Allah

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

You claimed earlier that all I had regarding the creation of the universe was a tautology. The exact same goes for your theory. "Time began with the big bang, and so there was no "before" it. Because there is no "before" it, no cause can apply to why/how the big bang happened." You say your position does not preclude a why/how, but I don't see how that's possible if you maintain causality does not apply.

I maintain that causality as we know it does not apply, I never said that that some kind of causality we don't understand applies.

confusedquark wrote: »

I base my choice on what I feel to be true - want implies other motives. I'm not compelling anyone to agree with my choice - I'm happy to discuss my point of view, but each to their own.

What is the difference between "feel to be true" and "want to be true"?

confusedquark wrote: »

The adherence (or lack thereof) of Muslims to the rules, therefore, does not affect my claim of observing the effects individual rules have in trying to understand Islam as a whole.

What? Of course if effects that claim, it completely undermines it. You simply cannot make a reliable observation on the effect of an individual rule if you do not have access to populations that reliably follow or fail to follow that specific rule.

confusedquark wrote: »

Not every bit of money a bank makes is through exploitation. I do not know how Muslim banks conduct their business - if all of their methods are even Islamic (they may just be Muslim by name), but if we agree that interest is not ok (using the context of exploiting third world countries), and Islam categorically forbids it (and other such methods of usury), then that should be that.

Every bit of profit a bank makes is resultant from that bank taking more money back from a borrower than they take in the first place. Muslim banks make about as much profit as western banks, so their exploitation is the same, even if by another name.

confusedquark wrote: »

I knew any speculation on my part would only yield another "why". Creating a universe of any description is no biggie for Allah (swt), and it is to be expected if He is all-powerful, but for us, we get to witness His power - if the universe, being as colossal as it is, was created just because Allah (swt) willed it, then His powers are indeed something to marvel at.

You've just moved the goalposts here. Why should we marvel at his powers? Think about it, another fundamental aspect of Allah is that he is eternal, right? Then that means he is always all-powerful, it's not something he worked at and developed, he just is, he can't be any other way. Why would it even occur to him to do something to inspire our marvel, if he has need of our marvel or worship?

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I maintain that causality as we know it does not apply, I never said that that some kind of causality we don't understand applies.

Which is essentially my original point - "As I said, just because the universe is not (allegedly, and conveniently) subject to causality as we know it, it doesn't mean that causality cannot apply to it from a perspective outside of our space-time. That's a simple logical deduction as well."

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What is the difference between "feel to be true" and "want to be true"?

Want implies other motives. A person who's always believed in one thing or has vested interests in it - would always "want" their belief to be the truth, even if they are shown evidence which points to the contrary. "Feel" implies a decision reached after a more impartial assessment of the facts available.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What? Of course if effects that claim, it completely undermines it. You simply cannot make a reliable observation on the effect of an individual rule if you do not have access to populations that reliably follow or fail to follow that specific rule.

You missed my point. You can (and should) look at the effects of an individual rule on populations that do reliably follow or fail to follow it. What you cannot do is say that just because some people fail to follow a rule (or many rules) - that the rule(s) has no use. That's jumping to a conclusion without even making any comparison.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Every bit of profit a bank makes is resultant from that bank taking more money back from a borrower than they take in the first place. Muslim banks make about as much profit as western banks, so their exploitation is the same, even if by another name.

Banks can make money (and lose money) with their customers and not only from their customers - Islamic banking is done on the basis of risk-sharing (from what I gather - am no expert in the field), so it's not all one-way exploitation. But as I said, if we agree that interest is not ok (using the context of exploiting third world countries), and Islam categorically forbids it (and other such methods of usury), then that should be that.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why would it even occur to him to do something to inspire our marvel

... and we're back again to the "why would He create/do something..." question.

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

Which is essentially my original point - "As I said, just because the universe is not (allegedly, and conveniently) subject to causality as we know it, it doesn't mean that causality cannot apply to it from a perspective outside of our space-time. That's a simple logical deduction as well."

But then we just circle back around to what I said in response to that point: "Unless you can describe that perspective outside of our space-time then you cannot claim anything about the causality it may observe." And, more importantly, I should add: you cannot claim anything about that perspective either.

confusedquark wrote: »

Want implies other motives. A person who's always believed in one thing or has vested interests in it - would always "want" their belief to be the truth, even if they are shown evidence which points to the contrary. "Feel" implies a decision reached after a more impartial assessment of the facts available.

Well, no, "feel to be true" implies that is satisfies some emotional desire. I don't "feel" or "want" the big bang theory to be true, I just accept it that it's the best answer we have so far, given our evidence.

confusedquark wrote: »

You missed my point. You can (and should) look at the effects of an individual rule on populations that do reliably follow or fail to follow it. What you cannot do is say that just because some people fail to follow a rule (or many rules) - that the rule(s) has no use. That's jumping to a conclusion without even making any comparison.

It's a fairly basic tenet of scientific testing to require control groups in order to test the effect some input actually has. As you don't have two populations, quite similar expect for one follows the rule and one doesn't, this means that you can't compare and contrast the actual effect of that rule. So just like you say that I cannot say a rule doesn't work because some people don't follow it, you cannot say that the rule works because some people do follow it.

confusedquark wrote: »

Banks can make money (and lose money) with their customers and not only from their customers - Islamic banking is done on the basis of risk-sharing (from what I gather - am no expert in the field), so it's not all one-way exploitation. But as I said, if we agree that interest is not ok (using the context of exploiting third world countries), and Islam categorically forbids it (and other such methods of usury), then that should be that.

Even agreeing that interest is bad and that Islam forbids it, it is still a short-sighted banning, from a supposedly omnipotent being. There are other ways to take money from people (which muslim banks do, as they are about as profitable as western banks), so the exploitation is not really avoided.

confusedquark wrote: »

... and we're back again to the "why would He create/do something..." question.

Of course, we never left it. Humanity has never left it, because for all it's verbosity on the subject, for all it's claims concerning Allah's desires for us, religion never really addresses it.

Tom Dunne

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Free of all needs, except the constant craving for adoration, obedience and worship - so not really free at all. Free of all wants and needs? Sounds more like Mariah Carey with super powers to be quite honest.

If you have nothing constructive to add to the discussion, please stay out of it.

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And, more importantly, I should add: you cannot claim anything about that perspective either.

So you can say "I never said that that some kind of causality we don't understand applies" but I cannot claim that some kind of causality we don't understand could apply?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Well, no, "feel to be true" implies that is satisfies some emotional desire. I don't "feel" or "want" the big bang theory to be true, I just accept it that it's the best answer we have so far, given our evidence.

I used "feel to be true" in the same context as you'd use "believe to be true" or "think to be true", which I'd consider analogous to "accept that it's the best answer". Either way, you do appreciate why "want" differs from "accept that it's the best answer", and that's why I objected to your use of "want" initially.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It's a fairly basic tenet of scientific testing to require control groups in order to test the effect some input actually has. As you don't have two populations, quite similar expect for one follows the rule and one doesn't, this means that you can't compare and contrast the actual effect of that rule. So just like you say that I cannot say a rule doesn't work because some people don't follow it, you cannot say that the rule works because some people do follow it.

So you go from arguing that the rules collectively are of no use because some people don't follow them, to now arguing, well, actually, we can't reliably compare the effect of even one rule individually, because we don't have the necessarily populations. We might not have the perfect scientific testing data, but we do still have a lot of information on the effects of many rules, and can use it to form opinions on them, i.e. effects of alcohol, narcotic drugs, interest/other usury, gambling, theft, etc, as well as things that are promoted in Islam, such as giving to charity. Admittedly there are a lot of moral matters, which can't be so easily be tested in this life, such as extra-marital relationships, lying, backbiting, squandering money/resources, being good to one's parents - and regarding them it once again comes down to a subjective opinion based on whatever information we have.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Even agreeing that interest is bad and that Islam forbids it, it is still a short-sighted banning, from a supposedly omnipotent being. There are other ways to take money from people (which muslim banks do, as they are about as profitable as western banks), so the exploitation is not really avoided.

Did you even read my post? Islam does not only forbid interest, it forbids all usury - which essentially is any exploitation. Islamic banks investing in something with their customers and sharing the profit or loss is very different from a bank giving out money and expecting a fixed higher sum in return, irrespective of the outcome. If the banks invest properly, they will make a profit without any exploitation, so you can't assume profit = exploitation.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Of course, we never left it. Humanity has never left it, because for all it's verbosity on the subject, for all it's claims concerning Allah's desires for us, religion never really addresses it.

Humanity? Have the masses throughout the centuries really been fixated on playing the "why" game until no more why's can be answered - and have then come back again and again asking the same question, despite knowing full well there isn't an answer there?

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

So you can say "I never said that that some kind of causality we don't understand applies" but I cannot claim that some kind of causality we don't understand could apply?

