Read on Twitter
ooo dangg,, alright i see why u think that a secular ‘version’ of morality would be skewed but to say it’s a “perversion” is definitely out of line as that would be suggesting that morality outside of religion can’t exist without being misdirected. i do agree where you said that https://twitter.com/aqilazme/status/1262615160402833410
people can do right or wrong regardless of their idea of morality. and that’s true cos humans are just simply inconsistent and hypocritical. just cos someone knows to be nice to others doesn’t mean they will be. but this relates to muslims who don’t fall in line with whatever
islam considers moral. our actions will not always be consistent and may even contradict our moral beliefs and that’s just natural
thanks for refuting me on the correlation between islam and the moral zeitgeist though. now i do see that i gave the moral zeitgeist too much credit. perhaps where the moral zeitgeist is relevant is when gradual changes happen in society where ideological interference is absent
i do think that the moral zeitgeist is present amongst muslims themselves but not in the presentation or way islam is ideally practised respective to the time. since i believe a lot of questions arise from muslims towards the scholars about the hukum of any certain thing when
that certain thing emerges in their environment e.g. social media and how to use it in a way that doesn’t coincide w islamic principles. but whether this is the moral zeitgeist in works or simply an accustom to new factors in people’s or muslims’ lives, i do not know. as you have
explained concept of zanni though, any ‘changes’ in practice or hukum are still based on the Quran and sunnah. so i guess i can just leave it at that since that kinda refutes my idea of how the moral zeitgeist was responsible for the way islam is practised throughout history
btw, when i used the example of the burial of newborn babies it was simply because i know muslims are familiar with that practice. there are many examples of heinous acts ppl have tried to justify with islam. i don’t think anyone’s ignorant towards that, i hope. although my
giving credit to the moral zeitgeist for abolishing the burial of newborn babies definitely falls out of line as it was obviously ideological (islamic) intervention within the arab community that was responsible for that.
on the topic of problematic or morally questionable hadiths i will not speak s of now. i’m not big on theology nor does my interest fall within that realm. i don’t always agree with the approach of objectively criticising a religion on a moral basis. it would also be quite
hypocritical of me to claim muslims’ beliefs are ‘immoral’ as i’ve been clear on my stance that morality is purely subjective. im more interested in how people practise their faith and how religious institutions affect people.
anyway, i like how you provided more perspective when it came to morality driven by the factor of harm. i forgot to take this into account. i think the reason why we see secularists ‘only considering the factor of harm onto others’ is cos it’s a counterculture to religious people
who fret about people’s personal beliefs and the way they practise faith or their lifestyle in general. i’m gonna use the example that i used. in malay-muslim culture i see that it’s a popular response to the occurrence of harassment or assault that the woman is bringing harm
onto herself by not covering fully. not only do they say this hurtful and counterproductive statement to women who practise islam but they either ignore situations in which the victim is a non-muslim or they impose the same idea that they should cover up “properly”. and i think
that amongst religious people they’re more scared of things like hyper-sexuality or watching porn disrupting their devotion to their faith or facing punishment in the afterlife rather than the psychological and social consequences those things bring to themselves and others.
they’re more scared of their porn addiction being detrimental to their faith or ‘afterlife experience’ (sorry i worded that ridiculously) than the fact that their brain patterns are literally similar to that of a heroin addict and it’s caused them to be more insecure in
their relationships with people and they’re more perverted. im positive that in a secular society personal freedom wouldn’t be the only factor taken into account. i don’t 100% agree with dawkins’ views because i may be a progressive but i am no absolutist when it comes to it.
secular people undoubtedly value science and will definitely take the psychological or social consequences into account. like i said, in most arguments secularists have had with religious people, it deals with the factor of external harm or personal freedom. in those arguments
the factor of internal harm is more or less irrelevant therefore secularists haven’t been able to clarify that. besides that, obviously in islam certain actions are sins, makruh or punishable. the view of anything specific like hyper-sexuality being a sin, in my opinion, has made
it difficult for religious people to sympathise with and in turn demonise those who struggle with tendencies to commit those sins. adults or teenagers who are hypersexual often originate from a background in which they have experienced sexual trauma. porn and drug or alcohol
addiction is also not sympathised with because of ppl’s views towards them as objectively immoral rather than an unfortunate consequence of their environment. they’re more supportive of criminalising and punishing them instead of rehabilitation to overcome their tendencies and
habits. like i said i won’t debate whether sharia law or hudud or any religiously influenced law enforcement is inhumane or ‘incorrect’ but i do think it is inhumane to impose a whole systemic idea of morality or religion on people, especially on those who don’t even associate
themselves with it. that includes apostates. the criminalisation of apostasy is inhumane. the criminalisation of wearing whatever you want is also inhumane. i conclude this with that if people believe their idea or ‘version’ of morality is objectively right, they will use that as
an excuse to impose their values on others. i definitely don’t disagree with you when you say that western society is corrupt. there are still regions in which the christians are radical and i have agreed that personal freedom isn’t the only pathway to progress. personal freedom
and objective scientific approach are both vital. and i think corruption to a degree is inevitable in any society but it depends on how much that corruption is challenged or already occurring. but to propose an alternative of introducing sharia law and hudud (or any religious law
enforcement) is absolutist and just simply oppressive
sorry if this was a bit of a doozy to read. im more of a ‘in this essay i will’ kind of person so sorry if my points aren’t organised like yours + im not familiar with Kantian philosophy so sorry for not responding to that
and thanks for clarifying that you don’t think that irreligious people don’t have morals. but i’ve come across a lot who thought that way. not all muslims are open-minded like you
YO THIS THREAD WENT ON LONGER THAN I INTENDED LMAO IM SORRY
