Morality

[Salus Maior]

Generally speaking, morality is reason. Immorality is when you abandon reason for madness.

The competing view that there is no good and evil, only power and those too weak to seek it.

Ok, now that you've quoted Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter what's your serious opinion?

[Hanafuridake]

Generally speaking, morality is reason. Immorality is when you abandon reason for madness.

The competing view that there is no good and evil, only power and those too weak to seek it.

Ok, now that you've quoted Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter what's your serious opinion?

I wouldn't be surprised if Mushrooms got all of his serious opinions from LOTR and HP, to be honest.

And Game of Thrones.

[Salus Maior]

Ok, now that you've quoted Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter what's your serious opinion?

I wouldn't be surprised if Mushrooms got all of his serious opinions from LOTR and HP, to be honest.

And Game of Thrones.

I'll take that bet.

[Farnhamia]

Ok, now that you've quoted Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter what's your serious opinion?

I wouldn't be surprised if Mushrooms got all of his serious opinions from LOTR and HP, to be honest.

And Game of Thrones.

That may well be. Books do have their effects on people. I remember hearing this story about Mr. Defoe's famous book ...

A respectable alderman of Oxford, Mr. Tawney, was
so fascinated with Robinson Crusoe that he used to
read it through every year, and thought every part of
it as true as holy writ. Unfortunately for him, a friend
at last told him that it was little more than a fiction;
that Robinson Crusoe was but a Scottish sailor of the
name of Alexander Selkirk, whose plain story of his
shipwreck on the island of Juan Fernandez had been
embellished and worked up into the narrative he so
much admired, by an ingenious author, Daniel Defoe.
‘Your information, sir,’ said the alderman, ‘may be
very correct, hut I wish you had withheld it, for in un-
deceiving me, you have deprived me of one of the great-
est pleasures of my old age.’

[Germanyt]

Morality comes from science

[Kowani]

Morality comes from science

Explain this, please.

[The Blaatschapen]

Ok, now that you've quoted Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter what's your serious opinion?

I wouldn't be surprised if Mushrooms got all of his serious opinions from LOTR and HP, to be honest.

And Game of Thrones.

I got my opinions from HitchHiker's Guide to the Galaxy

[Duhon]

What defines morality -- that is, the art of interpersonal relations -- is ultimately us ourselves. This does not preclude absolutes that apply to all, either regardless of or according to one's station in life, that may be reached after enough people vouch in with their opinions, nor does it preclude changes to one's morality or even the morality of the collective, which may or may not turn out wrong.

This does preclude stasis, whether done by an invocation of the divine or not, for for better and worse, we make it up as we go along.

[The Emerald Legion]

Morality is what you decide it to be.

[Vojelneit]

No, how do you think it's irrelevant?

Because that wasn't part of the point I made. You added it to misrepresent what I said.

It's not supposed to be part of the point you made. It's another idea that I developed, based on what you said regarding "religion can help one find morality". I didn't misrepresent anything and I don't understand how you come to that conclusion. To put this back in context, all I said was: "Depends. Religion is ultimately what the individual makes of it. You can ask a hundred Christians about a Bible verse and a hundred Muslims about a Qur'an verse and in both cases you're gonna have at least 20 different interpretations. Even many renowned Christian or Muslim scholars do not interpret their holy texts in the same ways. In the end, it's incredibly subjective.". How is that unrelated, let alone an attempt at dishonestly misrepresenting your statement? It's a simple counter-argument, nothing more or nothing less.

Looks like we're going to both have to go scholarly level then at the bottom, which I accept your challenge as i have in the past. I enjoy these types of discussions.

I do too.

Yes it does, because the content of the Qur'an, even if it is being misinterpreted (which it isn't. Only moderate muslims go ridiculous lengths to find different interpretations of verses that explicitly state to kill apostates),

Yes you are misinterpreting it if you are saying something like "moderate muslims dont do this because they're in the west". How can you say it is not misinterpreted? This is a ridiculous and poorly researched argument. Getting your information from anti-Islamic books and websites does not make you an expert on the faith of Islam.

