Secularism: The Devil?s greatest trick
-
peace Fahad
Pre-marital sex may not seem harmful to you immediately, but in the long run, it is harmful for the society at large(check out http//www.geocities.com/justiceparadigm/presex.pdf). We may not immediately realize the harms of the things made unlawful in the Quran, but God can see the harms(17/32). But lets not go into that right now.
I skimmed through the article (for now) and it seems that you consider a high divorce rate harmful. I don't.
And we're talking about individual rights here, not the outcomes of collective actions.
It's our right to drive cars to work every morning, but in the long term, it is harmful to society because when everyone drives their car to work, it results in traffic congestion. But the traffic congestion is not due to an individual decision, but a collective one. So you can't punish people for, or prevent them from, driving their cars to work.
So even if pre-marital sex somehow ends up being harmful because Everyone is doing it, you can't say that the decision to do it is wrong. (although I still don't see how it by itself can ever be harmful...but we're not discussing sex here)Well, its not just my thinking, and I am not the one making the law. The law is given in the Quran.
It doesn't matter what is given in the Quran. All that matters is what you can prove.
And it doesn't matter if what you believe is right...you can't take away the freedom of choice of others.
We all know that doing heroine is bad for us. But you cannot make someone else not do heroine, unless their action directly results in harm to another. I can shut myself in my room and smoke heroine all day, but I am not doing anything wrong, and you can't punish me for it.The man-made(secular and religious) laws, yes.
Yes. But I would put it as "all laws that take away an individual's freedom/rights"
True freedom is when people are free to fulfill their purpose. The purpose is none except to serve Allah(51/56), to be in His deen. A society where His deen is dominant can best provide the freedom to fulfill that purpose(24/55).
Well, that's what you believe. There are people who do not believe that. So you must allow them to choose whatever they want.
You have no authority to define what the purpose of others is. You can only define it for yourself.Lobster Obeying the law is not necessary.
Quranically, it is.
There used to be a law in the country where I live now which required all black people to give up their seats to white people in public buses. Is that a law you would support?
How about the law that says the government can put you in jail without any charges?
So you would follow all laws, as unfair and disgusting as they might be, just because Quranically, you must?Well, you can punish, if not prevent.
You can't punish either. The only thing you might punish people for is crimes against other people. You cannot put people in jail for filming themselves nude, or for eating pork, or for having sex without wearing a wedding ring.
-
To me Sectarianism (readReligion) is the devil's greatest trick.
Dividing humankind through dogmatic beliefs and spreading hatred among them is always been his strategy.To me Secularism eq Anti-Sectarianism is
Uniting humankind and spreading love and caring among them regardless of race,beliefs,gender,social status etc..Salam
YES !
-
Peace
Isn't premarital sex harmful to society?
Look at the west and how many single parents there are, and how many people can't afford kids while they have them....The government would have to come in and help those people so the kids are taken of, that in turn increases spending, and increasing taxes. For there to be a limited government there has to be limited spending.
I am not even talking about the psychological aspect, just look at how screwed up the west is.
Why isn't doing heroine like a madman harmful to others?
Again if the person doesn't have enough money for medical treatment, who's going to have to help out? Isn't he also hurting his family? Heroine addicts tend to not have much money because they blow in on heroine.
-
Peace
Isn't premarital sex harmful to society?
Look at the west and how many single parents there are, and how many people can't afford kids while they have them....The government would have to come in and help those people so the kids are taken of, that in turn increases spending, and increasing taxes. For there to be a limited government there has to be limited spending.
I am not even talking about the psychological aspect, just look at how screwed up the west is.
Why isn't doing heroine like a madman harmful to others?
Again if the person doesn't have enough money for medical treatment, who's going to have to help out? Isn't he also hurting his family? Heroine addicts tend to not have much money because they blow in on heroine.
peace Dargento,
Single parents are the fault of pre-marital sex? Are you serious?
To me, two people can be committed to each other regardless of whether they have signed a legal document or not.
And no, all those single parents are not harming society....they are not anyone's burden.
Irresponsible sex is a personal decision, and you get what you sow. Sure you may be ruining your life, but that's your decision and you have every right to make it.
