Debate a Muslim

[Ghazaly]

I have previously understood that Jews and Christians have a special status under most interpretations of Sharia (and nobody take what I'm saying here at face value because I really don't know that much about Sharia). So I have an additional question: are there significant differences in social status between "People of the Book" and other non-Muslims under Sharia? For instance, consider someone that is just not a theist at all, or perhaps a Buddhist.
Bonus question: Are Baha'i people considered People of the Book? What about Mormons?

- This relates to the concept of Ismah – Inviolability in Sharia. There are two schools on this [there is a 3rd view but it's minor & inconsequential in history]. The Hanafi view is that the basis of inviolability is humanity: al-Ismah al-Adamiah – Human Inviolability. Thus, the default assumed condition of non-Muslims is that of Peace – Silm, unless otherwise the case. We are at peace, unless you start a war. The Maliki view is that the basis of inviolability is covenant: Ismat al-Ahd – Inviolability of Covenant. Thus, the default assumed condition of non-Muslims is that of War – Harb, unless otherwise established. We are either at peace under covenant, if not then at war. The two views are identical when it comes to non-Muslims with established relations with Muslims, either within Muslim borders or within other countries connected to Muslims. In the historic & state reality they are effectively identical. Hence, Dar al-Islam – The Abode of Peace & Dar al-Harb – The Abode of War. In the sense that, those in the Abode of Peace are inviolable, & those in the Abode of War are not. Inviolability extends to the 6 sacred rights: faith, life, reason, family, property & honor –accordingly, for the Prophet (pbuh) said: "whoever kills who has a covenant from Allah and His Messenger, then he has violated the covenant with Allah and His Messenger, so he shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise" & said: "The property of those who have been given a covenant is not lawful except for the dues which are levied."...etc. Humans are categories according to the following in Sharia:

The Abode of Peace is inclusive of :

• Ismat Millah – Inviolability of Faith = any Muslim anywhere.
• Ismat Dhimmah – Inviolability of Protection = non-Muslim permanent residents of Islamic state. <– Ahl Dhimmah
• Ismat Istiman – Inviolability of Asylum = non-Muslim temporary residents in Islamic state.
• Ismat al-Ahd – Inviolability of Treaty = non-Muslim residents in foreign territories under peace treaty with Muslims.

Abode of War consists of:

• Muharid – Combatants = non-Muslim militarily enabled adult males in foreign territories at war with Muslims <– non-inviolable.
• Musalim – non-Combatants = non-Muslim non-combatant women, children, elderly, slaves, disabled, insane, peasants, laborers & monks <– granted semi-inviolability, for the Prophet (pbuh) said: "do not kill the women, and the children, and the elderly. Must not killed are also the chronically ill, the blind, the monk, and the slave must not be killed". & also said: "you must not kill a woman or a laborer"...etc.

- Dhimmah – Protection extends to all people of all backgrounds except for: apostates according to Hanafi, or apostates & Arab pagans according to Maliki. This includes the People of the Book, others from other faiths, & even deists or atheists just the same. Though we don't have that categorization in the tradition, the non-religious are thus categorized (according to Imam Shahrastani):

• Softaia – Sophist = deny the temporal, deny the spiritual, deny the moral.
• Batinia – Esoterist = deny the temporal, confirm the spiritual, confirm the moral.
• Tabia – Naturist = confirm the temporal, deny the spiritual, deny the moral.
• Dahria – Temporalist = confirm the temporal, deny the spiritual, confirm the moral. – like some Buddhists.
• Ilahia – Deist = confirm the temporal, confirm the spiritual, deny the moral.
• Sabia - Sabian = confirm the temporal, confirm the spiritual, confirm the moral.

- Ahl Kitab – People of the Book are Christians & Jews, i.e. those who say we are Christian & those who say we are Jews, aka those who saw we follow Jesus (pbuh) or Moses (pbuh) respectively. As far as Muslims are concerned Mormons are Christian. You won't believe how many Christian or Jewish sects popped out in the Middle East under Islamic rule –hundreds. Ahl Kitab have a special status in their relations with other Muslims, not with the state. For instance, Muslims can marry among Christians or Jews, & they can eat from their slaughter, whereas this would be prohibited with Hindus or others. Zoroastrians have a semi-Ahl Kitab status, for the Prophet (pbuh) said that they had a book but they burned it. That's why there is difference of opinion among the ulama regarding their status. Bahai are evidently not Muslim, but they would still be considered a faith community.

This argument doesn't establish what is meant by "the world" (are we talking about the visible cosmos?) or that a cause would be a being rather than a thing.

- The world = all things. A 'being' is a thing that metaphysically is – exists.

Usually the version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument that I see proceeds like this:
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
C) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

- I've seen that one. The language is bad, it kinda begs the question, makes it confusing to deal with. "began" kinda assumes a time frame!