That's not what I'm saying. My point was that moderate Muslims (most of whom are located in the West - I think you can agree that Middle-Eastern Muslims are way more fundamentalist) didn't grow up, for the most part, in excessively religious environments. Hence why they're moderate in the first place, and why they attempt to find nuance to Islam's most violent teachings, since they've arguably heard the light ones more than those much more controversial ones.

At no point did I call myself an expert on Islam. I don't have the pretention to call myself that, however I deem myself informed enough on that religion to form judgements. I've gotten information from pro-Islam sources, anti-Islam sources and ideologically neutral sources and found the basis for my viewpoint from that; which is what everyone should do if they want an unbiased point of view on anything.

is much, much more war-mongering than the content of the Bible for instance.

Please then, make a comparison between the Bible and Quran then on their views of war.

Islam, much more so than Christianity, was founded on war and conquest (Battle of Badr; Battle of Uhud; Battle of the Trench following which the Qurayza Jewish tribe was massacred; Battle of Mutah & Tabuk in an effort to expand Muslim influence in Arabia). Muhammad personally led Muslims in all of these battles. Jesus, in comparison, has never killed, ordered the killing or called for the conquest of any person, any people or any territory (although the Old Testament does describe the killing of certain people, such as the Amalekites, by the Israelites on order of God - which I believe is less alarming than the very prophet of a religion personally leading military raids on tribes and cities and killing the survivors as Muhammad did).

Muhammad's military career and role as the primary leader of Muslim raids on non-Muslim cities and peoples is perfectly consistent with Islam's teachings on war, torture, killings and the like:

Sahih Bukhari (52:261) - "[Muhammad] had their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered for nails which were heated and passed over their eyes, and whey were left in the Harra (i.e. rocky land in Medina). They asked for water, and nobody provided them with water till they died."

Therefore it's proner to misinterpretation by its believers who are more likely to act upon the many crudely violent verses contained in the Qur'an.
Then you argue that this isn't what the Qur'an says.
Lol.

Because it doesn't. Forget about the muslims of today man. We're talking about Muhammad and his followers.

Alright, sure. The Islamic terrorists of today aren't very different to Muhammad and his followers at the time.

Dude, it's what your faith as a whole says. A vast majority of Muslims in the Middle East don't go search for farfetched double interpretations and meanings - they see "kill the apostates" and they rightfully interpret it as what is extremely explicitly written, "kill the apostates". What, Islam doesn't advocate for apostates to be killed? Oh, really?

No. My faith as a whole does not say that. What are you even on about "different interpretations"? We're not even talking about that dude. Forget about the "different interpretations". We're discussing Muhammad's teachings by itself.

We're discussing Muhammad's teachings by themselves. Yes, correct.
To discuss those teachings, we both have to understand them.
To understand them, we have to interpret what they mean.
I hope you're following me so far.
But the problem is that Muhammad's teachings in themselves are interpreted differently by a lot of people. To narrow it down to two big categories, you have those that are gonna interpret violent verses explicitly and you have those that are gonna search for extremely farfetched ways to nuance the violent verses in an attempt to soften the image of Islam.
I can't really make it clearer than that, dude. It's not the most important point of my argumentation, though, so if you're still somehow confused about what I mean, we can move on regarding that.

To refute your "different interpretations" and "moderate Muslims" nonsense, the Quran in of itself, prescribed warfare because of oppression and endless persecution by the pagan tribes:

Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged — and Allah indeed has power to help them —
Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly only because they said, ‘Our Lord is Allah’ — And if Allah did not repel some men by means of others, there would surely have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft commemorated. And Allah will surely help one who helps Him. Allah is indeed Powerful, Mighty —
Those who, if We establish them in the earth, will observe Prayer and pay the Zakat and enjoin good and forbid evil. And with Allah rests the final issue of all affairs.

Whether you willfully ignore this or not, does not refute the fact that Islamic warfare conducted by Muhammad was mostly defensive, and if it was offensive, it was to end a threats to the Muslims. A perfectly reasonable position. Nothing like ISIS.

