Islam does not teach utopia ideals. I hope I did not come off that way ... Our ideal is to build a society where the people desire to "hide" their evil ... Not declare it proudly. It is not an attempt to end evil ... we cannot make such claims ... It is to have a society where people on the whole praise "modesty" and "humility" and "piety" and if they are not these things to desire them and if they do not desire them to feel ashamed of not desiring them and if not to feel ashamed of that then to remain hidden out of respect for the dominant wind of society. All of this to be done without laws being needed to be put in place ...
Does a secular society see "alcohol consumption" as morally neutral or morally wrong? I would hope the latter - and if so, what does it do to achieve the result of reducing alcohol consumption?
many non religious dont drink alcohol, but how can anyone impose that upon everyone else? unless someone is getting drunk and driving which can harm others, nothing immoral in drinking. secular societies dont find alcohol as morally wrong. people have a choice if they want to drink or not.
since when does drinking alcohol and eating pork immoral? As a Muslim, we are told not too and its a part of faith and I and other muslims I know abide by it. It is religiously wring for us as muslims to eat and drink that but not others. But that doesn't mean I would go around judging people if they eat pork or drink. But if their drinking is out if hand thats causing harm to others (DUI, social problems etc) then yea its wrong and no person of any religion is tolerant about it ...
many non religious dont drink alcohol, but how can anyone impose that upon everyone else? unless someone is getting drunk and driving which can harm others, nothing immoral in drinking. secular societies dont find alcohol as morally wrong. people have a choice if they want to drink or not.
They do find it morally wrong ... that is why they have age limits for it, no adverts allowed for it and warnings for its consumption, licenses for its sale ... all of this indicates that those societies understand the moral problem - the dilemma between allowing this due to their own weaknesses and controlling it due to its harms on society. A harm to society - is something that should be considered immoral.
Alcohol is a poison - so by saying even that self-consumption is okay or morally neutral is saying poison consumption is okay ... And I find it heinous that the sellers of alcohol make so much money off it ...
Okay the above is a strange post because it reads as defensive and emotional. Yes, a non-Muslim HAS to abide by the laws of a Muslim country. Why would you even type the word "HAS" when it's a no-brainer that anyone (Muslim or otherwise) must adhere to laws (Islamic or otherwise) of the land. So, non-Muslims cannot sell or buy alcohol in Saudi Arabia. It doesn't matter if the royals do it and pointing out their hypocrisy doesn't change the written laws of the country. They cannot do so. In the US, there's no law prohibiting consumption of pork though there used to be prohibition of alcohol, however it no longer exists. So, have you come across any Muslims that are imposing upon non-Muslims to not drink or to consume only halal? Or who are preventing such consumption? Or oppressing/penalizing for it? Or who are engaging in protest marches to ban pork and alcohol? In all the years I've spent in the US, I haven't come across that...not among the Muslims in my social circle. So, now that hopefully it's understood that the laws cannot be violated, what "intolerance" are you speaking about? Cuz, a Muslim has the right to avoid attending a club...the right to deny services that he has CLEARLY defined within the parameters of his private business....the right not drive a non-Muslim bestie to a club, the right not to attend a gay wedding, the right not sign a petition for a cause that goes against our teachings. None of these are an act of imposition on anyone else, so if we're going to be looked down/ridiculed/mocked/criticized for these acts of avoidances ....I don't think it's us who are suffering from hypocritical intolerance.
where did i mention muslims must go to a night club?? But you cannot stop anyone from doing those things, just because you think its haram. OP didn't mention what she meant by tolerance.
So, do we have to wait until someone is harmed to recognize that something is an overall danger to society? Or is there like a quota…where x number of people must be screwed or hurt by alcohol for it to be considered a danger? I used danger instead of immoral; an attempt at tolerance. So, is drunk driving the only potential ill consequence of drinking? How about rapes? Assault/violence? Damage to property? You sure it’s only a problem when you’re behind the wheel? That it’s the only form of harm? Seriously?
