Baha'i Totalitarian Oligarchy?

[ppp]

We have been over this topic many times on RF in detail.

I do not need to repeat it here and see no good reason to repeat the topic.

Regards Tony

Tony. You are not the center of the forum. Trailblazer asked me a question about why I said what I did, and I answered her. There was no request or requirement for you to respond or repeat anything.

 

[firedragon]

I have not studied ISIS in depth @firedragon

Its a huge area of discussion and off topic.

Do you think this wikipedia article is fair?

Ideology of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - Wikipedia

Do you have any resources that would enable us to better understand the ideology and influences behind ISIS?

I definitely dont wish to derail the thread with some side topic brother. But please allow me to say this. When you say archaic laws or archaic interpretation, you must understand that more than an archaic interpretation the likes of DAISh are more on the path of a brand new interpretation or at least a communication.

If you go to the most archaic fikh try and read up on the Maliki fikh of Malik Ibn Anas. That is the oldest in the so called "Islamic world" after the prophet Muhammed. So in fact, that is the most archaic.

Also, what most of these people are reporting about Daish are assumptions based on what they think they are doing. Since you are talking about a Shariah, there have never been a "Shariah" that had any laws regulating sex slaves. Never. So how could you make it a Shariah? Do you understand what I am saying?

Read your Wikipedia article and see how many sources go to Baghdadi. Some of the sources they are citing are Badhdadi's enemies. And some of them are written by someone who uses all internet links but never a primary source.

Do you understand what I am saying? Its like making an assumption that a Christian suicide bomber in the LTTE killed 20 people along with himself and some children because the Bible says to kill even the children. Thats an assumption. Its post hoc ergo propter hoc. The LTTE suicide bomber killed these people because his cause is a Leninist rebellion led by a Christian man propagating Hindu sentiments and a Leninist agenda. Not because the Bible said so. post hoc.

So when we make sentences I would urge you to not use these buzz words we see around the media but be more analytical.

Salam.

 

[Trailblazer]

Humans. Definitely.

If there was no God, I would agree.

But lets say, for the sake of argument, that one of the people claiming that their god is the one true creator of everything, managed to convince me that is true. Why should I consider what he thinks is moral to actually be moral?

For the simple reason that if that God created humans, then God would have to know the purpose for which humans were created, thus God would have to know the best way for humans to achieve the purpose of their existence, if God is All-Knowing and All-Wise, as I believe He is.

So, if God knows that certain behaviors stand in the way of humans in achieving the purpose of their existence, or thwart their spiritual growth, and if God reveals that information through a Messenger, it seems logical to me that it would be be in our best interest to follow the teachings and laws of that Messenger to the best of our ability, even if we disagree with the teachings and laws and they preclude our doing what we would like to do.

 

[ppp]

If there was no God, I would agree.

For the simple reason that if that God created humans, then God would have to know the purpose for which humans were created, thus God would have to know the best way for humans to achieve the purpose of their existence, if God is All-Knowing and All-Wise, as I believe He is.

So, if God knows that certain behaviors stand in the way of humans in achieving the purpose of their existence, or thwart their spiritual growth, and if God reveals that information through a Messenger, it seems logical to me that it would be be in our best interest to follow the teachings and laws of that Messenger to the best of our ability, even if we disagree with the teachings and laws and they preclude our doing what we would like to do.

I thought we were talking about morality. You seem to have switched to purpose.
But fine -- morality or purpose, why should I care what a god's purpose is, or what a god thinks morality is?

 

[Trailblazer]

I thought we were talking about morality. You seem to have switched to purpose.

Our purpose in life cannot be separated from morality because the two are inextricably intertwined.

From a Baha'i point of view, the purpose of this life is to acquire spiritual virtues. That involves building our character and that necessitates making moral choices on a daily basis. It is thus necessary to know what is right or wrong in order to make the right choices.

But fine -- morality or purpose, why should I care what a god's purpose is, or what a god thinks morality is?

You wouldn't care unless you believe in God, but if you believed in God you would care because you would realize that an All-Knowing God that created humans knows what is right and wrong human behavior, what is good and bad, because that is logical.

Moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
moral means - Google Search

 

[Dawnofhope]

I definitely dont wish to derail the thread with some side topic brother. But please allow me to say this. When you say archaic laws or archaic interpretation, you must understand that more than an archaic interpretation the likes of DAISh are more on the path of a brand new interpretation or at least a communication.

If you go to the most archaic fikh try and read up on the Maliki fikh of Malik Ibn Anas. That is the oldest in the so called "Islamic world" after the prophet Muhammed. So in fact, that is the most archaic.

Also, what most of these people are reporting about Daish are assumptions based on what they think they are doing. Since you are talking about a Shariah, there have never been a "Shariah" that had any laws regulating sex slaves. Never. So how could you make it a Shariah? Do you understand what I am saying?

