Science, Arts, Belief, Right & Wrong...

Sohail Shuja

Minister (2k+ posts)
That's like expecting a cow not to smack ya in da rear because you're a vegetarian.
It's easy for him to determine that. If Bill Maher has said it then it must be true. Who dismisses religion, mocks god and in the same breath speaks for Israel how they're close to his heart because they took their land, united by faith.
Yeah, and he won't ever listen to the song Kashmir by Led Zepplin, even though it is also an occidental piece of thought.
 

Tenacious Khan

Politcal Worker (100+ posts)
I am sorry to piss on your bonfire but if I am not mistaken, drinking alcohol and eating pork is banned by your religion but buying and selling human beings is permitted.

Whether or not your religion helped to reduce slavery or whether you have the option to marry concubines is irrelevant to the fact that Islam allows those barbaric practises such as buying and selling people, keeping concubines and then blackmailing slave girls that if they refuse sex to their master then Allah will punish them.

Don't bullshit me that Muslims wiped out slavery. Muslim countries were the last countries on the planet to ban slavery until 1970s when secular countries forced African and Arab countries to ban it.

You are not blowing me out of the water you are just blowing your own piss in your own face.
Looked like I hit a nerve, more like smashed I believe...... 😂

Keeping up with the usual diarrhea, trademark Vitamin. Start with English lessons first, so you can understand what other people are saying and then gradually move towards Science. Maybe in 10-15 years you will develop the intellectual acumen to conduct a healthy debate. On your bike, chop-chop!
 
Last edited:

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
There is no debate between you and me. You will never be able to justify your position and you will never be able to question mine. The only option for you is to run away with your tail tucked between your legs.

Next time read the name of the person you are replying to before you try to intimidate them with your bullshit as I will call you out and tear you to pieces. Chao.


Looked like I hit a nerve, more like smashed I believe...... 😂

Keeping up with the usual diarrhea, trademark Vitamin. Start with English lessons first, so you can understand what other people are saying and then gradually move towards Science. Maybe in 10-15 years you will develop the intellectual acumen to conduct a healthy debate. On your bike, chop-chop!
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
So when we are discussing natural/organic morality. We need to understand that it has certain limits as the natural living system of human beings is in groups of 10-100 individuals of hunter gatherers. Thats how humans lived for more than 200,000 years of our existence, only last 10,000 years we lived in villages and settlements. With the large lifespan of humans 10,000 - 100,000 years is not long enough to evolve significant behavioural changes in humans. (Note: In hunter gatherer societies there is no king, or chief or any authority. People get respect based on their age and contribution to the tribe.)

Therefore we have moral instincts to take care of our old and young. To love your wife and children. To fight to defend your family and loved ones. Motherly and Fatherly instinct. All those those are natural and you do not need Aristotle or Muhammad or Buddha to tell you that. Even in wild animals those things exist.

But that being said, organic morality does help us in the modern world to some extent. It is not enough since we started living in larger settlements since 10,000 years ago when ice age ended and agricultural revolution started. When we started living in larger groups we needed more laws and rules to uphold morals and collective betterment of society. Since ranks and authority did not exists, this is the time when religions started and one priest was given authority via divinity to make rules and people have to follow him.

This system of religious law making evolved over time and led to many religions that you see today. But on the other hand we also came up with alternatives to religious laws, which is secular laws and laws based on reason. This is first started by Greek philosophers and later implemented on a larger scale by modern European States. So far, secular morality and reason based rule making has proven to be vastly superior to religious morality and religious based law making.

We can sit here and argue about the divine laws of Judaism, Islam and Christianity and you will see that they are immoral even based on your standards. Whether it is stoning someone to death for working on a Sabboth day. Chopping limbs of for petty theft. Punishment for slave girls who refuse sex to their masters. Eternal torment in hell (infinite punishment) for a finite crime. Torture as a punishment is immoral and torture for eternity is infinitely immoral. And at the end of the day in all Abrahamic religions it doesn't matter how moral or immoral you are. If you are a believer you will eventually go to heaven and if you are a disbeliever doesn't matter how many good things you do, you will still end up in hell. This is not a moral system.

A moral person does not need the allure of heaven and the threat of eternal torture in hell to do good things. We have enough instinctive morality and enough reasoning faculty to tell that hurting another person is wrong, imposing your will on another person is wrong because thats something that you wouldn't want anything to do to you, why would you do it to someone unless you are a psychopath.

