1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Debate a Muslim

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Ghazaly, Jul 21, 2021.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ghazaly

    Ghazaly Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2021
    Messages:
    99
    Ratings:
    +43
    Religion:
    Islam
    - For sustenance, the same with plants. It's prohibited in Sharia to take animals as target for no just cause, i.e. for food. It's prohibited to kill an animal for clothing, unless you will eat it & use its skin. Initially, since the Earth (& all creation) belongs to Allah, any human exercises of rights on the Earth is transgressive, unless by Allah's permission. That's why we have to slaughter our animals in the name of Allah, as a permission from Allah to take their lives for our own sustenance.

    - Animal wellbeing is paramount in Sharia, as enjoined by the Prophet (pbuh):




    - No. Sharia seeks to preserve the 6 sacred rights: faith, life, reason, family, property, & honor. Penalties (Hudud) are set to stop capital transgressions against these sacred rights. For instance, transgression against Life is punishable according to "soul for a soul" principle. However, Hudud occupy an insignificant part of the whole of Sharia. As I happen to mention this in a previous post, it's relevant here as well, when you hear Sharia Law it actually refers to Fiqh legal tradition [we don't actually use the term Sharia Law in Arabic at all, that's a western convention], Fiqh branches out in 8 main disciplines:
    1. Fiqh Usuli (fundamental jrsprd) = legislation theory – ethical theory – legal theory – constitutional jrsprd – legal maxims...
    2. Fiqh Madhhabi (scholastic jrsprd) = Hanafi jrsprd – Maliki jrsprd – Shafi'i jrsprd – Hanbali jrsprd – & others...
    3. Fiqh 'Am (general jrsprd) = debate science – topical jrsprd – consensual jrsprd – differential jrsprd comparative jrsprd...
    4. Fiqh al-Furu' (branches of jrsprd) = of worship – of habits – of rights – of contracts – of property – of transactions – of relations – of care – of wills – of emancipation – of commerce – of trust – of companies, of endowments...
    5. Fiqh al-Qadaa (judiciary jurisprudence) = procedural jrsprd – lawsuit jrsprd– dispute jrsprd – proof jrsprd – criminal jrsprd – Penal jurisprudence...
    6. Fiqh as-Siyasa (political jrsprd) = political theory – administrative pltcs – judiciary politics (pltcs) – fiscal pltcs – public good pltcs – defense pltcs – international pltcs – social pltcs...
    7. Fiqh al-Fatawa (advisory jrsprd) = case jrsprd – methods of jrsprd – mutfi decorum...
    8. Tarikh at-Tashri' (history of jrsprd) = origins of jrsprd – developpment of jrsprd – biographies of jurists – of jurisprudents – of judges – of political theorists –
    >>> Penal Jurisprudence (Uqubat), as part of the al-Qadaa tradition, in itself branches out into:

    • Diyat (indemnities) = blood-money, wound indemnity...
    • Qisas (retributions) = retributions, chastisements, atonements...
    • Hubus (isolations) = restraint, confinement, imprisonment, exile...
    • Taghrimat (damages) = compensations, fines, forfeits...
    • Ta'zirat (discretionary) = discretionary rulings by the judge...
    • Hudud (penalties) = what you're probably talking about. <<<< THIS.



    - It's a direction of prayer, it's not the direction of Allah! Long story, but we believe the Kaaba is in tandem with Al-Bayt Al-Maamur –a sort of another Kaaba in the Heaven, through which our souls ascend to Heaven.

    - Prayer is a matter of ritual worship. We don't do it to exercise, we do it to worship as we are shown.

    - This is also a long story. To be brief, I'm gunna quote something I said here earlier:
    We believe our souls established a covenan ( Ahd) with Allah to worship only Him. Then brought to this life as delegates ((Khilafa) to Allah in this Earthly domain to settle, cultivate the land & prosper (Istimar). In this life our yearning for God is actually the memory of our covenant, as if something we miss we are incomplete without. This memory is our innate state of being (Fitrah), which manifests in our faculty to seek the divine & recognize it when we see it. This faculty is reason (Aql), gift entrusted to us. We are responsible (Taklif) to uphold that trust (Amana) by preserving our innate state of being (Fitrah) -thus our covenant- until we return to Allah again after death. As delegates of Allah on the Earth, we exercise our rights with the boundaries which Allah has set for us, according to 3 levels of rights:
    • Rights of Allah, worship & all that it entails.
    • Rights of the self, sincere pursuit of truth & self-discipline.
    • Rights of His creatures, good dealings towards creatures of Allah.
    - From this respect, the Five Pillars of Islam epitomizes these rights:
    1. Shahada – Testimony = this signifies our renewal of covenant with Allah so as to come under His boundaries.
    2. Salat – Prayer = this epitomizes the Right of Allah, an obligation to Allah to worship Him alone.
    3. Sawm – Fasting = this epitomizes the Right of the self, by self-disciplining & elevating the self.
    4. Zakat – Charity = this epitomizes the Right to His creatures, by giving out of your own wealth to the less fortunate, showing compassion spreading love.
    5. Hajj – Pilgrimage = this signifies the return back to Allah after fulfillment of covenant, it's a sort of pre-reeactement of the Day of Judgement where all are equal in the eyes of Allah, all dressing the same in a white cloth, as we will be dressed upon death.
     
