Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Debate: Freedom Of Religion In Islam?

Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 8:55:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
- Full resolution:
{ Overall, Freedom Of Religion In Secular Law &/or Society Is Superior To Freedom Of Religion In Islamic Law &/or Society. }

- The debate can be accessed through the following link:
* http://www.debate.org...

- The topic is very broad, that's why the parameters of the debate are not yet set. So, this thread's purpose is to get your opinions about what should these parameters be.
=> In short, what do you think the parameters (subjects, ideas, laws, circumstances, rules. . .) of the debate should be?
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2015 11:10:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 8:55:11 PM, Yassine wrote:
- Full resolution:
{ Overall, Freedom Of Religion In Secular Law &/or Society Is Superior To Freedom Of Religion In Islamic Law &/or Society. }

- The debate can be accessed through the following link:
* http://www.debate.org...

- The topic is very broad, that's why the parameters of the debate are not yet set. So, this thread's purpose is to get your opinions about what should these parameters be.
=> In short, what do you think the parameters (subjects, ideas, laws, circumstances, rules. . .) of the debate should be?

If there were freedom of religion in Islamic law, there wouldn't be monies that have to be paid by non-Muslims so that they may practice their religion. That isn't freedom, it's extortion.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2015 4:31:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yassine, I have two suggestions. One relates to the ambiguity of 'freedom'; the other to the burden of proof.

The philosopher John Stuart Mill recognised two different meanings of liberty:
* The freedom to act; and
* The absence of coercion.
[http://www.bartleby.com...]

The first is sometimes described as 'positive' liberty -- a presence of ability; while the second has been described as 'negative' liberty -- an absence of restraint.

I would suggest that any discussion of religion and government is not focused on the first so much as the second, so that's my first suggestion.

For my second, I note that you have weakened the case I've seen you make previously.

I've seen you state quite recently that you believe Islam's notions of freedom of religion are actually superior to those of secular government. Such an argument would surely be based on the idea that Islam can offer desirable things secular government cannot easily offer (e.g. support for blasphemy laws on grounds of mutual religious respect), while avoiding undesirable things a secular government finds difficult to avoid (e.g. the misrepresentation of deceptive confidence tricks as sincere worship.) So in this version, you'd be arguing that, if correctly executed, Islam's approach could be better for diversity in sincere worship than secularism.

On the other hand, you haven't phrased it that way in this debate. You've shifted the burden of proof to secularism, and in doing so are inviting some stiff critiques of Islam's sometimes brutal paternalism and Muslim biases in its taxation and legal systems -- not to mention its sometime biblioclasty and iconoclasty. Moreover, you're exposed to critiques of what is actually done under that theology, rather than what you feel the theology should ideally do. In this version, it's easy to argue that on an average day, secularism leaves religions alone, and criminal law protects worshippers from the worst abuses, and really that's all freedom of worship needs; while Muslim majorities do whatever they want.

And finally, I think the interesting points for you to make aren't to be found in the second phrasing, since secularists are very conscious of Muslim religious abuses, and the basic issues with secularism. What they haven't seen is a coherent case that a benign self-privileging theocracy (or theocratic hegemony) can be better for other religions than secularism. In Europe, where secularism began, they've seen only the reverse.

So although it saddles you with more burden of proof, that's the one I think you should make -- if you feel you can make it. :)

I hope that may be useful.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2015 5:39:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/28/2015 4:31:22 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Yassine, I have two suggestions. One relates to the ambiguity of 'freedom'; the other to the burden of proof.

The philosopher John Stuart Mill recognised two different meanings of liberty:
* The freedom to act; and
* The absence of coercion.
[http://www.bartleby.com...]

The first is sometimes described as 'positive' liberty -- a presence of ability; while the second has been described as 'negative' liberty -- an absence of restraint.

I would suggest that any discussion of religion and government is not focused on the first so much as the second, so that's my first suggestion.

- Noted.

