Does the Quran promote peaceful values? (I claim it does not.)

[Pastek]

This verse allows Muslims to fight Jews and Christians until they are subdued and they pay jizya tax.
This is explained in the following hadith recorded by a number of chains:

This Ayah means, `this will be your compensation for the closed markets that you feared would result.' Therefore, Allah compensated them for the losses they incurred because they severed ties with idolators, by the Jizyah they earned from the People of the Book.'' Similar statements were reported from Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, `Ikrimah, Sa`id bin Jubayr, Qatadah and Ad-Dahhak and others.

Exactly. But as you don't know enought the Islamic history, you don't know that muslims entered Mecca without fighting anyone, neither pagans or people of the Book.


Why ? Because Abu Sofiane who was a polytheist and the "Chief of Mecca" was afraid of muslims and didn't want to fight them.
He went to Muhammad and made the Shahada (became muslim).

So muslims didn't even fight even if they had the permission from God.

I see that you didn't watch the video link that i gave previously, you would have known all that already.
You wouldn't have it all wrong if you had take the time to learn from it, (if you really want to understand).

The Muslim army entered Mecca on Monday, December 11, 630. The entry was peaceful and bloodless entry on three sectors except for that of Khalid’s column. The hardened anti-Muslims like Ikrimah and Sufwan gathered a band of Quresh fighters and faced Khalid’s column. The Quresh attacked the Muslims with swords and bows, and the Muslims charged the Quresh’s positions. After a short skirmish the Quresh gave ground after losing twelve men. Muslim losses were two warriors.

On the eve of the conquest, Abu Sufyan adopted Islam. When asked by Muhammad, he conceded that the Meccan gods had proved powerless and that there was indeed "no god but Allah", the first part of the Islamic confession of faith.


In turn, Muhammad declared Abu Sufyan's house a sanctuary because he was the present chief, and that all the others were gathered over his territory, therefore:
"Even he Who enters the house of Abu Sufyan will be safe, He who lays down arms will be safe, He who locks his door will be safe"

So it confirms that Muhammad didn't fight against the pagans neither the People of the Book as Abu Sofian became muslim.

The people assembled at the Kaaba, and Muhammad delivered the following address:
"There is no God but Allah. He has no associate. (...) People of Quraish, surely God has abolished from you all pride of the time of ignorance and all pride in your ancestry, because all men are descended from Adam, and Adam was made of clay."Then Muhammad turning to the people said:

"O Quraish, what do you think of the treatment that I should accord you?"
And they said, "Mercy, O Prophet of Allah. We expect nothing but good from you."

"I speak to you in the same words as Yūsuf (the prophet) spoke to his brothers. This day there is no reproof against you; Go your way, for you are free." Muhammad's prestige grew after the surrender of the Meccans. Emissaries from all over Arabia came to Medina to accept him.

More here : Conquest of Mecca - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All that you say about the verses and again Muhammad have no sense unless you try to understand properly the Quran and the history of Islam.

So as explained in verse 9.28, Allah would compensate the losses Muslims incurred as a result of Pagans being banned from visiting the sacred Mosque.
This was done by allowing Muslims to fight Jews and Christians for their disbelief and imposing a tax on them that they had to pay, as explained in verse 9.29.

So it is clear that the Koran allows Muslims to launch an offensive attack and fight Christians and Jews for their disbelief. Once they are subdued by the Muslims they must pay the jizya.

Again, read about the history : no fight. But the taxes, yes and the pagans banned (not killed as you say it yourself) from Mecca, yes.

 

[Truthisnotyourenemy]

Completely false. I will explain what happen in a clear manner that you understand.
The post will be long so i'll put it in several posts.

1 Muslims were in Medina, they asked the pagans if they can perfom pilgrimage in Mecca.
So when you say that muslims had the pagans under control is not true at all.

2 Muslims made a treaty (like it was explained in the verse 9.1) with the polytheists.

3 The treaty : peace for 10 years and muslims -who were asked to go back in Medina when they wanted to perfom pilgrimage in Mecca- then were allowed to do their pilgrimage in Mecca.

So, Muhammad was living in Medina, not in Mecca and his was refused to come in Mecca before one year. The pagans could'nt be deniyed the go in Mecca as they were already controling Mecca at that time !

What happened before the treaty :

So you all have it wrong.
I suggest you to read this article for more information : Treaty of Hudaybiyyah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Verse 9.29 was revealed when Muslims were in control:




This honorable Ayah (9.29) was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book, after the pagans were defeated, the people entered Allah's religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims' control. Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination. TAFSIR IBN KATHIR. http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?opt...2567&Itemid=64[/COLOR]

Even if they were not it still doesn't change the meaning of verses 9.28/9.29.

 

[Truthisnotyourenemy]

After the pagans attacked the muslims and broke the treaty, it was said to them to fight back and not fear to lost money (money from the pilgrimage of the polytheists). God is more important than money coming from idols and there was taxes taken from non-muslims (muslims also have to pay another taxes).

This does not contradict what I said concerning verse 9.29 even if the pagans did attack muslims as you claim. As verse 9.29 concerns Jews and Christians.

9.13 Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun [the attack upon] you the first time? Do you fear them? But Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are [truly] believers.

9.28 O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Haram after this, their [final] year. And if you fear privation, Allah will enrich you from His bounty if He wills. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Wise.

So Masjid el Haram which is the Kaaba was not under the hand of the muslims before, like you claimed.

Muslims were in control of the Kaaba when verse 9.29 was revealed:


Verse 9.29 was revealed when Muslims were in control:



This honorable Ayah (9.29) was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book, after the pagans were defeated, the people entered Allah's religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims' control. Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination. TAFSIR IBN KATHIR. http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?opt...2567&Itemid=64

They allowed pagans to visit for the last time, possibly due to the income, but decided against this in the future. Muslims were calling the shots as they were in control as Ibn Kathir explained.

They do believe in God but not in Muhammad, and that was not why they had to pay the Jiziya.

Also, if you have read the Quran carefuly since the beginning, you would know that they (jews and christians) betrayed the muslims (with whom they were first allies in Medina) by helping the pagans.

There was a treaty including the jews and christians which prooves that in the beginning they were allies even if they don't believe in Muhammad as God's Messenger :

More here : Constitution of Medina - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was said concerning them in the previous verses when they were no more allies :

4.51 Have you not seen those who were given a portion of the Scripture, who believe in superstition and false objects of worship and say about the disbelievers, "These are better guided than the believers* as to the way"?

* Believers :the muslims
So the pagans were for them better guided, it means they were no more allies with muslims here.

Also confirmed in Sourate 5 :

5.51 O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you - then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people.

