Islamic reaction to radical Muslims

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

The problem with what you are suggesting would be a lifetime of trial and error.

There was a point when people considered incest correct, it was morally correct. Then religion banned it. Some people did not care and continued. Today, scientifically it has been proven that it is dangerous to have children by process of incest. Hence, religion was far advanced, I would say more than a couple of thousands of years advanced.

If there is no proper yard-stick, it would be chaos. Religion is that yard-stick. Your religious upbringing helped you to develop a better understanding of morality. That said, you cannot claim that without religion you might have seen things differently. Why? Because you had a religious upbringing first. So, by you arguing the other side would only be hypothetical. Your moral upbringing taught you the need for morality.

So, your argument that morality could have been developed without religion is a logical fallacy. Religion had already institutionalized morality, skeptics just challenged religion's approach and presented their case. However, religion has not lost its touch. It still stands as the yard-stick.

Nonetheless, Islam has a complete understanding of what is moral and what is not, in light of the laws of nature. God is the architect of nature, He knows its full function. That is why He can dictate things via religion. For man to develop a complete law of morality would require man to first fully understand the laws of nature, then embark on this journey. That is why it would take you a lifetime and you would still not be able to complete the task. Your future generations could continue your work and they would still not be able to complete the task.

They asked Luqman: "Where did you learn manners from?" He said: "The ill-mannered!"

No need to prove it for yourself.

[ozymandias]

The problem with what you are suggesting would be a lifetime of trial and error.

Not at all true. You do not have to *DO* an immoral action to know it is immoral.

There was a point when people considered incest correct, it was morally correct. Then religion banned it. Some people did not care and continued. Today, scientifically it has been proven that it is dangerous to have children by process of incest. Hence, religion was far advanced, I would say more than a couple of thousands of years advanced.

You are ignoring the fact that animal husbandry could *EASILY* have been the source of proscriptions against incest -- any livestock breeder -- such as those that even lived thousands of years ago, knows that traits of animals are magnified (good or bad) by inbreeding. They knew this even before they knew anything about genes or inheritance.

If there is no proper yard-stick, it would be chaos.

Who is arguing for no yardstick? I am simply pointing out that another measure can be used -- such as a meter stick.

Religion is that yard-stick.

So is non-theistic morality.

Your religious upbringing helped you to develop a better understanding of morality. That said, you cannot claim that without religion you might have seen things differently. Why? Because you had a religious upbringing first. So, by you arguing the other side would only be hypothetical. Your moral upbringing taught you the need for morality.

Right -- my moral upbringing -- not my religious upbringing.

So, your argument that morality could have been developed without religion is a logical fallacy.

Not at all. Your assumption that morality can only stem from religion simply because religion is first is a fallacy. I have already shown that one can describe a moralistic system sans deity.

Religion had already institutionalized morality, skeptics just challenged religion's approach and presented their case. However, religion has not lost its touch. It still stands as the yard-stick.

And again, a new yardstick can be created separate from that measure.

Nonetheless, Islam has a complete understanding of what is moral and what is not, in light of the laws of nature. God is the architect of nature, He knows its full function.

And you were doing so good, but you just ran into a solid brick wall. You just made a huge assumption here that doesn't play into this discussion. You are simply assuming that not only does a god exist -- your god exists. This is an issue completely separate from a discussion of morals -- and this is to your benefit. I am ready and willing to discuss moral systems on equal footing based on the values inherent in each system, but if you are going to drag a god into the discussion, you are going to have to prove the existence of that god -- something that is no small feat. I suggest we maintain this as a discussion of moral and ethical systems, otherwise we will be bogged down never to return.

That is why He can dictate things via religion.

He sure can -- and to the religious people, those dictations might matter.

For man to develop a complete law of morality would require man to first fully understand the laws of nature, then embark on this journey.

Why would morality be any different than any other endeavor? Why the double standard? In all other persutes, man has created tools and systems in order to better describe nature, not as a result of a full understanding of nature. Calculus was created as a tool to describe celestial mechanics, not as a result of perfect understanding of celestial mechanics.

