them but they were not hunted down like dogs, which was the way of the world until the mid-to-late 19th century.

Let’s talk context.

Muhammad had direct access to the most powerful entity possible, split the moon in half, his followers believed his word was law and that he was the personification of perfection but was helpless to end slavery?

And millions upon millions spent their entire existence in bondage.

That’s your justification?

Context: when he needed numbers he talked of freedom. As soon as he gained power and the Quraish monopoly consolidated its power suddenly emancipation wasn’t a priority.

Why are you even trying to bring context (and failing miserably) when Islamic tenets demand that Muhammad be accepted unequivocally as “perfection” and the Quran the eternal word of Allah (which is an oxymoron)?

 

[miandadrules]

Aisha R.A. stated that if the Prophet outlawed alcohol from the beginning than they would have never converted in the first place. It was towards the end of his life that alcohol was completely abolished. Same as slavery, which underwent radical transformation during the Prophet's reign. In fact, in just 23 years, he single-handingly changed millennia of Arab tradition. No other revolution in human history has done the same in such a short span. As for whether it is an eternal message or historical context, that is up to you to decide. The purpose of that post was to show how the slave reforms were radical, same as the women's rights reforms. Slavery has been disbanded in all of the modernized world today yet even reducing it came into question a few centuries ago, in 1803, after a successful slave revolt in Haiti.

She would have been 11 at the time of the ban and probably had not grasp of the ground reality when it was permissible, so how can her view be given credence?

Banning Alcohol and Pork was more important than slavery?

I’m more inclined to believe that he banned alcohol because his troops weren’t cutting the mustard and carrying out his orders and then he had a convenient revelation like so many others that God has now forbade it.

For someone who has clearly stated that Ahmedis shouldn’t be allowed to call themselves Muslim, please clarify whether you think Muhammad and the Quran are eternal or just for their time.

And to the original question: did Islam ban slavery?

 

[ManFan]

She would have been 11 at the time of the ban and probably had not grasp of the ground reality when it was permissible, so how can her view be given credence?

Banning Alcohol and Pork was more important than slavery?

I’m more inclined to believe that he banned alcohol because his troops weren’t cutting the mustard and carrying out his orders and then he had a convenient revelation like so many others that God has now forbade it.

For someone who has clearly stated that Ahmedis shouldn’t be allowed to call themselves Muslim, please clarify whether you think Muhammad and the Quran are eternal or just for their time.

And to the original question: did Islam ban slavery?

So just because of her age, you are going to deny the account of someone who was historically present in that time?

As to your second point, nice try but it is a fallacious argument.

I think both are eternal.

Islam did not BAN slavery but it gave major reforms.

As far as the God Delusion discussion, I have said before I have no interest if it is proven or not. I gave sources of those that in my opinion have.

 

[ManFan]

She would have been 11 at the time of the ban and probably had not grasp of the ground reality when it was permissible, so how can her view be given credence?

Banning Alcohol and Pork was more important than slavery?

I’m more inclined to believe that he banned alcohol because his troops weren’t cutting the mustard and carrying out his orders and then he had a convenient revelation like so many others that God has now forbade it.

For someone who has clearly stated that Ahmedis shouldn’t be allowed to call themselves Muslim, please clarify whether you think Muhammad and the Quran are eternal or just for their time.

And to the original question: did Islam ban slavery?

What does any of this have to do with my opinion on Ahmedis?

 

[miandadrules]

So just because of her age, you are going to deny the account of someone who was historically present in that time?

As to your second point, nice try but it is a fallacious argument.

I think both are eternal.

Islam did not BAN slavery but it gave major reforms.

As far as the God Delusion discussion, I have said before I have no interest if it is proven or not. I gave sources of those that in my opinion have.

Yes, I think it’s fair to say that an account of an 11 year old at the time of prohibition and far younger when it was permissible isn’t a reliable source.

If both are eternal, then Slavery is acceptable?

I will ask again which points in your opinion refute the God delusion?

Did Islam ban slavery?

 

[miandadrules]

What does any of this have to do with my opinion on Ahmedis?

You’re more than happy to define others as non-Muslim. If you deny the eternal nature of the Quran, then you should accept others defining you as a non-Muslim and face the consequences that come with it.

And we know that the consequences in many Muslims is violence.

 

[ManFan]

You’re more than happy to define others as non-Muslim. If you deny the eternal nature of the Quran, then you should accept others defining you as a non-Muslim and face the consequences that come with it.

And we know that the consequences in many Muslims is violence.

The very basic belief of Islam the Ahmedis refute. It is crystal clear.

 

[ManFan]

Yes, I think it’s fair to say that an account of an 11 year old at the time of prohibition and far younger when it was permissible isn’t a reliable source.

If both are eternal, then Slavery is acceptable?

I will ask again which points in your opinion refute the God delusion?

Did Islam ban slavery?

Slavery was not acceptable than as it was tried and was made to be reformed.
I have answered your other questions twice now.

 

[miandadrules]

The very basic belief of Islam the Ahmedis refute. It is crystal clear.

If you deny the eternal nature of the Quran and Muhammad then you are too.

You’re more than happy to label others, knowing full well the consequences that entails but you’re not so brave when it’s your time to be defined by others.

 

[miandadrules]

Slavery was not acceptable than as it was tried and was made to be reformed.
I have answered your other questions twice now.

Simple yes or no. Did Islam prohibit slavery?

If not then how is the message eternal?

 

[ManFan]

If you deny the eternal nature of the Quran and Muhammad then you are too.

You’re more than happy to label others, knowing full well the consequences that entails but you’re not so brave when it’s your time to be defined by others.

It's not difficult to call someone who states their disbelief in the prophethood of Muhammad (P.B.U.H) as a Non-Muslim.
I find it ironic that you believe I am labelling them something they are not while I am simply calling them by their beliefs. Did I say they are bad people? Or deserve to be punished for their beliefs? No. Wonder who is making the assumptions now?

 

[ManFan]

Simple yes or no. Did Islam prohibit slavery?

If not then how is the message eternal?

NO.
But than why does the Quran use the same term to describe slave and master, rajul?

 

[ManFan]

[MENTION=1080]miandadrules[/MENTION] Hope this clears up the slavery issue:
When Islam came, for the situations where people were taken into slavery (e.g. debt), Islam imposed Shari’ah solutions to those situations other than slavery. ... It (Islam) made the existing slave and owner form a business contract, based upon the freedom, not upon slavery ... As for the situation of war, ... it clarified the rule of the captive in that either they are favoured by releasing without any exchange, or they are ransomed for money or exchanged for Muslims or non-Muslim citizens of the Caliphate.
By Taqiuddin al-Nabhani, a shariah judge and founder of Hizb ut-Tahrir movement.

 

[miandadrules]

NO.
But than why does the Quran use the same term to describe slave and master, rajul?

After all that subterfuge we finally get an answer.

You can try all the mental gymnastics you like but there is no escaping the fact that far from prohibiting slavery, it institutionalised it.

And millions upon millions spent their entire existence as slaves.

I would think anyone with even a shred of morality would be ashamed of defending such a practice, let alone praise it.