The poor are not anyone's responsibility. No one has to help them. The government SHOULD NOT step in to help them.
Charity is not a compulsion upon anyone. We are supposed to give out of the goodness of our hearts. Helping people is a good thing, but no one is being forced to do it.If you can't pay your hospital bills, well, that's your personal problem. If someone helps you out, that's great for you, and it was their personal decision to help you out.
No one can be forced to pay your hospital bills. That's just wrong.All these "welfare" states...what the government is doing is stealing.
The important thing here is that every individual has the god given right to do whatever the hell they want with their lives, and no one can stop them unless they are harming others.
Everyone has the right to keep their property and their money. No one can take it away from you, not even the government, even if it is to feed the poor. If you don't want to help anyone, if you want to be an asshole, you have the right to that. -
peace Dargento,
Single parents are the fault of pre-marital sex? Are you serious?
To me, two people can be committed to each other regardless of whether they have signed a legal document or not.
And no, all those single parents are not harming society....they are not anyone's burden.
Irresponsible sex is a personal decision, and you get what you sow. Sure you may be ruining your life, but that's your decision and you have every right to make it.
The poor are not anyone's responsibility. No one has to help them. The government SHOULD NOT step in to help them.
Charity is not a compulsion upon anyone. We are supposed to give out of the goodness of our hearts. Helping people is a good thing, but no one is being forced to do it.If you can't pay your hospital bills, well, that's your personal problem. If someone helps you out, that's great for you, and it was their personal decision to help you out.
No one can be forced to pay your hospital bills. That's just wrong.All these "welfare" states...what the government is doing is stealing.
The important thing here is that every individual has the god given right to do whatever the hell they want with their lives, and no one can stop them unless they are harming others.
Everyone has the right to keep their property and their money. No one can take it away from you, not even the government, even if it is to feed the poor. If you don't want to help anyone, if you want to be an asshole, you have the right to that.http//www.opfs.org.uk/factfile/stats01.html
Significant number of women who are single parents, pre-marital (38%). The statistics show that CLEARLY, women take the stress of such divisions (89% of single parents are female...), and in general, women take the added labour. As the phrase goes, "hump and dump".
You are correct when you say "To me, two people can be committed to each other regardless of whether they have signed a legal document or not". What government/legal jurisdiction was there in early times?
And no, all those single parents are not harming society....they are not anyone's burden.
Please do your own survey showing that poverty is not more common amongst single parents vs married/dual. Especially in a welfare state, single parents are a burden.
Irresponsible sex is a personal decision, and you get what you sow. Sure you may be ruining your life, but that's your decision and you have every right to make it.
You ruin three peoples' lives, eventually.
The poor are not anyone's responsibility. No one has to help them. The government should NOT step in to help them.
I take it you don't accept the Quranic judgement. That philosophy has never worked out either.
Charity is not a compulsion upon anyone. We are supposed to give out of the goodness of our hearts. Helping people is a good thing, but no one is being forced to do it.
See above.
If you can't pay your hospital bills, well, that's your personal problem. If someone helps you out, that's great for you, and it was their personal decision to help you out.
No one can be forced to pay your hospital bills. That's just wrong.Purely personal opinion.
The important thing here is that every individual has the god given right to do whatever the hell they want with their lives, and no one can stop them unless they are harming others.
Everyone has the right to keep their property and their money. No one can take it away from you, not even the government, even if it is to feed the poor. If you don't want to help anyone, if you want to be an asshole, you have the right to that.More personal opinion, and further, opinion that is rarely, if ever, implemented.
-
Please do your own survey showing that poverty is not more common amongst single parents vs married/dual. Especially in a welfare state, single parents are a burden.
I never argued that it's not common amongst single parents.
And I argued that welfare states shouldn't exist.You ruin three peoples' lives, eventually.
and what can WE do to prevent it?
All we can do is help those people. But can you force people to help others? Well, yes you can, but is it right?That's the crux of the issue...is it right to force people to do something, even if it is the right thing?
I take it you don't accept the Quranic judgement. That philosophy has never worked out either.