It's erroneous to hold systems of morality up to a different, arbitrary standard, and then cast them aside when they do not fulfill the requirements.

That is why it would take you a lifetime and you would still not be able to complete the task.

Again, you ignore the work that has already been done, and you assume that each and every person must come up with a system of morals on their own.

To be fair, you would then have to claim each religious person must derive their own system of morals through their own revelations of their god -- and not just take what is taught to them. This is another double standard -- you are willing to allow one group to inter operate and share moral teachings, but not the other?

Your future generations could continue your work and they would still not be able to complete the task.

Could is a weasely word.

They asked Luqman: "Where did you learn manners from?" He said: "The ill-mannered!"

Well then, would it not be fair to say the same about morals? You can learn morals from the immoral, then -- still no need for a god.

No need to prove it for yourself.

Correct -- no need to prove it for yourself at all. No need for a god to be involved, either, for that matter.

[MazloomyarMaseed]

Islamic?Muslims?



Ismailis waiting for their False god Aga Khan, are these the people you consider as fellow Muslims?

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

Dear StrategistMaseed, could you kindly delete and move your post to the other thread. I will respond to you there. Please don't derail this topic. A humble request. Thank you.

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

@ozymandias

lol...I was just bombarded with arguments to discredit what I say for the sake of its exercise. Not a good approach. I find it to be an exercise taught at the undergraduate level.

Tell me what does Islam lack when it comes to morality?

[ozymandias]

@ozymandias

lol...I was just bombarded with arguments to discredit what I say for the sake of its exercise. Not a good approach. I find it to be an exercise taught at the undergraduate level.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean.

Tell me what does Islam lack when it comes to morality?

Free speech protections -- Just today a popular website was censored by Pakistan due to a few pictures.

Just legal system. Islamic countries routinely do things like arrest and/or punish people for being rape *VICTIMS*. Not long ago some people were sentenced to several *YEARS* of prison time for *eating*.

Protection for the basic human rights of all people -- including non-muslims.
This does not even go into the claims of sexism.

This is not even to mention the terrorism that seems to fit into some people's idea of the Islamic moral system -- or the fact that barbaric and uncivilized actions seem to be supported as retaliation to being made angry.

[ozymandias]

Ozymandias

Without religion what is the purpose of life?

First of all, it is a clear and obvious fallacy to assume that there is a purpose.

Second of all, if you insist on assigning a purpose, how about adopting the guiding principal of evolution? This would mean that the purpose would be to spread your offspring far and wide -- but that is pretty much anthropomorphizing nature.

how do you explain life?

Natural laws manage this just fine.

Where just here to have fun and bye?

If you insist on assigning a purpose, that may be as good as any.

[MazloomyarMaseed]

Dear oxy

What about the godless militants who kill people who beleive in faith? they also follow a same approach as yours, that god is not real and relgion is a tool to control the mindset.

What makes you think a Militant Athism wont be introduced?

I wont be afraid of a Man who tried to kill me with faith, but i would fear the worst if my family was killed by a person who doesnt have a faith, imgine the worst punishments one would suffer under those who dont have faith, what loss would they get if they dont have a faith? their cruelty would be limitless.

[ozymandias]

Dear oxy

What about the godless militants who kill people who beleive in faith?

Where does this occur?

It is a common misconception that Pol Pot, or Hitler, or Stalin did this -- but they did not kill people of faith to promote atheism, they killed people of faith for political reasons. Just because they were atheists does not mean that the killing they did was a result of that atheism.

they also follow a same approach as yours, that god is not real and relgion is a tool to control the mindset.

What makes you think a Militant Athism wont be introduced?

What makes you think that they will resort to violence? There is no historical evidence of atheists resorting to physical violence on a mass scale over religious differences or starting a religious war.

Besides, the term 'militant atheist' has already been used -- to label what would be more accurately described as 'vocal atheists'.

