“They are rid of the Christian God and now believe all the more firmly that they must cling to Christian morality. That is an English consistency; we do not wish to hold it against little moralistic females á la Eliot. In England one must rehabilitate oneself after every little emancipation from theology by showing in a veritably awe-inspiring manner what a moral fanatic one is. That is the penance they pay there.– F. Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, “Reconnaissance Raids of an Untimely Man”: Aphorism #5
We others hold otherwise. When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality from under one’s feet. This morality is by no means self-evident: this point has to be exhibited again and again, despite these English flatheads. Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one’s hands. Christianity presupposes that man does not know, cannot know, what is good for him, what evil: he believes in God, who alone knows it. Christianity is a command; its origin is transcendent; it is beyond all criticism, all right to criticism; it has truth only if God is the truth – it stands and falls with faith in God.
When the English actually believe that they know ‘intuitively’ what is good and evil, when they therefore suppose that they no longer require Christianity as a guarantee of morality, we merely witness the effects of the dominion of the Christian value-judgement and an expression of the strength and depth of this dominion: such that the origin of English morality has been forgotten, such that the very conditional character of its right to existence is no longer felt. For the English, morality is not yet a problem.”
Reblogged this on Pondering Soul and commented:
A short extract from Nietzsche on the problem with secular morality…
A great quote!
At least secular morality, in contrast to Sharia, makes non-Muslims and Muslims equal before the law and doesn’t expose non-Muslims to charges of blasphemy or other religious laws that are designed to intimidate and ostracize them.
Man, I wish I could make claims without evidence. Its so much less work than reading and knowing what you’re talking about:
It was narrated that Shurayh said: “When ‘Ali set out to fight Muawiyah, he lost a shield. When the battle was over and he returned to Kufah, he found a shield in the possession of a Jewish man who was selling it in the marketplace. He said to him: ‘Oh Jew, this shield is my shield; I did not sell it or give it away.’ The Jew said: ‘It is my shield and is in my possession.” Ali said: ‘Let us go to the judge.’ So they went to Shurayh, and ‘Ali sat beside Shurayh, while the Jew sat in front of him. Shurayh said: ‘Speak, oh Amir al-Mu’mineen.’ He said: ‘Yes. I say that this shield that is in the Jew’s hands is my shield; I did not sell it or give it away.’ Shurayh said: ‘Oh Amiu al-Mu’mineen, give me proof.’ He said: ‘Yes. Qunbur, al-Hasan and al-Husayn will bear witness that this shield is my shield.’ Shurayh said: ‘The testimony of the son for the father does not count.’ ‘Ali said: ‘The testimony of a man who is one of the people of paradise does not count? I heard the Messenger of Allah say: “Al-Hasan and al-Husayn will be the leaders of the youth among the people of paradise. The Jew said: ‘The Amir al-Mun’mineen brought me to his judge, and his judge is ruling against him? I bear witness that this is the truth; I bear witness that there is no God but Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and that the shield is your shield. You were riding on your dusky camel, heading towards Siffeen; you dropped this (shield) at night, and I picked it up.’ ‘Ali said: ‘Since you admit it, it is yours,’ and he gave him a horse too. I saw him when he went out to fight the Kharijites with ‘Ali (pg.395)
To save time as you’re predictable as the sunrise, whether you attempt to discredit the story or not is irrelevant as it is authoritative to US and is an evidence about making sure all are equal in court (again common sense is to rule WELL as people will become Muslim based off the justice) Finally for you to start learning please see QB’s refutation of Temple’ similar unfounded claims:
Do you have proof that you are not a rapist yet? If you fail to do so, I will then ask you to prove you are not secretly gay. If you fail to do so we will all know the truth.
“Or am I misreading you here?”
i was addressing this ”
….doesn’t expose non-Muslims to charges of blasphemy or….
is it not hypocritical for a christian to attack islam when it comes to blasphemy laws?