Where in the Quran does it say we must force others to give money to the poor, and if they refuse, we must steal it from them?
And what do you mean by "has never worked out?"
I'm talking about preserving people's freedom of choice...if that is achieved, it will have worked out, if it is ever implemented in a country again.Purely personal opinion.
Well, instead of just stating the obvious again and again, why don't you refute what I'm saying?
This is the premise here There is no compulsion, no one can force anyone to do anything, people's freedom of choice should be valued.
Do we agree on that? (i'm not so sure) -
peace Fahad
Fahad Pre-marital sex may not seem harmful to you immediately, but in the long run, it is harmful for the society at large(check out http//www.geocities.com/justiceparadigm/presex.pdf). We may not immediately realize the harms of the things made unlawful in the Quran, but God can see the harms(17/32). But lets not go into that right now.
Lobster I skimmed through the article (for now) and it seems that you consider a high divorce rate harmful. I don't.
The article is about more than just the divorce, man. But lets not get into whether pre-marital sex is harmful or not. The thread is about Quran's stance on secularism.
And we're talking about individual rights here, not the outcomes of collective actions.
It's our right to drive cars to work every morning, but in the long term, it is harmful to society because when everyone drives their car to work, it results in traffic congestion. But the traffic congestion is not due to an individual decision, but a collective one. So you can't punish people for, or prevent them from, driving their cars to work.You CAN punish them for driving cars irresponsibly or without a license, to be on the safer side. Or for having sex before marriage.
Fahad Well, its not just my thinking, and I am not the one making the law. The law is given in the Quran.
Lobster It doesn't matter what is given in the Quran.
To you it doesn't. But this thread is about Quran's stance. Here I expect discussion with believers in the Quran, or at least from a Quranic point of view. Or I would have posted the article at faithfreedom.org's forum instead.
All that matters is what you can prove.
The Quran is the ultimate proof. If you don't believe in it, its your problem.
And it doesn't matter if what you believe is right...you can't take away the freedom of choice of others.
Thats just your beliefs and your thinking. God decides how much freedom people get.
We all know that doing heroine is bad for us. But you cannot make someone else not do heroine, unless their action directly results in harm to another. I can shut myself in my room and smoke heroine all day, but I am not doing anything wrong, and you can't punish me for it.
I'm not sure, I'll have to look into it.
Fahad The man-made(secular and religious) laws, yes.
Lobster Yes. But I would put it as "all laws that take away an individual's freedom/rights"Yes. But I would put it as "all laws that take away an individual's freedom/rights given by God in the Quran"
Fahad True freedom is when people are free to fulfill their purpose. The purpose is none except to serve Allah(51/56), to be in His deen. A society where His deen is dominant can best provide the freedom to fulfill that purpose(24/55).
Lobster Well, that's what you believe.
I backed it up. That is what the Quran says. Or try to prove that it is saying something else. Like I have said, this thread is about Quran's stance. Here I expect discussion with believers in the Quran, or at least from a Quranic point of view.
There are people who do not believe that. So you must allow them to choose whatever they want.
They can choose to live outside the Quranic domain.
You have no authority to define what the purpose of others is. You can only define it for yourself.
Yeah, thats why I gave you their Creator's reference.
Lobster Obeying the law is not necessary.
Fahad Quranically, it is.
Lobster There used to be a law in the country where I live now which required all black people to give up their seats to white people in public buses. Is that a law you would support?
How about the law that says the government can put you in jail without any charges?
So you would follow all laws, as unfair and disgusting as they might be, just because Quranically, you must?Not those man-made laws, man! I meant the Quranic ones!
Fahad Well, you can punish, if not prevent.
Lobster You can't punish either....No Quranic reference?
...The only thing you might punish people for is crimes against other people.
All commandments and prohibitions in the Quran are for our good, to prevent us harm. Even if there was a command to kill ourselves, it would have been better for us, to prevent us trouble(4/66). All those who claim to believe in the Allah and the Quran should think about this verse.
You cannot put people in jail for filming themselves nude,...
I am not sure about any Quranic punishment for nude filming.
