Sb, You are the ultimate troll!
I repeat for the nth time that Confucius
said many things which are his original thoughts but the moral principle that
you attribute to him viz “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” as his original thought is
not his original thought. The rest of what he said are not moral principles.
The findings regarding the moral principle cited are as follows:
The dates only indicate
the first recorded instance.
this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do." (c. 2040 – c. 1650
Late Period (c. 664 BC – 323 BC) papyrus contains the Golden Rule: "That
which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another."
doing what you would blame others for doing." – Thales (c. 624 BC – c. 546
impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." — Confucius c.
your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own
loss." — Laozi (c. 500 BC)
One should never do that to another which one regards as
injurious to one’s own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Other
behavior is due to selfish desires.
Jeffrey Wattles has written a book on the subject and this is what
he has to say:
rule, "Do to others as you would have others do to you," is widely
assumed to have a single meaning, shared by virtually all the world's
religions. (Jeffrey Wattles)
Interestingly Jeffrey Wattles calls it "the principle of the practice of the family of
God." which sounds like Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam which Secularlogic
Religion is associated by the scholars when they talk about the Golden rule.
The following is reproduced from my article:
There is only one God and that the Quran is a revelation from the one and only
It confirms previous scriptures and religions and says that Islam is not a new
religion but the religion of God all through the ages.
It says that prophets have been sent to all nations at different periods in
history for the guidance of the people and that many of these prophets were
confirms that the source of all religions is divine inspiration.
Research Question: Why is there such great
variety in beliefs and practices if there is only one God who has sent
revelations to all the people?
answer is in the article.
following is also what Confucius said which is a general truth (not a moral
principle) and applicable to the two of us who will not change their minds. I
have a reason which is clearly articulated in the article and willingness to
drop the theory if it can be falsified. You
cannot give one good example that satisfies the falsification test and yet call
it a dubious theory. It shows how dubious you are. After strenuous efforts you
gave a dubious example of Confucius which is proved to be false.
Only the wisest and the stupidest of men never change.
Now please stop trolling and even if you do, I intend to
ignore you and anyone else who comes with anything other than an example that
meets the falsification test.
Deen-e-Islam or the Moral Way of Living in Islam
On Apostasy etc:
The Quran prescribes hadd punishments only for kufr in the temporal dimension. Kufr in the temporal dimension is also kufr in the spiritual dimension but not vice versa.
Hadd punishments for kufr relating to God or the spiritual dimension are not prescribed in the Quran as that would violate the right of conscience that the Quran clearly grants to man.
Some forms of Kufr may appear to stride both the dimensions - for example, an apostate who turns hostile and carries on activities harmful to a section of the society or the state. Such a person can be punished for the harm that he has caused or can potentially cause but not for apostasy. Apostasy is merely incidental and irrelevant to the case as apostasy is not kufr in the temporal dimension.
Usury, if it does not contravene laws of the land, will only be kufr in the spiritual dimension. Through legislation, usury could be made a punishable offence since it is injurious to man as well but it is not hadd. Legislating punishments for kufr related to the spiritual dimension alone, violate the freedoms granted to man by the Quran and is kufr.
Learn to make distinction between man-made and divine laws which the article clearly points out. In fact it begins with acutioning against blind belief saying that is worse than blind rejection.
GM Sb says: How can you take "principles" to mean "moral principles" when you and anyone following this discussion must know that I have been repeatedly saying that moral principles can be derived both from human and religious sources. –
You are confirming that when you said principles you meant moral principles. Why do you then say you referred to my thesis and not to moral principles?
Your saying that moral principles are derived from human thought alone without divine inspiration repeatedly is not enough. Where is the proof to falsify my thesis?
He says: Even after I told you about your misunderstanding, you would not concede the point. Your contention that "principle" was a wrong word for me to use becomes your main argument now, and what I have been saying for past several days becomes null and void!
What have I misunderstood when after saying that principles referred to my thesis you are now back to saying that principles referred to moral principles? I got you right the first time.
Your repeatedly saying that moral principles can also come from human thinking is not proof.
GM Sb further says: “You say, "The moral principle “Do unto others…” is decisively proved to be much older than Confucius."
Everything for you is "decisive"! Can't wise men of different countries and different eras come to the same precept independently? You thinks this is sufficient reason for you to call me "a deliberate liar"! Well, if you say so, it must be decisive!”
He is talking about two different things. Does he concede that the moral principle which he was attributing to Confucius is decisively proved as of ancient origin and perhaps as old as civilization itself? The decisive proof that I have talked about is limited to exactly what I said.