No. Some kind of causality could apply. But you cannot jump from that "could apply" to very specific claims about what does apply (and what it does apply to ie Allah) without specific descriptions (and evidence for same). Without any evidence, any kind of causality could apply, so why should anyone accept yours over any others?

confusedquark wrote: »

I used "feel to be true" in the same context as you'd use "believe to be true" or "think to be true", which I'd consider analogous to "accept that it's the best answer". Either way, you do appreciate why "want" differs from "accept that it's the best answer", and that's why I objected to your use of "want" initially.

But, to go back to were this tangent started, if we are starting from a null hypothesis of "we don't know" and you assert that all positions have essentially the same lack of supporting evidence, then your position is not based on evidence. So, why exactly do you accept it to be true?

confusedquark wrote: »

So you go from arguing that the rules collectively are of no use because some people don't follow them, to now arguing, well, actually, we can't reliably compare the effect of even one rule individually, because we don't have the necessarily populations. We might not have the perfect scientific testing data, but we do still have a lot of information on the effects of many rules, and can use it to form opinions on them, i.e. effects of alcohol, narcotic drugs, interest/other usury, gambling, theft, etc, as well as things that are promoted in Islam, such as giving to charity. Admittedly there are a lot of moral matters, which can't be so easily be tested in this life, such as extra-marital relationships, lying, backbiting, squandering money/resources, being good to one's parents - and regarding them it once again comes down to a subjective opinion based on whatever information we have.

You are the one arguing that we don't have the populations to test Allahs rules, not me. Every time I brought up an example of how muslim countries are failed by their rules, it turned out that they aren't really muslim countries, they were compromised, usually because of western influences. And that's despite many muslim countries having strong rules against the likes of alcohol, drugs, theft etc. The data we have on the negative effects of the various things you described, and the best practises on how to deal with them, do not come from muslim populations. To go back to my first post on this tangent, the happiest, most peaceful countries are not muslim countries, despite the so called benefits of their rules.

confusedquark wrote: »

Did you even read my post? Islam does not only forbid interest, it forbids all usury - which essentially is any exploitation. Islamic banks investing in something with their customers and sharing the profit or loss is very different from a bank giving out money and expecting a fixed higher sum in return, irrespective of the outcome. If the banks invest properly, they will make a profit without any exploitation, so you can't assume profit = exploitation.

Where exactly do you think the profit comes from? The air? It comes from their customers, the exact same place that western banks get their profits. The labelling and methods might slightly different, but the source is identical and the amounts are nearly equivalent. Just because an Islamic bank calls it an investment, with a return of x% to be repaid, doesn't actually make it different to a western bank giving a loan, with x% interest to be repaid.

confusedquark wrote: »

Humanity? Have the masses throughout the centuries really been fixated on playing the "why" game until no more why's can be answered - and have then come back again and again asking the same question, despite knowing full well there isn't an answer there?

Yes, obviously. "Why" is the driving question for mankind, it's why we pursue any and all scientific endeavour. It's what religion pretends to answer with all its self-serving platitudes. And it's by asking religion the "why"s , the great big obvious "why"s, that we can very quickly see that they have no answer for any "why", it's all mindless niceties to get you to stop asking "why".
Why would Allah make something for us to marvel at if he has no need for our marvelling?
Why does Allah want us to serve him?

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No. Some kind of causality could apply. But you cannot jump from that "could apply" to very specific claims about what does apply (and what it does apply to ie Allah) without specific descriptions (and evidence for same). Without any evidence, any kind of causality could apply, so why should anyone accept yours over any others?

But, to go back to were this tangent started, if we are starting from a null hypothesis of "we don't know" and you assert that all positions have essentially the same lack of supporting evidence, then your position is not based on evidence. So, why exactly do you accept it to be true?

I accept it to be true because it is what makes most sense to me, given all the information we have - both scientific, and religious. I go from any kind of causality "could" apply, to Allah (swt) did it on the basis of the Quran. There's zero scientific evidence to suggest that a greater being (and specifically Allah (swt) for my beliefs) did not initiate the big bang, and it is therefore a perfectly valid belief.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

"As you don't have two populations, quite similar expect for one follows the rule and one doesn't, this means that you can't compare and contrast the actual effect of that rule"

... You are the one arguing that we don't have the populations to test Allahs rules, not me. Every time I brought up an example of how muslim countries are failed by their rules, it turned out that they aren't really muslim countries, they were compromised, usually because of western influences. And that's despite many muslim countries having strong rules against the likes of alcohol, drugs, theft etc. The data we have on the negative effects of the various things you described, and the best practises on how to deal with them, do not come from muslim populations. To go back to my first post on this tangent, the happiest, most peaceful countries are not muslim countries, despite the so called benefits of their rules.

I've said the same thing all along. That it is easier and more accurate to compare individual rules, as opposed to comparing entire countries, esp. when there are obvious confounders at play (= dissimilar populations) and when it can't be assumed that all the people in the country are reliably following all the rules. Even if data relevant to comparing individual rules doesn't come from Muslim populations, that doesn't really matter - you don't need to see the effect of alcohol, narcotics, gambling, interest/usury, theft etc. on Muslims specifically to be able to appreciate that those things can have negative effects.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Where exactly do you think the profit comes from? The air? It comes from their customers, the exact same place that western banks get their profits. The labelling and methods might slightly different, but the source is identical and the amounts are nearly equivalent. Just because an Islamic bank calls it an investment, with a return of x% to be repaid, doesn't actually make it different to a western bank giving a loan, with x% interest to be repaid.

I'll give you an example. Two people take out separate loans from an Islamic bank to start up businesses. The bank invests in their businesses with them, and has, for example, a 10% share in both of them. Person A) does quite well for himself, and the bank shares 10% of the profit. Person doesn't do so well, and barely breaks even. The bank doesn't demand any extra payments or returns, and doesn't make any money from that particular venture. A traditional bank might take/demand 5% from both person A) and person (by taking whatever he had put as guarantee) and will have made just as much money as the Islamic bank. That's what I mean by sharing the profit and loss - it's not all one way exploitation, and going back to my original point, interest is a tool of exploitation, and one which is directly associated with the deaths of millions of people every year, and it is something (along with other such methods of usury/exploitation) which is forbidden in Islam.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And it's by asking religion the "why"s , the great big obvious "why"s, that we can very quickly see that they have no answer for any "why", it's all mindless niceties to get you to stop asking "why".

It's not only religion though - if you want to use that logic, you can just about prove anything is all mindless niceties by asking why after why after why. When you eventually get to the point where you aren't getting any more answers, that's the question you keep repeating, followed by "all of the other answers are meaningless because you don't have the answer to this obvious question".

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

I accept it to be true because it is what makes most sense to me, given all the information we have - both scientific, and religious. I go from any kind of causality "could" apply, to Allah (swt) did it on the basis of the Quran. There's zero scientific evidence to suggest that a greater being (and specifically Allah (swt) for my beliefs) did not initiate the big bang, and it is therefore a perfectly valid belief.

None of the scientific evidence suggests that any kind of greater being is required for initiation of the big bang at all, so that jump is not justified.
If someone was accused of a crime, but with no evidence for means and motive, could you justify the jump to "guilty" simply on the basis that they also have no alibi?

confusedquark wrote: »

I've said the same thing all along. That it is easier and more accurate to compare individual rules, as opposed to comparing entire countries, esp. when there are obvious confounders at play (= dissimilar populations) and when it can't be assumed that all the people in the country are reliably following all the rules.

Except that is not what I said, because it is wrong. I have said that we can compare entire countries and that it is more accurate to do so. It's because the original claim concerned the effectiveness of the entire ruleset (not a single rule), so we compare it all, rather than picking and choosing a few easy cases. Confounders always exist, using large populations helps to minimise their effect, that's why we do it.

confusedquark wrote: »

That's what I mean by sharing the profit and loss - it's not all one way exploitation, and going back to my original point, interest is a tool of exploitation, and one which is directly associated with the deaths of millions of people every year, and it is something (along with other such methods of usury/exploitation) which is forbidden in Islam.

And my point is that interest is not the only tool of oppression. Mortgages are not given using the profit&loss system, the bank buys the property and sells it to the customer at a higher-than-market price to get their profits. Islamic banks may not use interest, but they have other means of gaining largely the same level of profit that other banks get, they have to or else they could not exist in the world market.

confusedquark wrote: »

It's not only religion though - if you want to use that logic, you can just about prove anything is all mindless niceties by asking why after why after why. When you eventually get to the point where you aren't getting any more answers, that's the question you keep repeating, followed by "all of the other answers are meaningless because you don't have the answer to this obvious question".

That doesn't follow at all. We may always hit some "why" question that we can't answer no matter what way we look at the universe, but a few ways provide us with some, not just extremely useful but verifiable, "why" answers along the way.

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

None of the scientific evidence suggests that any kind of greater being is required for initiation of the big bang at all, so that jump is not justified.
If someone was accused of a crime, but with no evidence for means and motive, could you justify the jump to "guilty" simply on the basis that they also have no alibi?

Not simply on that basis, but if written evidence is produced of the accused claiming himself to actually doing the crime, then you could justify believing it (as distinct from objectively proving it).

