Is there a secular basis for morality?

Anyways, where we can we go for profound epistemological insight?

I would like to direct the reader's attention to two sources of profound epistemological insight. The first source is Surah Al-Baqarah.

This is the Book about which there is no doubt, a guidance for those conscious of Allah -

Who believe in the unseen, establish prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them,

And who believe in what has been revealed to you, [O Muhammad], and what was revealed before
you, and of the Hereafter they are certain [in faith].

Those are upon
guidance from their Lord, and it is those who are the successful.

Indeed, those who disbelieve - it is all the same for them whether you warn them or do not warn them - they will not believe.

Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing, and over their vision is a veil. And for them is a great punishment.

And of the people are some who say, "We believe in Allah and the Last Day," but they are not believers.

They [think to] deceive Allah and those who believe, but they deceive not except themselves and perceive [it] not.

In their hearts is disease, so Allah has increased their disease; and for them is a painful punishment because they [habitually] used to lie.

And when it is said to them, "Do not cause corruption on the earth," they say, "We are but reformers."

Unquestionably, it is they who are the corrupters, but they perceive [it] not.

And when it is said to them, "Believe as the people have believed," they say, "Should we believe as the foolish have believed?" Unquestionably, it is they who are the foolish, but they know [it] not.

And when they meet those who believe, they say, "We believe"; but when they are alone with their evil ones, they say, "Indeed, we are with you; we were only mockers."

[But] Allah mocks them and prolongs them in their transgression [while] they wander blindly.

Those are the ones who have purchased error [in exchange] for guidance, so their transaction has brought no profit, nor were they guided.

-Surah Al-Baqarah 2:2-16

Those ayah contain more epistemological insight than anything Plato ever wrote. Meno is thought-provoking but Plato never reached the level of depth that Surah Al-Baqarah reaches.

I would like to direct the reader's attention to the profound epistemological insight of Sheikh Ibn Baz:

"All praise and thanks are due to Allaah, the Lord of the worlds; and the good end is for the pious. Prayers and peace be upon His Slave and Messenger; the best of His creation, the faithful to His revelation, our Messenger and Leader, Muhammad the son of 'Abdullaah; upon his family, his Companions and whoever follows his way until the Day of Judgement.

To proceed: Indeed the virtues and merits of knowledge ('ilm) are well known to everyone. It is the most noble thing that one can ask for, and the best thing a seeker can strive to attain. Knowledge consists of many branches, but according to the scholars of Islaam: "What is meant by knowledge in the absolute sense is Islamic knowledge."

This is the intended meaning of knowledge in the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (sallallahu alaihi wasallam). In the absolute sense, it is knowledge regarding Allaah, His names and attributes, knowledge of His rights over His creation, and what He, the One free from all defects, the Most High, has prescribed for them. It is the detailed knowledge of the path that leads to Allaah; knowledge of the purpose of our creation; and the end which the slave will result in, in the Hereafter.

This Islamic knowledge is the best of sciences worth acquiring because through it Allaah is recognized and acknowledged, and by it He is worshipped. One who possesses this knowledge knows what Allaah has made lawful for him and what He has prohibited him from; what pleases Him and what evokes His anger. With this knowledge a person knows his result with Allaah and his end. From amongst the people, those who have taken upon themselves to observe the precepts of the Religion will result in Paradise and bliss, and the rest (which are the majority) will result in a place of disgrace, humiliation and misery. The people of knowledge have cautioned us about this and explained that knowledge is confined to this meaning."

-Sheikh Ibn Baz

There was (and is) a famous epistemological debate in philosophy between the rationalists and empiricists. Notice how the debate is rigged against religion. They frame it as rationalism versus empiricism. The rationalist camp claimed that knowledge is attained through secular, unaided human "Reason". The empiricists claimed that knowledge is known through empirical sense-data.

The whole debate is a gigantic fallacy of the false dilemma. The highest form of knowledge, knowledge in the absolute sense, is not attained through sense-data nor through uaided, secular human "Reason".