What proves that he is a deliberate liar is his saying the following even after decisive proof is provided to show that the moral principle cannot be attributed to Confucius as his original thought which by the way even Confucius never claimed as his original and his book starts with a disclaimer:
“He declares "it has been shown decisively that the moral principle he was attributing to Confucius was not his." To use the phrase "it has been shown decisively," in matters such as these shows his Trump-like inclination to deceive.”
If I get him right, what he is perhaps trying to say is that if anybody talks of a moral principle, we should attribute it to the man in good faith as his original thought because we are all capable of arriving independently of each of the moral principles independently. (This is his belief without proof and as a matter of fact against all evidence to the contrary)
In effect, what he is saying is that Religion was never necessary in the past or now and that man could have independently of religion and God arrived at the moral way of living.
He is entitled to “his way and his beliefs” and we must part now and go our separate ways.
Those who will not believe will not believe no matter what evidence is provided and will believe in whatever they want to believe in even with all the evidence against it. Only Allah can guide people to the truth.
My apologies for having hurt your feelings in the process while trying to address your doubts.
Let us see now what the vernerable Gm Sb has to say now
He says: Perhaps he did not understand that when I mentioned
his "principles which no one agrees with and which are not even
necessary to uphold one's religious beliefs," I was referring not to
moral principles but to his thesis that all moral precepts are of
divine origin only.
can a thesis be called principles? Note that he says principles (plural). Am I
wrong in understanding it as “moral principles” which is the subject of the
thesis? I can accept that he communicated poorly but the fault is not mine.
He says: He declares "it has been shown decisively that
the moral principle he was attributing to Confucius was not his." To
use the phrase "it has been shown decisively," in matters such as
these shows his Trump-like inclination to deceive.
The moral principle “Do unto others…” is decisively proved to be
much older than Confucius. See my comment By Naseer Ahmed - 9/30/2016 12:05:03 AM. What is the doubt that GM has
about it? With the above statement GM has now proved to be a deliberate liar.
He says: His eagerness to find some flimsy ground to win a point
is evident and makes him vulnerable to misinterpret what others are saying
in order to declare victory!
is no need for me to even respond to any of his nonsense. I have been engaging
with him only out of courtesy. The article makes its point very clearly. The
only way to refute it is to give one good example of a durable moral principle
outside religion which he has failed to do. He made a transparently fraudulent
attempt to attribute to Confucius a moral principle that pre dates him and is
as old as civilization itself.
is my last comment since both Hats Off and Ghulam Mohiyuddin are only trolling and wasting every one's time.
It is a pity that GM Sb has descended to the level of a troll.
Did I make you eat your hat on the A Bishop question?
My hat! Is market research about hypothesizing?
Talk less and then maybe you can keep your ignorance under your hat.
You can throw your hat at ever being able to understand logic.
The tricks you play with words is old hat.
If you had asked a question with hat in hand, then perhaps I may have answered your question, but you are only talking through your hat.
You may now be only good for passing the hat around. Just do that! or is it "Just do it!"?
GM asked “When did you show that
Confucius's moral principles were from earlier religions?”
Full response given in my comment By Naseer Ahmed - 9/30/2016 12:05:03 AM
He has no response since it has been
shown decisively that the moral principle he was attributing to Confucius was
not his. With this his desperate attempt to prove that man could produce moral
principles on his own without divine inspiration came to naught. And yet this
man has the gall to say “You remind me of Donald Trump. The whole world thought
he had lost the debate last Monday, but he still keeps insisting that he won!”
Who has lost the debate and is behaving
like Donald Trump?
Nothing changes. Earlier he said in a
different thread ” “If you can't make a watch, your
thesis is null and void!”
That was certainly a dishonest way to
try to win an argument and extremely foolish too. What has watch making got to
do with what was being discussed?
My response is a very clear response to what GM
said. Is my response a lie or GM’s allegation? What he actually said and what my
full response was to what he said is fully quoted below. I have not said
anything beyond what I have quoted below. What additional things GM said while
accusing me of lying is immaterial since it does not change anything except prove
that GM has once again reframed what I said. GM should show how may response to
what he said is a lie.
GM Sb says: you find yourself in a
territory where you stand alone, proclaiming principles which no one agrees
with and which are not even necessary to uphold one's religious beliefs.
My response was: This is
something new. Can you elaborate? What we know from the above is that you
dismiss the moral principles as unnecessary which is quite apparent. What we
did not know was that this dismissal of moral principles is part of your belief.
Sb replies: You lie blatantly when you allege that I dismiss moral principles
as unnecessary. I have never said that.