This formulation suffers from the same problems: for instance, we can attack the second premise by merely pointing out it is unjustified. If we probe back to the Planck era of the Big Bang, there is no reason to suppose that the universe has an ontological beginning even if the visible universe has a chronological beginning (with the entropic minimum of the Big Bang event).

- What you said is not true. An absolute beginning can effectively be an ontological one. The argument is more about change, has nothing to do with time. Ashaaris don't believe in the absoluteness of time, or space. It's all relative to them.

I'm an astrophysics grad student that has done most of my starting research on cosmology and universal evolution (specifically, on constraining dark energy and its equation of state using high redshift supernovae)

- That's impressive. Not many females in the field. Your intelligence shows, unlike some other people in this Forum.

and while I don't have a deep technical understanding of quantum field theory yet (that's literally over the next two semesters, finally), I know enough to know that the Kalam Cosmological Argument has failed premises.

- Yeah, that card is not going to work on me. QFT does not inform the argument one way or another, just new patterns, if anything it's completely compatible with the Ashaari view of the world. In fact, in contrast to Greek views, the Ashaari atomic theory is a quantized model, It postulates:

• Tawafuq principle = efficient causation is inductive, not necessary – effect does not necessarily follow from cause.
• Amara principle = events are isolated & discrete.
• Ittirad principle = nature is uniform under a habit ('ada) immediately or secondarily imposed by Allah.
• I'tibar principle = dimensions are relative contingent on perception, such as time & space.
• Jawhar fard principle = matter is quantized, i.e. divisible into infinitesimal discrete essence that is non-divisible actually (qat'an), forcefully (fi'lan), conceptually (wahman) or formally (fardan) – called thus jawhar fard.
• Mawdu' principle = accident (a'rad) are contingent on singular essence (jawhar fard) – a'rad (accidents) to them being: motion/stillness, combination/separation, time & space.
• A'rad principle = accidents are probable until actualized.
• Tazammun principle = accidents actualize in quanta of time, & they do not persist two times.
• Tamakkun principle = accidents actualize in quanta of space.
• Tafra principle = velocity is bounded, i.e. there is a maximum & minimum possible velocity.
• ...etc. (you may come across these in al-Ghazali's works)

- As you probably know QFT postulates symmetry bounded relativist fields based on different spin for different particles (higgs, bosons, fermions) which can interact with each-other. This is compatible with the aforementioned Ashaari concepts.

 

[Ghazaly]

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

- A priori, because the Prophet (pbuh) said so. The simple rational is that there is no penetration in lesbian acts, this also extends to all sexual encounters where no penetration occurred, no penalty shall therefrom ensue. Lesbianism in the tradition is just thought of categorically different from sodomy, & 'Homosexuality' therein relates to male-male acts. There is an opinion of Hasan al-Basri which considers lesbian acts to be permissible if the woman fears she may fall into fornication, though this is an aberrant opinion (not valid). Point being, there is an extreme bias against sodomy in the Islamic Tradition, though a minor one against lesbianism. In the Maliki school (& the Hanbali) lesbian acts do not invalidate ritual purity (wudu) for prayer unless with discharge. Historically in Muslim society, although rare, lesbianism was a pre-marital practice among some women till they find a husband. Also, the image & health consequences of sodomy themselves induce disgust, as opposed to lesbianism – probably another reason the act wasn't thought of similarly.

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).

- It's probably still some form of masculinity towards femininity. Imam Suyuti in fact dealt with some trans people (mukhanath– the non-biological type) to which he prescribed psychological help, he found that by habit of companionship behaviors change accordingly whilst the person gain back their self awareness. Imam Nawawi's views, however, were not from personal experience, rather from historical observation & social analysis, which I happen to agree with, there is no reason not to.

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.

- This may be presumptuous to ask, but were you subject to any sexual abuse in childhood or experienced anything deviant of the sort? I have asked many in your situation before, they have all confirmed.

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.

- It's possible, indeed.

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.

- That's the point. It is indeed harsh, hence Hadd (penalty) means literally: Block or Stop. Adultery can absolutely never be allowed to spread. The moment that threshold is crossed, Family collapses.

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

- Their customs vs. your customs. You can not rightfully call for sexual freedom for your preferences & deprive it of others. Incest was an expression of love for Zoroastrians, deemed then the highest forms of love, the 'original love', that of Adam-Eve. The Greeks too thought their Pederasty an expression of love, truly the ultimate expression of love. A beautiful boy was considered the aesthetic apotheosis, & his love divine love. Surely, the Greek society eventually degenerated into decadence & collapsed, but the practice was a normalized as one can possibly be. It was an essential part of Greek education for the free citizen. Boys were provided with adult lovers as a right of passage to prove honor & be welcomed to aristocracy. The primary bound in Greek society was between a male & his older sodomite, pervading every part of the social & political life of the nation.

