Debate a Muslim

[firedragon]

I am so done with evolution debates, but this made me want to comment. What are you saying about random mutations being against science?

I didnt say that.

 

[Meow Mix]

I didnt say that.

You had said, "You are trying to use experiments to prove random mutation is fact. Thats against science."

This is what I didn't understand what you meant.

 

[firedragon]

You had said, "You are trying to use experiments to prove random mutation is fact. Thats against science."

This is what I didn't understand what you meant.

Lol. Alright.

Darwinian theory of evolution is a scientific theory, and according to the philosophy of science, a scientific theory is not considered fact. Trying to prove it as fact using the same theory is against science. Science does not work that way.

 

[Meow Mix]

Lol. Alright.

Darwinian theory of evolution is a scientific theory, and according to the philosophy of science, a scientific theory is not considered fact. Trying to prove it as fact using the same theory is against science. Science does not work that way.

Oh, okay.

However, we use metaphysics alongside the science (and sometimes including its method in our justification) when determining fact. For instance observation is an epistemic justifier, and we do plenty of that in science (and often as a result of performing its method). So what is the problem in using science as a justifier?

 

[firedragon]

Oh, okay.

However, we use metaphysics alongside the science (and sometimes including its method in our justification) when determining fact. For instance observation is an epistemic justifier, and we do plenty of that in science (and often as a result of performing its method). So what is the problem in using science as a justifier?

Using science as a method to justify darwinian theory is a fact? Is not that an oxymoron?

Who spoke of science as a justifier? Is not that a strawman? This particular exchange has nothing to do with metaphysics, or about observation being used for anything. The problem with many many people is whenever anyone speaks against this kind of blind quotation of a scientific theory as fact, they try to portray you as "against the darwinian theory". Thats why he asked for some pier reviewed paper against it. Though there are many papers against it, this is irrelevant and is a strawman argument.

Hope you understand.

 

[Meow Mix]

Using science as a method to justify darwinian theory is a fact? Is not that an oxymoron?

Who spoke of science as a justifier? Is not that a strawman? This particular exchange has nothing to do with metaphysics, or about observation being used for anything. The problem with many many people is whenever anyone speaks against this kind of blind quotation of a scientific theory as fact, they try to portray you as "against the darwinian theory". Thats why he asked for some pier reviewed paper against it. Though there are many papers against it, this is irrelevant and is a strawman argument.

Hope you understand.

I did butt into a conversation I wasn’t a part of ^.^ That’s on me.

 

[firedragon]

I did butt into a conversation I wasn’t a part of ^.^ That’s on me.

Don't worry about that. You are qualified enough to correct me if I am wrong. I am no scientist. Its way way above my pay grade.

What I am telling you is MM, the Darwinian theory is the most established by far. No question about it. I can never say its false and will never do. But I will always state that it is not fact, simply because it is against science to say a theory is fact. Thats it.

When I ask someone to prove a scientific theory is fact and they cite some research, they have fundamentally misunderstood science. No one needs to be an evolutionary biologist to understand philosophy of science.

Peace.

 

[danieldemol]

Using science as a method to justify darwinian theory is a fact? Is not that an oxymoron?

Who spoke of science as a justifier? Is not that a strawman? This particular exchange has nothing to do with metaphysics, or about observation being used for anything. The problem with many many people is whenever anyone speaks against this kind of blind quotation of a scientific theory as fact, they try to portray you as "against the darwinian theory". Thats why he asked for some pier reviewed paper against it. Though there are many papers against it, this is irrelevant and is a strawman argument.

Hope you understand.

Are you saying that random gene mutation is the best scientific theory we know of to explain the facts, but not a fact itself?

 

[firedragon]

Are you saying that random gene mutation is the best scientific theory we know of to explain the facts, but not a fact itself?

I am not qualified to say "best". Maybe there will be a better theory in the future, or maybe someones already existing theory will be recognised later as the best, and maybe the best in the future will create more questions as science always does as it should, and maybe another day another theory will be recognised as best. I have no clue.

But that statement, you nailed it. I agree.

