certifired_img

Books and Documents

Islamic Ideology

20 - COMMENTS

  • Being deaf, dumb and blind, GM sb fails to see that a hypothesis is presented with a challenge to the world to disprove it. What is required to disprove the hypothesis is one counter example. If any other authority had said the same thing, I would have quoted such authority and not proposed it as my hypothesis.

     GM sb is simply not familiar with the scientific process to prove/disprove a hypothesis. Else, he would not have asked such a stupid question. When I presented it in scientific format as a Null Hypothesis in my article:      Theism Vs Atheism it went beyond the understanding of people, I therefore rewrote the article in layman's language:Science and Religion 

     The challenge was first posed in my article:  Is There A Rational Basis For The Atheists To Oppose Religion? as long back as  March 2013

     The article:   Religion as a Civilizing Influence discusses the difference between how morality is understood within religion and in Philosophy. 

     The reason why the same idea may not have occurred to others before, is because to us, after 70,000 years of the civilizing influence of Religion, what was counter intuitive to the earlier people, has become self-evident. We therefore do not wonder at these principles and take them for granted and simply as “common sense”.  This is not true. I have carefully studied the works of every philosopher who spoke about morality. While the philosophers have defined what morality is, all of them have singularly failed to generate moral and ethical precepts from these definitions. Aquinas falls back on what he calls “self-evident” first principles which derive from religion. Just notice Aquinas describing these as self-evident which was anything but self-evident when religion first introduced these principles. He however fails to recognize this fact, and it is this blindness that has kept people from realizing the unique and distinctive contribution of religion.  Western Education, in any case, and especially the Sciences including the social sciences, are heavily slanted against religion, and once they consider the prophets as only philosophers, there  is no longer any need to make any distinction between the contribution of religion and the contribution of the philosophers.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/15/2019 11:47:13 PM



  • Naseer sb. seems to be the only ignoramus in the world who thinks all moral precepts have come through religions only. Can he name even one authority who agrees with such an absurd notion?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/15/2019 6:12:16 PM



  • GM sb is in denial like all atheists and apostates. The fact is that he has not produced a single counter example.

    It is my hypothesis and challenge that all moral principles have come from religion and none from philosophy or secular thinking. The onus is on others to produce a counter example to disprove my hypothesis. He does not even understand this much and the delusional fool thinks he has won the argument without even knowing that the onus in on him and others who do not accept what I say to produce a counter example to disprove the hypothesis.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/15/2019 3:37:35 AM



  • Naseer sb. is under the delusion that he won all our previous arguments when the fact is that he lost all of them. He wants me to produce humanly produced moral precepts when the onus of proof is on him because he came up with the idiotic theory that moral precepts cannot be produced by human beings. I do not think there is a single philosopher or aalim who agrees with him. When I produced several examples of moral aphorism coming from ancient non-religious sources, he proceeded to call all of them religious! His arguments satisfy only himself, no one else.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/14/2019 12:18:08 PM



  • GM sb is the liar. He has been lying so consistently that he has completely lost all shame. What is one more lie to him? He is  so frustrated at being beaten hollow in every discussion that now he does not care  to lie about the defeat on the discussion and claim it as a victory. 

    Have you GM sb, produced evidence of even one moral principle that has come from outside religion? That was the challenge which you failed to meet and you lost the argument. And how can you win when even the most famous Immanuel Kant could not come up with an original moral principle and merely rephrased the "Principle of Reciprocity" from religion? 
    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/14/2019 2:26:15 AM



  • Naseer sb. claims that he has "proved" exclusive contribution of religion to moral precepts.
    That is a lie. He does not seem to remember that he was beaten badly in this argument a year or so ago. If philosophers say that godhood is necessary to give anchor or authority to morality, they are not saying that morality springs exclusively from godhood. Only very foolish people say that.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/13/2019 12:29:25 PM



  • The purpose in quoting Kant was to expose the hypocrisy of the atheist philosophers in not recognizing the exclusive contribution of religion to moral precepts and I have succeeded in doing that. God knows what is it that you are babbling about.