Let us just not discuss any religion here. Though, I can debate on that e.g. Taenia solium in Pork and the hilarious reality of the gay gene (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22720828 ) and perhaps on the differences in male and female brains, body, thought pattern etc and their social implications, in purview of the evolutionary aspects.

But that will perhaps divert the discourse of our discussion.

Now coming back to the point of "organic morality", which, according to you has evolved over the time in human race. So, according to that, any one is free to do as he will unless he hits your nose. Moreover, there is no assertion of authority, rather a discourse of discussion over a matter of conflict, and to whichever side the majority inclines, becomes the rule/law.

Now within this pretext, I don't find any reason why would a person sitting in a corner of the world in society X has any right to judge society Y sitting on the other end of the world. Even if they are close by, both should have full right to practice what they feel is right, unless one is imposing their rules on the other.

Your initial definition of "morality" which is "organic" in nature is quite a volatile one. It is subjective to a group/society, where majority is the authority. It also implicates that if you move from point A to B, then you should subject yourself to the morality of the people at point B.

Am I correct on this one or would you like to add/remove something, before I progres any further in our discussion?
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Im not trying to convince you as you are not looking for the truth.

We already agreed that intuition is not a reliable path way to truth. Yet in the end you made a 180 and came back to intuition that you feel that God is necessary condition for existence of Universe. And we agreed that the most reliable method to get to the truth is to follow the evidence.

If you cared about the truth you wouldn't make that statement.

1) I think your motivation to be in this debate is not about discovering truth.

2) Its not about changing my position on religion.

3) The sole reason why you sticked around so long is that you hold a belief but you have certain doubts in your mind, and these doubts are making you uneasy about the position that you hold.

4) This feeling is called cognitive dissonance. When you hold 2 or more beliefs that contradict each other. For example you believe in the super natural, but then discover that everything that we have learned in our reality has a natural explanation.

5) So your motivation is to somehow ease that pesky cognitive dissonance and/or to somehow justify the irrational belief that you hold.

6) This is the reason why you will go to zero credibility sources such as creationist videos and reject the highest credibility scientists who dedicated their life to study chemistry, biochemistry and biology, and you will try to dispute 100s of years of human knowledge. Why? Because of that pesky cognitive dissonance.


I noticed this very early on that you stopped trying to argue with me but rather started trying to find reasons to justify your beliefs. The reason is that I noticed this with almost every religious individual that got deeper into the debate with me. Including my own family members.


im itching to inititate debate on every para that u have written here
but im controlling it this time 😅

u might not believe it but if im convinced ill change my world view..and this discussion hasnt convinced me
 

Sohail Shuja

Minister (2k+ posts)
So do you think it is justified to believe in something even if you cannot prove it exist and even if you do not have sufficient evidence that it exists?
Well, it is totally justified to live with an idea that I am trying to find the God, I have not found Him yet. However, living with a conclusion that He Does Not Exist.... is a tall claim.

You may be right in saying that Science cannot be helpful enough to help to design a test, through which the Existence of God, The Designer and the Creator can be proved/verified.

But here, aren't we just pushing the limits of Science too much on this?

So when we are discussing natural/organic morality. We need to understand that it has certain limits as the natural living system of human beings is in groups of 10-100 individuals of hunter gatherers. Thats how humans lived for more than 200,000 years of our existence, only last 10,000 years we lived in villages and settlements. With the large lifespan of humans 10,000 - 100,000 years is not long enough to evolve significant behavioural changes in humans. (Note: In hunter gatherer societies there is no king, or chief or any authority. People get respect based on their age and contribution to the tribe.)

Therefore we have moral instincts to take care of our old and young. To love your wife and children. To fight to defend your family and loved ones. Motherly and Fatherly instinct. All those those are natural and you do not need Aristotle or Muhammad or Buddha to tell you that. Even in wild animals those things exist.

But that being said, organic morality does help us in the modern world to some extent. It is not enough since we started living in larger settlements since 10,000 years ago when ice age ended and agricultural revolution started. When we started living in larger groups we needed more laws and rules to uphold morals and collective betterment of society. Since ranks and authority did not exists, this is the time when religions started and one priest was given authority via divinity to make rules and people have to follow him.

