When we ask whether something exist or not, this presupposes the possibility of existence or non-existence. But this possibility itself, as condition of both being and non-being - can it not exist? Obviously, this question is absurd and devoid of logical meaning. If we understand that God is not some kind of super-being out there, but the possibility of everything conceivable, everything that is and what is not, then we will immediately see beyond any question and any doubt evidence of God. How can one ask whether the possibility itself exists, if the question itself presupposes the possibility of existence or non-existence and, therefore, is unthinkable outside the existence of possibility Itself?

As we know the Islamic Hadiths are eyewitness accounts, sayings and teachings of Muhammad etc, some of these Hadiths are verifiable some are not.

The bible contains the same thing but about Jesus instead however a lot of the content in the bible contradicts itself this is most likely due to a lot of unverified text being compiled into the final book (this also most likely explains why we have variations of the bible where additions and subtractions have been placed onto the text).

In my opinion this makes it clear that the bible did not come from god

What are you guy’s opinions on this?

Quran says that Al Hijr was carved by the time the Thamud people were destroyed:

“And to the Thamud [We sent] their brother Salih. He said, "O my people, worship Allah; you have no deity other than Him. There has come to you clear evidence from your Lord. This is the she-camel of Allah [sent] to you as a sign. So leave her to eat within Allah 's land and do not touch her with harm, lest there seize you a painful punishment. And remember when He made you successors after the 'Aad and settled you in the land, [and] you take for yourselves palaces from its plains and carve from the mountains, homes [ buyūtan بُيُوتًا ^([23])]. Then remember the favors of Allah and do not commit abuse on the earth, spreading corruption." (Quran 7:73-74)

"And [with] Thamud, who carved out the rocks in the valley?"

(Quran 89:9)

Location:

“And certainly did the residents of the Stone Valley[ al-Hijr ٱلْحِجْرِ ] deny the messengers. And We gave them Our signs, but from them they were turning away. And they used to carve from the mountains, houses [buyūtan بُيُوتًا ], feeling secure. But the shriek seized them at early morning.” (Quran 15:80-83)

"allah” even stated that it is close to the Meccans, and they were aware of it:

And [We destroyed] 'Aad and Thamud, and it has become clear to you from their [ruined] dwellings [ masākinihim مَّسَٰكِنِهِمْ^(4])]. And Satan had made pleasing to them their deeds and averted them from the path, and they were endowed with perception. (Quran 29:38)

It was destroyed before Moses:

A believing man from Pharaoh’s people, who was hiding his faith, argued, “Will you kill a man^(1) ˹only˺ for saying: ‘My Lord is Allah,’ while he has in fact come to you with clear proofs from your Lord? If he is a liar, it will be to his own loss. But if he is truthful, then you will be afflicted with some of what he is threatening you with. Surely Allah does not guide whoever is a transgressor, a total liar...

And the man who believed cautioned, “O my people! I truly fear for you the doom of ˹earlier˺ enemy forces—like the fate of the people of Noah, ’Ȃd, Thamûd, and those after them. For Allah would never will to wrong ˹His˺ servants."  (Quran 40:28-31 (truncated))

We can date Moses' era in the Quran to latest 1200 bc:

Quran 5:21 says that Musa led the children of Israel into the land of Canaan. So we can date Quran 40:28-31 and consequently Al Hijr's building date to the latest 1208 BC, because the Merneptah Stele says that "Israel was vanquished".

The First Quranic Mistake:

"Formerly known as Hegra it is the largest conserved site of the civilization of the Nabataeans south of Petra in Jordan. It features well-preserved monumental tombs with decorated facades dating from the 1st century BC to the 1st century AD. " (Source)

So we can tell that Al Hijr's carved structures didn't exist at the time of Moses, but came into existence >1100 years AFTER. 

The Second Quranic Mistake:

“And you carve out of the mountains, homes [ buyūtan بُيُوتًا ], with skill.” (Quran 26:149)

“And certainly did the residents of the Stone Valley[ al-Hijr ٱلْحِجْرِ ] deny the messengers. And We gave them Our signs, but from them they were turning away. And they used to carve from the mountains, houses [buyūtan بُيُوتًا ], feeling secure. But the shriek seized them at early morning.” (Quran 15:80-83)

ALL of the Quran's statements that those carved structures in Al Hijr are homes. However, archaeologists state that Al Hijr's carved structures are tombs. See the problem now?

Conclusion: This shows that the Quran's narrative on Al Hijr was clearly fabricated. Nothing adds up, nothing makes sense. allah destroyed a city that didn't even exist 😂

P.S. I've even included in a list of hadiths that affirm that the site where the fictitious quranic Thamud people resided in was at Al Hijr

Edit: since a lot of people do not seem to be aware of the distinction between Gnosticism and gnostic theism, I am going to use “absolutist theism” instead. This post is addressed very specifically to the common western mainstream theist (mostly of the fundamentalist evangelical Christian variety).

Absolutist theism is idolatry, namely any claim to know if a being, spirit, book, or anything else is divinely authoritative, and I am going to prove it twice in this essay using two different arguments. One argument from logic and the other from fruits. So stick around to either learn enough to refute me, learn enough to escape unintended idolatry, or learn enough to help deal with this widespread issue.

I don’t care if this gets copied and pasted all over the internet, so spread and share as you please.

In the effort to prove that absolutist theism is idolatry I am first going to prove that a person with power over space, time, matter, life, death, and practically every other variable along side also having full access to all information within a reality of their creating does not equate to that person being the almighty God of all realities.

To prove this I need only provide one of many factual examples of a person with this sort of power who is not the almighty God of all realities and then address a couple of ways people tend to try to undermine the validity of my example.

It is a fact that I am a limited and fallible human software developer. As such I have the power to create virtual realities over which I have the power to travel forward and backward through time, I can turn water to wine, I can make distances longer or shorter, I can give life, take life, and give it back again.

Every feat of power in the Bible that apologists point to as proof that the god of the Bible is the Almighty God of all realities is a feat I am capable of within the confines of the realities I create.

Of course this does not make me the almighty God, given that my god-like power is limited to the realities I create. That is my point. I am not the almighty God despite being more than capable of appearing to be such to any being confined to the reality I create.

It is also true that any virtual reality I could create will be less sophisticated than the reality external to it. There are some things about our reality that I will never be able to replicate in a virtual reality.

However, these facts do not undermine my point in the slightest given that they only prove that any nested reality is likely to be less sophisticated than the reality it is nested in. This does not prove that our reality is not a nested reality. It only suggests that if our reality is a nested reality, then it is likely not as sophisticated as the reality that it is nested in. So too is any reality that might be external to our own, likely to be less sophisticated than any reality that may encompass it, and so on.

Now, be careful not to confuse my point with my example, because my point is true whether our reality is a nested reality or not. That point being that a person with power over space, time, matter, life, death, and practically every other variable alongside also having full access to all information within a reality of their creation does not equate to that person being the almighty God of all realities as proven by my ability to have that sort of power over the realities I can create despite being a limited and fallible human being.

I have proven this point because its truth reveals that humans are without any reliable method for discerning if any being, spirit, or medium is divine in any way. No feat of power could distinguish, for we limited and fallible humans, an almighty God from something akin to a limited and fallible software engineer who just happens to be in a position of power over our reality.

No measure of morality can distinguish the almighty God of the universe from a false god because God’s ways are higher than our ways such that God’s choice of action or inaction might not always align with our faulty human standards of ethics.

This is why a lot of Christians believe that if God commands you to sacrifice your child, even if it feels wrong, you should do it because the fact that God commanded it means it is ultimately a good thing for you to do. Who knows, perhaps God will intervene at the last second because it was all a test of your faith.

Speaking of faith. For many people, this is where faith comes in.

When definitive proof is not available, faith can be used to assure you that your beliefs are true.

First, we need to distinguish between the secular understanding of faith, which is more akin to confident blind trust, and the biblical meanings of the word faith which are two fold.

If you are unfamiliar with best practices when it comes to Biblical interpretation, most Christian bible teachers suggest that you not lean upon any one verse to inform the Bible’s take on something, when there are multiple passages to take into account you need to use scripture to interpret scripture. This mentality informs the practice of biblical word studies, where you compile every instance where a word is used and use them to better understand what the word is meant to mean.

When we do this with the word “faith” we find that it is largely two things.

First, faith is a gift of divine revelation from God. This sort of faith cannot be manifested by a human’s sheer will.

Second, faith is the degree of belief/trust that a person puts into that which has been divinely revealed.

Source: https://biblehub.com/greek/4102.htm

So by biblical metrics, there is no faith without divine revelation, and as we have already proven, humans do not seem to be designed to be capable of discerning whether or not anything is divine, be it a being, spirit, book, or revelation.

So let’s ignore the fact that this means faith is inaccessible to human beings for a moment, and instead fall back onto the secular meaning of faith which is distinct from biblical faith in that it is not a gift God gives you, it is a choice you make where you use your fallible human judgment in an effort to discern that something is worthy of your blind trust.

This is the sort of faith most people are referring to when they say “that is where faith comes in” and I know this because a lot of the time they will follow this up with the assertion that atheists rely on faith in science just as much as Christians rely on faith in the Bible. Unless these theists are implying that science is akin to divine revelation, I think it is safe to assume the secular meaning of the word here.

So let's examine this common comparison. Bear in mind that not everyone applies faith in the same way, so we are going to look at what might be considered an ideal application of faith in both instances.

When an atheist puts faith in a scientist's findings they are saying, “these findings seem to be a good predictor for what outputs result from these inputs, so I trust that the scientist is not lying to me. Especially if the same findings have been replicated by a third or even fourth party. However, my judgment is fallible, so my trust is not unconditional. Therefore, should sufficient evidence be presented to suggest that the findings are corrupt or that another theory is superior in its ability to predict outcomes, I will abandon my trust of the initial finding in favor of the new findings.”

When a Christian fundamentalist puts faith in the Bible they are saying, “these teachings seem to be good predictors for what outputs result from these inputs/life choices, so I trust that the Bible is not lying to me. Especially if the same findings are echoed in the testimonies of others. Even more so if the spirit in me, which, also on grounds of faith, I believe is God, seems to agree with me. Therefore, despite the fact that my judgment is fallible, I will not only trust that these teachings are good, but I will also use faith to believe these teachings are divinely authoritative. Therefore their truth is absolute and above criticism. Any contrary evidence is deceptive and cannot be true. Any seeming apparent problems with these teachings cannot be due to flaws in the teachings and so the problem must be with the ways others are interpreting and applying the teachings.”

