"Dr. Osman" Debate

[Omar del Sur]

@Omar del Sur lets have a show down secularist vs islamist? why u hiding waryaa, we coming for u boys to debunk Islam

if you want it, let's do it.

I'm willing to answer whatever question you have.

I'm not really trying to go on the offense or debunk atheism.

I like to research stuff but I don't really consider myself a debater and I'm only responding to your challenge.

If you want to bring any point, I'm willing to discuss it- but everything is on the condition that it doesn't just become a pure insult contest. I'm fine with debating people but my problem is that a lot of debating on the internet is just pure swapping insults. I'm not trying to debate people on the basis of who has the better comedy skills. I think insulting people is against the Quran and so of course I'm not out to be the best person when it comes to insulting others and so I don't want to be in that kind of competition.

If you want a sort of intellectual debate, let's do it, I'm fine with it, I don't mind it.

Are other people free to jump in and help defend the Islamic point of view or this is strictly one-on-one?

Islamically, I think it is good for people to defend the Islamic view but I also believe in fairness and I do think it might be unfair if tons of people are ganging up on you. So I'm fine with either it being open to whoever or being one-on-one.

Anyways, if you want a debate, let's do it. You issued the challenge, I'd prefer you bring up the first issue but if you insist I'm willing to try bringing up the first issue.

But I'm kind of with Plantinga on what he says here


Of course, I'm not agreeing with his specific theology but I agree with what he's saying in that.... for me, proof of God is stuff like contemplating existence, looking at trees, thinking about creation, etc.....

for me, faith is a sort of..... almost like a personal otherworldy experience....

it's kind of like a dream, for example........

I might experience a dream, I know what I experience

but for example if I have a dream and I see a person handing me a certain kind of food.... and I wake up and later that day someone randomly hands me the same kind of food that I saw in my dream..... do I really have a video I took of the two events (one in the real-world and the other in a dream)? did I film and I have it on YouTube? no.

and that's sort of in the nature of reality imo.

God reveals Himself to you if you He wants to do so. God guides you if He wants to do so.

you can't write out a math equation on a napkin and make someone believe in God. neither can the atheist write a math equation on a napkin and disprove God.

Is there anything in Python or JavaScript that disproves God? Any lines of code that disprove God? Anything in math? Any arithmetical equations? Any equation you can write on a napkin. "Science has disproved God," the atheists say. Well in what year specifically did science disprove God?

Who do we credit with the discovery? What scientist in what what experiment in what year in what culture did it?

I mean isn't it pretty big? Discovering the lightbulb is pretty big and we honor Mr. Thomas Edison (or Tesla, if it was Tesla).

But I think scientists disproving God is a lot bigger than putting together a lightbulb. That would be quite an achievement!

So if scientists disproved God, shouldn't we honor the scientist who did it?

Was it Isaac Newton? Galileo? Ancient Greeks? An Arab scientist of the Islamic Golden Age? Maybe a South Asian? Chinese? A JavaScript developer finally discovered lines of code that disprove God?

If a scientist has done it then who specifically was it? Let's identify him so we can shower him with adulation and learn from his life.

Was it Oppenheimer? Steven Hawking? Some scientists- or people who claim to speak for science- are claiming a big discovery. Well, let the scientists back it up.

Aren't the atheists supposed to be champions on horseback fighting in the way of science? Then why haven't the atheists rectified what would clearly be an injustice and have identified which scientist with which experiment disproved God so that we can make movies about him and name our first-born sons after him?

the atheists cannot actually disprove God. with them, it is about psychological techniques rather than the logic that they claim to esteem so much.

it is about mockery and repetition with them. they cannot actually prove their position by pure argument.

that's why they have the "sky daddy" cliches" and they tend to be very insulting. genuine religious people are polite and friendly. the atheists come in a way where a lot of it just about insulting you.

I mean that's my thing.....

if the atheists really represent logic then why is so much of their preaching based on insulting religion and religious people?

if you look at programming languages, math or even construction work (building a house is not very different than building a software program).....

those kinds of things are actual representations of things based on pure logic. pure logic is something like a programming logic.

the atheists talk like they are the "Salafis"of logic but they don't actually live it. if they really actually followed the sort of pure logical thinking they claim they follow then they wouldn't need to rely on insults and repetition. what they use is more based on psychological techniques than it on pure logic.

in any case, like I said- I think faith is a very personal thing..... of course religion has social elements but faith itself is in your heart..... so the idea of trying to whack anyone over the head or "own" that person in an argument in order to make them become Muslim..... that kind of thinking is alien to me....

but if you'd like to make any points and you'd like me to answer them, I don't mind as long it's an intellectual sort of discussion

 

[DR OSMAN]

@Omar del Sur My concern is the universal principle of human rights or the original bill of rights developed in America. Do u believe that all people are born free and equal and enjoy the same liberties without fear of persecution or discrimination.

