divinereal:

Morality vs. Ethics

By Ali Sina (An Ex Muslimah)


Religious people believe that morality comes from religion and when religion loses its grip, people will become immoral. Is morality a product of religion? Are irreligious people immoral?
I had a conversation with a young Muslim who insisted if it were not for religion people would commit Inbreeding and nothing would stop them to sleep even with their own mothers. I asked him whether he personally lusted after his mother and whether Islam was the only deterrent that stopped him from fornicating with her? He seemed insulted, but before he responded, I added if you are nauseated even by me mentioning such a thing, then realize that many others are just like you and feel and think the same way.
A big portion of our morality is part of our instinct. Inbreeding for example is not condoned in any society whether religious or not. There are of course individuals with abnormal mental development who are exceptions to the norm. In fact, except for Bonobo chimps of Zair that rub their focal places together for social binding, no ape commits or procreates by Inbreeding. Usually the male individual visits other clans to find his mate. The young lions are forced to leave the pride to find mates in other prides while the lionesses stay.
Interestingly, marriages between children that grew-up together in one foster home are rare or non-existent, even though these kids are not related to each other by blood.
But some moral issues are not as clear as the above example. What is moral and immoral depends on time and culture. It may even vary from person to person. What was moral; say, a thousand years ago may be immoral today and vice versa. Also what is moral in one part of the world may not be so in others.
Take the example of promiscuity. Many cultures consider promiscuity to be immoral. Yet there are some cultures that accept it as the norm. To us, “western minded people”, having multiple sex partners simultaneously is considered promiscuity and immoral. Yet for a Muslim who practices polygyny, it is a “mercy of Allah”. In some parts of the world, women practice polyandry. Among the Inuit, a man would offer his wife to his guest to spend the night with, hoping that he may impregnate her. Which practice is immoral? And who is to determine it?
Is showing parts of your body immoral? In the heart of Amazon Jungle some tribes are completely unclothed. Is that immoral? That is to them the way of life. In some Islamic countries women are required to cover every part of their body (like children playing ghost). Is that good morality? If that is the definition of morality are all those Muslim women who cover everything except their faces immoral? What about those who dress adequately yet do not use Hijab? Are they immoral? Now what about bikini wearing beach going women? Are they immoral? And finally, what about those who like to show it all in a nudist camp? Are THEY immoral? Your answer to this question depends on who you are and what is your own personal standard of morality.
Let us take another example: Slavery. Is slavery immoral? Slavery was practiced for centuries even by very pious people. Muhammad not only had slaves but he benefited from reducing free people into slaves and selling them. Was he immoral? If yes; why should we follow an immoral person and if no; why should we condemn its practice?
What about pedophilia? Obviously we all cringe at the thought of it and think that it is a shameful act of immorality. But during the time of the Prophet having sexual intercourse with a 9-year-old child was not immoral. In fact Aisha’s father after a little bit of trepidation consented to give her in marriage to Muhammad when Muhammad suggested it. At that time no one raised an eyebrow. The question is, if sleeping with a nine-year-old child was not deemed bad and therefore was not considered immoral, was it okay? Not everything that a society accepts as moral is right. Having sex with a minor may not have been immoral for Arabs 1400 years ago, but it is as it was then, unethical. Moralities are defined by circumstances, but ethics transcend time and space. They are rooted in logic. Morality can vary from culture to culture, from time to time and from person to person. Who is to determine what is moral and what is not?
A Man in Pakistan may think that if his wife meets her male-cousin with whom she has grown up without the presence of a third person she has committed an immoral act, has sullied his honor and the only way to restore his honor is to kill her. For him the meeting of two cousins is immoral but killing a human being is not.
We have to distinguish between those moralities that harm the society and those that do not. What harms others must be called unethical and discouraged. Slavery, for example, infringes upon the freedom of another human being. Therefore regardless of whether a society or a culture sanctions it, it is an unethical practice. 1400 years ago it was not immoral to have slaves. But slavery is ethically wrong and that transcends time Even the Prophet knew that slavery is wrong. That is why he advised his followers to manumit their slaves as an act of charity. Nonetheless he himself kept adding to his slaves by raiding city after city and capturing free people who were then reduced to slaves.
Because of what the prophet said, Muslims manumitted their slaves when they were old, could not work and needed care. Manumitting the slaves when they were young was an act of charity and moral but manumitting them at old age without provision was unethical. The Holy Prophet failed to mention that and the old slaves ended up as beggars in the streets while their masters gained the pleasure of Allah on one hand for manumitting them and exonerated themselves from having to take care of them in their old age on the other; thus killing two birds with one stone.
What would have been the right thing to do was not to take slaves in the first place. But the wealth of Muhammad and later on the Islamic rulers came from slave making and trading.