In the most ideal example of an atheist, ideal through the eyes of most other atheists, the atheist maintains recognition of their fallible judgment such that they do not place any of the findings they trust to be above criticism.

Meanwhile, in the most ideal example of a Christian, ideal in the eyes of most other Christians, the christian uses faith to assign divine value to the conclusions they arrive at using their fallible human judgment. In this example the Christian uses faith to assign divine value to the spirit guiding them, and to the Bible, elevating both to heights that are above criticism. Importantly, the Christian does not apply divine value to the entirety of their human judgment, only the bits that affirm or seem to be affirmed by those beliefs they have used faith to assign divine value to.

There is a name for the practice of using faith to assign divine value to conclusions arrived at by fallible human judgment. That is called idolatry.

That makes one of two proofs that fundamentalism is idolatry. If you are a Christian, and this revelation unsettles you, permit me to extend this branch of hope to you. I will elaborate more upon it at the end, but for now I just want to remind you that not all Christians are fundamentalists. It is possible to be a Christian and not be an idolatrous fundamentalist. You can find examples by looking around and or stick around till the end when I will be elaborating on one way in particular.

That being said, let us move on to the next proof. That of the fruits of the fundamentalist idol, specifically the Christian fundamentalist idol as I am not well versed in other forms of fundamentalism.

The Christian fundamentalist idol teaches you that it is the absolute source of divinely authoritative truth.

As we have already proven, we as humans have no means of verifying this teaching, therefore, the fundamentalist idol asks you to believe its teachings out of trust, and that includes the teaching that it is divinely authoritative which is a subtle prompt for you to assign a degree of divine value to parts of your fallible human judgment.

This can produce a fruit of pride and arrogance surrounding those beliefs which a person has assigned divine authority to alongside any beliefs that affirm or seem to be affirmed by those beliefs they have used faith to assign divine value to.

So we have fruits of pride and arrogance.

By extension of the first teaching of the Christian fundamentalist idol, if all of its teachings are absolutely true, good, and lead to life, then everything in opposition must be false, evil, and leading to death.

This can produce a fruit of fear in fundamentalist Christians. When another of the teachings values the spiritual life over the physical one, because the spirit is eternal and the body is temporary, anyone who represents contrary teachings in public is easy to perceive as a threat to both the fundamentalist Christian’s spiritual life, and a threat to the spiritual lives of those they love.

Representation of contrary teachings becomes perceived as acts of spiritual violence on a spiritual battlefield, and if one of their loved ones comes to believe these contrary teachings, it is as though their loved one has been spiritually murdered.

When the fundamentalist Christian begins to see representation as violence against them, it can produce a fruit of violent retaliation in the name of trying to preserve their spiritual life and the spiritual lives of those around them. This is how, for the fundamentalist christian, violence can be mistaken as an “act of love”.

Another potential fruit might be isolation should the fundamentalist christian seek to push those with contrary beliefs out of their lives in the name of protecting their spiritual life and the spiritual lives of those they love.

So we now have fruits of pride, arrogance, fear, violence, and isolation. I’m sure I could prove more, but I think I have made my point. If you know the way of life by its fruits, then you should be able to conclude that christian fundamentalism is not the way of life, it is idolatry.

So if fundamentalism is idolatry, then what is the way to life?

Jesus is said to have entered into the world at a time when the Pharisees had conflated their biblically based beliefs with divinely authoritative absolute truth. From all of their studies of the Torah they thought they knew exactly what the Messiah would be like.

However, when Jesus was different from their expectations, instead of humbly admitting they were wrong, they rejected Jesus in favor of the fundamentalist idol they had made for themselves. Meanwhile those who accepted Jesus were the ones who either let go of their expectations or had no expectations to begin with.

Jesus is claimed to have said to believe, be baptized, and you will be saved. He then later says He will handle the baptism. So all that is left is belief. (Mark 16:16) (Matthew 3: 11)

If belief in Jesus is what it takes to be saved, then isn’t Jesus asking us to use our fallible human judgment to assign divine authority to him in the same way as the fundamentalist idol?

If he had used the word for “faith” then yes, but since he explicitly used the word for “believe”, not exactly. To see what Jesus is asking of us we need to do another word study on the word “believe”.

When we perform the word study we find that to believe is a matter of placing trust or confidence in something or someone and that it is faith only when involving divine revelation. It is not a matter of absolute knowledge.

Source: https://biblehub.com/greek/4100.htm

So how do we put trust and confidence in Jesus without using our limited and fallible human judgment to assign divine value to him?

Well, Jesus is said to be “the way, the truth, and the life.” (John 14: 6).

Therefore, if you trust that in seeking truth and life you will grow closer to truth and life, you are trusting Jesus.

You don’t have to know his name, his story, or his teachings. You don’t have to believe he is God, that the Bible is God’s word, or anything else. You simply have to trust that in seeking the way to that which is true and to that which brings life, in humble recognition that you can and likely will be wrong about many things along the way, you will grow closer to the truth and life.

I want to remind you of biblical salvation because I know I am about to ask you to do something that may be very hard.

Fundamentalism is comfortable because it is well defined, like a boat fighting against uncertain waters. The presence of the boat has made you believe that without it you will drown. I am asking you to step out of the boat of fundamentalism, to walk atop uncertain waters, and I am calling upon the Bible to assure you that doing so is no risk to your life.

Let go of your expectations so that you don’t end up rejecting Jesus many of the Pharisees did. Let go so that you can accept Jesus for whoever he really ends up being.

Be free from the fear of being wrong, finding peace in knowing that each instance of being wrong is like a rung on a ladder that you thought was the last one only to find another to pull you closer to the truth.

Be free from the fear of people whose beliefs are contrary from your own for they can help you discover in what ways you may be wrong, granting you the opportunity to grow yet closer to the truth.

Be free from the anger of feeling like contrary beliefs are an attack on you and those you love.

Be free from feeling like you need to hurt your relationships in the name of spiritual safety.

Be free to be wrong about anything and everything, because you are a limited and fallible human being who is humbly designed to lean upon conditional trust and not absolute certainty.

Be free from absolutist theism.

I don't find my desires to make me suffer.

I have learned meditation from multiple sources and since then my sufferings reduced but my desire strengthened. The more my power of desire increases the less I suffer.

Sufferings is all about whether you take it seriously or not. If you don't take it seriously it won't bother you. That's my meditation practice is about. To not take my body, mind, society seriously and realise my own unique nature and power of mind.

Don't give any arguments from scriptures that has no logic or evidence such as torture in Hell, or rebirth as low life form, etc.

I have some spiritual beliefs that I learned from multiple sources but I don't claim them to be true so not putting them up for discussion.

Also an immoral person can be free of sufferings too. The only morality that is accepted by society is made by powerful people. So morality is about survival of fittest. Might makes right. History is also written by victors.

The system of morality and ethics that is demonstrated to cause the least amount of suffering should be preferred until a better system can be shown to cause even less suffering. 

Secular ethical and moral systems are superior to religious ones in this sense because they focus on the empirical evidence behind an event rather than a set system.

Secular ethical and moral systems are inherently more universal as they focus on the fact that someone is suffering and applying the best current known ease to that suffering, as opposed to certain religious systems that only apply a set standard of “ease” that simply hasn’t been demonstrated to work for everybody in an effective way.

With secular moral and ethical systems being more fluid they allow more space for better research to be done and in turn allows more opportunity to prevent certain types of suffering.

The current nations that consistently rank the highest in happiness, health, education have high levels of secularism. These are countries like Norway, Sweden, Finland, The Netherlands, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. My claim is not that secularism directly leads to less suffering and that all societies should abandon any semblance of a god. My claim simply lies in the pure demonstrated reality that secular morality and ethical systems are more universal, better researched, and ultimately more effective than religious ones. While I don’t believe secularism is a direct cause of the high peace rankings in these countries, I do think it helps them more than any religious views would. Consistently, religious views cause more division within society and provide justification for violence, war, and in turn more suffering than secular views. Certain religious views and systems, if demonstrated to consistently harm people, should not be preferred. This is why I believe secular views and systems are superior in this sense. They rely on what is presently demonstrated to work instead of outdated systems that simply aren’t to the benefit of the majority. 

One recommendation from the mod summit was that we have our weekly posts actively encourage discussion that isn't centred around the content of the subreddit. So, here we invite you to talk about things in your life that aren't religion!

Got a new favourite book, or a personal achievement, or just want to chat? Do so here!

P.S. If you are interested in discussing/debating in real time, check out the related Discord servers in the sidebar.

This is not a debate thread. You can discuss things but debate is not the goal.

The subreddit rules are still in effect.

This thread is posted every Friday. You may also be interested in our weekly Meta-Thread (posted every Monday) or Simple Questions thread (posted every Wednesday).

There is no inherent reason to believe in anything with full conviction at all. It is a bias towards survival and when we grow up in a community that believes in certain things then there is a pressure to believe it to “fit in”.

Even when there is not an any one thing to believe in (because there are many now)… it is just the pressure, that to be socially acceptable we have to have some kind of philosophy about life and be ready to be labeled into something. It probably is a conditioned and biological thing we do. It is wired in us to seek out some kind of truth to our existence.

But it is all just relative and there is no right answer that completely thumbs things up for people. So, take hesitation to believe in anything because there really is no rush for it.

And yes that’s the irony is that we can’t escape believing. But the sentiment is that while belief or bias is always a thing, the level of conviction can be of your choosing.

If some one can “Steel Man” my arguments please do lol, it’s 1 am and I felt like rambling

Historical Context

The claim that Jews were expelled from Rome in 139 BCE for proselytizing comes from historical accounts, but these should be understood within the broader context of Roman attitudes toward minority religions. According to the historian Valerius Maximus, Jewish customs were seen as foreign and subversive to Roman religious traditions.

However, the exact reasons for the expulsion are debated. Some scholars argue that the accusations of proselytizing may have been overstated or misunderstood, as Roman sources often viewed any strong religious commitment or conversion efforts as "proselytizing."