5.52 So you see those in whose hearts is disease* hastening into [association with] them, saying, "We are afraid a misfortune may strike us." But perhaps Allah will bring conquest or a decision from Him, and they will become, over what they have been concealing within themselves, regretful.

*Meaning those who hesitate between muslims and non-muslims/ their faith in God is not total. (not about the people of the Book)

So if those who are not really muslims (who doubt) go to the People of the Book, it means : they were not allies with muslims.


They were laughting at muslims like the pagans, so they were no more allies :

5.57 O you who have believed, take not those who have taken your religion in ridicule and amusement among the ones who were given the Scripture before you nor the disbelievers as allies. And fear Allah , if you should [truly] be believers.

5.58 And when you call to prayer, they take it in ridicule and amusement. That is because they are a people who do not use reason.

5.59 Say, "O People of the Scripture, do you resent us except [for the fact] that we have believed in Allah and what was revealed to us and what was revealed before and because most of you are defiantly disobedient?"


So here you can see that they were no more allies with the muslims, but were allies with the pagans.
That's why when muslims fighted back and win Mecca, the people of the Book were under the Law of Jiziya.
When someone loose in a war, he have to accept the law of the winner.

It was not because they didn't believe in God and Muhammad, but for this reason above.
Also it was said in another verse that if they really believed in God, they would not take the pagans as allies. Which is logic if people claim to be monotheists.

Verse 9.29 was a consequence of verse 9.28.
Muslims were not under attack from jews and christians, so what you have posted is a red herring.

Here are the verses again:

009.028
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.

009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Muslims feared poverty as a result of pagans not being allowed to visit the kabaa and Allah says he will make up for this.
The very next verse then says the jews and christians are to be fought against simply for not acknowledging the religion of truth. For which they are to be killed or pay the jizya which compensated muslims with an income they had lost from the pagans. This is confirmed by the hadiths:

his Ayah means, `this will be your compensation for the closed markets that you feared would result.' Therefore, Allah compensated them for the losses they incurred because they severed ties with idolators, by the Jizyah they earned from the People of the Book.'' Similar statements were reported from Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, `Ikrimah, Sa`id bin Jubayr, Qatadah and Ad-Dahhak and others.

As mentioned before the Koran curses the jews and christians in the following verses for their false beliefs in the following verses. Not because of any other reasons you mention:

009.030
YUSUFALI: The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

009.031
YUSUFALI: They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; yet they were commanded to worship but One Allah: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him: (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him).


It is very clear that Jews and christians are to fought against for their false beliefs only. This is backed up by hadiths and Ibn Kathir and other classical scholars.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Morality may not come from religion as such but religions tend to influence a person's morality and/or perception of morality as religions are part of a cultural dynamic of humans; the separation of "religion" and "society" is a recent development.

This often is why some people will believe, for example, that pre-marital sex is no biggie, but others will see it as an awful thing. The same for the consumption of alcohol, pork, beef, meat, drugs, and so on.

For the record, though, many groups have "modern values and morals" (whatever they actually are, and whether or not modern values and morals are "superior" or not to ancient ones is could be an interesting discussion) recorded in their religious texts.

While true that doesn't mean that the religion itself was what instilled it within the person. The family dynamics as well as the attitude of the community plays a far bigger role than specifically the god message. For example a person taught to be a bigot in a religious society would be just as effective as a person who was taught to be a bigot in secular societies.

But my original point was that religion may be a medium that can facilitate the teaching of certain "morals" (though in some cases I hesitate to call them that) but that is not where the morals originate. They reflect the morals of the society in which it developed and is why religions often change tone over time. This to me suggests that the people and the time change the religion and thus would be a bigger factor than religion dominating a society.

But then we also have the argument of "modern morals" or "secular morality" based on psychology, sociology and humanism rather than unsupported god theories that promote bigotry as well as their "morals".

But to round back to the point at hand. The modern or secular morality of the day is not taught by religion but rather secular society. That point still stands regardless of which religion you choose as an example.

 

[Pastek]

Verse 9.29 was revealed when Muslims were in control:

This honorable Ayah (9.29) was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book, after the pagans were defeated, the people entered Allah's religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims' control. Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination. TAFSIR IBN KATHIR. http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?opt...2567&Itemid=64[/color]

Even if they were not it still doesn't change the meaning of verses 9.28/9.29.

But they didn't really fight too. The problems was caused if i remember well (i have to do more researchs) because of some of the arab christians living near the Romans.
I don't remember they really fighted, just that a delegation of muslims was killed (don't remember when exactly), and that the Romans also wanted to fight the muslims because they were afraid of what was going on in the Arabic Peninsula.

I don't remember really what happened in the proper order, but i don't think they fighted them only for "disbelief" like you said and take Jiziya but because they attacked first.

 

[Breathe]

While true that doesn't mean that the religion itself was what instilled it within the person. The family dynamics as well as the attitude of the community plays a far bigger role than specifically the god message.

And the dynamics and attitude of the community are brought upon by the religion itself.

For example a person taught to be a bigot in a religious society would be just as effective as a person who was taught to be a bigot in secular societies.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think people are 'taught' to be bigots; I think it's a natural position held by people who have not had exposure to alternate views, or have had them and have bad exposure to them because it goes against their norms.

But my original point was that religion may be a medium that can facilitate the teaching of certain "morals" (though in some cases I hesitate to call them that) but that is not where the morals originate. They reflect the morals of the society in which it developed and is why religions often change tone over time. This to me suggests that the people and the time change the religion and thus would be a bigger factor than religion dominating a society.

But there is the myth that religious morals have stopped and are frozen; this is frequently not the case. Not in Catholicism, Sikhism, even Islam.

But then we also have the argument of "modern morals" or "secular morality" based on psychology, sociology and humanism

On the contrary, someone could just as easily say modern morals are based on selfishness, lust, now-thinking and are not sustainable, and much more.
How true that is, though... is equal in truth to your own like your position just now.
Does the fact they could think that mean their view is any more or less right than yours?

rather than unsupported god theories that promote bigotry as well as their "morals".

And someone could say that they think politicized forms of spreads bigotry as part of their movement, too.
How true that is, though... is equal in truth to your own like your position just now.
Does the fact they could think that mean their view is any more or less right than yours?

I wouldn't take either of the four opinions held -- by yourself or by the contrary view I put up to make an example of how subjective your views are -- as worthy of respecting.

Naturally, not all -- or even most -- religions or forms of theism 'promote bigotry'. It is silly to even entertain that notion for a moment.

But to round back to the point at hand. The modern or secular morality of the day is not taught by religion but rather secular society. That point still stands regardless of which religion you choose as an example.

I don't agree, simply because religious morals are not stagnant. This is mistaken thinking on your part.