Hijab, no-hijab and even nudism does not have a material effect on anyone except on the person who practices them. This is not something the society should intervene. It must be left to the individual to dress the way he or she deems appropriate. Imposing a dress code is infringing upon the human rights of the individual and restricting his or her freedom. Such an imposition would be unethical. Although licensing nudism in the streets violates the rights of others who do not want to be shocked by exhibitionists, I have no objection for nudists to have a designated place to go and show off and get over it. As long as they do not rub it in my face, I have no right to impose my morality on them. I have no idea what makes nudists to take off their clothes, but if what they do does not materially affect me, it is none of my business.
Theoretically, the same thing can be said about hijab. How people dress must be left to the individual. If a person likes to wear a religious robe no one should stop him or her. But no state should enforce it on its citizens by law because that would be violating their freedom. Hijab however, falls into a different category. Hijab is a statement of defiance of freedom and democracy. It is very much like the swastika worn by Nazis. Hijab is not just a fashion statement but a political statement. The statement behind hijab is that I am against freedom and democracy and my goal is to overthrow the democracies and establish Islamic dictatorship, take away the rights of others and subdue anyone who does not agree with my fascistic views. As such hihab must be banned. Just as it it offensive to wear swastika in public, it is also offensive to wear hijab because of the political message behind it.
Despite the Muslim's claim that laxity in dress code breeds violence quite the opposite is true. Honor killings amongst Muslims is proof that a lot of violence is caused by being restrictive about sexuality.
Now, what about wife swapping? Well, that is adultery. Even though it is mutual and consensual. To the question, what an irreligious society should do in this regard, my answer is the same that Pierre Trudeau gave in the Canadian Parliament. He said; “The State has no place in the bedroom's of the people”. He delivered that speech more than 30 years ago and the Canadian government took that recommendation to heart. However I do not see my fellow countrymen offering their wives to each other.
Frankly, it is none of my business what my neighbors do. As Muslims say, I am not going to be buried with them in the same grave. Why you and I should even be talking about it?
Now look at Islamic countries where state regulates the private lives of its subjects. Women victims of violation are stoned to death in the most horrendous way because they could not produce four witnesses to the violation happening but their sexual intercourse out of wedlock is evident because of the child that they carry. Is that moral? People are flogged for eating in public during the month of Ramadan. Women are beaten and bloodied because their scarves slipped and some of their hair became visible they flashed some skin when they stretched their arm out of their burqua. Is this a good morality? Which morality is more evil?
We must distinguish between what is immoral and what is unethical. Moral issues should be left to the individuals; ethical issues must be taught in schools and be enforced by law or code of ethics. Is promiscuity immoral or is it unethical? The answer to the first part of this question depends on who you are. If you belong to the “ultra” liberal faction of the western society or if you are a practicing Muslim, it may not be immoral for you to have multiple sex partners. But if you are an average westerner, you would consider it immoral. This is a matter of taste, culture and upbringing. We should not be concerned about the morality of this question. What consenting adults do in their bedrooms is none of our business. The question is whether it is ethical?
If promiscuity is institutionalized such as in polygamy, is it still immoral? Those who practice it may not think that way but it certainly is unethical. Marriage is a social institution that affects more than those who make the vow. Not only children are affected but the whole society that would eventually have to take the tab to support such families that turn up to be dysfunctional will also be affected. The society has to pay for the education of the kids, their food and clothing as well as suffer the consequences of dealing with misfit individuals that would most likely result from such dysfunctional and highly patriarchal families. Polygyny must be outlawed not for its immorality, that as we said is a personal matter, but because it is unethical. It harms the children and it harms the society.
What is moral is fuzzy. Religious morality does not seem ethical any more. And what we consider to be moral is not so for religions. Polygyny, slavery, animal sacrifice, marriage with the minors, etc are not immoral in Islam. But it is immoral for women to travel alone, not wear hijab or enter in an elevator alone with a stranger.
Therefore morality should definitely be left to the individual’s discretion as it is subject to change. But what is ethical is well defined. Ethical values are driven from logic and the Golden Rule. They are universal and not subject to change. In a nutshell, what hurts other people and violates their rights is unethical. In fact, even animals have rights that an ethical society must protect and respect.
The religious morality is the morality of the ancient man. Patriarchal societies imposed codes of moralities on women that would give men more control on their wives. Religious morality is not divinely ordained. It reflects the fears and the possessiveness of the men who made them. Islam imposes Hijab. Has this anything to do with Muhammad's worries as an aging man who wanted to control his beautiful wives and protect them from they prying eyes of the young men whom he feared as rivals? He constantly kept emphasizing the importance of obeying one's husband. Did this have anything to do with the fact that most of his wives were teenagers and as such rebellious
Morality is something personal and something that parents should teach to their children. But the true morality is not derived from antiquated doctrines and old beliefs. It is sad that some have made morality a hostage to religion. It is absurd to impose the morality of bygone cultures and vanquished worlds on our modern society. Morality is derived from human consciousness and our spiritual awareness. The more we mature the more sanctified becomes our acts. We won’t have to live a moral life for the greed of a reward or the fear of punishment in the afterlife. We will be moral because it enhances our lives. Morality should be part of who we are, just as our knowledge is part of who we are. True morality is never in contrast with ethics.
Ethics has little to do with religion. As Gandhi said, ethics is the matter of economics. The question is where to invest our vital energy for a higher yield. If you invest your energy into sensual pleasures you will get a temporary gratification. If you invest it in more meaningful things you will get greater satisfaction.
Leading a moral life is not about renouncing pleasure. A life that is not gratifying is not worth living. It is about choices. What we choose for pleasure? That is the question. One who invests his energy in the service of humanity gets more satisfaction than one who indulges in the pursuit of worldly pleasures.
However, this is a personal choice derived from maturity and spiritual awareness. Morality should not be imposed by a higher authority such as state or religion. An imposed morality is not morality. One who leads a moral life for the fear of hell is not a moral person because he has not made his choices freely. Fear and greed, the traditional contrivances of religions, used as incentives to force people into accepting their morality do not make the society moral. No one and no religion should impose its morality on people. The imposition of morality is unethical. Religions that threaten their followers with the hellfire or lure them with the promises of paradise do not make them moral. Stick and carrot have better results in training animals than educating people. Only the person who chooses the higher road freely can be called a moral person.
A moral person chooses to live morally because it gives him immense pleasure. One, who is honest, takes pleasure in being honest. He would prefer to be tortured than to lie or to deceive. Our morality is directly linked to our spiritual maturity. When we evolve spiritually; knowledge, service to humanity and working for peace gratify us more than indulging in sensual pleasures. Nothing is wrong with sensual pleasures. But we get more pleasure in doing something in the service of humanity than gratifying our senses temporarily.
Would a person who loves knowledge require further incentive to learn than learning itself? Would Einstein, e.g. have delighted more in his scientific discoveries if someone promised him a new car if he could write the theory of relativity? You may offer a child an ice cream if he did his homework but that would not be necessary for an adult who seeks knowledge and finds his satisfaction in learning.
Primitive religions treat you like children (if not animals). They want to impose their outdated morality on you by threatening you with hell and bribing you with heaven to accept their antiquated and often unethical morality. Whether you are moral because of your fear and greed or because you find satisfaction in leading a moral life, depends on your maturity and spiritual awareness
The religious morality is not divinely ordained. It is the morality of the ancient people, their sages and (in the case of Islam) their psychopath charlatan. We do not need the morality of the ancient man just as we do not need his technology, science or medicine. The morality of the ancient man must be buried with his bones. Modern humans must chart their own morality. Morality must evolve just as human knowledge and his awareness evolves.
New morality does not mean immorality. It means coming out of the dark ages of ignorance and raising new generations that are responsible and ethical. Humans can no longer be chained to foolish fears and threats of the afterlife. Science has shed light on the absurdity of religious concepts and shaken the foundation of the beliefs that our forefathers hold so sacrosanct. The manacles of obscurantism are broken forever. Today, we have to raise our kids with awareness. They must learn that mankind is One. Just as our parents taught us the religious lies and we believed, we can teach our children the truth and they will believe. The following is one such truth.
All human beings are limbs of the same body. God created them from the same essence. If one part of the body suffers pain, then the whole body is affected. If you are indifferent to this pain, you cannot be called a human being. -Sa'di
We do not need to lie and frighten our children with hellfire to raise them moral, loving and good people. That strategy has never worked. The history of inhumanity of mankind and especially that of the standard bearers of religions, stand as witnesses that religions don't make people moral and ethical. In fact in some cases they render them savages and ruthless barbarians. Good people often commit atrocious crimes in the name of religion, cheerfully and with clear conscience.
If we love our children, they learn to be loving. If we are honest, moral and ethical they learn that too. We can build a better humanity by acting humanely.
Compare the words of Sa'di to those of Muhammad who said only Muslims are brothers to each other and as for the disbelievers:
Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the bosoms of Believers, 9:14,
As you see, the very belief in Islam is unethical and immoral. We cannot heal mankind until we do not remove its cancer. This cancer has reached a point that is going to kill us all. We must choose between Humanity and Islam. Mankind will not have a future as long as this disease is left untreated. Islam must be eradicated now. Tomorrow maybe too late.