 

[Link]

William Craig watered down the original Kalam Argument. As far I know, even in the case of infinite events, it can be seen as an event, and would require a cause.

 

[Muffled]

Hi everyone, I'm new here. I don't know how this works, but here we go.

- You can post your objections (or questions) against Islam here – it's scripture, theology, philosophy, law, politics, spirituality, or history –, bring your best supportive arguments & a white flag (or a prayer mat) for future use.

Good luck!

I believe Islam can never save a person from sin. The reality is that no-one is capable of eliminating sin in his life. That is why it is necessary for Jesus to save a person from sin because He can do what you can't.

 

[Ghazaly]

"thank you for the information."

- Not a problem.

I would say that an identity like being homosexual is not about "what hole they lust for." This can be true of any human, heterosexual or otherwise. Romantic affection is emotional, different in scope and quality from Platonic/friendly affection, and is felt deeply by some homosexuals between each other the same as romantic affection is felt between some heterosexuals. So, I don't think that characterizing it as mere lust is fair. (Whether or not a person opposed to homosexuality believes these feelings are natural, it is still true that they exist regardless).

- Lust is not a sin. Obsession with lust at the expense of one's faith or action upon it beyond Sharia's boundaries is. Homosexual feelings are just that, feelings. As long as they are inconsequential, they are inconsequential in Sharia; or if privately consequential, then inconsequential in Sharia Law. Also, sihaq (lesbian act) is categorically different from liwat (sodomy) in Sharia, for the former is not penalized albeit prohibited while the later is penalized. I'm not too familiar with the tradition on this issue regarding homosexual tendencies. But I've read enough to gain some insight. I've come across a couple of perspectives on the matter (which are not mutually exclusive):

• Homosexual tendencies are potential for all people with sufficient societal incentive. Imam Nawawi being among the proponents of this view. Their rationale is that any practice no matter how abhorrent or aberrant (anti-Fitrah) is found to be an adopted norm in some society. Female infanticide was a norm in pre-Islamic Arabia – Suicide was a norm among widows in India – Incest was a norm among Zoroastrians – Zoophilia was a norm among some African tribes (it's actually a norm today in many places, like in Colombia) – Pederasty (homosexual pedophilia) was a norm among ancient Greeks (Socrates himself had a boy muse) – Sodomy was also a norm in Sodom & Gomorrah (hence the name). Another ground for this affirmation is the hadith of the Prophet (pbuh) speaking of the Signs of the Last Day: "men will marry men and women will marry women". If in some point in the future society homosexuality becomes norm, it follows homosexuality must be a potential tendency.
• Homosexual & heterosexual tendencies both emerge from an instinctive (of Fitrah) masculine–feminine attraction. Imam Suyuti endorses this view. The object of desire among sodomites being boys or teens (amrad –who look feminine & beautiful), & among lesbians manly women (mutarajila), idem for effeminate men (mukhannath). Although the normative expression of the masculine–feminine attraction is in man-woman attraction, the reason for such deviation must either natural among intersex (khuntha) or acquired in childhood due to sexual abuse or deviant first experiences.
• Homosexual tendencies are acquired – from cultural awareness & active obsession. I found Imam Ibn Taymyyah positing this view; That you don't find the practice among societies which do not have a cultural awareness of it primitively. It does not occur to males or females among each other that something desirable is to be had. Similarly, societies where incest is norm, desire is expected, but in those where this awareness is non-existent so is the desire. Then, among societies in which homosexual awareness exists, the desire is driven by obsession (addiction). Those who indulge in this awareness will eventually acquire an appreciation for it with obsession.

I think the question I was implicitly asking is whether homosexuals born into a country with Sharia have anything to worry about if they are not Muslims? Obviously, if they are Muslims, then they are consciously deciding that they will abstain from their affections ...

