Jump to content
Islamic Forum
JCBeliever

Seperate Religion And State?

Recommended Posts

Except that banning alcohol is ineffective. It leads to black market trading, which ultimately becomes unregulated. There would be a crisis similar to the problem with drugs in many countries.

 

Are you suggesting that because some people might still do it, it shouldn't be banned at all? "Hey guys! Some people might murder one another, so I say to hell with the criminal laws against it!"

 

See how ridiculous that is?

 

Also, don't even attempt to say that it shouldn't be banned because it might create a black market. The example of this is Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia. Just how many people do you hear of that die of alcohol-related car accidents in Saudi Arabia? Alcohol-related domestic violence? Alcohol-related diseases?

 

In short, how many Muslim families do you think are affected by alcohol? More than western families, where alcohol is not only available, but also considered entirely acceptable? You decide.

 

God forbides us from all things that destroy us. If the harmful effects outweigh the benefits of something, then it is off the list. Simple as that. If someone wants to set up a black market for alcohol, then it is no different than someone forming a gang to create violence and havoc, or someone stealing prescription drugs. Just because some will break the rules doesn't mean that it shouldn't be there in the first place.

 

Indeed, you cannot do that. The basis for that is not however grounded in religion. It is public standards of decency.

 

Why? Who decides what decency is? I'm pretty sure that on the other side of the world, a group of people will disagree with you and they will claim that we should all be as naked as we were born.

 

Because Secularism is preferable to Theocracy.

 

God disagrees with you. And I'd take His opinion over yours any day.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
Are you suggesting that because some people might still do it, it shouldn't be banned at all? "Hey guys! Some people might murder one another, so I say to hell with the criminal laws against it!"

With alcohol and drugs, if they are legal and regulated by the government - it helps to prevent the value of black market distribution which would be unregulated and consequently more dangerous. Prohibition's of drugs and alcohol never works as history has shown us.

 

No. And this is supposed to be a civilised discussion. Your tone implies that you are looking down on those you converse with.

 

Also, don't even attempt to say that it shouldn't be banned because it might create a black market. The example of this is Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia. Just how many people do you hear of that die of alcohol-related car accidents in Saudi Arabia? Alcohol-related domestic violence? Alcohol-related diseases?

I don't take Saudi Arabia as a good example for a state. Theocratic Totalitarian states aren't my thing.

 

Why? Who decides what decency is? I'm pretty sure that on the other side of the world, a group of people will disagree with you and they will claim that we should all be as naked as we were born.

They perhaps will. So?

 

God disagrees with you. And I'd take His opinion over yours any day.

Too bad that religious belief here ought not actually have any weigh over government. And then Secularism was born.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Secularism isn't imposed on anyone. A secular state wouldn't infringe your right to live by the values you choose to live by and practice your faith, it would simply mean that those values are not involved in the functions of the state and the passing of laws. You wouldn't have secularism imposed on you anymore than I would. However, without secularism religious ideologies risk being imposed on others who do not support them and have no reason to. It is a safety net against such forms of ideological imposition.

 

Secularism isn't an ideology, it is a principle or practice which both protects religion from political manipulation and guards others against religious totalitarianism."

 

Just so we're all keyed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because Secularism is preferable to Theocracy.

What exactly makes you think each and every man prefers Secularism to what you refer to as Theocracy ?

Your views are based on the Historical European Experience and It does not apply to us .

You are doing exactly what you accuse us of , Trying to impose Secularism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What exactly makes you think each and every man prefers Secularism to what you refer to as Theocracy ?

Nothing. I think it is in every way superior to Theocracy.

 

Your views are based on the Historical European Experience and It does not apply to us .

You are doing exactly what you accuse us of , Trying to impose Secularism

Imposition of a principle? Secularism by definition grants every religion equal rights. Every adherent of any belief under Secularism has the same right to their religion. This is not the case under Theocracies. There is different rights for different beliefs, unless of course - you have something new to tell me about Sharia Law which guarantees total equality for belief under the law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With alcohol and drugs, if they are legal and regulated by the government - it helps to prevent the value of black market distribution which would be unregulated and consequently more dangerous. Prohibition's of drugs and alcohol never works as history has shown us.