divinereal:

Morality vs. Ethics

By Ali Sina (An Ex Muslimah)



I had a conversation with a young Muslim who insisted if it were not for religion people would commit Inbreeding and nothing would stop them to sleep even with their own mothers. I asked him whether he personally lusted after his mother and whether Islam was the only deterrent that stopped him from fornicating with her? He seemed insulted, but before he responded, I added if you are nauseated even by me mentioning such a thing, then realize that many others are just like you and feel and think the same way.

divinereal:


A big portion of our morality is part of our instinct. Inbreeding for example is not condoned in any society whether religious or not. There are of course individuals with abnormal mental development who are exceptions to the norm. In fact, except for Bonobo chimps of Zair that rub their focal places together for social binding, no ape commits or procreates by Inbreeding. Usually the male individual visits other clans to find his mate. The young lions are forced to leave the pride to find mates in other prides while the lionesses stay.

divinereal:

Interestingly, marriages between children that grew-up together in one foster home are rare or non-existent, even though these kids are not related to each other by blood.

divinereal:

But some moral issues are not as clear as the above example. What is moral and immoral depends on time and culture. It may even vary from person to person. What was moral; say, a thousand years ago may be immoral today and vice versa. Also what is moral in one part of the world may not be so in others.

divinereal:

Take the example of promiscuity. Many cultures consider promiscuity to be immoral. Yet there are some cultures that accept it as the norm. To us, “western minded people”, having multiple sex partners simultaneously is considered promiscuity and immoral. Yet for a Muslim who practices[b] polygyny, it is a “mercy of Allah”[/b]. In some parts of the world, women practice polyandry. Among the Inuit, a man would offer his wife to his guest to spend the night with, hoping that he may impregnate her. Which practice is immoral? And who is to determine it?