  2. epronovost

    epronovost Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2019
    Messages:
    3,351
    Ratings:
    +3,259
    Religion:
    Atheist/non-religious
    Then why can't animal be stunned or anesthetized before having their throat slit? I can get why those rule were like that in the 7th century since they didn't have the technical know-how to kill animals as painlessly as today so why aren't Halal requirements different?
     
  3. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    14,414
    Ratings:
    +3,752
    Religion:
    Islam
    You said Ijab wal Qabool. So who is doing the ajwizah and who is doing the taqbal?
     
  4. Danielle Dark

    Danielle Dark New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2020
    Messages:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    I'm not convinced that's true, but I could concede you that point for the sake of argument. How would you establish that the Qur'an is true then?
     
  5. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    14,414
    Ratings:
    +3,752
    Religion:
    Islam
    You dont have Bhakti to oppose theology? Do you have Bhakti to anything at all?
     
  6. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    14,414
    Ratings:
    +3,752
    Religion:
    Islam
    You know I am always curious when people use this word "true". What do you mean by that quieten "Is the Qur'an true"? Is it a historical question?
     
  7. danieldemol

    danieldemol Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Messages:
    5,565
    Ratings:
    +5,118
    Religion:
    Spiritual but not religious
    I already did;

    Being a large feet does not make it unachievable, throughout history laws have changed because somebody somewhere got the personal idea that a law was wrong and should change, then the idea caught on amongst the people and the law was changed.

    13 significant protests that changed the course of history | Live Science


    Actually except for the case of treason against the state I am asserting that neither confinement nor the death penalty is suitable for mere religious apostasy. But confinement is certainly an improvement over death, so I applaud those ulama who argue against the death penalty even if I do not agree with them that there should be confinement for mere religious apostasy.

    I used an "and" statement. The state could still wrongfully convict someone of treason, but it could not also kill them under that pretext if there was no death penalty.

    No, I insist that neither confinement nor death penalty are appropriate for mere religious apostasy which is not treason.

    To be more specific, it protects people from being killed under wrongful conviction *by the state* who may not have even made apostasy in the first place


    Confinement is better in the sense that it allows time for people to be rehabilitated for safe reintegration into society.

    The wisdom of confining them is to safely isolate them from the rest of society (for the protection of society, not for any inherent virtue of theirs) until their cure can be found and implemented, allowing them to safely return to society

    Can you explain why using an example that demonstrates my point is fallacious?

    Had to look up the word efficacy. Google defines it as, "the ability to produce a desired or intended result." I would assert that the desired result of punishment is to safely rehabilitate an offender for return to society. What would you see the desired result as?

    Strawman, I was not arguing against the entire penal code, just the death sentence.

    As far as abolishing just the death sentence goes vs not it has been done in real life and the results in the US are clear;

    'The murder rate is highest in the South (6.5 per 100,000 in 2016), where 80% of executions are carried out, and lowest in the Northeast (3.5 per 100,000), with less than 1% of executions. A report by the US National Research Council in 2012 stated that studies claiming a deterrent effect are "fundamentally flawed" and should not be used for policy decisions.[198] According to a survey of the former and present presidents of the country's top academic criminological societies, 88% of these experts rejected the notion that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder.[198]'

    Source: Capital punishment in the United States - Wikipedia

    Confinement is good because it gives us the time to develop and implement reform solutions in the criminals and keeps them from harming wider society until such time as that can take place. Once they are safely reformed I see no reason to continue to hold them in isolation.


    If the victim has been murdered it is too late to be concerned with the life of the victim.

    In that case you have not exposed any hypocrisy on the part of an Australian by comparing US and Muslim law.

    However just because you made a point does not preclude me from advancing a point of my own. The death sentence is proven not to increase deterrance of murder.

    According to my understanding they are generally less stable due to the occurrence of religious strife that occurs within them (see Yemen for example) which I think is inevitable if you try to kill people who apostatise from or insult you. Once you take out religious strife from the equation it may surprise you how penal codes influence crime.

    Yes we do not allow dead people to teach.

    If Imam Malik himself were alive today he would be the expert on the Maliki school of Islam and provided he passed his diploma of education he would be allowed to teach the Maliki school at an university level. Qualifications in education are necessary for a number of reasons which I won't go in to here, but suffice to say that educators would consult with Malik for content on the Maliki school of law and then teach it according to approved educational standards - they would probably award him an honorary degree in Maliki law (but not a degree in teaching) and would allow him to debate Maliki law with them.

    From 3 articles in the US you concluded that, "Killing Christian apostates is not uncommon in the West"? Well I'm glad you have at least qualified what you meant by common.

    In my opinion. To be continued...
     