 

Where exactly hasn't it worked? Think about it. It certianly has worked in Islam. Those who are God-fearing do not ever drink alcohol nor do they use drugs.

 

You seem to be suggesting that something as harmful as drugs should simply be regulated to avoid the balance of control being shifted over to the black market. Why don't we do the same with everything else that is as harmful as drugs and alcohol? Why doesn't the government simply regulate crime and murder, rather than having them completely prohibited? After all, we do have distribution of illegal arms in the black market. We also have underground organizations that promote hatred, violence and intolerance. These are no more or less deadly than drugs and alcohol.

 

I don't take Saudi Arabia as a good example for a state. Theocratic Totalitarian states aren't my thing.

 

I don't take western countries as good examples of states. And by western countries, I'm referring to America, Canada, and Europe. So that's why I really can't buy into the "prohibition of drugs and alcohol never works in history" thing.

 

Too bad that religious belief here ought not actually have any weigh over government. And then Secularism was born.

 

You say ought not to. That's entirely your opinion.

 

But let me ask you a question. If you believe in God, and you believe that your purpose in life is to live as He created you to (with rules and regulations regarding all aspects of your life), would you choose to live a different way?

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Except that banning alcohol is ineffective. It leads to black market trading, which ultimately becomes unregulated. There would be a crisis similar to the problem with drugs in many countries.

 

I don't agree with you because your allegation is illogical. The effectiveness of banning alcohol depends on how strict the enforcement of the law is. By banning alcohol, we can minimize the consumption of alcohol as we have seen in Muslim countries that ban alcohol. If you think that alcohol, drugs, guns etc should be legalized so that they can be regulated, you are wrong for alcohol, drugs, guns etc are ruining individuals, families, socities and countries that legalize them. For example:

 

A 2001 report estimates that medium and high consumption of alcohol led to 75,754 deaths in the USA. Low consumption has some beneficial effects so a net 59,180 deaths were attributed to alcohol (Source:

Alcohol-Attributable Deaths Report, United States 2001). Alcohol has also been linked to cancer. "3.6% of all cancer cases worldwide are related to alcohol drinking, resulting in 3.5% of all cancer deaths" Alcohol is also a potentially addictive substance to a large percentage of people. Source: Burden of alcohol-related cancer substantial, Reuters Health August 3, 2006). It seems to me that by legalizing alcohols, the US regime has failed to save its own citizens.

 

Indeed, you cannot do that. The basis for that is not however grounded in religion. It is public standards of decency.

 

What determine the public standards of decency? The basis of the public standards of decency is gounded on what?

 

It is.

 

That means there is no absolute freedom in secular countries.

 

You can in some countries.

 

That means some secular countries allow drugs to ruin their own citizens through drug abuse and drug addiction etc that may lead to health problems, social problems, physical dependence, or psychological addiction.

.

This is why it is futile to speak of the West as a unified group of people. What do you mean when you say 'West'? Do you mean countries geographically Western or Secular nations? You cannot label about half of the world. You speak also as if the 'East' of the world is wholly innocent of crimes across the world.

 

The Second World War is a war between the Allies (Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, Czechoslovakia, France, Greece, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, , Poland, United Kingdom, United States, USSR, Yugoslavia etc) and the Axis (Albania, Bulgaria, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Rumania, Slovakia, Thailand) from 1939 to 1945. The war began in Europe in 1939 with the German invasion of Poland. This global conflict split the majority of the West's secular nations into two opposing military alliances: the Allies and the Axis Powers.

 

Yes. Can you cite any?

 

Theists were oppressed, terrorized or massacred by communists who are atheists in communist countries such as Soviet Union and China.

 

So you are now likening Atheism to Communism are you? Let us be clear is. Communism implies Atheism. Atheism does not imply Communism.I resent your unsubstantiated generalisations.

 

Communists are atheists. And atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism. When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, alternatively called nontheism.

 

Because Secularism is preferable to Theocracy.