Don't step around this. Do u believe religion is a choice and should never be a law of the land? how do u rationalize shariah law being imposed on society and then argue religion is a choice, that's not a choice, it's a law. Religion is a choice in the west, u know that, I know that and it's achieved thru secular principles and passing no laws either promoting or discouraging religion.

U can choose to follow religion in the west but u will never be punished by the state for rejecting it and doing your own thing while also having the same rights as those who believe. Is this possible in Somalia? gays r not free, atheists/christians are not free, even non practising muslims are not free. Why can your religion not be insulted? this is freedom of words and thoughts and should never be considered a crime unless of course your religion is man made and therefore u r protecting your man made religion.

If your religion was created by god that is outside your control, then u would expect u react in-different to insult on your religion and respect it is outside your control and against god.

 

[DR OSMAN]

For the audience me and @Omar del Sur will cover the following areas

1. Human rights vs Shariah law. Choice vs Law, free will vs infringement on liberties. This is about morality as he believes gods law is morality and I believe human rights is morality which evolves.
2. Faith vs Reason, Belief vs Science Nature vs Supernatural Innovation vs Dogma and how society should be governed and taught at schools. This is fundamental as children must be raised to be either. Secular or Religious

These two areas are critical as it is about this world. The discussion will not focus on after death matters as that is not something I care for what happens after people die, my issue is while they are alive. Because that is an issue of 'faith' only. Some have faith they will just stop existing like u do when u r asleep, some thing they go to some judgment day and go to heaven n hell. But no-one can prove anything so it's a faith matter. But this world is different matter altogether.

I always test his religion against reason not 'subconcious bias' and he can do the same against secularism and human rights if he wants, as I am not sub-consciously bias towards it, it fits within my moral compass and also reasons well unlike Islam. Some areas of inconsistency in Islam are the following.

1. Allah forgives sin but never forgives satan
2. Allah punished satan for disobeying his orders to bow to adam yet bowing to anyone outside of allah is unforgiveable sin, Satan was stuck in a dead-end, doomed if he does, doomed if he doesn't.
3. Allah is unknowable to Muslims, yet they pray to something that is unknowable. U might as well pray to to nothingness
4. Deeds vs Sin. Your god weighs up sins like it's ok for u but not ok for satan to be judged like that. How does deeds work logically, u say allah has everything, so what can u give him he doesn't have? illogical statement to suggest muslims must do something for this allah like prayer, fast, charity, when he doesn't need it
5. Hadith teaches women are 50% intellectually inferior, there is no substance in this statement, yet they hold it to be a 'truth' even after science can show and proof to them in a lab setting there is no biological difference between men and women intelligence. That is when faith is guiding his heart not his actual mind anymore, this is what I deem a cult or dogma.

If we do get the time I will present every ex muslim argument that I know about Islam, outside the common ones like aisha age, murdering jews, or any of the common ones.

 

[DR OSMAN]

A-lot of Somalis are already sub-consciously biased towards Islam as if it's a 'final truth', when they have this mind-set, the mind can never be open to reason or testing or experimenting or debating. This is due to dogma and rituals polluting their minds and not actual evidence beyond going to a mosque and seeing other people do the same.

I hope all the secularist come out of the wood work and yes I say secularists not 'atheist' because that is 'choice' about belief n disbelief, secularism, human rights and science is our world view, however our beliefs may be different. Heck there are even some pure secular muslimsa also like @Rooble44 and we have no issue with him and his faith as he knows the intolerance isn't on our side, he knows who is the one that is infringing on other people.

I am secular agnostic, some are secular atheist, some are secular muslims, secular christian, secular jewish. The reason they have various belief is because we can't prove or disprove what happens after death but within this world we have well defined morality thru human rights principles, we see the world as natural not a supernatural including ourselves and we preach for natural answers not 'praying' lol.

 

[Omar del Sur]

@Omar del Sur My concern is the universal principle of human rights or the original bill of rights developed in America. Do u believe that all people are born free and equal and enjoy the same liberties without fear of persecution or discrimination.