Allow me to debunk the ridiculous myth that Muhammad and his followers were "threatened".
First of all, before Islam, Mecca was multireligious and contained Pagans, Jews, Christians, and polytheists. Even according to Muslim historians, Muhammad's preaching was relatively tolerated by Meccans until he began insulting other religions and thus disrespecting the Meccan practice of religious tolerance.

When the apostle openly displayed Islam as Allah ordered him, his people did not withdraw or turn against him, so far as I have heard, until he spoke disparagingly of their gods. When he did that, they took great offence and resolved unanimously to treat him as an enemy. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 167), "[Muhammad] declared Islam publicly to his fellow tribesmen. When he did so, they did not withdraw from him or reject him in any way, as far as I have heard, until he spoke of their gods and denounced them." (al-Tabari Vol.VI, p.93)

[The Meccans] said they had never known anything like the trouble they had endured from this fellow. He had declared their mode of life foolish, insulted their forefathers, reviled their religion, divided the community and cursed their gods (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 183)."We [the Meccans] have never seen the like of what we have endured from this man [Muhammad]. He has derided our traditional values, abused our forefathers, reviled our religion, caused division among us, and insulted our gods. We have endured a great deal from him." (al-Tabari, Vol.VI p.101)

The sole source of the hostility of the Meccans against Islam and Muhammad is Muhammad's actions and hostile teachings.

Even if Islamic warfare was "mostly" defensive - a gross overstatement - it often ended up in needless bloodshed (e.g. the massacre of the Qurayza Jewish tribe, which I mentioned earlier). By the end of Muhammad's life, almost all of Arabia had become Muslim following the Islamic conquests. Talk about defensive warfare. Defense is securing what you have, not conquering for the sake of revenge.

And what defines "a threat to Muslims"? Once again, that's very vague. Were the Qurayza Jews a threat to the Muslims? Were the Christians at Muta & Tabuk that Muhammad tried to conquer a threat to the Muslims?

To prove this isn't "moderate Westernized Muslims" saying that Islamic warfare was defensive, I have proof from ancient and historically significant Islamic scholar, Ibn Kathir, a commentator of the Quran that is often, ironically used by those who oppose Islam to prove that Jihad is prescribed against all non-Muslims, when in reality, only against those who have wronged them. This tafsir by Ibn Kathir refutes their claims:

Allah prescribed Jihad at an appropriate time, because when they were in Makkah, the idolators outnumbered them by more than ten to one. Were they to engage in fighting at that time, the results would have been disastrous. When the idolators went to extremes to persecute Muslims, to expel the Prophet and resolving to kill him; when they sent his Companions into exile here and there, so that some went to Ethiopia and others went to Al-Madinah; when they settled in Al-Madinah and the Messenger of Allah joined them there, and they gathered around him and lent him their support, and they had a place where Islam prevailed, and a stronghold to which they could retreat; then Allah prescribed Jihad against the enemy, and this was the first Ayah to be revealed for it.

See what I said above. Muhammad and his followers were not persecuted by the Meccans until they began the hostilities themselves.

Now let's address your citations of Sahih Bukhari below:

Sahih Bukhari (83:37) "Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate."

The reason he did these things was because Arabia didn't have a prison system like the modern era has. Besides, things were done differently back during that time.

I'm no expert on the subject, but I'm quite sure prison-like facilities for troublemakers have existed since the dawn of civilisation. And either way, killing someone because you have nowhere to lock them up is a ridiculous excuse.
Things were done differently at the time, that's fair. Too bad a lot of Muslims don't think like you do and don't hesitate to kill people for the same reasons. And I think that despite the time, people still had a sense of justice and scale and didn't just kill any "criminal" (under whatever standards they followed) indiscriminately...

(1) A person who killed somebody unjustly

Which was completely justified considering the amount of hostility many tribes had against the Muslims.

Tell me precisely which tribes (1) were hostile towards Muslims; (2) were hostile towards them simply because they were Muslims rather than because Muslims began the hostilities.

(2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse

Generally, before the revelation of Surah 24:2-3, Muhammad would have the adulterous stoned to death. When the Quran didn't have a prescribed punishment, Muhammad would often use the rulings of the Torah until Surah 24. This does not mean that Muslim countries should stone the adulterous as many of their ulama mistakenly think because Surah 24:2-3 completely contradicts this:

The adulteress and the adulterer (or the fornicatress and the fornicator) — flog each one of them with a hundred stripes. And let not pity for the twain take hold of you in executing the judgment of Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment.