They do find it morally wrong ... that is why they have age limits for it, no adverts allowed for it and warnings for its consumption, licenses for its sale ... all of this indicates that those societies understand the moral problem - the dilemma between allowing this due to their own weaknesses and controlling it due to its harms on society. A harm to society - is something that should be considered immoral.
age limits is because young kids are not responsible enough to handle it, not because its immoral. why does US not allow getting married before 18? is marriage immoral?? sorry your age argument is completely invalid. many things are not allowed for minors, that doesnt mean they are immoral. they are simply because kids are not as responsible
where did i mention muslims must go to a night club?? But you cannot stop anyone from doing those things, just because you think its haram. OP didn't mention what she meant by tolerance.
I'm not asking OP. I asked YOU what you meant by hypocritical intolerance in the scheme of a country's laws which are to be followed by everyone anyway.
So, do we have to wait until someone is harmed to recognize that something is an overall danger to society? Or is there like a quota...where x number of people must be screwed or hurt by alcohol for it to be considered a danger? I used danger instead of immoral. So, is drunk driving the only potential ill consequence of drinking? How about rapes? Assault/violence? Damage to property? You sure it's only a problem when you're behind the wheel? Seriously?
there is laws against drunk driving. you cannot force people never to drink because some people can be irresponsible. i have tons of friends who drink but they drink responsibly. Drunk driving is dangerous, drinking is not. as far as rape, assault, violence, that exists without alcohol as well. arent there rape and violence in countries where alcohol is banned?
and yea I agree, non-muslim has to abide by the laws of muslim because in most islamic countries religion and government are intertwined into daily lives.
I'm not asking OP. I asked YOU what you meant by hypocritical intolerance in the scheme of a country's laws which are to be followed by everyone anyway.
muslims cannot demand ban of alcohol or pork because they think its haram. very simple.
age limits is because young kids are not responsible enough to handle it, not because its immoral. why does US not allow getting married before 18? is marriage immoral?? sorry your age argument is completely invalid. many things are not allowed for minors, that doesnt mean they are immoral. they are simply because kids are not as responsible
The US has an age restriction because it considers people younger than 18 getting married to be immoral. Age restrictions apply to dangerous things ... marriage itself is not immoral - but it is for youngsters. The US law attempts to marginalise alcohol use by putting in an age restriction - but many adults are not responsible with alcohol either. - It is simply not something that many people can be responsible with ... I have not met a single alcohol drinker who has never once in his lifetime been drunk to a stupor. At least once they have gotten drunk beyond senses.
The US has an age restriction because it considers people younger than 18 getting married to be immoral. Age restrictions apply to dangerous things ... marriage itself is not immoral - but it is for youngsters. The US law attempts to marginalise alcohol use by putting in an age restriction - but many adults are not responsible with alcohol either. - It is simply not something that many people can be responsible with ... I have not met a single alcohol drinker who has never once in his lifetime been drunk to a stupor. At least once they have gotten drunk beyond senses.
yes underage marriage, underage drinking is irresponsible, and thats why illegal. Neither marriage nor drinking is illegal or immoral for adults. if some adults are irresponsible, doesn't mean everyone must stop drinking.
Texting while driving is just as bad. should texting be banned??
yes underage marriage, underage drinking is irresponsible, and thats why illegal. Neither marriage nor drinking is illegal or immoral for adults. if some adults are irresponsible, doesn't mean everyone must stop drinking.
Texting while driving is just as bad. should texting be banned??
Okay - what about the poison angle - you didn't cover that
Okay - what about the poison angle - you didn't cover that
Does the Okay mean you agree with me? :)
excessive drinking is harmful, no doubt. many things can be harmful for health if taken in excessive amount, including aspirin, sugar, red meat, cholesterol.. list can go on..
And “drunk driving is dangerous, drinking is not” is an oxymoron statement which only enforces that alcohol is dangerous. Because the “driving” in your quoted statement is being modified/impeded by the “drinking.” You don’t require a car for drinking to be dangerous or for it to impair your judgment. It’s not the car that influences your brain, perception and reflexes/reactions.