Don't step around this. Do u believe religion is a choice and should never be a law of the land? how do u rationalize shariah law being imposed on society and then argue religion is a choice, that's not a choice, it's a law. Religion is a choice in the west, u know that, I know that and it's achieved thru secular principles and passing no laws either promoting or discouraging religion.

U can choose to follow religion in the west but u will never be punished by the state for rejecting it and doing your own thing while also having the same rights as those who believe. Is this possible in Somalia? gays r not free, atheists/christians are not free, even non practising muslims are not free. Why can your religion not be insulted? this is freedom of words and thoughts and should never be considered a crime unless of course your religion is man made and therefore u r protecting your man made religion.

If your religion was created by god that is outside your control, then u would expect u react in-different to insult on your religion and respect it is outside your control and against god.

"My concern is the universal principle of human rights or the original bill of rights developed in America. Do u believe that all people are born free and equal and enjoy the same liberties without fear of persecution or discrimination."

Bill of Rights of the US? I don't think the US has the moral authority to lecture anyone on human rights. I don't accept the US as representative of "universal human rights".

(And I do live in the US- because I was born here- but I'm not interested in discussing details of my personal life here. It is outside the scope of the discussion.)

"Do u believe that all people are born free and equal and enjoy the same liberties without fear of persecution or discrimination"

The US believes all people are born equal? The US was built on a more extensive genocide that allegedly perpetuated by Hitler. The US is the biggest violator of human rights on earth. Even if we accept the allegations about the Uyghurs- China isn't flying troops to the other side of the world to bomb and kill Uyghurs. It's pretty bad if you oppress your own population but to attack peoples all over the world on the scale the US has done is on a whole different level. I think Hitler is more qualified to talk about human rights than the US is.

But all that to the side..... "Do u believe that all people are born free and equal and enjoy the same liberties without fear of persecution or discrimination"

People are born free in what way? Free to do what? Free to abort their babies? To engage in zina? To use hard drugs?

Freedom is very vague and very broad. I would like to know what freedom means specifically. But I do not believe in a vague, unspecified "freedom" as the bedrock of society. This could be interpreted to mean all kinds of things that are a harm to individuals and society, therefore it is inherently a danger to the society.

People are born equal? In what way? Some are taller, some are shorter. I don't care about "equality" as a bedrock of society. I do not believe that women should be sent into combat, for instance.

"Without fear of persecution or discrimination"?

No fear of discrimination? The land of KKK, alt-right, Zionism and Jim Crow is a beacon against discrimination?

Persecution.... discrimination.....

you want me to sign my name at the bottom of a blank contract? If you want to smoke crack, for instance, yes I am in favor of persecution and discrimination.... if someone claims their sexual orientation is being attracted to five year olds, yes I think there should be persecution and discrimination.

If we mean that we are against persecution and discrimination based on race....... Imam Nawawi said that an Arab woman should marry an Arab..... many Somalis might object to inter-racial marriage...... if someone wants to marry from within their tribe or ethnic group..... or a family disapproves.... or a group of AA students want an AA-only student union..... I am fine with all that....

but for example, should there be a promotion of racial conflict, race-based hate crimes, or the idea that one race is better than another? no way.

"Don't step around this. Do u believe religion is a choice and should never be a law of the land? how do u rationalize shariah law being imposed on society and then argue religion is a choice, that's not a choice, it's a law. Religion is a choice in the west, u know that, I know that and it's achieved thru secular principles and passing no laws either promoting or discouraging religion."

I believe in the shariah and I believe that shariah should be the law of the land. I believe Islam should be the state religion and that the ruler should be a Muslim.

"how do u rationalize shariah law being imposed on society and then argue religion is a choice, that's not a choice, it's a law. Religion is a choice in the west, u know that, I know that and it's achieved thru secular principles and passing no laws either promoting or discouraging religion."

How do I justify to myself that the law of the land should be religious???

let me start with this to illustrate something:

“But as regards political power, the Church rightly teaches that it comes from God, for it finds this clearly testified in the Sacred Scriptures and in the monuments of antiquity; besides, no other doctrine can be conceived which is more agreeable to reason, or more in accord with the safety of both princes and peoples... In truth, that the source of human power is in God the books of the Old Testament in very many places clearly establish.”

Was that Osama Bin Laden saying that political authority comes from God? Is it Al-Shabaab? Anwar Al-Awlaki? Al-Baghdadi?