The adulterer (or fornicator) shall not marry but an adulteress (or fornicatress) or an idolatrous woman, and an adulteress (or fornicatress) shall not marry but an adulterer (or fornicator) or an idolatrous man. That indeed is forbidden to the believers.

Ah, so they need to be flogged rather than stoned, that changes everything!

(3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate."

Seems also just, especially for its time which takes us back to:

Quran 5:33-34:

The reward of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive to create disorder in the land is only this that they be slain or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on alternate sides, or they be expelled from the land. That shall be a disgrace for them in this world, and in the Hereafter they shall have a great punishment;

Except those who repent before you have them in your power. So know that Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.

That doesn't mean we should go kill non believers today because today, we use "jihad of the pen" as Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community has stated.

The majority of Arabia, especially the Quraish, Jewish and christian tribes, looking for any opportunity to wipe out Islam and the Muslims would have some people occasionally pretend to convert to Islam, and then apostasize by committing a horrible act. As is the case of the tribe if Ukl: Now before you go on, and tell me that this refutes my defense of Islam, I will be underlining the reasonings for why this punishment was so brutal:

Narrated Anas:

Some people from the tribe of `Ukl came to the Prophet (ﷺ) and embraced Islam. The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet (ﷺ) ordered them to go to the (herd of milch) camels of charity and to drink, their milk and urine (as a medicine). They did so, and after they had recovered from their ailment (became healthy) they turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away. The Prophet (ﷺ) sent (some people) in their pursuit and so they were (caught and) brought, and the Prophets ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and that their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they die.

حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، حَدَّثَنَا الْوَلِيدُ بْنُ مُسْلِمٍ، حَدَّثَنَا الأَوْزَاعِيُّ، حَدَّثَنِي يَحْيَى بْنُ أَبِي كَثِيرٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي أَبُو قِلاَبَةَ الْجَرْمِيُّ، عَنْ أَنَسٍ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ قَالَ قَدِمَ عَلَى النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم نَفَرٌ مِنْ عُكْلٍ، فَأَسْلَمُوا فَاجْتَوَوُا الْمَدِينَةَ، فَأَمَرَهُمْ أَنْ يَأْتُوا إِبِلَ الصَّدَقَةِ، فَيَشْرَبُوا مِنْ أَبْوَالِهَا وَألبانها، ففعلوا فصحوا، فارتدوا وقتلوا رعاتها واستاقوا، فبعث في آثارهم فأتي بهم، فقطع أيديهم وأرجلهم وسمل أعينهم، ثم لم يحسمهم حتى ماتوا‏.‏

Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 6802In-book reference : Book 86, Hadith 32USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 8, Book 82, Hadith 794 (deprecated numbering scheme)

Which adds up to the verses in Surah 5:33-34:

The reward of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive to create disorder in the land is only this that they be slain or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on alternate sides, or they be expelled from the land. That shall be a disgrace for them in this world, and in the Hereafter they shall have a great punishment;

Once again, what I said above disproves that those measures were defensive.

Sahih Bukhari (84:57) "Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

Again, this takes us back to the context of the situation as I have mentioned with the above references I posted. According to Jonathan Brown of the Yaqeen Institution:



Which again, anyone who causes disorder in the land and is openly hostile to the Muslim community, were to be punished. This proves that apostasy by itself is not grounds to punish someone. Rather it is because of their own hostility.

"Anyone who causes disorder in the land"...that the Muslims forcibly conquered.
"Openly hostile to the Muslim community"...that was the first to challenge Mecca's tradition of religious tolerance.