For my second, I note that you have weakened the case I've seen you make previously.

I've seen you state quite recently that you believe Islam's notions of freedom of religion are actually superior to those of secular government.

- That's not particularly my own stance. It's the consensus of Muslims in general, & I mean by 'Muslims' the scholars of Islam.

Such an argument would surely be based on the idea that Islam can offer desirable things secular government cannot easily offer (e.g. support for blasphemy laws on grounds of mutual religious respect), while avoiding undesirable things a secular government finds difficult to avoid (e.g. the misrepresentation of deceptive confidence tricks as sincere worship.) So in this version, you'd be arguing that, if correctly executed, Islam's approach could be better for diversity in sincere worship than secularism.

- Similarly in the western/secular legal & ethical tradition, the Islamic tradition is as diversified & as vast. The different schools of thought wether in Legal Theory, Law, Theology, Ethics. . . in the Islamic Tradition have different positions in most of the topics they incorporate. For instance, in the Hanafi School, there are no blasphemy laws against non-Muslims, whereas in other schools, there are such laws, also with varying degrees & approaches.
- For the purpose of the debate, I am gonna have to limit the range of this vast tradition to the positions that are:
> Representative of the majority opinion.
> Stronger (as opposed to weaker).
> Most widely used.
> Deemed most pertinent.

- As for the range of points I am gonna explore/invoke, I don't wanna spoil my argument, but I think it will mainly deal with 3 points:
1. The degree of freedom of religion one has under secular law as opposed to its counterpart under Islamic law, the latter being evidently superior.
2. The status of religious minorities under secular law as opposed to the counterpart under Islamic law, the latter again being superior.
3. The moral standard of religious coexistence in the context of secular law as opposed to Islamic law, the latter also being superior.
=> The argument will also include: coercion, discrimination, religious persecution & oppression.

On the other hand, you haven't phrased it that way in this debate. You've shifted the burden of proof to secularism

- I have shifted the BOF because Freedom Of Religion in a secular democratic system is pretty well understood among members of this site. If I had to carry the BOF, I would've had to present the same concept as it is understood in Shari'a that is foreign to all people here, which leaves me at a disadvantage from the outset.

and in doing so are inviting some stiff critiques of Islam's sometimes brutal paternalism and Muslim biases in its taxation and legal systems -- not to mention its sometime biblioclasty and iconoclasty.

- I am sure I can counter any claim of alleged 'brutal' paternalism. In fact, I am planning of criticising secular law of this very accusation.
- As for taxation, I am pretty confident that it should also play in my favour.
- As for biblioclasty & the other one! The debate is about Islamic Law & its decrees & ethics, not about what Muslims did or are doing. Or else, such infringements of which attributed to Muslims pale greatly against their counterpart done under secularism.

Moreover, you're exposed to critiques of what is actually done under that theology, rather than what you feel the theology should ideally do.

- Depends on what you mean by that! As stated previously, the debate is about the Law &/or the Society under said Law, not about Muslims nor about westerners, nor is it about the history of either. & if we were to do a comparison of both histories, it's clear that western History is notorious for being mostly devoid of religious freedom!

In this version, it's easy to argue that on an average day, secularism leaves religions alone, and criminal law protects worshippers from the worst abuses, and really that's all freedom of worship needs; while Muslim majorities do whatever they want.

- I am intending to argue the exact opposite, that is, Islamic law leaves religions alone, & secular law does not.

And finally, I think the interesting points for you to make aren't to be found in the second phrasing, since secularists are very conscious of Muslim religious abuses, and the basic issues with secularism.

- If you could list these abuses, so that I may have an idea on how to counter them.

What they haven't seen is a coherent case that a benign self-privileging theocracy (or theocratic hegemony) can be better for other religions than secularism.

- It's not that they haven't seen such case being made, it's that they weren't looking. & this should be pretty obvious in the West. I am not generalising here, during the late 19th century, early 20th century, many orientalists actually admitted such remark.