While Judaism was not a proselytizing religion in the same way as Christianity or Islam later became, forms of outreach did exist among them in ancient times. particularly among the so called God-fearers (non-Jews who adhered to Jewish ethical monotheism without full conversion).

The verse in Matthew 23:15 criticizes the Pharisees, a Jewish sect during the Second Temple period, for their efforts to make converts and their alleged hypocrisy. It says:

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are."

Interpretations of the verse:

Some scholars see this as a hyperbolic critique by Jesus (or the Gospel writer) of certain Pharisaic practices, not as a literal indictment of all Jewish proselytizing efforts.

It is important to note that many Pharisees were engaged in active proselytizing, and the historical evidence for widespread proselytizing among Jews at this time is arrested to.

This passage reflects the tensions between emerging Christianity and Pharisaic Judaism rather than being a neutral historical observation.

Did ancient Jews Proselytize?

Theological Stance: Traditional Jewish theology held that the covenant between God and the Jews was specific to the Jewish people, and non-Jews were not required to become Jewish to achieve righteousness. Instead, they could follow the Noahide Laws, a set of seven moral principles applicable to all humanity.

Historical Evidence: there are records of mass conversions including forced ones and instances where some Jewish groups sought to bring others into the fold. For example:

The Hasmoneans (2nd century BCE) a 2nd century Jewish monarchy who ruled ancient Judaea are known to have forcibly converted the Idumeans as attested by Josephus in his historical work "Antiquities"

During the Roman period, Jewish communities attracted non-Jewish adherents, particularly among those dissatisfied with Greco-Roman polytheism. In fact Judaism went from being a small religion only present in the near middle east when Rome me first conquered Judaea in 63BC to be being present from Spain to India by 200AD and comprising nearly 5% of the Roman Empire. This can't be explained by natural increases alone. During this same time period the kings of Yemen and Ethiopia also converted to Judaism.

Academic Sources

Martin Goodman, in Mission and Conversion: Proselytizing in the Religious History of the Roman Empire (1994)

Shaye J.D. Cohen, in The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (1999)

From a Buddhist point of view, the Abrahamic idea of a creator God might seem quite limited or even sad. This God is said to have existed forever, entirely alone before creating anything. In Christianity, God created angels and paradise so they could praise Him. I’m not sure about the exact reasons in Islam and Judaism, but they might also have similar ideas. Later, according to Christians, God created humans to feel or show love, because “God is love” or something along those lines.

But here's the strange part: even though God made angels specifically to worship and glorify Him, and even blessed Lucifer as the most beautiful and exalted among them, that wasn’t enough for Him. God still felt something was missing—authentic love given freely, not out of obligation. So, He created humans.

From a Buddhist perspective, this raises some big questions. If God is supposed to be perfect and complete, why does He seem so needy and even jealous? After all, the Bible itself calls Him a “jealous God” in certain verses. That doesn’t sound like someone worthy of idolization or worship. In fact, some of His decisions—despite being supposedly omniscient—come across as immature and emotional. A rural Buddhist monk might display more wisdom and inner peace than this God, and I’m not saying that as an insult.

Buddhism teaches that everything is impermanent and that clinging to things leads to suffering. True freedom comes from letting go of attachments and desires, freeing yourself from the endless cycle of birth and death, known as samsara. But the Christian God seems deeply tied to samsara, almost like He’s a personification of it. He creates things, knowing they’ll fail or betray Him, and then replaces them. For example, Revelation 21:1 talks about Him creating a new heaven and earth after the old ones pass away. It seems like He refuses to accept the impermanence of His own creations, which is ironic for a being who is supposed to be all-knowing.

What’s more troubling is that God wants humans to worship Him in heaven forever. To what end? Is it truly about love, or is it about satisfying His own need for companionship? That kind of love feels more selfish than selfless. Meanwhile, Buddhist monks, yogis, and spiritual practitioners focus on letting go of attachment and desire because they understand these only lead to dissatisfaction and suffering. At the same time, they practice genuine loving-kindness—love without strings attached—because it helps free themselves and others from unhealthy desires.

So, when Christians say God’s love is selfless, I find it hard to believe. Doesn’t their God demand eternal praise in heaven? That doesn’t sound like selfless love. Imagine an ant wishing to live in a New York skyscraper—it’s meaningless to the ant. In the same way, craving eternal happiness in heaven is also meaningless. Buddhism teaches that even heavenly bliss is impermanent and ultimately unsatisfying. True peace comes from letting go of all attachments, even to the idea of heaven, and embracing selfless compassion instead.

Jews are forbidden from entering Churches because they are places of idol worship - the Rabbinic consensus based on the Talmud (Avodah Zara 17a,) is that it is forbidden to enter a church. Yet, Jews are allowed to pray in Mosques. This proves Muslims are monotheists and christians are idolaters.

If the Dome of the Rock was a church instead of a Mosque, Orthodox Jews like Ben Shapiro would never engage in performative photo-ops of themselves praying inside it. Yet, because it is a Mosque, Ben Shapiro and other Jews are allowed to enter and pray in it.

Have you ever wondered what Christians believe about the Trinity? Are you curious about Judaism and the Talmud but don't know who to ask? Everything from the Cosmological argument to the Koran can be asked here.

This is not a debate thread. You can discuss answers or questions but debate is not the goal. Ask a question, get an answer, and discuss that answer. That is all.

The goal is to increase our collective knowledge and help those seeking answers but not debate. If you want to debate; Start a new thread.

The subreddit rules are still in effect.

This thread is posted every Wednesday. You may also be interested in our weekly Meta-Thread (posted every Monday) or General Discussion thread (posted every Friday).

In Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, it is stated that drawing human faces is not allowed because it is seen as mimicking Allah’s creation. However, doesn’t taking photos and videos of people also fall under this same principle? After all, videos are essentially a series of photos stitched together. Some apologists might argue that it is the camera taking the pictures, not the person, but even then, aren’t we facilitating or acting as a medium for the camera to capture an image that mirrors Allah's creation? For example, it is considered haram to drop your friend off at a bar knowing that he will drink and commit a sin

I feel if you say they are Christians then you say Judaism is apart of Christianity as well. I'm considering different sectors of Christianity to be evangelical, Southern Baptist, Episcopal and Presbyterian. I am saying LDS and Catholics are not Christians and separate. I do admit there are similarities and should be held under a different term but not Christian.

My argument here is all the different sectors at least have the same fundamental beliefs.

For LDS, they have added another book. All sectors of Christianity believe this to be a false profit. If different types of religion call a part of another's fundamental belief false, then I don't understand how they can be labeled the same. The fact that saying there are multiple levels of heaven, you can become a god, the fact that you have to wear certain clothing to be saved so to speak is a big no in the sectors of Christianity shows to me they are very different. While different sectors may say do not wear immodest clothing, they may be judgmental but they do not say that is how you become saved as a Christian. The weight they put on these things are different. I do argue that the gods they worship are different as they have different definitions.

for Catholics they hold the church in high esteem which would break the 10 commandments for Christians by having a false idol. None of the sectors of Christianity differ so much they say a fundamental belief is worshiping a false idol or false profit. By praying to others is also considered sin and rejecting god by different sectors of Christians, again, they add more books to the Bible, as we see with Judaism another book changes a lot.

Judaism does not recognize the New Testament. To me this is clearly the same as the LDS saying their additional book is apart of the Bible. Understandably a big difference is belief in Jesus. Which is what connects LDS, Catholics and Christians. I'm arguing that's not a big enough connection to consider them as the same and they should have another name to unify them.

Disclosure, I haven't argued about religion in a lot time and my wording and ability to speak more clearly has gotten worse. I also have dyslexia so grammar and spelling are going to be an issue in my writing.

It has been recorded that The Buddha, i.e., Siddhartha Gautama, i.e., our boi Sid had to have his mind changed.

Sid's foster-mother, step-mother, and maternal aunt Mahapajapati Gotami was the first woman to seek ordination from him. She was initially refused, but made the request three times.

Sid's personal attendant, his bro Ananda, saw the hardships the women endured and asked Sid why he didn't ordain them. After some debate, eventually Sid agreed to ordain women on the condition that they accept eight rules.

Maybe if Sid had actually understood that the concept of rebirth allows people to take on a different sex/gender in their next life then he would not have been so hesitant in regards to welcoming women into the Sangha (monastic community) and ordaining them.

Maybe if Sid had actually remembered the hardships of one of his previously lives as a woman born into low caste then he would not have been so hesitant in regards to welcoming women into the Sangha (monastic community) and ordaining them.

My guess is that being initially born in an unimaginably privileged life where beautiful women waited on him hand and foot being always subservient to men was such an overwhelmingly strong cultural bias for even The Buddha to have been initially fooled.

===== [Side Story] You Spit, I Bow: a Zen story =====

Americans Philip Kapleau and Professor Phillips were once visiting the Ryutakuji. Soen Nakagawa Roshi was Abbot at the time. He was giving them a tour of the place.

Both Americans had been heavily influenced by tales of ancient Chinese masters who'd destroyed sacred texts and even images of the Buddha, in order to free themselves from attachment to anything.

They were thus surprised and disturbed to find themselves being led into a ceremonial hall, where the Roshi invited them to pay respects to a statue of the temple's founder, Hakuin Zenji, by bowing and offering incense.

On seeing Nakagawa bow before the human image, Phillips couldn't contain himself. "The old Chinese masters spit on Buddha statues or burnt them down!" he said. "Why do you bow down before them?"

"If you want to spit, you spit," replied the Roshi. "I prefer to bow."

=====================================

Did my stating the above fact about Sid's one time error "spit on The Buddha"? NO!

That "stating a fact" mostly likely "spat" (figuratively speaking) / "burst the bubble" on all those that had wrong understanding of what is a buddha (awakened being) and produced in them what is called cognitive dissonance.

Does all the above make Sid less of a Buddha (awakened being)? NO! But it may reveal the wrong understanding some people may have of a buddha (awakened being), especially when they capitalize the word "buddha" into "Buddha" or "The Buddha".

From here one may do either of the following ....

(a) create some reasons that allows one to preserve one's own mental image/bias of The Buddha (an awakened/enlightened being) as god-like and maybe even as a god/God, or

(b) concluded that if what I described was true about Sid, it would indicate that he was not at all awakened/enlightened.