He further adds:

Looking at this evidence, Shaltūt explained that Islam does not punish disbelief (kufr) with death. What is punishable by death, he concluded, is “fighting the Muslims, attacking them and trying to split them away from their religion.”[48] Scholars like Yūsuf al-Qaraḍāwī have therefore compared the punishment for apostasy to the modern crime of treason.[49] Al-Qaraḍāwī explains that there is no punishment for an individual’s decision to stop believing in Islam since the Qur’an makes clear that “there is no compulsion in religion” (Qur’an 2:256). Only those who combine their leaving Islam with a public attempt to undermine the stability of the Muslim community can be punished for ridda. Al-Qaraḍāwī introduces the distinction between ‘transgressive apostasy (al-ridda al-mutaʿaddiyya)’ and ‘non-transgressive apostasy (al-ridda al-qāṣira).’ The former, in which a Muslim renounces their faith in a way that actively encourages others to do so or that undermines stability, is subject to the apostasy punishment. One who simply leaves Islam or embraces another religion privately is left alone.[50]

Remember that hadith from Sahih Bukhari I quoted to you earlier.

Now that I have given you the above references (whether or not you willfully reject them will not refute history),

I'm not rejecting them, but I do find them grossly biased. I'm not refuting history - history, even Muslim historians thereof, acknowledges that nobody was hostile to Islam before Islam began being hostile to everybody.

So, you see, reverting back to Judaism was not the reason why the Jew was killed, but for encouraging disorder in the land as Surah 5:33-34, Sahih Bukhari, and Jonathan Brown state. If you don't like it, I'm sorry, but that's how things worked back in the day. It's no different than the US executing Timothy McVeigh for treason and for his act of disorder by bombing a federal building. If you look at this way (though I doubt you will), you'll see that all the fiqhs Muhammad and his Khalifas passed were reasonable.

So what you're essentially saying, correct me if I'm wrong, is that "reverting back to Judaism", and thus exercising your freedom of conscience and of religion, is "encouraging disorder in the land"?
"That's how things worked back in the day", you say. No, not for everybody. Many nations, cities and territories managed to coexist despite the religious differences of the people constituting them (the prime example of that ironically being Mecca), but this wasn't the case of Muslim-conquered Arabia.
Practicing your freedom of conscience doesn't equal causing disorder. That's a totalitarian way of seeing things. Causing disorder would be what Muhammad did in Mecca; begin to curse other religions with no regards for the tradition of religious tolerance.

Comparing the killing of a random Jew, who just wanted to follow the religion he believed was true (which doesn't disrupt anything nor cause any disorder by any reasonable standards), to the execution of Timothy McVeigh who committed a terror attack which killed hundreds of people is grotesque.

Yes, I know they are the most reliable. I study the science and context behind these hadith books from time to time, and they refute your claim that they promote terrorism. History does not agree with you on this allegation.

No. See above.

In the things I quoted to you in this post, definitely.


That they cease fighting and make peace...? It's not that hard to comprehend.

"Making peace" can be interpreted in a lot of different ways. "Making peace" could be anything from just stopping to oppose Islam while retaining your personal beliefs and way of life; to submitting to Islam and giving up your personal beliefs because you know you'll be killed if you don't.
Judging from the context, it seems to me that "making peace" is closer to the latter option.

Or as I've said several times in this post, you will willfully ignore out of your sheer ignorance, all the references and historical explanations I quoted to you in this post. I feel no need to repeat myself here.

See above.

Yes. I do not deny this, but do remember it also means ceasing to stop committing disorder in the land before you accuse me of contradicting myself. Their conversion also has to be sincere.

As I said, practicing your freedom =/= causing disorder.

I'm also curious to hear you explain how anyone can convert "sincerely" if they know they're gonna die if they don't.

Sometimes, historically, even if you repented, you could still be executed because the Muslims may not know the state of their hearts depending on the history of the individual who apostatized.

That alone is absurd enough to discredit the religion as a whole, sincerely.

However, as the Conquest of Mecca showed, if you are sincere with your conversion, there is no reason that they should be killed. Why? Because the Quran and Bukhari both forbade two muslims from fighting each other to death:

Exactly. Killing non-Muslims, though, is fine because they "spread disorder in the land". Lol. Seriously, are you still trying to defend that there's nothing wrong with Islamic teachings on apostasy and war or are you admitting that it's based on needless violence?

Define your criteria for morality.

What Islam considers "moral". Since you're a Muslim, I'm gonna assume you agree with every moral rule that Islam presents. Would you still follow those if you didn't believe in God?