This system of religious law making evolved over time and led to many religions that you see today. But on the other hand we also came up with alternatives to religious laws, which is secular laws and laws based on reason. This is first started by Greek philosophers and later implemented on a larger scale by modern European States. So far, secular morality and reason based rule making has proven to be vastly superior to religious morality and religious based law making.

We can sit here and argue about the divine laws of Judaism, Islam and Christianity and you will see that they are immoral even based on your standards. Whether it is stoning someone to death for working on a Sabboth day. Chopping limbs of for petty theft. Punishment for slave girls who refuse sex to their masters. Eternal torment in hell (infinite punishment) for a finite crime. Torture as a punishment is immoral and torture for eternity is infinitely immoral. And at the end of the day in all Abrahamic religions it doesn't matter how moral or immoral you are. If you are a believer you will eventually go to heaven and if you are a disbeliever doesn't matter how many good things you do, you will still end up in hell. This is not a moral system.

A moral person does not need the allure of heaven and the threat of eternal torture in hell to do good things. We have enough instinctive morality and enough reasoning faculty to tell that hurting another person is wrong, imposing your will on another person is wrong because thats something that you wouldn't want anything to do to you, why would you do it to someone unless you are a psychopath.
Please Doc....

Organic Morality is not something which has been outlived by human evolution and existence. You and me, both are in a state of evolution, with the course of time.

So what we have NOW, is also Organic.

And my question is not why you do not believe in a God or why not you have chosen any religion for yourself.

I am plainly trying to find the answer to the question of determination of Right from Wrong. I am no questioner of your faith/belief/disbelief and neither I am a preacher of Islam/Christianity/Buddhism etc. etc...

I need a scientific proof that stealing is wrong.
Can your scientific wisdom prove it?
 
Last edited:

Tenacious Khan

Politcal Worker (100+ posts)
There is no debate between you and me. You will never be able to justify your position and you will never be able to question mine. The only option for you is to run away with your tail tucked between your legs.

Next time read the name of the person you are replying to before you try to intimidate them with your bullshit as I will call you out and tear you to pieces. Chao.
Man I am enjoying this. 😂 All you've been able to achieve in your reply to my posts is further expose yourself as a dishonest moron vomiting diarrhea. Thank you for proving my point, petulant kiddo. 😝
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
You are justified in saying that there may or may not be a God. But you are not justifying in saying you are convinced there there is a God but you haven't found him yet as you have no evidence to justify your conviction.

Never have I said that a God does not exist. Since God is an unfalsifiable proposition. But leaving the possibility of something to exist open doesn't necessarily mean that it exists.

Well, it is totally justified to live with an idea that I am trying to find the God, I have not found Him yet. However, living with a conclusion that He Does Not Exist.... is a tall claim.
Science means knowledge which we gain from observation, testing, evidence etc. This is the only methods that humans have to arrive to the truth of a claim. If you cannot test Existence of god or prove it, it means that belief in God is an irrational position.

You may be right in saying that Science cannot be helpful enough to help to design a test, through which the Existence of God, The Designer and the Creator can be proved/verified.
1) You have an instinctive sense of morality.
2) You have a reasoning ability to understand what is right and wrong
3) You have secular morality
4) All of them are superior to religious morality.

I am plainly trying to find the answer to the question of determination of Right from Wrong. I am no questioner of your faith/belief/disbelief and neither I am a preacher of Islam/Christianity/Buddhism etc. etc...
Science is basically collection of human knowledge. The collection exist in different sections that are classified ie Geology, Biology, Chemistry etc.

When it comes to morality it is a topic in behavioural science, biology, psychology and philosophy. Just search morality on google and you will see numerous studies, experiments and observations on the topic. If your solely relying on religion for morality then you haven't been born yet. We have mountains of literature on this topic outside of religion.

I need a scientific proof that stealing is wrong.
Can your scientific wisdom prove it?
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Thats very interesting because I have never come across a person you enjoys his own humiliation. How does it feel to try to bullshit someone, get called out and then have nothing to reply other than personal insults.

I know that you do not like my position, I also know that you have nothing to argue against me. That also make you feel butt hurt so thats why you have need to reply with personal insults. I am not stupid I have been debating for years and I understand your psychology better than you do and I assure you that sticking around with nothing to argue and just waste other peoples time is not going to make you look intelligent.

If you have something to add to the debate then do it, if you just want behave like a butt hurt little kid and do personal attacks then don't waste other people's time.