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Confounders always exist, using large populations helps to minimise their effect, that's why we do it.

More flawed logic. We use large populations to reduce the p-value of a comparison, but it does nothing to correct or minimise the effect of confounders. If you want to compare the IQ of men and women, but you only have IQ data of men attending universities and elderly women in nursing homes, even if you have a million data entries from each side, that's not in any way going to correct for the confounder of age. It only takes one strong confounder that you can't correct for to debunk an entire study - no matter how big the population size.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And my point is that interest is not the only tool of oppression. Mortgages are not given using the profit&loss system, the bank buys the property and sells it to the customer at a higher-than-market price to get their profits. Islamic banks may not use interest, but they have other means of gaining largely the same level of profit that other banks get, they have to or else they could not exist in the world market.

And my point again is that Islam does not prevent people and institutions from making money. Exploitation isn't the only way to make money. A bank acting as a co-owner, a landlord and/or a reseller is not the same as a bank giving out a fixed sum of money and demanding a higher sum in return, with the sums ever increasing should the lender be unable to fully repay for whatever reason (as opposed to both parties taking the hit) - as is how third world countries are exploited.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

That doesn't follow at all. We may always hit some "why" question that we can't answer no matter what way we look at the universe, but a few ways provide us with some, not just extremely useful but verifiable, "why" answers along the way.

And by using your logic, I could just turn around and say no matter how many (even verifiable) why answers you have, it's all meaningless when you can't answer the "great big obvious why" of why the big bang happened.

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

Not simply on that basis, but if written evidence is produced of the accused claiming himself to actually doing the crime, then you could justify believing it (as distinct from objectively proving it).

No, because (to stretch the analogy to try make it work with what you've introduced) we don't even know if the accused exists, so a written confession would not be evidence that he exists, it would be a claim that exists. Anyone could have written it.
To go back to the point though, the simple fact is that there is nothing about the big bang that points to a greater being necessarily being involved.

confusedquark wrote: »

More flawed logic. We use large populations to reduce the p-value of a comparison, but it does nothing to correct or minimise the effect of confounders.

That's exactly what it does. Using larger populations reduces the likelihood that statistically measured results are higher or lower than reality by diluting the effect that unrepresentative outliers (caused by confounders) have on the measured result.
And I thought it was taken without saying that randomised populations are used...

confusedquark wrote: »

And my point again is that Islam does not prevent people and institutions from making money. Exploitation isn't the only way to make money. A bank acting as a co-owner, a landlord and/or a reseller is not the same as a bank giving out a fixed sum of money and demanding a higher sum in return, with the sums ever increasing should the lender be unable to fully repay for whatever reason (as opposed to both parties taking the hit) - as is how third world countries are exploited.

I'm pretty sure that if someone stops paying their islamic mortgage then their property is as much at risk as if they had a western mortgage.
Islamic banks would not exist if they were taking more hits than their western counterparts.

confusedquark wrote: »

And by using your logic, I could just turn around and say no matter how many (even verifiable) why answers you have, it's all meaningless when you can't answer the "great big obvious why" of why the big bang happened.

Well no, you obviously can't because my answers are not predicated by the big bang question being answered yet because they are verifiable anyway. Your "answers" are specifically predicated on the big bang question specifically and only being answered by Allahs existence.
If we can never explain the big bang empirically? That wont change anything we know about chemistry or physics or biology.
If Allah does not exist? Then all your "answers" are completely meaningless.

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

To go back to the point though, the simple fact is that there is nothing about the big bang that points to a greater being necessarily being involved.

... Apart from the fact that the universe suddenly exploded into existence and we haven't the slightest clue why. Nothing about the big bang suggests that a greater being wasn't involved. It's a matter of belief.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I have said that we can compare entire countries and that it is more accurate to do so...

And I thought it was taken without saying that randomised populations are used...

It was taken with you saying that we weren't talking about randomised populations. So if want to continue arguing that having large enough populations minimises the effect of confounding factors, please elaborate on how a large population would minimise the confounding effect of age in my example.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that if someone stops paying their islamic mortgage then their property is as much at risk as if they had a western mortgage.
Islamic banks would not exist if they were taking more hits than their western counterparts.

If a person stops paying their mortgage and default occurs, both the bank and the borrower receive a proportion of the proceeds from the sale of the property based on each party's current equity. But if a person temporarily can't pay their mortgage without defaulting, the bank can't pile on the interest to exploit the situation (in contrast to how third world debt is treated).
Islamic banks would maybe not exist if they had to take a hit on every second venture they were involved in, but there are ways to minimise how many actual hits you do take, e.g. by having more stringent criteria in who you do business with and the types of ventures you get involved in.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Well no, you obviously can't because my answers are not predicated by the big bang question being answered yet because they are verifiable anyway. Your "answers" are specifically predicated on the big bang question specifically and only being answered by Allahs existence.
If we can never explain the big bang empirically? That wont change anything we know about chemistry or physics or biology.
If Allah does not exist? Then all your "answers" are completely meaningless.

If Allah (swt) did not exist, then the answers would indeed be completely meaningless, but that's a very big "if" that we can only speculate on and hold an opinion/belief regarding, given all the evidence we have at hand.

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

... Apart from the fact that the universe suddenly exploded into existence and we haven't the slightest clue why. Nothing about the big bang suggests that a greater being wasn't involved. It's a matter of belief.

No, its not, we don't know what happened re: the big bang, so it's a matter of just admitting that we don't know. Inserting Allah into this "we don't know" and attempting to defend that on the basis that "we don't know" is just argument from ignorance, or god of the gaps, a major argumental fallacy. At one point we didn't know how lightning happened, but that never made Thor likely.

confusedquark wrote: »

It was taken with you saying that we weren't talking about randomised populations.

Statistical studies always use randomised test groups, I have never said otherwise.
I'm not engaging with your example as it fails the most basic criteria of a statistical study by not having randomly assigned test groups.

confusedquark wrote: »

If a person stops paying their mortgage and default occurs, both the bank and the borrower receive a proportion of the proceeds from the sale of the property based on each party's current equity. But if a person temporarily can't pay their mortgage without defaulting, the bank can't pile on the interest to exploit the situation (in contrast to how third world debt is treated).
Islamic banks would maybe not exist if they had to take a hit on every second venture they were involved in, but there are ways to minimise how many actual hits you do take, e.g. by having more stringent criteria in who you do business with and the types of ventures you get involved in.

There might not be penalties, but there is loss of collateral. Collateral is how islamic banks protect themselves from default, which otherwise would seriously damage their profits. Again, and hopefully for the last time, Islamic banks may not have interest (or certain other penalties) but they still have other ways (that arise in the same situations) to ensure they make about as much as their western counterparts.

confusedquark wrote: »

If Allah (swt) did not exist, then the answers would indeed be completely meaningless, but that's a very big "if" that we can only speculate on and hold an opinion/belief regarding, given all the evidence we have at hand.

Given all the evidence at hand it's not a big "if" at all. None of your "answers" answer anything at all, they are all hand-waving attempts to divert from questions by hiding behind the threat or authority of Allah. Everything in your religion is entirely dependent on the existence of Allah, which boils down to the simple question of the big bang, something you admitted at the start of this post that we don't know the answer to.

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, its not, we don't know what happened re: the big bang, so it's a matter of just admitting that we don't know. Inserting Allah into this "we don't know" and attempting to defend that on the basis that "we don't know" is just argument from ignorance, or god of the gaps, a major argumental fallacy. At one point we didn't know how lightning happened, but that never made Thor likely.

Given all the evidence at hand it's not a big "if" at all. None of your "answers" answer anything at all, they are all hand-waving attempts to divert from questions by hiding behind the threat or authority of Allah. Everything in your religion is entirely dependent on the existence of Allah, which boils down to the simple question of the big bang, something you admitted at the start of this post that we don't know the answer to.

At one point we didn't know how lightning happened, but that never made it likely that it created itself. We don't know what caused the big bang if you look at it from the point of view of having conclusive scientific evidence, but that doesn't preclude reaching a belief of what could have triggered it through logical reasoning. I think it's more logical for a greater being to have created the universe, as opposed to the concept of our universe "creating itself" which makes no sense to me. You can keep dismissing my answers as nothing all you like, but that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. I've got enough answers to give me meaning and direction in this life.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I have said that we can compare entire countries and that it is more accurate to do so. It's because the original claim concerned the effectiveness of the entire ruleset (not a single rule), so we compare it all, rather than picking and choosing a few easy cases. Confounders always exist, using large populations helps to minimise their effect, that's why we do it...

I'm not engaging with your example as it fails the most basic criteria of a statistical study by not having randomly assigned test groups.

And then perhaps you shouldn't engage with your own example either, which despite failing (your own definition of) the most basic criteria of a statistical study, is apparently (by your own claim) more accurate.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

There might not be penalties, but there is loss of collateral. Collateral is how islamic banks protect themselves from default, which otherwise would seriously damage their profits. Again, and hopefully for the last time, Islamic banks may not have interest (or certain other penalties) but they still have other ways (that arise in the same situations) to ensure they make about as much as their western counterparts.