However in statement (b) one would have created a false dilemma (an either/or) that feeds into one's cognitive dissonance my report of that one time error of The Buddha created.

Sid was BOTH awakened/enlightened AND a human prone to biases.

In the Buddhist tradition, after Sid achieve nirvana, becoming awakened/enlightened, the God Brahma invited Sid, the newly self-made buddha/Buddha, to teach the insights that he had discovered, his dharma, to the gods. However, a teacher to the gods is not necessarily a god/God himself (or herself).

=====================================

So what do you think, does that one time The Buddha was wrong make Siddhartha less of a Buddha and what does it really mean to be a Buddha anyway?

So in summary, my argument is that all because Siddhartha had to have his mind change does not make him any lesser of a buddha (awakened being) but it really depends on what you consider makes one a buddha or Buddha or The Buddha. Must a buddha or Buddha or The Buddha be infallible?

In polemical discussions about Islam, people throw around the word “sex-slavery/sex-slaves” as a pejorative to describe concubinage. This is wrong and misleading.

On physical relations with slave-women in Islam

Discussion on the historical context, practical realities that underline Islamic rules about slaves. And answer to the misconception that Islam allows Muslim men to “use” slave-women for physical pleasure in the light of various laws governing the permission for physical intimacy with slave-women.

1. Introduction

The Islamophobes and the critics of Islam continue with their insane and false rant on Islam making the females captives of war as “enslaved sex objects.” And they make it clear that they do it specifically to have the large number of non-Muslim women coming to Islam in our day “stop and think a second time before taking this serious step.” This is to highlight that inspiration for this propaganda are only the wounds of envy and jealousy. However, we must accept that lack of understanding and clarity of the issue on the part of Muslims themselves and therefore their general inability to explain it in a reasonable way does leave room for such liars and the rivals of the Truth.

In this particular article we shall try to have a wholesome understanding of the issue in the light of Islamic injunctions, historical context and realities about human nature.

2. The Historical Context

As highlighted in an earlier article, Islam did not initiate the institution of slavery. It was something that was prevalent in times and the environment in which the Islamic laws were being revealed in their final form that could suit humanity for good. So Islam had to deal with the idea of slavery in a non-reactionary, wise and practical way. Therefore, instead of letting all the slaves let go and invite trouble for the society with hundreds and thousands of people having nothing to survive or refusing to take captives of war and thus making the enemy bold and allowing them a much greater room for maneuvering Islam took a very practical approach of making it permissible to keep them as slaves while removing the greatest scourges of slavery as known to the world otherwise. Further, through the various statutes of the Islamic law and lessons in general Islamic etiquette with a promise of great reward a process was initiated to do away with the slavery even though there was no instruction to abolish it as such.

We have dwelt on the general context and treatment of slavery in Islam earlier. In the following lines we restrict ourselves to the treatment of slave-women with special reference to issue of physical intimacy.

3. The Fundamental Misconception

The basis of all the false propaganda and misconceptions on the subjects arise from the failure to understand the very purpose for which slavery is permitted in Islam. The very reason of permission is linked to the situation described above as the context. It is fundamentally kafalah (taking care and overlooking and managing of the affairs) of the captives of war making them productive part of the society with guarantee of rights rather than putting them in prisons while burdening the state apparatus and making them rust in spite of their productive potential.

People tend to think that female-slaves were allowed as “sex objects” and to let the Muslim men have unchecked physical pleasure by “using” them as such.

This, however, is most certainly not true even though Islam does allow physical intimacy by the way of possession of slave-women along with the permission of the same through marriage.

The Qur’an while speaking of the attributes of true believers says;

وَالَّذِينَ هُمْ لِفُرُوجِهِمْ حَافِظُونَ () إِلَّا عَلَى أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ فَإِنَّهُمْ غَيْرُ مَلُومِينَ

“Who abstain from sex, Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame.” (Qur’an, 23:5-6)

The verse maintains and provides the foundations of the idea that a person is “free from blame” for having physical intimacy with his slave-women. But this only denotes permissibility and we maintain that it is neither the purpose of their “master-slave” relation nor is this recommended.

The great classical scholar Abu Walid al-Baji al-Maliki (d. 474 A.H./1081 A.C.) writes;

لأن مقصود النكاح الوطء وليس مقصود الملك الوطء

“… the very purpose of marriage is (to make) intercourse (permissible) but the purpose of possession (of slave-women) is not intercourse.” (Al-Muntaqa Sharh al-Muwatta, Darul Kitab al-Islami, Cairo, 1332 A.H. vol.4 p.82)

Further both Qur’an and Sunnah, as we shall elaborate below, establish that even though permissible to have physical intimacy with his slave-woman the best for a man is to have her in proper married relation himself after manumitting her or to marry her to someone else.

Therefore, we must understand that even though permissible, physical intimacy with the slave-women is neither the purpose of having them as slaves nor a recommended practice.

The reason for permissibility of physical intimacy with slave-woman is twofold;

a) Chastity on the part of the slave-woman that she may not turn to lewdness. (Or we can say she may not be forced into that for not finding a legitimate way for what is instinctive) b) Chastity of her owner/master.

See, Al Mausu'ah Al Fiqhiyyah Al Kuwaitiyah (Kuwaiti Encyclopedia of Islamic Jurisprudence), Dar al-Salasil, Kuwait, 1408 A.H. vol.11 p.297

By protecting chastity Islam also ensures the protection and preservation of lineage which is very important in Islam. In fact scholars even count it as one of the very purposes of the Islamic law.

Moreover, it also ensures that if the recommendation of getting the slave-women married is not practiced then the permitted physical relation itself becomes a source for eventual freedom of the lady and before actual freedom preserves many more rights, as we shall elaborate shortly.

Consider this against the fact that it is when the recommended is not possible or practiced.

In fact in many ways the slave-master relation that makes a slave-woman permissible for her master is like marriage. As in the case of marriage a man makes a woman lawful unto him and in return assumes the responsibility of all her fundamental requirements like boarding and lodging, other financial needs and social protection, in the case of slave-woman too, while she becomes lawful for her master, her master is then required to not only provide with basic necessities of life but also social security. This highlights significant similarity between the two relations though for a surety a free-woman regularly married has a lot more rights than a slave-woman.

4. Women are NOT enslaved for sex

Following arguments prove that even though physical relations are permissible, slave-women are not treated like “sex objects” in the House of Islam as falsely propagated by anti-Islamic polemicists and orientalists.

4.1 Cohabiting randomly with slave-women is not allowed

Firstly when there are women among the captives it is not that every soldier has the right to lay with anyone of the captive women. This is simply not permissible. In fact the leader of the Muslims distributes the prisoners among the Muslims and only the one who is given to a person and becomes his slave is permissible for him. This is vital because this way the person becomes in charge of the slave that comes to him and is responsible for her (or him). Recall the above statement that in certain ways the relation is like marriage.

In fact anyone were to cohabit with a slave-women before the decision of the leader about them and before their due distribution, he was considered an adulterer and was liable to be punished. Consider the following report;

Khalid sent Dhirar bin al-Azwar in a party and they attacked an area of the tribe of Bani Asad. They captured a pretty woman, Dhirar liked her hence he asked his companions to grant her to him and they did so. He then had sexual intercourse with her, when he completed his mission he felt guilty, and went to Khalid and told him about what he had done. Khalid said: 'I permit her for you and make it lawful to you.' He said: 'No not until you write to Umar (about this)'. (Khalid informed ‘Umar about this) and ‘Umar wrote back that he (i.e. Dhirar) should be stoned (to death). By the time ‘Umar's message reached, Dhirar had died. Khalid said: 'Allah did not want to disgrace Dhirar.’ (Al-Bayhaqi’s Sunan al-Kubra, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyya, Beirut, 2003 vol.9 p.177 Hadith 18222)

Had the taking of captives only been for sensual pleasure there was no need to instruct for such a harsh punishment. This proves women are not slaved for physical pleasure.

4.2 A slave-woman jointly owned by two or more men is unlawful for all of them

During the distribution, at times a slave-woman may be allotted to more than one person. In such a case she remains unlawful for all of them.

Ibn Qudama al-Maqdasi (d. 620 A.H.) writes: “It is not permissible to have intercourse with a shared slave-woman.” (Al-Mughni, Matkaba al-Qahirah, Cairo, 1968, vol.6 p.64)

The famous example of this is the case of Sayyidah Juwariyah bint al-Harith who before being manumitted and married to the Holy Prophet –on him be the peace and blessings of Allah- was given as a slave to Thabit Ibn Qays and one of his cousins.

In the English translation of a section of Ibn Sa’d’s work often used by various anti-Islamic polemicists the translator, S. Moinul Haq adds the following footnote to the narration with the above mentioned fact about Sayyidah Juwayriyah;

£“When a slave girl was allotted to more than one persons, none of them could cohabit with her.”* (Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir vol.2 p.78 n.2)

This again kills the lie that women were taken as captives for physical pleasure. Had this been the case, multiple masters of a slave-woman would all have been allowed to seek pleasure with her. But this not the case!

4.3 When the slave-woman’s previous marriage remains intact

And once a woman is given in protective custody of a Muslim man, it may happen that she is actually unlawful for him right from the time of being captured as her earlier marriage may actually be intact. This is when a woman is captured along with her husband or when they are captured after each other and are brought together to area under Muslim jurisdiction. Muhammad bin al-Hasan al-Shaybani - the student of Abu Hanifa, the Imam- said:

“When the army takes a woman captive followed by her husband who is also taken captive sooner or later and either the woman does not have menses during that period or has had upto three menses but she is not taken out of the Territory of War before her husband is taken, their marriage shall continue.[1]” (Kitab Al-Siyar Al-Saghir- The Shorter Book on Muslim International Law- Translated by Mahmood Ahmad Ghazi, Islamic Research Institute, Islamabad, 1998 p.51)

So again, a woman is taken as a captive and she must be taken care of according to Islamic teachings about slaves, but she remains unlawful for her master and anyone else except her husband. This could have not been the case if slave-women were to be used as “sex objects.”