 

[ManFan]

After all that subterfuge we finally get an answer.

You can try all the mental gymnastics you like but there is no escaping the fact that far from prohibiting slavery, it institutionalised it.

And millions upon millions spent their entire existence as slaves.

I would think anyone with even a shred of morality would be ashamed of defending such a practice, let alone praise it.

Institutionalizing slavery? What a get out. You choose to ignore all the reforms. But let me guess, you’ll praise the current governments for doing so right? This is no longer a debate but a mental regurgitation.

 

[miandadrules]

It's not difficult to call someone who states their disbelief in the prophethood of Muhammad (P.B.U.H) as a Non-Muslim.
I find it ironic that you believe I am labelling them something they are not while I am simply calling them by their beliefs. Did I say they are bad people? Or deserve to be punished for their beliefs? No. Wonder who is making the assumptions now?

You should actually check the meaning of irony.

You are more than willing to define others despite the consequences but don’t want anyone defining you.

Don’t play innocent. You know full well what the consequences in Islamic societies by labelling one a non-Muslim but you happily do it.

So, what’s it going to be?

Either the Quran and Muhammad’s message is eternal and therefore it didn’t outlaw slavery but actually legitimised it.

Or you don’t believe they are eternal and hence you can be labelled a non-Muslim and you and your family can deal with the consequences of that label. “I’m not calling you a bad person, just calling you by your beliefs”.

I see quite the trend in your thinking. Subjugate the weak, be they slaves, Ahmedis or any other group and laud there persecution.

 

[miandadrules]

[MENTION=1080]miandadrules[/MENTION] Hope this clears up the slavery issue:
When Islam came, for the situations where people were taken into slavery (e.g. debt), Islam imposed Shari’ah solutions to those situations other than slavery. ... It (Islam) made the existing slave and owner form a business contract, based upon the freedom, not upon slavery ... As for the situation of war, ... it clarified the rule of the captive in that either they are favoured by releasing without any exchange, or they are ransomed for money or exchanged for Muslims or non-Muslim citizens of the Caliphate.
By Taqiuddin al-Nabhani, a shariah judge and founder of Hizb ut-Tahrir movement.

So it legitimised slavery?

And you think this is a counter point?

Let alone this is supposed to be directly from the creator of the universe? Delivered by Perfection personified with the ability to split the moon but is helpless to end the suffering of millions over a millennia?

What nonsense.

 

[miandadrules]

Institutionalizing slavery? What a get out. You choose to ignore all the reforms. But let me guess, you’ll praise the current governments for doing so right? This is no longer a debate but a mental regurgitation.

Genius, your reference stated as much.

 

[ManFan]

You should actually check the meaning of irony.

You are more than willing to define others despite the consequences but don’t want anyone defining you.

Don’t play innocent. You know full well what the consequences in Islamic societies by labelling one a non-Muslim but you happily do it.

So, what’s it going to be?

Either the Quran and Muhammad’s message is eternal and therefore it didn’t outlaw slavery but actually legitimised it.

Or you don’t believe they are eternal and hence you can be labelled a non-Muslim and you and your family can deal with the consequences of that label. “I’m not calling you a bad person, just calling you by your beliefs”.

I see quite the trend in your thinking. Subjugate the weak, be they slaves, Ahmedis or any other group and laud there persecution.

How do you know I subjugate the weak?

Ahmedis are not Muslim. That would be like calling a person who does not believe in the divinity of Christ as a Christian.

Islam did not outlaw slavery. I agree.

Islam made several dramatic reforms to it which were not seen until about 1200 years later. I also agree.

 

[JaDed]

Thank you for agreeing with the same assertion I made a couple of days back, I think the reason for that is because Abrahamic faiths have more clarity about the notion/delusion of God, whereas other religions of SC embrace faith and atheism and basically everything as their own. So you as a Hindu can claim to be a faithful Hindu and an atheist at the same time. Pakistani atheists aren't given that option, and thus they are forced to be much less wishy washy about their atheism, and thus the clarity of their arguments.

You probably are right and I defn envy Pakistani atheist for their clarity,

 

[TM Riddle]

Hitchens was easily the better writer and as such his book on Atheism was the better overall read. Dawkins is famous for that particularly eloquent opening paragraph-long tirade in his 350-page effort, however most of the remainder of the book is vacuous. Dawkins is best when he sticks to evolutionary science e.g. in The Selfish Gene which is a genuinely gripping and challenging piece.

Add the Blind watchmaker to the list as well. .

 

[TM Riddle]

Dawkins is arguably one of the greatest debators of our time and it's not surprising to see the same set people having a go at him who believes that Malala Yousafzai is an Amriki agent and 9/11 was a hoax.

 

[ManFan]

Dawkins is arguably one of the greatest debators of our time and it's not surprising to see the same set people having a go at him who believes that Malala Yousafzai is an Amriki agent and 9/11 was a hoax.

I enjoy listening to Dawkins. His voice and accent make it soothing to listen to him. But nobody beats the Hitch. Even being a Muslim, it is hard to ignore the pure charisma of the man.

 

[TM Riddle]

I enjoy listening to Dawkins. His voice and accent make it soothing to listen to him. But nobody beats the Hitch. Even being a Muslim, it is hard to ignore the pure charisma of the man.

Hitch was something else. Nobdoy comes close. Nobody.
Dawkins is more like in Amla league.

 

[ManFan]

Hitch was something else. Nobdoy comes close. Nobody.
Dawkins is more like in Amla league.

Lol. I guess that’s a fair comparison.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

You probably are right and I defn envy Pakistani atheist for their clarity,

You should take inspiration from them and use them as a role model, who's to say you can't reach their heights one day? As they bash the religious dogmas of Islam, you could do the same for the religious dogmas of Hinduism/ Sikhism.

 

[Sidilicious]

Hitch was something else. Nobdoy comes close. Nobody.
Dawkins is more like in Amla league.

Hitchens had the wit and the command of the English language making him one of the greatest orators. Add to that his anecdotes and he is by far one of the greatest speakers. When discussing about religions, he would bring logic to the mix, destroying every theistic argument.

Dawkins makes points that are really interesting for Science fans, but they are not as captivating as Hitchens'. None the less, along with Sam Harris and Neil De Grass Tyson, Dawkins is one of the greatest legends if the modern day and warriors against ignorance.

 

[Robert]

Add the Blind watchmaker to the list as well. .

I read it the year it was published. Tough going, as the guy is so much brighter than me, but enlightening given perseverance.

 

[miandadrules]

How do you know I subjugate the weak?

Ahmedis are not Muslim. That would be like calling a person who does not believe in the divinity of Christ as a Christian.

Islam did not outlaw slavery. I agree.

Islam made several dramatic reforms to it which were not seen until about 1200 years later. I also agree.

How do I know? Let’s simply refer to what you have posted in this thread:

1. If you care about human rights so much you said one should join the UN.

2. Stating that Ahmedis can’t define themselves, which is a basic human right. But conveniently you want give up that right yourself.

3. You are defending and trying to justify the practice of slavery.

Do you expect to be referred to as a humanitarian on the basis of this?

So, you finally admit that Islam didn’t outlaw it.