- As to being a Muslim under Sharia or non-Muslim within Muslim jurisdiction. Sharia aims to block extra-marital relations –adultery in particular (coitus or sodomy while being married), for it sabotages safe progeny. Since said act is by nature a private affair, Sharia exercises a two-fold block:

• If done in private then it must be kept strictly private. Secret repentance is obligatory & confessions are extremely discouraged (inadmissible according to some). Attempts to divulge or expose the act by a third party or through other means (like video recording) are sternly penalized. In-house discovery must be solved in-house: accusation of spouse prompts permanent separation, & the child of a non-accused is naturally assigned to the husband (even if not biologically his) – All possible venues are exhausted to keep private extra-marital acts as private as possible, deterring any revelatory factors, insuring integrity of the family & safeguarding the honor of those involved to allow for repentance & to protect the children's wellbeing; blocking hence the spread of the act or any potential normalization.
• If done in public, in a fairly crowded space, such that the condition 4 righteous, simultaneous, corroborative & accidental witnesses on the act of penetration is fulfilled [not in a brothel or a place where testimony would be rejected], then the penalty is stoning to death [100 lashes if the perpetrator is not married, & no penalty if it's lesbian act]. Since no sane person would actually go to these great lengths for a moment of gratification, & given the prohibitively impossible condition to fulfill, chances of such occurrence are of mythic proportions – The true goal thus being to breath hopelessness into any attempt to advertise or normalize these acts & deter them by sheer horror from the image of penalty.

- As to being non-Muslim under non-Muslim jurisdiction in an Islamic state. Theoretically, it's possible that homosexuality be legalized. Though it is not so obvious to imagine in reality. A traditional Islamic system is a community-based system, which is precisely why homosexuality would probably never be legalized. Sexual freedom in the West was born effectively out of abandonment of community. Liberalism, in essence, is the promotion & protection of individualistic choices sans community –the redirection of the individual's care from community to state. Hence, the censor of community values (generally religious values) in favor of the idolization of individual whims. In a system of communities, it's hard to imagine one normalizing the practice, since it is so universally abhorred by virtually all peoples & all faiths. The Greeks under the Ottomans adopted Roman Law but they were Christian, maybe if they hadn't adopted Christianity the practice of pederasty would've probably still been practiced. Maybe!

It seems to me as though people should have the choice... I probably would still have no desire to have children.

- I don't understand this. Birthing is not an object of choice, that's a matter of course. We are not talking about personal preferences. We are talking about systematic resolutions, by power of legislation or enacted policies or education or conventions, or propaganda...etc.

such that they can still obtain birth control?

- Contraception (unless harmful) is all permissible in Sharia, IN marriage.

Also, I use an IUD... Why shouldn't that be available?

- Why not indeed, for married couples.

I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the scale you're using for fertility rate.

- Fertility rate is all births per woman by age 50.

If I look at the fertility rate for Qatar, according to Google it appears to be 1.87 births per woman in 2018

.
- That stat is for Qatar, not Qatari citizens. Qatar is 9/10 immigrants with a 3 to 1 male to female ratio. For Qatari citizens, the fertility rate is indeed 4.0.

It does raise the question though: aren't very high fertility rates ultimately going to be destructive if they're universal? There are finite resources on the planet. Sometimes having lower birth rates is good.

- That's an argument against high fertility rates not for low fertility rates. Overpopulation is a myth. High fertility rates are generally a result of war, rural lifestyle & extreme poverty. The official policy in the West during the Cold War to limit "overpopulation" in Africa was 'rationing', that to limit aid accordingly to government willingness to prevent births, until they realized more poverty just begets more babies, & switched the gear to female emancipation.

despite higher education, Qatari women still have high fertility rates. Is this the right interpretation?

- Bingo.

Well, I am a scientist first; but I engage in a lot of analytical philosophy as a hobby. I am most interested in analytical argument, ontology, epistemology, ethics, and so on. A journey might be interesting; but I'm interested in argument and reasoning to get a taste of how the man operated (operates?).