4.4 Command to arrange for the marriage of slave-women

Further Muslims are actually instructed to get the slave-women married. The Holy Qur’an says:

وأنكحوا الأيامى منكم والصالحين من عبادكم وإمائكم

“Arrange the marriage of the spouseless among you, and the capable from among your bondmen and bondwomen.” (Qur’an 24:32)

“So it is incumbent upon the masters of the slaves and the slave girls that those among them who have the ability to get married, their marriage should be arranged. It is purported to mean here that if they show their need and desire to get married, then according to some jurists it is binding on the owners to marry them off. But the majority of jurists have ruled that in such a situation it is incumbent upon the masters not to place any hindrance in their marriage and allow them to get married, because the marriage of slaves and slave girls cannot be performed without the permission of their owners … The gist of this all is that the owners are instructed here not to make any delay in granting permission of marriage to their subjects …” (Mufti Muhammad Shafi’, Ma’ariful Qur’an- Translation by Muhammad Ishrat Husain, Karachi, n.d. vol.6 pp.423-424)

So the owners are asked to arrange for the marriage of their slaves or at least not to stop them from doing so, if they wish to. This again proves our point, because when a slave-woman is married off to someone, she becomes unlawful for her master. And here we see the master being asked to marry her off or at least not to make it difficult for her to marry. Had the purpose of taking slave-women been sexual pleasure, there was no point in asking the masters to make it easy for the slave-women to get married and become unlawful for the masters.

During the time of ‘Umar- may Allah be pleased with him- a person was brought to him for cohabiting with his slave-woman who was married to someone, he punished him severely with hundred lashes. See Musannaf Ibn Abi Shayba, Narration 29152-29153, Muhammad Awwama ed.

In fact the best is that one manumits his slave-girl and he marries her as a free woman.

Narrated Abu Musa: Allah's Messenger said, "He who has a slave-girl and educates and treats her nicely and then manumits and marries her, will get a double reward." (Sahih Bukhari, Book 46, Hadith 720)

And once she is a free-woman and properly married then there is no question of being a “sex object” unless one considers marriage the same.

4.5 Pagan slave-women are unlawful for their masters

Further, not all slave-women are lawful for their masters. Just like Islam does not allow Muslim men to marry pagan women i.e. those who are neither Muslims nor from the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) it does not allow Muslim men to have physical intimacy with pagan slave-women.

Though such slave-women will be taken care for their general needs but they will be unlawful for their masters unless they become Muslims or follow another Abrahamic faith.

Al-‘Ayni (d. 855 A.H.) writes: “The imams with ruling have agreed that it is not permissible to have intercourse with pagan (slave-women),” (‘Umdatul Qari, Dar al-Ahya al-Turath al-Arabi, Beirut, n.d. vol.7 p. 103)

This is further evidence that slave-master relationship that makes physical intimacy lawful is in many ways akin to marriage.

In fact there are many others rules related to marriage that apply to this relation like combining two sisters or close relatives in this relation. For this reason Muslim jurists state;

“ … Intercourse with the slave-woman is (in certain ways) like the marriage contract.” (Al Mausu'ah Al Fiqhiyyah Al Kuwaitiyah. vol.11 p.300)

And this is the reason why the “imams of ruling” have sought evidence against intercourse with slave-women with the following rule mentioned in the Book of Allah;

وَلَا تَنْكِحُوا الْمُشْرِكَاتِ حَتَّى يُؤْمِنَّ

“Do not marry (la tankihu) the polytheist women, unless they come to believe (in Islam);” (Qur’an 2:221)

Therefore, once again we have a point; had the purpose been free “use” of women there was no reason to make pagan slave-women who are so much averse to Islam in their beliefs as unlawful for Muslim men.

4.6 The waiting period (iddah) rule

And if the master actually decides to have physical intimacy with his slave-woman, it must be noted that Islam does not allow men to lay with slave-women as soon as they capture them. Instead a certain waiting period is prescribed.

Following Hadith needs a careful reading;

Abu Sa’id Khudri narrated the following statement from Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) regarding the captives of Awtas: “There must be no intercourse with a pregnant woman till she gives birth, or with one who is not pregnant till she has had one menstrual period.” (Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 2152. Albani classified it as Sahih)

In fact it was stressed in very strong words;

Narrated Ruwayfi' ibn Thabit al-Ansari: Should I tell you what I heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say on the day of Hunayn: It is not lawful for a man who believes in Allah and the last day to water what another has sown with his water (meaning intercourse with women who are pregnant); it is not lawful for a man who believes in Allah and the Last Day to have intercourse with a captive woman till she is free from a menstrual course; and it is not lawful for a man who believes in Allah and the Last Day to sell spoil till it is divided. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 2153 Classified as Hasan by Albani)

Further the rule of waiting for one menstrual period with regards to the woman who is not pregnant is applicable to both virgins and those who already married as stated by Mulla Ali Qari (d. 1014 A.H.) in his commentary to Mishkat al-Masabih (vol.5 p.2189 Dar al-Fekr ed.)

This waiting period serves also to help the slave-woman to regain her composure, seek an adjustment with new realities of life and a kind of a training course in the Islamic lifestyle.

Once more it highlights that women are not “sex objects.” Islam does care for preservation of the lineage. The whole idea is to keep the sanctity and honor of the women and their possible children. Had it been about enjoyment there was no reason to cater for all these issues.

4.7 If a master cohabits with his slave-woman, no one else can

And if a man actually sleeps with his slave-woman she becomes unlawful for everyone else. Then at least until child-birth or purity after menses she cannot even get married, nor can anyone else have intercourse with her. (See Shub-hat al-Mushakkikin, Islamic-Council.com, Egypt, 2002, No.137)

Imam Malik (d. 179 A.H.) said: "In our view man who rapes a woman, virgin or non-virgin, if she is free, he must pay the dower of the like of her. If she is a slave, he must pay what he has diminished of her worth. The hadd-punishment in such cases is applied to the rapist, and there is no punishment applied to the raped woman.” (Muwatta, Book 36, Chapter 16, Narration 14)

There is some difference on the financial penalty but not on the offender getting the hadd-punishment i.e. stoning to death or hundred lashes depending on his marital status.

Again, if the slave-women were taken only for sexual pleasure why severely beat or even kill a person for this? The fact that comes out clear is, they are not taken for such a purpose. Their honor is protected and in most ways they are indeed treated like free Muslim women.

4.8 The case of “umm walad”

And lastly if the man actually has intercourse with his slave-woman and she bears him a child she becomes more than an ordinary slave-woman. After that she cannot be sold and is guaranteed freedom at the death of the master, if she is not manumitted till then despite great virtues for doing it.

The Prophet of Allah –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- said: “Do not sell the slave-woman who bears you a child (umm al-walad).” (Mu’jam al-Tabarani al-Kabir, Hadith 4147, Albani placed it Silsala Ahadith Sahiha No. 2417)[2]

‘Umar- may Allah be pleased with him said: “Her child makes her free, even if it is dead.” (Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, narration 21894)

Qadi Ibn Rushd (d. 595) known to the West as Averroes writes: “About the question, with what does she become an umm walad, Malik said it is anything that she delivers from which it can be known that it was to be a child, even if it is an embryo or a blood-clot. Al-Shafi’i said it is necessary that physical appearance and features be discernible in this.” (Bidayat al-Mujtahid- The Distinguished Jurist’s Premier, Translated by Imran Ahsan Nyazee, Garnet Publishing, vol.2 p.476)

In fact Ibn Rushd has recorded that consensus has taken place on the prohibition of her sale even during the time of her pregnancy. (See, Bidayat al-Mujtahid vol.2 p.475)

Yet again it proves that slave-woman is not to be used as an “object” rather if a person actually gets into intimate relations with his slave-woman and impregnates her then he cannot sell her rather he must take care of her and her child when delivered. He cannot relieve himself of the responsibility thereafter. And whether or not she delivers alive and healthy child, it guarantees her freedom with the death of her master, if he does not manumit her before that. (See, Kanzul Ummal, Hadith 29654)

And her child most certainly is free and gets share from the inheritance of his/her father.

4.9 Summary of the arguments against slave-women as “sex objects” allegation

All these points are categorical and unquestionable evidence that Islam does not anyway view slave-women as objects to be used for the pleasure of Muslim men; rather it views them as dignified citizen with secured rights and provides for them multiple ways to freedom.

It collective evidence above also verifies our assertion that physical intimacy is not the purpose of taking women as captives. It is most certainly not the recommended practice for Islam actually wants them to be properly wed. And even the intimate relation is developed between the slave-girl and her master, she is given honor, her chastity is protected, rights of her children are guaranteed and her freedom is ensured.

5. The rape allegation and consent issue

As shown above while Islam makes a person in charge of the slaves and makes him responsible for their sustenance along with the instruction to treat them with care and respect and requires him to arrange for their marriage, it does not divorce with facts of life rather it seeks to combine reality with humanity. And for this reason masters are allowed to have physical intimacy only with their slave-women if they cannot follow the much recommended course of arranging for their marriage. However, it does not tantamount to allowance for raping them, through their exclusive right for intimacy is recognized.

Following arguments prove that neither is the “rape” allowed in the light of prophetic guidance with regards to treatment of slaves, nor was this done by the blessed companions of the Prophet – on him be the peace and blessings of Allah- during the earliest days of Islam.

1 - A narration reported by Abu Dharr tells us that: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "Feed those of your slaves who please you from what you eat and clothe them with what you clothe yourselves, but sell those who do not please you and do not punish Allah's creatures." (Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 5161. Albani classified it as Sahih)

The hadith is very generic in import and on the issue at hand it tells us that if a slave-woman were not happy to let his master sleep with her, he should ideally not force her, rather he may sell her and get away with her. It is hoped with the new master her issues get resolved. And any idea about “raping” the slave-woman is termed as “punishing Allah’s creatures.”

2 - All the various conditions and rules governing the permission for sexual intimacy between the master and his slave-woman shared above make it clear beyond doubt that Islam does not allow “raping” the slave-women.

3 - As to the question of possibility of a slave-woman agreeing to have physical intimate relations with someone from amongst the people who separate them from their own relations, there are two factors to be considered.

Firstly, the general Islamic instructions regarding treatment of slaves and women once practiced are always likely to placate a slave-woman, especially considering the waiting period rule that served the purpose of helping her regain her composure, and see the realities in the new setup where she was treated in way too different than a woman could expect to be treated as a slave-woman.

Secondly, psychologically and historically such a proposition is not really wonderful.