 

Secularism is preferable to Theocracy in the West because churches had abused Christians and states in the past. We Muslims reject secularism because Islam is the complete way of life!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mash Allah keep up the good debate, loved reading it guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imposition of a principle? Secularism by definition grants every religion equal rights.

This is just playing around with words.

For us Islam is not something to be kept to our private lives which is how secularism defines religion.

 

For us Islam is a way of Life and a Part of Islam is that we should Implement God's Law on Earth as much as possible and this is a part of Islam and this is undoubtedly against secularism.

 

Secularism may grant 'equal rights' to all religions but they do stop the practice of aspects of religion that is against secularism. Secularism mandates that all religions confirms to its principles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Except that banning alcohol is ineffective. It leads to black market trading, which ultimately becomes unregulated. There would be a crisis similar to the problem with drugs in many countries.

So what do you suggest, Makes drugs as freely available as alcohol

 

My point is that If you say Islam is oppressive because it prohibits alcohol and the like , I can turn around and say , you oppress the drug addict, the pedophile, the ones who wants to commit consensual incest and the like

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where exactly hasn't it worked? Think about it. It certianly has worked in Islam. Those who are God-fearing do not ever drink alcohol nor do they use drugs.

That works on paper. Those who are good Muslims do not necessarily drink alcohol. But then not everyone is Muslim and not everyone is a good Muslim. Moreover, some people just simply want to drink. Who has the right to stop them?

 

You seem to be suggesting that something as harmful as drugs should simply be regulated to avoid the balance of control being shifted over to the black market. Why don't we do the same with everything else that is as harmful as drugs and alcohol?

Yes. I disagree with the banning of drugs. It is the choice of the individual to take drugs and drink alcohol.

 

I don't take western countries as good examples of states. And by western countries, I'm referring to America, Canada, and Europe. So that's why I really can't buy into the "prohibition of drugs and alcohol never works in history" thing.

The laws in Western countries are highly successful. Some of the most successful and prosperous countries in the world are in Scandinavia.

 

But let me ask you a question. If you believe in God, and you believe that your purpose in life is to live as He created you to (with rules and regulations regarding all aspects of your life), would you choose to live a different way?

No. You can do that however, under Secular law. If you believe that God is telling you to live life in a certain way then you are completely allowed to. It is your personal belief. The line is drawn when you decide to inflict that on other people who do not share those viewpoints. This is what Secularism and Libertarianism ensure does not happen.

 

 

What determine the public standards of decency? The basis of the public standards of decency is gounded on what?

The populace. No specific belief determines it.

 

That means there is no absolute freedom in secular countries.

I never said there was. Although I am confused, what are you referring to when you quote: "It is." from me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Continued:

 

That means some secular countries allow drugs to ruin their own citizens through drug abuse and drug addiction etc that may lead to health problems, social problems, physical dependence, or psychological addiction.

Yup.

 

This global conflict split the majority of the West's secular nations into two opposing military alliances: the Allies and the Axis Powers.

Nazi Germany was not Secular.

 

Communists are atheists. And atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism. When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, alternatively called nontheism.

Communism implies Atheism. That much is true. Atheism in and of itself neither implies nor asserts any ethical or political standpoints. It concerns itself only with the existence of God.

 

We Muslims reject secularism because Islam is the complete way of life!

And you are free to follow Islam. Just do not expect Non-Muslims to recognise that.

 

For us Islam is not something to be kept to our private lives which is how secularism defines religion.

Not at all. You can publicly proselytise in Secular nations as well as set up Masjids. You just cannot dictate how others should live their lives.

 

For us Islam is a way of Life and a Part of Islam is that we should Implement God's Law on Earth as much as possible and this is a part of Islam and this is undoubtedly against secularism.

The above sentence to me sounds incredibly dangerous. I am an Atheist, I do not and would resist being put under Islamic rule if it ever came to that.

 

Secularism may grant 'equal rights' to all religions but they do stop the practice of aspects of religion that is against secularism. Secularism mandates that all religions confirms to its principles.

They stop only one thing. They refuse religion the ability to have influence in political decisions. Which is a good thing.