- Looking forward to discussing more topics in the future then. I get you, but these books come from an assumed intellectual paradigm & religious background, hard to appreciate for the non-initiated. Al-Ghazali wrote some 300 works, about 70 of them extant, but very few are translated. He wrote many works in:

• Jurisprudence = like his 20-volume al-Basit, or the 7-volumes al-Wasit...
• Legal theory = like his 4-volumes al-Mustasfa [the reference book on the subject after Imam Shafi's Risala]...
• Comparative jurisprudence = like his Maakhid Khilaf , & many others...
• Exegesis = like his 40-volume Tafsir [Quran commentary], or his famous book Jawahir Quran...
• Theology = too many too count, about Islamic beliefs among all the different sects, notably his Al-Iqtisad Fil Itiqad on the proof of God...
• Comparative religion = expositional & refutational works on non-Muslims beliefs, kitabya (Christians, Jews), dahria (temporalists, naturalists), & ruhania (Hindus & such)... [although al-Ghazali adopts textual inerrancy of the Bible, I disagree with it]
• Logic = such as Miyar al-Ilm, & his groundbreaking Mihak an-Nathar [the first successful merging of Greek Logic with Islamic Logic, the subsequent standard in the topic]
• Epistemology = such as Mizan al-Ilam, & Qustas al-Mustaqeen... very advanced in comparison to what I read from western authors.
• Metaphysics = very many, most notably his duo Maqasid al-Falasifa – Aims of the Philosophers [an exposition of Greek metaphysics] & his subsequent revolutionary work Tahafut al-Falasifa – The Incoherence of the Philosophers a critique & refutation of Greek philosophy. <= this one maybe pertinent for you.
• Ethics = such as Mizan al-Amal, & Ayuha Walad...
• Politics = like his Tibr Masbuk Fi Nasihat Muluk...
• Sufism = great very many, what he is most known for, about Allah, His attributes & the soul.
• Literature = such as his Diwan [poetic corpus], or Risalat Tayr, & of course his autobiography: Al-Munqith Mina Dalal – Deliverer From Error...
• His Magnus Opus = Ihyaa Ulum Deen – Revival of Religious Sciences in 40 books: the single foremost work consolidating all 3 dimensions of religion, of morality, rationality & spirituality under a single frame [I've seen some of its books translated but I'm not sure if all are]
• ...etc.

 

[Ghazaly]

1) I'm not Western; I'm Arab and have lived in Muslim countries my whole life so far.

- That's irrelevant. You have a western mindset, not a Muslim one. Your ancestors founded some of the greatest empires of the world & spread the most humane & enlightened civilization history has ever seen emerging from the prophetic legacy of Prophet Muhammed (pbuh); & yet you are running after others who have humiliated your peoples all their history. Truly sad! I mean that.

2) Pointing to issues in the West doesn't change the points I asked about when it comes to the beliefs you've stated in this thread. It's merely an example of tu quoque, since I didn't even bring up any Western country as a moral role model or try to justify such things as child marriage in some American states. On the other hand, you're openly arguing that child marriage can be acceptable under specific circumstances, so it makes more sense to me to focus on that in the context of this thread.

- If tomorrow the US lowers the marital age to 10, this conversation will end. Or if it's raised to 25, we would be having a different conversation. That's the effect of Power. As Ibn Khaldun says, "the dominated is ever infatuated with emulating the dominant". Conversely, if the US falls tomorrow as did the USSR in 1991, you will simply go back to your ways –the same way most apostates of the 70s & 80s adopted communist ideas & lifestyles before abandoning them after the USSR was disbanded. Indeed, power begets submission. As to your contention against my point, YES, it is a matter of FACT that marital age is a customary condition, wether you like it or not. Has always been, will always be. Sharia just sets a lower limit. Western current feelings & customs are not universally binding truths. That's preposterous! This behavior & attitude is unique to the West, it hasn't been noticed among any other people or civilizations. To impose their own customs as universal truths whatever their trending feelings happen to be at the time. When women were banned from school in 19th century Europe they barred women from school wherever their dominion extended, even in remote places like the African state Sokoto Sultanate where education was mandatory for both genders, & elsewhere in the Muslim world. When divorce was banned in the West in the early 20th century at the height of Colonialism, they forced their disgusting ways on Muslims & constrained them from divorce as much as they could, until they decided divorce is a "human right".