Regaining collateral substitutes some/all of the debt, but the single biggest difference between Islamic banks and western ones is that the bank cannot exploit a situation where the debtor cannot meet a repayment and pile on interest on top of existing debt. For personal/business loans, this latter exploitation will only yield relatively limited rewards for western banks (because their clients will only have so much extra money/collateral to give back, esp. if they're in a position that they've fallen behind in the first place), although even if it did contribute a lot to their overall profit, comparing Islamic vs western bank profits has its limitations, as individual performance of banks will vary depending on their location, business strategies, risk-taking, client portfolio's and local economies - as evidenced by the fact that not all western banks make the same profit and neither do all Islamic banks. But when this exploit of interest is used to enslave entire countries in an cycle of unpayable debt, which just accumulates more and more interest, these countries (unlike individuals and businesses) won't run out of money/resources to keep giving so quickly - to the detrimental expense of their populations. There is no equivalent in Islamic banking that could be used to exploit a country in such a way, and therefore, as I hoped would have been the last time about 10 posts ago, if interest/usury was forbidden, millions of lives in these countries would be saved.

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

At one point we didn't know how lightning happened, but that never made it likely that it created itself. We don't know what caused the big bang if you look at it from the point of view of having conclusive scientific evidence, but that doesn't preclude reaching a belief of what could have triggered it through logical reasoning. I think it's more logical for a greater being to have created the universe, as opposed to the concept of our universe "creating itself" which makes no sense to me. You can keep dismissing my answers as nothing all you like, but that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. I've got enough answers to give me meaning and direction in this life.

If the universe could not have created itself and had to be created by something, then what created your higher being?

confusedquark wrote: »

And then perhaps you shouldn't engage with your own example either, which despite failing (your own definition of) the most basic criteria of a statistical study, is apparently (by your own claim) more accurate.

And where in my example are randomised test groups not being used? My example looks at the happiness, equality and peacefulness of countries and compares and contrasts them. Happiness was measured by Gallup polls, which use a randomised selection process for participants. Equality and peacefulness were measured using a mix of qualitative and quantitative data (but applied in the same way for each country). These data would be from randomised sources, where applicable (quantitative data may not need a randomised source if a full data set is available).
Tbh, I get the feeling you googled statistics and populations, or something similar, and didn't realise that my explanations are different from text-book ones because I am using lay-man terms.

confusedquark wrote: »

There is no equivalent in Islamic banking that could be used to exploit a country in such a way, and therefore, as I hoped would have been the last time about 10 posts ago, if interest/usury was forbidden, millions of lives in these countries would be saved.

You assume. Lets say that Islamic banks had lent money to third world countries - exactly what level of collateral do you think they would have wanted to underwrite the loans? Because that collateral is forfeit when the third world countries fail their repayments. So, given that islamic banks are about as profitable as western banks, that must mean the value of collateral they use is about the same as the value of interest that western banks use. Islamic banks would have taken about the same value from the third world, had loans been with them when they were defaulted.
Maybe you can say that Islamic banks are more upfront about this, it's more clear what value you may loose if you default (a pre-set piece of collateral as opposed to some nebulous rate of interest), but they would have taken their penalties either way.

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If the universe could not have created itself and had to be created by something, then what created your higher being?

The greater being has always existed and is eternal - something we cannot say about the universe because we know it did have a definite beginning, and roughly when that beginning was.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And where in my example are randomised test groups not being used? My example looks at the happiness, equality and peacefulness of countries and compares and contrasts them. Happiness was measured by Gallup polls, which use a randomised selection process for participants. Equality and peacefulness were measured using a mix of qualitative and quantitative data (but applied in the same way for each country). These data would be from randomised sources, where applicable (quantitative data may not need a randomised source if a full data set is available).
Tbh, I get the feeling you googled statistics and populations, or something similar, and didn't realise that my explanations are different from text-book ones because I am using lay-man terms.

Randomised data from dissimilar populations (populations differing in many ways other than the one thing you want to compare) does not in any way correct for the point you've been trying to make - which is that this data can then be reliably used to compare an "entire ruleset" (the one thing you want to compare), that this is more accurate, and that the large populations in question will minimise the effect of confounders. I've studied statistics at university and have done a couple of decent sized statistical studies myself. I know the value of statistics, I also know their limitations. It only takes one strong confounder that you can't correct for to debunk an entire study - no matter how big the population size. And irrespective of that, you don't have populations that reliably do follow the entire ruleset and you also don't have populations that reliably don't follow the entire ruleset (given there is an overlap of Islamic and western values regarding many things). Which is why it's more accurate to compare individual rules, as opposed to using unreliable confounded data to try and compare the entire ruleset.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You assume. Lets say that Islamic banks had lent money to third world countries - exactly what level of collateral do you think they would have wanted to underwrite the loans? Because that collateral is forfeit when the third world countries fail their repayments. So, given that islamic banks are about as profitable as western banks, that must mean the value of collateral they use is about the same as the value of interest that western banks use. Islamic banks would have taken about the same value from the third world, had loans been with them when they were defaulted.
Maybe you can say that Islamic banks are more upfront about this, it's more clear what value you may loose if you default (a pre-set piece of collateral as opposed to some nebulous rate of interest), but they would have taken their penalties either way.

As I already said, western banks can only take so much interest from an individual or business before they go bankrupt, and therefore, the rewards banks can reap from interest are somewhat capped, which makes it possible for Islamic banks to compete with them using other methods. The interest gains of lending to a country that can't go bankrupt so easily are exponentially greater, and Islamic banks will not have the same profits in such a situation (and nor should they). Regaining collateral will only go so far - it will substitute debt and that will be that, whereas the interest will always keep piling on relentlessly.

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

The greater being has always existed and is eternal - something we cannot say about the universe because we know it did have a definite beginning, and roughly when that beginning was.

We know the current configuration of the universe (ie involving space/time as we experience it) had a definite beginning, but that doesn't mean that the universe didn't eternally exist in some state (say the initial "hot" dense state that the big bang expanded from). And that explanation makes infinitely more sense than the one that relies on the existence of an eternal entity who had to chose to make the universe exactly as it is for reasons never to be explained.

confusedquark wrote: »

Randomised data from dissimilar populations (populations differing in many ways other than the one thing you want to compare) does not in any way correct for the point you've been trying to make - which is that this data can then be reliably used to compare an "entire ruleset" (the one thing you want to compare), that this is more accurate, and that the large populations in question will minimise the effect of confounders. I've studied statistics at university and have done a couple of decent sized statistical studies myself. I know the value of statistics, I also know their limitations. It only takes one strong confounder that you can't correct for to debunk an entire study - no matter how big the population size. And irrespective of that, you don't have populations that reliably do follow the entire ruleset and you also don't have populations that reliably don't follow the entire ruleset (given there is an overlap of Islamic and western values regarding many things). Which is why it's more accurate to compare individual rules, as opposed to using unreliable confounded data to try and compare the entire ruleset.

The biggest difference in the dissimilar populations we are examining is the very thing we are comparing (Islamic rulesets vs non-Islamic rulesets), so using randomised data does reduce the effects of other very minor confounders.
Confounders can't debunk a study if the confounders are the thing being studied. We are arguing over the efficacy of islamic rules over non-islamic rules, so the influence of non-islamic culture on cultures with islamic laws wont debunk anything. We see that countries with the greatest western influences (ie western countries) have the best results, with lesser influenced countries (ie Islamic countries) having worse results (and the countries with the least western-influence having the worst results).
If you cannot examine rulesets as a whole reliably then how can you claim that you can examine individual rules reliably? You said it yourself that the populations may not follow entire rulesets reliably, so that means you cannot assume that they follow any individual rules reliably either.

confusedquark wrote: »

As I already said, western banks can only take so much interest from an individual or business before they go bankrupt, and therefore, the rewards banks can reap from interest are somewhat capped, which makes it possible for Islamic banks to compete with them using other methods. The interest gains of lending to a country that can't go bankrupt so easily are exponentially greater, and Islamic banks will not have the same profits in such a situation (and nor should they). Regaining collateral will only go so far - it will substitute debt and that will be that, whereas the interest will always keep piling on relentlessly.

If a country cannot go bankrupt then it why would it ever get in the position were it's interest repayments increase indefinitely?

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

We know the current configuration of the universe (ie involving space/time as we experience it) had a definite beginning, but that doesn't mean that the universe didn't eternally exist in some state (say the initial "hot" dense state that the big bang expanded from). And that explanation makes infinitely more sense than the one that relies on the existence of an eternal entity who had to chose to make the universe exactly as it is for reasons never to be explained.

