[Shahada]

How are you not seeing the difference here?
No one organizes their modern lives around the philosophy of Plato, nor does any modern civilization consider it the highest good to emulate the Roman Empire or Han China.
But billions of people - and indeed, whole societies - apparently think that the life of a 7th century cult leader represents the ideal moral and spiritual experience.
There is no historical standard to appeal to when the philosophy is current.

That'd be a valid rebuttal if I said "these were good moral doctrines at the time, therefore they are now." But I didn't - I was simply taking issue with your use of the word "unimpressive." That's good for shock value I suppose but from a historical standpoint it's nonsense. Given the historical circumstances they are impressive achievements by practically any measure.

And honestly, if we were talking purely in terms of history, I still would not be able to concede - again because ethical precepts suitable for modernity were present many centuries before Muhammad.
Obviously, I am no historian. I can't just shut off my moral intuitions when evaluating the people of the past.

No one's asking you to shut off moral intuitions - as I said, it's perfectly valid for you to think a certain set of values conflicts with your own regardless of the time period.

Since you've conceded you're not a student of history this may not be a very fruitful discussion, but I will point out that it's a dubious proposition that certain "ethical precepts" existing is all that is needed for the establishment of a certain culture, a certain set of values, or governance. Even if Muhammad (or Julius Caesar, or Charlemagne, or Xuanzong, or any other historical figure) had been able to conceive of a modern liberal democracy (which is, of course, the most morally valid form of government, "End of History" and all that ), there's some obvious logistical problems in implementing that in 7th century Arabia. It's 2010 and there are still places where effective and moral governance either cannot be established or is severely decaying. I'm curious what ethical precepts you could be talking about anyway - even the fabled democracy of the Greeks was in practice a tyrannical oligarchy.

[Lucretius]

That'd be a valid rebuttal if I said "these were good moral doctrines at the time, therefore they are now." But I didn't - I was simply taking issue with your use of the word "unimpressive." That's good for shock value I suppose but from a historical standpoint it's nonsense. Given the historical circumstances they are impressive achievements by practically any measure.

Shock value would have been referring to him as a "barbarian" or a "tyrant." But "unimpressive?" Please.
It is a subjective judgment that I have every right to make.
I don't care if you had a bad childhood or lived in a harsh society - rape and murder are still bad, and I'm not going to be "impressed" that you restrained yourself in half your moods.

I will point out that it's a dubious proposition that certain "ethical precepts" existing is all that is needed for the establishment of a certain culture, a certain set of values, or governance. Even if Muhammad (or Julius Caesar, or Charlemagne, or Xuanzong, or any other historical figure) had been able to conceive of a modern liberal democracy (which is, of course, the most morally valid form of government, "End of History" and all that ), there's some obvious logistical problems in implementing that in 7th century Arabia. It's 2010 and there are still places where effective and moral governance either cannot be established or is severely decaying. I'm curious what ethical precepts you could be talking about anyway - even the fabled democracy of the Greeks was in practice a tyrannical oligarchy.

I don't know what you're even going on about here. I never asserted anything about what ingredients are needed for a particular culture, nor have I even mentioned liberal democracy.

[Shahada]

It is a subjective judgment that I have every right to make.
I don't care if you had a bad childhood or lived in a harsh society - rape and murder are still bad, and I'm not going to be "impressed" that you restrained yourself in half your moods.

You do have every right to make that judgment, just like you have every right to make the judgment that the best possible thing for humanity would be all-out nuclear war. It doesn't mean your judgment makes any sense, which it doesn't. If you're more interested in proclaiming your moral superiority over practically everyone who ever lived than actual facts and knowledge, you have every right to do so, just don't expect anyone with respect for knowledge and truth to take such judgments seriously.

I don't know what you're even going on about here. I never asserted anything about what ingredients are needed for a particular culture, nor have I even mentioned liberal democracy.

You said earlier that "ethical precepts" were already in place to establish "modernity" during Muhammad's time, as if "ethical precepts" alone are the sole precondition for establishing a society and culture that could be considered "modern."

[Mason117]

Azrael and Shahada,

I don't get what's the point of both of your arguments, really. It's getting off topic and circling around the same old lame arguments that already has been repeated over and over in this forum in different threads. This is so boring.

I would feverently disagree. What they are talking about is entirely on topic as what they are talking about is whether or not Islam is a morally right religion which is entirely pertaining t this thread.

Azarel, your are explaining my view in a much more eloquent way than I ever could. Keep up the rhetoric, I am enjoying reading this and I look forward to the outcome of this discussion.

[Lucretius]

You do have every right to make that judgment, just like you have every right to make the judgment that the best possible thing for humanity would be all-out nuclear war. It doesn't mean your judgment makes any sense, which it doesn't. If you're more interested in proclaiming your moral superiority over practically everyone who ever lived than actual facts and knowledge, you have every right to do so, just don't expect anyone with respect for knowledge and truth to take such judgments seriously.