 

My point is that If you say Islam is oppressive because it prohibits alcohol and the like , I can turn around and say , you oppress the drug addict, the pedophile, the ones who wants to commit consensual incest and the like

Yes. I disagree with banning drugs and incest. Pedophilia is difference because a child is not capable of informed consent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If alcohol was legal then suddenly illegal, your prophet (and presumably thus your god) has changed his mind. Hardly "infallible" etc.

Well, it is not the only point of view to approach this issue

 

Except that banning alcohol is ineffective. It leads to black market trading, which ultimately becomes unregulated.

And what is your suggesetion to make it effective?

 

The populace. No specific belief determines it.

What if the populace consists of thugs and criminals?

 

I don't take Saudi Arabia as a good example for a state. Theocratic Totalitarian states aren't my thing.

No one asks you to take Saudi as a good example for a state. The point is: how many traffic accidents in Saudi that are related to alcohol?

 

Yes. I disagree with banning drugs and incest.

So, you admit that your govt is opressive now?

 

They stop only one thing. They refuse religion the ability to have influence in political decisions. Which is a good thing.

A good thing to whom?

 

Wassalam,

Y

Edited by Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And what is your suggesetion to make it effective?

I don't have one. I do not actually believe alcohol should be banned.

 

What if the populace consists of thugs and criminals?

Then they would determine it.

 

No one asks you to take Saudi as a good example for a state. The point is: how many traffic accidents in Saudi that are related to alcohol?

I have no idea. Are you going to point me to statistics which say there aren't any?

 

So, you admit that your govt is opressive now?

Yeah.

 

A good thing to whom?

The population. Why should anyone's particular religious belief system rule over the masses? This is why Secularism is practical. It allows everyone to go about onwards and practice their religion equally whilst keeping out any danger of religion determining what people should and should not do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't have one. I do not actually believe alcohol should be banned.

Actually I don't care what you believe. What I care is your justification why do you believe so

 

Then they would determine it.

If you are a citizen of Sudan, then you should have no problem with punishing the British teacher for allowing her kids to name their teddy bear with Muhammad?

 

I have no idea. Are you going to point me to statistics which say there aren't any?

Do you understand my point?

 

The population. Why should anyone's particular religious belief system rule over the masses? This is why Secularism is practical. It allows everyone to go about onwards and practice their religion equally whilst keeping out any danger of religion determining what people should and should not do.

If you live in a particular area in Africa, then you should have no problems with female circumcision?

 

Wassalam,

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That works on paper. Those who are good Muslims do not necessarily drink alcohol. But then not everyone is Muslim and not everyone is a good Muslim. Moreover, some people just simply want to drink. Who has the right to stop them?

 

Who has the right to stop them? The laws of God.

 

And you're wrong that it works on paper. Why? Because proof of how wrong you are is in Saudi Arabia. Regardless of whether or not it is a true Islamic state, one thing they don't have to worry about is violence and deaths caused by the influence of alcohol.

 

Yes. I disagree with the banning of drugs. It is the choice of the individual to take drugs and drink alcohol.

 

Then you really are uncaring when it comes to those who fall prey to the harmful effects of drugs and alcohol. As I've said, alcohol and drugs are as deadly as violence and crimes. In fact, they most often spur violence and criminal activities. A person is much more likely to commit crimes when they are under the influence.

 

If you believe that drugs and alcohol should be the choice of the individual, then why not go the extra mile and say that violence should also be the choice of the individual? A man who drives a car and smashes into another car, killing all of its passengers because he was severely impaired by drugs and alcohol is no better than one who goes out and shoots up an entire family.

 

The benefits of drugs are completely outweighed by the harmful outcomes. If you want people who are currently deterred from drugs because of the laws that prohibit them, to start using drugs then the best way to do so is to make it lawful. Be prepared when diseases, car crashes, domestic violence, and crime rates double.

 

The laws in Western countries are highly successful. Some of the most successful and prosperous countries in the world are in Scandinavia.

 

The laws of Islam are highly successful. They have been for the past 1400 years and will continue to be so until the end of time.

 

The line is drawn when you decide to inflict that on other people who do not share those viewpoints. This is what Secularism and Libertarianism ensure does not happen.