Man I am enjoying this. 😂 All you've been able to achieve in your reply to my posts is further expose yourself as a dishonest moron vomiting diarrhea. Thank you for proving my point, petulant kiddo. 😝
 
Last edited:

Sohail Shuja

Minister (2k+ posts)
When it comes to morality it is a topic in behavioural science, biology, psychology and philosophy. Just search morality on google and you will see numerous studies, experiments and observations on the topic. If your solely relying on religion for morality then you haven't been born yet. We have mountains of literature on this topic outside of religion.
Really, is that your answer Doc??????? "Go and Google it... 🙏

There will be a plethora of stuff on the subject, and most will be contradictory as well.

Even in psychology, the structuralist wouldn't agree with behaviorists and the psycho analytics may offer a completely different view.

Don't leave me in circles Doc.....

Just prove to me according to your morality, that why stealing is wrong?
 

HimSar

Senator (1k+ posts)
Pray, enlighten me, on which chromosome exactly can we find this gay gene and thus select the housekeeping, without any worries?
Gays are born without choice you say.. The birth is biology. The personality, psychology. Sexuality is determined by complex psychological as well as simple biological factors and a whole lot more. You are arguing with very obviously biased fixed ideas and similarly acquired knowledge..
That's not how it works. Get a life.

Its not about whether or not people are okay with it. You cannot violate another person's right just because thats what the majority of the people want. For matters like women's rights and LGBT, the rules should be based on reason, for example women are as human as men, therefore we ought to treat them equally. Brown people and White people are equally human therefore it should be illegal to discriminate based on ethnicity etc.

The problem with religious laws for example banning beef is that there is no reasoning behind it. There maybe was reasoning for it in the past but now its obsolete for example the status of Pork in Islam. Pork is extremely water consuming which is a disaster for desert people where there is limited water, also the warm weather make it easier for parasites to grow. Therefore it makes sense to ban pork in 7th century Arabia. But it makes no sense to ban it in more milder and water rich countries where Islam has spread.

Reason based laws are one of the reasons why European societies evolved much faster than Ottoman Empire.



First off all being Gay is not an option. People are born Gay without a choice. And in a reason based society we would say its unfair to discriminate against someone based on factors they were born with without their choice as long as it is not hurting anyone. So its unrealistic that one day everyone will become Gay. According to Williamson Institute only 3%-5% of population is LGBTQ.

Also if there was no purpose of the Gay gene then natural selection would have removed this Gene. But since almost every animal has this, there must be something to this gene that serves a purpose. For example sex is used for more than just creating offspring, it is a tool for friendship and bonding. Also imagine a tribe in which men go off hunting and women and children are left behind, so they need to leave a man to protect them, if the men leave behind a Gay man they will be sure that they will not copulate with their women.
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
According to my morality, my freedom to swing my arm should not hit another persons nose. So applying that logic, stealing would make me better off but it will hurt another person therefore it is wrong.

Just prove to me according to your morality, that why stealing is wrong?
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
I am not saying that psychological factors do not play a role. If you have an open society, Gay people are more likely to express their sexual orientation rather than in a repressed society.

So we can argue that family upbringing may cause a person to become a serial killer, but without underlying genetic conditions that enable a person from a dysfunctional family to become a serial killer, it is less likely that it is going to happen.

Your position that Genetics plays no role in psychology, behaviour and sexual orientation is contrary to evidence we have on this topic and is not supported by any serious scientists.

Pray, enlighten me, on which chromosome exactly can we find this gay gene and thus select the housekeeping, without any worries?
Gays are born without choice you say.. The birth is biology. The personality, psychology. Sexuality is determined by complex psychological as well as simple biological factors and a whole lot more. You are arguing with very obviously biased fixed ideas and similarly acquired knowledge..
That's not how it works. Get a life.
 

HimSar

Senator (1k+ posts)
That's like expecting a cow not to smack ya in da rear because you're a vegetarian.
It's easy for him to determine that. If Bill Maher has said it then it must be true. Who dismisses religion, mocks god and in the same breath speaks for Israel how they're close to his heart because they took their land, united by faith.
That's foxic for the brain, that stuff.
 

Sohail Shuja

Minister (2k+ posts)
According to my morality, my freedom to swing my arm should not hit another persons nose. So applying that logic, stealing would make me better off but it will hurt another person therefore it is wrong.
What if I know that the other person is a thief too and my Police department is corrupt as well, they will make a deal with the person if I report it to them... does that then justifies it?
 