Well that was nothing short of ridiculous, but if it means you'll drop this tangent you've started, I'll leave it be.

You said earlier that "ethical precepts" were already in place to establish "modernity" during Muhammad's time, as if "ethical precepts" alone are the sole precondition for establishing a society and culture that could be considered "modern."

No, I didn't - and I'm not sure where you got that.
I said that modern ethical precepts existed centuries before Muhammad, and thus I don't let him off the hook for child rape and murder merely because of his place on the time-line.

I'm impressed by Siddhartha Gautama. I'm impressed by Socrates. I'm impressed by Marcus Aurelius.
Much earlier figures, and yet much more moral men than Muhammad ibn Abdullah.

[Shahada]

Well that was nothing short of ridiculous, but if it means you'll drop this tangent you've started, I'll leave it be.

*shrug* It is what it is. Your judgment makes no sense and your right to hold that judgment doesn't make it valid. You're entitled to hold it but it's unbelievably sloppy analysis. At this point I think you're just being stubbornly anti-Muslim to the point of refusing to acknowledge obvious historical truths, so I'll drop this.

No, I didn't - and I'm not sure where you got that.
I said that modern ethical precepts existed centuries before Muhammad, and thus I don't let him off the hook for child rape and murder merely because of his place on the time-line.

I'm impressed by Siddhartha Gautama. I'm impressed by Socrates. I'm impressed by Marcus Aurelius.
Much earlier figures, and yet much more moral men than Muhammad ibn Abdullah.

Socrates and Aurelius likely both were "child rapists" by your definition. Siddhartha possibly too, given life expectancy and social mores of the time, but I'm not too educated on sexuality in that part of the world during that time period so I can't really say for sure. Morality is a subjective judgment, so there's not much point arguing that, though it's amusing to hear the incredibly regressive reincarnation doctrine, which for centuries was used to justify the caste system, characterized as so moral. Not even sure where you get "murder." Are you suddenly completely opposed to warfare or something?

What is most amusing to me is that you completely buy into the cultural myth making surrounding figures like Socrates or Aurelius but you're quick to be a critical moral observer when it comes to a person like Muhammad. I'm going to attribute this to a cultural blind spot.

[Lucretius]

*shrug* It is what it is. Your judgment makes no sense and your right to hold that judgment doesn't make it valid. You're entitled to hold it but it's unbelievably sloppy analysis. At this point I think you're just being stubbornly anti-Muslim to the point of refusing to acknowledge obvious historical truths, so I'll drop this.

Socrates and Aurelius likely both were "child rapists" by your definition. Siddhartha possibly too, given life expectancy and social mores of the time, but I'm not too educated on sexuality in that part of the world during that time period so I can't really say for sure. Morality is a subjective judgment, so there's not much point arguing that, though it's amusing to hear the incredibly regressive reincarnation doctrine, which for centuries was used to justify the caste system, characterized as so moral. Not even sure where you get "murder." Are you suddenly completely opposed to warfare or something?

What is most amusing to me is that you completely buy into the cultural myth making surrounding figures like Socrates or Aurelius but you're quick to be a critical moral observer when it comes to a person like Muhammad. I'm going to attribute this to a cultural blind spot.

This is getting more personal and we're apparently boring most of the thread visitors, so I'm calling it.
If you want to make another thread (or maybe I will when I get around to it) we can resume the debate and talk more about the Qur'an and the hadith specifically.

[Shahada]

That's fine with me. I was going to have to end it if you continued anyway, because I think the primary problem here is I'm discussing things from a historical perspective and you're discussing them from a moral absolutist one. Essentially talking past each other. Sorry if I came off insulting - I think my frustration largely stems from that misunderstanding.

I'm not going to have time to make another thread in the next couple days but if you feel like it go for it, I'll get around to it eventually.

[Mason117]

It's getting to the point where a lot of these arguments are getting beyond the scope of this thread, but I just want to comment on this briefly because it's a pet peeve of mine:



No it's not. As I said you're free to look at these things and say "they are not compatible with my modern beliefs and morals" and that's a perfectly valid view to hold. But it's silly to look at a person like Muhammad and call them "unimpressive" for not establishing a pluralist liberal democracy in the 7th century AD. Would you call Plato an "unimpressive" philosopher just because his ideas don't hold up that well compared to modern philosophy? Would you call the Roman Empire or Han China "unimpressive" states because they were horribly oppressive compared to modern democracies? I suppose you could, but no historian (or philosopher, in the case of Plato) would take such a judgement seriously. If this were at all valid the entire study of history would be a bunch of guys sitting around a table going "boy, the people who came before us sure were dumb!" for all eternity.




*shrug* I like to argue :) I think you have a point though that after a certain point these sorts of debates become less useful and it turns into things like semantics bickering and derailments (I kind of got derailed into defending Muslims as individuals and Islam in general when that's not really the topic here). To be honest Elwood92's posts are kind of making me feel silly because he makes very good points in regards to defending "cultures" as static entities. I try to avoid doing that but due to language limitations as well as the sorts of modes of thinking about this subject that are propagated in our society it's really easy to fall into the trap of getting into a "us vs. them" debate when it's not really appropriate for the matter at hand.