It is attained through divine revelation, through the Quran and the Sunnah. Sheikh Ibn Baz was blind yet look at the level of knowledge the man achieved. The road to that attainment is through the study of the Quran and the Sunnah and of the Islamic sciences.

(EDIT: sorry, I don't know why the formatting is so weird.... I tried to fix it and it won't fix for some reason).​
 

Helios

Certified Liin Distributor
AQOONYAHAN
VIP
I would like to discuss epistemology.

For those who are not familiar, epistemology is sort of "theory of knowledge," "study of knowledge". Let me see how Wikipedia defines it.

Google says

"e·pis·te·mol·o·gy
/əˌpistəˈmäləjē/
Learn to pronounce
nounPHILOSOPHY
the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion."

"Epistemology (/ɪˌpɪstɪˈmɒlədʒi/ (About this soundlisten); from Greek ἐπιστήμη, epistēmē, meaning 'knowledge', and -logy) is the branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge."

Right, so literally it's something like "knowledgeology".

So- two questions. Is knowledge innate? Or are we born as blank slates (blank slate theory)?

For Plato, knowledge is innate. Plato is correct about this. Knowledge is innate. This theory is expressed in Plato's dialogue Meno: "One feature of the dialogue is Socrates' use of one of Meno's slaves to demonstrate his idea of anamnesis, that certain knowledge is innate and "recollected" by the soul through proper inquiry." (from the Wikipedia description of Meno).

Of course, when I say knowledge is innate, I don't mean that we are born knowing the exact size of the state of Utah or the number of the population of Somalia (what Immanuel Kant would describe as a posteri knowledge).

However, we are born with certain innate knowledge. This is recognized both in Islam (every child is born upon the fitrah) and in Platonic philosophy.

Abu Huraira reported: The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “No child is born but that he is upon natural instinct. His parents make him a Jew, or a Christian, or Magian. As an animal delivers a child with limbs intact, do you detect any flaw?” Then, Abu Huraira recited the verse, “The nature of Allah upon which he has set people,” (30:30).

https://abuaminaelias.com/dailyhadithonline/2012/10/06/every-child-born-fitrah-nature/

I think it was John Locke who pushed the blank slate nonsense.

So you see, in ancient Platonic philosophy, the position on this issue was very similar to the correct position- the Islamic position.

Let me see if I was right...... yes, it was John Locke. "In Locke's philosophy, tabula rasa was the theory that at birth the (human) mind is a "blank slate" without rules for processing data, and that data is added and rules for processing are formed solely by one's sensory experiences." (Wikipedia).

Right, so..... like I said.... Plato was very similar to Islam on that particular epistemological question and then Locke went way off the deep end with the insane claim that we are just born as a blank slate.

By the way, even the scientist Steven Pinker (who I believe is an atheist) put out a book arguing against the blank slate theory, just from a scientific perspective. The book is called The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. I think Steven Pinker would be very furious if you told him but.... I read his book I think when I was a teenager and his book actually supports what Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) told us over 1,400 years ago. It also aligns with Plato.

Anyways, I don't know if people are familiar with her but nowadays Judith Butler (who just happens to be Jewish) is very famous for her "gender theory"... "Butler is best known for her books Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (1990) and Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex (1993), in which she challenges conventional notions of gender and develops her theory of gender performativity. This theory has had a major influence on feminist and queer scholarship.[8] Her works are often studied in film studies courses emphasizing gender studies and performativity in discourse."

Her "gender theory" basically boils down to the famous "gender is a social construct" nonsense that's very popular with some far-left types.

Anyways, so we can see (and btw we know the correct position on the particular epistemological issue due to Islam):

1- Plato (born in 5th century BC): Humans are born with certain innate knowledge

2- John Locke (born 29 August 1632): Humans are born as a blank slate

3- Judith Butler (born February 24, 1956): Humans are born as genderless blobs

so what can see here?

Al-Zubair ibn ‘Adi reported: We came to Anas ibn Malik, may Allah be pleased with him, and we complained to him of what we suffered from the ruler Al-Hajjaj. Anas said, “Be patient, for an era will not come upon but that what comes after is worse, until you meet your Lord. I heard it from your Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him.”

Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 6657

https://abuaminaelias.com/dailyhadithonline/2014/06/28/fitnah-worse-than-before/

Just as we may expect from the hadith recorded in Saheeh Bukhari, philosophy has tended to degenerate and go further and further off the deep end over time.

So that is a point that I would like to make about philosophy and that we can see. Philosophy has tended to go further and further off the deep end. If you're familiar with postmodernism, their epistemology is way, way off the deep end. They don't even accept that there is an objective truth (except for their philosophy, of course- thus, their philosophy is self-contradictory but they're so off in outer space they don't care).
Yes im in a social science course rn this stuff is familiar. Reality itself is questioned lol.
 
Yes im in a social science course rn this stuff is familiar. Reality itself is questioned lol.

I don't know why the formatting in the second post is so weird..... sorry about that.

"Reality itself is questioned" is part of postmodernism so it may be that they're teaching from a postmodern viewpoint. Postmodernism is insane. They themselves don't really believe in it. No one is a postmodernist when they're driving a car or standing near the edge of a tall building.
 

Helios

Certified Liin Distributor
AQOONYAHAN
VIP
I don't know why the formatting in the second post is so weird..... sorry about that.

"Reality itself is questioned" is part of postmodernism so it may be that they're teaching from a postmodern viewpoint. Postmodernism is insane. They themselves don't really believe in it. No one is a postmodernist when they're driving a car or standing near the edge of a tall building.
Its a non productive way of conceiving reality and leads to the question of life and ends up in an nihilist outlook imo
 
Its a non productive way of conceiving reality and leads to the question of life and ends up in an nihilist outlook imo

I think it ties in to what I've discussed before: https://www.somalispot.com/threads/...ininity-and-modesty.70375/page-2#post-1856272

I discuss it all the time. I think it ties in exactly to what was being described in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

I go into more detail in the post that I quoted but part of it is.....

what you're being taught is designed to remove your connection to your identity, your culture, your beliefs, your traditions, etc. (most of all- your religion..... you can eat Somali food all you want, speak whatever language, have whatever skin color..... but Islam, though...... you hold on to your religion and that's treated as a problem... especially if you don't alter your religious views to conform to their ideology.... if you become watered-down, it's considered less of a problem... which I believe is exactly why there's so much hate against Salafis..... Salafis are strictly orthodox and that's considered a problem.... upholding religious orthodoxy is a barrier to the "Islamic reformation" that the Ayaan Hirsi Alis of the world push for)

I was listening to a William Cooper radio broadcast last night and this is exactly what he was describing. You may assert that it's conspiracy- and you'd be right, it is conspiracy theory. Yet it matches exactly what can be seen in real life- and the broadcast I was listening to was from the year 2000. So he's describing what was going on today- he is describing it 19 years ago.

I'm definitely a conspiracy theorist. I don't see it as accidental at all that what you're being taught so perfectly matches what was being described in conspiracy theory hundreds of years ago

440px-Proofs_of_a_Conspiracy_Against_all_the_Religions_and_Governments_of_Europe.gif


(he specifically mentions religions of Europe but what he was describing was/is against religion in general)

because if we say, as the postmodernists, do..... that we must reject all "grand narratives (except postmodernism)..... what does that translate to? "give up your religion"

I go into more detail in my post I linked to.....

also, what you're describing fits in exactly with what Yuri Bezmenov was describing in this lecture in the 1980's


I recommend for people reading to bookmark the link to that lecture and listen to it sometime when they get the chance.... once you listen to it and understand what he's discussing, you can see it playing out in real life......
 
Last edited:
I don’t know what you mean by basies but morality( in its many forms) can be explained in secularism, but secularism can not establish morals.
 

YourBroMoe

Who the fuck am I? ギくェズー
Well if you're an atheist for example, then you'd think religions are made up. That means morality came from humans. So yeah, there would be a secular basis for morality. This is a dumb question haha.
 

Trending

Top