Tenacious Khan

Politcal Worker (100+ posts)
Thats very interesting because I have never come across a person you enjoys his own humiliation. How does it feel to try to bullshit someone, get called out and then have nothing to reply other than personal insults.

I know that you do not like my position, I also know that you have nothing to argue against me. That also make you feel butt hurt so thats why you have need to reply with personal insults. I am not stupid I have been debating for years and I understand your psychology better than you do and I assure you that sticking around with nothing to argue and just waste other peoples time is not going to make you look intelligent.

If you have something to add to the debate then do it, if you just want behave like a butt hurt little kid and do personal attacks then don't waste other people's time.
I think by now the readers know who called out who on their bullshit and who's feeling butt hurt. 😜

Anyways, you are free to live in that delusional mindset of yours. Whatever helps you get through the night. Just make sure you get those English and Science lessons. Kiddo ta-ta!
 

HimSar

Senator (1k+ posts)
Your position that Genetics plays no role in psychology, behaviour and sexual orientation is contrary to evidence we have on this topic and is not supported by any serious scientists.
You are confused, self contradicting and ass-uming. And probably hallucinating for I never said that, but that's irrelevant. What I'm interested in is, does your family know you're writing this stuff in the closet, casanova?
 

Sohail Shuja

Minister (2k+ posts)
Your position that Genetics plays no role in psychology, behaviour and sexual orientation is contrary to evidence we have on this topic and is not supported by any serious scientists.
I gave you the research article which questions the existence of the Gay gene, which only appeared once in a study and never the results were replicated in another. How RELIABLE is that research?

I am pasting that again here for your kind perusal.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22720828

Secondly, the role of genetics in behavioral responses had been questioned by a study on identical twins, who carry the same genetic code, brought up in similar circumstances and still differ in their response to different stimuli.

Shall I Google That for you as well ?
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
I think you tried to make a point that Islam is against slavery and you got put down hardcore. Since then you haven't replied to my counter argument and resorted to personal attacks.

You said you can fill this forum up with hadiths and quranic verses that show how Islam is against slavery. I challenge you to do that. So I can enjoy your humiliation a bit more but I know you are not going to do that and find some excuse to escape.

Your whole religion is based on lies, dishonesty, blackmailing and brainwashing. I don't think you even feel ashamed to worship a God who threatens to burn someone for eternity just because he didn't stroke his ego by worshipping him. Only a sick human being can worship someone who threatens to torture and burn someone for eternity. Its immoral, unethical, barbaric, egoistic and sadistic.


You lied about slavery in Islam so I will set the record straight once and for all.

Sahih Bukhari

Vol. 7-#137 Narrated Abu al-Khudri: "We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's messenger about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection.""

Here, Muslims had taken female slaves, and had sex with them. Muhammad approved of this. He only admonished them not to practice coitus interruptus.

Vol. 5-#459 [This Hadith is similar to the above. However, additional details are added]. Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: "I entered the mosque and saw Abu Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about coitus interruptus. Abu said, "We went out with Allah's messenger for the Ghazwa (attack upon) Banu Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interruptus we said "How can we do coitus interruptus without asking Allah's messenger while he is present among us?" We asked (him) about it and he said "It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist.""


Here, the Muslims attacked the Banu Mustaliq, and took slaves. The female slaves were distributed as booty to the Muslim soldiers. Being away from home, the soldiers became horny, and want to have sexual relations with the newly captured female slaves. They went to Muhammad and asked about coitus interruptus. He told them not to practice that, but to complete the sexual act with the slaves. Related Hadith show that they didn't want to get the women pregnant because they wanted to be able to sell them later on. Under Islamic law they were not allowed to sell pregnant female slaves.

In effect, Muhammad okayed the rape of female prisoners.

Vol. 3-#765

Narrated Kuraib: the freed slave of Ibn 'Abbas, that Maimuna bint Al-Harith told him that she manumitted a slave-girl without taking the permission of the Prophet. On the day when it was her turn to be with the Prophet, she said, "Do you know, O Allah's Apostle, that I have manumitted my slave-girl?" He said, "Have you really?" She replied in the affirmative. He said, "You would have got more reward if you had given her (i.e. the slave-girl) to one of your maternal uncles."


