Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Sign in to follow this  
schorlemorle

U Don't Belive In Equality Of Mankind

Recommended Posts

You do realize that the time frame goes from 2000 years ago to the present time? Are you honestly arguing that alcohol consumption has decreased since then?

 

On the whole, yes it has gone up but as I said, thats more because of an increase in pop. If you factor in growth in population and avg it out, alcohol consumption has been going down namely because of better diet and a switch to other drugs (anti-depressants, diet pills, caffine etc) most of these dangerous when mixed with alcohol.

 

Then you obviously don't understand Islam. If you did, you would realize that most conflicts arise from lack of knowledge and understanding of Islamic creed.

You throw around the word "offend" a lot. Once again, I'm not offended, but simply replying to you.

 

Im arguing that once a religion or state becomes a certain size, its bound to split. Islam grew very quickly which is why it decentralized relatively quickly. Not about 'lack of knowledge of Islam' rather too many voices.

 

Nudity is immoral in Islam. So are gossiping, gambling, drinking and fornication. These things are prevelant and popular in the west, and are considered part of the norm.

And you seem to have gone completely off-track. We are talking about the increase in immorality as a minor sign, not "How many bad things are there in the world?".

 

The things I mentioned Im sure youll agree are much more immoral than a little nudity and again, much more prevailant in the past so yea, Immorality Id say has lessened or at the very least simply become more public knowedge as opposed to increased/decreased

 

Hah! That quote might have made sense if it was applicable in this scenario.

 

It does. You seem to believe past times were better when In reality they werent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
We are the last of mankind, the final group of people before the day of judgement. Our period began 1400 years ago when prophet Muhammad was sent to us. It could last another fifty years, another 100, another 1000. It might seem like a long time, but it will go by incredibly quickly.

 

Compare a thousand years with the day of judgement, which is 50,000 years long. Whatever is left of this world seems like an afternoon. Israfil, the angel who will blow the horn on the day of judgement, has already put the trumpet to his mouth and is waiting to blow it at the command of God because he is aware of how close the hour is.

:sl: that's just the saddest thing i've ever head in my life........

 

 

I don't believe in the end of mankind soon, but the great tribulation might come like a thief in the night.

it's the same for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the whole, yes it has gone up but as I said, thats more because of an increase in pop.
That really does not invalidate the prediction. You might think it is an obvious one, but alcohol consumption worldwide is relatively more than it was ages ago, regardless of any factors that make it so.

 

One factor you haven't taken into account is popularity of alcohol, which has increased since 2000 years ago. More households drink it not because of increase in population, but an increase in popularity of the product.

 

Im arguing that once a religion or state becomes a certain size, its bound to split. Islam grew very quickly which is why it decentralized relatively quickly. Not about 'lack of knowledge of Islam' rather too many voices.

 

You are still missing the point. The people, and the leaders, of present Muslim countries are ruled by their emotions, rather than by Islam. Not only that, but Islam has been polluted with tradition, and culture, and personal opinion.

 

Let's take a trip back to the period of time when the Caliphs ruled, from Abu Bakr to Ali. Islam was complete and unadulterated, the rulers enforced Islam to the dot, and the people CARED about gaining knowledge about the religion.

 

Are you going to tell me that the leaders still continue to enforce Islamic Shari'ah? Or that the people are not ignorant of their own religion?

 

Decentralization contributing to the change in Islamic lands is your opinion. Instead of adding other factors, why not explain to me how the Muslim community's knowledge of Islam is the same as it was 1400 years ago, which would therefore debunk the prediction?

The things I mentioned Im sure youll agree are much more immoral than a little nudity and again, much more prevailant in the past so yea, Immorality Id say has lessened or at the very least simply become more public knowedge as opposed to increased/decreased
Do we need to bring statistics into this argument?

 

Look at the number of men engaging in pre-marital sex.

Look at the number of women engaging in pre-marital sex.

Look at the number of teens engaging in pre-marital sex.

Look at the number of children engaging in pre-marital sex.

 

Compare those with the west's own society 4 centuries ago, or even 1 century ago. Now, please attempt to use population as an excuse.

 

Immorality has lessened? Riots have decreased? Murder has decreased? Massacres have decreased? Where in God's name are you pulling up this information, because I'd certainly like to see it.

 

And by the way, there is no such thing as "a little nudity". Adultery is one of the major sins (so is murder, before you pounce on that), and though the west enjoys and engages in it, that does not make it "a little nudity".

 

It does. You seem to believe past times were better when In reality they werent.

 

Because they were better. Period.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

personally, i find murdering or flogging fully consenting adults who engage in sexual activities without marriage, to be FAR more immoral than the act itself. Thus, in western societies since the collapse of christendom, immorality in that respect has diminished.