Because you're pretending that I'm somehow avoiding questions when I've answered pretty much every single one of them that I seen? Yes you are making assumptions and trying to misrepresent things.

No, you avoided that simple question which had no ill intentions by assuming that I was trying to misrepresent things and making assumptions.

Same difference in this context.



Because I can get an idea about where you get your views on Islam. You being a French Nationalist, I assumed you may be a bit right wingish. Which was why I referenced the Islamophobia of the far right. Especially in Europe.

I'd certainly describe myself as right-wing, but opposition to Islam isn't restricted to the right-wing or the far-right. I've met quite a lot of left-wing people that also vehemently disagree with Islamic teachings. Truth be told, if everyone was sufficiently informed, an overwhelming majority of people in Europe would be opposed to Islam.

Killing apostates by itself is not morally right, but killing those who cause disorder and commit treason against the state is morally justifiable. Not apostasy by itself.

See above. Freedom of conscience =/= causing disorder.

Okay fair enough. You don't hate Muslims? Alright. But I still disagree with your views on Islam.

Well, duh. You're a Muslim, so I don't expect you to agree with me. But no, I don't hate Muslims as long as they don't act upon what their faith tells them to do, which is - thankfully - most Muslims in Europe.

Ok ,but you have no read it in-depth nor have you read much of the history behind the Quran. And yes, we should also read Mein Kampf as a whole despite the Quran not being at the level of Mein Kampf as you claim it is.

I could read the Qur'an as a whole, but that wouldn't change my mind at all. If anything, it'd reinforce my views. And I know about the historical context.

And you were demonstrated to be wrong. Anyone can use religion to commit terrorism. Burma is committing genocide against Muslims, the Lord's Resistance Army committed genocide, Pol Pot, an atheist committed genocide against three million people, and as you admitted, Adolf Hitler, etc.

Senseless comparisons, except for the LRA. Burma doesn't kill Muslims in the name of Buddhism; Pol Pot didn't kill 1/3 of his people in the name of Atheism; Hitler didn't kill 6 million Jews in the name of Christianity (yes, Hitler was a Christian, contrary to popular belief); etc.

Islamic terrorists, however, do kill in the name of Islam.

I can agree with you that Muslims are prejudiced and I often call them out for their own misrepresentation of Islam.


And those critics are wrong alongside the Muslim fundamentalists. It's ironic because many Muslims actually flee those countries in order to get away from the fundamentalists. Sometimes, it's because of the poor economic state that is within those nations. I don't deny we got some violent Muslims, and they should not be welcomed in Europe, but for those who aren't violent, they should be welcomed.

I don't support immigration, and not only Muslim immigation, but that's another subject.

It seems like you are. Not against Muslims, but Islam itself.

If you want to learn more about Islam, I'd recommend going deeper than just "texts themselves" or at least, stop listening to what anti-Islamic critics have to say regarding Islam because it seems you get your information from those websites or you are hanging around a group of people that have mislead you. Whatever the case may be, I don't care. Your views are grievously historically inaccurate and wrong.

No, I'm not prejudiced against Islam either. As I've said, I only formed a conclusion on this religion based on what I read - which is a lot on both sides of the spectrum, pro-Islam and anti-Islam. I'm not hanging around a group of people that have mislead you, but thanks for worrying, and even if it was the case, I'm better off hanging around people that aren't cool with unlawful murder and other barbaric teachings rather than with Islamists.

Hence, all the things I have said prove that what Muhammad and the Khalifas did was morally correct. Especially for its time period. They didn't have the court system that we have today nor did they have the prisons that we have today, and considering that during Muhammad's lifetime, the tribes had no unified system, and they were in a state of war, all of their actions were justified.

No. See above.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Not religious here. Morals and principles can and do exist independent of religion.

[Twilight Imperium]

Religion provides us with a moral compass that is otherwise absent from our very being and teaches us the correct way to live.

lol, no

[Auristania]

Religion provides us with a moral compass that is otherwise absent from our very being and teaches us the correct way to live.

lol, no

Religion teaches us to slaughter people with different religion, and to double triple quadruple slaughter people who do OUR religion wrong.