Here a woman frees a slave girl, but Muhammad says that she would have gotten more (heavenly) reward if she had given the slave one of her uncles, thus keeping the slave in slavery.

Vol. 7-#734 "....At the door of the [Muhammad's] room there was a slave to whom I went and said, "Ask the permission for me to enter".....

This is a long Hadith, and the quote reveals that Muhammad has slaves working in his house.


Vol. 7-#344 Narrated Anas: "Allah's messenger went to the house of his slave tailor, and he was offered a dish of gourd of which he started eating. I have loved to eat gourd since I saw Allah's messenger eating it."

This Hadith shows that another one of Muhammad's slaves was a tailor.

Vol. 5-#637 Narrated Buraida: The prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus ([one fifth] of the booty) and I hated Ali, and Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, "Don't you see this (i.e. Ali)?" When we reached the prophet I mentioned that to him. He said, "O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?" I said, "Yes" He said, "Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumus."

The note for this Hadith says "Buraida hated Ali because he had taken a slave girl form the booty and considered that as something not good."

Here Ali took a newly captured slave girl, and had sex with her. When Muhammad was told about it, he approved of it. Note that slaves were considered as booty, and as a man’s property, they can use the female slave for sex, i.e., rape them.

Vol. 5-#512 Narrated Anas: ".....The prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives...."

This Hadith details the attack on the Jews of Khaibar. Again, many of the women and children were taken and made into slaves.


Vol. 5-Chapter 67 Narrated Ibn Ishaq: The Ghazwa (attack upon) Uyaina bin Hisn waged against Banu Al-Anbar, a branch of Banu Tamim. The prophet sent Uyaina to raid them. He raided them and killed some of them and took some others as captives.

Here, Muhammad sent out his men to attack another tribe. The killed some of them and took others as captives. Once again, the Muslims attacked a neighboring tribe.


Vol. 5-#182 Narrated Aisha: "Abu Bakr had a slave who used to give him some of his earnings.

Vol. 5-#50 Narrated Amr Maimun: "....The slave of Al-Mughira..."
[another Muslim who owned the slave that killed Umar.]

....Al-Abbas had the greatest number of slaves....
[Al-Abbas, the future Muslim leader had many slaves].


Vol. 9-#462 Narrated Aisha: "...Furthermore you may ask the slave girl who will tell you the truth". So the prophet asked Barira (my slave girl)...

Aisha had her own slave.


Also, volume 7-#s 845, 341, 352, 371, 410, 413, 654, ch. 22, ch. 23, and
volume 1-#s 29, 439, 661,
volume 9-#s ch. 23, ch. 32, #293, 296, 277, 100, 80.

Abu Dawud
Abu Dawud, vol. 2, chapter 597 - "On a Man who Beats His Slave While he is in the Sacred State (wearing Ihram)."

#1814- "(Abu Bakr) began to beat him (Bakr's slave) while the apostle of Allah was smiling and saying: "Look at this man who is in the sacred state, what is he doing?" [The note for this Hadith says "Abu Bakr beat his slave to teach him sense of responsibility."]

Abu Dawud, vol. 2, chapter 683 - "On the Marriage of a Slave without the Permission of His Masters"

#2074- "Ibn Umar reported the prophet as saying: "If a slave marries without the permission of his master, his marriage is null and void."


Abu Dawud, vol. 2, chapter 1317 - "Contractual Obligation of a Slave."

#3499, 3500- "The contractual obligation of a slave is three days. If he finds defect in the slave within three days, he may return it without any evidence; if he finds a defect after three days, he will be required to produce evidence that the slave had the defect when he brought it."

I think by now the readers know who called out who on their bullshit and who's feeling butt hurt. 😜

Anyways, you are free to live in that delusional mindset of yours. Whatever helps you get through the night. Just make sure you get those English and Science lessons. Kiddo ta-ta!
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Sure but also check the number of citations. Articles with more citations tend to be more credible than ones with few or no citations.

I gave you the research article which questions the existence of the Gay gene, which only appeared once in a study and never the results were replicated in another. How RELIABLE is that research?

I am pasting that again here for your kind perusal.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22720828

Secondly, the role of genetics in behavioral responses had been questioned by a study on identical twins, who carry the same genetic code, brought up in similar circumstances and still differ in their response to different stimuli.

Shall I Google That for you as well ?
 
Sponsored Link

Featured Discussions