3) It's easy to call a story "fake news" or dismiss scientific knowledge when it undermines a belief one has, but your basis for doing so is pretty shaky in this case.

- You're committing what you're denouncing. You literally brought a fake story, yet you're dismissing the fact that this is a fake story because it undermines your biases, that you must accept it at face value. Your appeal to example turned out not just fallacious but also unsupported. That is all.

Child marriage has long been an issue in Yemen, and cases like the one in the story are far from unique. Instead of brushing them aside and calling them "fake news," it seems to me it is much more reasonable and ethical to address their causes and attempt to think of what the solutions may be.

- Fake news are fake news, they can't be otherwise. Law of non-contradiction. Yemen is a warzone. If you have any decency from having an Arab background fix your priorities. Not everything has to be about degeneracy. If you're truly worried about "children" –actually mature young people– being sexualized then worry about the several dozens of millions of them committing to sexual debauchery in the West. 600k "children" are currently married in the US as well. Talk about those. Don't be a hypocrite.

4) You said, "[...] if there is actual harm then its alleviation is granted in Sharia." So, for example, if you lived in Yemen and witnessed first-hand a case like the one in the link I posted, which showed an example of the harms of child marriage, would you then be opposed to child marriage on the grounds that it did "actual harm"?

- No. First of all, it's early marriage, not child marriage. That's abusive language, used as a propaganda tool to extend western interest & hegemony into the rest of the World. Second of all, virtually all countries have early marriages, even with stated minimal age of marriage at 18 – with extra conditions, such as: parental consent, pregnancy, emancipation, court approval...etc, which are all valid considerations in Sharia [hence the 600k "children" in early marriage in the US]. This whole propaganda driven vomit is absurd, born only from deluded self-righteousness & adoration of depravity. Third of all, the alleviation of harm principle in your case would apply only to said case. One harmful marriage does not entail all marriages are. Otherwise we would just ban marriage for good. You're not going to ban 30s couple from marriage because some are bad! However, it is possible to restrict the practice under the principle of Sad ath-Tharae' (impeded consequences) according to the 1st Maxim of Sharia: "matters are judged in light of their objective", in case it is shown that a certain type of relationship leads *generally* to harm.

 

[Ghazaly]

Well, I would first doubt your claim that the Qur'an is the only scripture which has been perfectly preserved. For most religions which came into existence after the invention of the printing press, their books have arguably been perfectly preserved, as with almost any other book which was published through printing.

- I don't see the connection! Scribes use nibs to write letters, pressmen use blocks to imprint letters. Both copy from somewhere else. Where is the perfection here?

But even if you want to restrict the discussion to ancient texts, I’m not sure how we could even know that the Qur'an is "perfectly preserved," much less that it’s the only religious text which has been so preserved. We just don’t have the originals to compare. We don’t have recordings of Muhammad’s recitations, nor do we even have Uthman's Qur'an. It is the same with most ancient texts; we don’t have the originals.

- How would you know you have the originals? How would you know those recordings if you had them are authentic?

Now, you might say that we have evidence of other texts not being perfectly preserved because of significant variation in the manuscript traditions, but while this might be true for some texts, it would not be true for all of them. Some religious texts are only preserved in a single manuscript, so we don’t have that kind of evidence.

- What is 'perfectly preserved' for you?

As for your question, that's simple. If I publish a book, and then edit it, and release a second edition, then both versions, even if they might be contradictory, will have faithfully communicated my intentions at the time of publication. It’s perfectly possible that God could reveal a book and then allow humans to change it if he wanted to say something different at a later time.

- Regardless of the theological implications of this assumption, it does not answer my question, it just doubles the doubt – unless you wish to say that every human alteration is actually divine alteration! Again, how can an altered book faithfully inform us of the true message of its author?

And I would say that it's just impossible to demonstrate this for reasons I have addressed above.

- Therefore the Quran is not true? Of course it's demonstrable. Your conjectures –"reasons"– are fallacious.

Your image is missing.

