Islamic morality is trash and this is why

[Kratos]

Higher rates of STDs, mental health disorders (even in socially accepting nations), intimate partner violence, and reduced life expectancy.

Sounds harmless and low risk, indeed.

Higher rates of STDs, mental health disorders (even in socially accepting nations), intimate partner violence, and reduced life expectancy.

Sounds harmless and low risk, indeed.

But killing them is a bit extreme don't you think

 

[Sophisticate]

But killing them is a bit extreme don't you think

Who said anything about murder? Steam mentioned that it did not harm anyone (wherein that lifestyle is innocuous). And I challanged that notion with facts.

 

[AdoonkaAlle]

Firstly "something" by itself has no value, it only becomes meaningful when it's relates to human action. Whether that "something" is either morally good or bad is dependent on the set of values that a person/society judges by, meaning the standard (set of values) is what defines if that "something" is morally good or bad. That standard is not universal as it varies from society to society, era to era etc, despite the diversity of standards it's not uncommon to find some similarity or overlapping values.

Islam acknowledges the fact that human beings have the capacity to make their own set of ethics but due to the nature of man and his weakness in judgement, we need guidance in order to establish a better and just set of ethics. We are weak and limited in our capacity to uphold justice which is why as muslims we concede this fact and submit ourselves to Allah and His commandments


Your world view completely differs from ours and on top that you fail to see the flaw in your entire argument. What you consider to be "rational" isn't universal and is value dependent on your world view, therefore making it the standard by which you measure opposing view isn't going to take you anywhere at all. Furthermore simply discrediting reasoning which isn't based on secular values does not entail refuting religious based values. Since we've different set of standards that we judge by, we will not share similar views on what constitutes morality.


As far as i know only inter-familial homosexual relations is allowed in western countries, but once it's intra-familial it suddenly becomes illegal even if it's consensual and harms no one as you like to put it. Since you're a bona fide lesbian, will you be willing to form a relationship with a lesbian who had intra-familial homosexual relation with either her mom or sister ? are you supporter of intra-familial homosexual relations ? or even consensual incest perhaps ? if your answer is yes then your efforts are best suited in advancing the rights of these people in secular danmark rather than trying to convince muslims who completely reject them to being with.

 

[Steamdevolopment]

Firstly "something" by itself has no value, it only becomes meaningful when it's relates to human action. Whether that "something" is either morally good or bad is dependent on the set of values that a person/society judges by, meaning the standard (set of values) is what defines if that "something" is morally good or bad. That standard is not universal as it varies from society to society, era to era etc, despite the diversity of standards it's not uncommon to find some similarity or overlapping values.

Islam acknowledges the fact that human beings have the capacity to make their own set of ethics but due to the nature of man and his weakness in judgement, we need guidance in order to establish a better and just set of ethics. We are weak and limited in our capacity to uphold justice which is why as muslims we concede this fact and submit ourselves to Allah and His commandments


Your world view completely differs from ours and on top that you fail to see the flaw in your entire argument. What you consider to be "rational" isn't universal and is value dependent on your world view, therefore making it the standard by which you measure opposing view isn't going to take you anywhere at all. Furthermore simply discrediting reasoning which isn't based on secular values does not entail refuting religious based values. Since we've different set of standards that we judge by, we will not share similar views on what constitutes morality.


As far as i know only inter-familial homosexual relations is allowed in western countries, but once it's intra-familial it suddenly becomes illegal even if it's consensual and harms no one as you like to put it. Since you're a bona fide lesbian, will you be willing to form a relationship with a lesbian who had intra-familial homosexual relation with either her mom or sister ? are you supporter of intra-familial homosexual relations ? or even consensual incest perhaps ? if your answer is yes then your efforts are best suited in advancing the rights of these people in secular danmark rather than trying to convince muslims who completely reject them to being with.

Firstly, the moral relativism you present is easily refuted, find me a culture that allows burning infants for fun?

None, because certain values are universal and one those values is that it is immoral to cause suffering without a rational reason and my argument is simple that when you remove the unproven deity of God from the equation that morality of islam crumbles.

Secondly, I'll allow you to make any rational argument not connected to God/Prophet to defend the three dilemmas I have presented, how do defend that suffering?

Thirdly, by what basis should we judge intra-familial relationships?

Rationally there need to be justification to ban a practice and there should be proportionality between the means and the need for the ban, and one of the rational reason to ban the practice is to avoid deformed births which isn't a possibility in intrafamilial homosexual relations.

The only problem to consider is wether there is grooming risk and if not and there is no reasonable doubt about the consenting nature of the relationship it should be allowed, as it decreases suffering, increases well-being and it conforms to rational principles.

Fourthly, submitting to Allah has not produced superior results as islamic countries rate low on any category of significance, while the Kafir countries embodies more humane and prosperous society and that should clue you in on the failure of islam and islamic morality.

 

[Kratos]

Who said anything about murder? Steam mentioned that it did not harm anyone (wherein that lifestyle is innocuous). And I challanged that notion with facts.

