I guess you are referring to Saudi Arabia again. Let me tell you that Saudi Arabia’s wahabism has nothing to do with the 7th century. The Wahabism is less than 150 years old…a modern phenomena supported and implemented by the West in order to defeat and destroy the Caliphate of Ottomans.
May be Saudi should’ve used nuclear weapons like US…that would’ve earned them your respect.
There are many who are opposed to these wars. Which is why many countries refrained from invading Iraq.
This is all beside the point. We are talking about how well societies function from within. There is more equality and sense of true justice in societies, where people are willing to acknowledge evolution of man and his surroundings. If something is wrong, then it will, with time, be deemed wrong.
Don’t see how western foreign policies are related to the muslim world not deeming norms of 7th century as unsuitable for the 21st century.
LMAO! What sources please? Its been 2 days and I have yet to see you provide any of these wonderful sources. Remember you do not believe any sources written by an individual human being as they are based on an agenda. So please what are these sources?
No I was not talking about Saudi, I was rather mentioning your lack of priciples on matters of equality, claiming rule of the land on matters of equality which does not suit you, since you had the audacity to claim that I was living in a bubble.
Cairo declaration on human rights was adopted in 1990, long after colonization ended. It upheld inequality.
And yes I know its always the west’s fault, muslim world nust never take any responsibility whatsoever on deterioration of their societies from within, cause such introspection might actually lead to improvements. Better to blame the west and claim rule of the land when problems arise. Or better yet, even blame rule of the land on the west.
And who is using this slave trade as the guiding light for now and eternity? The sole point here is man recognising his mistakes and learning from them.
Instead of diverting it further, do you believe 7th century norms should be adopted at large, yes or no?
No? Why are we having this discussion at all.
Yes? Result is for all to see.
Accept mistakes made in the past, work towards improvement.
Errr…you guys are. I mean lets at least be honest. For the past 3 pages, the entire discussions has revolved around Islam, women and slavery. However when I use the same example its suddenly a faux pas.
Back to my questions. So you consider the 200 year old slave trade where they basically committed mass murder, violate every known human right, raped and abused women from Africa, eradicated tribes completely and millions perished as an improvement compared to 7th century Islam?
Edit: You stated 7th Century Islam is the point of origin. And since then there have been improvements. I am merely testing your theory with reality and facts.
Does the west at large think those guidelines should be upheld for all eternity?
Discussion is on acceping mistakes made in the past, and acknowledging that these principles are not suitable for today’s age.
Problem arises when one continue to uphold certain norms despite knowing that they are not beneficial for the society. I think I’ve repeated this in various forms now.
Here we go again. Islam doesn’t approve or encourage slavery. It eradicates it , just by a more humane method than dumping millions on the streets without any form of help in transitioning to a normal life. It eradicates by incorporating the slaves into the free population so then eventually over time everyone is free.
We have not even studied details of the early Islamic empire. Prophet had a slave. Zaid. Became one of the Sahabah and fought and was a prominent figure. People went on to hold public offices in the government from being slaves. So how can we say Islam permitted a slave system? This is semantics. Not banning something outright doesn’t mean that thing is encouraged.
Weeding out social Evils slowly is a totally valid method compared to outright bans.
Abusing alcohol dramatically decreased in early Islam, meanwhile what did the Prohibition do in the US?
And it’s a fallacy to say third world countries are holding onto 7th century values. Islamic values are more or less judeo-Christian values with the latter being even more ancient.
US, UK and other civilized countries do more to incorporate those values in laws and actually implementing them than countries like Pakistan where religion is a facade but behind closed doors all irreligious things are happening. Pakistan is the antithesis of 7th century values ironically.
Saudi has laws that are barbaric and have no basis in Islam, such as women driving and the reasons for which they behead.
No, I stated that man is constantly evolving and learning from past mistakes, which needs to be recognised. Its a continuous process. And yes the norms of today’s society are generally more humane than the ones found in the 7th century.
Man is more enlightened now than he was back then. The sole reason you are arguing this is because you view it as an attack on your religion, which it is not.
You know as well as I that inserting norms of middle ages into today’s societies has not yielded favorable results.
Irrelevant and evading. You stated that morals are not timeless and constantly changing. You set 7th century Islam as the point of origin and stated that things have improved. I am testing the validity of your statement.
Now answer the question.
So you consider the 200 year old slave trade where they basically committed mass murder, violate every known human right, raped and abused women from Africa, eradicated tribes completely and millions perished as an improvement compared to 7th century Islam?
One who know that following the religion makes him/her a better person would not question his/her faith. Means, he would not need to question his faith in first place.