    #607 danieldemol, Jul 25, 2021
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2021
  8. Danielle Dark

    Danielle Dark New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2020
    Messages:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    I mean, how would you establish that the Qur'an is what it claims to be, namely a divine revelation?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. danieldemol

    danieldemol Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Messages:
    5,565
    Ratings:
    +5,118
    Religion:
    Spiritual but not religious
    @Ghazaly

    So are you not capable of thinking for yourself and forming your own opinion?


    That is precisely why the modern state is superior to the Islamic state in allowing human rights.

    Not at all in the context of modern industrialised societies. They can be safely isolated until they are reformed. From their position of isolation they cannot re-enter the war.


    On this particular point I was accusing you of sales/apologetics tactics, not making an argument.

    Only an Islamic state would crumble in record times, western states have not crumbled in record times due to this reason Pehaps this demonstrates the superiority of western states to Islamic states :)

    In my opinion
     
    #609 danieldemol, Jul 25, 2021
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2021
  10. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    21,133
    Ratings:
    +25,430
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Which it usually doesn't until puberty.

    Marriage is a contract that should probably not be entered into before one is over 20 years old. Sex is likely to happen by age 16 or 17.

    People *should* have sex before (and even instead of) marriage.

    I doubt that many people aged 12 or less are having sex.

    I started being interested pretty early and wasn't interested until I was 14.

    Sex should not be happening before age 13. Period.

    Marriage should not be happening until adulthood.

    I see no problem with sex out of wedlock. In fact, i encourage it.

    But, if people want to be married, that is certainly their right once they are of age. I, for example, am married.
     
  11. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    14,414
    Ratings:
    +3,752
    Religion:
    Islam
    It will never begin or end in this thread. And even to begin that discussion one has to have very deep understanding of the other persons epistemology.
     
  12. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    14,414
    Ratings:
    +3,752
    Religion:
    Islam
    So you have a religion called "modern" that you are placing as competition to "Islamic"?
     
  13. danieldemol

    danieldemol Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Messages:
    5,565
    Ratings:
    +5,118
    Religion:
    Spiritual but not religious
    Nope, I am proposing that amongst modern western states are states which are superior to the Islamic state as defined by @Ghazaly in the post I was responding too. Context here is important.
     
  14. Danielle Dark

    Danielle Dark New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2020
    Messages:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    Of course, but @Ghazaly asked for questions and objections and claimed that the Qur'an is "manifestly a true revelation," so I engaged. I have no illusion that I'm going to discover the Truth in a single thread; the goal is to have constructive conversation which hopefully results in both sides learning something.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  15. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    14,414
    Ratings:
    +3,752
    Religion:
    Islam
    Lol. Daniel. Alright alright. Cheers.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  16. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    14,414
    Ratings:
    +3,752
    Religion:
    Islam
    I understand and your question is absolutely valid. What you are calling out is a fallacy called "appealing to faith". I agree with your question.

    I was just telling you that the conversation on that subject is absolutely too long and wide and will not conclude. It was just a conversation, not that your point was invalid.
     
  17. oldbadger

    oldbadger Skanky Old Mongrel!

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    20,533
    Ratings:
    +7,248
    Religion:
    deist

    There you go! See? That wasn't hard, was it?
    An earlier post of mine asked if you are Sunni, Shia or Amadija Muslim..... or another.
    You didn't give an easy answer at first but I made a guess, and now I know that you are a Sunni Muslim, therefore very unlikely to be Iranian.... is that about true, so far?

    Oh dear! How far mankind can go astray!

    Maliki, famous for his 2-million words encyclopedia of law?
    Ashaari and his school which influenced most Enlightenment thinkers?
    Imam Junaid and Sufism?

    And so there are Muslims who do not believe that Muhammad knew enough law, enough theology enough guidance for his own?

    Christians did it as well, you know. After Jesus, along came apostles who really did not know too much about him, or his mission, and their writings and ideas were mostly additions to Jesus's actions and words.
     
  18. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    14,414
    Ratings:
    +3,752
    Religion:
    Islam
    So which muslim does not believe "Muhammad knew enough law, enough theology enough guidance for his own"? Can you pinpoint a school of thought who claim that and where?
     
  19. Aupmanyav

    Aupmanyav Be your own guru

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    26,946
    Ratings:
    +11,924
    Religion:
    Atheist, Advaita (Non-duality), Orthodox Hindu
    No, I differ from even those from whom I have learnt - Buddha and Sankara. They were good thinkers but they too, in my opinion, faltered in places, basically conditionally accepting the existence of Gods. I do not have 'bhakti' (unquestioning servitude) to anyone. I am happy to walk alone.
     
  20. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    14,414
    Ratings:
    +3,752
    Religion:
    Islam
    Bhakti means "unquestioning servitude". In what language is that? I am not talking of such a deep religious servitude. Anyway, why did you just bring in the Buddha? Did you learn from him? Did he tell you to have Bhakti to him?

    What does Bhakti mean?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...