Who is lying?
"Who is lying?"
Well, you lied because you quoted only part of what I had said. Here is my full quote:"You lie blatantly when you alleged that I dismiss moral principles as unnecessary. I have never said that. On the contrary what I have said repeatedly is that moral principles can be of divine or of human origins. What makes you totally distort now what I have been saying all along with great clarity? I have also been saying that you have been proclaiming principles which no one agrees with and which are not even necessary to uphold one's religious beliefs. Most intelligent Muslims would readily accept the fact that moral principles can be produced either by man or by religions."
If you still allege that I dismiss moral principles as unnecessary then it is no use discussing anything with you. You remind me of Donald Trump. The whole world thought he had lost the debate last Monday, but he still keeps insisting that he won!
GM Sb says: you find yourself in a
territory where you stand alone, proclaiming principles which no one agrees
with and which are not even necessary to uphold one's religious beliefs.
My response was: This is something
new. Can you elaborate? What we know from the above is that you dismiss the
moral principles as unnecessary which is quite apparent. What we did not know
was that this dismissal of moral principles is part of your belief.
GM Sb replies: You lie blatantly when
you allege that I dismiss moral principles as unnecessary. I have never said
Calling a lie a lie is not rude. It is statement of a fact. Here is the proof:
The Fig Leaf of a counter example from what Confucius said falls
The last words of GM Sb,
“Confucianism is a religion or that it is not original. (The moral principle “Do unto others…….”)
Even after I presented enough material to refute both those hypothesis, he (Naseer) behaves as if he did not hear anything that I had said! How can one discuss anything with such a man?”
My! My! What a pity! We must have exchanged close to 50 comments on this alone. He said many irrelevant things all of which true and I accepted these. I pointed out what was relevant to the discussion which supported my hypothesis and he behaved as if he did not hear anything.
He goes onto say:
“Trying to discuss anything with him is a waste of time. This discussion has gone on for so long because his mind is closed to hearing anything that questions his opinions. He cannot be helped. Hence this will be my last comment in this futile conversation.”
GM Sb can argue until eternity without a shred of evidence to support what he is saying. It amazes me how any reasonable person can do that but he has mastered the art.
I have written an article: Religion as a Civilizing Influence three years ago in which my thesis is that we lived as savages before religion civilized us or rather the moral principles given to us by religion helped us make the transition from savage to civilization. There are many civilizations which developed in different parts of the world which have co-existed without contact with each other for centuries before these developed enough to make contact with other civilizations. The moral principle that helped each of these different societies to make the transition must be essentially the same. What could this be?
If you examine “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, it strikes as the very first and most fundamental moral principle which helped us make the transition from the state of savage to civilization. If so, this moral principle is as old as civilization itself.
If the earliest record of this is found in the works of Confucius, it only means that Confucius was the first to put it into a book.
With the above thought in mind I researched further and my thinking is fully confirmed.
The findings are as follows:
The dates only indicate the first recorded instance.
"Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do." (c. 2040 – c. 1650 BC)
A Late Period (c. 664 BC – 323 BC) papyrus contains the Golden Rule: "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another."
"Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." – Thales (c. 624 BC – c. 546 BC)
"Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." — Confucius c. 500 BC)
"Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." — Laozi (c. 500 BC)
One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Other behavior is due to selfish desires.
— Brihaspati, Mahabharata
“This is the prescription – sometimes phrased as a proscription – to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. It is perhaps rash to claim that the Rule is ‘the only standard of duty common to all people’. But it is certainly recognized in all cultures, and numerous studies show that it has been endorsed in all of the major and most minor religions.” (Neil Duxbury)
The golden rule, "Do to others as you would have others do to you," is widely assumed to have a single meaning, shared by virtually all the world's religions. (Jeffrey Wattles)
Interestingly Jeffrey Wattles calls it "the principle of the practice of the family of God." which sounds like Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam which Secularlogic mentioned.
The above vindicates my stand that without this moral principle, no civilization appears possible and must be common to every civilization. It also puts paid to the transparently fraudulent manner in which GM Sb tried to foist the notion that it was the original thought of Confucius despite the evidence to the contrary which he stubbornly ignored.
My thesis stands.
What is clear is that the two of us stood our ground. GM Sb quit only when the ground slipped out under his feet and even then by declaring victory! It would be appropriate to consider what Confucius has to say on such behaviour:
The wisest because they are trying to bring out a truth. The stupidest because .......