Here

 

[Alex22]

Despite all your posturing, it is clear from reading the Koran that Allah considers non-believers to be the enemy, and promises them fire and a painful doom. Islam's attitude towards those who do not share the faith is clear.

He's doing some Taqiyya, which is the same thing that Christians do when they lie for Jesus.

 

[Meow Mix]

Lust is not a sin. Obsession with lust at the expense of one's faith or action upon it beyond Sharia's boundaries is. Homosexual feelings are just that, feelings. As long as they are inconsequential, they are inconsequential in Sharia; or if privately consequential, then inconsequential in Sharia Law. Also, sihaq (lesbian act) is categorically different from liwat (sodomy) in Sharia, for the former is not penalized albeit prohibited while the later is penalized. I'm not too familiar with the tradition on this issue regarding homosexual tendencies. But I've read enough to gain some insight. I've come across a couple of perspectives on the matter (which are not mutually exclusive):

• Homosexual tendencies are potential for all people with sufficient societal incentive. Imam Nawawi being among the proponents of this view. Their rationale is that any practice no matter how abhorrent or aberrant (anti-Fitrah) is found to be an adopted norm in some society. Female infanticide was a norm in pre-Islamic Arabia – Suicide was a norm among widows in India – Incest was a norm among Zoroastrians – Zoophilia was a norm among some African tribes (it's actually a norm today in many places, like in Colombia) – Pederasty (homosexual pedophilia) was a norm among ancient Greeks (Socrates himself had a boy muse) – Sodomy was also a norm in Sodom & Gomorrah (hence the name). Another ground for this affirmation is the hadith of the Prophet (pbuh) speaking of the Signs of the Last Day: "men will marry men and women will marry women". If in some point in the future society homosexuality becomes norm, it follows homosexuality must be a potential tendency.
• Homosexual & heterosexual tendencies both emerge from an instinctive (of Fitrah) masculine–feminine attraction. Imam Suyuti endorses this view. The object of desire among sodomites being boys or teens (amrad –who look feminine & beautiful), & among lesbians manly women (mutarajila), idem for effeminate men (mukhannath). Although the normative expression of the masculine–feminine attraction is in man-woman attraction, the reason for such deviation must either natural among intersex (khuntha) or acquired in childhood due to sexual abuse or deviant first experiences.
• Homosexual tendencies are acquired – from cultural awareness & active obsession. I found Imam Ibn Taymyyah positing this view; That you don't find the practice among societies which do not have a cultural awareness of it primitively. It does not occur to males or females among each other that something desirable is to be had. Similarly, societies where incest is norm, desire is expected, but in those where this awareness is non-existent so is the desire. Then, among societies in which homosexual awareness exists, the desire is driven by obsession (addiction). Those who indulge in this awareness will eventually acquire an appreciation for it with obsession.

Out of curiosity, why are men penalized, but not women?

Also, I would comment on the second bullet point that not all attractions are masculine-feminine, even between heterosexuals. Some feminine women are attracted to men with feminine attributes, and vice versa. I myself am a feminine woman (though I have tomboyish personality characteristics, I am still feminine, would not describe myself as masculine). Yet the women that pique my interest are feminine as well. In the USA people use the pejorative "lipstick lesbians" for this (feminine women attracted to feminine women).

I'm attracted to women's softness, literally and figuratively: I feel safe with women, more emotionally vulnerable, better able to express myself; all with the backdrop and complications of the actual physical attraction. But I have not found myself attracted to masculine women.

There are also bear pairs (this is masculine men that are attracted to masculine men).

The second bullet point might be a demographic thing (perhaps it is much more common), just pointing out that as with many things, there are exceptions.