 

[Pastek]

Muslims feared poverty as a result of pagans not being allowed to visit the kabaa and Allah says he will make up for this.
The very next verse then says the jews and christians are to be fought against simply for not acknowledging the religion of truth. For which they are to be killed or pay the jizya which compensated muslims with an income they had lost from the pagans. This is confirmed by the hadiths:

his Ayah means, `this will be your compensation for the closed markets that you feared would result.' Therefore, Allah compensated them for the losses they incurred because they severed ties with idolators, by the Jizyah they earned from the People of the Book.'' Similar statements were reported from Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, `Ikrimah, Sa`id bin Jubayr, Qatadah and Ad-Dahhak and others.

Why muslims should fight them only for that ?
In the muslims countries you'll find easily many churchs and synagogues.
It doesn't make any sense to say that muslims will only fight them because they didn't accepted Islam and to earn money from them.
The fight is only for those who fighted the muslims or are allies with those who fighted muslims.
Also the people of the Book who pay the Jiziya are under muslim protection, and they don't have to fight when muslims should fight (how can they fight against people of their own faith ?)

As mentioned before the Koran curses the jews and christians in the following verses for their false beliefs in the following verses. Not because of any other reasons you mention:

009.030
YUSUFALI: The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

009.031
YUSUFALI: They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; yet they were commanded to worship but One Allah: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him: (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him).

The Quran said in many verses that some of them follow perfectly their religion, but some of them not.
Some of the jews believe in the Tagout (false ideas) like some christians did ( with the trinity), which put them in the same level as the polytheists.
But it's not for that precise reason that they must be fought.

5.69 Indeed, those who have believed [in Prophet Muhammad] and those [before Him] who were Jews or Sabeans or Christians - those [among them] who believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteousness - no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve.

3.113 They are not [all] the same; among the People of the Scripture is a community standing [in obedience], reciting the verses of Allah during periods of the night and prostrating [in prayer].

3.114 They believe in Allah and the Last Day, and they enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and hasten to good deeds. And those are among the righteous.

It is very clear that Jews and christians are to fought against for their false beliefs only. This is backed up by hadiths and Ibn Kathir and other classical scholars.

Provide the links and the verses of the sourates, please.

 

[Truthisnotyourenemy]

Why muslims should fight them only for that ?
In the muslims countries you'll find easily many churchs and synagogues.
It doesn't make any sense to say that muslims will only fight them because they didn't accepted Islam and to earn money from them.
The fight is only for those who fighted the muslims or are allies with those who fighted muslims.
Also the people of the Book who pay the Jiziya are under muslim protection, and they don't have to fight when muslims should fight (how can they fight against people of their own faith ?)

It's irrelevant if it makes sense to you. It's what the Koran says fight the jews and christians as they disbelieve in Allah and his Messenger in verse 9.29. It doesn't say fight those who fight Allah and his messenger, only fight because they disbelieve.

It's a clear command which is confirmed by hadiths and classical scholars.
They had three choices fight back, surrender and agree to pay the jizya or become a muslim.
Although history shows the option of becoming a muslim was not always available when muslims were desperate for income.

The Quran said in many verses that some of them follow perfectly their religion, but some of them not.
Some of the jews believe in the Tagout (false ideas) like some christians did ( with the trinity), which put them in the same level as the polytheists.
But it's not for that precise reason that they must be fought.

[/COLOR]5.69 Indeed, those who have believed [in Prophet Muhammad] and those [before Him] who were Jews or Sabeans or Christians - those [among them] who believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteousness - no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve.

3.113 They are not [all] the same; among the People of the Scripture is a community standing [in obedience], reciting the verses of Allah during periods of the night and prostrating [in prayer].

3.114 They believe in Allah and the Last Day, and they enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and hasten to good deeds. And those are among the righteous.

These verses were abrogated by verse 9.29 amongst others.
As I mentioned this verse was one of the last verses to be revealed when Islam was not under attack and muslims were calling the shots as explained by Ibn kathir.

Of course it wasn't just about jizya, it was also about spreading Islam.
And boy did Islam spread rapidly soon afterwards.

Provide the links and the verses of the sourates, please.

You have seen them already, I can't help you if you wish to remain in denial.

Verse 9.28 claims pagans can't visit the Kaaba as they are unclean.
But it tell muslims don't worry about losing income Allah will take care of it.
So the following verse then claims fight jews and christians as they don't believe in Allah and his messenger and you can force them to pay jizya - Bingo!
Which is clearly compensation for the pagans not visiting the kaaba, which is confirmed by the hadith I showed you and the classical scholars.
That is the reason given for fighting them disbelief, nothing else.
Nowhere does it say fight the jews and christians who helped the pagans or anything else.
The only reason given is that they don't believe in Allah and his messenger and therefore don't follow the religion of truth.
Your claims are based on your imagination, as the Koran is very clear.
So are the hadiths and so are the ancient scholars.
By all means put your head in the sand if it makes you feels comfortable, but you are only fooling yourself, or trying to fool me..haha!

 

[Breathe]

It's irrelevant if it makes sense to you. It's what the Koran says fight those who disbelieve in Allah and his Messenger in verse 9.29. It doesnt say fight those who fight Allah and his messenger, only fight because they disbelieve.

First, suspend disbelief for a moment for the purpose of discussion. Now, quick question: what makes you think that it wasn't clear in context during the time it was revealed?

 

[Truthisnotyourenemy]

First, suspend disbelief for a moment for the purpose of discussion. Now, quick question: what makes you think that it wasn't clear in context during the time it was revealed?

I don't think I understand your question. When verse 9.29 was revealed muslims were not under attack and they were in control.
The problem they had however was they needed to generate an income, which verse 9.29 dealt with.
The context was clear to to the early muslims, which is why Islam spread very quickly as they invaded different places.

 

[Pastek]

It's irrelevant if it makes sense to you. It's what the Koran says fight the jews and christians as they disbelieve in Allah and his Messenger in verse 9.29. It doesn't say fight those who fight Allah and his messenger, only fight because they disbelieve.

These verses were abrogated by verse 9.29 amongst others.
As I mentioned this verse was one of the last verses to be revealed when Islam was not under attack and muslims were calling the shots as explained by Ibn kathir.


So the following verse then claims fight jews and christians as they don't believe in Allah and his messenger and you can force them to pay jizya - Bingo!
Nowhere does it say fight the jews and christians who helped the pagans or anything else.
The only reason given is that they don't believe in Allah and his messenger and therefore don't follow the religion of truth.

You are correct, the sourate 9 is one of the last sourates, Muhammad died few time after the Hajj. He made his last sermon in the Arafat mount during the first Hajj and it was the last for him. So the calcul is easy about the battles during this short period.