... or for eating pork, ...
Yeah, can't remember reading any Quranic punishment for this either.
...or for having sex without wearing a wedding ring.
The punishment is very clear in the Quran.
-
I am not even talking about the psychological aspect, just look at how screwed up the west is.
Salaam dargento
i am a westerner, have been living half of my life outside the west. And i can tell you for sure that middle eastern societies are just as "screwed up". Even if single parents are a rarer occurence - but there are so many different aspects.
I heard this argument about the decadent west so often on FM - and i think it is not an argument at all. Just a value judgment.
LK
-
peace
Fahad, I don't think we can continue discussing this, since you are willing to take your interpretation of Quranic verses as proof. Does the quran say we must follow it or follow the truth? It seems that you are unwilling to examine your beliefs to find the truth because it might contradict the quran.
But just tell me this, what does the quran mean when it says "there is no compulsion in deen?"Elke, thank you.
-
Just like Elke, I have lived a substantial number of years in both eastern and western countries... and, trust me, the s.c. West, is in no way more screwed up that any other place, overall that is! I keep seeing people, everywhere, making "informed" statements about the Other Societies. It is the typical and so very common Home Team Syndrome... and it's so bloody ignorant and subjective. People always seem to know how THEY are and how THEIR society is. It's all crap! People can't know anything about anything unless they have real experience from it, along with an honest and open mind!
Peace
-
Fahad, I don't think we can continue discussing this, since you are willing to take your interpretation of Quranic verses as proof.
No, its because you are unable disprove my interpretation at all. Try it, then you'll see it is not just my personal interpretation, it is actually what Quran is saying. Thats what I want to show(the Quran's stance) to those who believe in the Quran.
And in a thread about Quran's stance on an issue, what else am I supposed to show as proof except Quranic verses?
Does the quran say we must follow it or follow the truth?
The Truth is in the Quran(11/120). Therefore, we follow the Quran(6/106, 6/19). What now? Now it doesn't matter what the Quran says?
It seems that you are unwilling to examine your beliefs to find the truth because it might contradict the quran.
Is there any thread in this forum where we can discuss the Quranic point of view. And you don't want my beliefs examined, you want the Quran examined. Isn't there a whole separate category(yes, there is) for examining whether the truth contradicts the Quran or not?
But just tell me this, what does the quran mean when it says "there is no compulsion in deen?"
I have told you already
It means that dislike/resistance/unwillingness/compulsion is futile. Like one can just go with the flow, or he can bring in resistance, but still be taken over by the flow. Because everyone ultimately submits to Allah , willingly AND unwillingly/under compulsion(3/83).
What do you say now? Now it doesn't matter what the Quran says? Because now it does not please you anymore?
Why ask for Quranic references when all you will say is "it doesn't matter whats in the Quran", or "its only your interpretation/belief", when you are unable to disprove or even address my "personal belief/interpretation" in the least bit?!
-
No, its because you are unable disprove my interpretation at all. Try it, then you'll see it is not just my personal interpretation, it is actually what Quran is saying. Thats what I want to show(the Quran's stance) to those who believe in the Quran.
And in a thread about Quran's stance on an issue, what else am I supposed to show as proof except Quranic verses?
The Truth is in the Quran(11/120). Therefore, we follow the Quran(6/106, 6/19). What now? Now it doesn't matter what the Quran says?
Is there any thread in this forum where we can discuss the Quranic point of view. And you don't want my beliefs examined, you want the Quran examined. Isn't there a whole separate category(yes, there is) for examining whether the truth contradicts the Quran or not?
I have told you already
What do you say now? Now it doesn't matter what the Quran says? Because now it does not please you anymore?
Why ask for Quranic references when all you will say is "it doesn't matter whats in the Quran", or "its only your interpretation/belief", when you are unable to disprove or even address my "personal belief/interpretation" in the least bit?!
Islam is a religion and not a state
These legislative laws in the Quran and the prophet's Madina were considered progressive and modern in the 7th century which is why nobody, not even the pagans, objected to it. The pagans objected to theological and ritual issues and not the state legal system since it was appropriate to theirs and progressive according to their time period. Issues like the kind of food to eat and deity to worship were more problematic for the pagans than inheritance laws or penal codes applied by the 1st Muslim community in Madina.