So you have a country which penalizes for rape and for drinking…which can lead to increase in rapes. Then you have a country which penalizes for rape but does not prohibit alcohol consumption…but on the contrary glorifies getting drunk; it’s seen as funny. So which of the two is more dangerous? Let’s remove factors such as rape being a greater social stigma in some countries, and corrupt law enforcement etc etc. Use logic here, Bella, not emotion. Both of them penalize for rapes. But only one of them prohibits a potential cause for rape. So, which one carries greater danger? It’s a no-brainer.
texting while driving is wrong, but texting is not? Do you know how dangerous it is to text and drive?? shouldn’t texting be banned?
i think you’re the one who needs to use logic and not emotion. So many rapists are not drunk and neither is their victim. sorry your post makes no sense at all. many people also abuse pain medication and get high on those. shouldn’t we ban pain medication?
Does the Okay mean you agree with me? :)
excessive drinking is harmful, no doubt. many things can be harmful for health if taken in excessive amount, including aspirin, sugar, red meat, cholesterol.. list can go on..
Not at all ... Being secular so far is being translated to being unable to define moral boundaries ... texting when driving is banned - not texting per se ... I don't create the laws of the US, but they have reasons that are tangible in many cases ... they are not so tangible in other cases ... Why should alcohol be allowed when cannabis not? Again human made laws are arbitrary ...
Of course I think it is immoral to take medicines in excessive amounts, I also think it is immoral to take sugar, aspirin and red meat in amounts that cause real harm ... I would not be consistent if I didn't think that ... the problem is why you don't think that ... or think that it applies to alcohol ...
Youse is all ova the place desperately trying to defend consumption of alcohol. I don’t condone texting while driving. But seriously, you’re pitting texting against alcohol? Cuz texting clouds our judgment outside of a vehicle too…and can leads to assaults, damage to property and health…haina? :k:
I wonder if there’s a Anonymous Texters organization, or rehab clinics for recovering text addicts.
Not at all ... Being secular so far is being translated to being unable to define moral boundaries ... texting when driving is banned - not texting per se ... I don't create the laws of the US, but they have reasons that are tangible in many cases ... they are not so tangible in other cases ... Why should alcohol be allowed when cannabis not? Again human made laws are arbitrary ...
texting while driving is banned, not texting all together. Drinking while driving is banned, not drinking all together. cannabis allowed in some states and if you ask me, I think it should be legal. I dont agree that it's illegal.
as far as 'human' made laws, yes human laws do change with time.
[quote]
Of course I think it is immoral to take medicines in excessive amounts, I also think it is immoral to take sugar, aspirin and red meat in amounts that cause real harm ... I would not be consistent if I didn't think that ... the problem is why you don't think that ...
[/quote]
I think alcohol in EXCESSIVE amount is dangerous, and those people need therapy and counseling. But just because some people can abuse it, doesn't mean it needs to be banned for everyone. just like we cannot ban aspirin, red meat, sugar because some people can take it in excess amount and harm themselves, alcohol shouldn't be banned either just because some people can abuse it. i hope you get my point here.
I dont condone drinking while driving either. texting while driving is just as dangerous as being drunk and driving.
Can we ban texting all together, because some people are irresponsible? NO
Can we ban alcohol all together, because some people are irresponsible ? NO
its you whos desperately trying to defend why alcohol is forbidden. I have no problem in you considering its haram, you have every right to not consume alcohol. but to ban it for everyone is wrong.
So, is drunk driving the only potential ill consequence of drinking? How about rapes? Assault/violence? Damage to property? You sure it’s only a problem when you’re behind the wheel? That it’s the only form of harm? Seriously?
And “drunk driving is dangerous, drinking is not” is an oxymoron statement which only enforces that alcohol is dangerous. Because the “driving” in your quoted statement is being modified/impeded by the “drinking.” You don’t require a car for drinking to be dangerous or for it to impair your judgment. It’s not the car that influences your brain, perception and reflexes/reactions.