That is from an encyclical of Pope Leo XIII.

Is Pope Leo XIII a jihadi now? Is he ISIS? Is he Al-Qaeda?

If George Bush invokes the Bible (which teaches divine sovereignty), if Reagan invokes Christianity (which is supposed to
follow the Bible, which teaches divine sovereignty), if Trump claims to be Christian- are they accused of being terrorists?

I've never heard the Pope being called a terrorist. But if a bearded Muslim says the same thing Pope Leo XIII said- then people paint him as though he's Al-Shabaab.

If I someone says "praise the Lord!" or "thank the Lord"- who is that understood to refer to?

Christians would understand those phrases to refer to God.

Well, I believe God is the Lord. More specifically, He is our Rabb.

Is it terrorism to say (referring to God) "praise the Lord" or "thank the Lord"? It is an affirmation that God is the Lord.

Well, if God is the Lord, God is the Lord. If God is the Lord then God has the right to legislate. What I believe is no different than a person saying "thank the Lord!" when they find their missing car keys. It's the same thing.

You may think that believing God is the Lord is some crazy, radical idea but I don't believe it is anything beyond the pale to believe that God is the Lord. It isn't any crazy idea to me. If we accept the premise that God is the Lord then it follows that God has the right to legislate. The Lordship of God is inherent within his attributes. I have a right to believe in God. I have a right to believe in his attributes. From the standpoint of US law, I am free to believe in my religious beliefs. Therefore, from the standpoint of US law, I am free to not believe the principles of US law. And if I'm not free to have freedom of conscience in this regard, then the US system would be some form of totalitarianism and would be illegitimate by its own principles- self-contradictory, self-refuting.

I believe God is the Lord, I have a right to believe that and I don't think I've lost any sleep over it.

"Religion is a choice in the west"

so the source of legislation is imitating whatever the West does? I don't lose sleep over believing that God is the Lord and I don't lose any sleep in being opposed to imperialism.

"U can choose to follow religion in the west but u will never be punished by the state for rejecting it and doing your own thing while also having the same rights as those who believe. Is this possible in Somalia? gays r not free, atheists/christians are not free, even non practising muslims are not free. Why can your religion not be insulted? this is freedom of words and thoughts and should never be considered a crime unless of course your religion is man made and therefore u r protecting your man made religion.

If your religion was created by god that is outside your control, then u would expect u react in-different to insult on your religion and respect it is outside your control and against god."

If you want to be an atheist, you're free to be an atheist. I think you're completely free to be an atheist.

Just keep your atheism at home and don't preach it.

Why should it be tolerated for you to go around preaching atheism in a Muslim society?

Should it be tolerated for you to travel to Africa and insult Africans? Should you be allowed to walk around in Kenya and insult Kenyans?

 

[Omar del Sur]

(continued)

Should you be allowed to go to a black neighborhood and display neo-Nazi symbolism?

I see no reason why the Muslim society shouldn't be allowed to maintain public order and stability. If Muslims have a right to self-determination (which they do), then Muslims have a right to build Muslim societies with Islam as the basis of the social order.

If the Quran is the constitution and Islam is the basis of the social order, someone running around and giving Richard Dawkins-type speeches is threatening the public order and it is perfectly legitimate for the society to repress such activity that threatens social stability.

The purely Islamic social order would not be a police state and you have a general right to not be spied on. You could probably get away with quietly meeting with atheists in your house to chat and discuss your views. Just don't cause trouble. I don't approve of atheist literature but generally I don't think your luggage should be searched or your internet usage should be monitored. So in practice you could probably read atheist literature and invite atheist buddies over for tea- just don't cause any trouble and don't promote social disruption.

Of course, the state has a right to uphold social order and defend social order against elements that threaten social order. Therefore, the state has a right to go after terrorist elements such as ISIS or fundamentalist atheists who want to overturn the social order.

The Islamic system would not be a liberal democracy. It doesn't have to play by the same rules as a liberal democracy because it never was based on the principles of liberal democracy to start with.

Theologically, someone insulting Islam was permitted by Allah and therefore it is unIslamic to repress their hate speech?

Many countries are against hate speech. If you can ban swastikas, there is no reason you can't ban people insulting Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

Besides, someone who commits a murder was allowed to do so by the Will of Allah but if he is arrested and dealt with then this was also the Will of God.

