Muslim headscarves (1 Viewer)

[withoutaface]

his mind has been decayed, and all that is left is a wrinkly lump that lives off criticising muslims

Your mind has been decayed, and all that is left is a word for word replica of the qua'ran.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

ntb, why did you make your font that big? i think we can read smaller font.

I don't think you guys can.

 

[veterandoggy]

Your mind has been decayed, and all that is left is a word for word replica of the qua'ran.

actually, it hasnt reached that stage yet, plus it also contains hadith if your insult (if it is meant to be an insult) is to be complete.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Arrr yes... the beautiful hadiths.

If a woman's conduct is mischievous or immodest, the husband has the right to beat her up but must not break her bones. She must not allow anybody to enter the house if her husband does not like him. She has the right to expect sustenance of her husband. (P 439)

 

[get_born]

Where on God's planet did you get that?

 

[veterandoggy]

i question the site's credability on the sole fact that they didnt give a narrators name that i have heard of.

i havent heard of that hadith either btw

 

[Not-That-Bright]

The two most famous works of Hadith are: Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. Each of these is named after the person who compiled it, i.e., Bukhari and Muslim. The word Sahih in these titles refers to the fact that the compilers of these books sifted the genuine reports about the Holy Prophet from unfounded and unreliable stories, so far as they could, and included only those which were trust-worthy. There are many other books of Hadith, named after the compilers, such as Tirmizi, Abu Dawud, and the Musnad of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal.

http://www.muslim.org/islam/int-is6.htm

 

[veterandoggy]

maybe it is american, which is why i didnt understand the name first time.

is ther a complete hadith? or just what you quoted above?

 

[get_born]

http://www.muslim.org/islam/int-is6.htm

that still doesn't say where you got it from.

 

[sly fly]

http://www.muslim.org/islam/int-is6.htm

You do realise that many Muslims do not accept that everything in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are reliable and valid?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

You do realise that many Muslims do not accept that everything in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are reliable and valid?

Yes I do realise that. I really do not want to argue over the words in your religious scripture, I think the results such words have had is a better indication.

 

[sly fly]

Yes I do realise that. I really do not want to argue over the words in your religious scripture, I think the results such words have had is a better indication.

Ahadith are not perfect, some are fabricated, some are misquoted and the chain of narration often ruins the validity of alot of hadiths............therefore, the result of such words is irrelevant to Islam because the words were wrong in the first place.

 

[sparkl3z]

personal : i don't think wearing one protects you any more or less
i respect everyones opinions on wearing them, everyone has a right whatever to wear whatever, but as a girl, i think it's nothing but a restriction upon your face, just because your wearing one doesnt mean ur not vulnerable to rape etc, many of them girls who wear them don't know what the koran is about anyway, they don't even read it, or the just read some of the prayers and forget the rest, it's craze.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

If morality is based on Gods desires, so be it. He is the one who created this universe so his laws are supreme.

That makes morality meaningless though -- it is no better than judging right and wrong by the desires of a single human being.

I would like someone to explain to me the pros of relative morality and its benefits in the short and long term.

I think that you have to confront the idea that there is no factual, objective morality.

Morality is something humans can create given certain basic and fundamental assumptions (ie. happiness and pleasure is good, sadness and displeasure is bad). And I think that the best thing that we can do is adhere to the moral framework that produces as much of the good things and as little of the bad things as possible. To this end, we can come up with a consistent and virtually objective (to humankind) system of ethics to guide us. Many have tried to do this, ie. John Stuart Mill, Immanuel Kant, etc.

 

[veterandoggy]

personal : i don't think wearing one protects you any more or less
i respect everyones opinions on wearing them, everyone has a right whatever to wear whatever, but as a girl, i think it's nothing but a restriction upon your face, just because your wearing one doesnt mean ur not vulnerable to rape etc, many of them girls who wear them don't know what the koran is about anyway, they don't even read it, or the just read some of the prayers and forget the rest, it's craze.

why has headscarves become associated with rape protection nowadays? it puts me off that the only thing i see next to headscarves is not getting raped.

its not like rape hasnt happened until now, and not in the "muslim" countries, if you may call them that, but the thought that discussion about headscarves turns into debates as to whether or not it protects people from rape is sickening.

it isnt only you btw, its just that youre the unlucky person to talk about it last., hence the quoting.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Moonlight Sonata, I think that you believe in morality (even though you cannot see it) yet conform to the view that morality should be derived from societies preferences rather that from a religion.