divinereal:

Is showing parts of your body immoral? In the heart of Amazon Jungle some tribes are completely unclothed. Is that immoral? That is to them the way of life. In some Islamic countries women are required to cover every part of their body (like children playing ghost). Is that good morality?

divinereal:

If that is the definition of morality are all those Muslim women who cover everything except their faces immoral? What about those who dress adequately yet do not use Hijab? Are they immoral? Now what about bikini wearing beach going women? Are they immoral? And finally, what about those who like to show it all in a nudist camp? Are THEY immoral? Your answer to this question depends on who you are and what is your own personal standard of morality.

divinereal:

Let us take another example: Slavery. Is slavery immoral? Slavery was practiced for centuries even by very pious people. Muhammad not only had slaves but he benefited from reducing free people into slaves and selling them. Was he immoral? If yes; why should we follow an immoral person and if no; why should we condemn its practice?

divinereal:

What about pedophilia? Obviously we all cringe at the thought of it and think that it is a shameful act of immorality. But during the time of the Prophet having sexual intercourse with a 9-year-old child was not immoral. In fact Aisha’s father after a little bit of trepidation consented to give her in marriage to Muhammad when Muhammad suggested it. At that time no one raised an eyebrow. The question is, if sleeping with a nine-year-old child was not deemed bad and therefore was not considered immoral, was it okay? Not everything that a society accepts as moral is right. Having sex with a minor may not have been immoral for Arabs 1400 years ago, but it is as it was then, unethical. Moralities are defined by circumstances, but ethics transcend time and space. They are rooted in logic. Morality can vary from culture to culture, from time to time and from person to person. Who is to determine what is moral and what is not?
A Man in Pakistan may think that if his wife meets her male-cousin with whom she has grown up without the presence of a third person she has committed an immoral act, has sullied his honor and the only way to restore his honor is to kill her. For him the meeting of two cousins is immoral but killing a human being is not.

divinereal:

We have to distinguish between those moralities that harm the society and those that do not. What harms others must be called unethical and discouraged. Slavery, for example, infringes upon the freedom of another human being. Therefore regardless of whether a society or a culture sanctions it, it is an unethical practice. 1400 years ago it was not immoral to have slaves. But slavery is ethically wrong and that transcends time Even the Prophet knew that slavery is wrong. That is why he advised his followers to manumit their slaves as an act of charity. Nonetheless he himself kept adding to his slaves by raiding city after city and capturing free people who were then reduced to slaves.

divinereal:

Because of what the prophet said, Muslims manumitted their slaves when they were old, could not work and needed care. Manumitting the slaves when they were young was an act of charity and moral but manumitting them at old age without provision was unethical. The Holy Prophet failed to mention that and the old slaves ended up as beggars in the streets while their masters gained the pleasure of Allah on one hand for manumitting them and exonerated themselves from having to take care of them in their old age on the other; thus killing two birds with one stone.

divinereal:

What would have been the right thing to do was not to take slaves in the first place. But the wealth of Muhammad and later on the Islamic rulers came from slave making and trading.

divinereal:

Hijab, no-hijab and even nudism does not have a material effect on anyone except on the person who practices them. This is not something the society should intervene. It must be left to the individual to dress the way he or she deems appropriate. Imposing a dress code is infringing upon the human rights of the individual and restricting his or her freedom. Such an imposition would be unethical. Although licensing nudism in the streets violates the rights of others who do not want to be shocked by exhibitionists, I have no objection for nudists to have a designated place to go and show off and get over it. As long as they do not rub it in my face, I have no right to impose my morality on them. I have no idea what makes nudists to take off their clothes, but if what they do does not materially affect me, it is none of my business.

divinereal:

Theoretically, the same thing can be said about hijab. How people dress must be left to the individual. If a person likes to wear a religious robe no one should stop him or her. But no state should enforce it on its citizens by law because that would be violating their freedom. Hijab however, falls into a different category. Hijab is a statement of defiance of freedom and democracy. It is very much like the swastika worn by Nazis. Hijab is not just a fashion statement but a political statement. The statement behind hijab is that I am against freedom and democracy and my goal is to overthrow the democracies and establish Islamic dictatorship, take away the rights of others and subdue anyone who does not agree with my fascistic views. As such hihab must be banned. Just as it it offensive to wear swastika in public, it is also offensive to wear hijab because of the political message behind it.

divinereal:

Despite the Muslim's claim that laxity in dress code breeds violence quite the opposite is true. Honor killings amongst Muslims is proof that a lot of violence is caused by being restrictive about sexuality.

divinereal:

Now, what about wife swapping? Well, that is adultery. Even though it is mutual and consensual. To the question, what an irreligious society should do in this regard, my answer is the same that Pierre Trudeau gave in the Canadian Parliament. He said; “The State has no place in the bedroom's of the people”. He delivered that speech more than 30 years ago and the Canadian government took that recommendation to heart. However I do not see my fellow countrymen offering their wives to each other.

divinereal:

Frankly, it is none of my business what my neighbors do. As Muslims say, I am not going to be buried with them in the same grave. Why you and I should even be talking about it?