I thought you were excusing the death penalty instated by the shariah by your comment. My apologies.

 

[government]

You're back

 

[ajod tac]

Firstly, the moral relativism you present is easily refuted, find me a culture that allows burning infants for fun?

None, because certain values are universal and one those values is that it is immoral to cause suffering without a rational reason and my argument is simple that when you remove the unproven deity of God from the equation that morality of islam crumbles.

Secondly, I'll allow you to make any rational argument not connected to God/Prophet to defend the three dilemmas I have presented, how do defend that suffering?

Thirdly, by what basis should we judge intra-familial relationships?

Rationally there need to be justification to ban a practice and there should be proportionality between the means and the need for the ban, and one of the rational reason to ban the practice is to avoid deformed births which isn't a possibility in intrafamilial homosexual relations.

The only problem to consider is wether there is grooming risk and if not and there is no reasonable doubt about the consenting nature of the relationship it should be allowed, as it decreases suffering, increases well-being and it conforms to rational principles.

Fourthly, submitting to Allah has not produced superior results as islamic countries rate low on any category of significance, while the Kafir countries embodies more humane and prosperous society and that should clue you in on the failure of islam and islamic morality.

Your last point is qashin. The reason islamic countries rate low is because the Kafir countries are exploiting them and the 'islamic countries' have other problems that have nothing to do with submitting to Allah. How can you draw a relation between praciticing a religion and a famine in a country? Smh.

 

[ajod tac]

The same morality you adhere to is based on the same fallacy you claim Islamic morality is based. Your morality is based is based on a system that a society holds as authoritative. Can you explain to me why a system created by human holds any more truth than a system created by Allah?

 

[Kratos]

The same morality you adhere to is based on the same fallacy you claim Islamic morality is based. Your morality is based is based on a system that a society holds as authoritative. Can you explain to me why a system created by human holds any more truth than a system created by Allah?

The burden of proof is actually upon you, because you're the one who's claiming that there is a god who is the source of your morality.

 

[ajod tac]

The key to understand the cause of the inferior quality of morality from Islam requires understanding the Euthyphro dilemma.

The fundamental problem presented to theists including muslim is:

Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?

In other words is something morally good in itself or is it morally good simply because "God" says so?


Scenario 1: Because God said so
The first scenario perfectly fits with islamic morality, that which is commanded by the Creator and superior being must be enforced otherwise we risk punishments and loose rewards in the hereafter.

It is a morality that cares first and foremost to appease this entity known as Allah, and less interested in the cohesive nature of those commands with a greater morality.

It has two main flaws, firstly the lack of evidence for a deity that is omnipotent, omniscience and personal, let alone evidence for the islamic deity, secondly the morality of this deity becomes arbitrary based on the personal whims of this imagined deity alone.

A morality based on a set of unproven stipulations is intellectual untenable and therefore the theist must resort to scenario 2.

Scenario 2: The morality of islam is morally good in of itself
Here the problem becomes to define morally good and then to measure morally good to teachings of islam.

In general all morality claims to reduce suffering and increase well-being and most claim to conform to rationality and therefore these are the three pillars by which we shall measure islam.

Sex-slavery:
Sex-slavery runs afoul of our morally good as it increases suffering for the woman who is now sexual property, and it therefore does not meet our three-pronged test.

Punishment for homosexuality:
This punishments has neither any rational basis as consensual and safe relations cause no harm neither does it contribute to increasing well-being and nor does it reduce suffering and thus it fails all three pillars.

Punishments for apostasy:
Apostasy laws can only be upheld with unwavering belief in God, and as rational people who demand extraordinary proof for this extraordinary claim such a stipulation must be rejected and the laws cause suffering and does not increase well-being and therefore also fail to meet the three pillars.





A morality that only makes sense if I agree with your superstition is poor basis for moral, don't you think? @VixR @Defendant @AussieHustler @Reiko @Knowles @Saabriin Omar

Scenario 1

There is enough evidence for a deity. It is clear that you have chosen to ignore the abdunace of evidence that shows Allah exists. Even if you say there is no evidence, we can say that same about your morality which is a social construct. The latter is based on what a society deems right or wrong. Where is the evidence that these teachings are actually right or wrong. Can we ever prove a morality at all?

Scenario 2

You say all morality claims to reduce suffering and increase well-being. This is not what Islamic morality aims to achieve. You cannot use these pillars to measure Islam as these pillars are not the goals of Islam. You are using subjective pillars that suit you so that you can prove your point. Besides this, morality is about what is right and wrong, rewards and punishments, yet you choose to only highlight punishments. How do three punishments prove that a whole morality is trash?

 

[AdoonkaAlle]

Firstly, the moral relativism you present is easily refuted, find me a culture that allows burning infants for fun?

None, because certain values are universal and one those values is that it is immoral to cause suffering without a rational reason and my argument is simple that when you remove the unproven deity of God from the equation that morality of islam crumbles.