 

[DR OSMAN]

@Omar del Sur do not write complicating, just simplify it as much as possible. So to summarize u don't accept the following ideas as u called it a 'liberal democracy' no it's a universal declaration. It's not something that is just for the west but for the whole world.

1. U deny muslims and non muslims have free and equal rights in a muslim majority country. Hence u reject the concept of minority rights who do not follow the mainstream religion of society.
2. U said u consider it a 'social disorder' if anything but Islam is the religion.
3. U reject the concept of freedom and think it's more trouble then it's worth
4. U reject people to have the right to speak how they so wish and want to pass blasphemy laws.
5. Then u babbled on about sins and crimes in the same sentences not making what a distinct crime against god and what is distinct crime against society. U mix the both, as u persecute a disbeliever to preach without forcing anyone as a public crime. U restrict gays from congregating as a public crime. These are not crimes against society, your god can say it is a sin to disbelief/be gay/zina but it's not a crime against society unless society is god.

I ask u why did your god give free will if all of sudden he requires Muslims to prevent it? free will means belief and disbelief must not be trangressed on as personal choices. Shariah law trangresses on disbelievers as u said we can not 'preach' but you allow believers to 'preach'. Hence this is not following the principles of equality, you just gave more rights to believers then disbelievers.

How is your religion true if it requires so much intervention by 'men' lol. Why do u need to implement a law of god, why can't he? by implementing laws of god, you are also somewhat godly yourself, hence people will consider your religion man made and requiring men to enforce it not a religion that stands on it's own without enforcement.

 

[DR OSMAN]

@Omar del Sur you are basically converting what spiritual sins into public sins. Maxa ka galay adigu hadan khaniis ahay ama disbeliever, these are not sins against society, the quran never says that, it's a sin against god. Why are u regulating on behalf of god what is sins against him, unless u r god? you are trying to re-create judgement day on earth by punishing disbelievers, gays, zina, or anything allah has said is reserved matter for him. U mix sin n crime, a crime is against the public, a sin isn't. I have the right to sin as much as I want and U have the right to walk away, but to say I can't do it in public, is taking away my free will now and then you need to pass a law that believers cannot congregate in public either, that's equality then.

He said disbelievers will exist till the day of judgement which is also illogical that u create laws that try to stop it when Allah said it cannot be stopped as it's a divine will of god. No-one is forcing u to commit a sin if u don't want but don't stop someone who does want to commit a sin isn't much to ask for as he can choose that, thru shariah law u take away that choice. U r tryin to create a societ where disbelievers are in 'hell' on earth and it won't work, while believers are in heaven. Hence your religion is really man made as u attempt to re-create that scenario on earth. God made it clear good n bad will exist forever on earth, no-one can trangress that law because he allowed satan to exist freely, muslims must also allow disbelievers to exist freely is now based on reason, not say I will stop or intervene and play god. U r doing what the pharisees did to jesus, u r trying to create institutions of god on earth and walking around being moral police, jesus said their 'dead inside' those people, and Somalis look like pharisees today

 

[DR OSMAN]

I am certain @Omar del Sur will respond with pure dogma and 'fatwa' he will not able to respond with total 'reason' which is a fundamental flaw of modern day Islam which is totally based on the 'authority of tradition' and not the 'authority of reason'. A good example of this is they believe that black cumin can cure all diseases, reason however says that is not true and can prove it in a lab showing him how it fails to cure even a single disease, he will continue to hold onto that dogma due to the authority of hadith traditions and reject 'reason'.

Modern Islam is grappling with It's a philosophical position, they choose tradition over science, belief over reason, dogma over innovation, oath over proof, rituals over experimentation. As secularists we are open to all knowledge, they are not because it may infringe on their 'traditions' lol. That's crazy stuff they believe

 

[DR OSMAN]

Here is my foundation of scholars

Humanism is an approach to life which focuses on living ethically, and enjoying life, without the need to rely onsupernatural or other extra human sources of ethics and meaning. The worldwide humanist movement works to make the world a better place. The umbrella body of the world humanist movement is the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU). The Council of Australian Humanist Societies (CAHS) is a member of the IHEU.

I believe in this fundamental value to make the world a better place then what u inherited not pass down the same thing u inherited for generations to your descendants. I also believe in humanism as my religion where I don't need supernatural reason to guide me in my morals nor do I do things for rewards from this supernatural thing, I do things because of wanting to make the world a better place not because I want to satisfy this supernatural beast from punishing me. I also reject tradition and fatwas and men guiding me to behave myself according to another man(mohamed).