divinereal:

Now look at Islamic countries where state regulates the private lives of its subjects. Women victims of violation are stoned to death in the most horrendous way because they could not produce four witnesses to the violation happening but their sexual intercourse out of wedlock is evident because of the child that they carry. Is that moral? People are flogged for eating in public during the month of Ramadan. Women are beaten and bloodied because their scarves slipped and some of their hair became visible they flashed some skin when they stretched their arm out of their burqua. Is this a good morality? Which morality is more evil?

divinereal:

We must distinguish between what is immoral and what is unethical. Moral issues should be left to the individuals; ethical issues must be taught in schools and be enforced by law or code of ethics. Is promiscuity immoral or is it unethical? The answer to the first part of this question depends on who you are. If you belong to the “ultra” liberal faction of the western society or if you are a practicing Muslim, it may not be immoral for you to have multiple sex partners. But if you are an average westerner, you would consider it immoral. This is a matter of taste, culture and upbringing. We should not be concerned about the morality of this question. What consenting adults do in their bedrooms is none of our business. The question is whether it is ethical?

divinereal:

If promiscuity is institutionalized such as in polygamy, is it still immoral? Those who practice it may not think that way but it certainly is unethical. Marriage is a social institution that affects more than those who make the vow. Not only children are affected but the whole society that would eventually have to take the tab to support such families that turn up to be dysfunctional will also be affected. The society has to pay for the education of the kids, their food and clothing as well as suffer the consequences of dealing with misfit individuals that would most likely result from such dysfunctional and highly patriarchal families. Polygyny must be outlawed not for its immorality, that as [size=28pt]we[/size] said is a personal matter, but because it is unethical. It harms the children and it harms the society.

divinereal:

What is moral is fuzzy. Religious morality does not seem ethical any more. And what we consider to be moral is not so for religions. Polygyny, slavery, animal sacrifice, marriage with the minors, etc are not immoral in Islam. But it is immoral for women to travel alone, not wear hijab or enter in an elevator alone with a stranger.
Therefore morality should definitely be left to the individual’s discretion as it is subject to change. But what is ethical is well defined. Ethical values are driven from logic and the Golden Rule. They are universal and not subject to change. In a nutshell, what hurts other people and violates their rights is unethical. In fact, even animals have rights that an ethical society must protect and respect.

divinereal:

The religious morality is the morality of the ancient man. Patriarchal societies imposed codes of moralities on women that would give men more control on their wives. Religious morality is not divinely ordained. It reflects the fears and the possessiveness of the men who made them. Islam imposes Hijab. Has this anything to do with Muhammad's worries as an aging man who wanted to control his beautiful wives and protect them from they prying eyes of the young men whom he feared as rivals? He constantly kept emphasizing the importance of obeying one's husband. Did this have anything to do with the fact that most of his wives were teenagers and as such rebellious

divinereal:

Morality is something personal and something that parents should teach to their children. But the true morality is not derived from antiquated doctrines and old beliefs. It is sad that some have made morality a hostage to religion. It is absurd to impose the morality of bygone cultures and vanquished worlds on our modern society. Morality is derived from human consciousness and our spiritual awareness. The more we mature the more sanctified becomes our acts. We won’t have to live a moral life for the greed of a reward or the fear of punishment in the afterlife. We will be moral because it enhances our lives. Morality should be part of who we are, just as our knowledge is part of who we are. True morality is never in contrast with ethics.

Ethics has little to do with religion. As Gandhi said, ethics is the matter of economics. The question is where to invest our vital energy for a higher yield. If you invest your energy into sensual pleasures you will get a temporary gratification. If you invest it in more meaningful things you will get greater satisfaction.

Leading a moral life is not about renouncing pleasure. A life that is not gratifying is not worth living. It is about choices. What we choose for pleasure? That is the question. One who invests his energy in the service of humanity gets more satisfaction than one who indulges in the pursuit of worldly pleasures.

However, this is a personal choice derived from maturity and spiritual awareness. Morality should not be imposed by a higher authority such as state or religion. An imposed morality is not morality. One who leads a moral life for the fear of hell is not a moral person because he has not made his choices freely. Fear and greed, the traditional contrivances of religions, used as incentives to force people into accepting their morality do not make the society moral. No one and no religion should impose its morality on people. The imposition of morality is unethical. Religions that threaten their followers with the hellfire or lure them with the promises of paradise do not make them moral. Stick and carrot have better results in training animals than educating people. Only the person who chooses the higher road freely can be called a moral person.
A moral person chooses to live morally because it gives him immense pleasure. One, who is honest, takes pleasure in being honest. He would prefer to be tortured than to lie or to deceive. Our morality is directly linked to our spiritual maturity. When we evolve spiritually; knowledge, service to humanity and working for peace gratify us more than indulging in sensual pleasures. Nothing is wrong with sensual pleasures. But we get more pleasure in doing something in the service of humanity than gratifying our senses temporarily.

Would a person who loves knowledge require further incentive to learn than learning itself? Would Einstein, e.g. have delighted more in his scientific discoveries if someone promised him a new car if he could write the theory of relativity? You may offer a child an ice cream if he did his homework but that would not be necessary for an adult who seeks knowledge and finds his satisfaction in learning.