Well, it is complicated. My beliefs are in line with David Hume, in that 'morality' does not really exist. It is only the gut reactions and empathy of human beings that give actions some sort of "moral significance", but there is nothing actually factual or justified about this, and as such there are no moral truths.

I would first like to state that morals came about through religion. An absolute morality which is timeless and doesn't change is what religion promotes.

But there were moral values before religion. As I said here in reply to an old post of yours:

It was the codification of existing and developing applications of reason to ethics. The spiritual aspect was a combination of humankind's natural fear of the unknown combined with a method of making people conform to those ethical beliefs that seemed appropriate -- terrible consequences would ensue otherwise, such as being denied access to some sort of utopian after world and being sent to Hell.

[...]

Humans did have standards. They knew that the person would no longer be around, and that it caused physical pain. Therefore they did not considering death to be a good thing. This is a basic application of reason, but not applied properly because societies were unstable and believe it or not, most people need the threat of consequences to keep them in line. (Hence why particular religions are successful in imposing some seemingly silly rules.)

[...]

2. You assume the spiritual aspect was the element that "cleansed" human behaviour. In fact it was the developing code of laws (which religion played a part in forming) and consequences which allowed reason to operate properly in relatively stable societies. It really has nothing to do with the beliefs or religion or God. It is all just about power and order.

[...]

Modern day morals are determined by reason, they have nothing to do with religious beliefs.

Religion played an important part in allowing reason to operate, by creating systems of law and order. But the beliefs of the religions were developments of reason; any spiritual aspect to ethics is just residue that, as civilised rational humans in a fully developed and lawful society, we no longer need to keep us in line.

So again, moral values existed before religion. Religion just codified them, and gave people reasons to obey them.

Relative morality is very dangerous indeed as different groups of people would have different views concerning morals.

I agree that applying absolute cultural relativism is a dangerous thing. But there is a difference between saying "everyone believes different things so anything is okay", and saying "there is no such thing as objective morality, but if we apply reason to the goal of maximising humankind's wellbeing, then we can achieve peaceful, consistent and beneficial consequences."

For example, a group may think that killing the next person you see is completely wrong, while another may deem that appropriate.

No-one here is advocating that we adopt absolute moral relativism.

Society which chooses to change morals and their way of life is a society that will soon accept things that it finds totally unacceptable in the present.

That is true, but this is not a bad thing. It is because society advances. You could apply your argument to the 1800's in America; people would never have abolished slavery.

For example, homosexuality was frowned upon in the western world over 100 years ago, and now it is becoming more and more acceptable.

I don't quite follow. That is a good thing.

There is nothing wrong with homosexuality.

With this trend of what is deemed moral shifting, it is not out of the question that it may be legal for humans to marry animals and it being not frowned upon (eved though it takes away the nobility from a human in my belief).

No, that is absurd: humans are not physically attracted to animals.

It is even safe to assume that incest may be legalised and not frowned upon in the future. This is what is worrying about relative morality which is borne out by society.

No, there are logical reasons against incest. Incest has a far higher chance of producing abnormalities and defects in the child.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Ah, Not-That-Bright, you posted up Socrates' problem!

I mentioned that a while ago but I somehow got mixed up with Plato --

I assume you believe that God created everything right? Well we will start with a simple question posed by Plato:

* Is something good because God makes it good? (God is the good causer)
-- OR --
* Is something good and God, being all-knowing, knows what is good? (God is the perfect detector).

[...]

You have selected option A. In other words, God created what is good and what is bad.

This means that before God, there was no good and bad.

It further means that God could have made everything that was bad, good, and vice versa. God could have made killing "good" and helping people "bad. This completely and utterly makes morality absurd. How can morality be contingent on the whim of some deity? It makes "good and bad" absolutely meaningless.

I think I probably said Plato because he was posing the question as a character in one of Socrates' plays/dialogues

 

[veterandoggy]

No, that is absurd: humans are not physically attracted to animals.

so you havent seen this thread yet?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

so you havent seen this thread yet?

hmm, you seem to have cut your post

He was talking about physical attraction, people are not attracted to animals physically.

 

[veterandoggy]

He was talking about physical attraction, people are not attracted to animals physically.

hmm, im a little confused. but i dont need clarifications: i dont want to go near that thread again.