    Even the atheist Kant's "supreme principle of morality" is the "Principle of Reciprocity" from religion re-framed.

    Even this atheist philosopher had to concede that to follow true morality, belief in an after-life is necessary.
     
    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/13/2019 2:54:41 AM



  • Naseer sb.,
    It is you who brought in Kant to support your arguments a couple of days ago, as you did once before about 8 or 10 years ago. The fact is that Kant did not believe our morality to have originated in godhood, but thought that  morality needed godhood as an anchor. Choose your champions more carefully in future!
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/10/2019 1:10:39 PM



  • An atheist sees:
    An act of terrorism as "religious"
    Committing Sati as "religious"
    Genocidal wars of Christianity as "religious"
    Child/human sacrifice as "religious"
    and therefore does not see religion as necessarily moral. Kant is an avowed atheist.
    Even such an avowed atheist could not go beyond the "Principle of Reciprocity" from religion re-packaged as the "supreme principle of morality" and conceding after several years and perhaps a decade of discussion and argument that following such morality requires belief in justice finding perfection in the Hereafter.
    The pretensions of philosophy in the realm of morality have always been just pretension and a charade. Philosophy has contributed theories of ethics/morality but not a single moral/ethical precept. These have come solely from religion
    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/9/2019 11:03:43 PM



  • Naseer sb.'s quotation was about " true morality is impossible without a belief in God." But this ignores further evolution in Kant's philosophy. As my quotation from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy said, "One way that Kant gives priority to morality over religion is by arguing that belief in God follows from a moral commitment, and denying that recognition of the moral law follows from or must be grounded in recognition of God's authority."

    Thus morality gets priority over religion, belief in God follows from a moral commitment, and moral law does NOT follow from recognition of God's authority.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/9/2019 12:59:56 PM



  • What I have quoted from Kant is a simple copy paste of the relevant section from the Kant's Philosophy of Religion (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
    How does GM sb  call me a liar for quoting verbatim? He is a slandering apostate.

    All of Kant's ideas are not relevant. He was after all an atheist. The point that is indisputable is what I have said:

    1. His supreme principle of morality is a rephrasing of the Principle of Reciprocity from religion.
    2. He was an atheist and yet after years of debate and discussion, he could not justify or say why people would follow the "supreme principle"  unless they believed in justice finding perfection beyond this life.


    Since a  belief that justice will find perfection in the Hereafter is only held by religions, practicing of true morality is not possible outside religion is the obvious logical conclusion.

    I am equally critical of Religion as it is commonly practiced.  I am also concerned about both the power of religious officials and the corrupting influence of religious belief and practice can have on people who do not clearly separate morality and their false beliefs. Many of my articles are about such false beliefs and their corrupting influence.

     Both the points that Kant is making are true.

    1. Practicing of the supreme principle of morality without belief in justice finding perfection in the Hereafter does not make sense. 

    2. Religion itself contributes to immorality. For example, the genocide of indigenous populations  indulged in by all Christian conquerors. 
    By naseer ahmed - 3/9/2019 3:10:47 AM



  • Instead of discussing issues, Naseer sb.., starts another barrage of abuse and name calling which seems to be the only thing he knows. Posing as an exegete of Islam, this small-minded smearer is actually doing more harm to Islam than he knows.
    Naseer sb. lies blatantly about Kant's views on morality. As the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says, "Kant is highly critical of religion as commonly practiced. He is concerned about both the power of religious officials and the corrupting influence religious belief and practice can have on people who do not clearly separate morality and religion, recognizing morality as more fundamental. One way that Kant gives priority to morality over religion is by arguing that belief in God follows from a moral commitment, and denying that recognition of the moral law follows from or must be grounded in recognition of God's authority. A second way in which Kant treats morality as fundamental is by denying that we have any duties to God. All that God commands us to do is what morality requires: our duties to ourselves and others."
    Is there anything about which Naseer sb. does not lie?
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/8/2019 1:24:38 PM



