AMDK say they dun want to produce Red Wines liao... Pokkai prefer low class beer De woh

[JohnTan]

well if he is muslim, he's free to speak for himself. berating him doesn't bring truth to the matter.

I understand your point, but John, both articles you present clearly indicate that Islam does allow alcohol in hand sanitizers and for Muslims to use them. It's the Muslim laypeople in general that automatically refuses. That would legitimize Islam and discredit regular Muslims.

Perhaps the bigger problem is why people need to treated like sheep instead of thinking for themselves.

Yup. In the articles, moslem leaders need to pass fatwa to allow alcohol sanitisers because too many moslems refuse to use them.


The moslem religion doesn't encourage its followers to think and choose. More political and soft power to the moslem religious leaders.

 

[Loofydralb]

Not mentioned means not mentioned.
You're really a moron.

So trinity is not mentioned in the bible, why are you so adamant about it? Why be moronic about it?

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," Matthew 28:19

You quoted the wrong verse to buttress you adamant support of the trinity, both words and concept is there.
Here is the applicable verse:

Bible 5:7-8
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost, and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, ..."

This is the verse that clearly states the three is one.

 

[Loofydralb]

Actually alcohol was in use for at least a thousand years before the Quran was made. It's use was pervasive across all humanity and accompanied humans from proto-civilizations into ancient civilizations. There are 2 reasons for this.

Most people are unaware of the role it plays in digestive health. Remember this was a time when no one knew what food made you sick and what didn't and nobody knew about germs. Consuming alcohol with your meal would make you significantly less sick than eating the meal with water. You may still get a little sick, but you would suffer less from microbial pathogens.

The other reason was that it encouraged dropping social barriers. In small doses, it encouraged humans to drop their animal instinct inhibitions and cooperate with one another. Of course, the dose makes the poison as it does the medicine. So with enough alcohol, more and more inhibitions would be dropped until you achieve the state you describe.

Which leads one to ask the question. What % of the population descends into the depravity you descibe? 100% of alcohol consumers? If that were true, you would be justified in asking for a total ban. But the number is actually quite small. And in the event that such a depraved person presents himself, personally, I would rather a drunk person show me his murderous intent towards me rather than a sober one. I would be more able to defend myself.

And in a civilized society, I can easily have him identified and punished accordingly. It helps to identify the miscreants early and easily and puts them in a compromised state for easy handling. [edit added]

What's the downside?

I would partially agree that in ancient times, before they understood that boiled water kills bacteria and germs, alcohol was the default way to hydrate yourself without getting any illnesses.
Thus the ancient prophets never brought the message that alcohol is forbidden.
Only now that technology, understanding and convenience is easily available, that Allah has commanded it be banned. Isn't that beautiful? Allah makes things easy according to the age you live in.

Alcohol afflict every layer. Imagine getting tipsy, come home and get into an argument with the wife. What benefit is that even though no damage to life or limb, but the psychological damage to relationships and how it is presented to the kids will have cascading effect down the lineages.

The whole ban is to actually prevent harm and damage to self and society before it happens. It's no use punishing a drunk driver who runs over a family. The deed is done.

Just look at the recently concluded world cup in Qatar. It's roundly touted to be the best, most peaceful, family friendly, violent free and enjoyable ever. And it's down to no alcohol.
If you had to have a drug to enjoy yourself, you need a psychologist/psychiatrist.

You can find our for yourself the downsides. Weekends around watering holes are the best examples.

 

[hofmann]

If alcohol was just discovered and introduced today, it would be treated like any other destructive drug like meth, coke or heroin.

Relax bro, it's just Jesus juice.

 

[Loofydralb]

Many moslems do dispute alcohol as a disinfectant. You may argue otherwise. But it's likely that in real life, you're against alcohol disinfectants, just like these moslems. @nightsafari

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...lcohol-based-hand-gels-religious-beliefs.html

https://chemicalwatch.com/106181/sanitiser-choices-in-indonesia-limited-by-halal-restrictions

oh my. that's too extreme. not very balanced.

Some Muslims don't even understand their own religion.
Anything is allowed if it is a necessary medication.
Eg, pork and pork products are allowed as medicine if nothing else halal can be substituted for it.
In fact, pork as food is allowed when there is famine, and just enough of it so that you will not starve.
See the religion is sensible. People aren't.

 

[Loofydralb]

The moslem religion doesn't encourage its followers to think and choose. More political and soft power to the moslem religious leaders.

I have heard endlessly when christians go to Sunday school and asks the priests difficult question, which then is replied:
"Don't ask that question. You just got to have faith!"