In Europe, where secularism began, they've seen only the reverse.

- That is true, Europe probably has the worst religious prosecution record in History, mainly due to Christianity. & I am willing to argue that secularism, which replaced it, improved on the situation but didn't go truly far.

So although it saddles you with more burden of proof, that's the one I think you should make -- if you feel you can make it. :)

- I hope you do follow the debate & later share what you think about it.

I hope that may be useful.

- You've given an insight on the points against which I should be arguing. :)

- Also, I'd like to see the list of abuses of Islam against non-muslims. I'd like to be prepared for such allegation as much as possible.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2015 5:52:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/28/2015 5:39:48 PM, Yassine wrote:
- Also, I'd like to see the list of abuses of Islam against non-muslims. I'd like to be prepared for such allegation as much as possible.

Actually, although I'm an atheist. I don't see my purpose on this site as to denigrate Islam, Christianity or any other faith. I hold that as humans, we have an obligation to historical and intellectual accuracy, and I tend to argue vehemently against excess religiosity -- i.e, beliefs that cloud judgement, damage accountability and impinge on human decency. So although I'm strongly opposed to what I'd describe as excessive religiosity, I don't hold that we should all believe the same beliefs, so I'm not the best person to ask.

On the other hand, a quick search turned up a Wikipedia entry on Islam and violence, which is focused mainly on religiously-motivated violence. That page also contains a link to attestations of forced conversions to Islam.

Since they might be easily accessed in debate, I offer them without further comment:
* http://en.wikipedia.org...
* http://en.wikipedia.org...

I hope they may be useful.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2015 6:13:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yassine, this one came up recently in private conversation... there might be some ambiguity as to whether the freedom is for the religion or for individuals to express religious belief.

For example, in a secular democracy embracing freedom of worship there's usually no major impediment for individuals to get together and form a new faith. Often these faiths emerge as splinters of parent faiths, so they may embrace some beliefs that the parent faiths call heresies.

Under freedom of religion provisions, these heresies and their expressions as blasphemies against the parent faith's beliefs are generally protected (it's sometimes murky, but that's the general idea.) So the freedom pertains to individuals of any faith or even no faith, rather than to established traditions.

I hope that may be useful.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2015 6:19:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/28/2015 5:52:02 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

Actually, although I'm an atheist. I don't see my purpose on this site as to denigrate Islam, Christianity or any other faith. I hold that as humans, we have an obligation to historical and intellectual accuracy, and I tend to argue vehemently against excess religiosity -- i.e, beliefs that cloud judgement, damage accountability and impinge on human decency. So although I'm strongly opposed to what I'd describe as excessive religiosity, I don't hold that we should all believe the same beliefs, so I'm not the best person to ask.

- Excess in anything, including worship, is discouraged in Islam, & often prohibited. Islam is inherently a moderate religion. Moderation (Wasatyaah) is a very fundamental concept in Islamic Law & Theology, it even has its own legal system. Thus, I too oppose excessive religiosity, some people even want to be more religious than the Prophet himself!!!

On the other hand, a quick search turned up a Wikipedia entry on Islam and violence, which is focused mainly on religiously-motivated violence. That page also contains a link to attestations of forced conversions to Islam.

Since they might be easily accessed in debate, I offer them without further comment:
* http://en.wikipedia.org...
* http://en.wikipedia.org...

- Again, the debate is about Islamic Law, not what Muslims did or are doing!

- Also, since the debate is legally oriented & about actual Islamic Law, all sources must be authoritative & authentic. Thus all western sources on Islamic Law shall be excluded, as they don't speak for the Islamic Tradition in any sense of the word, in fact the opposite is accurate. Wikipedia in this case is even less welcome.

I hope they may be useful.

- In a way, yes. Thanks for your input :)
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2015 6:25:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/28/2015 6:19:26 PM, Yassine wrote:
- Again, the debate is about Islamic Law, not what Muslims did or are doing!