- Whatever feels normal to you in your own society is not necessarily the case elsewhere, or vis-versa. That's the weight of customs. The issue with your position is multi-leveled. Firstly, enforcing your own sexuality under the plea of free love just to deny another undermines your own cause. It's also incoherent & hypocritical, especially given the history of your cause itself, then stigmatized as a "perversion" & "abuse" driven practice. Committing against others exactly what you denounce against yourself.

- Secondly, the initiative cause of "Free Love" & "Sexual Freedom" born out of the French postmodernist movement lead by intellectuals like Michel Foucault, Simon De Beauvoir, Jean Paul Sarter & others, which spread to the US in the 60s & 70s, did not aim to just legalize homosexuality. They called for decriminalization of all consensual relationships, including between adults & minors & zoophilic relations. In 1977 a petition to abolish consent laws in France was issued to the French Parliament & signed by 70 prominent intellectuals, including their aforementioned leaders. Their rationale being – that maintaining consent laws, which were priorly set to protect the chastity of young girls, when chastity is no more a concern, is to create a criminal class of adults without any actual crimes committed, predicated that adults are criminals by virtue of being just adults – that to claim a child is incapable of consent is preposterous, for they are sexually aware & do effectively & normally consent to sexual acts – & that consent laws are predicated on a contractual condition, of mutual agreement, without a contract, hence void laws. Indeed, all sound & valid arguments.

- Thirdly, Pedophilia was not a big deal back then, Gerard R. had relations with 6 year olds in the late 70s in France, he was sentenced 3 months in prison. The extreme bias against pedophilia & underage intercourse in the West developed as a cultural substitution of the previously held bias against chastity violators & homosexuals. There are some 200 paraphilia recognized by psychologists, meaningful to those in question. Pedophiles, just like you, wants sexual freedom of their own for sake of love – yet, just like you in the past, they can't for fear of being labeled perverts. Your cause, hence, born not from an awareness of "sexual right" or a conviction of "it's for love" or to fight discrimination against acts of "love", it is rather simply plainly & truly just a customary practice emerging in society owing to heavy mediatisation & hence public acceptance. The other 195 paraphilia simply did not get the same chances.

- Finally, these developments are obviously a product of long multi-generational obscene prosperity enjoyed by people in the West; their preoccupations long moved away from food & shelter to material luxury or intellectual fulfillment, to finally pure self-gratification & entertainment. exporting these very customs by force onto the rest of the world in the name of "freedom" & "human right" while yet espousing prejudice & discrimination against your own just the same is bigoted to the extreme. It's unacceptable that others have different customs of sexuality than our own. Whatever "groundbreaking" tinest "freedom" the West grants must thereafter be celebrated by the rest of the World in awe & submission. How grossly pitiable!

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 would say the only Pro of individualism is free degeneracy; which isn't really a pro to me at least. Decadence is a human condition that all civilizations & all nations go through after long periods of prosperity, yet it is their last stop. Stability leads to saving, which drive consumption, which initiates demand for luxury, which drives innovation, which leads to prosperity, & then further luxury, resulting in indulgence, from there decadence, decadence induces corruption. That is death.

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

- Prescription. The whole purpose of the agenda is to make contraception & abortion readily available to everyone with no questions asked. That little girl who's in her sexual prime with other boys in middle school or high school will never consider having sex knowing pregnancy will follow. She will be tempted though if she knows otherwise. Without these options, girls will naturally grow mature enough & chaste enough to pursue family.

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.

- On that we can agree. Thanks.

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

- It's not really liberation. It's wholly about sex, nothing else.

 

[Ghazaly]

I say it that Quran is safeguarded yet transmissions corrupted, in the same way meanings can be mistranslated (corrupting the translations) but the way to know which one is right is safeguarded by God.

- So you're saying the interpretation of the Quran is safeguarded but the text is corrupted? Are you Ismailia?

One of the "rasm" has the aliflam connected to yaseen, but all the others don't.

- No. You don't know what you're talking about. What is your point here anyways? If it's attached or not?

To make it clear spelling Mahdi name as Mah Di, doesn't make sense, in the same way El Yaseen doesn't make grammar sense.

- That's why I asked are you Arab, because you say things which makes absolutely no sense even a basic Arabic speaker would know!

 

[Link]

My points have been clear and you are just trying to dance over the issue. "Are you Arabic blah blah..." with no reply to my points.

And for those who interested, about the verse I'm talking about here is a proof from a Sunni scholar:

230102 (abouttajweed.com)

Of course, I differ only that I say the meanings are different and there is only one true meaning. While that Sunni scholar says there are different meanings but they all compliment each other.