Compare that to the many places in the Quran that tells you to seek, ask, search for knowledge.

 

[Loofydralb]

Perhaps the bigger problem is why people need to treated like sheep instead of thinking for themselves.

Throughout the ages, man has demonstrated that they cannot be left to decide what is moral. Then morality just become sand dunes, shifting all the time to satisfy the perverse self, even though humans biologically and psychologically never changed.
How through out the ages, killings on a mass scale is justified legally, repeatedly.
Cheating lying stealing just becomes acceptable if you don't get caught.
When our creator who knows us best has laid down guidelines for us to follow.
Perhaps, one day while on this road called life, you reach a fork in the road and has to decide. Both equally rational and logical but so contrasting one from the other to take.
For Muslims it is easy. We question, but ultimately use the guidance we have. Makes our job easier and without that burden of responsibility.

 

[nightsafari]

Some Muslims don't even understand their own religion.
Anything is allowed if it is a necessary medication.
Eg, pork and pork products are allowed as medicine if nothing else halal can be substituted for it.
In fact, pork as food is allowed when there is famine, and just enough of it so that you will not starve.
See the religion is sensible. People aren't.

Only now that technology, understanding and convenience is easily available, that Allah has commanded it be banned. Isn't that beautiful? Allah makes things easy according to the age you live in.

Ah... but you've just given proof that it's not sensible. Rather it's a demonstration of the stranglehold of power by the clerics of Islam. Logic and reason only to be discerned and dispensed by the priestly classes and at their whim to interpret.

By definition, any religion is held by it's priests, not by it's gods. Similarly, the people are held to the demands of priests and not to the rule of gods either.

With all the evidence you've provided so far, the only certainty I see in your points is that people are not to be trusted. Instead, absolute trust is to be placed in the hands of the clerics. I'm sure that a solid case can be made that people are base animals not to be trusted with decision making and therefore executive function should be taken away from them as Islam has demonstrated most capably.

But I personally feel that people and society can't advance in that stranglehold and the moment the clerics of Islam lose hold over the people, they will fulfill that brutish expectation. I prefer slow and steady gains and some sacrifices rather than blinding and shackling the whole bunch. Luckily at the moment, we all get to choose which world we wish to live in.

Plenty of sharia countries to dwell in if you prefer. Let the rest of us have our "imperfect" society.

 

[nightsafari]

Throughout the ages, man has demonstrated that they cannot be left to decide what is moral. Then morality just become sand dunes, shifting all the time to satisfy the perverse self, even though humans biologically and psychologically never changed.
How through out the ages, killings on a mass scale is justified legally, repeatedly.
Cheating lying stealing just becomes acceptable if you don't get caught.
When our creator who knows us best has laid down guidelines for us to follow.
Perhaps, one day while on this road called life, you reach a fork in the road and has to decide. Both equally rational and logical but so contrasting one from the other to take.
For Muslims it is easy. We question, but ultimately use the guidance we have. Makes our job easier and without that burden of responsibility.

Sorry I didn't see this earlier.

I've always suspected it was the case, but thank you for confirming it. I personally believe that burden was meant for us to carry. Not washing our hands of it and passing it on to a designated super-class of humans to decide for us. But I wasn't always so sure and I can understand why people would want to follow a well-trodden road.

Thing is, by design, having a system of a super-class to decide for people makes it weak and prone to corruption. You say killings on a mass scale justified legally repeatedly, there are countless episodes of this in the history of the entire Abrahamic religion. Within the Torah, there are already stories justifying the wanton killing of non-Jews, we also have the crusades and the subsequent revenge attacks.

At this point in time, Abrahamic religions are responsible for the most continuing legalized killings. I refer to the Invasion of the Middle East and the terror attacks. I see no difference in their motivations. We now have laws governing each country which supercede religious edicts in functionality, justice and equity and somewhat less prone to corruption. Going to religion is just abdicating responsibility and running backwards. -- merely an opinion.

 

[Loofydralb]

Ah... but you've just given proof that it's not sensible. Rather it's a demonstration of the stranglehold of power by the clerics of Islam. Logic and reason only to be discerned and dispensed by the priestly classes and at their whim to interpret.

By definition, any religion is held by it's priests, not by it's gods. Similarly, the people are held to the demands of priests and not to the rule of gods either.

With all the evidence you've provided so far, the only certainty I see in your points is that people are not to be trusted. Instead, absolute trust is to be placed in the hands of the clerics. I'm sure that a solid case can be made that people are base animals not to be trusted with decision making and therefore executive function should be taken away from them as Islam has demonstrated most capably.