It can be challenging to separate the intent of law from interpretation and application of law. It can be argued that if law is often interpreted in bad ways, then perhaps that was intended. Or else, if it was not intended, then it might not be a very wise law to allow easy misinterpretation.

The question arises: should the quality of a law be measured on its best day, its worst day, or on a typical day? And how can we tell what is a typical day? And who is best fit to assess the quality of a law -- one who benefits from its justice, or one who suffers from its injustice?

I don't have ready answers for this, Yassine. I'm just pointing out the challenges. :)
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2015 6:25:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/28/2015 6:13:35 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Yassine, this one came up recently in private conversation... there might be some ambiguity as to whether the freedom is for the religion or for individuals to express religious belief.

For example, in a secular democracy embracing freedom of worship there's usually no major impediment for individuals to get together and form a new faith. Often these faiths emerge as splinters of parent faiths, so they may embrace some beliefs that the parent faiths call heresies.

Under freedom of religion provisions, these heresies and their expressions as blasphemies against the parent faith's beliefs are generally protected (it's sometimes murky, but that's the general idea.) So the freedom pertains to individuals of any faith or even no faith, rather than to established traditions.

I hope that may be useful.

- Islamic Law treats all non-muslims basically the same, theists, pagans, or atheists alike, with the exception of apostates. However, the issue arises when a religious community under Islamic rule considers some of its ex-members apostates or heretics. I'll probably discuss that within the debate.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2015 6:27:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/28/2015 6:19:26 PM, Yassine wrote:

- Also, since the debate is legally oriented & about actual Islamic Law, all sources must be authoritative & authentic. Thus all western sources on Islamic Law shall be excluded, as they don't speak for the Islamic Tradition in any sense of the word, in fact the opposite is accurate. Wikipedia in this case is even less welcome.

And, once again, anything anyone says is immediately dismissed by Yassine. Debate indeed.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2015 6:34:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/28/2015 6:25:23 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/28/2015 6:19:26 PM, Yassine wrote:
- Again, the debate is about Islamic Law, not what Muslims did or are doing!

It can be challenging to separate the intent of law from interpretation and application of law. It can be argued that if law is often interpreted in bad ways, then perhaps that was intended. Or else, if it was not intended, then it might not be a very wise law to allow easy misinterpretation.

- You misunderstood, the Law is the Law, what people do does not represent the Law. Australians commit crimes & infringe the Law everyday. We don't say: "is the Australian Law so not wise that people can break it so much?!" The law is there to stop people from committing crimes & punish them otherwise, it's not there to represent their actions!!!

The question arises: should the quality of a law be measured on its best day, its worst day, or on a typical day? And how can we tell what is a typical day? And who is best fit to assess the quality of a law -- one who benefits from its justice, or one who suffers from its injustice?

- This really makes little sense to me. You're think of "Islamic Law" as "Muslims", it's not the same thing! Is secular law responsible for the crimes committed by the subjects it is set to govern!?

I don't have ready answers for this, Yassine. I'm just pointing out the challenges. :)

- I don't think they have any relevance to the present subject!
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2015 6:42:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/28/2015 6:34:36 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 5/28/2015 6:25:23 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/28/2015 6:19:26 PM, Yassine wrote:
- Again, the debate is about Islamic Law, not what Muslims did or are doing!
It can be challenging to separate the intent of law from interpretation and application of law. It can be argued that if law is often interpreted in bad ways, then perhaps that was intended. Or else, if it was not intended, then it might not be a very wise law to allow easy misinterpretation.
- You misunderstood, the Law is the Law, what people do does not represent the Law. Australians commit crimes & infringe the Law everyday. We don't say: "is the Australian Law so not wise that people can break it so much?!" The law is there to stop people from committing crimes & punish them otherwise, it's not there to represent their actions!!!

