Islam is unable to relate to the diverse contemporary cultures

[Remté]

Ok, let me put it this way, what is the point of Islam? To be obedient to God or to enlighten the individual?

If it is to enlighten the individual, how did Islam go about that?

Both.

By the Quran.

 

[Shad]

Humanism would fly in the face per Christian views of slavery.

The Greeks had far worse views of slavery than Christian did yet your objection is not considered by you in your own argument. Try again.

There is Christian humanism, and in this case it is the rise of secular humanism.

Secular humanism is Christian humanism with God and Christian theology removed. It has no leg to stand on

The actual humanism that evolved is from intellectual philosophical movements that questioned Christianity and the existence of the Theist God, ie Deism.

Nonsense as those same people developed scientific racism. Deists still had slaves you know. Read Jefferson.... and try again.

 

[Shad]

The prophet Muhammad is said to have caused great changes to societyof that time. People began dressing so as to cover their private parts properly - more so than before anyway (not that I personally find this important from a spiritual point of view). The Quran affected on the rights of women - for a while allegedly, until some began forging false meanings out of it.

More nonsense as "properly" is subjective. Toss in the fact that exposure in a desert environment is a quick way to die anyways.

 

[Remté]

More nonsense as "properly" is subjective. Toss in the fact that exposure in a desert environment is a quick way to die anyways.

Yes, but history says something about the dressing at that time even in the desert. Maybe look it up?

Of course it's subjective, but so what?

What is your point?

 

[Shad]

Yes, but history says something about the dressing at that time even in the desert. Maybe look it up?

Why do you think I pointed out desert environments? You are merely repeating what I said back to me....

Of course it's subjective, but so what?

Ergo you view is an opinion and nothing more. Ergo your idea of greatest is not factual greatness.

What is your point?

That it is an opinion which you acknowledged. Yet you were asked about objective facts. Ergo you missed the point.

 

[Remté]

Why do you think I pointed out desert environments? You are merely repeating what I said back to me....



Ergo you view is an opinion and nothing more. Ergo your idea of greatest is not factual greatness.



That it is an opinion which you acknowledged. Yet you were asked about objective facts.

What is an opinion?

 

[Shad]

What is an opinion?

Your view of "great things" and "properly". You were asked about facts not merely subjective opinion

 

[Remté]

Your view of "great things" and "properly". You were asked about facts not merely subjective opinion

Does this mean the word great can't be used unless expressing an opinion?

Okay then. Why don't you pick up an encyclopedia?

 

[Shad]

Does this mean the word great can't be used unless expressing an opinion?

No but the use of it as a subjective point in a question about objective facts make your opinion moot.

Okay then. Why don't you pick up an encyclopedia?

Why? You are the one talking about great X and being dress properly. You need to establish this was "enlightenment" for humanity rather than a subjective view of your own religion and it's isolated impact.

 

[Remté]

No but the use of it as a subjective point in a question about objective facts make your opinion moot.

That doesn't make any sense. I said "is said to have caused great changes". Who are you to tell me what kind of an answer I "need" to give? That's why I want you to grab an encyclopedia. What you want to read about is so called facts. I believe you can find them there.

 

[Shad]

That doesn't make any sense. I said "is said to have caused great changes". Who are you to tell me what kind of an answer I "need" to give? That's why I want you to grab an encyclopedia. What you want to read about is so called facts. I believe you can find them there.

You were asked to establish enlightenment for humanity due to Islam. So far your examples are a dress code only Muslims, and not even all Muslims, follow.... Key word... humanity here... You didn't understand the question. Your answers are not even about the question itself and now you are dodging as someone, me, pointed it out. You are waffling.

It is your obligation to cite facts as it your claim. I do not need to make your argument for you. There is no encyclopedia reference to "Islam created a dress code all of humanity benefited from...." Try again, son.

 

[Remté]

You were asked to establish enlightenment for humanity due to Islam.

I don't mind if you say I failed.

So far your examples are a dress code only Muslims, and not even all Muslims, follow..

I wasn't referring to the dress code in Hadith which came later than Islam and prophet Muhammad. To this day it is more than common for people in Islamic countires to cover their private parts.

.. Key word... humanity here...

Influence has to start from somewhere.

You didn't understand the question.

I did understand the question.

Your answers are not even about the question itself and now you are dodging as someone, me, pointed it out. You are waffling.

It isn't dodging, but an attempt to leave a discussion which has nothig to offer to me nor to you.

It is your obligation to cite facts as it your claim.

Definitely not.

I do not need to make your argument for you.

Good.

There is no encyclopedia reference to "Islam created a dress code all of humanity benefited from...."

No but if you are interested you can read plenty of it from elsewhere. You don't which means you aren't even interested.

 

[Remté]

Serious question, what enlightenment did Islam bring to the world.
The Muslims absorbed a lot of culture and developed a unique culture. art, music, architecture. Something every civilization did. What "spiritual" enlightenment did Islam bring to the world?

