Rintrah wrote on Dec 19^th, 2008 at 5:11pm:


Re: Could Islam be evil?
Reply #17 - Nov 15th, 2008, 11:55pm Alert Board Moderator about this Post!
Rintrah wrote on Nov 15th, 2008, 11:27pm:
...
The idea that God or Islam could be 'evil' is illogical. As 'evil' is not an 'objective' concept. If we accept that Allah (swt) is the one God, and the submission to this fact is the perfection of humanity, then it follows that what is not submission is evil, and what is, is good.

Similarly if one denies this fact, and creates his or her own gods and prophets, what is not alligned with that world view will be evil in turn. So yes, Islam could be 'evil' if 'evil' is defined as being that which a non Muslim is not.

======================================
Re: Could Islam be evil?
Reply #21 - Yesterday at 6:46am Alert Board Moderator about this Post!
Rintrah wrote on Nov 16th, 2008, 11:45am:
Quote:
That is fine example of circular argument therefore your premise that "The idea that God or Islam could be 'evil' is illogical" is wrong.


I'm sorry, this misunderstanding must be me not expressing myself correctly. My argument was intended to emphasise that 'evil' is a subjective word and therefore when it is not defined adequately, anyone can say anything around it and will be valid.

What I did was define evil and then said whatever I wanted.

Am I expressing myself clearly here?


That's why your argumentation is invalid

Quote:
CIRCULUS IN DEMONSTRANDO

This fallacy occurs when one assumes as a premise the conclusion which one wishes to reach.


for example
"We know that Allah exists because the Koran tells us so. And we know that the Koran is true because it is the word of Allah."

   Re: Could Islam be evil?
Reply #25 - Yesterday at 2:03pm Alert Board Moderator about this Post!
Rintrah wrote on Yesterday at 11:58am:
Quote:
My argument was intended to emphasise that 'evil' is a subjective word and therefore when it is not defined adequately, anyone can say anything around it and will be valid.


This was my point, rather than 'for example
"We know that Allah (swt) exists because the Qu'ran tells us so. And we know that the Qu'ran is true because it is the word of Allah (swt)."

Obviously there must be choice in order for their to be any value in belief. Given a choice between belief or disbelief, I choose belief and all that follows. I believed the debate in this thread was around 'evil' as expressed in the title. I intended to express my problems with an argument based around a word so subjective and not defined by the creator of the thread. If we are to debate evil, then how can we do so without being given an understanding of what exactly to the poster 'evil means'.

I am Muslim, I believe in Allah (swt) I have no proof that God exists and do not desire proof, that is not the point. I can argue on the internal validity of Islam under that assumption, I cannot argue upon the assumption itself. I though this was a discussion forum about Islam, not about more broadly the existance of God.

Anything I state about the Deen is coming obviously from the assumption of Shahada: I testify there is no God but God and Mohammed is His final Messenger. My explanation of the idea of Shaitan and choice in my particular Islamic world view was done with this assumption, I am a Muslim after all, how debate should follow is around the internal validity of what I have said, rather than simply saying well 'God doesn't exist and Mohammed (sws) isn't His messenger', as that somewhat defeats the purpose.

Apologies in advance if I am not making myself clear, if I say anything wrong I ask yourself and the Creator for forgiveness, God knows and I know not.


I am glad that you've come clear about fallacy of the statement "The idea that God or Islam could be 'evil' is illogical".
Yes, possibility of it exist.

I sincerely hope that I've cured "your ignorance" but if it is incurable it isn't my fault perhaps Allah willed you to stay that way as he/she wills everything.

It does not matter if democracy is left, right or Islamic the voting process is essential because without vote will of people is unknown.

Quote:


This is correct. And for good reason.

Let us test how democratic you actually are. If the vast majority of society voted to legalise rape/suicide/murder/etc, would it become legal? Or are there limits imposed upon how far democracy (will of the people in legislating) is permitted to go? What I'm poking at, is, are there underlying principles, which even trump the "will of the people"? If you answer no, then I'm sure you can, in some way, understand my opposition to Democracy.

If you answer yes... then you admit Democracy is not just a method of selecting a leader, or legislation directly, but is a set of principles and values that go much deeper (an ideology if you will). Which is what I've said all along, and what you've denied all along.

Quote:


Just a question, if the will of the majority decides to have only Shari'ah, do you accept that as Democratic?

Likwise one could argue that the Australian system only allows those who intend to implement the secular/democratic laws to run... Why is it different? Because you just happen to agree with one set of laws and not the other?

Actually if you read my post properly (which refers to previous discussions about democracy between fd and myself) you'd realise that answering "yes" isn't agreeing with me per se, but is merely confirming my analysis of what democracy is.

Nevermind though, don't let it ruin yet another perfectly good opportunity to take a stab at Islam.

well I can't speak for every religion but for Islam it could never be the case.

Wrong. Shari'ah law is clear those things are forbidden, and always will remain so, they are immutable.

But in democracy they may not be...

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 19^th, 2008 at 7:19am:

You seem to do a mighty fine job of speaking for other religions most of the time. Don't stop now.

Quote:


Same can be said for Democracy or any other system, that's the most useless argument I've seen  presented in a while.

One of the main criticisms of Islam here is it's immutability, it is supposedly unable to cope with change, because it's laws are so fixed. Yet your argument seems to be that it's not fixed, and can just be changed at the whim of any criminal minority...

What we're talking about here tallowood is the system itself, not the hypothetical criminal minority who could seize power and implement something contrary to the system.