And then you continue with a litany of excuses which just prove that let alone ban slavery, Islam legitimised it and institutionalised it.

So what is it going to be:

1. Islam, Muhammad and the Quran are not eternal and hence that’s why slavery couldn’t be banned. As this makes you a non-Muslim, you no longer should be allowed to call yourself a Muslim and if you are subjugated to violence because of this then according to you that’s an unfortunate consequence.

2. Islam, Muhammad and the Quran are eternal and thus by not banning slavery they have an inferior morality compared to an average layperson in any corner of the world today. A person who would be disgusted by even being asked to defend this practice let lone implement it.

So, which one is it?

 

[ManFan]

How do I know? Let’s simply refer to what you have posted in this thread:

1. If you care about human rights so much you said one should join the UN.

2. Stating that Ahmedis can’t define themselves, which is a basic human right. But conveniently you want give up that right yourself.

3. You are defending and trying to justify the practice of slavery.

Do you expect to be referred to as a humanitarian on the basis of this?

So, you finally admit that Islam didn’t outlaw it.

And then you continue with a litany of excuses which just prove that let alone ban slavery, Islam legitimised it and institutionalised it.

So what is it going to be:

1. Islam, Muhammad and the Quran are not eternal and hence that’s why slavery couldn’t be banned. As this makes you a non-Muslim, you no longer should be allowed to call yourself a Muslim and if you are subjugated to violence because of this then according to you that’s an unfortunate consequence.

2. Islam, Muhammad and the Quran are eternal and thus by not banning slavery they have an inferior morality compared to an average layperson in any corner of the world today. A person who would be disgusted by even being asked to defend this practice let lone implement it.

So, which one is it?

Are these your last questions pertaining to this topic?

 

[miandadrules]

Are these your last questions pertaining to this topic?

I’ll decide whether I wish to ask questions.

 

[ManFan]

I’ll decide whether I wish to ask questions.

That was not my question. Until I know what question you want me to specifically answer on this topic, I cannot continue. So, once again, what are the EXACT questions on this topic you want answered?

 

[miandadrules]

That was not my question. Until I know what question you want me to specifically answer on this topic, I cannot continue. So, once again, what are the EXACT questions on this topic you want answered?

Typical.

The questions are there for all to see.

Of course now you will try to obfuscate.

Waiting for your answers.

 

[ManFan]

Typical.

The questions are there for all to see.

Of course now you will try to obfuscate.

Waiting for your answers.

So I guess that your questions are the ones you posted on Post #110. Fair enough. I will answer them. I do not understand what is typical about wanting clarification on what questions you want answered.

 

[miandadrules]

So I guess that your questions are the ones you posted on Post #110. Fair enough. I will answer them. I do not understand what is typical about wanting clarification on what questions you want answered.

Waiting....

 

[ManFan]

Waiting....

Continue to wait. Once I have posted than respond if you wish to.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Ben Stein: Well then who did create the heavens and the earth?

Prof Dawkins: Why do you use the word ‘who’? You see you immediately beg the question by using the word ‘who’.

Ben Stein: Well then how did it get created?

Prof Dawkins: Well, um, by a very slow process.

Ben Stein: Well how did it start?

Prof Dawkins: Nobody knows how it started. We know the kind of event that it must have been. We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life.

Ben Stein: And what was that?

Prof Dawkins: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.

Ben Stein: Right and how did that happen?

Prof Dawkins: I’ve told you, we don’t know.

Ben Stein: So you have no idea how it started.

Prof Dawkins: No, no, nor has anyone.

Ben Stein: Nor has anyone else.

Ben Stein: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution?

Prof Dawkins: Well it could come about in the following way. It could be that, eh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very, high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Ehm, now, that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility and I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um detail, details, of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

Ben Stein: (voiceover, not part of interview) Wait a second, Richard Dawkins thought Intelligent Design might be a legitimate pursuit.

Prof Dawkins: Um..and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe.

Ben Stein: But, but

Prof Dawkins: But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process, he couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously, that’s the point.

Ben Stein: voiceover) So Professor Dawkins was not against Intelligent Design, just certain types of Designers, such as God.

[utube]Pckg3Kud8_A[/utube]

 

[Chief Destroyer]

How much is this book?

 

[miandadrules]

[utube]Pckg3Kud8_A[/utube]

Continue to try and dupe the masses.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/sep/28/religion.film

 

[R3verse Swing]

Dawkin's response in the article is merely collateral damage, saying he was coerced and didn't realise what the topic was about is just an insult to any shred of intelligence he has. It's not like the questions were ambiguous. He was more upset cos he got exposed.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist

He is regarded as the most famous atheist in the world but last night Professor Richard Dawkins admitted he could not be sure that God does not exist.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/re...awkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html

There was surprise when Prof Dawkins acknowledged that he was less than 100 per cent certain of his conviction that there is no creator.

The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did.

An incredulous Sir Anthony replied: “You are described as the world’s most famous atheist.”

 

[DeadBall]

I don't know what some people are trying to achieve by claiming he's agnostic. Even if he is, he is certainly against all current perceptions of God and organized religions which have contradiction after contradiction in them, especially the one whose followers here are trying very hard to discredit him. Ironically the little useless points they are trying to raise is in actuality are points against themselves.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Perhaps people need to learn the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism.

The point is, that he is not sure of his own beliefs, yet he remains the leader of his militant atheist disciples.

Simply put, this isn't about whether God exists or not, it's about Dawkin's changing his view.

 

[DeadBall]

Changing views and perceptions is what helps us advance and evolve as a species. Its the religious ilk that tend to bury their heads in the sand and refute all evidence contrary to their beliefs.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Changing views and perceptions is what helps us advance and evolve as a species. Its the religious ilk that tend to bury their heads in the sand and refute all evidence contrary to their beliefs.

The religious absolutists are a minority, just as the atheistic absolutists are a minority, the arguments on forums like this tend to be between those with polarised views. The rest of the world is advancing well enough. This idea that because the Quran didn't ban slavery, if you don't renounce Islam you are morally inferior is like me saying an atheist shouldn't send his daughter to choir practice because that's hypocritical. I don't think the current world works like that. Maybe it should, then I would like to hear of a model which works better.

 

[DeadBall]

The religious absolutists are a minority, just as the atheistic absolutists are a minority, the arguments on forums like this tend to be between those with polarised views. The rest of the world is advancing well enough. This idea that because the Quran didn't ban slavery, if you don't renounce Islam you are morally inferior is like me saying an atheist shouldn't send his daughter to choir practice because that's hypocritical. I don't think the current world works like that. Maybe it should, then I would like to hear of a model which works better.

The same people are also being called out that Ahmedis/LGBT etc are also morally inferior. Religion is synonymous with hypocrisy as you cannot adapt and evolve with the times given it is the absolute word of God. Rest of the world may be advancing well enough but places with high religious populations are hindering and stalling it quite a bit. I have no problems with religion if it is kept private but we know that it is anything but with cities being blocked due to some Nabuwat clause or murderers being built shrines which is visited by hundreds of thousands, or murdering someone who was "accused" of being an atheist by a mob, etc. So I don't think religious absolutists are a minority argument works here either.