  • .....even the most famous "supreme principle of morality" of Immanuel Kant is a rephrasing of the principle of reciprocity from religion! 
    The charade of denying religion however goes on. Ironically, Kant who was a rational atheist having denied religion eralier, had to finally concede that:
    Kant's Philosophy of Religion (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
    3.4 The immortality of the soul
    In response to this predicament, Kant affirms a principle that, with respect to choice and action, such practical use of our reason cannot require of us what is impossible. To the extent that we view these requirements of reason from the sensible perspective of spatio-temporal causality, they will seem impossible of fulfilment. When, however, we view them from the intelligible perspective within which we frame the exercise of freedom, their fulfilment can legitimately be “postulated” in terms of the immortality of the soul and of the existence of God. Thus, with respect to the requirement that we attain the complete moral perfection of a holy will, Kant holds that we are justified in affirming that we will have an unending and enduring existence after death, outside the framework of spatio-temporal causality, in which to continue the task of seeking moral perfection. He holds a similar view with respect to the requirement that the highest good be the object of our willing. Even though our moral actions do not seem to have the efficacy required in a spatio-temporal framework to produce the happiness proportioned to virtue that is a necessary component of the highest good, we are justified in affirming that there is a supreme cause of nature — i.e., God — that will bring this about, not merely for ourselves, but for all moral agents.
    What he is conceding in effect, is that true morality is impossible without a belief in God. To him Utilitarianism, Consequentialism and other isms based on reason is not morality at all. Morality for him is rule based or Deontological obeyed out of reverence for the moral code or God and without consideration of your self-interest, likes/dislikes etc.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/8/2019 1:20:35 AM



  • It is GM sb and the atheist philosophers who are charlatans. They do not believe in God, religion and prophets. For them the prophets were also philosophers. Having called the prophets philosophers, they no longer require to make any distinction between what has come from religion and what has come from philosophy. Indeed philosophy has taken every moral precept from religion and applied reason to it and justified the same moral precept based on arguments of its utility. We therefore have ethical philosophies of Utilitarianism, Consequentialism and other isms. In the entire history of philosophy however, not even one moral precept has come from outside of religion. The contribution of philosophy to morality is in making us see the rationality behind the principles from religion. This is hindsight and based on empirical evidence.

    Religion is denied its place by the charlatans by denying God, revelation, prophets and treating the prophets as philosophers.

    The entire western education is based on ignoring if not entirely denying religion. There is nothing scientific about this.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/7/2019 10:22:25 PM



  • Naseer sb. has given a very poor response to my comment. He thinks all he has to do is to call me an apostate (which is a lie) and all his problems will be solved! Only a very low level exegete would use such despicable techniques.
    He says, “There were other progenitors of human beings besides Adam, who appeared about 250,000 years ago. Every other species of humans besides the progeny of Adam is long extinct.” - -  The only source Naseer sb. gives for that fanciful assertion is his own earlier article! It is true that many hominid species disappeared and only homo sapiens survived. But to put Adam in that scientific account of genesis is the kind of fraud that only Naseer sb. can perpetrate. Moreover when I said man originated 200,000 to 300,000 years ago, I was referring to homo sapiens and not to any of the extinct hominids.

    He further says, "Animals are driven by their instinct or DNA and are not moral agents. . . The fact is that no moral principle has come from outside of religion." - - Again his sole source is his own earlier article! The fact is that both man and animals are driven by their DNA instincts as well as by what they learn through experience in their struggle for survival. Man, with his greater brain development and his verbal skills, can take this to a higher level than animals. Naseer sb.'s  assertion that that "no moral principle has come from outside of religion" is his own idiotic invention and no authority in either religion or science supports him.