However since Yaseen you are one of the sent ones is clearly linked to the Surah Saffat and the way they are addressed, I believe the conclusion is obvious.

 

[Ghazaly]

My points have been clear and you are just trying to dance over the issue. "Are you Arabic blah blah..." with no reply to my points.

- %!^$!%$ doesn't make sense the way %$*!&^% doesn't make grammar sense. That's how what you said looks to me. Not because it made sense in your head for whatever reason would that make it actually sensible!

 

[Link]

The recitation

is the way certain names are pronounced in the “language” of the people of Bani Asad. Just as they pronounce and read the name

(without the wow at the beginning) as

. The “weight” of both differences in both names are the same in the Arabic language.

This is the classical response.

I've been aware of it for years. It's a false analogy, because while alif can have different ways of being expressed, it doesn't mean you can separate the lam from the ya, sorry, this is bad Qiyas. Alif that has different expressions like Ibrahim different in Surah Baqara then elsewhere, but it's only with Alif.

 

[Link]

It's very bad analogy to make - because Arabic allows with with Alif and vowels, whether AA or EE, but not anything else.

 

[Ghazaly]

The recitation

is the way certain names are pronounced in the “language” of the people of Bani Asad. Just as they pronounce and read the name

(without the wow at the beginning) as

. The “weight” of both differences in both names are the same in the Arabic language.

This is the classical response.

I've been aware of it for years. It's a false analogy, because while alif can have different ways of being expressed, it doesn't mean you can separate the lam from the ya, sorry, this is bad Qiyas. Alif that has different expressions like Ibrahim different in Surah Baqara then elsewhere, but it's only with Alif.

- Yeah, I'm not arguing with you about this. Either way, as I stated, both spellings can mean both meanings. & I will leave it at that.

It's very bad analogy to make - because Arabic allows with with Alif and vowels, whether AA or EE, but not anything else.

- You haven't answered my question. What's it to you whichever way it was? Why does it bother you?

 

[Link]

Because separating the Lam from the Ya is not grammically coherent as I said, and when you investigate all the Qariats and Rasims, it seems it was all to distort the meaning of "Peace be upon the family of Yaseen" which flows with the Surah before "Yaseen, by the wise Quran, certainly you are of the sent" and two of the transmission have it as "Auli Yaseen" which means "family of Yaseen".

The comparing what you can do separating with alif is grammar wise invalid Qiyaas. Alif has that possibility, the letters we talking about don't. Lam should be connected if it's part of the name.

 

[Link]

How can I trust you with regard to "honesty" when it comes to your analysis of Ilmel Rijaal for example, when you are this dishonest about simple Arabic grammar? This is not just a question to you but to almost all your scholars from beginning of Sunnism to the end.

 

[Link]

To be clear El Yas, doesn't make sense. Sorry, Alif has that style which can be written differently with respect to AUU and EE but that's it. To make it that you can split letters from words, is like me saying I can wr ite lik e thi s.

Which doesn't make sense.

 

[Link]

Soon this day will be coolness. So on this day will be coolness. To you they are equivalent statements, sorry, it doesn't make sense.

So on does not equal soon. This is not just about grammar Arabic, it's fundamental in languages that you can make words.

Now Alif has this thing that can play with yeee or maaa or what not, but that's it. That's an exception and noted just because of how Alif can be expressed as letter and vowels can express same sound. This is the only reason.

Everything else, sorry, you can't. It's dishonesty.

 

[Link]

To make it clear to non-Arabs.

We don't have letters for vowels in Arabic. The exception is three letter "Alif" and "yaa" and "waaw" as well. As for alif, it is important in places of vowels because it can replicate OOO EEE AAUU and it's used mainly to initiate a word with a vowel, but can be used elsewhere. For example Ibraheem has a different spelling in Surah 2 then everywhere else, because of this allowed usage to write it differently.

But it's a unique case because the need to be able to initiate with vowels. But it doesn't mean you can disconnect letters that are not vowel from one another when they should be connected. This doesn't make a free for all reign where words never need to be connected in letters. Alif is never connected, which is why it's the exception unless you take it out and use it as a vowel. and eee replications in form of Yaaa can also take this form but the latter it would stay connected. Alif and Waaw are only disconnectors by nature, Alif never connected because of how it will become indistinguishable from laam. But la and ya is Elyas, should be connected. It's invalid analogy to apply this rules of vowels where there is different ways of expression, to making it allowed to disconnect letters which have no reason not to be connected.

As for waaw, it always ends because it would indinstiguishable from other letters as well. It's similar in this respect to Alif.

Also waaw can be W and Yaa while can replicate EEE is also Y, and Alif is really strange how it's used, but because of how it's written, it can never connect so you can get disconnected words but this doesn't give free for all that you can disconnected any letters from any letters!