 

If God told you to live the way that He wanted you to, in every aspect of your life (which would include enforcing His laws), would you break this rule? If establishing His laws in the land are your responsiblities, would you refuse? Would you rebel and claim that you didn't want to "inflict that on other people who do not share those viewpoints"?

 

It's a simple yes or no question, one that has two simple answers. Either yes, you will disobey God and be one of those He hates, or no, you will do all that you can to live as be prescribed for you and be one of those that He loves.

 

And by the way, even you believe that we can't all cater to the viewpoints of all individuals. If we did, we wouldn't have laws in the first place.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually I don't care what you believe. What I care is your justification why do you believe so

Eh? Why I believe alcohol should not be banned?

 

If you are a citizen of Sudan, then you should have no problem with punishing the British teacher for allowing her kids to name their teddy bear with Muhammad?

Now see, I was expressing what is. Different societies have different standards of what should be accepted in the public sphere. That is the case. It does not make them right in and of themselves however. It just is what is. I do not agree with the pursuing of the British teacher in Sudan because what she did does not warrant a punishment at all.

 

Do you understand my point?

I understand that it is likely that alcohol consumption in Saudi Arabia is very slim due to it being overwhelming Muslim. The fact is that this cannot be echoed in Western nations.

 

Moreover, irrespective of alcohol consumption in Saudi Arabia being slim and presumably banned - I do not agree with the banning.

 

If you live in a particular area in Africa, then you should have no problems with female circumcision?

If the females agreed to it.

 

Who has the right to stop them? The laws of God.

That's your world view. Not mine. Under your world view the laws of God might exist, but they do not under mine and many millions of others. Seeing as I contest the truth proposition that Islam asserts, why should I or anyone else for that matter be subjugated into it?

 

Then you really are uncaring when it comes to those who fall prey to the harmful effects of drugs and alcohol.

I do not disagree with government education on the effects of drugs and alcohol.

 

If you believe that drugs and alcohol should be the choice of the individual, then why not go the extra mile and say that violence should also be the choice of the individual?

Because that is an infringement of the rights of another being. I am a steadhard Libertarian. The freedom ends when it inflicts upon the freedom of another.

 

The benefits of drugs are completely outweighed by the harmful outcomes. If you want people who are currently deterred from drugs because of the laws that prohibit them, to start using drugs then the best way to do so is to make it lawful. Be prepared when diseases, car crashes, domestic violence, and crime rates double.

So why is that not the case in Holland?

 

If God told you to live the way that He wanted you to, in every aspect of your life (which would include enforcing His laws), would you break this rule?

If I thought that God was telling me to tell everyone else to live by his rules, then I would hope I would have enough will to break it those rules. I do not believe in fascism.

 

But regarding your point, why would you expect anyone to listen to you if you said that? A lot of people contest that God exists and/or that your God has the divine right to enforce his laws on everyone. Just because you think that God has told you that doesn't mean anyone is going to believe you.

 

Moreover, does that mean you feel within your rights to enforce Sharia in whatever way you can on say the UK?

 

If establishing His laws in the land are your responsiblities, would you refuse? Would you rebel and claim that you didn't want to "inflict that on other people who do not share those viewpoints"?

I request you obtain some objectivity. What would you to say to another individual who professed a different faith who declared it his self-righteous duty to enforce what he believed to be God's laws? Both of you would be of the opinion that God is in fact, telling you to enforce his laws.

 

How can I discern who to follow? There is no objective way. This is why religious rule is impossible as well as problematic. Why should any faith tell those not of that faith how to live?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's your world view. Not mine. Under your world view the laws of God might exist, but they do not under mine and many millions of others. Seeing as I contest the truth proposition that Islam asserts, why should I or anyone else for that matter be subjugated into it?

 

And that's your world view, not mine. Under your world view the laws of God do not exist, but they do under mine and millions of others. Why should I or anyone else not choose to rule our lands by the laws of God?

 

I do not disagree with government education on the effects of drugs and alcohol.