Rev. Samuel Burder (d. 1836 A.C.) writes;

“It was customary among the ancients for the women, who accompanied their fathers or husbands to battle, to put on their finest dresses and ornaments previous to an engagement, in order to attract the notice of the conqueror, if taken prisoners.” (Oriental Customs Or, an Illustration of the Sacred Scripture, Williams and Smith, London, 1807 vol.2 p.79)

These factors are clear indications that there is nothing novel in the idea that slave-women would agree on having physical intimacy with those who took them as captives, when women have a natural inclination towards strong, brave and victorious men who treated them well and further that women knew if nothing else such a relation itself would ensure their freedom or at the very least guarantee many rights.

6. Why take captives in the first place?

Someone might say that while it is fine that Islam gives so many guarantees to captured women but why capture them in the first place? The answer is in the on ground realities. In the past centuries it was common with armies to capture men and women of the conquered nations. It was true even before Islam and the people with whom Muslims had encounters often resorted to this. Now if the Muslims were not to capture their people it would have made the enemy bold knowing that Muslims were barred by their faith to respond in kind. Therefore, Islam did not declare it unlawful rather allowed the Muslims to the same. It served two purposes i.e. weakening the morale of the enemy plus opportunity to get Muslim prisoners with the enemies frees through exchange of captives. However Muslims generally treated the captives in the best possible way. An example of exchange of prisoners is the hadith of Sahih Muslim which states a slave-girl given in the custody of Salama bin al-Akwa was taken back and sent back to the pagans to get the Muslim prisoners released. (Sahih Muslim, Hadith 4345)

While Islam does permit taking captives, it is neither a religious obligation nor something advised. If the nations of the world, however, agree not to harm the civilians or take them as captives and making them slaves, then Muslims should also follow the same as long as other nations do not betray. (See, Takmila Fath al-Mulhim, Dar al-Ahya al-Turath al-Arabi, Beirut, 2006 vol.1 pp.268-269)

If, however, other nations do not follow the agreements Muslims will have but no choice except to take their prisoners and find possibility for the release of their own people. This arrangement of prisoner swap has found success for Muslims in the Middle East lately and the case of Dr. Aafia Siddiqi also highlights its importance.

7. Summary and Conclusion

1 - Sexual intimacy is not the purpose of having slave-women. The great classical Muslim scholar from Spain, Abu Walid al-Baji clarified this in categorical wording:

“… the very purpose of marriage is (to make) intercourse (permissible) but the purpose of possession (of slave-women) is not intercourse.” (Al-Muntaqa Sharh al-Muwatta)

2 The recommended practice after owning a slave-woman is to manumit her or at least arrange for her marriage.

3 - Even when permissible and considered as an option Islamic law does not allow a man to “use” the slave-women. There are rules governing the permissibility that go with the general Islamic ideals of morality and chastity along with the protection of lineage.

4 - It is therefore false to say that Islam allows raping slave-women.

Indeed Allah knows the best!

Notes:

[1] This may apparently appear to contradict the following hadith narrated by Abu Sa’id al-Khudri:

“They took captives (women) on the day of Autas who had their husbands (lahunna azwaj). They were afraid (to have sexual intercourse with them) when this verse was revealed: ‘ And women already married except those whom you right hands posses.’ (iv. 24)” (Sahih Muslim, Hadith 3433)

But this narration only says they had their husbands, it does not say whether they were also taken as captives or not. However, the narration in Jami’ al-Tirmidhi shows they were not taken as captives. It reads;

“On the day of Awtas (the Battle) we got some women captives who had their husbands among their people (azwaj fi qawmihinna).” (Jami’ al-Tirmidhi, Hadith 1135, Translation by Rafique Abdur Rehman, Darul Ishat, Karachi, 2007, vol.1 p.477)

This proves their husbands were not taken as captives along with them, therefore their marriage was considered void then.

This is further supported by the following narration given by Al-Jassas (d. 370 A.H.);

Muhammad bin ‘Ali narrated: “When it was the day Awtas, the (disbeliever) men fled to the mountains and their women were taken as captives.” (Ahkam al-Qur’an, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyya, Beirut, 1994 vol.2 p.173)

For further discussion on the point see, Takmila Fath al-Mulhim, vol.1 p.83-87

[2] One may find an apparent contradiction with the following narration;

Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah: “We sold slave-mothers during the time of the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) and of Abu Bakr. When Umar was in power, he forbade us and we stopped.” (Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 3943)

However, looking at various other evidences scholars have explained that it was during the early days and later the Holy Prophet –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- forbade it and it sometimes happened during the time of Abu Bakr as a rare event and without his knowledge. However, later when perhaps such cases were reported during the time of Umar, he pronounced and propagated the Prophetic instruction. (May Allah bless them all) See Fath al-Qadir of al-Manawi, vol.6 p.385

https://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2012/09/no-rape-slave-women-islam.html?m=1

Thesis:

So, expanding on my last post, I’ve concluded: Religion, by its very nature, cannot be debated.

Content:

Religion operates within an all-or-nothing framework, as I showed in my last post:

1. A religion must be either completely true—meaning all its foundational claims, doctrines, and messages are infallible—or completely false.
2. There's no middle ground. The entire system's integrity collapses if even one claim is falsifiable. To accept any part of a religion as true, you must assume the rest is impossible to falsify.

Debating religion requires the suspension of disbelief, but faith itself cannot be reasoned into or out of. Faith is Non-Negotiable: At its core, religion demands belief in its tenets without requiring empirical evidence. This renders traditional debate tools, like logic and evidence, ineffective.

Because of this all-or-nothing nature, any debate about religion ultimately hits a dead end:

1. Base-Level Suspension: You must first accept the religion's framework to discuss it meaningfully. Without shared premises, rational debate is impossible. You can't logically pass this step.
2. Stacking Beliefs Adds Nothing: Once disbelief is suspended at the foundational level, further arguments or justifications become irrelevant. The entire system stands or falls on the validity of its core claim, the religion existing or not.
3. No Resolution: Debating these non-falsifiable claims—those that cannot be proven or disproven—leads nowhere. It’s an exercise in affirming personal faith rather than finding common ground.

Conclusion

Religion cannot be meaningfully debated because:

• It relies entirely on faith, a non-falsifiable belief system.
• Its foundational structure is indivisible—it must be wholly true or false.

Therefore, to debate religion, you must suspend the belief that God does not exist. To deny the existence of god wholly in a religious debate invalidates the debate as a whole. (However, at the same time, when accepting that the "standard" God does exist, He is not all-loving, as seen in the last post)

EDIT: As a comment put it, I am debating(debating(religion)), not debating(religion)

To "solve" the problem of evil, theists appeal to the idea that God always has good reasons for evil and suffering. While we do not always know what those reasons are, as God does not always reveal the good reason to us at the time, after the fact, etc., we’re told God has perfectly good reasons, in every single case. And we’re just supposed to accept this, uncritically.

(Why doesn't God reveal these reasons to us? It's not like God is too busy, as he is infinite. It's not that God must use the equivalent of a supernatural Zoom account to communicate with us, and doing so would exceed the number of users / hours per month on his account. Nor is it because we always cannot comprehend it, as we'll see shortly. But let's ignore this for now for the purpose of argument.)

However, If we attempt to take this solution seriously, as if it’s true in reality, along with the books in the Bible, for the purpose of criticism, the book of Job would provide a unique opportunity. It would reveal what must be one of those reasons theists appeal to. And it should reflect a good reason for Job's suffering. Right?

Apparently, God and Satan were sitting around "chewing the fat" and Satan essentially said, "You know, Job only loves you because of what he has. If that was taken away from him, he wouldn't love you." In response, God gave Job over to Satan to resolve his claim, with one exception: the only thing that wasn't on the table was physically harming Job. His wife, children, etc. were fair game.

On one hand, God doesn't tell Job Satan's assessment leads to all of his suffering. But it's not because it's beyond our comprehension. After all God supposedly reveals this to us through the book of Job. So, the entire "we cannot comprehend why" idea doesn't hold water.

(Apparently, God doesn't explain it to Job, even after the fact because, well, he just doesn't. See the aside above.)

On the other hand, this leads to a few questions.

Why does God care about what Satan thinks about Job? It's not even clear if God agrees or disagrees with Satan's assessment. If he knows what Job will do, why turn Job over to see what happens?

Why would God think Satan has any better insight into Job? After all, God is all knowing being who created Satan and Job. Satan is a fallen angel that decided to rebel against said all knowing and all powerful being. This doesn't exactly depict Satan as the brightest bulb in the box, so to speak.

Furthermore, If God doesn't know what Job will do, he wouldn't know what anyone else would do either. Nothing about testing Job in this case could be applicable to anyone else. And if he's just doing it to show Satan he was wrong or right about Job, he could do the same about anyone else Satan has an opinion on.

If finding out how Job will respond is one of those good reasons God allows suffering, why wouldn't resolving that question about other people be a good reason for God to allow as well? Satan just needs to claim "person x only loves you as much as he does because of what he has. If that was taken away, he wouldn't love you as much." or something to that effect. Apparently, God would hand them over as well?

Wash, rinse, repeat. Apparently, Satan hit the jackpot, but didn't realize it?

IOW, we're supposed to think God always has a good reason to allow evil suffering, etc. But when the Bible ends up revealing one to us, we wouldn't know about otherwise, it's to settle what is essentially a bet between an omnipotent being and a fallen angel.

It's unclear how this is actually a good.

To address some of the comments…

This might be a bit subtle, so I'll try to spell it out.

On one hand, the moral of the book of Job is that “God is the potter and Job is the clay.” we do not have the right to question God’s reason for suffering.

Job is better off when he accepts this.

But, on the other hand, the moral of the book of Job is that “God is the potter and Job is the clay.” The lead discussion between God and Satan is just to set the stage and distance God from the attack on Job. How do we know this? Because <insert examples of questioning what would be God’s reasons for suffering, if the lead in were true>.

As such, it’s wisdom literature.

Excluding the lead in discussion with God and Satan as being relivant to the problem of evil requires you to do the the very thing that the book of Job is supposedly telliing we should and cannot do.

If God is the potter and Job is the clay, who's to say God couldn't turn Job over even if he knew the outcome, just to show Satan is wrong, right, etc.? Apparently, we don't have the right / ability to question God. So How could we question God as part of a process to exclude the God and Satan lead in of Job?