This doesn’t make much sense. Can you try clarify what you meant to say?
what did yhwh say about a neighbor who tries to sell you false beliefs? he says to execute them and this is law of guidance from yhwh. Now interesting thing is that while jews were executing neighbors who were selling false beliefs to them, the pagans were allowing the worship of any god. so how come you guys side with the enemies of the jews i.e the pagans?
Are you trying to say that is the duty of the Jews, according to their own law, that they should kill all non-jews simply because they don’t believe the same thing? Or am I misreading you here? And which pagan’s were allowing the worship of any god? All pagan’s at all times? or a particular group of them at a particular moment? Also, do you mind referencing this claim about Jewish law. And lastly, you know Hitler had a dog… so all Athiest’s that have dogs must be Nazi’s… (just so that its obvious… I’m being facetious here and making a point about your fallacious reasoning.) The fact that two groups have something in common, does not mean they are siding with one another.
If the Bible reveals how God wants people to behave, should we take it seriously when God tells his people that they are not to have any contact with people of other religions, so that if there are any false worshipers in their vicinity, they are supposed to murder them – every man, woman, and child who doesn’t worship Yahweh?
my question again:
What did yhwh say about a neighbor who sells false beliefs to his people? Did yhwh say that his laws are eternal and applicable for all times?
did the pagans in the time of the jews allow more freedom of religion than the jews when it comes to worship of different gods? did pagans execute if you decided to worship a different god?
my question again… what is the reference for your claim? I’m not a jew, so I don’t know what the answer to this question is. But there is a Jew I have in mind that I can ask, and will get back to you when he answers. For Muslims, the answer is clear. If something is given from the previous books that contradicts what is given in the Quran or the Sunnah, then we consider it a fabrication or a later addition to the word of God put there by scholars of the past for whatever reason. If the example you give is as clear cut as you give it, then I would probably say that this may have been added by corrupted religious authorities at a later date who were worried about the jewish community losing their identity. But again, this would be an absolute guess, as you haven’t given me a reference for your claim, nor do I know what the jewish ruling is on whatever reference you are using.
With regards to the practices of pagans. They were hardly one cohesive group of people. They made up many groups with many different ideas of what their ‘gods’ were, and were often isolated and unaware of each others traditions, along with having their own unique set of laws. The vikings for example, cannot be equivicated to the native americans, or the native african tribes. Your asking the question in such a way completely neglects this fact and so makes answering it impossible. The best I could give you about the pagans is that some may have been tolerant, and some less so. Some may have practiced apostasy laws, seeing it akin to abandoning one’s social responsibilities, etc.. some may not have cared. But the most I can give you is random conjecture due to the vagueness of your questions, and lack of references. The jews were a diaspora for two millennia and covered a large portion of land. So again, you’ll need to be more specific.
Well this is certainly debatable. Firstly, the assumption that people are not to be held equal before a law according to the sharia.. and secondly.. the idea that secular morality holds all groups equal when it clearly doesn’t. Your talking like this presupposes that it is unchanging, when it is quickest changing set of rules that have ever existed, and the idea of what should be considered equal is constantly changing. Certain groups are constantly given preferential treatment over others; and this is complained about by everyone in the political sphere, be that left wing or right wing, believer or non-believer, etc etc.
Yes, the Sharia differentiates between non-Muslims and Muslims by granting them the right to be judged according to their own beliefs and own laws (going as far as to permit forbidden practices in Islam for non-Muslims simply because that’s their belief, e.g. brother-sister marriages for Zoroastrians), the horror, how discriminatory! Where’s my secularity?! Imagine being denied from exercising your religious God-given rights under secularity?! Impossible!
(By the way it’s funny that Christians like to mention secularity, which is just another symptom of the complete death and decay of Christianity where it is no longer present nor having its weight and relevance in the moral compass of the modern nation states. When you’re talking about secularism you’re explicitly accepting the failure of your religion)
The law of the passions.
Iggy just admitted that unbelievers are dogs according to his mangod. And now here he is trying to defend secularism! Yeah, crosstians are shameless hypocrites. There is no doubt about it.