You're entitled to believe whatever makes more sense to you.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The biggest difference in the dissimilar populations we are examining is the very thing we are comparing (Islamic rulesets vs non-Islamic rulesets), so using randomised data does reduce the effects of other very minor confounders.
Confounders can't debunk a study if the confounders are the thing being studied. We are arguing over the efficacy of islamic rules over non-islamic rules, so the influence of non-islamic culture on cultures with islamic laws wont debunk anything. We see that countries with the greatest western influences (ie western countries) have the best results, with lesser influenced countries (ie Islamic countries) having worse results (and the countries with the least western-influence having the worst results).
If you cannot examine rulesets as a whole reliably then how can you claim that you can examine individual rules reliably? You said it yourself that the populations may not follow entire rulesets reliably, so that means you cannot assume that they follow any individual rules reliably either.

Where do I start in pointing out all the flaws in that...
1) Factors such as poverty, education, war, corruption, revolutions and regional instability (which I have already mentioned before) are anything but "very minor confounders".
2) The above confounders can debunk your study, because they are not the thing being studied.
3) Using randomised data from countries affected by the above confounders will again do nothing to reduce their effect - in the same way that using large populations will do nothing to correct their effect, because if the entire population is subject to the confounders, the proportional sample of that population that you select (by randomising) will also be subject to the same confounders.
4) Many of the above confounders alone are strong enough to invalidate your comparisons of the efficacy of Islamic vs non-Islamic rules, if you cannot otherwise correct for them (and to stress again, using large populations or randomised data from those large populations is not how you would go about doing the latter). The fact that multiple confounders often co-exist makes it an even more unreliable comparison.
5) You don't have populations that reliably do follow the entire ruleset (Muslim-predominant country does not equal 100% of people are 100% Islamic 100% of the time) and you also don't have populations that reliably don't follow the entire ruleset (given many western practices are in keeping with Islamic values).
6) The populations you cited may not (and probably don't) follow entire rulesets reliably, and also probably don't follow any individual rules reliably either - but that doesn't mean we can't look at other (not dissimilar and less confounded) populations that do reliably follow and not follow an individual rule we want to look at. As I already said, even if data relevant to comparing individual rules doesn't come from Muslim populations, that doesn't really matter - you don't need to see the effect of alcohol, narcotics, gambling, interest/usury, theft etc. on Muslims specifically to be able to appreciate that those things can have negative effects. It is much more accurate to compare individual rules, because we have a lot of good reliable data looking at the effects of many of them.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If a country cannot go bankrupt then it why would it ever get in the position were it's interest repayments increase indefinitely?

Countries can and do go bankrupt (and often because of interest) - they just don't do so so easily vs individuals/businesses because a lot has to give before they do (e.g. devastating cuts to public expenditure).

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

You're entitled to believe whatever makes more sense to you.

Is that all? It's not about making sense to me, my position is inherently more likely simply because it doesn't require the unsupported assumption of eternal intelligence. It's Occam's Razor. You must surely have a reason for why you think the assumption is justified, so why are you reluctant now to share?

confusedquark wrote: »

Where do I start in pointing out all the flaws in that...
1) Factors such as poverty, education, war, corruption, revolutions and regional instability (which I have already mentioned before) are anything but "very minor confounders".
2) The above confounders can debunk your study, because they are not the thing being studied.
3) Using randomised data from countries affected by the above confounders will again do nothing to reduce their effect - in the same way that using large populations will do nothing to correct their effect, because if the entire population is subject to the confounders, the proportional sample of that population that you select (by randomising) will also be subject to the same confounders.
4) Many of the above confounders alone are strong enough to invalidate your comparisons of the efficacy of Islamic vs non-Islamic rules, if you cannot otherwise correct for them (and to stress again, using large populations or randomised data from those large populations is not how you would go about doing the latter). The fact that multiple confounders often co-exist makes it an even more unreliable comparison.
5) You don't have populations that reliably do follow the entire ruleset (Muslim-predominant country does not equal 100% of people are 100% Islamic 100% of the time) and you also don't have populations that reliably don't follow the entire ruleset (given many western practices are in keeping with Islamic values).
6) The populations you cited may not (and probably don't) follow entire rulesets reliably, and also probably don't follow any individual rules reliably either - but that doesn't mean we can't look at other (not dissimilar and less confounded) populations that do reliably follow and not follow an individual rule we want to look at. As I already said, even if data relevant to comparing individual rules doesn't come from Muslim populations, that doesn't really matter - you don't need to see the effect of alcohol, narcotics, gambling, interest/usury, theft etc. on Muslims specifically to be able to appreciate that those things can have negative effects. It is much more accurate to compare individual rules, because we have a lot of good reliable data looking at the effects of many of them.

1-4: The confounders you believe debunk my argument are aspects of the very thing my argument looks at. My argument says that adherence of Islamic rules (as a whole) does not make countries more peaceful, happier and equal. So things like poverty, education, war, corruption, revolutions and regional instability end up worse. The "confounders" you keep bringing up are influenced by the ruleset a country adheres to (ie it's culture). As my argument is that you need to look at the rules of specific societies as a whole, they do not debunk my position, they actually inform it.

5+6: At worst what we have is a sliding scale, with the extremes being idealised positions that no country truly inhabits. No country is purely Islamic, no country is purely western, they all fall along some scale inbetween. But we can see that the more Islamic a country is, the closer to that end of the scale, the less peaceful, happy and equal it is, proving my argument.
Looking at individual rules is useless as the argument isn't about those individual rules, it's about the entire rulest. So to pick specific rules as an argument for the whole is a major logical and statistic fallacy, as damn near every society, from the Vikings to the Mongols to Nazi Germany, all have some rule or rules that had some positive effects, despite what else they did. Given the sheer amount of rules in Islam, and given how long it's been around, I'd be more surprised if no positive-effect rule could be found.

confusedquark wrote: »

Countries can and do go bankrupt (and often because of interest) - they just don't do so so easily vs individuals/businesses because a lot has to give before they do (e.g. devastating cuts to public expenditure).

According to your link, when in debt crisis, countries can end up with:

1. a sovereign default, where a government suspends debt repayments
2. a debt restructuring plan, where the government agrees with other countries, or unilaterally reduces its debt repayments
3. requiring assistance from the International Monetary Fund or another international source

The second and third situation can equally happen with muslim banks (payment restructuring or financial assistance). The first situation is different, but only in that a muslim bank would take it's collateral, whereas a western bank would have to accept non-payment and try for the second or third situations.

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Is that all? It's not about making sense to me, my position is inherently more likely simply because it doesn't require the unsupported assumption of eternal intelligence. It's Occam's Razor. You must surely have a reason for why you think the assumption is justified, so why are you reluctant now to share?

If you feel replacing an unsupported assumption of eternal intelligence with an unsupported assumption of the universe eternally existing in some other state somehow makes your position "inherently more likely", then that is your belief. There's little point is us arguing what is "inherently more likely" and what's not because they're very subjective matters and a matter of individual belief. You know exactly what my thoughts are - I've no need to repeat myself yet again.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

1-4: The confounders you believe debunk my argument are aspects of the very thing my argument looks at. My argument says that adherence of Islamic rules (as a whole) does not make countries more peaceful, happier and equal. So things like poverty, education, war, corruption, revolutions and regional instability end up worse. The "confounders" you keep bringing up are influenced by the ruleset a country adheres to (ie it's culture). As my argument is that you need to look at the rules of specific societies as a whole, they do not debunk my position, they actually inform it.

5+6: At worst what we have is a sliding scale, with the extremes being idealised positions that no country truly inhabits. No country is purely Islamic, no country is purely western, they all fall along some scale inbetween. But we can see that the more Islamic a country is, the closer to that end of the scale, the less peaceful, happy and equal it is, proving my argument.
Looking at individual rules is useless as the argument isn't about those individual rules, it's about the entire rulest. So to pick specific rules as an argument for the whole is a major logical and statistic fallacy, as damn near every society, from the Vikings to the Mongols to Nazi Germany, all have some rule or rules that had some positive effects, despite what else they did. Given the sheer amount of rules in Islam, and given how long it's been around, I'd be more surprised if no positive-effect rule could be found.

You are not looking at the effects of poverty, education, war, corruption, revolutions and regional instability on peacefulness, happiness and equality. These are not the very thing your argument looks at. If you do not have populations that are either equally free or equally affected by all these things, and if you statistically cannot correct for them, then your entire argument is statistically flawed. Pretending that the confounders actually inform your argument is simple wishful thinking. Regarding individual rules, I never said to only look at specific individual rules that have positive effects - I'm saying to look at all the rules individually using what reliable data we do have as opposed to looking at confounded "sliding scale" country data that you cannot statistically correct for - not that you've demonstrated by anything you've said that you even know what the latter actually entails.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

According to your link, when in debt crisis, countries can end up with:

The second and third situation can equally happen with muslim banks (payment restructuring or financial assistance). The first situation is different, but only in that a muslim bank would take it's collateral, whereas a western bank would have to accept non-payment and try for the second or third situations.

Talking about how a debt crisis is managed is talking about a horse that's already bolted. The problem we're discussing is that ever-increasing interest can get countries into a debt crisis in the first place, and that creditors stand to gain a lot more dealing in such interest than any Islamic alternatives. Yes some creditors might have to take some bit of a hit on their loans if and when a country does go bankrupt, but that only happens after they've drained a country from all that it can give (and often with the loss of millions of lives), and by that stage, they might well have recouped their initial loan and be taking a hit on only the accumulated interest.