Didn't i talked to you about the Romans and about a muslim delegation beeing attacked by them ?

According to Ar-Rahīq al-Makhtum,(...) the reason for war against the Byzantine Empire, was that one of Muhammad's ambassadors was killed by Sharhabeel bin ‘Amr Al-Ghassani(the governor of Al-Balqa). This immediately led to the Battle of Mutah. But Mubarakpuri also claims that event was one of the reasons of the Battle of Tabouk also.
further mentions that the emperor of the Byzantine Empire, Heraclius was preparing a force to demolish the growing Muslim power in the region.

So is it about disbelief ?

If you continue the sourate talks about this event :

The Muslim scholar Ibn Kathir mentions in his tafsir that the Quran verse 9:49 was revealed about the people who make excuses not to participate in the Jihad. In this case Al-Jadd bin Qays made an excuse not participate in the Battle of Tabuk, and Ibn Kathir says that 9:49 verse was revealed because of his excuse. [6][7] The verse states:

“ Among them is (many) a man who says: "Grant me exemption and draw me not into trial." Have they not fallen into trial already? and indeed Hell surrounds the Unbelievers (on all sides). [Quran 9:49]

Ibn Kathir also mentions that verse 9:29 which called for fighting against the people of the book until they pay Jizyah was "revealed" while Muhammad was preparing for the Battle of Tabuk, he wrote:

It was not an exedition like that against any jews or christians passing by but because the Romans started this.

Does that even make sense to fight people that we reconized have been given a part of the previous Scriptures and to whom the muslims (men) can marry from ?
I don't understand your logic.

Also, i even told you in my previous post that i wasn't sure they really fought, i said :

I don't remember they really fighted, just that a delegation of muslims was killed (don't remember when exactly), and that the Romans also wanted to fight the muslims because they were afraid of what was going on in the Arabic Peninsula.

Muhammad marched northwards to Tabouk, though the Byzantine army did not initiate any form of aggression against the Muslims. (...)
After arriving at Tabouk and camping there, Muhammad's army was prepared to face the Byzantines. However the Byzantines were not at Tabouk. They stayed there for a number of days and scouted the area but they never came.

Nevertheless, this expedition brought, in itself, credit to the Muslim forces that had gained military reputation in the remote lands of the Arabian Peninsula. The strategic long term consequence of the battle was that many Arab tribes now abandoned the Byzantines and joined with Muhammad, enlarging the Muslim state

So they didn't fight at all at the end.
What money did they gain from them if they didn't fight ? Zero.
People came to Islam, but as they were muslims they don't pay the Jiziya.

After returning from Medina, some companions of Muhammad believed that there was no need to fight any longer, after looking around and seeing that there were no enemies remaining to threaten the Muslims, and after the Romans had left the Muslims alone.

Battle of Tabouk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They didn't fight people that didn't attack them.

Also, the muslims didn't hate the people of the Book, God revealed to them (in a meccan sourate) few years ago that the Romans will win against the Persians, and that they will rejoice.

30.2 The Byzantines have been defeated
30.3 In the nearest land. But they, after their defeat, will overcome.
30.4 Within three to nine years. To Allah belongs the command before and after. And that day the believers will rejoice
Tafsir : "The idolators wanted the Persians to prevail over the Romans, because they were idol worshippers, and the Muslims wanted the Romans to prevail over the Persians, because they were People of the Book.

Islam Universe, Tafsir Ibn Kathir

 

[Truthisnotyourenemy]

You are correct, the sourate 9 is one of the last sourates, Muhammad died few time after the Hajj. He made his last sermon in the Arafat mount during the first Hajj and it was the last for him. So the calcul is easy about the battles during this short period.


Didn't i talked to you about the Romans and about a muslim delegation beeing attacked by them ?



So is it about disbelief ?

If you continue the sourate talks about this event :

“ Among them is (many) a man who says: "Grant me exemption and draw me not into trial." Have they not fallen into trial already? and indeed Hell surrounds the Unbelievers (on all sides). [Quran 9:49]


It was not an exedition like that against any jews or christians passing by but because the Romans started this.

Does that even make sense to fight people that we reconized have been given a part of the previous Scriptures and to whom the muslims (men) can marry from ?
I don't understand your logic.

Also, i even told you in my previous post that i wasn't sure they really fought, i said :




So they didn't fight at all at the end.
What money did they gain from them if they didn't fight ? Zero.
People came to Islam, but as they were muslims they don't pay the Jiziya.

Battle of Tabouk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They didn't fight people that didn't attack them.

Also, the muslims didn't hate the people of the Book, God revealed to them (in a meccan sourate) few years ago that the Romans will win against the Persians, and that they will rejoice.

30.2 The Byzantines have been defeated
30.3 In the nearest land. But they, after their defeat, will overcome.
30.4 Within three to nine years. To Allah belongs the command before and after. And that day the believers will rejoice
Tafsir : "The idolators wanted the Persians to prevail over the Romans, because they were idol worshippers, and the Muslims wanted the Romans to prevail over the Persians, because they were People of the Book.

Islam Universe, Tafsir Ibn Kathir

Nothing you say changes the meaning of the verse in question.
What happened afterwards in certain battles doesn't change the meaning or context of verse 9.29. You quote Ibn Kathir but he like other ancient scholars agrees that this verse allows muslims to fight jews and christians for disbelief. They also agree that this verse was a compensation for banning the pagans from visiting the Kabaa. Sure some people would have chosen to become muslims rather than face death or have a severe tax penalty to deal with.
But this doesn't change the fact this is an aggressive/violent verse which allowed muslims to conquer foreign lands.
Yes they were people of the book but by refusing to believe in Allah and his messenger their faith in previous scripture counted for nothing as Ibn Kathir explains:

(Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.) Therefore, when People of the Scriptures disbelieved in Muhammad , they had no beneficial faith in any Messenger or what the Messengers brought. Rather, they followed their religions because this conformed with their ideas, lusts and the ways of their forefathers, not because they are Allah's Law and religion. Had they been true believers in their religions, that faith would have directed them to believe in Muhammad , because all Prophets gave the good news of Muhammad's advent and commanded them to obey and follow him. Yet when he was sent, they disbelieved in him, even though he is the mightiest of all Messengers. Therefore, they do not follow the religion of earlier Prophets because these religions came from Allah, but because these suit their desires and lusts. Therefore, their claimed faith in an earlier Prophet will not benefit them because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all Prophets . Hence Allah's statement,

﴿قَـتِلُواْ الَّذِينَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَلاَ بِالْيَوْمِ الاٌّخِرِ وَلاَ يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَلاَ يَدِينُونَ دِينَ الْحَقِّ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ الْكِتَـبَ﴾

(Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture,)

So Ibn Kathir says their faith in scriptures means nothing if they don't believe in Mohammed and Allah. Therefore muslims were ordered to fight them as explained. Which is why Jews and christians will go to hell according to the koran, hadiths and scholars.