Erasmus, aka Ignoramus, aka Iggy…
Can we stop with the name calling? I reckon that the person in question is completely wrong but we’re not making any progress if you keep calling him names. Thanks in advance!
There are some people whom you cannot make progress with. They are called trolls for a reason. Iggy is one such person. Once you get to know him and have seen his style of argumentation, mockery is all that is left.
And you know what? Frankly, I am sick and tired of people lecturing others on how to counter the arguments of the trolls, while staying quiet themselves and just being spectators. Why don’t you try to reason with pustules like Iggy and see how far you get?
I get that there are some people who really do give off the impression that they have no intention of engaging in sincere discussion. But still brother, its best to either be civil, or when that isn’t possible, then silence is advised. Trolls feed on the anxiety of those who they intend to wind up. By acting aggressively towards his post, and towards those who try to give you advice, is exactly what they’re aiming at.
I don’t agree that we are obligated to respond to trolls. If anything it just attracts more trolls because they like the action. Maybe you disagree, and thats fair enough. But for what my 2pence is worth, I agree with our fellow commenter here that name calling is best being avoided. Silence should only be considered a weakness against genuine commenters who give cogent arguments and speak with open minds. Not when ignoring a wind up merchant.
I agree that civilized discussion is preferable, but my experience has shown that in this arena, that is virtually impossible 95% of the time. The vast majority of non-Muslims who visit these blogs are hateful and bigoted trolls. Do you plan on ignoring all of them? If so, then you’re going to have to be silent most of the time.
We have to face the facts that the vast majority of people we will encounter are going to be trolls. I have no plans on being quiet when these pimples bad mouth Islam or the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Our silence will only encourage such behavior.
As for the advice given by the brother (I assume he is Muslim), I have no doubt he is being sincere. But my problem is that he is basically just a spectator, hanging around, not taking part in the discussion or answering the bigots, and then giving advice to others on how to deal with the bigots. If I am throwing out the garbage, but another guy is standing and watching but doesn’t want to help because the garbage is gross and smelly, and yet wants to advise me on how to properly dispose of the garbage, wouldn’t that be a tad annoying?
“Do you plan on ignoring all of them? If so, then you’re going to have to be silent most of the time.” – No, like I said the other option is to engage with them with good character to the best of my ability. I’m only human though, so although ideally I would like to be this super civil guy all the time, the reality is that I’ll probably lose my temper here and there (may Allah protect me from this) and say something silly. My hope is that when this happens, my fellow brothers will correct me and remind me to be better.
“I have no plans on being quiet when these pimples bad mouth Islam or the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).” – I don’t expect you to be quiet. Nor do I expect you to be all sunshine and rainbows. I understand that a stern approach is necessary; but my point is that this can still be done without the name calling.
“Our silence will only encourage such behavior.” – I agree, which is why I plan to engage with them.
“not taking part in the discussion or answering the bigots, and then giving advice to others on how to deal with the bigots.” – each to there own. Its nice to have people to remind us of certain things from time to time. There is no compulsion on them to engage in any other way. I admit it would be nice if they did confront the bigots, but alas, this is beyond our control.
“wouldn’t that be a tad annoying?” – That would be annoying yes. And would maybe warrant a stern tone. But it would still demand good character. 🙂
Well, it’s not like I’m using foul language or something, lol. If I can put a troll in his place and have a little fun with him too, then why not? Pimples need to be popped, not caressed. 😁
I certainly meant to disrespect to “small remark”.
I’m confused. The grammar mistake makes this ambiguous enough so that i’m not sure whether you meant to say you did mean to disrespect or you didn’t??
Also, his name was very fitting wasn’t it :p lol
Ahh, I actually meant to say that I didn’t mean to disrespect him.
May God let us follow these obligations sincerely:
God’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, “Whoever believes in God and the Last Day should talk what is good or keep quiet”
“And do not insult those they invoke other than God, lest they insult God in enmity without knowledge” [Qur’an – 6:108]
Ameen. I also remember this:
And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best, except for those who commit injustice among them, and say, “We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. And our God and your God is one; and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him.”