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

If you feel replacing an unsupported assumption of eternal intelligence with an unsupported assumption of the universe eternally existing in some other state somehow makes your position "inherently more likely", then that is your belief. There's little point is us arguing what is "inherently more likely" and what's not because they're very subjective matters and a matter of individual belief. You know exactly what my thoughts are - I've no need to repeat myself yet again.

Our positions are not equally unsupported. My position, while logically possible, is unsupported by lack of direct evidence. You position is not supported by logic or evidence.

confusedquark wrote: »

You are not looking at the effects of poverty, education, war, corruption, revolutions and regional instability on peacefulness, happiness and equality. These are not the very thing your argument looks at. If you do not have populations that are either equally free or equally affected by all these things, and if you statistically cannot correct for them, then your entire argument is statistically flawed. Pretending that the confounders actually inform your argument is simple wishful thinking. Regarding individual rules, I never said to only look at specific individual rules that have positive effects - I'm saying to look at all the rules individually using what reliable data we do have as opposed to looking at confounded "sliding scale" country data that you cannot statistically correct for - not that you've demonstrated by anything you've said that you even know what the latter actually entails.

The level of peacefulness, happiness and equality in a country is the result of the level of poverty, education, war, corruption, revolutions and regional instability etc, so they are not confounders. Peacefulness damn near equals war + revolution + stability, happiness and equality nearly equals education - poverty - corruption. Countries are more peaceful, happy and equal if they are stable and educated, and that is exactly what my argument is looking at.

You can't claim that no Islamic population accurately follows the Islamic ruleset (and therefore I can't argue against the ruleset as a whole) while at the same time arguing that Islamic populations do accurately follow certain rules (and therefore you can argue for the ruleset as a whole). To put it another way: how can you have reliable data only for certain rules if muslim countries as a whole do not reliably follow all the rules?

confusedquark wrote: »

Talking about how a debt crisis is managed is talking about a horse that's already bolted. The problem we're discussing is that ever-increasing interest can get countries into a debt crisis in the first place, and that creditors stand to gain a lot more dealing in such interest than any Islamic alternatives. Yes some creditors might have to take some bit of a hit on their loans if and when a country does go bankrupt, but that only happens after they've drained a country from all that it can give (and often with the loss of millions of lives), and by that stage, they might well have recouped their initial loan and be taking a hit on only the accumulated interest.

Countries can only get into a debt crisis if they fail to repay their loans. If that happens with a muslim bank, they forfeit their collateral, so how would they not end up in the same situation of bankruptcy?

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Our positions are not equally unsupported. My position, while logically possible, is unsupported by lack of direct evidence. You position is not supported by logic or evidence.

How you've created "logically possible" and "not supported by logic" out of that sums up a lot of arguments you make. A lot of hot air based on very little actual substance. I've got nothing further to add - you can jump to whatever conclusions you want.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The level of peacefulness, happiness and equality in a country is the result of the level of poverty, education, war, corruption, revolutions and regional instability etc, so they are not confounders. Peacefulness damn near equals war + revolution + stability, happiness and equality nearly equals education - poverty - corruption. Countries are more peaceful, happy and equal if they are stable and educated, and that is exactly what my argument is looking at.

You can't claim that no Islamic population accurately follows the Islamic ruleset (and therefore I can't argue against the ruleset as a whole) while at the same time arguing that Islamic populations do accurately follow certain rules (and therefore you can argue for the ruleset as a whole). To put it another way: how can you have reliable data only for certain rules if muslim countries as a whole do not reliably follow all the rules?

Without doing a randomised controlled trial (where a population is randomly divided into two groups - one to exclusively follow the rules, and one to exclusively not, so that you end up with two very similar populations starting off from the same point), you cannot say that poverty, education, war, corruption, revolutions and regional instability etc result because of a population following Islamic rules. They can very well, and as is my argument, exist independent to a country's following of Islamic rules - and therefore a country not performing well isn't necessarily because of following Islamic rules, but as a result of many other independent factors - also known as confounders. Regarding your second paragraph, I've already said about three times that you don't need Muslim-specific data to be able to assess individual rules, and it's much much easier to gather data on people (from otherwise similar populations) reliably observing (or not observing) one rule than it is to do the same with an entire ruleset. That's a pretty basic concept.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Countries can only get into a debt crisis if they fail to repay their loans. If that happens with a muslim bank, they forfeit their collateral, so how would they not end up in the same situation of bankruptcy?

Countries are more likely to get into a debt crisis if they fail to make repayments on interest loans, because the interest piles on very quickly. If they fail to make repayments on Islamic loans, the overall figure they owe does not exponentially increase, and the country won't get into a debt crisis as quickly. And do you think western banks don't deal with collateral? If an Islamic bank can hold a person/business/country to collateral, so do western banks. Western banks aren't interested in pursuing collateral straight away, because collateral substitutes debt, whereas it's much more cosy for them to keeping taking interest as they're basically making money for free. Once a country does then get into a debt crisis, the same collateral that an Islamic could take, could equally be claimed by a western bank (although the enforcement of creditor's rights against sovereign states is frequently difficult) - with the western bank already having maximised it's interest takings. Also, regaining collateral (if it is practical) does not equal bankruptcy. So once again, an Islamic bank would be limited in being able to exploit a country in trouble - before it reaches debt crisis point (and rightly so).

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

How you've created "logically possible" and "not supported by logic" out of that sums up a lot of arguments you make. A lot of hot air based on very little actual substance. I've got nothing further to add - you can jump to whatever conclusions you want.

You have spent most of this thread admitting that you have no answers for why Allah did anything the way he did and why he wants us to do the things he supposedly wants us to do. If you think after all that that Allah is the logical answer to the question of the big bang then you are working with a different definition of logic to me.

confusedquark wrote: »

Without doing a randomised controlled trial (where a population is randomly divided into two groups - one to exclusively follow the rules, and one to exclusively not, so that you end up with two very similar populations starting off from the same point), you cannot say that poverty, education, war, corruption, revolutions and regional instability etc result because of a population following Islamic rules. They can very well, and as is my argument, exist independent to a country's following of Islamic rules - and therefore a country not performing well isn't necessarily because of following Islamic rules, but as a result of many other independent factors - also known as confounders. Regarding your second paragraph, I've already said about three times that you don't need Muslim-specific data to be able to assess individual rules, and it's much much easier to gather data on people (from otherwise similar populations) reliably observing (or not observing) one rule than it is to do the same with an entire ruleset. That's a pretty basic concept.

We are not talking about countries that are only recently muslim (whose stability would be very much influenced by their previous configuration). We are talking about countries that have been muslim for centuries, some for all of their existence as countries. So either these countries have always existed as muslim countries and so there are no confounders, or they have had centuries of Islamic rules to correct those confounders, but the Islamic rules have failed miserably to do so. And I never said that instability result because of Islamic rules, I said they result despite of Islamic rules.
If you are going to use non-muslim sources to argue the benefits of specific rules like not drinking alcohol then you have two problems:
1) All you can show is that Islam is as good as these non-muslims sources, which makes Islam superfluous to the formation of these rules
2) Even ignoring (1), You cannot continue to argue that the ruleset as a whole works (remember, the point we are actually discussing?) because, according to your argument, the muslim specific rules cannot be measured.

confusedquark wrote: »

Countries are more likely to get into a debt crisis if they fail to make repayments on interest loans, because the interest piles on very quickly. If they fail to make repayments on Islamic loans, the overall figure they owe does not exponentially increase, and the country won't get into a debt crisis as quickly. And do you think western banks don't deal with collateral? If an Islamic bank can hold a person/business/country to collateral, so do western banks. Western banks aren't interested in pursuing collateral straight away, because collateral substitutes debt, whereas it's much more cosy for them to keeping taking interest as they're basically making money for free. Once a country does then get into a debt crisis, the same collateral that an Islamic could take, could equally be claimed by a western bank (although the enforcement of creditor's rights against sovereign states is frequently difficult) - with the western bank already having maximised it's interest takings. Also, regaining collateral (if it is practical) does not equal bankruptcy. So once again, an Islamic bank would be limited in being able to exploit a country in trouble - before it reaches debt crisis point (and rightly so).

Western banks can only take collateral in lieu of taking payment (increased interest or otherwise), and that collateral will equal to what is still owed, so the third world countries would still be in the same situation. While heading into crisis may trigger increased interest payments to western banks, that only happens if they are already failing to pay back the loans themselves, and that would trigger the collateral forfeit sooner in muslim banks. Third world countries in financial crisis either would have less cash paid to Islamic banks with a higher valued collateral forfeited, more cash paid to western banks with a lower valued collateral forfeited, or high cash paid to western banks and no collateral forfeited. No big difference in those situations.

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You have spent most of this thread admitting that you have no answers for why Allah did anything the way he did and why he wants us to do the things he supposedly wants us to do. If you think after all that that Allah is the logical answer to the question of the big bang then you are working with a different definition of logic to me.

