certifired_img

Books and Documents

Islamic Ideology (06 Mar 2019 NewAgeIslam.Com)



The Religion of Allah before and After the Quran



By Naseer Ahmed, New Age Islam

06 March 2019

This article is an attempt to wean away classical Islamic scholarship from the injustice they do to their religion by “(mis)interpreting” the Quran using abrogated paradigms from the previous scriptures.  This is an important issue, as ideologically generated extremism in Islam, is a direct result of such “(mis)interpretations”.  All the scriptures are from Allah, and there isn’t even an implied criticism of any scriptures or the people following those scriptures. What makes one people superior to another, is their adherence to moral principles and their integrity, and not any real or imagined superiority of their religion or scriptures. In this respect, many Muslims scholars have correctly remarked, that Islam is to be found more among the Jews and the Christians than among Muslims. This disclaimer is necessary to prevent those given to mischief to put a different spin on this article. It is primarily directed at the Classical Islamic scholars, who have failed to understand the Quran, and unwittingly contributed to extremism among Muslims. It is to the credit of the Jews and the Christians that they have dealt with the same problems much better.

In my previous articles cited below, I had traced the development of religion from the creation of Adam, to its perfection and completion with the Quran.

1. Was Allah Unjust in Creating Adam and Favouring His Progeny Over All His Creation?

2. Understanding the Religion of Allah through the Ages,

Civilizing the new species that God created some seventy thousand years ago, which was different from all previous creation in its cognitive abilities, was an arduous task. Man’s unique cognitive abilities make him capable of both immense good and immense evil. Religious morality is about making man choose good over evil. Good comes from trust, faith, restraint, accommodation, forgiveness and concern for others. Evil flows from distrust, lack of restraint, vindictiveness, and selfishness. Distrust, killing pro-actively that which threatens, and selfishness have been useful survival skills. Why would man then choose good or evil? To be evil is therefore natural and to choose good is counter intuitive. The task of religion was therefore to make man choose what is counter intuitive. This could only be achieved through compulsion in religion.

Once man practiced religious morality, its usefulness and contribution to survival and propagation of the species became evident in hindsight. Through shared values from a common religion, man learnt to trust people beyond his immediate family and clan and form larger groups of co-operating humans. The moral principles from religion then guided our laws, political and economic systems. Globalization has become possible only through trust in our legal, political and economic systems.

If compulsion was a necessary part of religion to begin with, it was necessary that the Messengers of Allah or the Prophets had to be Kings and Rulers for only a ruler could proclaim laws and ensure their compliance and punish for contravention. Religion therefore commanded submission to the rulers.

Submission to Governing Authorities

Romans 13:1-7

1.  Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

2. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

3. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.

4. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

 5. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

Civilizing New Nations

Prophets were sent to new nations not yet civilized by religion. At the end of the mission, those who believed were saved and those who had rejected belief in Allah were destroyed by an act of Allah. The examples are the people of Noah, Salih, Hud and Shuaib and perhaps many more, but not mentioned in the Quran.

Periodic Cleansing

Nations that went back to their evil ways were destroyed completely. The example in the Quran is of the people of the Prophet Lut (AS) but the Old Testament is full of such accounts. For example,

Jeremiah 51:20 “You are my hammer and weapon of war: with you I break nations in pieces; with you I destroy kingdoms.”

Jeremiah was speaking for God when he wrote that God uses other nations to be His “hammer and weapon of war” and even though these nations are not God’s people, He can still sovereignty use other pagan nations to do His work and that might include war. In this verse, God is pronouncing judgment on Babylon and promises Israel that they will be dealt justice “For Israel and Judah have not been forsaken by their God, the Lord of hosts” (Jer 51:5).

Deuteronomy 20 contains Yahweh’s instructions about war. If a city does not accept Israel’s offer of peace and open its gates, then “when the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it” (verse13). With regard to other cities, the command is (verse 16), “Do not leave anything that breathes.”

For example,  the walls of Jericho came tumbling down, and then the Israelites “destroyed with the sword every living thing in it – men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, and donkeys” (Joshua 6:21). Or consider Joshua 11:20, “For it was the Lord himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the Lord had commanded Moses.”

What good was accomplished by all this annihilation?  According to a Christian commentator, (beginning of quote), “The spread of wickedness was so pervasive that immorality, degradation, and barbarity invaded every facet of life. Children were sacrificed to pagan gods. Male and female prostitution took place right in the temple as part of the religious rites. Idol worship was rife and the society wholly contaminated. This evil was contagious and God’s people were in danger of being infected as well. God’s awesome judgement was finally unleashed.

Repulsive as it sounds to us today, this ruthless brand of warfare was not technically "genocide." Not in the modern sense of the term. According to most biblical scholars, it was actually an expression of God's judgment upon the Canaanites.