Pavlov submits to his arrogance alone
has everyone got nicknames on these comment feeds? Whats mine? lol and who’s pavlov?
All the trolls have nicknames here. We have the doorknob, Iggy, Pennywise, etc. There are others as well.
Someone needs to provide a list of some sort so I don’t need to keep asking :L
I just gave you one, lol. These are the current, most active trolls.
Agnostic – The undecided voter, the doorknob
Erasmus – Ignoramus, Iggy
Ken Temple – Pennywise
Like I said, there have been others, but they haven’t been around for a while (madman, Cerbie, Coco etc.)
oh is that it? lol whose pavlov then?
Oh, that’s the doorknob’s nickname for yours truly. I consider it an honor actually. Pavlov was a brilliant scientist. 😂
Aww, now, now doorknob. Don’t project your arrogance to others. Remember, you’re the undecided voter here.
Sorry to disappoint you but you are just like Pavlov’s dog, who is not brilliant at all just drooling reflexively over every comment
Sorry to disappoint you doorknob, but the opinions of mindless doorknobs are meaningless.
Pavlov’s blog speaking in pluralis majestatis, well well here some actual revelation he truly believes in: “And insult the non-believers wherever you find them obsessively, our ego is a mercy for the worlds, for Pavlov is all-knowing, wise”.
Now, now doorknob, don’t get mad just because no one takes you seriously. You’re just here for comedic relief. 🤣
Mr. Heathcliff is correct the Jews have explicit Apostasy laws in the Bible WAY harsher than ours (also note that is a general rule of thumb about their laws) here’s the reference:
This I why you never hear Jews make the type of arguments Christians do such as apostasy, Aisha’s(ra) age, etc. After seeing this reference Christians generally fall into 3 categories:
1. Ohhh that was the OT! Jesus abolished it blah, blah, blah
This is a favorite whenever they’re uncomfortable or don’t want to follow their own books instructions. Counters:
A. They STILL have to follow laws now contrary to Paul’s claims. For example, the law of divorce Jesus(as) is said to have abrogated (Matt 19:1-11)
B. They believe that Jesus(as) is God so he still sent down the law at some point in time and this was followed for thousands of years.
C. The Jews abandoning it diaspora is not evidence just because they decided not to implement their rules. They have the ability NOW and still choose not to.
This is the types like Erasmus(aka Iggy) because of being influenced by secularism mostly. Reality is some Christian sects and authors of the Biblical text believed they still have to follow them.
3. Cherry-picking laws they like, rejecting what they don’t
Some deny in theory but not in practice when it’s convenient. Examples include homosexuality, witchcraft, etc. These are the ones like Ken or Shamoun it’s kind of having your cake and eating it too.
I know they have apostasy laws, but Mr Heathcliff isn’t talking of just apostasy. From what I made of his comment he is talking of punishment for non-jews who try to tell them about beliefs which come into conflict with the jewish belief system. My point of contention was that he read the apostasy laws and took them way beyond what should be reasonably considered a genuine interpretation. But saying that, and now looking at the reference you gave me, it does seem ambiguous enough to include non-jews. But I will see if I can speak to someone jewish about it and see how they understand it, insha’Allah.
With regards to point 2, its cultural christianity. Its lost touch with its roots so much that it looks more like a strange religious form of capitalism now, where the only parts that are celebrated are those which involve mass consumption of material things, writing wishlists, dressing up in fancy dress and getting on it.
Did a little bit more research they abandoned the law (like always) but its similar in execution to Islam:
Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 158:2
The heretics, and those who practice idol worship (literally: worship of the stars), or who do sins for the sake of provocation, even one who ate forbidden foods or wore shatnez in order to provoke, this person is a heretic; an the apikorsim, and those who do not believe in the Torah and in the Jewish prophecy, it is a mitzvah to kill them. If one has strength in his hand to kill them with a sword, in public, he should kill him.
yeah that seems quite harsh. It also looks as though its asking for extrajudicial executions. Anyone can be judge and executioner kind of thing…