GM SB SAYS : “Forgetting Confuscius and
Socrates, whom you dismiss on very arbitrary grounds”
Arbitrary grounds? Proving that the
moral principle falsely attributed to Confucius by GM sb was a much older one
found in every ancient religion and civilization and ?
Socrates was quoted talking about the
soul which is certainly a concept from religion and not Science or philosophy.
Your capacity for brazen faced lying is unbelievable.
You also go on to say: “you find
yourself in a territory where you stand alone, proclaiming principles which no
one agrees with and which are not even necessary to uphold one's religious
This is something new. Can you
elaborate? What we know from the above is that you dismiss the moral principles
as unnecessary which is quite apparent. What we did not know was that this
dismissal of moral principles is part of your belief.
Hats Off has finally come up with
something sensible. He says:
“no hypothesis can EVER be proposed
regarding either a moral or an ethical issue.”
Full marks to him for his intensive
research over the last couple of weeks after which he found one sound statement
to make. I agree with him.
We are however not discussing any
particular moral or an ethical issue here. We are only trying to ascertain the
source of all moral principles which is certainly ascertainable. We are looking
at facts and data to be able to say with conviction that the source of all
moral principles has been religion exclusively, or to disprove the same.
Here is Bernard Lewis a
Jewish historian telling you that the Ummah included people of all faiths and
this period lasted a full five centuries:
The Jews of Islam Page
From the time of the Prophet to that of the first caliphs, and beyond
that to the universal empire of the Umayyads and the Abbasids, there is an
unmistakable increase in tolerance accorded to non-Muslims (five centuries).
From about the twelfth and thirteenth centuries onward, there is a noticeable
move in the opposite direction. In earlier times a good deal of easy social
intercourse existed among Muslims, Christians, and Jews who, while professing
different religions, formed a single society, in which personal friendships,
business partnerships, intellectual discipleships, and other forms of shared
activity were normal and, indeed, common. This cultural cooperation is attested
in many ways. We have, for example, biographical dictionaries of famous
physicians. These works, though written by Muslims, include Muslim, Christian,
and Jewish physicians without distinction. From these large numbers of
biographies it is even possible to construct a kind of prosopography of the
medical profession— to trace the life curves of some hundreds of practitioners
in the Islamic world. From these sources we get a very clear impression of a
common effort. In hospitals and in private practice, doctors of the three
faiths worked together as partners or as assistants, reading each other’s books
and accepting one another as pupils. There was nothing resembling the kind of
separation that was normal in Western Christendom at that time or in the
Islamic world at a later time. This kind of common endeavor in a shared field
of learning was not limited to medicine and the sciences. It even included
philosophy, wherein one might have expected differences of religion to make for
separateness. An example may serve to illustrate this point. There is a chapter
in one of the theological writings of the great Muslim theologian al-Ghazālī
(1059-1111) that is almost identical to a chapter in a work by his near
contemporary, the Jewish philosopher Bahye ibn Paquda. The connection between
the two has puzzled many scholars. At one time it was assumed that Bahye must have
taken the contents of the chapter from al-Ghazālī, since, while Bahye could
read Arabic, al-Ghazālī could not have read the Hebrew script in which Bahye’s
work was written. When it was shown that there was no way in which Bahye could
have seen or read al-Ghazālī’s work, the problem seemed insoluble until the
late Professor Baneth found the answer. An earlier text, previously unknown,
was the common source of the relevant chapters in both al-Ghazālī and Bahye,
and accounts for the striking resemblances between the two. What makes the case
still more remarkable is that this earlier work was written by a Christian. We
thus have a Christian who writes a theological treatise, presumably intended
for Christian readers, which is then studied and, so to speak, borrowed by two
subsequent theologians, one Muslim and the other Jewish, each writing a work of
religious instruction for his own coreligionists. A society in which plagiarism
is possible between theologians of three different religions has indeed achieved
a high degree of tolerance and symbiosis. In the later Middle Ages such relationships
begin to diminish. We find less and less of such sharing of intellectual,
social, or commercial life, and see an increasing pattern of segregation and
And for what brought about changes in the later centuries, read some good history books.
The Muslims were and are some of the most refined and cultured people.
GM Says: The distinction is just in your
mind which sees morality as being somehow inextricably tied to
religion. Morality simply refers to right conduct and is learned both ontogenetically
As far as learning is concerned, moral principles
and rules of right conduct are learned as easily as a child learns its mother
tongue. As a matter of fact, the process is similar and simultaneous as I have
already pointed out in my earlier comments and also in my article:
There A Rational Basis For The Atheists To Oppose Religion?
Humans need to learn the concepts of empathy,
kindness, generosity, giving, sharing, nurturing, modesty and humility.