To say this another way, it was neither Joshua nor Moses but the Lord Himself who put the idolatrous nations of the Promised Land to the sword. This is perfectly legitimate from a strictly theological point of view. After all, God is the One who gives life. Accordingly, He also has the authority to take it away. His sentence was simply carried out by the agency of His chosen people, Israel. To quote one commentator, "The Canaanite civilization was so totally corrupt that coexisting with them would have been a serious threat to the survival and spiritual welfare of the Hebrew nation. Israel here is God's instrument of judgment against those who refuse to honour Him." (End of quote)

Warfare after the Quran

While there is seamless continuity in the moral and ethical principles through the ages, the Quran makes a radical break from the previous scriptures as it concerns:

1. The justification for making war

2. The treatment of the vanquished people

3. Criminal laws

Religious Wars Or Fighting In The Cause Of Allah

All the verses relating to fighting in the Quran, are for fighting in the cause of Allah. What is the meaning of fighting in the cause of Allah? It means to end religious persecution and oppression consisting of turning people out of their homes or places of worship for no other reason except their faith or hindering them from practicing their faith or torturing them for their faith. See verses 22:39, 40, 2:191 to 193, 2:217, 2:246, 4:75, 8:36-39. It also means to fight to defend any oppressed people (4:74 and 4:75)

 

Who Are The People Against Whom Fighting Is Ordained?

Fighting is not ordained against the Muslims, Christians, Jews, polytheists, idolaters, atheists or person(s) of any faith, but only against those who oppress other people for their faith no matter what the faith professed by the oppressors and the oppressed may be.

 

Treatment of the Vanquished People

The Meccan polytheists who had fought the Prophet to annihilate him, Islam and the Muslims contravening a peace treaty, were given four month amnesty during which they were free to move about and migrate to a neighbouring country or accept Islam or be killed. No one was killed and no one was enslaved. They either migrated or accepted Islam.

 

All other polytheists who may have fought, but never contravening a treaty, had the right to retain their faith and live in the new polity by becoming jiziya paying citizens. The jiziya was levied only on males of military age and ability, and exempted them from conscription. It was a tax for protecting citizens who were not required to take up arms for the defence of the nation. No one was enslaved.

 

While in other battles, the Muslims enslaved prisoners of war based on norms followed by the other side perhaps, there is no verse in the Quran that calls for enslavement of any people for any reason. The battles with their main enemy, the polytheists of Mecca, were completely free from enslaving the prisoners of war. They were released on payment of ransom and also without ransom if they could not afford it.

 

Criminal Laws

The Quran does not prescribe any punishment for blasphemy and apostasy reinforcing the principle of “No compulsion in religion”.

 

The punishment for an established case of adultery with four eye-witness testimonies is reduced from stoning to death in the previous scriptures to a hundred lashes.

 

What Is There In the Previous Scriptures and Completely Passed Over In the Quran and Therefore Abrogated?

 

The Quran, no longer sanctions war against any people for their beliefs and explicitly proclaims:

 

(2:256) Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error

(109:6) To you (the rejecter of Islam) be your religion and to me mine.

 

The Quran also announces that Muhammad is the seal of the Prophets in verse 33:40 and with it an end to the revelations from Allah and an end to the coming of further prophets or messengers of Allah. It marks the culmination of the process of civilizing people through religion and the verses cited above, recognize that the people have reached a level of maturity when compulsion is no longer necessary, with the moral principles from religion having permeated every society over the course of the previous seventy thousand years.

 

In verse 2:106, Allah says that Allah substitutes previous revelations by what is better, thus abrogating the previous verses, and in verse 5:15 that many previous instructions are omitted as these are no longer necessary. What we find omitted are verses related to war in the previous scriptures. Verse 13:38 also informs us that the previous Books were only for a period and not for all time. The Quran also says that the earlier people were given only a portion of the Book (3:23, 5:3, 4:44,51,) and not the complete Book and invites them to the Quran. All previous religions and Scriptures were works in progress and the Scriptures valid only for a period. The Quran is the final Book containing the “perfected and completed religion”.

 

The Renaissance

Their Renaissance was greatly influenced by Islam. The reaction to the excesses of the Church also made them reassess the influence of Religion on every aspect of their lives including waging war. We have seen how anachronistic the verses regarding war seem in the previous scriptures, although these may have made good sense in the past. We have also seen that Islam has a completely different way of fighting wars and dealing with the vanquished based on its own scriptures, while paying obeisance to the same God and recognizing all the Judeo-Christian prophets as their own. It is not surprising therefore, that the war related verses in the earlier scriptures that the Quran had abrogated some seven centuries earlier, the Christians now decided were no longer relevant. Many of their criminal laws such as on blasphemy and apostasy also belonged to the past and had no place once the Quran had ruled that “there was to be no compulsion in religion” anymore.