Primitive religions treat you like children (if not animals). They want to impose their outdated morality on you by threatening you with hell and bribing you with heaven to accept their antiquated and often unethical morality. Whether you are moral because of your fear and greed or because you find satisfaction in leading a moral life, depends on your maturity and spiritual awareness

The religious morality is not divinely ordained. It is the morality of the ancient people, their sages and (in the case of Islam) their psychopath charlatan. We do not need the morality of the ancient man just as we do not need his technology, science or medicine. The morality of the ancient man must be buried with his bones. Modern humans must chart their own morality. Morality must evolve just as human knowledge and his awareness evolves.
New morality does not mean immorality. It means coming out of the dark ages of ignorance and raising new generations that are responsible and ethical. Humans can no longer be chained to foolish fears and threats of the afterlife. Science has shed light on the absurdity of religious concepts and shaken the foundation of the beliefs that our forefathers hold so sacrosanct. The manacles of obscurantism are broken forever. Today, we have to raise our kids with awareness. They must learn that mankind is One. Just as our parents taught us the religious lies and we believed, we can teach our children the truth and they will believe. The following is one such truth.

All human beings are limbs of the same body. God created them from the same essence. If one part of the body suffers pain, then the whole body is affected. If you are indifferent to this pain, you cannot be called a human being. -Sa'di
We do not need to lie and frighten our children with hellfire to raise them moral, loving and good people. That strategy has never worked. The history of inhumanity of mankind and especially that of the standard bearers of religions, stand as witnesses that religions don't make people moral and ethical. In fact in some cases they render them savages and ruthless barbarians. Good people often commit atrocious crimes in the name of religion, cheerfully and with clear conscience.

If we love our children, they learn to be loving. If we are honest, moral and ethical they learn that too. We can build a better humanity by acting humanely.
Compare the words of Sa'di to those of Muhammad who said only Muslims are brothers to each other and as for the disbelievers:
Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the bosoms of Believers, 9:14,
As you see, the very belief in Islam is unethical and immoral. We cannot heal mankind until we do not remove its cancer. This cancer has reached a point that is going to kill us all. We must choose between Humanity and Islam. Mankind will not have a future as long as this disease is left untreated. Islam must be eradicated now. Tomorrow maybe too late.

divinereal:

Im going to post this as its own topic

vedaxcool:

That will never happen ISLAM IS ALLAH's RELIGION FOR MANKIND. and the numerous evils that ended because of the arrival of Islam is a testimon agaisnt this lies next time I definately won't waste my precious time replying this cretins.

congoshine:


Allah created human beings & then a religion for them    Joke.

congoshine:

Really sad. . . .   

One of my pals has all her  n.ude pictures on his computer 

Kai. ,  guys don suffer 

congoshine:

2. What about those that lived in other parts of the world at the time of prophet mohammed e.g your forefathers in modern day Nigeria,what was 'Allah's religion' for them?

ALLAH is the wisest Judge and hence would judge this people based on a just criteria, as ALLAH says in the Qur'an, he would not give people burdens they cannot bear, hence even though they were practicing another religion since they are not aware of the true religion - ISLAM- then ALLAH will have HIS way of judging them, but people like you and your nu.de watching  friend would have only yourself to blame for not following the right path.




[size=28pt]USE YOUR BRAIN FOR ONCE AND THINK RATHER THAN  SAY STUFFS YOU LACK KNOWNEDGE OF REMEMBER MY MIND IS OPEN AND MY HEAD IS WORKING THAT ISWHY I WAS ABLE TO ASK QUESTION WHERE ANY SANE AND SENSIBLE INDIVIDUAL SHOULD ASK. BUT YOU ON THE OTHER HAND .    .    .[/size]


quote][/quote

vedaxcool:

I know it is too hard for your tiny brain to comprehend that is why it seems like a Joke, it is like explaining quantum physics to an illiterate, a futile task that you end up regreting but one thing I am sure is that you cannot comprehend anything maybe the nu.de pictures on your friends PC has left you barely capable of deep reflection as you were quick to accept all what I refuted [s]without asking any question, this shows how your thinking process work - ASK NO QUESTION- now i am indeed glad that out of all my refutation you are only opposed to my statement on Islam being the PATH for mankind, but being ignorant of things you do not know just like mistaking the word NIKAH to mean something else[/s]^{(incoherent nonsense)}.

Pillar 1 - Shahada[/b]Shahadah is a saying professing monotheism and accepting [b]Muhammad as God's messenger.The shahadah is a set statement normally recited in Arabic: (ašhadu an) lā ilāha illá l-Lāhi wa (ashhadu 'anna) Muḥammadan rasūlu l-Lāhi "(I profess that) there is no other god but God and Muhammad is the last messenger of God." Also, it is said that when dying one should recite this declaration of faith. In Azaan (call to prayer) it is recited. When a person wishes to convert religions they should recite this affirmation and believe in it.