You've spent most of this thread playing the "why" game and have then simply repeated again and again the inevitable "why" that doesn't have an answer, and have spent most of the rest of the thread claiming that everything else is meaningless and illogical on the basis that there isn't an answer to your every "why". I certainly do have a very different working definition of logic to you.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And I never said that instability result because of Islamic rules, I said they result despite of Islamic rules.

That's fair enough so. You've already acknowledged that no country is purely Islamic anyway, and I've no problems acknowledging that instability can indeed result in a Muslim-predominant country not fully following Islamic rules. Beyond that, Muslim-predominant countries have done all right for themselves down the centuries - it's mainly the past century really that the confounders of corruption (featuring often western-supported dictators/leaders, featuring often western-created countries), wars (which have happened for a variety of reasons), revolutions (against said dictatorships/leaders), poverty etc. have taken a lot of their toll.
Your points:
1) That makes no sense. Islam cannot be superfluous to the formation of these rules, because Islam (believe it or not) formed the rules, and those rules are exactly what we're looking at... If you want to examine a rule, the only thing that matters is the accuracy and reliability of the data relevant to that question you have at hand (e.g. is alcohol good or bad), and not whether the source is Muslim or non-Muslim (for the fifth time).
2) Although the ruleset do produce good in this life (some of which is measurable), their most important outcome is untestable until the day of judgement. It would be great if we were in a position to have reliable unconfounded similar population fully compliant and non-compliant data to see the effects of the entire ruleset on this life, but we don't, and therefore have to make do with examining individual rules and using what reliable data we do have to examine as many of them as we can, and reaching a conclusion based on that.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Western banks can only take collateral in lieu of taking payment (increased interest or otherwise), and that collateral will equal to what is still owed, so the third world countries would still be in the same situation. While heading into crisis may trigger increased interest payments to western banks, that only happens if they are already failing to pay back the loans themselves, and that would trigger the collateral forfeit sooner in muslim banks. Third world countries in financial crisis either would have less cash paid to Islamic banks with a higher valued collateral forfeited, more cash paid to western banks with a lower valued collateral forfeited, or high cash paid to western banks and no collateral forfeited. No big difference in those situations.

There is a huge difference between those situations, and I can't believe I have to spell it out for you. If both a western bank and Muslim bank had given 1 billion to a third world country (and for example, held some government property worth 1 billion as collateral), and the western bank was charging 5% interest annually, the best case scenario for the third world country is that they only pay an extra 5% per annum on top of the 1 billion (which cumulatively would add up over the years). Now, say if within a year, the third world country hits hard times and can only afford to pay back 50 million a year - that's paying back the 5% interest only and the 1 billion principle loan will remain untouched, and nothing will come off it. If 40 years pass by, and the country remains poor (but does not go bankrupt), and is still able to keep paying 50 million a year (after taking that money from public expenditure), in those 40 years it will have paid back 2 billion quid, but guess what? They still owe 1 billion, because all they've paid back annually has just been the interest that's accumulated every year, and needless to say, should the country fail to meet even the interest payments annually, then the overall money owed will only increase further, with more added interest the year after (and the cycle of debt continues). After 40 years, if the country goes bankrupt, the western bank would still take control of the government property because they're still owed 1 billion - the country in total would have paid back 3 billion. In contrast, an Islamic bank could not just sit back and rake in the interest money, they would either have to wait for their money without being able to charge extra interest, or have to swoop in for their collateral sooner, reclaiming their 1 billion in the form of the government property, but that would still save the third world country 2 billion quid in saved interest payments over the 40 years. That is not "no big difference". I cannot make it any clearer.

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

You've spent most of this thread playing the "why" game and have then simply repeated again and again the inevitable "why" that doesn't have an answer, and have spent most of the rest of the thread claiming that everything else is meaningless and illogical on the basis that there isn't an answer to your every "why". I certainly do have a very different working definition of logic to you.

Don't forget that I didn't start with the big bang "why", I asked many simpler "why"s. It was the lack of answers for any other "why" that brought us to the big bang "why". And your failure to give even a hypothetically possible answer to that does not make your position in any way logical.

confusedquark wrote: »

That's fair enough so. You've already acknowledged that no country is purely Islamic anyway, and I've no problems acknowledging that instability can indeed result in a Muslim-predominant country not fully following Islamic rules. Beyond that, Muslim-predominant countries have done all right for themselves down the centuries - it's mainly the past century really that the confounders of corruption (featuring often western-supported dictators/leaders, featuring often western-created countries), wars (which have happened for a variety of reasons), revolutions (against said dictatorships/leaders), poverty etc. have taken a lot of their toll.
Your points:
1) That makes no sense. Islam cannot be superfluous to the formation of these rules, because Islam (believe it or not) formed the rules, and those rules are exactly what we're looking at... If you want to examine a rule, the only thing that matters is the accuracy and reliability of the data relevant to that question you have at hand (e.g. is alcohol good or bad), and not whether the source is Muslim or non-Muslim (for the fifth time).
2) Although the ruleset do produce good in this life (some of which is measurable), their most important outcome is untestable until the day of judgement. It would be great if we were in a position to have reliable unconfounded similar population fully compliant and non-compliant data to see the effects of the entire ruleset on this life, but we don't, and therefore have to make do with examining individual rules and using what reliable data we do have to examine as many of them as we can, and reaching a conclusion based on that.

Islamic countries must not have been all that well until the last century if they all ended up with corruption, wars, revolutions, poverty etc so quickly.
As for my points:
1. No, Islam did not form a lot of it's generic rules like banning alcohol, that is utter nonsense.
2. You notice how it's only the non-Islam specific rules that we can seem to be able to measure in life, the Islam specific rules having to be taken on faith? Rules, followed by different societies and based on arguments concerning health or ethical economics (ie not actually needing a higher entity to be valid) can be tested here and now. Rules only followed by Islam, based on arguments which specifically require Allah to justify them, cannot be tested at all. And this is the same Allah that you cannot say anything about, in terms of motivations or internal logic. Exactly why should anyone take these rules on faith? What happens if the faith is misplaced? What happens to people who wasted a life on these rules if they are false?

And you are still ignoring the flaw in your logic that if it is western influences that create all or most of the confounders that bring down Islamic societies, then western societies must be far worse than Islamic societies, seeing as western societies are made up entirely of western influences. But that's not the case at all.

confusedquark wrote: »

There is a huge difference between those situations, and I can't believe I have to spell it out for you. If both a western bank and Muslim bank had given 1 billion to a third world country (and for example, held some government property worth 1 billion as collateral), and the western bank was charging 5% interest annually, the best case scenario for the third world country is that they only pay an extra 5% per annum on top of the 1 billion (which cumulatively would add up over the years). Now, say if within a year, the third world country hits hard times and can only afford to pay back 50 million a year - that's paying back the 5% interest only and the 1 billion principle loan will remain untouched, and nothing will come off it. If 40 years pass by, and the country remains poor (but does not go bankrupt), and is still able to keep paying 50 million a year (after taking that money from public expenditure), in those 40 years it will have paid back 2 billion quid, but guess what? They still owe 1 billion, because all they've paid back annually has just been the interest that's accumulated every year, and needless to say, should the country fail to meet even the interest payments annually, then the overall money owed will only increase further, with more added interest the year after (and the cycle of debt continues). After 40 years, if the country goes bankrupt, the western bank would still take control of the government property because they're still owed 1 billion - the country in total would have paid back 3 billion. In contrast, an Islamic bank could not just sit back and rake in the interest money, they would either have to wait for their money without being able to charge extra interest, or have to swoop in for their collateral sooner, reclaiming their 1 billion in the form of the government property, but that would still save the third world country 2 billion quid in saved interest payments over the 40 years. That is not "no big difference". I cannot make it any clearer.

Muslim banks would collect collateral worth far more than the 1 billion they lent, no bank can exist by just reclaiming the exact amount they lent, at the very least they have operating costs. It may be in more a direct and honest way, eg via clear preset fees, but muslim banks would have gotten (or aimed to have gotten) as much money as western banks did.

If muslim banks are so much better than western banks in terms of debt arrangements, then why didn't third world countries borrow from them?

MrPudding

confusedquark wrote: »

There is a huge difference between those situations, and I can't believe I have to spell it out for you. If both a western bank and Muslim bank had given 1 billion to a third world country (and for example, held some government property worth 1 billion as collateral), and the western bank was charging 5% interest annually, the best case scenario for the third world country is that they only pay an extra 5% per annum on top of the 1 billion (which cumulatively would add up over the years). Now, say if within a year, the third world country hits hard times and can only afford to pay back 50 million a year - that's paying back the 5% interest only and the 1 billion principle loan will remain untouched, and nothing will come off it. If 40 years pass by, and the country remains poor (but does not go bankrupt), and is still able to keep paying 50 million a year (after taking that money from public expenditure), in those 40 years it will have paid back 2 billion quid, but guess what? They still owe 1 billion, because all they've paid back annually has just been the interest that's accumulated every year, and needless to say, should the country fail to meet even the interest payments annually, then the overall money owed will only increase further, with more added interest the year after (and the cycle of debt continues). After 40 years, if the country goes bankrupt, the western bank would still take control of the government property because they're still owed 1 billion - the country in total would have paid back 3 billion. In contrast, an Islamic bank could not just sit back and rake in the interest money, they would either have to wait for their money without being able to charge extra interest, or have to swoop in for their collateral sooner, reclaiming their 1 billion in the form of the government property, but that would still save the third world country 2 billion quid in saved interest payments over the 40 years. That is not "no big difference". I cannot make it any clearer.