Read your Wikipedia article and see how many sources go to Baghdadi. Some of the sources they are citing are Badhdadi's enemies. And some of them are written by someone who uses all internet links but never a primary source.

Do you understand what I am saying? Its like making an assumption that a Christian suicide bomber in the LTTE killed 20 people along with himself and some children because the Bible says to kill even the children. Thats an assumption. Its post hoc ergo propter hoc. The LTTE suicide bomber killed these people because his cause is a Leninist rebellion led by a Christian man propagating Hindu sentiments and a Leninist agenda. Not because the Bible said so. post hoc.

So when we make sentences I would urge you to not use these buzz words we see around the media but be more analytical.

Salam.

Has there ever been fikh laws in regards sexual slavery in Islam?

Sexual slavery in Islam - Wikipedia

The neutrality of this Wikipedia article has been questioned.

Clearly ISIL represents a gross distortion of what Islam actually is. However Baghdadi and those who supported him as a Caliphate drew at least some of their inspiration from what they believed Islam was or should be now. Of course most Islamic scholars reject the legitimacy of ISIL and Baghdadi‘s claims including sexual and physical violence.

Although this is off topic, I’d rather have the discussion here than create a new thread.

 

[ppp]

Our purpose in life cannot be separated from morality because the two are inextricably intertwined.

You're not wrong. but its not complete, either. I have several purposes in life. I have had purposes that I no longer have, and expect to have purposes in the future that I do not have now. Only some of them related to morality.

You wouldn't care unless you believe in God, but if you believed in God you would care because you would realize that an All-Knowing God that created humans knows what is right and wrong human behavior, what is good and bad, because that is logical.

I don't agree An all knowing God would have an opinion on what is right or wrong. And that opinion would be based on, as you said, his purpose. And yes, because he is all knowing, he would know what behaviors would reach his goals. And he would call the behaviors that reach his goals good.

But there is no reason for me to value his goals over my own.

Moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.

You say, that right are wrong are in reference to your god's goals.

I say, that right and wrong are in reference to the metrics of fairness, reciprocity, empathy and cooperation, and that the goal is the psychological well-being of thinking beings. When some one tells me that their god wants conflicts with that standard, I call their god's wants immoral.

I am not trying to make you agree. I am just explaining why I don't.

 

[firedragon]

Has there ever been fikh laws in regards sexual slavery in Islam?

Nope.

Clearly ISIL represents a gross distortion of what Islam actually is. However Baghdadi and those who supported him as a Caliphate drew at least some of their inspiration from what they believed Islam was or should be now. Of course most Islamic scholars reject the legitimacy of ISIL and Baghdadi‘s claims including sexual and physical violence.

Although this is off topic, I’d rather have the discussion here than create a new thread.

Baghdadi never spoke of any kind of sexual violence. Nowhere. But their people did it, and they are still doing it. Maybe its the power they gained that drove them to do these things without the knowledge of Baghdadi, or he is just bull****ting us all.

Quoting a historical event is not fikh. Someone like Baghdadi or any one else for that matter doing some raping or some molestations doesnt mean its fikh. Your wikipedia page is completely invalid. Check the sources, and check the Fikh they are quoting. You will find what needs to be found.

No worries. If you wish to have the discussion here, I am okay with it.

 

[firedragon]

Has there ever been fikh laws in regards sexual slavery in Islam?

Sexual slavery in Islam - Wikipedia

The neutrality of this Wikipedia article has been questioned.

Clearly ISIL represents a gross distortion of what Islam actually is. However Baghdadi and those who supported him as a Caliphate drew at least some of their inspiration from what they believed Islam was or should be now. Of course most Islamic scholars reject the legitimacy of ISIL and Baghdadi‘s claims including sexual and physical violence.

Although this is off topic, I’d rather have the discussion here than create a new thread.

Ill tell you what.

Try and find a Shariah where homosexuality is punishable by death. Let me repeat, "a Shariah where homosexuality is punishable by death".

Cheers.

 

[Trailblazer]

You're not wrong. but its not complete, either. I have several purposes in life. I have had purposes that I no longer have, and expect to have purposes in the future that I do not have now. Only some of them related to morality.

When I said “our purpose in life” I meant the purpose that God had in mind for our lives; in other words, how God defines our purpose.

Purpose: the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. purpose measn - Google Search

“The purpose of God in creating man hath been, and will ever be, to enable him to know his Creator and to attain His Presence. To this most excellent aim, this supreme objective, all the heavenly Books and the divinely-revealed and weighty Scriptures unequivocally bear witness.” Gleanings, p. 70

That is what the Short Obligatory Prayer states.

So actually, our purpose in life is not directly related to morality.

I don't agree An all knowing God would have an opinion on what is right or wrong. And that opinion would be based on, as you said, his purpose. And yes, because he is all knowing, he would know what behaviors would reach his goals. And he would call the behaviors that reach his goals good.