 

Education does nothing if people do not understand the concepts of right and wrong. Educating someone about the dangers of sticking a knife in someone is not going to make them any less likely to do it. And yet, the government does prohibit doing just that.

 

Because that is an infringement of the rights of another being. I am a steadhard Libertarian. The freedom ends when it inflicts upon the freedom of another.

 

So you're saying that someone has the right to become stoned or drunk to the point where they cannot control their own actions, which leads to the deaths of innocent human beings? Do you also believe that it is an infringement of the rights of others to refuse to them murder people? To rape people?

 

So why is that not the case in Holland?

 

Why is it not the case with Saudi Arabia, where drug and alcohol use is banned?

 

If I thought that God was telling me to tell everyone else to live by his rules, then I would hope I would have enough will to break it those rules. I do not believe in fascism.

 

So what you're saying is that you would believe your own creator is a fascist and that you, who is the creation, would rather follow your own warped concepts of right and wrong and ultimately burn in Hell for it.

 

Sounds a lot like Satan.

 

But regarding your point, why would you expect anyone to listen to you if you said that? A lot of people contest that God exists and/or that your God has the divine right to enforce his laws on everyone. Just because you think that God has told you that doesn't mean anyone is going to believe you.

 

Uhh, I don't expect anyone to listen to me. I don't, however, appreciate anyone trying to convince me that God doesn't exist or that He wants us to live and occupy this planet like free birds. Well actually, not even like free birds, because even birds follow their own laws from their creator.

Moreover, does that mean you feel within your rights to enforce Sharia in whatever way you can on say the UK?

 

That's an entirely different subject that would require more indepth knowledge. What I do know is that God created us as the guardians and protectors of Earth, living by and enforcing His laws.

 

I request you obtain some objectivity. What would you to say to another individual who professed a different faith who declared it his self-righteous duty to enforce what he believed to be God's laws? Both of you would be of the opinion that God is in fact, telling you to enforce his laws.

 

You are delving into another issue, one that is not of concern here. What I asked of you is to imagine that you did know for a fact that God did tell you to enforce His laws in every aspect of your life. Until you can understand why it is that we Muslims do what we do, then we'll never get anywhere.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And that's your world view, not mine. Under your world view the laws of God do not exist, but they do under mine and millions of others. Why should I or anyone else not choose to rule our lands by the laws of God?

Now we are getting to the crux of the issue. Your world view is wholly unprovable and entirely subjective. The premises for which laws are derived under Sharia are not through reason but through the bare presumption that 'God says so'. Moreover, religious law breeds inequality in its basis. A specific religion is only in charge of affairs and those affairs can only be as the religion says. Secular Law allows progression and refinement.

 

Secular Law is not established or influenced by religious edicts and values but on reason which is open to assent by all regardless of personal belief.

 

Education does nothing if people do not understand the concepts of right and wrong.

Absolutely. Which is why we also ought to provide education in ethics as well.

 

So you're saying that someone has the right to become stoned or drunk to the point where they cannot control their own actions, which leads to the deaths of innocent human beings?

They have that right. What happens from it though, they would have to face the consequences. Education regarding alcohol consumption steps in here. Not to mention pubs have the right to kick drunkards off the premise.

 

Do you also believe that it is an infringement of the rights of others to refuse to them murder people? To rape people?

No. Because they never had that right in the first place. It is an infringement on their freedom, but it is also a rational infringement on their freedom. It is for the benefit of others and society.

 

Why is it not the case with Saudi Arabia, where drug and alcohol use is banned?

Culture, presumably. Holland and Saudi Arabia maintain stability with radically different laws there. The laws themselves obviously do not effect everything.

 

So what you're saying is that you would believe your own creator is a fascist and that you, who is the creation, would rather follow your own warped concepts of right and wrong and ultimately burn in Hell for it.

If the Creator of humanity wants everyone to believe in him on pain of eternal torture and establishes a set of rules which he demands everyone follows, then yes - the creator of humanity is a fascist. And an egotistical one.

 

Moreover, I cannot support the assertion that an omnibenevolent God tortures people in hell for eternity simply for the crime of 'disbelief'. It is petty, vindictive and egotistical not to mention a grotesquely unjust punishment for something no-one can ultimately control.