The state legislations mentioned in the Quran are not religious but civil. They were to be applied to Muslims and non Muslims in Madina alike. The mission of the prophet was not to govern and rule but circumstances led him to that and God guided him to establish a civil society that will ensure stability and justice based on 7th century standard. There is no mention on the Quran of any legislation not relevant to the prophet's Madina. If it was the intention of God to establish a state legal system along with religious legislation God would have certainly layed a framework that deals with legal issues outside the prophets' Madina community's legislative needs. Issues that were not relevant to that Madina community but were needed by later generations of Muslims. But He did not since it was not the mission of the Quran to do so. The job of the prophet as the Quran says is to convey the religious message. However circumstances led to the prophet establishing a community and this led to God guiding His prophet towards establishing a legal state structure as part of His guidance and support for His prophet.
Invite (all humankind) to the path of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation and argue with them in the most kindly manner, for, indeed, your Lord knows best as to who strays from His path, and best who are the right-guided. (16125)
Had your Lord so willed, all those who live on earth would surely have attained faith, will you then compel people, against their will, to believe? 1099
And so, exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe. 8821-22
Which is why we see there are gender differences in the state legislations in the Quran but no such differences in the religious legislations. Men and women fast, pray, perform haj, observe the halals and harams, zakat , die and resurrect and get judged exactly the same way as men.
"And among His signs are the creation of the heaven and earth, and the variation in your language and your colors; verily in that are signs for those who know" (3022).
"O you mankind! We have created you from a single pair of male and female and made you into nations and tribes so that you know each other. Verily the most honored in the sight of God is the one who is most righteous" (4913).
All the functions of the religious legislation relies on constants such as the movements of the sun, movements of the moon, usage of water and direction of Qibla. These are constants and not changing. They remain the same whether in its shape, direction or time. It is apllicable and accessible to everyone, whether rich or poor, male or female or ignorant or intelligent. The theological issues are also constant and beyond change. Humans do not control angels or past prophets or the resurrection from death or heaven or hell. These are constant theological realities beyond the scope of human evolution and progress and are attained by faith and faith alone.
However the state legislation in the Quran does seperate in some situations between gender and also between slaves and free men as this was the social and political milieu of the 7th century. Just as many modern state frameworks today seperates between citizens and non citizens, or between various professions or even legal statuses. God however does not discriminate between a man and woman, between a slave and a free man or between the various legal status of individuals when it comes to religious legislations as God is not a socially and culturally evolving entity as humans are. It was God's wisdom to establish a community with the legal and political norms of their time or else it would not have been seen by its intended targets as fair, just or even applicable and would not have achieved a stability enabling the Madina community to spread the Quran and the religious legislations needed by future Muslim adherents. It was a legislative framework appropriate to the tribal communities that existed in 7th century Arabia.
O ye who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty 2.178.
We must seperate between religious and state legislations in the Quran and also identify what are the situations that was relevant to the 7th century Madina community and what are the issues relevant to us today. The concept of Muslim orthodoxy that emerged more than a century and a half after the prophet during the Abbasid era by the hands of Imam Al Shafi and company failed to do so. It simply relied on mimicking the practice of the 1st Muslim community in everything from religious functions and rituals to a legal and political code that became according to this orthodoxy also the last and only community. Thus depriving Muslim communities down the ages of any progress. A religious tradition and orthodoxy that succeded in theory but remained just that, a theory. Never able to be fully implemented in practice but always successful in depriving alternatives.
It relied on the necessity of compiling information about that 1st Muslim community with all its details and specifics since the Quran and the rituals that spread with the early generations of Muslims did not provide that information. They never asked themselves why the prophet nor his companions bothered spreading details of the legal codes and juristic practices and decisions of the prophet's Madina. It assumed the establishment of the legal and political codes was the intended purpose of the prophet's teachings and message. Many times it contradicted other Quranic verses about no compulsion in religion and the verses in the Quran reminding the prophet his duty is simply to convey a message and not to compel.