I'm sorry Yassine but actually, Australia does review its own laws in such a way, as I think do many other secular democracies. In such jurisdictions, justice is more than simply blind and literal regulation consistent with tradition. It is the expression of values and the recognition of their impacts. When impacts do not reflect the intended values, the law is reviewed, even if that means overturning tradition.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2015 7:06:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/28/2015 6:42:01 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

I'm sorry Yassine but actually, Australia does review its own laws in such a way, as I think do many other secular democracies. In such jurisdictions, justice is more than simply blind and literal regulation consistent with tradition. It is the expression of values and the recognition of their impacts. When impacts do not reflect the intended values, the law is reviewed, even if that means overturning tradition.

- I am sure there are such approaches, as they should be. The thing is, Islamic Law has worked for 1/6 to 1/3 the human population for well over 14 centuries, including countless peoples, nations, cultures, ethnicities, races, religions. . . So one would expect such a Legal System to have some substantial worth of its own. Islamic Law is extremely extremely vast, many times vaster than all western laws combined, you really have no idea.

(A). Principals of Jurisprudence:

(I). Science of Purposes of Shari"a (Islamic Constitutional Law):
1. Pillars of Shari"a.
2. Purposes of Shari"a.
3. Maxims of Jurisprudence.

(II). Science of Basis of Jurisprudence (Islamic Legal Theory).
1. Sources of Legislation.
2. Maxims of Legislation.
3. Categories of Rulings.
4. Demonstration of Rulings.
5. Justification of Rulings.
6. Maxims of Rulings.
7. Jurisprudence of Abrogation.
8. Jurisprudence of Analogy.

(III). Sciences of the Jurist (Islamic Legal System).
1. Imitation Discipleship & Ijtihad.
2. Classes of Jurists.
3. Juristic Discretion.
4. Objective Law (~Consequentialism).
5. Benefit Law (Utilitarianism, as a legal approach, not as a source of legislation).
6. Medium Law (~Consequentialism).
7. Natural/Positive Law.
8. Norms Law (~Contractarianism).
9. Pragmatic Law.
10. Discord Law.
11. Priority Law.
12. Grading Law.
13. Repercussion Law.
14. Equilibrium Law. <<< The one about 'Moderation'.
15. Minority Law.
16. Equitable Law.

.
(B). Branches of Jurisprudence (Shari"a Law):

(I). Practices of Worship:
1. Hygiene & Purification.
2. Prayers.
3. Do"aa & Recitation.
4. Zakat (Charity - Tax)
5. Fasting.
6. Pilgrimage.
7. Funerals.
8. Sacrifice/Slaughter/Hunting/Fishing.
9. Oaths & Vows.

(II). Practice of Habits:
10. Rules of Decorum & Conduct.
11. Rights & Dues.
12. Costumes & Norms.
13. Morales & Values.

(III). Practice of Dealings:
14. Administrative Law.
15. International/Treaty Law.
16. Military/Defence Law.
17. Contract Law.
18. Property Law.
19. Finance & Economic Law.
20. Marital Law.
21. Welfare Law.
22. Procedural Law.
23- Inheritance Law.
24- Criminal Law.
25- Penalty Law.
26- Emancipation Law.

.
(C). Comparative Jurisprudence.
(equally as vast).

.
(D). Political Jurisprudence.
(equally as vast).

.
(E). History of Jurisprudence.
(equally as vast).

.

=> Each of these branches has also sub-branches, & sub-sub-branches, for instance:

(B). (III). 22. Procedural Law is divided into the following major sub-branches:
i. Legal Procedures.
ii. Testimony Law.
iii. Oaths Law.
iv. Confessions/Avowals Law.
v. Restitutions/Merits Law.
vi. Tort Law.
vii. Disputes Law.
viii. Oppression Law.
ix. Coercion Law.
x. Allotment Law.
xi. Extortion Law.
xii. Legal Decrees.
xiii. Arbitration Law.
xiv. Equity Law.