As to the last point my daughter does actually go for choir practice but does not go to Church on religious occasions as the music (another thing banned in certain religions) helps her relax and unwind, the thing is though that there is less of a chance her becoming an extremist while going to choir practice than say going to a madrassah.

 

[ManFan]

How do I know? Let’s simply refer to what you have posted in this thread:

1. If you care about human rights so much you said one should join the UN.

2. Stating that Ahmedis can’t define themselves, which is a basic human right. But conveniently you want give up that right yourself.

3. You are defending and trying to justify the practice of slavery.

Do you expect to be referred to as a humanitarian on the basis of this?

So, you finally admit that Islam didn’t outlaw it.

And then you continue with a litany of excuses which just prove that let alone ban slavery, Islam legitimised it and institutionalised it.

So what is it going to be:

1. Islam, Muhammad and the Quran are not eternal and hence that’s why slavery couldn’t be banned. As this makes you a non-Muslim, you no longer should be allowed to call yourself a Muslim and if you are subjugated to violence because of this then according to you that’s an unfortunate consequence.

2. Islam, Muhammad and the Quran are eternal and thus by not banning slavery they have an inferior morality compared to an average layperson in any corner of the world today. A person who would be disgusted by even being asked to defend this practice let lone implement it.

So, which one is it?

1. The best of all Abrahamic figures have been those that have stood up against some type of injustice being committed during their times. Therefore, you working for Amnesty, would make you a Muslim of a higher level than myself. However, I did not say anyone who is worried about human rights should join the U.N. The forces of that organization are infamous for preaching peace and bombarding countries into shell shock and a state of disarray, see Libya.

2. I never claimed that Ahmedis cannot define themselves. I simply stated that if they do not believe that Muhammad (P.B.U.H) is the last prophet than, in Islam, the religion they believe in, they cannot be considered Muslims. Now, does that mean that they are or are not following Islamic rituals such as fasting or praying? No. But what it does mean is for a religion that makes converts repeat the following declaration of faith, “I believe that there is only One God and Muhammad is His Final Messenger”, they are not Muslim. I do not nor have I ever condoned violence against them simply because of their beliefs and believe they should be given the same rights as the other citizens of Pakistan. Am I defining them as Non-Muslim in belief? Yes, because they oppose the CENTRAL belief in Islam. If you oppose the basic nature of a concept, you cannot call yourself a supporter of it. Do I want others to define me? If others define me by my actions, then absolutely. Without anyone else’s opinion about myself, how can I fully understand the extent of my actions? As far as my belief is concerned, I am a Muslim BECAUSE I believe in the central message of final prophet hood given to Muhammad (P.B.U.H) not INSPITE of it. Categorizing others is acceptable as long as it is not insulting or demeaning to their beliefs. How can categorizing an Ahmedi as a Non-Muslim be unacceptable when their beliefs directly go against that of Islam?

3. Incorrect. I did not justify the practice of slavery and neither tried to justify it. Because what Islam did, and you ignore this on several of your posts, is rid the practice of slavery and make it a contract between the enslaved and the owner. I admit, I was ignorant of the fact that Islam did in fact ban slavery and gave a system of indentured servitude. Now therefore, if the servant works for a certain amount, then he is free to go. This is comparable to a service contract but not slavery because they are not entailed to be in it for their entire lives. Also, the servants are entitled to public funds to free themselves of this servitude if they so desire to. Neither are they discriminated on their skin color (the famous quote about color and piety), sex (women are given the same rights as the wives such as the right to equal inheritance if they are engaged in a legitimate sexual relationship), etc. In fact, they are to be respected as your “brothers” and are a test to one’s dealing with authority. Now these “slaves” were given the same rights as their owners. This includes the right to wear what the owner was wearing, eat exactly what the owner was eating, and sleep in the owner’s house. Furthermore, he cannot even be given an amount of labor that is beyond his physical capacity. Now, you can counter this by stating that slavery is an outdated practice that no longer exists. However, the facts would differ on that proposition. There are still an estimated 40 million slaves present in the world today. Now these slaves are part of a modern slavery, where they are trafficked and sold as prostitutes or worked into labor. Out of these 40 million, one in four are children. 25 are forced into labor under threat and 15 are forced into marriage. Now, all of those problems are specifically prohibited in Islam. Think about that for a minute. A belief system that originated in the desert 1400 years ago rid the society of slavery and gave contracted workers rights that are still not given to this day!

Answering your question on whether or not the message of Islam is eternal or not, it absolutely is. Now, what does this mean to the issue of slavery and its practice? Simple. Slavery was abandoned and the slaves were given a multitude of rights and were able to free themselves once they had completed their contracted work. Sounds like a modern day contract for a multinational corporation.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The same people are also being called out that Ahmedis/LGBT etc are also morally inferior. Religion is synonymous with hypocrisy as you cannot adapt and evolve with the times given it is the absolute word of God. Rest of the world may be advancing well enough but places with high religious populations are hindering and stalling it quite a bit. I have no problems with religion if it is kept private but we know that it is anything but with cities being blocked due to some Nabuwat clause or murderers being built shrines which is visited by hundreds of thousands, or murdering someone who was "accused" of being an atheist by a mob, etc. So I don't think religious absolutists are a minority argument works here either.

As to the last point my daughter does actually go for choir practice but does not go to Church on religious occasions as the music (another thing banned in certain religions) helps her relax and unwind, the thing is though that there is less of a chance her becoming an extremist while going to choir practice than say going to a madrassah.

Religion might be synonymous with hypocrisy, but where I live we are managing quite well being a Christian country with religion hypocritically still being there in the background. It was at the forefront once, and with time it has taken a back seat, I would imagine the same thing will happen in the developing world as well over time. I don't have any problem with anyone's daughter going to choir practice by the way, they can become evangelical Mormons for all I care. I was just giving an example of how you can polarise around extreme positions. All those examples you gave of problems with highly religious developing countries are real enough, but you aren't going to help an Ahmadi by telling them their God is a delusion. Not sure it will make a lot of difference to the LGBT community either. An open visa to LGBT friendly countries would probably be more useful, not sure Trump et al would be on board though.

 

[DeadBall]

Religion might be synonymous with hypocrisy, but where I live we are managing quite well being a Christian country with religion hypocritically still being there in the background. It was at the forefront once, and with time it has taken a back seat, I would imagine the same thing will happen in the developing world as well over time. I don't have any problem with anyone's daughter going to choir practice by the way, they can become evangelical Mormons for all I care. I was just giving an example of how you can polarise around extreme positions. All those examples you gave of problems with highly religious developing countries are real enough, but you aren't going to help an Ahmadi by telling them their God is a delusion. Not sure it will make a lot of difference to the LGBT community either. An open visa to LGBT friendly countries would probably be more useful, not sure Trump et al would be on board though.

Seems we are on the same page somewhat. The UK and other first world country have moved on from religion due to education and a somewhat comfortable lifestyle. They were very religious too 50-100 years ago. A more recent tussle was regarding Ireland and the Catholic/Protestant issue. Thing is that with secular and actual knowledge comes the realization that religion is false. You may still cling on to it given some desperateness or childhood programming for comfort but there is always that nagging voice in the back of your head.