Pillar 2- Salat
Salat is the Islamic prayer. Salat consists of five daily prayers: Fajr, Dhuhr, Asr, Maghrib, and Isha'a. Fajr is performed at dawn, Dhuhr is a noon prayer, Asr is performed in the afternoon, Maghrib is the sunset prayer, and Isha'a is the evening prayer. Each prayer consists of a certain amount of rakaʿāt. A prayer either consists of two, three, or four rakaʿāt. All of these prayers are recited while facing the Ka'bah in Mecca. Muslims must wash themselves before prayer. The prayer is accompanied by a series of set positions including; bowing with hands on knees, standing, prostrating and sitting in a special position (not on the heels, nor on the buttocks, with the toes pointing towards Mecca), usually with one foot tucked under the body.


Pillar 3 -Sawm and so on

Sweetnecta:

^^^^^^^ While there is nothing called Muhammadan/ism among Muslims, they are however the demeaning names the orientalists/enemies of Islam decided to call muslims and Islam. The ignorance of these people; Muslim and Islam are known identities, and it can be found in Quran and Sunnah/hadith. How can any in good conscience substitute them for what you call us, when we do not worship Muhammad and don't follow him blindly, without knowledge and conviction?

I will not even honor Ali Sina than just asking him why he has not changed his name from the Islamic Ali which his parents gave him, while everyone knows that he is Persian, a society that does not have such a name? If I became a vegetarian, as an adult, having been given the name Eagle, my conscience will not permit me to bear such a meat eating "bird" specie name for any moment after I became such a diner.

Obedience to Allah by observing the Five Pillars, at least is deliberately and consciously choose for yourself that act of submission and rejecting the self pride which is always the bedrock of disobedience. A one who decides to be a muslim has submitted his/her soul to the will of The God that says he/she should submit to Him in that manner.

Those who do not know anything about the islam of Muhammad [AS] in this day and age because they are in some remote part of the world shall be considered Muslim, if their natural inclination is to ponder about Who the Owner and Creator of all creatures is, while they love humanity and nature, doing what is right and struggling towards harmonious live with neighbor and nature; never oppressive and destructive.

However if you have heard about Islam today but rejects it and even rejects the existence of The Controller of the world you live in, what can anyone say about you except to pray that your heart that pumps blood in obedience of its Creator, will before death soften enough to understand you are not without a Creator.

Islam is not meant for Arab alone unlike other religions. Allah says that Muhammad is a mercy, and bearer of good news and a warner, to all men. When Allah says that Quran is guaranteed Purity from Him, why should we thereafter say Arabic language which it is revealed is not enough considering how easy it is to memorize this very Quran?

Your argument against Islam seem to me as just a thing you are engaged in because of your hatred of "religion". Islam is more than mere religion. It is religiosity; a way of life to guide from cradle to grave, while there should be no time a muslim is out of Islam in any of his/her dealing.

congoshine:


On another note,I'll suggest you stick to issues and not divert attention from your ineptitude with insults,because as you well know,I'll respond immediately and on & on it goes. So kindly leave insults out of this. A word as they say is enough for the wise .

congoshine:

This is why you need to open your mind. If Islam is just 'submission to the will of God',then you can argue that everyone has been a muslim before prophet mohammed,but please tell me where would you put the FIVE PILLARS OF ISLAM Why are all of the foundations to God's or Allah's rules focused on Arabs and Arabic language. Why did God create different languages and people ? What about those places the Jihadi warriors could not get to ?

congoshine:

Allah insists you must pray towards a building in Saudi Arabia (before it was Jerusalem),Allah has also said he can no longer send any messenger to the world again ?

congoshine:

So wake up,what your are practising is Mohammedanism- no more no less !

Stalwert:

^^^^
Sweetnecta it is as if you are talking to a stone he would not listen neither would he pay heed, i assure you he would ask this same question before the end of next week. i have already replied this ingrate:

Raising the same matter that have been answered time after time, Ayesha was older than 9 before she got married, as they are ample evidence to show that, according to Bukhari she was reported to have said I was a young girl when Surah Al Qamer(54th chapter in the Quran), Surah Qamer was revealed nine years before Hijrah and this is an indication that she was definately above 9 years when she got married to the HOLY prophet Pbuh, according to narratives Asma the elder sister of Ayesha was 10 years older than Aishas, Asma was reported to have died at the age of 100 years at 73 hijira, this places her at at 27 or 28 years before the Hijra, hence Ayesha was atleast 17 or 18 years before Hijrah, and the Holy prophet married her after the Hijrah(Migration to madinah) Hence Ayesha was between 18 or 20 years when she married the prophet pbuh at 1 Hijirah

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-620230.0.html#msg7883809

[center]Selective Exposure[/center]
The primary basis for the selective exposure assumption can be located within cognitive dissonance theory.

Basically, this theory states that [size=18pt]people do not like to have previously-held beliefs challenged[/size]. When individuals encounter information that is discrepant from their own opinions, they seek to resolve the resultant disharmony somehow.

People in general do not like to be wrong.

A change or shift in attitude is sometimes interpreted as an admission that the original belief was inaccurate or inadequate. To avoid having their opinions challenged, research indicates that people tend to simply avoid information that might be discrepant in nature (Johnson-Cartee and Copeland, 1997). Support for this tendency to avoid dissonant messages can also be found in mood management theory. Basically, this theory states that people expose themselves to stimuli that are pleasurable and avoid stimuli that might induce a negative reaction (Zillman & Bryant, 1985).

congoshine:

No my friend its not about talking to a stone.