I intend to open a humanist organization in Somalia and register it with the IHEU and begin our campaign to free Somalis from the shackles of man made religion. Omar Del Sur fears this so much he knows Islam will die if Islam has to compete with other idealogies, hence wants full control of Somalis so they don't ever get to decide for themselves, that's not a religion, it's a CULT

 

[DR OSMAN]

We are one family

 

[DR OSMAN]

@Omar del Sur anaga oo ibna adamka is arki karin oo kala daadsan oo is neceb oo qof walbo kooxasi ku jiro, I doubt a god would want that, we must start to get along and co-exist freely/equally with ourselves not run towards a god when we are mess. Humanism promotes this, be good without needing a god tell u to be good. That is genuine. We don't justify our goodness due to fear of hell or judgement day or the fire OR for good deeds with allah, we do it because we want to make the world a better place, we don't care if god sends us to hell, as long as we make the world better then what we inherited.

 

[Rooble44]

A-lot of Somalis are already sub-consciously biased towards Islam as if it's a 'final truth', when they have this mind-set, the mind can never be open to reason or testing or experimenting or debating. This is due to dogma and rituals polluting their minds and not actual evidence beyond going to a mosque and seeing other people do the same.

I hope all the secularist come out of the wood work and yes I say secularists not 'atheist' because that is 'choice' about belief n disbelief, secularism, human rights and science is our world view, however our beliefs may be different. Heck there are even some pure secular muslimsa also like @Rooble44 and we have no issue with him and his faith as he knows the intolerance isn't on our side, he knows who is the one that is infringing on other people.

I am secular agnostic, some are secular atheist, some are secular muslims, secular christian, secular jewish. The reason they have various belief is because we can't prove or disprove what happens after death but within this world we have well defined morality thru human rights principles, we see the world as natural not a supernatural including ourselves and we preach for natural answers not 'praying' lol.

To be quite fair I tried explaining what secularism is to a few of the guys I hang around with and their reaction has been nothing short of disappointing. But you're right, tolerance, tolerance, tolerance. Seems like the only trait enforced in all major religions yet everyone seems to ignore it.

 

[DR OSMAN]

To be quite fair I tried explaining what secularism is to a few of the guys I hang around with and their reaction has been nothing short of disappointing. But you're right, tolerance, tolerance, tolerance. Seems like the only trait enforced in all major religions yet everyone seems to ignore it.

Rooble at least you are not hypocritical. These muslims love the fruits of secularism such as medicine, tech, engineering, science, entertainment, but they hate secularism itself

The govt promotes shariah law as the law of the land yet they sure love that ribbah loans from the IMF, these people are confused. They sure love all that western charities which also is ribbah origins, waan cuna bakhti lakin dalka laguma hukumi karo is insanity. They don't even allow commercial banks to operate in Somalia that is ribbah yet the govt n charities are all ribbah based currencies. They even use the dollar oo laftigeeda ribbah saaran.

 

[Rooble44]

Rooble at least you are not hypocritical. These muslims love the fruits of secularism such as medicine, tech, engineering, science, entertainment, but they hate secularism itself

The govt promotes shariah law as the law of the land yet they sure love that ribbah loans from the IMF, these people are confused. They sure love all that western charities which also is ribbah origins, waan cuna bakhti lakin dalka laguma hukumi karo is insanity. They don't even allow commercial banks to operate in Somalia that is ribbah yet the govt n charities are all ribbah based currencies. They even use the dollar oo laftigeeda ribbah saaran.

Its the 68 IQ, some of these people don't understand basic economics.

 

[DR OSMAN]

Its the 68 IQ, some of these people don't understand basic economics.

Whenever the prices increase in the market, salaries increase at the same rate so people can still afford to have at least the same living standards. They also forget that banks also have to eat and make a profit from their loans, that's all interest rate is. They want a certain added percentage on top of the loan which covers obviously profits which are then re-distributed to shareholders based on how much they have at stake in the bank.

I doubt it's usury or ribbah. I think ribbah is more like over-charging to the point people living standards goes down. I don't see anyone living standards going down in the west, why? they are not stupid or else the market will collapse if proper usury was happening.

The western market is like a big cake, they ensure everyone gets a slice but they also ensure their is 'minimum slice' which is living standards being met for each person, if u want a bigger slice u can but then that is up to you and your goals. So they set a bare minimum while they don't set a scale on how far u can go.