 

[Link]

The conclusion is your 20 chains of 10 transmissions - most of them are grammatically lying about verse 37:130 with only 2 of the 10 transmissions as honest.

There goes your system of rijaal. Boom, it's been blown to pieces.

 

[Link]

I can't believe I forgot about yaa and waaw, your damn non-Arab thing got to me. I've speaking Arabic since I was a baby till now. I corrected the explanation.

 

[Meow Mix]

- This relates to the concept of Ismah – Inviolability in Sharia. There are two schools on this [there is a 3rd view but it's minor & inconsequential in history]. The Hanafi view is that the basis of inviolability is humanity: al-Ismah al-Adamiah – Human Inviolability. Thus, the default assumed condition of non-Muslims is that of Peace – Silm, unless otherwise the case. We are at peace, unless you start a war. The Maliki view is that the basis of inviolability is covenant: Ismat al-Ahd – Inviolability of Covenant. Thus, the default assumed condition of non-Muslims is that of War – Harb, unless otherwise established. We are either at peace under covenant, if not then at war. The two views are identical when it comes to non-Muslims with established relations with Muslims, either within Muslim borders or within other countries connected to Muslims. In the historic & state reality they are effectively identical. Hence, Dar al-Islam – The Abode of Peace & Dar al-Harb – The Abode of War. In the sense that, those in the Abode of Peace are inviolable, & those in the Abode of War are not. Inviolability extends to the 6 sacred rights: faith, life, reason, family, property & honor –accordingly, for the Prophet (pbuh) said: "whoever kills who has a covenant from Allah and His Messenger, then he has violated the covenant with Allah and His Messenger, so he shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise" & said: "The property of those who have been given a covenant is not lawful except for the dues which are levied."...etc. Humans are categories according to the following in Sharia:

The Abode of Peace is inclusive of :

• Ismat Millah – Inviolability of Faith = any Muslim anywhere.
• Ismat Dhimmah – Inviolability of Protection = non-Muslim permanent residents of Islamic state. <– Ahl Dhimmah
• Ismat Istiman – Inviolability of Asylum = non-Muslim temporary residents in Islamic state.
• Ismat al-Ahd – Inviolability of Treaty = non-Muslim residents in foreign territories under peace treaty with Muslims.

Abode of War consists of:

• Muharid – Combatants = non-Muslim militarily enabled adult males in foreign territories at war with Muslims <– non-inviolable.
• Musalim – non-Combatants = non-Muslim non-combatant women, children, elderly, slaves, disabled, insane, peasants, laborers & monks <– granted semi-inviolability, for the Prophet (pbuh) said: "do not kill the women, and the children, and the elderly. Must not killed are also the chronically ill, the blind, the monk, and the slave must not be killed". & also said: "you must not kill a woman or a laborer"...etc.

I wanted to pause here with a question about Muharid. Is it a rule of thumb to consider all adult males in foreign territories at war as combatants, for instance can individuals make judgment calls? Take for instance an adult male that's a pacifist, or more intellectual than physical, or that wants no part in their government's war? As an American I'm succinctly aware of what it's like not to approve of my patron country's warmongering, for instance; I know there are adult males here that feel the same.

I also know adult males that are far more thinkers than they are fighters; they may defend themselves as last resort if attacked but would prefer to talk about it first. That sort of thing. Are things like this accounted for in these concepts?

- Dhimmah – Protection extends to all people of all backgrounds except for: apostates according to Hanafi, or apostates & Arab pagans according to Maliki. This includes the People of the Book, others from other faiths, & even deists or atheists just the same. Though we don't have that categorization in the tradition, the non-religious are thus categorized (according to Imam Shahrastani):

• Softaia – Sophist = deny the temporal, deny the spiritual, deny the moral.
• Batinia – Esoterist = deny the temporal, confirm the spiritual, confirm the moral.
• Tabia – Naturist = confirm the temporal, deny the spiritual, deny the moral.
• Dahria – Temporalist = confirm the temporal, deny the spiritual, confirm the moral. – like some Buddhists.
• Ilahia – Deist = confirm the temporal, confirm the spiritual, deny the moral.
• Sabia - Sabian = confirm the temporal, confirm the spiritual, confirm the moral.

It concerns me that apostates are in such a precarious category: why is it not the right of a person to have doubts or to change their mind about something? I would technically be an "apostate" to Christianity, or instance. But my story is one of believing as a little girl (well, a teen), and later realizing that I didn't have good reasons for my belief. Why would a person be punished or put in a dangerous (for them) category just for wanting to be sure they have a good reason to believe something?