=> You get the point =)
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2015 7:52:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/28/2015 7:06:02 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 5/28/2015 6:42:01 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/28/2015 6:34:36 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 5/28/2015 6:25:23 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
It can be challenging to separate the intent of law from interpretation and application of law.
The Law is the Law
In [secular democracies], justice is more than simply blind and literal regulation consistent with tradition. When impacts do not reflect the intended values, the law is reviewed, even if that means overturning tradition.
Islamic Law has worked for 1/6 to 1/3 the human population for well over 14 centuries, including countless peoples, nations, cultures, ethnicities, races, religions. . . So one would expect such a Legal System to have some substantial worth of its own.

You seem to be rehearsing arguments now, rather than discussing debate structure, Yassine. One might argue it either way: perhaps Islamic law has not changed because it is good, or perhaps it has not changed regardless of whether it is good.

Either way, it can be evaluated not only in what it says, but how it is used. And such analysis might help discern whether it is being held in place because it benefits everyone, or whether it is being held in place because it benefits the few with the power to change it.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2015 8:18:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/28/2015 7:52:12 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

You seem to be rehearsing arguments now, rather than discussing debate structure, Yassine. One might argue it either way: perhaps Islamic law has not changed because it is good, or perhaps it has not changed regardless of whether it is good.

Either way, it can be evaluated not only in what it says, but how it is used. And such analysis might help discern whether it is being held in place because it benefits everyone, or whether it is being held in place because it benefits the few with the power to change it.

- You're right, we are off topic. & your concerns here apply more for western laws than they do for Islamic Law, for the latter has had much wider use & lasted much longer than the former.

- You misunderstood again, what I want to convey is that Islamic Law is a world on its own, questions such as: "Islamic law has not changed because it is good," or "it has not changed regardless of whether it is good." or "it is being held in place because it benefits everyone" or " it benefits the few with the power to change it" (. . . etc) are senseless. Someone in your position should inquire about what is Islamic Law, rather than attempt to have an opinion about it or about how it should be perceived! The fact of the matter is simple, you're utterly ignorant of the Islamic Tradition, & this is not meant as an insult, I am merely stating the obvious. Thus, the logical thing to do when one is ignorant of a subject, is to inquire about it, or leave it alone along with his opinion of it. The reason why I thought you're a troll is because you attempt to have an opinion about which you have no knowledge of. & doing that makes you exactly the type I am not interested in arguing with, that is, the prejudiced type, which I hope that at least in your case it is not intentional.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2015 9:01:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/28/2015 8:18:46 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 5/28/2015 7:52:12 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
You seem to be rehearsing arguments now, rather than discussing debate structure, Yassine. One might argue it either way: perhaps Islamic law has not changed because it is good, or perhaps it has not changed regardless of whether it is good.
Either way, it can be evaluated not only in what it says, but how it is used. And such analysis might help discern whether it is being held in place because it benefits everyone, or whether it is being held in place because it benefits the few with the power to change it.
- You're right, we are off topic.

Indeed. I'll wrap it up with this post, but I'm concerned about this:

Islamic Law is a world on its own, questions such as: "Islamic law has not changed because it is good," or "it has not changed regardless of whether it is good." or "it is being held in place because it benefits everyone" or " it benefits the few with the power to change it" (. . . etc) are senseless.

I think some Muslims might disagree with that, but let's suppose you're right.

If Islamic law cannot be evaluated, critiqued or amended by anyone, and you believe it's held in place inerrantly and absolutely and is the very definition of good, then how can it be accountable to any other standard? And if it's not accountable to any standard but itself, then how can it be compared? And if it cannot be compared, then how is this debate meaningful or fair?

Something to think about, perhaps.

I think I've offered whatever I can muster as wisdom here, Yassine. Please accept my best wishes for the progress of this venture.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2015 9:37:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/28/2015 9:01:39 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

Islamic Law is a world on its own, questions such as: "Islamic law has not changed because it is good," or "it has not changed regardless of whether it is good." or "it is being held in place because it benefits everyone" or " it benefits the few with the power to change it" (. . . etc) are senseless.