 

[Omar del Sur]

@Omar del Sur do not write complicating, just simplify it as much as possible. So to summarize u don't accept the following ideas as u called it a 'liberal democracy' no it's a universal declaration. It's not something that is just for the west but for the whole world.

1. U deny muslims and non muslims have free and equal rights in a muslim majority country. Hence u reject the concept of minority rights who do not follow the mainstream religion of society.
2. U said u consider it a 'social disorder' if anything but Islam is the religion.
3. U reject the concept of freedom and think it's more trouble then it's worth
4. U reject people to have the right to speak how they so wish and want to pass blasphemy laws.
5. Then u babbled on about sins and crimes in the same sentences not making what a distinct crime against god and what is distinct crime against society. U mix the both, as u persecute a disbeliever to preach without forcing anyone as a public crime. U restrict gays from congregating as a public crime. These are not crimes against society, your god can say it is a sin to disbelief/be gay/zina but it's not a crime against society unless society is god.

I ask u why did your god give free will if all of sudden he requires Muslims to prevent it? free will means belief and disbelief must not be trangressed on as personal choices. Shariah law trangresses on disbelievers as u said we can not 'preach' but you allow believers to 'preach'. Hence this is not following the principles of equality, you just gave more rights to believers then disbelievers.

How is your religion true if it requires so much intervention by 'men' lol. Why do u need to implement a law of god, why can't he? by implementing laws of god, you are also somewhat godly yourself, hence people will consider your religion man made and requiring men to enforce it not a religion that stands on it's own without enforcement.

As much as I hate to quote Mao Zedong in this context- “China’s problems are complicated, and our brains must also be a little complicated”.

These are complicated, serious issues and I believe that they necessitate complex, serious investigation if they are to be looked into.

I think that some of your summary is correct, some may be inaccurate.

"do not write complicating, just simplify it as much as possible. So to summarize u don't accept the following ideas as u called it a 'liberal democracy' no it's a universal declaration. It's not something that is just for the west but for the whole world."

Western ideology is not only a set of principles but it is an ideology that the the West seeks to impose on other countries by force. It is a theoretical basis for imperialism and I am opposed to such imperialism.

It is a question of colonialism or freedom from colonialism and given that the imperialists are the aggressors and in the wrong, those who are opposed to such imperialism have every right to resist such imperialism.

Ultimately, the theoretical basis of the West thinking it can force its ideology on the entire world- the theoretical basis for such is the ideology of "might makes right".

So if the imperialists want to impose Westernization by force- the opponents of said imperialism will be entitled to resist in like manner, in accordance with whatever is permissible.

Words can be met with words, fists with fists, that which is beyond that with that which is beyond that.

You have to take the West as your authority because it is Western imperialism that is your backer. Without Western imperialism to back you up, you are in not a strong position to seek the imposition of your ideas on unwilling populations.

The ground that you stand on is not rightness in your thinking but rather it is the Western imperialist power structure that is prepare to invade, to bomb and to kill to enforce such ideas

That^ is the ground you stand on- not the force of your ideas.

"do not write complicating, just simplify it as much as possible. So to summarize u don't accept the following ideas as u called it a 'liberal democracy' no it's a universal declaration. It's not something that is just for the west but for the whole world."

Yes, it is for the whole world in the sense that the West feels entitled to invade your country and bomb you if you don't follow their ideology. Then they want to lecture you on morals. They might have the ability to destabilize Muslim and Third World countries and to try to terrorize anyone who isn't non-Muslim and who isn't white but they cannot force us all to adopt their thinking.

"U deny muslims and non muslims have free and equal rights in a muslim majority country. Hence u reject the concept of minority rights who do not follow the mainstream religion of society."

I believe in the rights of non-Muslims and I think their rights should be protected. Islam protects the rights of non-Muslims and Islam promotes a tolerant society where non-Muslims who live in harmony with the society are free to live their lives in peace. Of course, if there are trouble-makers who want to overturn the Islamic social order, the state is free to uphold social order and stability. If you have radical anarchists running around causing trouble, for example, it is perfectly legitimate that they be dealt with.

Look at the Islamic state in Medina, for example- non-Muslims were not mistreated. But yes, if course if they try to overthrow the state, for example, they could end up in some trouble.