If these are not learned early enough, man will grow without the capacity for
feelings and moral emotions and will exhibit psychopathic behaviour. The
earlier, the moral precepts are learnt, the greater their chances of making an
indelible mark on the person. Up to the age of 3 years, a person accepts all
that it is taught without filtering. Beyond the age of 3 years, a person
filters new messages through what he/she has already learnt. Noam Chomsky’s
most powerful single idea is that there is a universal capacity for language
but it is expressed in different ways in different cultures. Every baby has the
capacity to learn all the world’s languages but what the neurologists call
synaptic pruning in the early years reduces that child’s capacity to the
languages around her. A songbird which does not hear other songbirds singing at
the crucial stage of its development can never sing. That account of language
can work for morality too – indeed the two are closely related, depending as
they both do on human interaction.”
The confusion is in your mind GM Sb because of which
you reframe whatever is said. I am speaking about producing a moral principle
and not learning. As discussed at great length, practical ethics is based on
learnings from practicing the moral principles and these make great sense in
hindsight. If you have nothing meaningful to say beyond repeating yourself, let
us end this discussion.
And instead of making inane comments ad nauseum, why don't you just quote what any wise man said that is a moral principle not borrowed from religion?
(10:37) This Qur´an is not such as can be
produced by other than Allah; on the contrary it is a confirmation of
(revelations) that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book -
wherein there is no doubt - from the Lord of the worlds.
the subtopics listed below can be seen as both a confirmation and fuller explanation
of what could arguably be the very first moral principle. The Quran
confirms that it is a confirmation and fuller explanation of revelations that came before it:
“Do unto others as you would have them
do unto you”
Freedom of Conscience
Sanctity Of Human Life 5:32
Be Kind, Honourable And
Humble To One's Parents
Diversity and tolerance
Keep One's Promises,
Be Honest and Fair In
Peace with non-aggressors,
kindness towards them, and just dealing
Freeing of slaves
Tenderness with Wife In
Care for Orphaned Children
Repel Evil with Good
Without doubt, further explanation of the very first moral principle
is to be found in other scriptures and the Quran can be seen as the more detailed explanation of what preceded it.
Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The Parable of His Light is as
if there were a Niche and within it a Lamp: the Lamp enclosed in Glass: the
glass as it were a brilliant star: Lit from a blessed Tree, an Olive, neither
of the east nor of the west, whose oil is well-nigh luminous, though fire
scarce touched it: Light upon Light! Allah doth guide whom He will to His
Light: Allah doth set forth Parables for men: and Allah doth know all things.
ayat or verse occurs in Surah Nur or The Light which has 14 sections, and each
section deals with some aspect of the law or the moral way of living. The
connection of the ayat with the moral way of living is unmistakable.
excellence with which the Quran teaches us the moral way of living is at
several levels. The first level is the moral principle itself which is self-luminous
and is likened to the olive oil from a blessed tree neither of the east nor the
west which clearly hints that the source of the self-luminous moral principle
is divine and not from this earth covering the east and the west. The second level
is the use of imagery created with words and using the most effective devices
of the psychology of influence such as priming and through reinforcement by
repeating the message but in different ways and in different contexts to make
the point clear and beyond doubt. The second level of light is when the olive
oil is thus lighted up. The third level is the linguistic excellence which
clothes/covers this light and is likened to the glass which itself is brilliant
like the star. All of these within the framework of a complete and
self-sufficient system of belief in a God who is the Creator, Sustainer,
Helper, Law Giver, the source of all power, the Wise, the Aware, the Knower,
the Just, the Merciful, the one who Rewards, the Forgiver, the Lord of the Day
of Judgment and with many more attributes. The meaning of light upon light is now crystal
clear and also the meaning of niche. The Quran sheds light on many truths but
specially on the complete way of living a moral life and the source of this
knowledge/light is Allah Himself. The excellence is best described by the Quran
itself. Allah does
guide whom He will to His Light: Allah does set forth Parables for men: and
Allah does know all things. May Allah guide us all to His Light!
More of the excellence of the teaching of the moral way of
living in my next article.
The scriptures are inspired/revealed by the Divine. These are not a construct of the human mind.
Principles are divine.
is a utilitarian discipline and product of human effort. There would have been
no progress on the civilizational scale without the moral principles from
religion and therefore there would not have been Science either.
Science is not religion. The moral principles from religion
are however “scientific” if these help us optimize the well-being of all. Belief
in divine origin of the moral principles is amenable to scientific inquiry and
proof. Beyond this there is no need to confuse between the two.