You're comparing apples and oranges here, most importantly you failed to understand my point regarding what constitutes morality and making universal claims of morality. Homosexuality is not universally accepted this is a fact, in the countries where it's banned they consider it to be immoral and unnatural as it goes against the norms and values of these countries.

How do you determine which values are universal ? According to you it's moral to cause suffering as long as people have a rational basis for it? so eugenics, racism, colonialism, slavery, genocide etc are ok ? Do you get how flawed of a principle this is ? Just because one rationalises an act doesn't mean it's "morally" ok to carry it out, human beings have "rationalised" all sorts of injustice against each other, so "rationality" by itself can not be the basis that we should base our morality on.

Secondly, I'll allow you to make any rational argument not connected to God/Prophet to defend the three dilemmas I have presented, how do defend that suffering?

Thirdly, by what basis should we judge intra-familial relationships?

Rationally there need to be justification to ban a practice and there should be proportionality between the means and the need for the ban, and one of the rational reason to ban the practice is to avoid deformed births which isn't a possibility in intrafamilial homosexual relations.

The only problem to consider is wether there is grooming risk and if not and there is no reasonable doubt about the consenting nature of the relationship it should be allowed, as it decreases suffering, increases well-being and it conforms to rational principles.

Fourthly, submitting to Allah has not produced superior results as islamic countries rate low on any category of significance, while the Kafir countries embodies more humane and prosperous society and that should clue you in on the failure of islam and islamic morality.

By your own self defined standard, secular morality in denmark is trash as well as it causes suffering to those who want engage in consensual intra-familial homosexual relations, heterosexual incest etc. My question to you is why are you not out there demonstrating in denmark for the rights of these people ? why do you focus on islam alone when there is an apparent contradiction between your "rationality" and the"rationality" in which secular laws of denmark are based on ? Shouldn't you first rectify this inherent problem in secular denmark before you proceed to show the "superiority" of it?


The fact that you don't seem to notice the flaws in your "rationality" and how subjective they are simply shows how ignorant you are, so i suggest you revisit the basis of your atheistic pretense and humble yourself.

 

[Blade1]

Let him who is without sin throw the first stone.

Um are you really quoting the bible

 

[ajod tac]

You're comparing apples and oranges here, most importantly you failed to understand my point regarding what constitutes morality and making universal claims of morality. Homosexuality is not universally accepted this is a fact, in the countries where it's banned they consider it to be immoral and unnatural as it goes against the norms and values of these countries.

How do you determine which values are universal ? According to you it's moral to cause suffering as long as people have a rational basis for it? so eugenics, racism, colonialism, slavery, genocide etc are ok ? Do you get how flawed of a principle this is ? Just because one rationalises an act doesn't mean it's "morally" ok to carry it out, human beings have "rationalised" all sorts of injustice against each other, so "rationality" by itself can not be the basis that we should base our morality on.




By your own self defined standard, secular morality in denmark is trash as well as it causes suffering to those who want engage in consensual intra-familial homosexual relations, heterosexual incest etc. My question to you is why are you not out there demonstrating in denmark for the rights of these people ? why do you focus on islam alone when there is an apparent contradiction between your "rationality" and the"rationality" in which secular laws of denmark are based on ? Shouldn't you first rectify this inherent problem in secular denmark before you proceed to show the "superiority" of it?


The fact that you don't seem to notice the flaws in your "rationality" and how subjective they are simply shows how ignorant you are, so i suggest you revisit the basis of your atheistic pretense and humble yourself.

MashAllah I couldn't have said any better myself.

 

[AdoonkaAlle]

MashAllah I couldn't have said any better myself.

Mahadsanid Walaal

Sometimes one needs a little karbash once in a while to get them down to earth. What's pitiful about this entire thing is that the same people whom she blindly follows and bases her entire ethos on, will not hesitate for a sec to put her in her place should she dare raise questions or differ slightly from western values. They are only willing to entertain her as long as her views reflect their own values but alas as soon as they differ they will not have issues showing their contempt for her.

All of her threads where she launches attack on islam have one thing in common, western morality is used as the yardstick to measure the progressiveness or backwardness of islam , not once has she started a thread where she critiques islam for not allowing incest (both heterosexual & homosexual) and this is why i brought up my previous examples. In her mind western morality is all about rationality but this is far from reality and a good example is the case of incest.

All of the arguments that are given in support for homosexuality can also be used to support incest, but despite the rationale standings of such an argument it will never be considered valid to justify incest. A fact that steam acknowledges as well, so if human reason alone doesn't suffice to legalise it in western countries, of what use is "rationality" when critiquing islamic values which are completely based on a different world view? I mean they contradict their own "rationality" and use it whenever it suits them, what's the significance of using it as the yardstick??? That's one issue, imagine all the other moral norms & values that we don't agree on, who get's to decide who is right or wrong???


Anyways sorry for the long reply walaal and forgive me for not being able to rate your posts, seems that i don't have that privilege for now. Khayr baan ku rajaynaya adiga iyo reerkaga

May Allah bless you all, stay strong haye deh