- Ahl Kitab – People of the Book are Christians & Jews, i.e. those who say we are Christian & those who say we are Jews, aka those who saw we follow Jesus (pbuh) or Moses (pbuh) respectively. As far as Muslims are concerned Mormons are Christian. You won't believe how many Christian or Jewish sects popped out in the Middle East under Islamic rule –hundreds. Ahl Kitab have a special status in their relations with other Muslims, not with the state. For instance, Muslims can marry among Christians or Jews, & they can eat from their slaughter, whereas this would be prohibited with Hindus or others. Zoroastrians have a semi-Ahl Kitab status, for the Prophet (pbuh) said that they had a book but they burned it. That's why there is difference of opinion among the ulama regarding their status. Bahai are evidently not Muslim, but they would still be considered a faith community.

Ok, interesting. So, combining this with the information you gave above (the various categorizations of non-Muslims, non-People of the Book); what societal differences are there in the treatment of People of the Book from other non-Muslims? Is there a reason given for any differences?

- The world = all things. A 'being' is a thing that metaphysically is – exists.

Regarding the world being all thing: here we encounter issues with the Kalam's premises then, because despite the observable cosmos having an entropic minimum (the Big Bang event), that is not the same thing as an absolute or ontological beginning. For instance with inflation, the visible cosmos is a location in a wider (potentially infinite) scalar field where the inflaton field has spontaneously decayed, forming a "bubble." Since the entropy is associated with the Hubble horizon H^(-1) (and related by the area of the horizon, at a quarter of A/(l_P)^2 where l_P is the Planck length), the entropy decreases in the region during stochastic inflation where the scalar field moves up the potential.

We end up with a "bubble" (such as the universe we observe) at an entropic minimum. Since the entropic gradient defines the arrow of time, this mean time (as perceived by inhabitants of the bubble) "begins" with this process, which we call the slow-roll in inflationary cosmology. But it isn't the only time, there is also meta-time and there are other bubbles with their own entropic minima and their own times.

The reason I'm getting into all of this is because we can't answer the Kalam's premises in the affirmative that the universe had a beginning; we can only answer that the observable portion of the universe had a beginning of time (and even then only when we are using classical metrics, which are singular in past-pointing timelike geodesics -- this is probably a consequence of the choice of metric, and may not be true with a working theory of quantum gravity).

Regarding "being," I was making a distinction between "being" as having the property of personhood and "thing" which does not have the property of personhood. For instance, Allah or God, using this distinction, would be a being while logic would just be a thing. My objection was that even if the Kalam obtains, it doesn't distinguish between whether the primary cause is a being or a thing: if it is a person or not.

 

[Meow Mix]

Continued from last post.

I've seen that one. The language is bad, it kinda begs the question, makes it confusing to deal with. "began" kinda assumes a time frame!

It does, though perhaps if you're cognizant of the problems with that (I forgot you had said this as I started responding!) I wouldn't have gone through everything I just did above about the slow-roll! Whoops ^.^

- What you said is not true. An absolute beginning can effectively be an ontological one. The argument is more about change, has nothing to do with time. Ashaaris don't believe in the absoluteness of time, or space. It's all relative to them.

I was objecting to the notion that the entropic minimum of the observable universe was an "absolute beginning," or an ontological beginning. We have good reasons to think that it's not (in the best case scenario), we have no reason to think that it is (in the worst case scenario). Cosmologically speaking of course.

- That's impressive. Not many females in the field. Your intelligence shows, unlike some other people in this Forum.

My predecessor that did some of the starting work for my thesis actually decided she wanted to do social work instead for precisely this problem: she's now an activist helping young women and girls that are disadvantaged or otherwise have extenuating factors that could cause them to leave STEM early. It's something that concerns me too. I wish I had more time, I'd like to do something similar. I've been an activist through most of my adult life, but as I'm in full time graduate classes, full time research, full time work, there just isn't the time except for volunteering for things around holidays, but even that activism is more charity than sociopolitical. We need more time in a week!

- Yeah, that card is not going to work on me. QFT does not inform the argument one way or another, just new patterns, if anything it's completely compatible with the Ashaari view of the world. In fact, in contrast to Greek views, the Ashaari atomic theory is a quantized model, It postulates:

• Tawafuq principle = efficient causation is inductive, not necessary – effect does not necessarily follow from cause.
• Amara principle = events are isolated & discrete.
• Ittirad principle = nature is uniform under a habit ('ada) immediately or secondarily imposed by Allah.
• I'tibar principle = dimensions are relative contingent on perception, such as time & space.
• Jawhar fard principle = matter is quantized, i.e. divisible into infinitesimal discrete essence that is non-divisible actually (qat'an), forcefully (fi'lan), conceptually (wahman) or formally (fardan) – called thus jawhar fard.
• Mawdu' principle = accident (a'rad) are contingent on singular essence (jawhar fard) – a'rad (accidents) to them being: motion/stillness, combination/separation, time & space.
• A'rad principle = accidents are probable until actualized.
• Tazammun principle = accidents actualize in quanta of time, & they do not persist two times.
• Tamakkun principle = accidents actualize in quanta of space.
• Tafra principle = velocity is bounded, i.e. there is a maximum & minimum possible velocity.
• ...etc. (you may come across these in al-Ghazali's works)

- As you probably know QFT postulates symmetry bounded relativist fields based on different spin for different particles (higgs, bosons, fermions) which can interact with each-other. This is compatible with the aforementioned Ashaari concepts.