I wont be afraid of a Man who tried to kill me with faith, but i would fear the worst if my family was killed by a person who doesnt have a faith, imgine the worst punishments one would suffer under those who dont have faith, what loss would they get if they dont have a faith? their cruelty would be limitless.

I think that at worst, atheists are equal to theists when it comes to horrible torture and immoral actions. At best, theists leave us in their dust.

Look at all the horrible things done by those that are faithful -- and they used their faith to justify their actions.

Slavery? Justified by faith. Twin Towers? Justified by faith. Witch hunts? DEMANDED by faith. Spanish inquisition? DEMANDED by faith.








What about things like 6 years in prison for eating a sandwich?

Or being beaten to death by thrown stones -- again, a punishment used by the faithful.

[ozymandias]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1874471.stm It's old -- but relevant.

Here is another case of 'Islamic morals' being less than 'moral'.

[MazloomyarMaseed]

Where does this occur?

It is a common misconception that Pol Pot, or Hitler, or Stalin did this -- but they did not kill people of faith to promote atheism, they killed people of faith for political reasons. Just because they were atheists does not mean that the killing they did was a result of that atheism.



What makes you think that they will resort to violence? There is no historical evidence of atheists resorting to physical violence on a mass scale over religious differences or starting a religious war.

Besides, the term 'militant atheist' has already been used -- to label what would be more accurately described as 'vocal atheists'.



I think that at worst, atheists are equal to theists when it comes to horrible torture and immoral actions. At best, theists leave us in their dust.

Look at all the horrible things done by those that are faithful -- and they used their faith to justify their actions.

Slavery? Justified by faith. Twin Towers? Justified by faith. Witch hunts? DEMANDED by faith. Spanish inquisition? DEMANDED by faith.








What about things like 6 years in prison for eating a sandwich?

Or being beaten to death by thrown stones -- again, a punishment used by the faithful.

Hitler was a christian.

Yes but what makes you so sure that athists wont resort to violence? If relgion clearly says thou shal not kill but the so called faithful kill, does that not go against their faith?

Also you cant just assume that they were killed for political purposes, if you dont beleive in faith, then what stops you from slaughtering the whole of mankind because what have you got to loose?

What will stop you from Killing Somebody, according to you, there is no punishment for your crime or a judgement in the afterlife? Do you beleive in the death penalty? should a rapist be killed,tortured for his/her crime?

Of course, i agree, the faithful do have a long history of bloodshed etc, that is not something i would disagree with but what makes athiests so much better than the faithful? It is natural for mankind to kill,slaughter,invade, control minorities etc, they say, without violence, there is no life cycle to continue life, but if you are telling youngsters, that hey you can sleep with 1000's of women, rape people, drink as much as you want because there is no punishment for this, so what reason can be provide for people not to do such things.

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1874471.stm It's old -- but relevant.

Here is another case of 'Islamic morals' being less than 'moral'.

This is irrelevant. This is not a reflection on Islamic teachings.

[ozymandias]

Vilks, one of the Danish Cartoonists 'getting what he deserved' -- according to some on this forum:

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dn.se%2Fnyheter%2Fsverige%2Fvilks-hem-utsatt-for-mordbrand-1.1098381&sl=sv&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8

[MazloomyarMaseed]

Vilks, one of the Danish Cartoonists 'getting what he deserved' -- according to some on this forum:
http://translate.google.com/translat...n&hl=&ie=UTF-8

Well....If a person drew a Holocaust cartoon and got attacked, then jews would also say he got what he deserved.

Do you get some kind of buzz by provoking people and getting them upset?

Opportunists such as the danish cartoonist should be questioned on why they drew the cartoons, same as in your case, since you dont have a faith or beleive in morals, what stops you from having a dog as a girlfriend?

[MazloomyarMaseed]

Since you claim to be a Man of science, then can you kindly explain why humans react to sensitive issues such as this cartoons? if a individual mocks the photos publicly of your loved deceased grandmother, wont you want to give the guy a big punch in his face for mocking those close and loved by you? isnt this a natural reaction?