But I personally feel that people and society can't advance in that stranglehold and the moment the clerics of Islam lose hold over the people, they will fulfill that brutish expectation. I prefer slow and steady gains and some sacrifices rather than blinding and shackling the whole bunch. Luckily at the moment, we all get to choose which world we wish to live in.

Plenty of sharia countries to dwell in if you prefer. Let the rest of us have our "imperfect" society.

You assume in Islam there is the clerical/priestly class.
That's not true at all. Islam has written laws in both the Quran and hadiths. It is very democratic, in the sense they will study the issue and come to a consensus. Even the layman who has access to Quran and hadiths can join in the discussion.
The imams cannot make up their own rulings without showing evidence from the Quran and hadiths.

 

[Loofydralb]

Sorry I didn't see this earlier.

I've always suspected it was the case, but thank you for confirming it. I personally believe that burden was meant for us to carry. Not washing our hands of it and passing it on to a designated super-class of humans to decide for us. But I wasn't always so sure and I can understand why people would want to follow a well-trodden road.

Thing is, by design, having a system of a super-class to decide for people makes it weak and prone to corruption. You say killings on a mass scale justified legally repeatedly, there are countless episodes of this in the history of the entire Abrahamic religion. Within the Torah, there are already stories justifying the wanton killing of non-Jews, we also have the crusades and the subsequent revenge attacks.

At this point in time, Abrahamic religions are responsible for the most continuing legalized killings. I refer to the Invasion of the Middle East and the terror attacks. I see no difference in their motivations. We now have laws governing each country which supercede religious edicts in functionality, justice and equity and somewhat less prone to corruption. Going to religion is just abdicating responsibility and running backwards. -- merely an opinion.

Eg, you have kidney failure. Your only option to live is organ transplant. No organs available anywhere.
An organ broker approaches you offering an organ somewhere in Myanmar/laos/Vietnam/Cambodia. You suspect these are stolen organs from orphans. And they're affordable.
What do you do?
For us Muslims, it's a straightforward decision.

 

[nightsafari]

You assume in Islam there is the clerical/priestly class.
That's not true at all. Islam has written laws in both the Quran and hadiths. It is very democratic, in the sense they will study the issue and come to a consensus. Even the layman who has access to Quran and hadiths can join in the discussion.
The imams cannot make up their own rulings without showing evidence from the Quran and hadiths.

the preponderance of the differences in interpretation of Islam globally lends weight to your assertion that everyone can join in the discussion.

But at the same time makes an absolute mockery of the claim that Islam is the "perfect and incontrovertible word of god".

You can't have it both ways. Either it's the word of god as delivered by priests and incontrovertible or it's a matter of consensus which means it's up to the followers to decide what it is which means it's up to anyone and everyone to decide which you earlier asserted were not worthy of even deciding what's fit to eat. It's a pure contradiction.

 

[nightsafari]

Eg, you have kidney failure. Your only option to live is organ transplant. No organs available anywhere.
An organ broker approaches you offering an organ somewhere in Myanmar/laos/Vietnam/Cambodia. You suspect these are stolen organs from orphans. And they're affordable.
What do you do?
For us Muslims, it's a straightforward decision.

I would choose to die. An easy choice. I'm not stealing anyone else's organs unless he tries to rob me of mine first.

So what would Muslims do?

 

[Loofydralb]

the preponderance of the differences in interpretation of Islam globally lends weight to your assertion that everyone can join in the discussion.

But at the same time makes an absolute mockery of the claim that Islam is the "perfect and incontrovertible word of god".

You can't have it both ways. Either it's the word of god as delivered by priests and incontrovertible or it's a matter of consensus which means it's up to the followers to decide what it is which means it's up to anyone and everyone to decide which you earlier asserted were not worthy of even deciding what's fit to eat. It's a pure contradiction.

The due process includes research, study, interpretation and ultimately, honesty.

At the end of the day, only two sources are used as guidance.

For example, Quran says no pork. Unequivocal. Everybody agrees.

In the Quran there is also this concept of 'khilaf'.

Eg, ablution, washing of the body parts before prayer. Some scholars say all of it is to be done with water directly onto body parts. Some scholars say you can wear your shoes and can just wipe over it. As there is reported evidence the prophet did it but rarely.
So scholars say this difference of opinion is acceptable.

 

[Loofydralb]

I would choose to die. An easy choice. I'm not stealing anyone else's organs unless he tries to rob me of mine first.

So what would Muslims do?

Good decision. Exactly the Muslim position too.
See you're already some ways to being a Muslim.