     According to The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics, religion and morality "are to be defined differently and have no definitional connections with each other. Conceptually and in principle, morality and a religious value system are two distinct kinds of value systems or action guides." In the views of others, the two can overlap. According to one definition, morality is an active process which is, "at the very least, the effort to guide one's conduct by reason, that is, doing what there are the best reasons for doing, while giving equal consideration to the interests of all those affected by what one does."
    Naseer sb. has been authoritatively  propagating absolutely preposterous ideas which are not supported by any credible sources. As I have said before, he is a charlatan.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/7/2019 11:45:27 AM



  • The following link may be used:
    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/7/2019 3:28:47 AM



  • “There were other progenitors of human beings besides Adam, who appeared about 250,000 years ago. Every other species of humans besides the progeny of Adam is long extinct.

    The above is from my article: Was Allah Unjust in Creating Adam and Favouring His Progeny Over All His Creation? The progeny of Adam is unique.

    Animals are driven by their instinct or DNA and are not moral agents. Read  Is There A Rational Basis For The Atheists To Oppose Religion?

    The fact is that no moral principle has come from outside of religion. Read Science and Religion

    The rest of your comment GM sb is a denial of the Quran and therefore a rant of an apostate. It does not deserve a response. 

    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/7/2019 3:22:44 AM



  • Shahin sb,
    The book is also available from Amazon:
    https://www.amazon.com/Playing-God-Misreading-Divine-Practice/dp/9698799729
    I have separately mailed you a pdf file sent to me by the author. By Naseer Ahmed - 3/7/2019 2:55:03 AM



  • Naseer Saheb, this link doesn't lead to the desired page. By Sulran Shahin - 3/7/2019 1:08:28 AM



  • I was just waiting for Naseer sb. to write this article!
    BTW, human beings emerged 200,000 to 300,000  years ago, not 75,000 years ago
    Naseer sb. says, "To be evil is therefore natural and to choose good is counter intuitive." This is speculative and almost certainly wrong. Man's survival instinct itself forces him to make choices. He thus learns that if he kills, he may be killed; if he robs,  others may rob him. Man's ability to learn from experience is the source of his wisdom and hence of his morality. Religions only reinforce what he knows and give a divine sanction to what he has learned. Having a herd instinct and following the leader are traits that man shares with many other animals in the jungle including goats, elephants, lions, gorillas, bees and Canadian geese.
    It is true that many people were destroyed in history but it would be simplistic to say they were destroyed because they rejected belief in Allah. There are crores of people thriving on this earth who do not believe in Allah.
    There is no such thing as a war in the cause of Allah. Allah is too great to want us to fight wars for Him. Fighting a war with those who  "turn people out of their homes or places of worship," or  those "who oppress other people" is a war with secular human justification.
    Treatment of vanquished people and formulation of criminal laws and prescriptions of just penalties are areas that can be best administered by contemporary human societies. The Geneva Conventions regulating the conduct of war and treatment of war prisoners and the Indian Constitution and Penal Code laying down just and sensible civil and criminal laws are examples of how this should be done.
    Naseer sb. says Jews and Christians "no longer follow what is abrogated by the Quran". This is an unwarranted self-congratulatory claim. The Quran does not abrogate anything from the scriptures of the Jews and Christians, nor does it claim to do so. As the Jewish and Christian societies evolved and modernized, they adapted their laws and made them more liberal, rational and humane and less harsh in punishments.
    The classical Islamic scholars were more like Naseer sb. than he thinks, in that they too took "the simple, straightforward meaning of the Quran."
    Naseer sb.'s diatribe against "Muslim moderates" is full of ignorance and spite. He has to badmouth them because he wants to support such outdated practices as lashings, amputation of limbs,  wife beating and religious supremacism, although he will deny that he is a supremacist!
    Religions have a well defined area of operations keeping us God-conscious, promoting what is good and condemning what is evil. That is a huge and a very fruitful area of endeavor.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/6/2019 1:39:57 PM