I brought up QFT because I wanted to talk about inflation (and since you seem familiar, I have felt free to use more jargon than I would normally throughout the post). To be clear, this was all just to make the point that the apparent beginning of the universe that we see need not have been an absolute/ontological beginning; especially given the evidence for inflation.

This is why I asked at one point what was meant by "the universe," because if we're just talking about the visible cosmos, that is not all of "the universe." So while we see a beginning of time here because there was an entropic minimum, that doesn't mean things began to exist. It just means the current configuration of things that exist began.

 

[Tiberius]

Once I clarify from you what you meant, I will correct you. You were getting angry for me seeking your clarification to a term I never used. Thus, I was only showing you that your understanding of what I said is completely misread. If you show some humility, only then one could have a discussion. Disagreeing you can do anytime, but only after listening and analysing what was said.

What I mean is irrelevant, since you have been telling me that I have it wrong anyway.

 

[Meow Mix]

- A priori, because the Prophet (pbuh) said so. The simple rational is that there is no penetration in lesbian acts, this also extends to all sexual encounters where no penetration occurred, no penalty shall therefrom ensue. Lesbianism in the tradition is just thought of categorically different from sodomy, & 'Homosexuality' therein relates to male-male acts. There is an opinion of Hasan al-Basri which considers lesbian acts to be permissible if the woman fears she may fall into fornication, though this is an aberrant opinion (not valid). Point being, there is an extreme bias against sodomy in the Islamic Tradition, though a minor one against lesbianism. In the Maliki school (& the Hanbali) lesbian acts do not invalidate ritual purity (wudu) for prayer unless with discharge. Historically in Muslim society, although rare, lesbianism was a pre-marital practice among some women till they find a husband. Also, the image & health consequences of sodomy themselves induce disgust, as opposed to lesbianism – probably another reason the act wasn't thought of similarly.

I'm debating how crass to be. Sometimes lesbian acts can be penetrative with sex toys, and there's a reason we trim our nails. I'm sorry if that was very crass, but I'm curious why that doesn't count.

- It's probably still some form of masculinity towards femininity. Imam Suyuti in fact dealt with some trans people (mukhanath– the non-biological type) to which he prescribed psychological help, he found that by habit of companionship behaviors change accordingly whilst the person gain back their self awareness. Imam Nawawi's views, however, were not from personal experience, rather from historical observation & social analysis, which I happen to agree with, there is no reason not to.

Well, I want to use an anecdote as a counter-example, but it's not the purest counter-example. That is simply myself. I have tomboyish personality traits: I'm assertive, heavily logical, can be dispassionate (can be, not always) when debating, have high confidence, am not afraid to direct others when I know I have the required expertise or if I've reasoned that it's best that I do so, and so on. These are "traditionally" masculine traits. I dress alternatively (whatever that means), have tattoos, have piercings, this sort of thing; which while not necessarily masculine, may not be considered to be "traditionally" feminine.

Yet I wouldn't call myself masculine, and I would call myself feminine. I'm very nurturing, I am very in touch with my emotions, I have sky-high empathy, I like "girly" colors, and while I can be rambunctious I prefer to feel safe and don't like to be roughhoused with. While my styles are "alternative" they are still feminine and highlight myself as a woman rather than aiming for masculinity or androgyny. Ok, so that was a whole long couple of paragraphs just to say "I'm feminine."

(Edit: also as headstrong as I am in text, I am quite meek in person. Some of this is from being humbled by a nerve injury that rendered me unable to speak. I had to learn to listen more than I talk when I don’t have a keyboard. I can also be downright shy.)

And I'm attracted to women that have similar or more levels of femininity. So, this "masculine-feminine attraction thing" would probably peg me as the "masculine" one if we're talking about relative masculinity, but I'm absolutely not. I'm a woman through and through, femininity feels right on me and masculinity doesn't.

- This may be presumptuous to ask, but were you subject to any sexual abuse in childhood or experienced anything deviant of the sort? I have asked many in your situation before, they have all confirmed.

No, I was never abused sexually or emotionally in childhood. My interest in women predates any abuse I've endured (by strangers, not family: my family is wonderful). I've always been attracted to femininity such that it manifested in fantasies as a child (not sexual fantasies, I mean like make-believe and pretend games and such with making imaginary families and things like that). I was never interested in the male dolls being with the female dolls, why couldn't the women just have the house together? That sort of thing.