 

a lot depends upon the values you carry to your analysis of society.

 

 

Peace and Love. :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't we just accept that we don't give two [email protected]#$ about eachothers values? What's the point in arguing "which is more immoral? Adultery or Killing Apostates?" . It's clear that we're never going to agree on an absolute moral system simply because one doesn't exist (here's the part where everyone insists they have the real moral system given to them by god etc).

 

Here's whats going to happen over the next several hundred years.

 

The strengthening of the global economy will lead to the necessity of similar moral codes within all states on the planet.

 

It will be the new age liberalists versus conservative fundamentalists. (Yes, for the record I view most of the muslims on this forum as religious fundamentalists due to their beliefs, shoot me for believing differently).

 

Or ofcourse some (you know who you are) may see this as immoral anarchic godless people vs god's followers who are above such immorality :sl: .

 

As neither side is willing to compromise (who's gonna accept a middle ground between ignoring adultery and killing adulterers? :sl: )

 

A lot of people are going to die, and this aint the first time this kinda battle has happened.

 

Nazi's vs jew lovers, White supremacy (KKK vs non supremacists), Slavery (civil wars), every world conquering mission (country vs rest of world), modern day conservative muslim people.

 

Alot of people will die, call me selfish, but I'm hopin it's the other side :j:

 

The alternative of course is that we all go back to living in isolated states with no contact between another. Good ol' days of segregation :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well gee duffman, paint me Mr Happy for being glad *you're* not a prophet.

 

how about: a pluriform system across the planet, where within each social area exist certain social codes, and the individual people are free to move between them. There are many in the west who beleive that adultery is very wrong and that marriage is sacrosanct (heck, i'm one of them myself, in the sense of the vast majority of adultery is done without the knowledge and permission of the partner, and is thus a grave breach of essential trust - although i certainly don't agree that it should be punished by floggings/murder), and there are almost certainly many in Islamic countries of both genders who would prefer the more humanist legal traditions of the West.

 

so - let the people move around, to find a system they most appreciate. If finance capital is allowed to move freely without borders, then let the People do the same.

 

 

Peace and Love. :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You realize that movement of capitol is the reason for the collapse of social values (Islamic or otherwise) and for the worlds decent into the toilet right?:sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well gee duffman, paint me Mr Happy for being glad *you're* not a prophet.

 

I'm so glad I'm not the only one who was thinking that.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You realize that movement of capitol is the reason for the collapse of social values (Islamic or otherwise) and for the worlds decent into the toilet right?tongue.gif
yes.

 

but the free movement of people is entirely different from the movement of mere money. Although i am sure that such a shift would also involve problems too. But then again, what doesn't? Its what keeps us humans busy. :sl:

 

 

I'm so glad I'm not the only one who was thinking that.

 

:j:

 

 

peace and love. :sl:

Edited by gnuneo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a prophet but I'm damn sure cynical and pessimistic about the future of the human race.

 

You realize that movement of capitol is the reason for the collapse of social values (Islamic or otherwise) and for the worlds decent into the toilet right?tongue.gif

I agree~

 

In a more broader sense, trade relations is what it comes down to. You can't have proper trade relations with a country that is radically different. The moment two radically different nations become economically dependant on one another, they will progress towards similar societies lest the countries financial systems collapse. Best example of this, take a look at what's happening to china. It is being pressured to modernize. The effect is slow but it is clearly there and it is noticeable. Keep an eye on the chinese stock markets to see what I mean.

 

Because of the global economy, countries are effected by things that happen in countries they have trade relations with. The relations will naturally progress towards stability (canada and usa for example). This is only possible once the societies become similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

peace duffman,

 

Because of the global economy, countries are effected by things that happen in countries they have trade relations with. The relations will naturally progress towards stability (canada and usa for example). This is only possible once the societies become similar.

 

LOL, here is the solution to what you prophetised. Over time, as the societies regard each other, and increase trade and travel between them, then the citizens will experience each others societies, and the dialogue between them will move each to a new stability that blends the two. Take languages, a good example of such intermingling. Modern English is a blend of germanic/scandinavian and romantic languages (with a pot pourri of words from around the entire world), there was conflict between the two groups, but eventually a new peaceful synthesis was reached.

 

you may not perceive this, but there is much that western society can learn from Islam, just as we did in the past. It gives religious stability, and a focus upon morality that has been lost since the Enlightenment split up 'materialist science', and 'value science', and largely decided to focus purely upon the material world (for quite valid reasons as the time, having to do with the Church would have had them burned if they had further encroached upon its perceived territory of values, it was a compromise however that led to western science rejecting the study of values (and thus morality), leading to the daft notion that scientists are somehow 'value-free'). Whilst this is already being addressed by post-post modernists and the renascent pagan religions, the sheer strength of the Islamic religion gives it more impact. Also, the 'strictness' of Islam addresses a need in western society that has been a vacuum since christendom was largely ditched, a need that frankly would be better filled by the carefully thought and logical structures of Islam than the hysterical and idiocy generating structures of the worst of the christian evangelicals, which are at core pure cults. (Although there are also some very decent christian evangelical movements as well, not to generalise too much).