I do not believe an All-Knowing God would have an opinion either, because an All-Knowing God simply KNOWS everything. So God just KNOWS what is right and wrong, He does not have to think it over and decide like humans do.

Only humans have opinions, and that is because we do not know everything. If we KNEW everything we would not have opinions because we would know. If we knew what is right and wrong, we would not need God is His Messengers to reveal teachings and laws. Of course, most people know right from wrong even without having a religion, but that is because somewhere along the line they learned it from parents or teachers, because nobody is born knowing right from wrong, and moral teachings can be traced back to all the great religions, since that is where they originated.

God has no goals for Himself, because God has no needs of His own, since God is fully self-sufficient and fully self-sustaining. God only has goals for humans, what He would like to see them achieve and become, and that is called God’s Will for humans. God’s Will is revealed to His Messengers and they reveal that to humans in scriptures.

But there is no reason for me to value his goals over my own. [/quote]
No, there would be no reason for you to do so unless you believed God existed and you trusted Him and believed he knew what was best for you.

You say, that right are wrong are in reference to your god's goals.

I say, that right and wrong are in reference to the metrics of fairness, reciprocity, empathy and cooperation, and that the goal is the psychological well-being of thinking beings. When some one tells me that their god wants conflicts with that standard, I call their god's wants immoral.

I believe that God sets the standard of morality, what is right and wrong, and God’s goal for humans is that humans do what is right in God’s Eyes (according to His standards).

What God wants for humans includes fairness, reciprocity, empathy and cooperation, as well love, mercy, kindness, truth and justice, which are all attributes of the higher spiritual nature of man. The goal is to achieve spiritual well-being which would necessarily lead to psychological well-being.

 

[ppp]

I believe that God sets the standard of morality, what is right and wrong, and God’s goal for humans is that humans do what is right in God’s Eyes (according to His standards).

I don't. And if I believed that a god existed, his standard would mean nothing to me unless he could demonstrate to my satisfaction that they should. Or if he threatened me, as depicted in most religions, but such a moral standard would be nothing more than might makes right.

To paraphrase Plato (perhaps) paraphrasing Socrates, "Is an action good and just because God says it is good, or does God will the action because it is good and just." Seems like you are going with the first.

 

[firedragon]

I say, that right and wrong are in reference to the metrics of fairness, reciprocity, empathy and cooperation, and that the goal is the psychological well-being of thinking beings. When some one tells me that their god wants conflicts with that standard, I call their god's wants immoral.

How do you decide which one is which? e.g. How do you decide whats fair? Whats the methodology?

 

[ppp]

How do you decide which one is which? e.g. How do you decide whats fair? Whats the methodology?

I am talking about what morality is. You are talking about how to determine whether an action is moral, or in this case, specifically, fair. the question of "what is fair" is going to be determined by the situation. One test of fairness is, Do any of the parties balk when the situation is subjected to one of the practical implementations of Rawl's Veil of Ignorance?

 

[firedragon]

I am talking about what morality is. You are talking about how to determine whether an action is moral, or in this case, specifically, fair. the question of "what is fair" is going to be determined by the situation. One test of fairness is, Do any of the parties balk when the situation is subjected to one of the practical implementations of Rawl's Veil of Ignorance?

So is it done alone or consensus?

 

[ppp]

So is it done alone or consensus?

??? Morality doesn't have any meaning for some guy isolated on a deserted island.

 

[firedragon]

??? Morality doesn't have any meaning for some guy isolated on a deserted island.

So its based on consensus.

See mate, you could answer directly. Nothing is gonna go wrong. So there is no need to pull out argumentative sarcasm.

Bottomline is, you are saying that morality is based on moral consensus.

 

[ppp]

So its based on consensus.

See mate, you could answer directly. Nothing is gonna go wrong. So there is no need to pull out argumentative sarcasm.

Bottomline is, you are saying that morality is based on moral consensus.

Thanks for the tone trolling. But your question was unclear. Still is.
When you say morality is based on consensus do you mean What morality is, or whether the given action is moral. They aren't the same thing.

 

[ppp]

So there is no need to pull out argumentative sarcasm.

BTW, I was being literal. Not sarcastic. But now, I am being sardonic.

Square

 

[firedragon]

Thanks for the tone trolling. But your question was unclear. Still is.
When you say morality is based on consensus do you mean What morality is, or whether the given action is moral. They aren't the same thing.

Your statement.

"I say, that right and wrong are in reference to the metrics of fairness, reciprocity, empathy and cooperation, and that the goal is the psychological well-being of thinking beings."

Questions.

1. Is that done individually or by consensus?
2. Is it epistemological or applicable to the public or both?
3. You spoke of Veil of Ignorance. How do you reconcile it with Platos muddle of democracy?

 

[ppp]

Your statement.

I asked you a question. If you think this is a conversation between us, please do me the courtesy of answering it. If you think this is merely your interrogation, go find someone else.