There is no compulsion in religion, for the right way is clearly from the wrong way. Whoever therefore rejects the forces of evil and believes in God, he has taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way, for God is All Hearing and Knowing. 2256
But if they turn away from you, your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message .1682
Through abrogation, contradictory legal opinions and prophetic traditions which they claimed to have been passed to them across the ages that seemed to support their outlook, they somehow manage to find a way out. A way out of the contradiction between a religious state whose job was to enforce laws and no compulsion in religion.
The orthodoxy that emerged during the 2nd and 3rd century after the prophet failed to appreciate the historicity of the 1st Muslim community and relied on the convenience of mimicking. It left the Muslim masses in the peculiar situation of irrelevancy and contradiction in the modern era. A contradiction between theory and practice. A contradiction many Muslim societies live to this day. While a group of Muslims saw the Taliban as the ideal Islamic state, others saw just another pre-medieval state common around the world during the 7th to 12 century.
-
The dogmatic beliefs and hatred will result whenever we are taken away from Allah's deen, whether towards sectarianism or secularism. We are either in Allah's deen or we are in Shaitaan's. If we are in Allah's deen, then He receives our ibadah/service. If we are not, then whether you label it Secularism or Sectarianism or whatever, we are in the Shaitaan's deen and he receives our ibadah. There is no middle way.
The problem is that everyone claims that HIS deen is Allah's deen, they just call it different things. There can be no consensus on this, and has never been. Only a way which let's people of different creeds coexist will minimize the level of hatred and war etc. Such a system is nowadays called secular, simply because there can't be consensus on what deen to follow. If we stop shoving such things that we can't agree upon down others throats, then we can have a common ground. Beyond this you are free to practice your own deen, the one which YOU are sure is Allah's deen, for yourself.
Of course, we can always promote items from Allah's deen and show others how it would be beneficial to humanity, and adopt it through some democratic way... and in this way have more and more of Allah's deen in our secular system. Items from Allah's deen should afterall be the best, so the challenge is to win peoples hearts by appealing to their common sense, logic and goodness... not by force, fear or threat.
Things are not that black and white!
peace
-
It means that dislike/resistance/unwillingness/compulsion is futile. Like one can just go with the flow, or he can bring in resistance, but still be taken over by the flow. Because everyone ultimately submits to Allah , willingly AND unwillingly/under compulsion(3/83).
Peace fahad
That we all bow, willingly or unwillingy, to the system of god is imo pointing to the submission to the laws of nature (3.83). Which should in no way affect our freedom to belief /or not in God or to "practice" islam or not .
LK
-
I guess I have to agree to that Elke,
and the laws of nature are, as I believe, not just the physical natural laws, but also others, less agreed upon, like the law of attraction.
There is, like you probably implied, a difference between 1) doing(or not) something because you are forced to, while you would/could have done otherwise if the force wouldn't have been there(depending on e.g. time or location etc), and 2) doing something willingly or unwillingly simply because of your nature.
Me, being prevented from driving drunk against the traffic in a stolen towing-truck, is not the same as me being prevented from flying through wood like a beta particle. -
peace Fahad,
No, its because you are unable disprove my interpretation at all. Try it, then you'll see it is not just my personal interpretation, it is actually what Quran is saying. Thats what I want to show(the Quran's stance) to those who believe in the Quran.
My knowledge of arabic is crap to say the least, so I can't disprove your interpretation through that method. I can however, under the assumption that the quran is true, prove your interpretation wrong through logic and counter examples. If I can prove my position, and my position is contrary to yours, then either your interpretation or the quran itself is wrong.
But since you take the quran only as proof, I honestly don't know how to prove it because I can only give you my interpretation of the verses.
"there is no compulsion in deen." (I honestly don't get how you are interpreting it)
My interpretation of it is that we cannot be forced into submission. Maybe outwardly we can pretend to be believers, but then we are hypocrites. So really the only way to follow the truth is to truly believe in it.
And here's the problem,
With people, it doesn't matter whether you're a hypocrite or not. It DOES NOT MATTER what you do when you're alone. The only thing that matters to others is how your actions affect them.