I brought up the Ahmedis and LGBTs as an example as many ostracize them as being non Muslims even though they may be even more Muslim than others. We say that religion is a personal thing yet we bring it out in the public to shame and prosecute others who are not on the same wavelength as the masses.

I personally think we shall get rid of religionand nationalism in the SC in next 50 years or so with the internet acting as a catalyst and probably move forward collectively as a species.

 

[James]

Agnosticism is the most logical position in my opinion, either saying “there is a God” or “there is not a God” requires a leap of faith.

 

[DeadBall]

Agnosticism is the most logical position in my opinion, either saying “there is a God” or “there is not a God” requires a leap of faith.

Depends. If you mean with all the current facts available on all the 3000 plus Gods then it is a fallacy. As I have mentioned many times before I am not even an atheist but an anti theist who hasn't seen any shred of convincing evidence from the current organized religions. Can "God" exist? Possible. Probably depends on ones definition of God. Although until no credible data is provided it I shall stay on my stance.

 

[KingKhanWC]

You describe nihilism not atheism. The nihilist says nothing you do matters.

Atheists can fear the retribution of society.

Or you realise that being kind usually means that kindness is returned to you. Even Bonobo Apes have figured this out.

To paraphrase the great Hawking, we are merely smart monkeys on a mediocre planet orbiting a very ordinary star - but we can understand the universe. We are the universe locally organised into self-awareness, seeking to understand itself. I take comfort and wonderment from that.

I think posters are getting the wrong end of the stick with my posts. I am merely playing devils advocate. It's usually the believers who are questioned regarding their belief or logic. Those who dont believe rarely aren't.

The question is who decides what is wrong from wrong?

So far the answers from those who dont believe in God are ..

1. Society
2. If you do good , good will come back to you and vice versa.
3. It's something which is ingrained within.

These are all poor answers.

1. Different societies have different versions of right and wrong.
2. Plenty of people who do good or bad, have nothing the same returned to them.
3. Again, not everyone feels the same as to what is right or wrong inside their conscious.

 

[yasir]

Agnosticism is the most logical position in my opinion, either saying “there is a God” or “there is not a God” requires a leap of faith.

The difference between views of Atheists and Agnostics are minor when it comes to supranational and dogma. They both don't believe in supernatural as portrait by all religions of this world. Chances of having a God is as much as Santa or Fairies or any other fantasy tails, both are in agreement when come it comes to matter of dogma. No Atheist or Agnostic in there right mind is unsure, that may be God of Abharim or Ram or whatever other Gods originate from this planet will actually be true, there is no basis of such belief...These religions are so vague and off about every Scientific principle and fact we discover thus far that they cannot be considered in any serious scientific investigation...

The main difference is Atheists are after the political clout religion holds on society, the respect and protection it gets, there is no reason to have them this respect collectively. Atheist don't go after Old died religion with same vigor, because those are not relevant. Atheists are sort of movement of freedom from dogma and religion from the society, Science is their biggest tool, a tool in which even right is invested in, reluctantly, but they have no choice, because without Science and Tech it is impossible to achieve prosperity

Agnostic are silent about the political matters, the sort of purest position is pretty meaningless. Its like people who did not like racism but did not do anything to get rid of them, only spoke out when certain critical mass moved to the other side, because they did not wanted any trouble... Agnostics will speak up once world is educated enough and critical mass of population does not believe in dogmas of religion.

 

[Robert]

I think posters are getting the wrong end of the stick with my posts. I am merely playing devils advocate. It's usually the believers who are questioned regarding their belief or logic. Those who dont believe rarely aren't.

The question is who decides what is wrong from wrong?

So far the answers from those who dont believe in God are ..

1. Society
2. If you do good , good will come back to you and vice versa.
3. It's something which is ingrained within.

These are all poor answers.

1. Different societies have different versions of right and wrong.
2. Plenty of people who do good or bad, have nothing the same returned to them.
3. Again, not everyone feels the same as to what is right or wrong inside their conscious.

Why poor answers? Because they imply that morality is relative? That is is a human construct with no absolute meaning?

 

[Adijazz1706]

Why poor answers? Because they imply that morality is relative? That is is a human construct with no absolute meaning?

Juat because morality is a human construct doesn't mean there cannot be absolute positions within it. For example, it is generally agreed that sth like incest is wrong, the question here is why is it thought to be wrong even if contraception is involved?

 

[KingKhanWC]

Why poor answers? Because they imply that morality is relative? That is is a human construct with no absolute meaning?

Fine, then humanity can never agree on what is right or wrong.

So tell me why you think me taking your belonging is wrong? What does it matter to me if I can get away with it, live better and have no feelings of guilt? We will all be gone in a few years to nowhere, exsitance will come to an end, might as well take advantage if I can, right?

I see Dawkins also struggled with this.

 

[JaDed]

You should take inspiration from them and use them as a role model, who's to say you can't reach their heights one day? As they bash the religious dogmas of Islam, you could do the same for the religious dogmas of Hinduism/ Sikhism.

True but somehow I'm not able to go all the way, which is the reason why I envy them coz my own inability, also below post of [MENTION=5869]yasir[/MENTION] probably holds true for me.

I cant speak against superstition at best but unable to attack faith.

The difference between views of Atheists and Agnostics are minor when it comes to supranational and dogma. They both don't believe in supernatural as portrait by all religions of this world. Chances of having a God is as much as Santa or Fairies or any other fantasy tails, both are in agreement when come it comes to matter of dogma. No Atheist or Agnostic in there right mind is unsure, that may be God of Abharim or Ram or whatever other Gods originate from this planet will actually be true, there is no basis of such belief...These religions are so vague and off about every Scientific principle and fact we discover thus far that they cannot be considered in any serious scientific investigation...

The main difference is Atheists are after the political clout religion holds on society, the respect and protection it gets, there is no reason to have them this respect collectively. Atheist don't go after Old died religion with same vigor, because those are not relevant. Atheists are sort of movement of freedom from dogma and religion from the society, Science is their biggest tool, a tool in which even right is invested in, reluctantly, but they have no choice, because without Science and Tech it is impossible to achieve prosperity

Agnostic are silent about the political matters, the sort of purest position is pretty meaningless. Its like people who did not like racism but did not do anything to get rid of them, only spoke out when certain critical mass moved to the other side, because they did not wanted any trouble... Agnostics will speak up once world is educated enough and critical mass of population does not believe in dogmas of religion.

 

[yasir]

Fine, then humanity can never agree on what is right or wrong.

So tell me why you think me taking your belonging is wrong? What does it matter to me if I can get away with it, live better and have no feelings of guilt? We will all be gone in a few years to nowhere, exsitance will come to an end, might as well take advantage if I can, right?

I see Dawkins also struggled with this.

Simple principle of reciprocation, you also want to be treated good, that's why you treat others good. Why we even need society, history teaches us community survives better than individuals, both of these principle exists in animal kingdom, who have not read any of the holly books yet

As I said earlier, we have come up with better moral principle based on reason/debate, evidence and experience. And this is always evolving process, there is nothing divine about morality. Morality, punishments of Quran, Bible, Gita etc are mostly out date, there were never that detailed in first place in the context of todays society. Although those stories were very detailed oriented for that time...