The verse is explicit, you're just refusing to admit the obvious.


But for the last time lets take a look at this verse once more, as you have avoided quoting or explaining what the words actually say.
All you have done is deny and make some baseless assumptions.

Here is verse 9.29 broken down in segments so you can follow it:

FIGHT

So it says muslims should fight, but fight whom:

AGAINST THOSE WHO BELIEVE NOT IN ALLAH, NOR IN THE LAST DAY, NOR FORBID THAT WHICH HAS BEEN FORBIDDEN BY ALLAH AND HIS MESSENGER, AND THOSE WHO DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE RELIGION OF TRUTH

So muslims should fight those who don't believe in Islam i.e. the religion of truth and Allah and his messenger.
Does this apply to all disbelievers:

AMONG THE PEOPLE OF THE SCRIPTURE

No it refers to the people of the book, the jews and christians.
So it is they who should be fought as they disbelieve in Islam and be made to pay jizya under submission.

This is how Mohammed commanded his followers to practice verse 9.29:

Bukhari (53:386)
Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master.

I don't see the point in discussing the obvious any further, if you wish to remain in denial then that's your choice.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

And the dynamics and attitude of the community are brought upon by the religion itself.

I disagree. People make the religion. The religion doesn't make the people.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think people are 'taught' to be bigots; I think it's a natural position held by people who have not had exposure to alternate views, or have had them and have bad exposure to them because it goes against their norms.

Bigotry is in fact a taught behavior. It can be an emergent property of cultural sheltering as well as other factors but it is a taught behavior to be racist, or sexist, ect ect ect. This is pretty well made fact by developmental psychology.

Though I agree that ignorance is a prerequisite of bigotry but generally "hate" isn't the starting point psychologically.

But there is the myth that religious morals have stopped and are frozen; this is frequently not the case. Not in Catholicism, Sikhism, even Islam.

The quote that you responded to with this piece even stated the changing tone of religions over the course of time. I have never made the claim that religious morals are stagnant. In fact this bit of information is integral to my argument. If religious morals remained totally unchanged then it would be evidence of divine law. But the fact that it does change suggests that religion is at the mercy of the people rather than of god. It will change as society changes.
The causality doesn't stem from religion but ends on it.

On the contrary, someone could just as easily say modern morals are based on selfishness, lust, now-thinking and are not sustainable, and much more.
How true that is, though... is equal in truth to your own like your position just now.
Does the fact they could think that mean their view is any more or less right than yours?

You could state that but we have psychological evidence to back up our points about modern or secular morality. Many "religious" morals often are not backed up by the same evidence and have a long track record of being harmful to societies. It also has facilitated positive things in communities as well. However I find that most (if not all) of the positive things that can be done with a religious moral "good" can be done with a secular moral good. A negative action taken as "moral" by a religion gives someone the passage to abuse and harm people in the name of god based on an out-dated and ignorance based moral claim by ancient people who knew nothing of psychology or sociology.

The latter part of your post here didn't make sense to me. Can you re-word it?

And someone could say that they think politicized forms of spreads bigotry as part of their movement, too.
How true that is, though... is equal in truth to your own like your position just now.
Does the fact they could think that mean their view is any more or less right than yours?

I have never said bigotry cannot be spread by any other means other than religion. I think your arguing against something I have not stated. This has happened a few times. I'm not anti-theist (at least not in that I wish to abolish religion).

Though if you wish for justification I do fall back on the evidences found. Things based in logic and reason are usually better than things based in myth and folly.

I wouldn't take either of the four opinions held -- by yourself or by the contrary view I put up to make an example of how subjective your views are -- as worthy of respecting.

Can you re-phrase this please?

Naturally, not all -- or even most -- religions or forms of theism 'promote bigotry'. It is silly to even entertain that notion for a moment.

Religion has been a major force for the suppression of homosexuals for thousands of years in the west. To say that it hasn't played its part in promoting bigotry is a falsehood. It is also no small coincidence that the opposition to marriage equality in America today is almost unanimously religious in nature. Specifically evangelical christian movements.

I don't agree, simply because religious morals are not stagnant. This is mistaken thinking on your part.

I have never stated such a thing. To the contrary religious morals change over time because cultures change over time.

I can think of no evidence to suggest that religion has evolved naturally as some kind of independent entity to change the morality of society over time. It seems far more likely that the minds and attitudes of the people change over time as ages pass and generations cycle out. Then, subsequently, the religions of those same said people will also change.

 

[Breathe]

I disagree. People make the religion. The religion doesn't make the people.

I disagree; I think it's both.

Bigotry is in fact a taught behavior. It can be an emergent property of cultural sheltering as well as other factors but it is a taught behavior to be racist, or sexist, ect ect ect. This is pretty well made fact by developmental psychology.

Though I agree that ignorance is a prerequisite of bigotry but generally "hate" isn't the starting point psychologically.

I don't think it's a taught behaviour, though; it's pretty clear that it's a natural position from a mentality of "us" vs "them", depending on what you are considering as bigotry.
Tolerance? Now, that's a learned behaviour.
It'd be great if it was the other way around, but, well, it isn't.

The quote that you responded to with this piece even stated the changing tone of religions over the course of time. I have never made the claim that religious morals are stagnant. In fact this bit of information is integral to my argument. If religious morals remained totally unchanged then it would be evidence of divine law. But the fact that it does change suggests that religion is at the mercy of the people rather than of god. It will change as society changes.
The causality doesn't stem from religion but ends on it.

Principle of accommodation, bro.

You could state that but we have psychological evidence to back up our points about modern or secular morality. Many "religious" morals often are not backed up by the same evidence and have a long track record of being harmful to societies. It also has facilitated positive things in communities as well. However I find that most (if not all) of the positive things that can be done with a religious moral "good" can be done with a secular moral good. A negative action taken as "moral" by a religion gives someone the passage to abuse and harm people in the name of god based on an out-dated and ignorance based moral claim by ancient people who knew nothing of psychology or sociology.

Nah, I disagree with you. I see where you're coming from, but I think it's too much of a simplification.
Likewise, the opponent could see modern/secular morality as too poorly worded and too much thinking only in the present and so allowing for the decay of society, and for being too idealistic and not realistic enough to survive in times of crises, and thus being too dangerous in the long run.

They may also say that religious values worked well for over 200,000 years, and talk about the decay (or something) of the modern world. For things we might not find an issue, they might, and vice-versa. This is all subjective.