What To Do If A Fly Falls In Your Drink?

The Prophet (ﷺ) said: "If a housefly falls in the drink of anyone of you, he should dip it (in the drink) and take it out, for one of its wings has a disease and the other has the cure for the disease." (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3320, https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:3505, https://sunnah.com/abudawud:3844, https://sunnah.com/mishkat:4115, https://sunnah.com/bulugh:14)

Muhammad claims that one of the wings of a fly contains disease, while the other wing contains the cure for said disease. Therefore if a fly falls in your drink you should dip it in, throw it away, and continue drinking. This is wrong and straight up harmful for many reasons:

First of all, there is no difference between a fly's wings regarding it carrying antidotes or diseases. In this case, muslims will claim Muhammad's odd descriptions were only metaphorical and not to be taken literally.

Secondly, it's true that flies have antimicrobial properties on their surface. However what most people don’t realize is that the surface of most, perhaps all, plants and animals have these properties, like human skin for instance (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2664254/#:%7E:text=The%20skin%20continuously%20encounters%20microbial,early%20stages%20of%20immune%20defense). A fly’s physiology is vastly different from that of a human, and thus the pathogens that harm flies differ from those that harm humans. There is no reason for a fly to hold "cures" for pathogens that do not affect it. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6104014/)

However, if muhammad was right, then flies wouldn't be one of reasons why food poisoning and dysentery occurs. They are strongly suspected of transmitting at least 65 diseases to humans, including typhoid fever, cholera, poliomyelitis, yaws, anthrax, tularemia, leprosy, and tuberculosis and many more. (https://extension.psu.edu/house-flies#:%7E:text=House%20flies%20are%20strongly%20suspected,thereby%20mechanically%20transmit%20disease%20organisms)

Fact remains that Flies do not succumb to human pathogens—they are merely carriers. This shows that those who make these claims do not understand pathogenesis. Flies do not succumb to human diseases.

Tl;dr Flies walk and feed on poop, dead animals, and garbage then step on your food. Their antimicrobial properties only benefit them, and not humans. You have a high chance of getting ill if you dip a poop-stained fly in your water then drink it. Just get another cup bro (Flies carry a large number of pathogens that cause serious diseases in humans and domestic animals, do muslims think those would just disappear if you dipped the fly in your water? XD

Muslims will try to prove the hadith by linking islamic sites or papers made by muslims themselves, and aren't even peer-reviewed by actual scientists (https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jnsv/66/Supplement/66_S283/_pdf, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337926012_Microbiological_studies_on_fly_wings_Musca_domestica_where_disease_and_treat), and some were peer-reviewed under responsibility of King Saud University, King Abd al-Aziz University, etc. and some were from Darrusalam University (Such as this one). Do you see the connection? Sometimes the articles they present are from non-muslim parties but only talk about the antimicrobial properties of the fly (which I explained above) and not about the fly's wings having a cure for a disease, or if it's ever okay to dip a fly that's full of bacteria into your drink. (https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2002/10/01/689400.htm, Example 2, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15462958/ Example 3, http://web.archive.org/web/20010312114140/ Example 4, http://lamar.colostate.edu/%7Einsects/systems/digestion/plenuryrd.html)

Some muslims try to defend this hadith by claiming antibiotic material can be extracted from the wings of a fly. That's true, but it's done after a long and tedious process of lab alterations... and NOT by dipping the whole fly in your drink like Muhammad claims….

I know someone who when they were muslim, they were aware of this hadith but refused to do what Muhammad suggested because it was obviously so wrong and harmful to them. They just swept it under the rug as "the narrators probably misheard what he actually said or something"

LASTLY This is not metaphorical, No where in the sharh (commentary of hadith) does it state such (https://dorar.net/hadith/sharh/117405) in-fact—it emphasizes a literal interpretation. As a result, I won’t respond to any metaphor comments.

And for anyone who wants to say it was normal at the time or “7th century” please understand Muhammad’s word’s were considered revelation… therefore if this was normal at the time he cannot be an example for today. Quran 33:21) implies that his actions and sayings should be applicable and relevant across all eras. So If a practice he advocated (like dipping a fly in a drink) was only reflective of his time and not a universal truth, it challenges the claim that his guidance is timeless.

Secondly, Revelation is Meant to Correct Misguided Practices. If Muhammad’s words were divinely inspired and considered revelation, why would such a harmful or outdated practice be affirmed rather than corrected? they’re were revelations that explicitly corrected pre-Islamic practices, such as forbidding certain harmful traditions. This inconsistency raises questions about why this practice was not similarly corrected.

A correction here would have demonstrated the divine foresight of Allah and solidified Muhammad’s role as a timeless example.

If we take the premises of salvation by accepting Jesus and God to be all knowing to both be true, then, since God knows the past and future, he's letting many people be born knowing well that they will spend eternity in hell. Sure, the Bible says that everyone will have at least one chance in life to accept Jesus and the people who reject him are doing it out of their own will, but since God knows everyone's story from beginning to end, then he knows that certain people will always reject the gift of salvation. If God is omnipotent too, this means he could choose to save these people if he wanted to, but he doesn't... doesn't that make him evil? Knowing that the purpose of the lives he gave to millions of people is no other but suffering from eternity, while only a select group (that he chose, in a way) will have eternal life with him?

Because if God sent Jesus to teach us to love our enemies, then how could God not love the devil?

It would be hypocritical of God to expect us to love our enemies if God cannot forgive the devil.

Also, if Jesus is God according to doctrine, then how could God not abide by what Jesus preaches?

If God can act opposite to what Jesus teaches, then either Jesus is not God, or God is not God.

Thesis (got deleted):
The flaws in God's "communication protocol," particularly in Abrahamic tradition, show fundamental problems with the integrity of religion as a concept. These problems stem entirely from the protocol's design, and their real-world implications are, at best, nothing; God was never real. Otherwise, it opens the door to sub-optimal scenarios. Since God's current protocol is incompatible with his message content.

Content:

Here's some prime thinking coming out of my group's monthly stoner night. We got talking about religion, and I made this while practically tweaking:

The problem with religion is that there is a clear bad actor or misinformation in the scenario. Even if you assume the message of God to be genuine, its transmission over time in the form of a book or any other media has introduced bad actors.

For communication between two entities as a concept to work, they both have to want to communicate, you have to assume there to be no bad actors. In Abrahamic religion, God's communication protocol works like this:

• There is a person who can talk to god.
• This person overrides the previous messengers.
• They can conduct miracles as verification of God.
• After their death, their words/actions/miracles get compiled into a book or are passed on in some form, acting as a source.

This protocol works perfectly while the messenger is alive; there are no problems with religion. The problem is that, after them, if the book isn't completely true, as the book is the only source, the entire concept falls apart. Their miracles are verification, but if the only proof of the miracle is the book, it becomes self-referential. If the book is false or has false sections, how do you verify it if it's self-referential? You can't; it's either all genuine or all false. Thus, if the book is possible to falsify, then it must inherently be false, and since the messenger is dead, there is no verification. The real-world solution to this logic problem is bypassing it entirely with "faith." With no acknowledgement of your religion's verification and either the same or actively denying the verification of other faiths. The source or version of the source is also chosen subjectively.

We'd need another method of communication with god rather than messengers. This protocol fails since you'd either need messengers to replace each other, communicating to slot in directly rather than deleting the last one, or you need some verification for the receiver to confirm whether it's God. These two problems show a deeper disorder in goals for God. If the content were interpretive, he'd only need verification; no live communication is required. But he has short-term live communication, the messenger's life, who provides verification but whose death isn't handled correctly. This causes the entire interpretation vs literal debate since once the live connection is closed, there is no verification method for the message/book. So you can neither interpret nor take it literally since both need verification of the message first. If God was omnipotent, omniscient and all-loving he wouldn't have any of these issues.

This leaves us with these scenarios:

• If God is real and all-powerful: We truly have free will and must just use "faith," but God is not all-loving, at least not for all humans. God is the bad actor.
• If God is real but not all-powerful: This protocol is the best "God" can do currently. We gotta figure out how to talk to whoever is above us; there could be layers of "Gods," and there may be a God at the end.
• If God is not real: Religion is a manmade construct.

I don't see how religion reconciles this problem beyond "Just have faith."

Fine Tuning Argument says that there are physhical laws and constants that seems very sensitive for an existence of life in the universe. If they would be slightly different, life couldn't exist. There can be two explanations; a) someone tuned (God) or, b) coincidence (by nature). So we should choose the God because it has really low chance to existence of life.

Let's dig the argument.

First point, the argument presumes that there were different possibilities.

Second, and importantly, the argument implicitly accepts that these constants had a potential to be different. I mean, there should be a mechanism for them to be appear different.

Now I will try to oppose to these two points.

For the first point, one can say that there were only one option and it was necessary. So for our universe, there could be only one possibility. So if it is happening like this, it shouldn't be surprise. It is like I throw a rock to air, and it fell down, which is only one expected situation.

It can not surprise us even if we accept that there were lots of different possibilities too. For instance, if there were lots of different possibilities, there can be lots of tries also. If I do an experiment infinitely, all possible results will be seen.

Now I will discuss the second point.

There is only way that things can be different, there should be a mechanism to be different, which I name it "potential". I will give a metaphor for it. Two stubborn goats encounter on a bridge. They never give up so no one can pass, they stuck there forever. From that story, we can say if two goats encounter on a bridge, and if both have "stubborn" trait, they will stuck. We can think it is a physical necessarity. But was there any alternative situation? It depends what we accept about their traits could be different or not. If we say their stubbornnes would be different, we can say there were different options. But in the same time we should describe a mechanism to have different traits for goats. As we know, traits were developing by life experiences of individuals. So if we treat to goats better, they wouldn't have stubborn trait, so they wouldn't stuck on bridge. So if they stuck, it means one option among lots of option happened. Or if we don't accept any 'potential to be not stubborn' for goats, we can say stucking on bridge was the only one option, and it was necessary.

We can think in same way for physical constants, also. For instance, speed of light. It is an exact number. Because of it, the light behaves same for every situation, and we can predict what will happen if we know preconditions. So like stucking goats, light behaves same everytime. But if there any mechanism (like good parenting style for goats) speed of light could be different. But the problem is, we don't know any mechanism to make the speed of light faster or slower. That's why they are constants, or laws. They are facts that related with qualities of exact entities. We can not seperate the light and it's speed, even if we suppose we can. But for goats, we can seperate their traits from them. That's why one is constant and the other is not. If one say, if something manipulates the photon, It would have different speed, we would have more option. Even in this situation, there could be lots of manipulation, lots of tries, and our universe would be the result of one of these tries. It's not surprise still.