Fundamental purpose of civil laws is to protect weak from stronger, stronger guy does not need law to protect himself. Even in todays world, many first world countries are lot more civil at national level then international, there is too much exploitation of poor countries. Laws and moral standards needs lot of work in this regard, this concept of super power is very moral one. IN century or so, we will lot more improvement on that front, because as a global community, dependency will only increase, we have to treat everybody better and equally...

 

[KingKhanWC]

Simple principle of reciprocation, you also want to be treated good, that's why you treat others good. Why we even need society, history teaches us community survives better than individuals, both of these principle exists in animal kingdom, who have not read any of the holly books yet

As I said earlier, we have come up with better moral principle based on reason/debate, evidence and experience. And this is always evolving process, there is nothing divine about morality. Morality, punishments of Quran, Bible, Gita etc are mostly out date, there were never that detailed in first place in the context of todays society. Although those stories were very detailed oriented for that time...

Fundamental purpose of civil laws is to protect weak from stronger, stronger guy does not need law to protect himself. Even in todays world, many first world countries are lot more civil at national level then international, there is too much exploitation of poor countries. Laws and moral standards needs lot of work in this regard, this concept of super power is very moral one. IN century or so, we will lot more improvement on that front, because as a global community, dependency will only increase, we have to treat everybody better and equally...

What if I didn't give a hoot how I was treated in return? When the Brits came to Australia did they think lets not wipe out an entire ethnicity and let's not take over the rest because we want good to happen to us too?lol. To this day the natives of Australia are being trampled on.

You as in non-religious people haven't come up with anyone in this regard. You're in Australia, check your laws they are fundamentally based on religion with some variations for Gays etc.

The truth is people have no idea what is right or wrong or they differ from place to place or race to race. You can believe what is right, I will disagree.

Listen to the Creator, he will tell you.

 

[Robert]

Fine, then humanity can never agree on what is right or wrong.

So tell me why you think me taking your belonging is wrong? What does it matter to me if I can get away with it, live better and have no feelings of guilt? We will all be gone in a few years to nowhere, exsitance will come to an end, might as well take advantage if I can, right?

I see Dawkins also struggled with this.

Neither he nor I struggle with this. It’s an evolutionary adaptation. People long ago - perhaps before we were even people - learned that if tribe members are allowed to behave that way, tribe collapses and we get taken out singly or in groups by the wolves and cave bears.

I repeat - even Bonobo Apes know this. They drive thieves out, exclude them from their tribe.

Gods and religion were invented later.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Neither he nor I struggle with this. It’s an evolutionary adaptation. People long ago - perhaps before we were even people - learned that if tribe members are allowed to behave that way, tribe collapses and we get taken out singly or in groups by the wolves and cave bears.

I repeat - even Bonobo Apes know this. They drive thieves out, exclude them from their tribe.

Gods and religion were invented later.

We are not apes and we no longer live in caves.

You are saying right or wrong is something that evolves? So in a hundred years incest, relations with animals may be seen as fine?

 

[yasir]

What if I didn't give a hoot how I was treated in return? When the Brits came to Australia did they think lets not wipe out an entire ethnicity and let's not take over the rest because we want good to happen to us too?lol. To this day the natives of Australia are being trampled on.

You as in non-religious people haven't come up with anyone in this regard. You're in Australia, check your laws they are fundamentally based on religion with some variations for Gays etc.

The truth is people have no idea what is right or wrong or they differ from place to place or race to race. You can believe what is right, I will disagree.

Listen to the Creator, he will tell you.

You can give a hoot about laws, but somebody stronger than you or society will teach you that lesson. Like yesterday Smith caught with his pants down, he would not have thought of that strong reaction

God himself is a totalitarian regime like North Korea of today. Have you red Quran? - Author talks like some super king, who is so full of himself, he does not think that he owe anybody any explanation or logic, everybody just have to follow his orders...He rules by fear, this is exactly what kings used to do 1000s of years ago, so no major surprise from historical context...

But now you need less soldiers and more scholars to run service driven economy, Science and Tech is more important then lower level labor skills. That's why education is must for everybody and is democratized, you cannot made progress with old totalitarian, where people are not suppose to solve there problems themselves, nobody is waiting for revelation or deciphering holy books to resolve complex issue, we have to resolve them modern tools, inspired by Science, open and rational thinking...

Also, the problem is it's difficult to control educated masses (who are driven by open, rational and evidence based culture), by force, they will not bow down to some old holly book, if it does not make sense, you have to come to their turf, religion is finding it increasingly difficult to battle Science and reason on their turf, they resort to violence, even for that you need technology, so there is no long term future of this ideology

 

[KingKhanWC]

You can give a hoot about laws, but somebody stronger than you or society will teach you that lesson. Like yesterday Smith caught with his pants down, he would not have thought of that strong reaction

God himself is a totalitarian regime like North Korea of today. Have you red Quran? - Author talks like some super king, who is so full of himself, he does not think that he owe anybody any explanation or logic, everybody just have to follow his orders...He rules by fear, this is exactly what kings used to do 1000s of years ago, so no major surprise from historical context...

But now you need less soldiers and more scholars to run service driven economy, Science and Tech is more important then lower level labor skills. That's why education is must for everybody and is democratized, you cannot made progress with old totalitarian, where people are not suppose to solve there problems themselves, nobody is waiting for revelation or deciphering holy books to resolve complex issue, we have to resolve them modern tools, inspired by Science, open and rational thinking...

Also, the problem is it's difficult to control educated masses (who are driven by open, rational and evidence based culture), by force, they will not bow down to some old holly book, if it does not make sense, you have to come to their turf, religion is finding it increasingly difficult to battle Science and reason on their turf, they resort to violence, even for that you need technology, so there is no long term future of this ideology

Has the thought ever crossed your mind, it might be an idea to address the points raised instead of going your usual rant against religion?

Nobody stronger has come along to treat the convicts they way they treated the natives of Australia.

Yes I have read the Quran, the Lord has every right to talk like a super king because that's what he is. His power isnt something any human has the capability of understanding. Lets not change the subject and question religion, on this thread its your turn to give answers.

You are once again repeating the same point as made by others too.

Society decides what is right or wrong and this evolves over time. The problem is this is simply not true. Different societies have different versions of right and wrong.

Who decides what is right and what is wrong? Your society in Australia or a society in the Amazon rain forest?

 

[yasir]

[utube]Pckg3Kud8_A[/utube]

This is such a ** interview, the interviewer does not understand much of Science or Dawkin's line of argument...

Religion fails to explain, how does God created himself in the first place?? - If he is the most complex and powerful thing, how he got created first

Its like iPhone was created first and then LCD screen, micro processor, digital camera, SSD etc...We have not seen any evidence of most complex of anything (in Physics or Chemistry) first. All elements are drived from Hydrogen, Hydrogen is made of single atom, atom is made of electron, proton, neutron etc. You cannot have higher elements or Hydrogen, before you can have sub atomic particles...We have never seen any complex being/process or phenomena comes first and then simpler stuff...