"U said u consider it a 'social disorder' if anything but Islam is the religion." I didn't say that. I say it's a threat to social order if you go around trying to attack Islam within an Islamic social order- if Islam is the religion of the state and you stand on the street corner with a loudspeaker calling for secularism and handing out pamphlets attacking Islam- of course that is a threat to social order and stability. It is promoting chaos and the state has every right to take action against it. That kind of activity could directly lead to social unrest, attempts to overthrow the government and even civil war. The state should uphold the safety and security of the people. The state shouldn't just allow masked anarchists to go around throwing molotov cocktails, for example.

"U reject the concept of freedom and think it's more trouble then it's worth" I don't think some vague, unspecified slogan of Freedom™ is the proper basis of society. Freedom™ has been used to try to justify the invasion if Iraq, of Afghanistan and all sorts of evils.

"U reject people to have the right to speak how they so wish and want to pass blasphemy laws."

How many countries have laws against hate speech and Holocaust denial? If we can ban swastikas, I see no reason we can't ban insulting Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)- especially given that such acts of
blasphemy could easily cause problems in the society. We should prohibit insulting Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) just like we can prohibit the displaying of swastikas.

"Then u babbled on about sins and crimes in the same sentences not making what a distinct crime against god and what is distinct crime against society. U mix the both, as u persecute a disbeliever to preach without forcing anyone as a public crime. U restrict gays from congregating as a public crime. These are not crimes against society, your god can say it is a sin to disbelief/be gay/zina but it's not a crime against society unless society is god."

So if some radical anarchists starts giving a speech calling to rioting and smashing and burning buildings- is it wrong to arrest him? If you go to Saudi Arabia, Somalia or Pakistan and start insulting Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and attacking Islam over a loud speaker- is it wrong to arrest the person who does that?

I think it is perfectly reasonable to arrest the person who is engaging in such behavior. Restriction of homosexuals? Do we have to permit people to have intercourse with animals?

What Museveni said is correct-
Two men or two women is against nature. Some might say "well who does it hurt?", "they're consenting". Why not human and animal then? The state can outlaw sodomy just like it can outlaw beastiality.

And zina? Zina creates chaos. You have single moms. Kids that grow up in such households. Breeding ground for criminality and chaos.

Furthermore, what kind of impact does that lead to on the child? The man and the woman want to "have fun" and they want to "have fun" at the expense of the well-being of the child, of the family and of the society?

 

[Omar del Sur]

(continued)

Humans should not be selfish and think only of themselves. The well-being of the society should be taken into account. It is right and proper for the society to restrict such dangerous anti-social behavior and to deal with any dangerous anti-social elements.

"I ask u why did your god give free will if all of sudden he requires Muslims to prevent it? free will means belief and disbelief must not be trangressed on as personal choices. Shariah law trangresses on disbelievers as u said we can not 'preach' but you allow believers to 'preach'. Hence this is not following the principles of equality, you just gave more rights to believers then disbelievers."

Couldn't you use the same argument to defend using heroin or defend committing murder?

"God gave me free will! I can shoot heroin if I want!"

God did give us free will and people can potentially use it to do heroin or commit murder. By your own logic, arresting the junkie, the drug-pusher and the murderer are also permissible because they are exercises of free will.

And suppose we allow someone to say they're allowed to do heroin.

And then what? What are the consequences for others? You have people doing heroin and the next thing they are robbing people and committing crimes to get more heroin. People aren't safe on the streets.

"How is your religion true if it requires so much intervention by 'men' lol. Why do u need to implement a law of god, why can't he? by implementing laws of god, you are also somewhat godly yourself, hence people will consider your religion man made and requiring men to enforce it not a religion that stands on it's own without enforcement."

Why doesn't God come down to earth and establish the ideal Islamic society? I find that to be a strange question.

Why do we have two arms instead of three? Instead of four? Why do good people sometimes have to fight evil people?

Things were simply designed in a certain way.

Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: "I will create a vicegerent on earth."

-Surah Al-Baqarah 2:30

That was the way Allah designed it. Allah tests us on both an individual and a social level.

Allah does not change a people's lot unless they change what is in their hearts.

-Surah Ar-Ra'd 13:11

 

[Helios]

You still haven't addressed the idea of western law being based on the 10 Commandments @DR OSMAN, stop dodging it

 

[Lord]

I dont get why you guys are debating i swear. People dont care about human etc when they live in extreme condition.
A mistake that people in poor countrys make is to deny individualism. Birth of ideas and all good and bad that comes with it. Just look at rusia