Long story short, according to fine tuning argument there must be lots of options for constants and laws, and for this to be real, there must be a potential for to be different for these constants and laws. If there is no potential, there is no other options. If there is a potential to be different, we can not be sure it is only one try. And also, if there is a potential, it should be real too. We can not say that they could be different but it has no chance for to be different. It's contradiction. If we accept a potential to change, it should change infinite times in infinite time and space.

Note: I'm a theist btw. I have another arguments for existence of God.

Did I mischaracterize any evidence or facts?

I, 27M, high school education, sent my brother-in-law, 28M, college education and YEC, a long text detailing why the doctrines and claims of one Kent Hovind (his favorite preacher) should be regarded as fiction.

The claim made: carbon dating is unreliable and inaccurate because when used to date rocks that science has marked as ‘millions of years old’, it gives inconsistent results.

My text response:

“The people claiming that it’s flawed are taking it out of context. I’ll give them this: when you use a tool in a way not intended, you mess up the project.

Everyone admits there is a margin for error! But we can be highly certain the margin doesn’t include “6000 years” as a possible outcome!!!!

“The Law of Uniformitarianism states that ‘the present is the key to the past’, meaning that the geological processes we observe today are the same ones that operated throughout Earth's history, allowing us to understand past events by studying current processes.” - Google AI overview.

Known to science is that all unstable isotopes breakdown or (decay) at measurable, exponential rates known as half-lives. Some half-lives are just tiny fractions of a second such as hydrogen-5 and oxygen-12 both measured in ‘yocto-seconds’, while others can be measured in seconds, minutes, hours, days or years; While still others can be measured and then extrapolated over centuries, millennia, and even billinnia!!

Using Uniformitarianism, we understand that these decay rates have occurred at the same rate over the entire course of earth’s history. Another way of saying this is, since we have never observed any decay rate of any mineral changing over time, we must conclude that they have not changed.

Now:

Carbon’s observed half-life is 5,730 years. Carbon dating is only accurate back between 200 yrs and 60k years. Past that, it has all decayed away or down to a point where it’s not useable anymore (not accurate). At this point, you need to use a longer half-life mineral because carbon literally just doesn’t last that long. So we stop using it and switch to other minerals.

There are many more minerals inserted here that can be used for “backup”, but then we get to:

Scientists found that uranium 235 happens to have a measured half-life of 703.8 million years (rounded). The deducted margin of error can be narrowed down to +/- 0.1%- 1% . When uranium 235 dating takes over, we can be very age-accurate with rock formations between approximately 1million years and 4.5billion years. Given its insanely long half-life, it is suited to give notably accurate metrics for the time period just after the formation of earth itself!

Uranium 238 half-life is 4.47 billion years. So it’s used for even older periods of geological and cosmological history, even the formation of earth within the solar system! Many times older than life itself!

After that is Thorium 232 with a half life of 14.01 billion years. This is basically already the age of the entire universe (14.8 billion) but could speak to a possible multiverse (out of the realm of observable science at this point in history)

Bismuth was thought to be stable (no decaying at all) until 2003 when it was discovered it decays but with a staggeringly low and approximate 19 quintillion year half-life!

So, yeah, sure, if Kent Hovind tries to use carbon to date a meteorite billions of years old, he will come up with his ridiculous 6,000 year story. He’s using a science tool in a way not even possible to be accurate from the start. Similarly, if one tries to date a very recent geological feature or fossil with uranium 235 dating, one will also come up with a wildly inaccurate date. It is only through thorough and comprehensive testing that we can then assign a date range to a geologic period. One or two ‘red herring’ dating measurements does not discount hundreds of thousands of datapoints collected around the globe.”

I can think of no act more evil than creating beings who are destined to be eternally tortured for free will. Some might argue that an infinite number of beings being tortured could be worse, but I see that as merely a derivative of my core point.

Let me provide some background and context for my position. I identify as a moral emotivist, meaning I don’t believe in an objective "good" vs. "evil" in the universe. However, this raises the question: how can I use the word "evil" at all? Wouldn’t my argument be self-defeating? To clarify, when I refer to "evil" here, I’m working within the framework where we agree that a God (specifically a type that sends created being to eternal suffering) exists.

• P1: The worst possible thing a being can do is create other beings destined for eternal torture.
• P2: Whether these beings "choose" this fate or not is irrelevant because, once fated, no change in character or heart can avert their eternal suffering.
• C: Therefore, God commits the ultimate evil.

The common rebuttal is that eternal suffering is justified by the concept of "free will."

Let me offer a thought experiment to challenge this notion: Imagine you’re a parent who knows ahead of time that if you have two children, one will be eternally tortured and the other will be eternally rewarded. Would you still choose to have these children?

Could you provide a rational argument for why it would be prudent—or even logical—to go ahead in such a scenario? To me, the answer is so obviously not to do that, it makes me wonder if the kind of God in this scenario, if such a being existed, operates on a kind of double feint. Only those who choose to devote themselves to this entity might be the ones who have truly been deceived.

I’d love to hear how proponents of this justification reconcile it with the implications of their beliefs.

There are many theists on here who argue that we need an all-powerful god as a moral authority, because otherwise morality is too subjective. I agree that a universal basis for morality is necessary, but compassion is a much better choice than a personal god.

This perspective is compatible with theism and with atheism. I view compassion as a divine sort of thing in itself. To a theist, you could see it as a thing that God or the gods gave humans to guide them; to atheists, you could see it as a convenient thing that we evolved. Either way it's a better source for morality than a direct list of rules given by a god or gods.

I can't prove that all humans are innately compassionate and fundamentally good; I believe that is true but I can't prove it. But even if compassion isn't universal, it is more universal than a belief in any particular god, and you can teach compassion to anyone of any culture.

Here's another way it's better: If you teach a kid that they must behave morally simply because of a divine set of rules and a fear of punishment or desire for reward, then their good behavior will stop whenever there's no explicit rule, or whenever they find a loophole in the rules. Or if there isn't a loophole, humans (who we all agree are fallible) will end up creating loopholes, especially humans who are in places of religious authority. It's easy for someone to falsely claim that God backs them up.

But if morality is based on compassion, people will have an internal source for their good behavior, and they won't even want to look for loopholes. They won't just be thinking about their own goals and their own rewards/punishment, they'll be thinking about everyone. It's much more consistent, more universal, and harder for people in power to twist for their own gain.

If God is the creator of all things,
Doesn't that mean He is the one who created disbelief(Al-kufr) in the minds of non-believers?

Is he not the one who created the desire for murder, oppression, and corruption in the hearts of wrongdoers???

And above that He is the one who written our destinies and orchestrated the full narrative of our lives,
why does He create such evils and then hold us accountable for actions He ultimately caused?

This is a weekly thread for feedback on the new rules and general state of the sub.

What are your thoughts? How are we doing? What's working? What isn't?

Let us know.

And a friendly reminder to report bad content.

If you see something, say something.

This thread is posted every Monday. You may also be interested in our weekly Simple Questions thread (posted every Wednesday) or General Discussion thread (posted every Friday).

The Bible ends with the book of Revelation, which was written around 90-95 CE. If one second after the book was finished writing it was locked up and not found until today, this book would've been considered a crazy fairy tale just like how we laugh at other old extinct religions. The Aztecs for example did child sacrifices to please God's, nowadays we think: "what were they thinking back then? That's so ridiculous".

If today the Bible was read in its entirety in the context of knowing that it was meant as a religious book. We would've thought "wow how could somebody believe in this nonsense".

The Bible was written in a specific historical and cultural context that can seem strange to modern readers. Many of its stories, laws, and customs were reflective of the societies in which they were written and may appear outdated or incomprehensible today.

The Bible contains numerous supernatural events, such as the creation of the world in seven days, parting of seas, and miracles performed by Jesus. These events are often dismissed as myths or fairy tales by those who view them through a modern, scientific lens. If you've never heard of them they would be even more ridiculous hearing them for the first time.

I want to have another go at an argument I thought of against Islam, and it is one where I attempt to prove that any position other than agnosticism towards Islam leads to absurdity.

Let’s agree on the following axioms:

Islam’s authenticity/truthfulness hinges on the Quran.

There are sets of letters in the Quran like كهيعص which, from the epistemic side, are unknown, undefined and have no semantical or syntactical coherency.

Every set of letters that is known to be a declarative sentence within the Quran, whether it is a synthetic or an analytical proposition, is assigned a truth value.

A proposition is assigned a truth value if and only if it can be verified against reality (for synthetic propositions) or logical consistency (for analytical propositions). For example, if I were to give you a proposition with an open variable such as “x>5” and we know that the open variable can possibly mean anything, it is just that we do not know of its specific meaning/definition. If you were to assign ANY truth value to the aforementioned proposition, such as “True” for example, you can possibly have a contradiction as the “x” may have a value of “2” and you’d have “2>5” which is false by virtue of the definition of 2 & 5 respectively. Furthermore, I can also give you the following set of letters "egtnioegoer" which is semantically incoherent but you still assign a truth value of "True" to it, even though it can possibly be an imperative sentence, and imperative sentences do not hold neither truth values, as that attribute is only for declarative sentences.

The argument goes like this:

If we know that the Quran contains no contradictions, then every declarative sentence that we know of within the Quran can be assigned a specific truth value.

It is not the case that every declarative sentence that we know of within the Quran can be assigned a specific truth value.

Therefore, it is not the case that we know that the Quran contains no contradictions.

The argument for premise 2:

If كٓهيعٓصٓ [19:1] contains any meaning, then it can be assigned or not assigned a truth value.

It is not the case that [19:1] contains any meaning.

Therefore, it is not the case that it can be assigned or not assigned a truth value.

Final argument:

If we do not know that the Quran contains no contradictions, then we cannot know that the Quran is logically consistent.

We do not know that the Quran contains no contradictions

Therefore, we cannot know that the Quran is logically consistent.

TL;DR: We cannot assert that the Quran contains no contradiction(s).