 

Moderate Judeo-Christian scholarship

We therefore find the Christians and the Jews pass over much of what is in their scriptures. Some of them try to explain away these violent verses as metaphors and argue that these are not meant to be taken literally while we know from history that these were followed in letter and spirit. That they no longer follow what is abrogated by the Quran is good. It is understandable that scriptures meant only for a period, become no longer tenable when civilization advances.  The followers of these previous scriptures therefore find it impossible to take these seriously anymore. The Islam of the Quran, coming as it is at the end of the revelatory process, is both a “perfected and complete religion” and valid for all time. There is nothing indefensible about making fighting oppression the only justifiable cause for war and completely ruling out fighting against “disbelief” saying “Let there be no compulsion in religion” and “To you (rejecter of Islam) be your religion and to me mine”.

 

Classical Islamic Scholarship

The problem however is that classical Islamic scholarship “interprets” the Quran using the Judeo-Christian paradigms and extensively quotes verses from Deuteronomy to justify their “interpretations”, rather than take the simple, straightforward meaning of the Quran. In their thinking, there is seamless continuity from the past, overlooking the fact that the Quran makes a radical break from the past and there is nothing common between what was prescribed in the past and what the Quran prescribes. How they get the whole story and plot wrong, is covered in my article:

 

The Importance of Getting the Story Right on the Divine Plan Allah

 

To know the extent to which the paradigm of war in Deuteronomy is (mis)used by even the most moderate scholar Javed Ghamidi, to “(mis)interpret” the Quran, read:

 al-mawrid.org/index.php/team/view/shehzad-saleem/7

 

Muslim “Moderates”

This is a new category of Muslims post 911. They are a confused lot. They have little direct knowledge and understanding of the Quran and the previous Scriptures. They blindly repeat what the moderate Judeo-Christian scholars say. Without doubt, taking the Old Testament verses on war literally is no longer tenable and therefore literalism and fundamentalism among the Christians and Jews are a grave problem. The Muslim moderates parroting their Judeo-Christian counterparts, blame extremism on literalism. The fact is that with the Quran, the “interpretations” based on the paradigms of the past which the classical Islamic scholars make, is a huge problem. Fundamentalism based on such “interpretations’ is problematic. Literalism is however not the problem because Islam is literally and fundamentally a religion of peace and has little in common with the previous scriptures as it concerns war and the “other” or non-Muslim. This will be evident to anyone who reads:

 

The Principles of War from the Quran

 

2. Allah Provides A Level Playing Field To People of all Faiths

 The Muslim moderates lacking knowledge and understanding of the scriptures and of history, are Quixotic in their fight with the “perfected and complete religion”. They make a fool of themselves with the Muslims as well as with the non-Muslims. They have their own articles of faith which have nothing to do with Islam and the Truth, but what will make them acceptable in western society post 911.

Naseer Ahmed is an Engineering graduate from IIT Kanpur and is an independent IT consultant after having served in both the Public and Private sector in responsible positions for over three decades. He is a frequent contributor to NewAgeIslam.com

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/islamic-ideology/naseer-ahmed,-new-age-islam/the-religion-of-allah-before-and-after-the-quran/d/117938

New Age IslamIslam OnlineIslamic WebsiteAfrican Muslim NewsArab World NewsSouth Asia NewsIndian Muslim NewsWorld Muslim NewsWomen in IslamIslamic FeminismArab WomenWomen In ArabIslamophobia in AmericaMuslim Women in WestIslam Women and Feminism





TOTAL COMMENTS:-   20


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

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

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

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

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


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



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


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



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

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

    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/15/2019 3:37:35 AM



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


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



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

    Have you GM sb, produced evidence of even one moral principle that has come from outside religion? That was the challenge which you failed to meet and you lost the argument. And how can you win when even the most famous Immanuel Kant could not come up with an original moral principle and merely rephrased the "Principle of Reciprocity" from religion? 

    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/14/2019 2:26:15 AM



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

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/13/2019 12:29:25 PM



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

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

    Even this atheist philosopher had to concede that to follow true morality, belief in an after-life is necessary.
     

    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/13/2019 2:54:41 AM



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

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/10/2019 1:10:39 PM



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

    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/9/2019 11:03:43 PM



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

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


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



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

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

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


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

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

     Both the points that Kant is making are true.

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

    2. Religion itself contributes to immorality. For example, the genocide of indigenous populations  indulged in by all Christian conquerors. 

    By naseer ahmed - 3/9/2019 3:10:47 AM



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

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/8/2019 1:24:38 PM



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

    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/8/2019 1:20:35 AM



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

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

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


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



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

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

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

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/7/2019 11:45:27 AM



Compose Your Comments here:
Name
Email (Not to be published)
Comments
Fill the text
 
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the articles and comments are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect that of NewAgeIslam.com.

Content