Its called reinforcement theory,we are all prone to it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement_Theory (I beg you take time to read the link)


All human beings will only take information that reinforces what they believe in . Its just like falling in love with someone,you'll find it extremely difficult to find fault in that person.

congoshine link=topic=581955.msg7898050#msg7898050 date=1299954284:

You as a muslim will look for all evidence to substantiate your beliefs,while atheists , christians ,hindus etc will also look for things to confirm their own beliefs. Or how else can one explain your trying to explain away what is written in plain arabic for all to see ?

Pity! have you heard of the Reinforcement of the Reinforcement theory? It states that 'when An individual is out of argument he relies on stating the reinforcement theory repeatedly' . And boy you seem to have every indication of this attitude, I gues this will be the 5th time you will state this theory and the second or third time in this aprticular thread. If you think stating a theory some sat down to postulate makes you seem intelligent then you might as well re state the Big Bang theory, as your bias mind didn't stop you from asking Divinereal why is he still asking the same question he asked in this same thread? I guess seeing people refute thing with ease makes you quiver with rage.

congoshine:

If we go by your argument,maybe we are not supposed to pray 5 times a day,maybe its actually 15 times,but because they were counting numbers differently back then. Or maybe the word Allah should actually be Ahlia because of phonetical differentiation and translation of arabo-semetic tenses to Afro-congo languages 

there is what I understand to be commonsense , when you do not understand what someone is talking about, you ask to clarify, it is just like an OP room, you are told to appply 200 mg of something, what any sane individual would do is to ask what am I to apply so as not to make a fatal mistake in adding what he was not expected to do, but in your case no need for comprehension just reinforce the reinforcement theory will do the trick , it is indeed a pity, as in my reply where did I state that they counted differently? but poor you always opposing without thinking critically. I was simply alluding to what Sweetnecta was saying that the account differs from the Qur'anic principles, i stated further that other evidence shows it contradicts her expected age. But should i waste my time replying . . .

congoshine:

Please don't get me wrong ,I'm not trying to rubbish your beliefs- but its ot working trying to say 6 is actually 16 or 17. infact going by lunar calendar she was probably closer to 4 

I wrote in English so was it so hard to comprehend what I was saying , again you show your Mega size Ignorance as the Lunar calender has 354 days while the solar calender has 365 or 366 days how you came by 4 years of age is very astounding and shows the failure of the Nigerian Schooling system - raising individuals that cannot even apply common logics in simple matters.

congoshine:

I think the best explanation is that the times are different & people maried earlier then-khalas !

Don't bring lengthy explanations to simple ,straightforward sentences.

If you call my explanation lengthy, then I can understand why you made the lunar calender 2 years behind the solar calender, you do not read even very scanty materials to know things .

[/quote]

Pity , have you heard of the Reinforcement of the reinforcement theory? it states that an individual is likely to restate the reinforcement theory time without number when he/she has no valid arguement to make'  believe me congo you have all the above attributes as your reinforcing the reinforcement theory atleast twice in this thread thread you have stated an this theory, the funny thing is your biased mind never made you confront divinereal who has been repeating the same hair brain questions time after time.

quote author=congoshine link=topic=581955.msg7898050#msg7898050 date=1299954284
If we go by your argument,maybe we are not supposed to pray 5 times a day,maybe its actually 15 times,but because they were counting numbers differently back then. Or maybe the word Allah should actually be Ahlia because of phonetical differentiation and translation of arabo-semetic tenses to Afro-congo languages 

Heheh , There is what we call common sense, when you do not understand the point I am making, i expect you should use your initiative to ask for clarifications, as there was no time I claimed that the Arabs count differrently. but always in a hurry to reply what you do not even understand, as I was simply claiming the hadith used is questionable. But do we expect a .   .     ., this thing are far more complex than the nud, e pix on your friend PC.lol

quote author=congoshine link=topic=581955.msg7898050#msg7898050 date=1299954284
Please don't get me wrong ,I'm not trying to rubbish your beliefs- but its ot working trying to say 6 is actually 16 or 17. infact going by lunar calendar she was probably closer to 4 

Ayaa, I undrstand that I wrote in english not french so was it so hard to understand what I wrote, i indicaated that other sources which I relied on my reply clearly indicates that the 6 years thing is apparently wrong. But more funny is your more silly claim that 6 solar years is probably< = 4, now that  you showed that information that is available to illitrates, is not only tragic but shows how un - informed you actually are , a lunar year =354 days while a solar year is 365 or 366 days, only a difference of 11 or 12 days, and every 19 + Lunar years , the Lunar calender and solar calender perfectly align , but in any case it is not your fault, This issues tower above your intellect .

quote author=congoshine link=topic=581955.msg7898050#msg7898050 date=1299954284
I think the best explanation is that the times are different & people maried earlier then-khalas !

Don't bring lengthy explanations to simple ,straightforward sentences.[quote]

Sweetnecta:

^^^^^ There is nothing called Islamist.

the idealogy of each one of us is the idealogy of Muhammad [as].

no one here among the muslims say Osama bin Laden [ra] is his/her master/oga.

Sweetnecta:

^^^^^ Do you have a proof of me saying muhammedanism?