I answered this once - even though it isn't directed at me - but it appeared to be upsetting with its incompleteness.

So here's a fuller answer
Read the Quran if you wish to understand.

 

[Shad]

I don't mind you say I failed.

k

I wasn't.referring to the dress code in Hadith which cane later than Islam and the prophet Muhammad. To this day it is more than common for people in Islamic countires to cover their private parts.

Irrelevant. Islam didn't cause humanity to wear clothing nor more of it. It is something that developed millennia before Islam existed. More so you proved my point. The benefit is only seen by those that follow the religion ergo not a benefit to a humanity but a religious subsection which already accepted the view due to the religion itself.

Influence has to start from somewhere.

Influence needs to be established. You have not done this.

I did understand the question.

Your answers show otherwise.

It isn't dodging, but an attempt to leave a discussion which has nothig to offer to me nor to you.

Then tell me you want to end it. It isn't hard nor does it require extra babble about encyclopedias. Here watch. "I think this discussion has run it's course and is done." See?

Definitely not.

Wrong. You made the claim, it is your burden of proof. This is basic philosophical concept when making any claim. Try again

Good.

Ergo your pointless babble about looking facts, not even a topic just the word facts, in an encyclopedia was nonsense.

No but if you are interested you can read plenty of from elsewhere. You don't which means you aren't even interested.

More nonsensical babble. You might as well say "Google stuff" Impressive.

FYI I have read a lot. It was not impressive at all. About what I would expect of the 7th century.

 

[shunyadragon]

The Greeks had far worse views of slavery than Christian did yet your objection is not considered by you in your own argument. Try again.

Humanism would fly in the face per Christian views of slavery.

Secular humanism is Christian humanism with God and Christian theology removed. It has no leg to stand on.

No,

From: Christian humanism, religious humanism, and secular humanism | Center for Inquiry

Humanism has been so popular over the past 200 years that religions try to claim it for themselves. The term "humanism" gained wide use in mid-1800s, and liberal religious scholars then applied it to early Christian theologians and Renaissance thinkers. In the early 20th century, religious and atheist thinkers banded together to brand "Humanism" as a philosophical stance, setting some agendas for Unitarian Universalism and the American Humanist Association. At present, prominent humanists have gone so far as to declare that a humanist must be an agnostic or an atheist.

Humanism is evidently under considerable strain, perhaps a victim of its success. Atheists frequently describe their lifestance and ethics as "humanist". Many humanists retain a high regard for Christianity, and many Christians agree with the essentials of humanism. Where can we still find "humanism"?

Christian humanism respects the dignity and mind of humans because God made us and loves us. Christian humanism was essential to the rise of democracy in Europe, as thinkers from John Locke to Thomas Jefferson argued for liberty of body and spirit by appealing to our status as divinely created beings. Christians championed human rights during the formative era for modern democracy. While a few atheists such as Hobbes, Voltaire, and Paine cheered on the fight, the reformers who wielded political power were Christians. Even a Pope or two have proudly worn the mantle of humanism, along with many 20th century advocates for peace and civil rights leaders who were Christians. Christian humanists have well-placed pride in their humanist work.

Unlike Christian humanism, religious humanism does not appeal to God’s relationship to humans to justify our inherent dignity and liberty. Religious humanism puts humanism first and religion second. Humanism in general emphasizes our moral responsibilities in this life and finds human intelligence up to the challenge of figuring out how to live ethical lives. Christians believe that we can be good humanists only because God helps us learn morality and guides ethical thinking. Religious humanists turn this dependence on God around — it is only because humans have the responsibility and capacity for figuring out ethics that we deserve to judge what is good in society, politics, and even religion. We aren’t worthy because of God — if we should be religious, it is because religion is worthy of us . Religious humanists gain inspiration and wisdom from religious traditions, spiritual leaders, nature’s wonders, and extraordinary personal experiences. Ultimately, however, religious humanists take responsibility for judging what is worthy to adopt and adapt from these sources.

Standing apart from Christian humanism and religious humanism is secular humanism. Secular humanism leaves all divinity and religion out of humanism entirely. Judging that religions are unworthy , and uninterested in spiritual enlightenment, this secular humanism grounds the humanist life and its ethical principles on reason alone. Whether secular humanism will succeed in this effort remains an open question, as it has only just begun to formulate its stances on the great questions of life and living.

Let’s summarize. Humanism emphasizes our moral responsibilities in this life and applies human intelligence for forming ethical lives. Christian humanism credits God for morality, for our right to take ethical responsibility, and for our possession of reason. Religious humanism puts our ethical responsibilities first, and then asks intelligence to judge religion/spirituality for its potential guidance. Secular humanism judges everything religious/spiritual as worthless and starts over from just reason.