As to being a Muslim under Sharia or non-Muslim within Muslim jurisdiction. Sharia aims to block extra-marital relations –adultery in particular (coitus or sodomy while being married), for it sabotages safe progeny. Since said act is by nature a private affair, Sharia exercises a two-fold block:

• If done in private then it must be kept strictly private. Secret repentance is obligatory & confessions are extremely discouraged (inadmissible according to some). Attempts to divulge or expose the act by a third party or through other means (like video recording) are sternly penalized. In-house discovery must be solved in-house: accusation of spouse prompts permanent separation, & the child of a non-accused is naturally assigned to the husband (even if not biologically his) – All possible venues are exhausted to keep private extra-marital acts as private as possible, deterring any revelatory factors, insuring integrity of the family & safeguarding the honor of those involved to allow for repentance & to protect the children's wellbeing; blocking hence the spread of the act or any potential normalization.
• If done in public, in a fairly crowded space, such that the condition 4 righteous, simultaneous, corroborative & accidental witnesses on the act of penetration is fulfilled [not in a brothel or a place where testimony would be rejected], then the penalty is stoning to death [100 lashes if the perpetrator is not married, & no penalty if it's lesbian act]. Since no sane person would actually go to these great lengths for a moment of gratification, & given the prohibitively impossible condition to fulfill, chances of such occurrence are of mythic proportions – The true goal thus being to breath hopelessness into any attempt to advertise or normalize these acts & deter them by sheer horror from the image of penalty.

Even as far as deterrence goes, in my opinion that's rather harsh. But I understand this is informative, not necessarily meant for an ethical judgment.

As to being non-Muslim under non-Muslim jurisdiction in an Islamic state. Theoretically, it's possible that homosexuality be legalized. Though it is not so obvious to imagine in reality. A traditional Islamic system is a community-based system, which is precisely why homosexuality would probably never be legalized. Sexual freedom in the West was born effectively out of abandonment of community. Liberalism, in essence, is the promotion & protection of individualistic choices sans community –the redirection of the individual's care from community to state. Hence, the censor of community values (generally religious values) in favor of the idolization of individual whims. In a system of communities, it's hard to imagine one normalizing the practice, since it is so universally abhorred by virtually all peoples & all faiths. The Greeks under the Ottomans adopted Roman Law but they were Christian, maybe if they hadn't adopted Christianity the practice of pederasty would've probably still been practiced. Maybe!

I would hope not (regarding pederasty), as that involves children and children are unable to consent.

I think this distinction you draw between individualism and community is a useful distinction, and I recognize that different cultures fall at a different place on this scale. There are clearly pros and cons with each, so thank you for this commentary. I of course disagree with some assessments, but that was to be expected.

I don't understand this. Birthing is not an object of choice, that's a matter of course. We are not talking about personal preferences. We are talking about systematic resolutions, by power of legislation or enacted policies or education or conventions, or propaganda...etc.

- Contraception (unless harmful) is all permissible in Sharia, IN marriage.

- Why not indeed, for married couples.

What about women that use birth control to alleviate periods that are not married?

That's an argument against high fertility rates not for low fertility rates. Overpopulation is a myth. High fertility rates are generally a result of war, rural lifestyle & extreme poverty. The official policy in the West during the Cold War to limit "overpopulation" in Africa was 'rationing', that to limit aid accordingly to government willingness to prevent births, until they realized more poverty just begets more babies, & switched the gear to female emancipation.

I certainly do not support the USA's sordid history of imperialistic adventures. There is a lot about my government and its history that are repugnant. You won't find disagreements here about that.

(Though I obviously support women's liberation, of course).

Looking forward to discussing more topics in the future then. I get you, but these books come from an assumed intellectual paradigm & religious background, hard to appreciate for the non-initiated. Al-Ghazali wrote some 300 works, about 70 of them extant, but very few are translated. He wrote many works in:

• Jurisprudence = like his 20-volume al-Basit, or the 7-volumes al-Wasit...
• Legal theory = like his 4-volumes al-Mustasfa [the reference book on the subject after Imam Shafi's Risala]...
• Comparative jurisprudence = like his Maakhid Khilaf , & many others...
• Exegesis = like his 40-volume Tafsir [Quran commentary], or his famous book Jawahir Quran...
• Theology = too many too count, about Islamic beliefs among all the different sects, notably his Al-Iqtisad Fil Itiqad on the proof of God...
• Comparative religion = expositional & refutational works on non-Muslims beliefs, kitabya (Christians, Jews), dahria (temporalists, naturalists), & ruhania (Hindus & such)... [although al-Ghazali adopts textual inerrancy of the Bible, I disagree with it]
• Logic = such as Miyar al-Ilm, & his groundbreaking Mihak an-Nathar [the first successful merging of Greek Logic with Islamic Logic, the subsequent standard in the topic]
• Epistemology = such as Mizan al-Ilam, & Qustas al-Mustaqeen... very advanced in comparison to what I read from western authors.
• Metaphysics = very many, most notably his duo Maqasid al-Falasifa – Aims of the Philosophers [an exposition of Greek metaphysics] & his subsequent revolutionary work Tahafut al-Falasifa – The Incoherence of the Philosophers a critique & refutation of Greek philosophy. <= this one maybe pertinent for you.
• Ethics = such as Mizan al-Amal, & Ayuha Walad...
• Politics = like his Tibr Masbuk Fi Nasihat Muluk...
• Sufism = great very many, what he is most known for, about Allah, His attributes & the soul.
• Literature = such as his Diwan [poetic corpus], or Risalat Tayr, & of course his autobiography: Al-Munqith Mina Dalal – Deliverer From Error...
• His Magnus Opus = Ihyaa Ulum Deen – Revival of Religious Sciences in 40 books: the single foremost work consolidating all 3 dimensions of religion, of morality, rationality & spirituality under a single frame [I've seen some of its books translated but I'm not sure if all are]
• ...etc.

Well, I am an astrophysics grad student, so I'm familiar with perusing technical literature (I try to add three papers a week to my Zotero, which is a scientific journal organizer); and I have both formal and informal training in philosophy and logic. The biggest issue could be the assumed cultural and religious background that I would lack -- also, whether a particular work has been translated or not.

 

[Tiberius]

If you make up words that I didnt use like "seen the truth" just to be vague, I will ask you to clarify what you mean by that sentence because you are attributing it to me.

But though you are trying to use this to evade any answer, I can tell you that you have been answered.

Any more objective questions to ask?

I thought it was quite clear, both from the context I used it and what was written in the passages I was talking about that "seen the truth" meant "understanding that the Koran is an accurate source of information about the existence of Allah and which is the correct religion."

But it seems that you, like so many other religious people who have poor arguments, would rather endlessly quibble over wordplay than actually discuss the issue at hand.

 

[firedragon]

"understanding that the Koran is an accurate source of information about the existence of Allah and which is the correct religion."

No one defined it like that. These are your impositions.

But it seems that you, like so many other religious people who have poor arguments, would rather endlessly quibble over wordplay than actually discuss the issue at hand.

Thats why with all your insults and comments like this "so many religious people" etc etc, its better to clarify what you exactly mean because some people like you tend to not know the subject much, and make up things like above.

 

[Meow Mix]

William Craig watered down the original Kalam Argument. As far I know, even in the case of infinite events, it can be seen as an event, and would require a cause.

Given a chain of events there are three possibilities:

1) Some finite chain of events leading back to a necessary cause (it has to be necessary, otherwise it itself would require an explanation). But this has a problem: necessary causes have necessary effects; so any events explained by a necessary cause are themselves necessary, and there would be no contingency. This would be a fatalistic universe not unlike the universe of Spinoza.

2) Some infinite chain of events with an infinite chain of causes. Here, too, there is a problem with contingency: why that chain and not some other chain?

3) Some chain of events leading back to an uncaused cause, true randomness.

 

[Tiberius]

No one defined it like that. These are your impositions.



Thats why with all your insults and comments like this "so many religious people" etc etc, its better to clarify what you exactly mean because some people like you tend to not know the subject much, and make up things like above.

You know, you spend an awful lot of time telling me why I'm wrong, and yet you do virtually nothing to tell me what is right.

Of course, in my experience, believers are motivated to always remain vague, because once their beliefs are formed into something concrete, they fall apart. Far better for them to remain vague, so they can constantly move the goalposts.