I think some Muslims might disagree with that, but let's suppose you're right.

If Islamic law cannot be evaluated, critiqued or amended by anyone, and you believe it's held in place inerrantly and absolutely and is the very definition of good, then how can it be accountable to any other standard? And if it's not accountable to any standard but itself, then how can it be compared? And if it cannot be compared, then how is this debate meaningful or fair?

Something to think about, perhaps.

I think I've offered whatever I can muster as wisdom here, Yassine.

- You should think about something called learning, it's a good thing, & it might benefit you. Wisdom comes after knowledge, it can not possibly foster within ignorance!

- I've said this many times, & I'll say it again in a clear way, someone in your position, so far removed from a topic he attempts to argue, is like a kid in elementary school who's trying to discuss the philosophy of legal theory. This is beyond ridiculous, this is insane. You have zero idea what you're talking about, your stances are groundless. & I'll be equally insane if I argued such a topic with someone in your position, as I would be insane if I attempted to argue legal theory with a 5 yo kid. My message doesn't seem to come across easily to you, so this analogy might help you understand why I have no interest in arguing with someone in your position.

- Also, don't feel offended, most westerners have exactly the same attitude as you, including those who write on wikipedia. I mean, an entire Legal Tradition including millions upon millions of topics & hundreds upon hundreds of fields is reduced to some quotes & some statements. This is stupidity combined with bigotry at its peak. & I most certainly have zero regards for such stupidity.

- Finally, I'll be honest with you. All muslim scholars across the world understand very well the western legal system & its applications (as they are required to study it). & although they respect & admire the accomplishments brought by western/secular laws, they all genuinely & strongly believe these laws are weak, crippled & unimpressive versions of Islamic Law. & I do believe that too, while I live in the West. I'll give you a for instance (relevant to the topic): western nations have been struggling for centuries to achieve a degree of freedom of religion, & even after all that they hardly were able to grant a tiny bit of it in practice. Islamic Law from its very foundation has granted full unrestricted freedom of religion in both belief & practice, secular laws actively restrict religious practices, which muslim scholars view as an abomination & as religious persecution. Westerners are all about labels, when you get to the content of the labels, you almost always get disappointed.

Please accept my best wishes for the progress of this venture.

- I appreciate your good manners, but they are irrelevant to the topic. Good manners can not substitute ignorance, you have to learn before you can earn the right to speak about a subject. Inquiry is not a bad thing, it humbles the ego & enlightens the mind. & I hope I made this as clear as possible.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2015 10:08:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yassine is crazy and lies: Look at this lie:
"- Excess in anything, including worship, is discouraged in Islam, & often prohibited. Islam is inherently a moderate religion."

You cannot debate logically with someone like Yassine who will lie to you about his religion's violence to human rights and to intellectual and religious freedom. You cannot debate logically with any Muhammadan fundamentalist believer as it is against their religion to ever concede the idols, Muhammad or his book, were wrong, taught wrong ideas and that stops intellectual discussion of either religious or historical truth making debate worthless endeavor with Muhammadans.

The religion doesn't need debate: it needs to be composted and Muslims move on to better religious instruction that doesn't violate humanitarian teachings from God as does the man-made religion of Muhammad that borrowed my people's religious foundation without giving Jews credit or religious authority only we Jews have over Jewish religious history and beliefs.