That's why God hypothesis is a **, its not just most complex thing of its kind, he does not looks like made of other small parts (like atoms, molecules, photons etc), but he is the only thing of his kind. How such a thing got created? - By some super magic, we don't need to ask or pounder, because that will make us belong to Devil's party aka God very unhappy? - How we had tolerated such an irrational logic for 1000s of year? - Fear does amazing things

 

[yasir]

Has the thought ever crossed your mind, it might be an idea to address the points raised instead of going your usual rant against religion?

Nobody stronger has come along to treat the convicts they way they treated the natives of Australia.

Yes I have read the Quran, the Lord has every right to talk like a super king because that's what he is. His power isnt something any human has the capability of understanding. Lets not change the subject and question religion, on this thread its your turn to give answers.

You are once again repeating the same point as made by others too.

Society decides what is right or wrong and this evolves over time. The problem is this is simply not true. Different societies have different versions of right and wrong.

Who decides what is right and what is wrong? Your society in Australia or a society in the Amazon rain forest?

I am not sure if that is a rocket science, morals are not something fixated in time. They keep on changing like everything around us. The more we integrate and depends upon each other more we have to evolve moral and ethical code. But many core principles remain same, and are driven by learning and experience than some divine magic.

For instance, few 100s year ago all whites treated less powerful individuals like slaves with no basic rights, but at the same time they were treating each other more fairly, because of interdependency of tribe. Now they are trying to correct that, because dynamics have changed, those slaves are stronger than before, everybody has to live on same planet, its give and take... At the same time, we treat all other living things (plants, animals and planet itself) as slave, something to server us, that does not have rights of their own, because they cannot challenge us...Who knows we evolve to different moral and ethical values in next 200 years, where we have to work with others on equal terms...

Morals/ethics like other ideas works on the principle of free market, better ideas survive longer than the lesser one, its not binary, not everything in holly books survive past their time.

 

[Robert]

We are not apes and we no longer live in caves.

You are saying right or wrong is something that evolves? So in a hundred years incest, relations with animals may be seen as fine?

We are apes, just smart ones.

Yes, morality evolves. Even in the last twenty years I have seen this.

 

[barah_admi]

Dawkins is arguably one of the greatest debators of our time and it's not surprising to see the same set people having a go at him who believes that Malala Yousafzai is an Amriki agent and 9/11 was a hoax.

Assuming you know what hoax means, can you quote me the posters on here who have said this?

We are apes, just smart ones.

Yes, morality evolves. Even in the last twenty years I have seen this.

The concept of what one believes to be right or wrong, given a particular time or place, may change, but that does not mean that a society, via majority rule, should just accept whatever is now being touted as right. The only way one does that, is if morality is governed entirely by societal norms without any higher purpose.

So yes, from an atheistic point of view. 20 years down the line, even incest would be acceptable but that is not the case for Muslims and can never be, because our morality has a higher standing beyond majority rules.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Seems we are on the same page somewhat. The UK and other first world country have moved on from religion due to education and a somewhat comfortable lifestyle. They were very religious too 50-100 years ago. A more recent tussle was regarding Ireland and the Catholic/Protestant issue. Thing is that with secular and actual knowledge comes the realization that religion is false. You may still cling on to it given some desperateness or childhood programming for comfort but there is always that nagging voice in the back of your head.

I brought up the Ahmedis and LGBTs as an example as many ostracize them as being non Muslims even though they may be even more Muslim than others. We say that religion is a personal thing yet we bring it out in the public to shame and prosecute others who are not on the same wavelength as the masses.

I personally think we shall get rid of religionand nationalism in the SC in next 50 years or so with the internet acting as a catalyst and probably move forward collectively as a species.

Well, it's not actually true that the UK, or many other western countries have moved on from religion, or that they have recognised it is false, most are still officially Christian countries in theory at least if not in practice so much. What they have done, is very sensibly, separated religion from politics, something I have always advocated on here. Countries like Israel and India are no different, they are ostensibly religious countries, but they aren't theocracies, although India seems to be moving towards that for some reason. I don't see why Islamic countries have to be the only ones dictated by theologians, all these other countries have had the same issues at one time or another, Islamic countries should be the same. In fact you could argue that they are in some instances, Turkey being the prime example, others like Tunisia and Indonesia perhaps as well.

 

[Robert]

The concept of what one believes to be right or wrong, given a particular time or place, may change, but that does not mean that a society, via majority rule, should just accept whatever is now being touted as right.

And yet they all do.

Islam is not outside history and culture, it is a component of those.

 

[barah_admi]

And yet they all do.

Islam is not outside history and culture, it is a component of those.

The right and wrong in Islam does not change with time or place. Yes certain things that may have been deemed acceptable in days gone by may not be the case but absolute right and wrong, good and bad, legal and illegal is always the same.

Take for example the current discussion on whether or not prostitution should be entirely legalised in the UK, Muslim clerics and scholars of fiqh (Islamic jurispridence) would never look to legalise it, regardless of modern pressures.

 

[barah_admi]

Well, it's not actually true that the UK, or many other western countries have moved on from religion, or that they have recognised it is false, most are still officially Christian countries in theory at least if not in practice so much. What they have done, is very sensibly, separated religion from politics, something I have always advocated on here. Countries like Israel and India are no different, they are ostensibly religious countries, but they aren't theocracies, although India seems to be moving towards that for some reason. I don't see why Islamic countries have to be the only ones dictated by theologians, all these other countries have had the same issues at one time or another, Islamic countries should be the same. In fact you could argue that they are in some instances, Turkey being the prime example, others like Tunisia and Indonesia perhaps as well.

Israel is very much a theocracy, it's entire central political premise, that their nations and its borders and designed on divine revelation is entirely based on Jewish theology and nothing else. India is very much a religious state and has voted religious parties and individuals into power far more often than most, if not all Muslim majority states.

In fact, looking at the modern world, I struggle to find Muslim countries with Islam as the basis of its politics and laws. Many states these days are secularist by nature, often with a history of socialism and communism.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Israel is very much a theocracy, it's entire central political premise, that their nations and its borders and designed on divine revelation is entirely based on Jewish theology and nothing else. India is very much a religious state and has voted religious parties and individuals into power far more often than most, if not all Muslim majority states.

In fact, looking at the modern world, I struggle to find Muslim countries with Islam as the basis of its politics and laws. Many states these days are secularist by nature, often with a history of socialism and communism.

Neither of those countries are tied 100% to their divine texts, or have their political and social policy turned over completely to their clerics. Again, it's a mish-mash which allows them some leeway when it suits them, I don't see why there is this argument that only Islamic countries have clerics having the final say on these matters. In reality it's not the case anyway.

 

[KingKhanWC]

I am not sure if that is a rocket science, morals are not something fixated in time. They keep on changing like everything around us. The more we integrate and depends upon each other more we have to evolve moral and ethical code. But many core principles remain same, and are driven by learning and experience than some divine magic.