 

Uhh, I don't expect anyone to listen to me. I don't, however, appreciate anyone trying to convince me that God doesn't exist or that He wants us to live and occupy this planet like free birds.

I'm not trying to do that. I'm trying to show some objectivity here.

 

You are delving into another issue, one that is not of concern here. What I asked of you is to imagine that you did know for a fact that God did tell you to enforce His laws in every aspect of your life. Until you can understand why it is that we Muslims do what we do, then we'll never get anywhere.

Quite simply, you believe you have a divine right to propagate your beliefs on people. Whether peacefully or otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now we are getting to the crux of the issue. Your world view is wholly unprovable and entirely subjective. The premises for which laws are derived under Sharia are not through reason but through the bare presumption that 'God says so'. Moreover, religious law breeds inequality in its basis. A specific religion is only in charge of affairs and those affairs can only be as the religion says. Secular Law allows progression and refinement.

 

No, it's your world view that is wholly unprovable and entirely subjective. And trust me, you do not want to get into an argument about fairness, and lack of it, in western states. You seem to be of the wrong assumption that the laws of the U.S and others are made by the common people, when we both know how this country was created and how difficult it is to amend its laws.

 

You say that the minority in an Islamic state are those who are non-Muslim. And who are the minority in America? Those who are not the citizens of this country. If you really want to discuss equality, then we should allow non-citizens to vote and hold high offices in government, among other things.

 

Absolutely. Which is why we also ought to provide education in ethics as well.

 

Whose ethics? Yours?

 

They have that right. What happens from it though, they would have to face the consequences. Education regarding alcohol consumption steps in here. Not to mention pubs have the right to kick drunkards off the premise.

 

So you're saying that people shouldn't be protected from the wrongdoings of others. There's a double standard here. I'm pretty sure that violence and crime are things the government protects against (or at least tries to). And why should drugs and alcohol be any different? Why shouldn't we protected from people who are careless enough to get uninhibited to the point where they are dangerous?

No. Because they never had that right in the first place. It is an infringement on their freedom, but it is also a rational infringement on their freedom. It is for the benefit of others and society.

 

In the first place? Where is this "first place"?

 

Also, you really shouldn't speak of the benefits of others and society when you consider it someone's right to kill another human being while they're on drugs or alcohol.

 

I'm not trying to do that. I'm trying to show some objectivity here.

 

And I"m here to show some perspective.

 

Culture, presumably. Holland and Saudi Arabia maintain stability with radically different laws there. The laws themselves obviously do not effect everything.

 

I'm pretty sure that the scenario of a drug/alcohol free world would apply to any and all lands where Islam is heavily enforced. Can the same be said for America and other Europe countries besides Holland? Can you guarantee that a world full of drugs wouldn't impact society as deeply as alcohol did the U.S?

 

If the Creator of humanity wants everyone to believe in him on pain of eternal torture and establishes a set of rules which he demands everyone follows, then yes - the creator of humanity is a fascist. And an egotistical one.

 

Sounds to me like someone would be upset that they can't have their way. You accuse God of being a fascist when your words make you just as egotistical, if not more.

 

Moreover, I cannot support the assertion that an omnibenevolent God tortures people in hell for eternity simply for the crime of 'disbelief'. It is petty, vindictive and egotistical not to mention a grotesquely unjust punishment for something no-one can ultimately control.

 

And I do not believe the ridiculous claim that God would be sympathetic to those who completely reject Him and who associate their well-being and success with others besides Him.

 

Quite simply, you believe you have a divine right to propagate your beliefs on people. Whether peacefully or otherwise.

 

If that is the case, then you believe that you have the western right to propagate your beliefs on others, peacefully or not.

 

Salam.

Edited by Redeem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Redeem, as your god changed his mind about the permissability of alcohol, you really cannot argue about the dangers of alcohol being a reason for its banning. You are against it simpley because that's what your god says this week. If your god changed his mind again you would suddenly start arguing FOR alcohol. Your position is not based on logic but an irrational superstition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redeem, as your god changed his mind about the permissability of alcohol, you really cannot argue about the dangers of alcohol being a reason for its banning. You are against it simpley because that's what your god says this week. If your god changed his mind again you would suddenly start arguing FOR alcohol. Your position is not based on logic but an irrational superstition.

