Jump to content
Islamic Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About hedon

  • Rank
    Jr. Member

Previous Fields

  • Marital Status
  • Religion
  1. Every Hadith Has A Counter-hadith?

    Thanks, makes sense and raises questions - good combination. Weeeeeell - fine in theory but I doubt that there are very many things at all that couldn't be prohibited if a scholar put his mind to it. Doesn't reality say otherwise? Aren't the Saudi (and Acehnese, now) religious police punishing people for breaches of social ethics? This coes back to my questions - HOW does a caliphate decide on its laws? Why is the Saudi or Taliban model not going to be adopted? A Taliban-run caliphate would surely regard piano-playing as criminal. I agree, but then I'm not the one who claims to have an infallible book containing all knowledge. I can imagine a powerful reply with lots of quotes from hadiths telling you that that's verging on blasphemy, but I agree with you. That's why (I repeat) I'm interested in just HOW a caliphate's legal system works.
  2. Every Hadith Has A Counter-hadith?

    You can't really say "Western society" like that: there are differing legal systems around the world. Is the Chinese legal system "western", for example? Is the Fench system the same as the Greek? I assume that when you do say "Western society" you mean British-derived legal systems. But I'm genuinely curious about the legal system in the caliphate. It's a huge part of the state's job to make, promulgate and enforce laws. How does it work in a caliphate? Do the chatting scholars have to decide (and by what processs do they decide?) every time that the issue arises that playing the piano is permissable, so the Beethoven concert can go ahead? Or will the laws be written in books so people can decide in advance whether it's worthwile buying season-tickets? My main concern is that while the Koran might claim to have easily understood laws for absolutely every aspect of human life, getting Muslims here on earth to agree what those laws actually are seems to be impossible. If the caliphate isn't to be in a state of continuous litigation and stalled cases awaiting yet another chat among scholars, it will need to have some sort of written laws which are generally accepted as being the laws. Is this possible, do you think?
  3. Every Hadith Has A Counter-hadith?

    That's good, but doesn't it make a bit of a mess of "infallible and unchanging"? And what might be (or "is', if there are alreadyrules) the process for making laws and deciding cases in a caliphate? Does everyone agree to accept a majority of scholars? Or what?
  4. umm - sorry, I can't follow this. This thread is for atheists to tell believers what it wold take for them to believe, and most atheists have ansered that evidence is needed. So it's up to believers to provide evidence. Have you done that?
  5. I wonder if this forum could tolerate non-believers discussing theories about how Mohammed came to 'write' the Koran if Allah does not exist? I suspect that this forum wouldn't tolerate it, but it does make an interesting thought experiment.
  6. Interesting, although very speculative and quite a lot of dubious assertions. If you're postulating a 'new paradigm' which replaces the scientific method with something else, good luck - but the until that arrives we have to use the best tool for finding truth that we have. Can you give a concrete example of how this thinking might help resolve arguments between believers in supernatural beings and the rest of us?
  7. So, what is the 'real' meaning of debate?
  8. Ooops - I've just broken the rule about the quote being longer than the reply, haven't I? Sorry.
  9. Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying. Do you mean that it means something different in Arabic to its English translation? If you happen to believe that the Koran is written by a god, I suppose that you might find it exciting to read. But I don't believe that, and I'm afraid that I have not been especially impressed by any of the verses I've seen quoted. To me, the apparent meaning is at best platitudinous, and worst illogical (for example, the verse we're talking about) and the style (of the translations, anyway) is a fairly generic and plodding 'ye olde religious' style totally lacking in anything which would make me think that it was written by a literary genius, much less a god.
  10. I don't know about him, but for me and I imagine most people who do not believe in god/s, any supernatural stuff like message in dreams (other than the 'messages' from your own subconscious) is unlikely and unproven. In fact if it could be proven to be true I'd be a lot more likely to believe in a god. However, by 'proven' I don't mean a list of anaecdotes. I mean a scientific experiment. And if you can prove anything supernatural at all in a replicable experiment you'll win $1,000,000 from James Randi, not to mention a uinique place in history. Isn't that the wrong way around? If they already have faith, why would they need signs? Surely it's the peope who DON'T have faith who might benefit from 'clear signs'? Actually, this thread was started by a Muslim as an invitation for Muslims to prove the existence of god to atheists. Read the first post. It would be insane to believe something as important as the existence of a god without proof - or even a tiny bit of evidence. There is none. I didn't see any signs that convinced me. Lots of peole told me lots of things, but none of them could prove them to be true, so I rejected the Egyptian gods, the Greek gods, the Norse gods, the Gaelic gods, the Hebrew god, the Christian god, the Islamic god, eben my own indigenous gods, and all of the thousands of other contradictory claims - none of which could produce a shred of evidence of their existence.
  11. Prime Minister to Foreign Secretary 11 July 44 There is no doubt that this [persecution of Jews in Hungary and their expulsion from enemy territory] is probably the greatest and most horrible crime ever committed in the whole history of the world, and it has been done by scientific machinery by nominally civilized men in the name of a great State and one of the leading races of Europe. It is quite clear that all concerned in this crime who may fall into our hands, including the people who only obeyed orders by carrying out the butcheries, should be put to death after their association with the murders has been proved. I cannot therefore feel that this is the kind of ordinary case which is put through the Protecting Power, as, for instance, the lack of feeding or sanitary conditions in some particular prisoners' camp. There should therefore, in my opinion, be no negotiations of any kind on this subject. Declarations should be made in public, so that everyone connected with it will be hunted down and put to death. [Winston S. Churchill, The Second World War: Triumph and Tragedy, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1953, page 693]
  12. You have misunderstood. I pointed out that your premise that 'bullets on the spot' was not used was incorrect. It was one of the methods of genocide. Source? Try any QUALIFIED historian writing on the Holocaust or WWI in general. David Irving was the only denier-historian (although he wasn't actually academically much good - he wrote popular histories) but is now completely discredited. Even the White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis (who make up the bulk of the denier community) don't much like him any more. Evidence that the Nazis and their quislings rounded up Jews to be sent to concentration camps? Are you actually denying that this happened? Yes. Why would the nazis have slaughterd the Jews of Italy or France or Holland or Belgium or ... when those countries were relatively calm and functional? It would have risked insurrection. Much easier to say that the Jews were being shipped off for holidays in Auschwitz. Both. You seem to have trouble with situations that aren't black or white.
  13. Haven't we been through this? Do you not understand that what you are saying is exactly the same as saying "A-Easter-bunnyists need Easter-bunnyists to exist"? Haven't you been reading the thread? I (and, I assume 'we') have seen no evidence that I was created by a 'hgher being', and it's the job of Muslims in this thread to convince us. It isn't a matter of 'refusing to acjnowledge' it' a matter of not believing on the basis of zero evidence. I don't really uderstand this pargraph's intention, but no, science does not tell us that everything can be traced back to a beginning. Science simply does not know what happened before the Big Bang. Theory is nothing like faith. Theory is designed to be tested, modified and discarded if proven wrong. Your job i this thread is to disprove the theory that there is no evidence that a god or gods exist. AFAIK all human cultures have creation myths. It seems to be a human trait. You don't seem to understand the Scientific Method. I really don't see why you jump from "there must be a cause for this" (which is fairly correct, for this universe, anyway, but the cause could be better described as an antecedent) to "a supernatural being must have created this". It's totally illogical and lacking any evidence at all. Sorry, but that is merely a statement of faith. We're still at the position of the first post in this thread - show me some evidence.