The latter part of your post here didn't make sense to me. Can you re-word it?

Jesus, I don't know what happened to that. Basically: what makes yours/ours right and theirs wrong?

Though if you wish for justification I do fall back on the evidences found. Things based in logic and reason are usually better than things based in myth and folly.

Using terms like "myth" and "folly" are not conductive to a respectful discussion.

Can you re-phrase this please?

"Why should either view be respected by a third party?"

Religion has been a major force for the suppression of homosexuals for thousands of years in the west. To say that it hasn't played its part in promoting bigotry is a falsehood. It is also no small coincidence that the opposition to marriage equality in America today is almost unanimously religious in nature. Specifically evangelical christian movements.

And there are religions who have no issues with it; where I live, at least, religiosity is rare (and is frequently treated with contempt), but homophobia still exists everywhere.

Some local parents tried to petition out a person in the school for being gay. They didn't want a '*** around kids in case he molests them'. It was my wife and I who defended him most, along with one of my wife's friends from church. He's still there thanks to us.

So, should I be able to say that secularism has had an impact in promoting bigotry? Thought not.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I disagree; I think it's both.

Then we'll disagree I suppose.

I don't think it's a taught behaviour, though; it's pretty clear that it's a natural position from a mentality of "us" vs "them", depending on what you are considering as bigotry.
Tolerance? Now, that's a learned behaviour.
It'd be great if it was the other way around, but, well, it isn't.

Both are learned behavior. The way that bigotry in generaly develops within a population has a lot to do with tribal mentality and the arbitrary way in which we can categorize people. But no one is born racist so to speak. It can develop later in life but bigotry is a harsh thing.

Principle of accommodation, bro.

I have always seen that as a cop out. What is the evidence that this is true rather than the more obvious sociological one which has mountains of evidence?

Nah, I disagree with you. I see where you're coming from, but I think it's too much of a simplification.
Likewise, the opponent could see modern/secular morality as too poorly worded and too much thinking only in the present and so allowing for the decay of society, and for being too idealistic and not realistic enough to survive in times of crises, and thus being too dangerous in the long run.

That does come down to perspective. I can't actually say that my morality is correct vs someone else's. However the point in question was "Modern morality developed through secular means rather than religious ones". This point has been contested by you and others and this is what the crux of the debate is about. Everything else is just side tangents that we have gotten off on.

So it was my understanding that we were arguing with the presumption that modern morality is the goal and how we got to that goal is where we debate. My position is that it has been gained through secular means and that any religiously based morality that has come about to it in modern times is a byproduct of the secular morality developments in our society. The opposite is the concept that religion has somehow evolved and retrospectively changed the society.

You seem to be arguing possibly for both?

They may also say that religious values worked well for over 200,000 years, and talk about the decay (or something) of the modern world. For things we might not find an issue, they might, and vice-versa. This is all subjective.

It is measurable that secular societies see more peace, lower crime, higher happiness ect. The world is also at its most peaceful for humans. Part of this "derogation of human society" is a mixture of knowledge that we didn't have prior and selective memories of the past. This means that we simply didn't know about all the terrible things that were happening before. We only knew about our families and immediate surroundings. Now we have a wealth-spring of information at our fingertips. Also people tend to only recall the more pleasant things about their past. The older folk don't remember how bad things really were in some cases.

But measurably things are getting better. And the ones that are getting the best deal seem to be the highly secular societies.

Jesus, I don't know what happened to that. Basically: what makes yours/ours right and theirs wrong?

Again that is subjective. I can quote evidence on how we function better with secular morality than we do traditional religious morals. I can cite psychology, sociology, history ect. But at the same time many people still have a matter of perspective and opinion. Though again I had assumed we were working from the original presupposition that modern morality was the goal.

Using terms like "myth" and "folly" are not conductive to a respectful discussion.

True. I recall those then and apologize. They are how I truly see religion but at the same time I don't actually mean to offend. Religious peoples are in no way usually more or less intelligent than atheists. But I do make a distinct discrimination of beliefs and morals based on evidence and those not based on evidence.

"Why should either view be respected by a third party?"
And there are religions who have no issues with it; where I live, at least, religiosity is rare (and is frequently treated with contempt), but homophobia still exists everywhere.

Homophobia is a problem. But the places that see the best acceptances of homosexuals and see the most rights for all minorities are sexular societies. In fact many religiously motivated individuals actively see it as an attack on their morality to give them freedoms. Not all but some.

Some local parents tried to petition out a person in the school for being gay. They didn't want a '*** around kids in case he molests them'. It was my wife and I who defended him most, along with one of my wife's friends from church. He's still there thanks to us.

So, should I be able to say that secularism has had an impact in promoting bigotry? Thought not.

Were the original people motivated by secular reasons rather than religious ones?

Secondly did you protect the child because of your religion? Assume for a moment that your religion was false and you knew that. Would you still want to help the child?

If your answer is yes then why do you assume your moral decision to help was based in your religion?

 

[Pastek]

Nothing you say changes the meaning of the verse in question.
What happened afterwards in certain battles doesn't change the meaning or context of verse 9.29.

It does, i gave you the reason.
I even show you that they didn't fight them and came back in their land.

It's like the first verses in sourate 9 who say to fight the polytheists, those whi didn't accepted Islam were not killed but expelled from the region.
The first reason to fight them was not the disbelief but all that they did to muslims.

The verse then 9.29 it's the same : God gave permission to fight the people of the Book because they attacked the muslims emissaries first. Not because they were not muslims.

You quote Ibn Kathir but he like other ancient scholars agrees that this verse allows muslims to fight jews and christians for disbelief. They also agree that this verse was a compensation for banning the pagans from visiting the Kabaa. Sure some people would have chosen to become muslims rather than face death or have a severe tax penalty to deal with.

Several taxes ? They just pay the Jiziya while muslims also pays taxes : Zaket el mal and Zakat el fitr.
Plus muslims should fight if there's a war, not the non-muslims.

But this doesn't change the fact this is an aggressive/violent verse which allowed muslims to conquer foreign lands.

This is a specific verse revealed in a specific time.
Even if you don't want to accept it and prefer to forget that it was muslims here who were attacked each time.
I gave you the link of Ibn Kathir who said it was against the Romans and what the Battle was and the reason of the Battle. I gave you everything about this subject.