For instance, few 100s year ago all whites treated less powerful individuals like slaves with no basic rights, but at the same time they were treating each other more fairly, because of interdependency of tribe. Now they are trying to correct that, because dynamics have changed, those slaves are stronger than before, everybody has to live on same planet, its give and take... At the same time, we treat all other living things (plants, animals and planet itself) as slave, something to server us, that does not have rights of their own, because they cannot challenge us...Who knows we evolve to different moral and ethical values in next 200 years, where we have to work with others on equal terms...

Morals/ethics like other ideas works on the principle of free market, better ideas survive longer than the lesser one, its not binary, not everything in holly books survive past their time.

We are apes, just smart ones.

Yes, morality evolves. Even in the last twenty years I have seen this.

The problem here is you guys are assuming it evolves for all and socities they will agree upon this evolution but this is not the case.

As Muslims we dont have this issue, it's clear what is right and what is wrong. We dont need this to evolve thus were are far more advanced

 

[barah_admi]

Neither of those countries are tied 100% to their divine texts, or have their political and social policy turned over completely to their clerics. Again, it's a mish-mash which allows them some leeway when it suits them, I don't see why there is this argument that only Islamic countries have clerics having the final say on these matters. In reality it's not the case anyway.

Neither are any Muslim countries so your original point is moot. What I stated is that the foundations of these countries, especially Israel are far more involved with religion than any modern Muslim state and before you bring up the example of Saudi Arabia, they can claim to be religious but for anyone who has been there they know better.

 

[barah_admi]

Who said Islam or rather Muslims, have not contributed since the 13th century?

When the East India company first arrived in India in 1608, they came upon a civilisation not only more technologically advanced in some ways, but more peaceful than Europe, more civilised in their culture, literature and philosophy and far richer. Muslim ruled Indian states were some of the richest on the planet. That's a full 400 years after your supposed time line.

During the 16th century, Taqi Al Din, under patronage of the Ottoman Empire, invented the first ever steam engine, contrary to popular British education. Other inventions such as automated astrological clocks and so on also came about during the same time.

But getting back on track, Islam's morality is so advanced, that the west is stil catching up, or rather non muslim nations are still catching up. As you full well know, in britain there is a massive outcry right now for the way women are treated on a daily basis by men ,from nights out and groping to public transport and the work place.

Attitudes are changing to such an extent that many women now say that it's not ok for a man to come up to them in a club and place a hand on their knee (let alone go any further). Islam forbade this 14 centuries ago, simply to stop the decay that has occurred now. What was wrong then, is wrong even now, no matter how much the patriarchy wants to promote sexual promiscuity and "loose women."

Like we are telling you, Islamic morality can not change, because what God has decreed as right is always right, what is wrong, is always wrong. IT may take a while for others to catch up, but they will, as evidenced by double the number of women converting to Islam in western nations as opposed to men.

 

[ManFan]

Who said Islam or rather Muslims, have not contributed since the 13th century?

When the East India company first arrived in India in 1608, they came upon a civilisation not only more technologically advanced in some ways, but more peaceful than Europe, more civilised in their culture, literature and philosophy and far richer. Muslim ruled Indian states were some of the richest on the planet. That's a full 400 years after your supposed time line.

During the 16th century, Taqi Al Din, under patronage of the Ottoman Empire, invented the first ever steam engine, contrary to popular British education. Other inventions such as automated astrological clocks and so on also came about during the same time.

But getting back on track, Islam's morality is so advanced, that the west is stil catching up, or rather non muslim nations are still catching up. As you full well know, in britain there is a massive outcry right now for the way women are treated on a daily basis by men ,from nights out and groping to public transport and the work place.

Attitudes are changing to such an extent that many women now say that it's not ok for a man to come up to them in a club and place a hand on their knee (let alone go any further). Islam forbade this 14 centuries ago, simply to stop the decay that has occurred now. What was wrong then, is wrong even now, no matter how much the patriarchy wants to promote sexual promiscuity and "loose women."

Like we are telling you, Islamic morality can not change, because what God has decreed as right is always right, what is wrong, is always wrong. IT may take a while for others to catch up, but they will, as evidenced by double the number of women converting to Islam in western nations as opposed to men.

There have been so many inventions that are wrongly attributed to Non-Muslims. https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/muslim-inventions/
There is a book called 1001 Inventions: Muslim Heritage in Our World. Haven't had the chance to read it but someone recommended it.

 

[Heisenberg]

So yes, from an atheistic point of view. 20 years down the line, even incest would be acceptable but that is not the case for Muslims and can never be, because our morality has a higher standing beyond majority rules.

Aren't we all children of Adam and Eve? We are all the result of incest anyway

 

[Robert]

Who said Islam or rather Muslims, have not contributed since the 13th century?

When the East India company first arrived in India in 1608, they came upon a civilisation not only more technologically advanced in some ways, but more peaceful than Europe, more civilised in their culture, literature and philosophy and far richer. Muslim ruled Indian states were some of the richest on the planet. That's a full 400 years after your supposed time line.

During the 16th century, Taqi Al Din, under patronage of the Ottoman Empire, invented the first ever steam engine, contrary to popular British education. Other inventions such as automated astrological clocks and so on also came about during the same time.

But getting back on track, Islam's morality is so advanced, that the west is stil catching up, or rather non muslim nations are still catching up. As you full well know, in britain there is a massive outcry right now for the way women are treated on a daily basis by men ,from nights out and groping to public transport and the work place.

Attitudes are changing to such an extent that many women now say that it's not ok for a man to come up to them in a club and place a hand on their knee (let alone go any further). Islam forbade this 14 centuries ago, simply to stop the decay that has occurred now. What was wrong then, is wrong even now, no matter how much the patriarchy wants to promote sexual promiscuity and "loose women."

Like we are telling you, Islamic morality can not change, because what God has decreed as right is always right, what is wrong, is always wrong. IT may take a while for others to catch up, but they will, as evidenced by double the number of women converting to Islam in western nations as opposed to men.

Ok, you can have the steam engine.

Indian Sikhs tell me that the Mughals were as oppressive as the Raj.

Curious that this rich elevated civilisation collapsed to the British barbarians.

You have chosen some rad-fem tropes. It is ironic that you elevate Islam as feminist when in some Muslim nations there is no concept of marital rape, women have lesser status in court than a man, cannot go out without a chaperone and in at least one case not even drive cars.

Rather, Allah is the ultimate judgemental patriarch. The Pagans did it better, they elevated the female as divine as well as the male.

If British women are becoming Muslims - a reaction to a confusing world, I imagine, presumably they like being told what to do? - then far more Muslims are becoming secular. We don’t need rules about when to put hands on knees in clubs - we just learn to read the signals in terms of vocal tone and body language about whether the woman wants sex or not.

What you call decay I call society evolving. What does the Qu’ran say about people changing gender because God capriciously put them in the wrong-gendered body? Or about making a man who is fully attracted to other men and not to women? Why deliberately torture people throughout their lives. Surely God is wicked, and therefore his rules are wrong.

No. “What God has decreed” is really what men decreed - and they were all men, look at what happened to poor Mary Magdalene - because man created God.

 

[Robert]

Aren't we all children of Adam and Eve? We are all the result of incest anyway

Hello Walt. Yes, and they had three sons and no daughters. Hmmm.