I will be clear though that men have always been and will always be my dear friends that I value utterly, I am not dismissing an entire sex's value. Just trying to explain.

- Their customs vs. your customs. You can not rightfully call for sexual freedom for your preferences & deprive it of others.

Forgive me for cutting a lot of the quote (this is sheerly for brevity, I have read and digested the points).

I believe that I can do this, and do it self-consistently. As you're likely aware, consent is the key; and a child is incapable of providing clear, informed consent to an act with an adult that has an overwhelming social advantage. This is similar to why it would be extremely unethical for a police officer to have sex with someone in their custody because of a similar social power differential in the situation: the ability to consent without coercion by the affected party is deeply questionable.

Nonconsent or "consent" that's coerced is unacceptable, so it's self-consistent to be unbothered by homosexuality, yet alarmed by pedophilia: it is a form of rape.

Now, in the spirit of fairness, I can bring up the elephant in the room and pre-empt the question, "what about consensual incest?" I don't know how to answer that question. For one thing, it is unethical certainly for a fertile incestual couple to risk pregnancy with such an unacceptable risk of genetic problems. If an incestuous couple isn't fertile for whatever reason, I don't know what to say about that. I don't claim to have all the answers. Perhaps people's natural instincts will largely keep them from doing that; and in cases where it happens, they should be evaluated on a piecemeal basis for any kind of psychological issues. Incest disgusts me, but I do not think disgust alone is enough to make something illegal or hurt people over it (now again, with the exception of fertile incest, which does hurt someone: the potential child).

 

[infrabenji]

I'm debating how crass to be. Sometimes lesbian acts can be penetrative with sex toys, and there's a reason we trim our nails. I'm sorry if that was very crass, but I'm curious why that doesn't count.



Well, I want to use an anecdote as a counter-example, but it's not the purest counter-example. That is simply myself. I have tomboyish personality traits: I'm assertive, heavily logical, can be dispassionate (can be, not always) when debating, have high confidence, am not afraid to direct others when I know I have the required expertise or if I've reasoned that it's best that I do so, and so on. These are "traditionally" masculine traits. I dress alternatively (whatever that means), have tattoos, have piercings, this sort of thing; which while not necessarily masculine, may not be considered to be "traditionally" feminine.

Yet I wouldn't call myself masculine, and I would call myself feminine. I'm very nurturing, I am very in touch with my emotions, I have sky-high empathy, I like "girly" colors, and while I can be rambunctious I prefer to feel safe and don't like to be roughhoused with. While my styles are "alternative" they are still feminine and highlight myself as a woman rather than aiming for masculinity or androgyny. Ok, so that was a whole long couple of paragraphs just to say "I'm feminine."

And I'm attracted to women that have similar or more levels of femininity. So, this "masculine-feminine attraction thing" would probably peg me as the "masculine" one if we're talking about relative masculinity, but I'm absolutely not. I'm a woman through and through, femininity feels right on me and masculinity doesn't.



No, I was never abused sexually or emotionally in childhood. My interest in women predates any abuse I've endured (by strangers, not family). I've always been attracted to femininity such that it manifested in fantasies as a child (not sexual fantasies, I mean like make-believe and pretend games and such with making imaginary families and things like that). I was never interested in the male dolls being with the female dolls, why couldn't the women just have the house together? That sort of thing.

I will be clear though that men have always been and will always be my dear friends that I value utterly, I am not dismissing an entire sex's value. Just trying to explain.



Forgive me for cutting a lot of the quote (this is sheerly for brevity, I have read and digested the points).

I believe that I can do this, and do it self-consistently. As you're likely aware, consent is the key; and a child is incapable of providing clear, informed consent to an act with an adult that has an overwhelming social advantage. This is similar to why it would be extremely unethical for a police officer to have sex with someone in their custody because of a similar social power differential in the situation: the ability to consent without coercion by the affected party is deeply questionable.

Nonconsent or "consent" that's coerced is unacceptable, so it's self-consistent to be unbothered by homosexuality, yet alarmed by pedophilia: it is a form of rape.

Now, in the spirit of fairness, I can bring up the elephant in the room and pre-empt the question, "what about consensual incest?" I don't know how to answer that question. For one thing, it is unethical certainly for a fertile incestual couple to risk pregnancy with such an unacceptable risk of genetic problems. If an incestuous couple isn't fertile for whatever reason, I don't know what to say about that. I don't claim to have all the answers. Perhaps people's natural instincts will largely keep them from doing that; and in cases where it happens, they should be evaluated on a piecemeal basis for any kind of psychological issues. Incest disgusts me, but I do not think disgust alone is enough to make something illegal or hurt people over it (now again, with the exception of fertile incest, which does hurt someone: the potential child).

Is this guy cereal? Horse shagging epidemic? What is this guy talking about? Lmao