 

at a certain risk to my posting privilleges, i would also say that Islam has some things to learn from the West too, and i will leave it at that. :sl:

 

 

the synthesis of the two systems, will hopefully be based upon the best of the two, upon respect for the individual in political systems, upon restricting the power and wealth of the individual in favour of the wider society (in fact the two go hand in hand although apparently contradictory in this short form), upon recognising the core of the Universe, and existence itself, is morality, that democracy, peace and development is in everyone's interests, whereas as ever war is not.

 

 

to put it bluntly, humans across the whole world have pretty much the same needs and desires, altered ever so slightly by the different cultures, but all humans have far more in common than we have differences. This simple fact gives hope that one day we *can* all come together and resolve those differences peacefully, through dialogue and mutual understanding, and we can all evolve together rather than devolve into bestial warfare and mutual distrust.

 

 

peace and love. :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like your idea gnuneo. Even if I think your living in fantasy land. Ideals do not progress towards what is better for society. They progress towards which ever ideal has more power behind it.

 

I also find it odd that you think western liberalist values are compatible with Islamic ones. I'm sure theres things in one, that the other could really use and vice versa but a middle ground between the two?

 

Also, value science is better left to philsophy, logic and reasoning. Throw religion into the mix and you induce a superiority complex that causes discrimination, rascism and hatred over differences. All the muslims in the house that defend homosexuality give a shout.

Edited by Duffman_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ideals do not progress towards what is better for society. They progress towards which ever ideal has more power behind it.
well now, right there is the difference between a beleif in an ultimately moral universe, and one in which the universe is dead, just clockwork. You see, i note that in recorded human history, there has in general terms been a movement towards greater freedoms, towards greater individual autonomy, towards democracy (the real meaning of the word, not meaningless ocasional elections), towards empowerment, and that those socieites that *truly* follow these goals* are precisely the ones that are the strongest societies.

 

thus for me morality gives its own empowerment, and in the long run moral ideas will out.

 

 

*i do not perceive the West as generally living up to those values ATM, normal britons do not expect to have their voice respected in the political arenas, most britons do not own their own companies in partnerships, and the centralisation of media/electricity/water and other essential services in the hands of a tiny ultra-wealthy minority is precisely in the opposite direction. This is also why i perceive the West as having its own social crisis at the moment, although the media focus upon iraq and other artificially created disasters has managed to deflect western citizen attention fro the growing deficits in our own societies. Of course, this could *never* be deliberate!

 

 

the strongest societies i have been in, are the scandinavian ones. The people beleive they are empowered (or at least to a greater extent than britons), there is a fairly high level of democratic economics (which means not only a smaller wealth gap, but also an economy much better designed to survive mass depressions/complete economic collapse), the education systems are second to none in the world, the attachment to individual autonomy, especially for women's rights, are legendary, the scandinavians in basic terms are simply the most moral societies on Earth ATM. (Although NOT perfect by a long shot, little too much racism/culturalism for instance, and are also moving in the wrong direction politcally and socially, funnily enough, in large part again caused by the fear created by tWoT!).

 

so yes, although memes struggle directly and the more powerful ones win, overall, it is the most moral memes that turn out to be the most powerful ones. Once they are explained properly.

 

 

I also find it odd that you think western liberalist values are compatible with Islamic ones. I'm sure theres things in one, that the other could really use and vice versa but a middle ground between the two?

 

this is always the way, unless some demagogue spots an opportunity for personal power and agitates for violence between them. Its just like christianity - there are many very moral ideas in there, next to the witch/homosexual/heretic/infidel torturing and murdering ones, ideas that fit perfectly into a liberal framework. The same is true for Islam, certainly enough for there to be dialogue between secular liberal Western values and religious liberal Islamic values. After all, as we can see from the similarity of Bush and Bin Laden (and for what its worth, Ahmedinadjad), there is enough similarity between intolerant Western values and intolerant Islamic values for them to work together for their mutual benefit, i am sure the same is true of the more moral and tolerant majority as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really see the relevance to the first bit of text you quoted...

 

I do now realize there is a theoretical middle ground between any two system of values. Anywho the western value system is supposed to be explicitly liberal. Excluding the southern half of the US most of the west is like this. You mentioned intolerance in western liberal values. What's intolerant within liberalism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×