Yes they were people of the book but by refusing to believe in Allah and his messenger their faith in previous scripture counted for nothing as Ibn Kathir explains

Therefore, when People of the Scriptures disbelieved in Muhammad , they had no beneficial faith in any Messenger or what the Messengers brought. Rather, they followed their religions because this conformed with their ideas, lusts and the ways of their forefathers, not because they are Allah's Law and religion. Had they been true believers in their religions, that faith would have directed them to believe in Muhammad , because all Prophets gave the good news of Muhammad's advent and commanded them to obey and follow him. Yet when he was sent, they disbelieved in him, even though he is the mightiest of all Messengers. Therefore, they do not follow the religion of earlier Prophets because these religions came from Allah, but because these suit their desires and lusts. Therefore, their claimed faith in an earlier Prophet will not benefit them because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all Prophets .

It will not be beneficial for them in the Hereafter, we all know that as it's explained many time in the Quran. So yes, and ?

If you ask christians, some of them will say "if you don't accept Jesus as the savior you will go to Hell"
That's the same principle, if you don't accept a prophet of God and his Revelation, then you'll probably go in Hell. We never denied it.
Exept for the people you never heard of Islam and then who stay in their previous religion (Christianity or Judaism, depend of the period, but it's an other subject)

So Ibn Kathir says their faith in scriptures means nothing if they don't believe in Mohammed and Allah. Therefore muslims were ordered to fight them as explained. Which is why Jews and christians will go to hell according to the koran, hadiths and scholars.

That's two different things. The first one is that when they will face God (if they heard properly about Muhammad before of course) it will not be beneficial for them that they were before jews or christians, because they didn't believe in Muhammad.

The second point is according to you (not Ibn Kathir) it's why muslims fighted them. Not true for that part, this is your own conclusion.

But for the last time lets take a look at this verse once more, as you have avoided quoting or explaining what the words actually say.
All you have done is deny and make some baseless assumptions.

Here is verse 9.29 broken down in segments so you can follow it:

My God, can't you accept the context ? I even gave you the links, you can make your own researchs then. You say i avoid the subject but isn't it you who don't want to accept the reality ?

Because God gave permission to muslims to defend themselfs, you say this is a general verse who prove that muslims should fight the non-muslims and oblige them to take income from them. While everybody pay taxes, even the muslims !

Don't you know that arabs were tribes ? The Arabic Peninsula wasn't a State like the Persian or Bizantine Empire.
You think those people living under them didn't pay any taxes ?
Everyone have to pay taxes and participate to the community.

 

[Breathe]

Then we'll disagree I suppose.

Fair do.

Both are learned behavior. The way that bigotry in generaly develops within a population has a lot to do with tribal mentality and the arbitrary way in which we can categorize people. But no one is born racist so to speak. It can develop later in life but bigotry is a harsh thing.

I don't think it's fair to say it's a learned behaviour; I think it's a natural one, born within us, that formalizes around the time we begin to develop a concept of 'in' our group and 'out' of our group, as well as experiences.

I have always seen that as a cop out. What is the evidence that this is true rather than the more obvious sociological one which has mountains of evidence?

Because the world changes, and God, if revelatory, would most likely be aware of this -- but there is no point in giving people concepts they cannot live by for a certain amount of time, or giving them rules that are too lax to allow society to be 'at risk', for example.

You seem to be arguing possibly for both?

Pretty much, yeah. I don't mind playing Devil's advocate, sometimes.

It is measurable that secular societies see more peace, lower crime, higher happiness ect. The world is also at its most peaceful for humans.

But how much of this is because of poverty that causes these problems, and freedom of expression that causes it? I've seen people use the claim that the more racially homogeneous = the more peaceful the society is and all of these things; so why should we take one seriously (more secular = more peaceful) but not another (more multiracial = more dangerous), unless both are either too simplistic or both are true? I side with the former.

And, as we know, correlation does not necessarily equal causation.

Part of this "derogation of human society" is a mixture of knowledge that we didn't have prior and selective memories of the past. This means that we simply didn't know about all the terrible things that were happening before. We only knew about our families and immediate surroundings. Now we have a wealth-spring of information at our fingertips.

I think this is a bit too simplistic as we have evidence of things from long ago; the chances are they knew about it, but they had a stronger oral history. The West can't deal with oral history that well nowadays.

Also people tend to only recall the more pleasant things about their past. The older folk don't remember how bad things really were in some cases.

This is true. I believe there is something on Egyptians complaining about their children being disrespectful and so on and so forth, from the time of the Pharoahs. I recall it on QI, IIRC.

But measurably things are getting better. And the ones that are getting the best deal seem to be the highly secular societies.

But, are they getting better because of secularism, and how is it defined as 'better'? What you or I deem 'better' may be deemed 'worse' by others.

Again that is subjective. I can quote evidence on how we function better with secular morality than we do traditional religious morals. I can cite psychology, sociology, history ect. But at the same time many people still have a matter of perspective and opinion. Though again I had assumed we were working from the original presupposition that modern morality was the goal.

But the opponent may cite the breakdown of family, breakdown of marriage, and so on, including, say, increase in multiculturalism, multiracialism, increase in presence for homosexuality, and so on, as bad things, and say how these are dangerous. So, our good can be another's bad, and vice versa.

True. I recall those then and apologize. They are how I truly see religion but at the same time I don't actually mean to offend. Religious peoples are in no way usually more or less intelligent than atheists.

Even if you feel that way, it's not respectful. Disrespect when speaking to someone else about things that may be hurtful should be avoided, simply out of courtesy and to further propagate conversation.

If someone is having a conversation about LGBTQ rights with a gay person, for example, and keeps calling the LGBTQ community "deranged", "****", "poofs", "mentally ill", and so on, how is that productive? They can hold whatever opinions they want, and speak about them how they want, to others, in my opinion -- but to the person in question it's bang out of order.

But I do make a distinct discrimination of beliefs and morals based on evidence and those not based on evidence.

So do I, but what I feel is 'evidence' may be different to what you deem as 'evidence'.

Were the original people motivated by secular reasons rather than religious ones?

Yes; few are religious.

Secondly did you protect the child because of your religion? [...] Would you still want to help the child?

If your answer is yes then why do you assume your moral decision to help was based in your religion?

I think you've misunderstood; it was about a teacher, not a child.

I would still want to help, but I see it as my religious and spiritual morals compel me to fight against injustice and cruelty, even when I'd rather have a quiet day. There are many religions like that. I see no distinction between 'secular' and 'spiritual'. That is an alien concept to me. My religious values shape me.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I don't think it's fair to say it's a learned behaviour; I think it's a natural one, born within us, that formalizes around the time we begin to develop a concept of 'in' our group and 'out' of our group, as well as experiences.

Actually today I did some more research into this. Apparently the root prerequisites of bigotry IS an innate structure psychologically. However the specifics of bigotry are learned. We are simply predisposed to be bigots if we are exposed to it.