These three varieties of humanism can share a great deal. Christian humanists can cooperate with religious humanists to explore religion’s wisdom and apply this wisdom to improve human life today. Religious humanists can admire a Jesus or Buddha, and apply Jesus’s example of love or Buddha’s example of tranquility in their secular lives. Secular humanists can cooperate with any other sort of humanist when shared ethical values are at stake.

Nonsense as those same people developed scientific racism. Deists still had slaves you know. Read Jefferson.... and try again.

I said Secular humanism evolved. The above is nonsense and did not address the issues.

 

[Remté]

Irrelevant. Islam didn't cause humanity to wear clothing nor more of it. It is something that developed millennia before Islam existed.

That is contradictory to the history books.

Wrong. You made the claim, it is your burden of proof. This is basic philosophical concept when making any claim. Try again

I am not bound by philosophical concepts.

FYI I have read a lot.

It isn't about quantity but quality.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

From: Arabian tribes that interacted with Muhammad - Wikipedia

"The most prominent of such Arabian tribes were Quraish which were in turn divided into several sub-clans. The Qur'aish sub-clan of Banu Hashim was the clan of Muhammad, while their sister sub-clan, the Banu Abd-Shams became known as his most staunch enemies. After Muhammad, the Muslim nation was ruled exclusively through the Quraish tribe, all the way until the Ottoman Turks came into power.

Other tribes include various ones that were centered on different cities, for example the Banu Thaqif and the Banu Utub.

Notable are the Jewish tribes that had settled in Medina, they would play a prominent part in Muhammad's life, this included the Banu Qurayza, Banu Nadir and the Banu Qainuqa, they participated in the Battle of Bu'ath, although they had a truce and an agreement with Muslims not to join the opposing armies, but they broke them."

This article goes into more detail into the origins of Shi'ism along tribal lines.

JOURNAL ARTICLE
The Conversion of Iraq's Tribes to Shiism
Yitzhak Nakash
International Journal of Middle East Studies
Vol. 26, No. 3 (Aug., 1994), pp. 443-463

More to follow . . .

Also: The Hebrew scripture describes the tribal conflicts in the evolution of Judaism. This tribal identity persists today as defining the Jewish religion and their relation to the rest of world that is not Jewish..

You have listed more than one tribe, which makes the point that it is NOT a tribal religion.

I fully acknowledge the point that Arabic culture has had a dominant influence. Yet converts do not become Arabs. Yet another proof that Islam is NOT a tribal religion.

So basically, I think you are on to something, but you have exaggerated your point to the extent that it is now incorrect. An example of a tribal religion would be Judaism, where the religion is exclusive to ONE people, and converts become members of that people. Islam doesn't make the cut.

However, you and I can talk until the cows come home about how Arabic Culture has influenced Islam.

 

[shunyadragon]

You have listed more than one tribe, which makes the point that it is NOT a tribal religion.

You did not apparently read the whole article, or maybe understand it. Yes, the Islamic religion originated in one tribe, but history of Islam involved tribes makes it a tribal religion in the forming of Islam and the divisions, and also when you have to deal with Hebrew tribes, which have been in conflict with Islam throughout history, which Judaism is a tribal religion. The article discusses more than one tribe and the schism between Shi'ism and Sunni involves tribes.

I fully acknowledge the point that Arabic culture has had a dominant influence. Yet converts do not become Arabs. Yet another proof that Islam is NOT a tribal religion.

No proof here just assertions, because. like Judaism, by far the overwhelming majority of Muslims and the divisions are related to tribal ancestry and affiliation.

Some of the earliest military conflicts were between Muhammad's tribe and Hebrew tribes.

 

[shunyadragon]

Bahais must follow the laws of the lands which they live in. In Islamic countries they follow Islamic law.

But in a Bahai World Order Bahais would make everybody follow Bahai Law.

No.

Otherwise, what's the point of Bahai Criminal Law and punishments?

You still have secular governments and laws until an entire nation is Baha'i.

For example, would non-Baha'is be able to have sexual relationships outside of marriage in the Bahai World Order?

Non-Baha'is will never be obligated to follow Baha'i laws. There are no laws that proscribe penalties of sexual relationships outside marriage other than the loose of administrative rights of voting, which applies to Baha'is only. There are no corporal nor penal penalties proscribed.

As the future governments evolve the civil laws themselves will not likely change. The evolved court system will likely still apply in a court system independent of the Baha'i administrative order.

It is believed that the Baha'i principles will be the foundation of the future governments, and evolved over time, and much of what you propose is extremely hypothetical of what the future brings hundreds of years in the future.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

but history of Islam involved tribes makes it a tribal religion in the forming of Islam and the divisions

You apparently didn't read my response. If more than one tribe is involved in the formation of or the culture of a given religion, then it cannot be said to be a tribal religion.

I'm just repeating myself over and over. If you don't read this the third time around, you aren't going to read it the fourth or fifth. Conversation is over.