No person in their right mind would want to install a religious dictatorship except Muhammadan clones who are brainwashed and can no longer think rationally about their own religious beliefs bordering on totalitarian fascism that is antithetical to democracy and human rights.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2015 11:16:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/28/2015 9:37:51 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 5/28/2015 9:01:39 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Islamic Law is a world on its own, questions such as: "Islamic law has not changed because it is good," or "it has not changed regardless of whether it is good." or "it is being held in place because it benefits everyone" or " it benefits the few with the power to change it" (. . . etc) are senseless.
I think some Muslims might disagree with that, but let's suppose you're right.
If Islamic law cannot be evaluated, critiqued or amended by anyone, and you believe it's held in place inerrantly and absolutely and is the very definition of good, then how can it be accountable to any other standard? And if it's not accountable to any standard but itself, then how can it be compared? And if it cannot be compared, then how is this debate meaningful or fair?
western nations have been struggling for centuries to achieve a degree of freedom of religion, & even after all that they hardly were able to grant a tiny bit of it in practice. Islamic Law from its very foundation has granted full unrestricted freedom of religion in both belief & practice

Yassine, if you believe that, then it sounds like you're doing both Islam and your own erudition a disservice by understating the situation. You really need to assert the stronger position. How about:

"Sharia is the religious freedom secularism has failed to deliver."

While I hope you'll get interest in your current topic, I'd be shocked if you didn't find interest in that one. :)
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 9:42:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/28/2015 9:37:51 PM, Yassine wrote:

- You should think about something called learning, it's a good thing, & it might benefit you. Wisdom comes after knowledge, it can not possibly foster within ignorance!

Odd, that's what many of us have been trying to tell you.

- I've said this many times, & I'll say it again in a clear way, someone in your position, so far removed from a topic he attempts to argue, is like a kid in elementary school who's trying to discuss the philosophy of legal theory. This is beyond ridiculous, this is insane. You have zero idea what you're talking about, your stances are groundless. & I'll be equally insane if I argued such a topic with someone in your position, as I would be insane if I attempted to argue legal theory with a 5 yo kid. My message doesn't seem to come across easily to you, so this analogy might help you understand why I have no interest in arguing with someone in your position.

- Also, don't feel offended, most westerners have exactly the same attitude as you, including those who write on wikipedia. I mean, an entire Legal Tradition including millions upon millions of topics & hundreds upon hundreds of fields is reduced to some quotes & some statements. This is stupidity combined with bigotry at its peak. & I most certainly have zero regards for such stupidity.

- Finally, I'll be honest with you. All muslim scholars across the world understand very well the western legal system & its applications (as they are required to study it). & although they respect & admire the accomplishments brought by western/secular laws, they all genuinely & strongly believe these laws are weak, crippled & unimpressive versions of Islamic Law. & I do believe that too, while I live in the West. I'll give you a for instance (relevant to the topic): western nations have been struggling for centuries to achieve a degree of freedom of religion, & even after all that they hardly were able to grant a tiny bit of it in practice. Islamic Law from its very foundation has granted full unrestricted freedom of religion in both belief & practice, secular laws actively restrict religious practices, which muslim scholars view as an abomination & as religious persecution. Westerners are all about labels, when you get to the content of the labels, you almost always get disappointed.

Please accept my best wishes for the progress of this venture.

- I appreciate your good manners, but they are irrelevant to the topic. Good manners can not substitute ignorance, you have to learn before you can earn the right to speak about a subject. Inquiry is not a bad thing, it humbles the ego & enlightens the mind. & I hope I made this as clear as possible.

The Islamic propagandist's arrogant buffoonery is only matched by his fabrications and ignorance of the world around him. A prime example of what is wrong with Islam today.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 4:03:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Cigarette change? Go smoke a Camel. This is complete LIE: "Excess in anything, including worship, is discouraged in Islam"..

Any religion that demands believers immerse their brains in the founder's ideas and only his 5 times per day, 7 days a week, 365 a year can never claim to be "moderate" in religious belief. Moderation is unknown in Islamic teachings as the whole deal is about teaching Muslims to make war against all non-Muslims to convert them or punish them for lack of conversion to the Dictator's religion.

No to totalitarian religion. Just plain no, we don't want it, we don't need it, it's befouled with violence and unworthy of worship of a good God.