But with God, it's an entirely different matter. To god, it matters what you do when you're alone. If you're a hypocrite, god will know it, and every action of yours will be accounted for.
See the difference?
Being a hypocrite is wrong, but can people punish you for it? They won't even be aware of the fact let alone punish you.
Do you understand what I'm saying?
There's the law of man (social) and the law of god (personal). You can't deal with both the same way.
Why isn't there a punishment in the quran for eating pork? Because it falls under the "law of god." It's a personal thing. You are not harming anyone but yourself. God is the only one that can punish you.I think the quran tries to deal with both matters. It deals with personal and social matters.
There's pornorgraphy (zina) for instance, there's a punishment of a hundred lashes...correct? Well, the quran knows that is a social issue, and other people will be harmed because of that action, so society can punish you.
(not that I necessarily agree that porn harms society)The quran knows the difference.
If the quran wanted us to FORCE others to do the right thing, there would be a civil punishment for every sin, including eating pork, disrespecting your parents, drinking alcohol, gambling, and setting up partners with God.
But there isn't.Do you get a hint of what I'm saying now?
The relationship between me and god is between me and god. It's private. It's no one else's business. The only time it becomes other peoples' business is when they are affected by my actions.
I can believe in as many ****ing idols as I want, and you can do nothing about it. P -
Salaam dargento
i am a westerner, have been living half of my life outside the west. And i can tell you for sure that middle eastern societies are just as "screwed up". Even if single parents are a rarer occurence - but there are so many different aspects.
I heard this argument about the decadent west so often on FM - and i think it is not an argument at all. Just a value judgment.
Salaam Elke
Don't be defensive . I was born in the Middle East, raised most of my 'conscious' life in the west. I maintain no affiliation to any country. The only race I belong to is the Human race. I despise bigotry whether it be against whites, blacks, asians... you name it. Look at the stats OPF posted. Yes I agree the middle east is as screwed up as the west. I wasn't talking about the west being more screwed up as the rest of the world as a whole. But you have to look at some other stats. America is #1 in most of the worst diseases in the world, yet claims to be so technologically advanced. I'm not making a judgement at all, just go and look. You haven't seen how many underage teenage mothers there are these days? You think that is good for parent/child? Why do you think the kids in this country are so screwed up?
Let's also be clear that pre-marital does happen in the middle east also. They are hardly innocent.
Now I am not in the favor of 'banning pre-marital sex'. As I like to say 'You dig your own grave, you gotta sleep in it.'
I am in the favor of protecting the society as a whole. If we have mothers who aren't ready, it'll trickle down to the kids.
-
Both sides face an entirely different set of problems, it just so happens that people have gotten used to their own problems, but see fault in the other side. Very simple.
-
Single parents are the fault of pre-marital sex? Are you serious?
Don't walk before you can crawl now... No, single parents aren't at fault for pre-marital sex. I am saying single parents aren't good for children. How you seen how mentally freaked (sorry not a cuss word!) America is?
To me, two people can be committed to each other regardless of whether they have signed a legal document or not.
Agreed.
Irresponsible sex is a personal decision, and you get what you sow. Sure you may be ruining your life, but that's your decision and you have every right to make it.
The poor are not anyone's responsibility. No one has to help them. The government SHOULD NOT step in to help them.
Charity is not a compulsion upon anyone. We are supposed to give out of the goodness of our hearts. Helping people is a good thing, but no one is being forced to do it.If you can't pay your hospital bills, well, that's your personal problem. If someone helps you out, that's great for you, and it was their personal decision to help you out.
No one can be forced to pay your hospital bills. That's just wrong.All these "welfare" states...what the government is doing is stealing.
The important thing here is that every individual has the god given right to do whatever the hell they want with their lives, and no one can stop them unless they are harming others.
Everyone has the right to keep their property and their money. No one can take it away from you, not even the government, even if it is to feed the poor. If you don't want to help anyone, if you want to be an asshole, you have the right to that.Agreed if we were in a system where the government wouldn't 'help out'.
Also define Responsible and Irresponsible sex?