 

I wonder what kind of concept you have towards God.

 

If Allah changes his mind every week then we all should have different Quran and surely more than 1400 version of Quran should be available and there should be an update every week!!!!! Brothers and sisters, I have the first version only, have you got any new version? I have never been informed about a new version :sl:

 

You consider religion as a toy. May be its time for you to explore and understand Islam without simply attributing what ever that comes to your mind ......

 

Salam

May Allah guide you

 

Vishah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. I disagree with banning drugs and incest. Pedophilia is difference because a child is not capable of informed consent.

Whats next concensual intercourse with animals should be legalized ?

Consensual sex on the streets and parks ?

Prostitution ( Its already legal in many places) ?

This is what secular liberalism leads to and this is exactly why we DESPISE it from the very bottom of our heart.

Pedophilia can easily be legalized with a little help from the psychologists...just lower the age of consent and redefine who is a child .

 

 

 

The above sentence to me sounds incredibly dangerous. I am an Atheist, I do not and would resist being put under Islamic rule if it ever came to that.

So you are afraid because it threatens your lifestyle ?

Consider us the same replace Atheist with Muslim, and Islamic with Secular Liberalist

 

 

They stop only one thing. They refuse religion the ability to have influence in political decisions. Which is a good thing.

So you admit Secularism mandates religions confirm to its principles.

 

 

 

Redeem, as your god changed his mind about the permissability of alcohol, you really cannot argue about the dangers of alcohol being a reason for its banning. You are against it simpley because that's what your god says this week. If your god changed his mind again you would suddenly start arguing FOR alcohol. Your position is not based on logic but an irrational superstition.

Islam was revealed and perfected over a period of 23 years , none of the rules were revealed in one day . This is what Islam claims and this has nothing to do with god changing his mind .

 

Alcohol was forbidden in three stages .

1. It was revealed that good that alcohol brings outweighs the evil that it causes

2. Muslim were ordered not to pray when drunk

3. It was forbidden.

 

It has more to do with gradual and practical implementation of laws than what you allege. This is how the laws of Islam are implemented .

Yes, We do believe that What ever God has ruled is the best for us and in most cases we can easily see the wisdom in the ruling and in some cases we cannot , because our intellect is limited .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whats next concensual intercourse with animals should be legalized ?

Consensual sex on the streets and parks ?

Prostitution ( Its already legal in many places) ?

This is what secular liberalism leads to and this is exactly why we DESPISE it from the very bottom of our heart.

Pedophilia can easily be legalized with a little help from the psychologists...just lower the age of consent and redefine who is a child .[/quotte]

 

Like so many people who resort to the hackneyd "What's next? Sex with ANIMALS??? OMG!!!" You have ignored the point he made about CONSENT. Neither animals nor children are legally capapble of giving consent. The argument is that anything an adult CHOOSES to do is permissable, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Bringing animals into it is silly.

 

And yes, the age of consent SHOULD be decided on the basis of the best medical and psychological knowledge. FYI, the age of consent has been steadily RISING in western counties over the past 200-odd years.

 

Re the alcohol laws - my point is that Muslims (or any other religious fundamentalists) cannot really argue about ethics or anything else because the basis for their entire system is "God said so". And as we have seen in the case of Muslims and alcohol, God said one thing one day and somthing else the next.

 

How do you know that God won't suddenly come out and say that homosexuality is OK as long as you don't do it while praying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redeem, as your god changed his mind about the permissability of alcohol, you really cannot argue about the dangers of alcohol being a reason for its banning. You are against it simpley because that's what your god says this week. If your god changed his mind again you would suddenly start arguing FOR alcohol. Your position is not based on logic but an irrational superstition.

 

I challenge you Whittle to show me any Quranic verses that support your baseless allegation that God changed his mind about the permissability of alcohol. Your position is not based on logic but an irrational superstition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×