For example you won't be inherently racist if you aren't exposed to racist material. If you are raised in a multi-cultural setting where you come into contact with other races and do not see racism growing up then there should be a very low likelihood that you would develop to be racist. However if you grow up in an entirely isolated or ignorant setting then you have the potential and propensity to become bigoted.

So it appears to be a mixture of ugly human nature and nurture.

Because the world changes, and God, if revelatory, would most likely be aware of this -- but there is no point in giving people concepts they cannot live by for a certain amount of time, or giving them rules that are too lax to allow society to be 'at risk', for example.

I get that. I just don't see "why" I should take this as a valid answer. I could assume that it is god that causes it to rain and I can come up with this really big explanation of how he does it and it just so happens to look just like the natural rain cycle. However this doesn't mean that it is actually relevant or supported.

But how much of this is because of poverty that causes these problems, and freedom of expression that causes it? I've seen people use the claim that the more racially homogeneous = the more peaceful the society is and all of these things; so why should we take one seriously (more secular = more peaceful) but not another (more multiracial = more dangerous), unless both are either too simplistic or both are true? I side with the former.

And, as we know, correlation does not necessarily equal causation.

But that doesn't mean causality doesn't matter. But it DOES matter for one reason. For religion to be the root of morality it must be true that the more religious societies must be, therefore, more moral. However this doesn't seem to be the case. In fact it is counter to the case in most events.

Since this is an argument about the root of morality it seems pretty imperative for religion to be able to give a good track record on the subject. So far its not very impressive.

I think this is a bit too simplistic as we have evidence of things from long ago; the chances are they knew about it, but they had a stronger oral history. The West can't deal with oral history that well nowadays.

It is simplified and abridged but no less true.

Though oral history is very unreliable in most cases. It has been theorized much of religion was created by an ever most extravagant "fish story" style exaggerations throughout several generations.

But, are they getting better because of secularism, and how is it defined as 'better'? What you or I deem 'better' may be deemed 'worse' by others.

Better is usually measured in life expectancy, saftey, health, standard of living, and happiness usually. Its a pretty universally accepted way of measuring how good life is for people.

Secularism can be found at the root cause of most of the major changes. For example democracy was a secular notion that has revolutionized the political structure of the world and is generally agreed by most to be the best way to make decisions as a community. Very few feel democracy is a bad idea.

Forcing people to justify their bigotry rather than simply allowing it to be can be associated with secularism. Many religions have a history of condoning horrid treatment of people. Regardless of how any of the followers are able to interpret it today it has played this role in history.

These are just a few things off the top of my head.

But the opponent may cite the breakdown of family, breakdown of marriage, and so on, including, say, increase in multiculturalism, multiracialism, increase in presence for homosexuality, and so on, as bad things, and say how these are dangerous. So, our good can be another's bad, and vice versa.

Again I have been debating form the presumption that modern morality was the goal. Lack of bigotry for example is a modern moral point that I do not believe was helped by Christianity or Islam. If you want to debate the validity of Secular morality vs Religious morality or modern morality vs another branch of morality then we can do it in another thread. Its getting tiresome here as this is an irrelevant tangent with regards to the topic at hand.

But I cannot resist this one point. The main reason why we see the breakdown of marriage is actually increased financial independence of women and the empowerment of women from feminism. While feminism is accredited to secularism it isn't actually a "bad" thing from most moral standpoints.

For example there are far more divorces but far less domestic violence. If holding marriages together is more important than the safety and health of men and women in abusive marriages then that is a judgement call they will have to make. But do not make the mistake of simply thinking that the higher divorce rates are simply due to people becoming "worse" in the sense that marriages were totally fine prior to female financial independence.

Secondly the rates of homosexuality seem to be pretty constant. It is just that more are outing themselves rather than staying in the closet. This is because of higher acceptance of homosexuality. So there isn't an increase but just an awareness of the true number.

Even if you feel that way, it's not respectful. Disrespect when speaking to someone else about things that may be hurtful should be avoided, simply out of courtesy and to further propagate conversation.

This is debate not a friendly coffee chat with an old chap. I respect you till you give me reason otherwise. I have no obligation to respect anyone's beliefs or views. I simply do not think religion or any of the god concepts presented to me has any real merit in terms of being truth.

If someone is having a conversation about LGBTQ rights with a gay person, for example, and keeps calling the LGBTQ community "deranged", "****", "poofs", "mentally ill", and so on, how is that productive? They can hold whatever opinions they want, and speak about them how they want, to others, in my opinion -- but to the person in question it's bang out of order.

I haven't called religious people "deranged". Not as a whole anyway. I have met a few.... but beside the point. I disagree that god and religion exist. I actually still have trouble understanding the exact mechanisms that allow people to believe such things. I once believed myself and still can't understand how I did. I think there was a lot of lying to myself and self imposed thought restriction.

I do think that I should avoid calling it "folly" and other offensive terms. Its why I retracted my statement and attempted to explain that I do not believe what you and many other believe.

So do I, but what I feel is 'evidence' may be different to what you deem as 'evidence'.

Repeatable and dependable?

Yes; few are religious.

I have never actually met someone who was bigoted towards homosexuality that wasn't religious. I don't doubt that it exists but simply that it is vastly in the minority compared to the religious based bigotry.

I think you've misunderstood; it was about a teacher, not a child.

I would still want to help, but I see it as my religious and spiritual morals compel me to fight against injustice and cruelty, even when I'd rather have a quiet day. There are many religions like that. I see no distinction between 'secular' and 'spiritual'. That is an alien concept to me. My religious values shape me.

Do you think that you would not have helped were you not religious? If you were an atheist for example? If so how do you account for atheists being moral and just in the same scenario?

What, also, do you make of the statistic that has claimed atheists tend to be motivated by compassion more than religious individuals?

Though again I am not saying Atheists are superior to religious in terms of morality or anything of the sort. Quite the opposite. I think people are people. I simply think that if religion plays a major part in the role of morality and happiness then it should reflect statistically. Otherwise that is evidence that it doesn't' actually play a significant role and it is more likely other factors that influence such things.

 

[icehorse]

All nicely put Monk.

When you talk about "modern morality", is that a phrase that's commonly accepted around here? I'm just asking in order to get a better sense of what is well understood terminology.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

All nicely put Monk.

When you talk about "modern morality", is that a phrase that's commonly accepted around here? I'm just asking in order to get a better sense of what is well understood terminology.

I haven't had anyone contest the meaning as of yet. In fact it was part of the OP where he explained a bit more thoroughly what he meant specifically. Though what the moral statement is actually is more or less irrelevant. The discussion has been about the changes in the morality of our societies over time and where we have gotten to today. Regardless of what that moral stance may or may not be isn't so much the issue but more specifically what caused the change. Was it secular arguments? Or was it religiously inspired?