Mohammed was unimpressive morally because he is said to be the epitome of moral enlightenment and is a child and woman abusing pig. Even if we take away the light of his praise, his moral abilitiy is still crude in comparison to earlier figures. And in this day and age to take moral lessons from such a man who's morals were not an accomplishment in his age, let alone 13 centuries later is ridiculous.

[nevermore]

You are arguing semantics here. Of course, you can make slight differences in definition between culture and civilization in order to nuance; one might argue that culture is the product (or the cost, if you are a bit more cynical) of civilization, but you can't seperate culture and civilization altogether. Furthermore, civilization and culture are often interchangeable terms and they are both measures of our sociocultural and/or socioeconomical development in some way. They are two parts of the same concept and they always overlap each other. As to whether civilization/culture is developed to subjugate or was later corrupted is irrelevant because all civilizations/cultures have been corrupted since the beginning; so this is really a chicken-or-the-egg question.

Actually, culture comes before civilization. And they don't always overlap; tribal cultures were (I say were because you can't really say this is true of modern tribal cultures) not part of a civilization. Culture is the shared practices, values, rituals, outlook etc.,; civilization is the external organization and it is usually that that tends to be more corruptible, although civilization can of course manipulate a culture to uphold those in power. But perhaps this is semantics for our purposes. I will use them interchangeably (although doing so will alter my argument because I tend to view civilization with contempt, as much as I admit I selfishly enjoy its benefits).

This is all very pragmatic politcal rhetoric ('if I feel threatened I'll defend the constitution of power which favors my way of living the most.'), but I think it's really flawed when you look at the bigger picture. Why does your culture have more right to exist than another? Does your culture even exist as a concrete and absolute entity? No, it doesn't; it's constantly changing. I believe the only rational way to look at this is to accept that your culture isn't concrete or absolute to begin with. Once you have accepted that, you can either keep on defending 'your culture' knowing that it's really more about power and self-interest OR you can try to look past this illusion of absolute cultures and start trying to understand what motivates others.

First of all, I don't think a single person on Earth is unaware that their culture is not absolute, or if they are they must either never have thought about it or are very stupid. Again, cultures are not created just for the sake of power and self-interest, but primarily for shared human understanding and social functioning. I don't know why you keep spouting this as if if were fact. I know it is popular to look at things cynically nowadays, but I think that is just as naive as saying culture does not in any way at all uphold current power structures. It's one factor in a very complicated matrix.

And I wasn't saying "my" culture had any more of a "right" to exist than another; I was arguing in the abstract. "My" also isn't the best word choice here because by my own arguments I would be in favor of encouraging a culture poised to replace my own if it were more humane (although you could argue I would be less likely to notice it). As you very correctly said my position is not based on the emotional/sentimental desire to preserve "my culture" but is purely pragmatic. I was saying that cultures that are more corrupt and spit more on human rights ought not to be encouraged if opposing that body of thinking is the most efficient way of repulsing those negative beliefs.

Once again this is cold pragmatism based on self-interest and the perpetuation of the current entities of power. I believe this can only lead to scapegoating, narrow-mindedness and more inequality. You can't preserve your culture/civilization because it doesn't exist as an absolute entity; it's a collection of ideas, values and emotions in time.

No, it is plain old pragmatism based on a desire for a peaceful society that is as free and humane as possible. And yes, it is possible to preserve ideas, values, and emotions; obviously they are constantly changing but many beliefs (such as the arguably negative trait of property ownership, although this is more of a feature of civilization) have existed in the cultural matrix for some time even though the concept of owning property is completely artificial. But many of us still have the idea that our brother "owns" this house in Alaska and can't shake it. This idea does not stand on its own, however. It goes along with the concept of ownership in general and a consumerist ethic, which touches vast swaths of the cultural matrix. Taking away that one element of culture would affect many other aspects of society as well; the shopping experience, the way Christmas/Winter Holidays are celebrated (in a more superficial sense), the existence of beggars, the existence of whole jobs, with both positive and negative effects. The way people view things changes very drastically. Even one idea covers huge portions of cultural real estate and affects many things. So sometimes, preserving a whole group of cultural practices is necessity because revamping the whole world view is a complicated (and for most people uncomfortable) process that takes a very long time.

Nothing is morally superior when you look at things objectively, cultures can only be perceived as morally superior by individuals. You can't objectively say that one culture is superior to another.

I think you can, at least conceivably, say one culture is superior to another from a moral point of view. Morality is written on our genes, is it not? Would you say that female circumcision is a good cultural practice? I would hope not. And if one culture has noticeably more negative traits that endorse inequality, cruelty, and the like (obviously you can't exactly tally them up here but you get what I'm saying) it is, to put it very bluntly, morally inferior.