[Twilight Imperium]

lol, no

Religion teaches us to slaughter people with different religion, and to double triple quadruple slaughter people who do OUR religion wrong.

also lol, no

[The Emerald Legion]

lol, no

Religion teaches us to slaughter people with different religion, and to double triple quadruple slaughter people who do OUR religion wrong.

Not really.

[Phoenicaea]

ehm, what defines morality. plausible definition of morality could be: the balance of personal deeds. historically, 'morals' is not moralism.

the cause of this definition is straight, the morals regard the self, while the ethic regards the deeds made in common, shared, politically.

so you could also say it needs principles, and you could say also fear, whatever, could be a drive for it. shouldn t confound proper moral sphere with social structure.

the reasons why there is 'god' in the definition, and mostly the debate around, is mysterious to me. even if you would like to point the need for 'absolutes', why debate 'god' or 'not god'.

the reason why 'moralism', the hystorical lineage of think, has not to do with morals: first, moralism means a political and even social imposition, so it falls outside the self.

then, most of all, 'moralism' which was eminent in absolutist modern era (1492-1776) could be translated, perhaps, in 'partitocracy', or tribal, moral imposition.

the sense of fear gets then misjudged. when we say fear, fear of god or whatever, it means moral tension, the effort of the individual, the inner sense of duty.

instead, in moralism, tribalism, partitocracy, the way of living according to 'our' lord, the lord that social pyramid assigns to us, the fear relates to social punishment. it is a show

so, you could say 'god', and i understand this, as synonymous of 'absolute'. we have to thank Niccolo Machiavelli for his cutting-hegde writes, about this.

someone of the most brilliant minds of politics and philosophy the world has ever staged. the 'god of peoples' he cited, means ethic, it means that s different from private moral.

[Krasny-Volny]

Morality grounded in religious law or a personal code is futile.

That's not to say religious law is flawed, only that trying to live by it (or any other code of good morals) is futile:

Romans 7:14 says, "For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin." It goes on to say in verse 25 that "...with the mind I myself serve the law of God but with the flesh the law of sin."

It doesn't matter how much you attempt to serve the laws of your religion, "those who are in the flesh cannot please God". (Romans 8:8)

What is the solution according to the Bible?

Romans 8:3 - "For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."

True morality comes from God by faith:

Philippians 3:2 - "...not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;"

Romans 10:4 - "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes."

[AhmadiMuslim1889]

lol, no

Religion teaches us to slaughter people with different religion, and to double triple quadruple slaughter people who do OUR religion wrong.

Because generalizing all faiths makes you correct? Using your logic, atheism kills people of all faiths. See how this logic works?

[Bala Mantre]

Who needs a religion when you can be a dictator? Join my region!

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Who needs a religion when you can be a dictator? Join my region!

The General sub-forum is OOC - out of character. We discuss our real-life views here.

[Erythrean Thebes]

Religion teaches us to slaughter people with different religion, and to double triple quadruple slaughter people who do OUR religion wrong.

Because generalizing all faiths makes you correct? Using your logic, atheism kills people of all faiths. See how this logic works?

In general, regardless of religion specifically, the mass mobilization of people for political purposes has often generated moral and ethical quandaries, because political goals clash with the rights of the individual in almost any situation other than direct democracy. Taking either instance - religious motives as exemplified by the Medieval Catholic Church, or atheism as propounded by the 20th Century strongmen in China, Germany, Russia, and elsewhere - the attempt of the political leaders to reshape society for their purposes endangered individual rights and exemplified a callous disregard for the sanctity of human life

[Bala Mantre]

You think thats not my views? It is my views which I will hold forever

[El-Amin Caliphate]

You think thats not my views? It is my views which I will hold forever

Who are you talking to? I don't know who this post is directed at.

[Bala Mantre]

You think thats not my views? It is my views which I will hold forever

Who are you talking to? I don't know who this post is directed at.

Im talking to you

[Farnhamia]

Who are you talking to? I don't know who this post is directed at.

Im talking to you

The don't add "Join my region!" to your post. This is a completely OOC forum.