That is not quite true... Generally speaking the Islamic bank won't simply sit back and wait until the end fo the agreement to collect what it is owed. They might not sit back and rake in interested, but they would like sit back and rake in rent on the property secured...

Whether a bank is Islamic or not, they have something in common. They exist to make money. From my understanding there are two ways Islamic loans work, looking a mortgages specifically. First, the bank the borrower agree on a profit share. This involves working out what the mortgaged property is likely to be worth at the end of the term, agreeing a percentage of 'profit' the bank is entitled to, and then cutting the capital repayments, and the profit share, in chunks that will be the repayments. The second method is kind of like a leaseback, where the borrower pays 'rent' for the property he or she has borrowed against.

Interest? Profit share? Rent? A rose by any other name...

MrP

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Don't forget that I didn't start with the big bang "why", I asked many simpler "why"s. It was the lack of answers for any other "why" that brought us to the big bang "why". And your failure to give even a hypothetically possible answer to that does not make your position in any way logical.

So if you're going to continue claiming that my position is illogical on the basis that there isn't an answer to your every "why", I'll reiterate that I certainly do have a very different working definition of logic to you.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Islamic countries must not have been all that well until the last century if they all ended up with corruption, wars, revolutions, poverty etc so quickly.
As for my points:
1. No, Islam did not form a lot of it's generic rules like banning alcohol, that is utter nonsense.
2. You notice how it's only the non-Islam specific rules that we can seem to be able to measure in life, the Islam specific rules having to be taken on faith? Rules, followed by different societies and based on arguments concerning health or ethical economics (ie not actually needing a higher entity to be valid) can be tested here and now. Rules only followed by Islam, based on arguments which specifically require Allah to justify them, cannot be tested at all. And this is the same Allah that you cannot say anything about, in terms of motivations or internal logic. Exactly why should anyone take these rules on faith? What happens if the faith is misplaced? What happens to people who wasted a life on these rules if they are false?

And you are still ignoring the flaw in your logic that if it is western influences that create all or most of the confounders that bring down Islamic societies, then western societies must be far worse than Islamic societies, seeing as western societies are made up entirely of western influences. But that's not the case at all.

As we had been talking about stats, I had assumed you were referring to my usage of non-Muslim data sources in making my argument for Islamic rules, and not to rules that had existed prior to Islam when you said "non-Muslim sources". If you want to divide Islamic rules into those that Islam introduced anew and those that had existed prior to it, and want to exclude the latter, that's up to you. I don't have an extensive knowledge of the major religions to be able to determine which specific rules pre-existed and which are new in Islam. Irrespective of that, we believe Islam is a continuation of Christianity and Judaism, and that the latter two were also religions of Allah (swt), so even if some rules are not Islam-specific, they're still very much Islam-relevant.

Regarding your second paragraph, western influences through foreign policies don't necessarily apply directly to western countries themselves, e.g. they might support a dictator abroad, but not at home, they might instigate/propagate a war abroad but not at home, they might take resources from another country, but not their own, etc. So the confounders that bring down Muslim countries can actually benefit western countries, as opposed to also bringing them down. I never said external influences are the only factor in Muslim countries performing poorly, and many Muslim leaders themselves do have a lot to answer for, but they certainly are a major factor, and unfortunately, countries can be externally destablised given the right conditions.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Muslim banks would collect collateral worth far more than the 1 billion they lent, no bank can exist by just reclaiming the exact amount they lent, at the very least they have operating costs. It may be in more a direct and honest way, eg via clear preset fees, but muslim banks would have gotten (or aimed to have gotten) as much money as western banks did.

If muslim banks are so much better than western banks in terms of debt arrangements, then why didn't third world countries borrow from them?

Collateral is usually designed to minimise the risk of a loss for the lender, and isn't something which lenders will look to earn "far more" profit on. I can only guess your first claim is your own opinion, because from what I had thought and from what I have read, "A trustee is however strictly ordered to pay back any balance from the proceeds of the collateral auctioned in the market to the in debtor after his outstanding amount has been settled in full."

Your next point of "no bank can exist by just reclaiming the exact amount they lent" conveniently misses the point that the majority of loans do not result in collateral having to be reclaimed, and the profits of banks generally come from loans that are fully repaid - and this will usually offset any losses incurred through revenue lost in cases where collateral has to be sought (I say "usually", because the recent banking crisis was an instance where many loans went unpaid the weren't enough to offset the losses, despite whatever collateral was regained).

Your final point, I'm sure there are various geopolitical issues at play in such decisions, and it would also be a high risk investment for an Islamic bank, given regaining collateral from sovereign nations is frequently difficult. One would probably also need a certain amount of political muscle (such as the World Bank and IMF have) to ensure a country is making its repayments as well.

confusedquark

MrPudding wrote: »

That is not quite true... Generally speaking the Islamic bank won't simply sit back and wait until the end fo the agreement to collect what it is owed. They might not sit back and rake in interested, but they would like sit back and rake in rent on the property secured...

Whether a bank is Islamic or not, they have something in common. They exist to make money. From my understanding there are two ways Islamic loans work, looking a mortgages specifically. First, the bank the borrower agree on a profit share. This involves working out what the mortgaged property is likely to be worth at the end of the term, agreeing a percentage of 'profit' the bank is entitled to, and then cutting the capital repayments, and the profit share, in chunks that will be the repayments. The second method is kind of like a leaseback, where the borrower pays 'rent' for the property he or she has borrowed against.

Interest? Profit share? Rent? A rose by any other name...

MrP

Only that interest, profit share and rent don't all smell the same. The are 2 main differences between rent and interest (leaving profit-share aside for a sec).
1) In a rent situation, the lender does not have the property to his name from the outset (vs conventional mortgages), and is effectively a tenant, with the lender acting as a landlord, so "raking in the rent" is no different from somebody leasing out a premises they own, which is a perfectly fine way to make money from somebody without exploiting them.
2) Interest has the capacity to exponentially increase if repayments are not made, whereas rent remains relatively constant. This capacity is what is used to exploit third world countries, and neither profit-sharing nor rent will (even if one could make such an arrangement on a practical level with a country) could be used to exploit a country in such a way, with an ever-increasing cycle of debt.

An Islamic bank would only be able to sit back and take in rent if indeed it is the rent agreement in place, but if it is profit share or a case where even the rent isn't being paid, then I'd imagine it would be a case of looking to recoup collateral.

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

So if you're going to continue claiming that my position is illogical on the basis that there isn't an answer to your every "why", I'll reiterate that I certainly do have a very different working definition of logic to you.

It's not that there isn't an answer to my every "why", it's that there isn't an answer to any of the "why"s I put forward. None, from the most fundamental to the most superficial. You don't have a working definition of logic at all.

confusedquark wrote: »

As we had been talking about stats, I had assumed you were referring to my usage of non-Muslim data sources in making my argument for Islamic rules, and not to rules that had existed prior to Islam when you said "non-Muslim sources". If you want to divide Islamic rules into those that Islam introduced anew and those that had existed prior to it, and want to exclude the latter, that's up to you. I don't have an extensive knowledge of the major religions to be able to determine which specific rules pre-existed and which are new in Islam. Irrespective of that, we believe Islam is a continuation of Christianity and Judaism, and that the latter two were also religions of Allah (swt), so even if some rules are not Islam-specific, they're still very much Islam-relevant.

Regarding your second paragraph, western influences through foreign policies don't necessarily apply directly to western countries themselves, e.g. they might support a dictator abroad, but not at home, they might instigate/propagate a war abroad but not at home, they might take resources from another country, but not their own, etc. So the confounders that bring down Muslim countries can actually benefit western countries, as opposed to also bringing them down. I never said external influences are the only factor in Muslim countries performing poorly, and many Muslim leaders themselves do have a lot to answer for, but they certainly are a major factor, and unfortunately, countries can be externally destablised given the right conditions.

1. My example wasn't of a rule that existed in the other Abrahamic religions before Islam, it's of the no alcohol rules existing in China before any Abrahamic religion existed at all. So your claim that Islam formed it's rules (even accepting the pre-dating Abrahamic religions as part of formation) is demonstrably false.

2. You do realise that western countries aren't just one country, they don't all work together as one mass. Only last century was a large number of western countries at world war with each other, not once but twice. Even today, the west doesn't exist as one solid mass, just look at what's happening in Ukraine or North Korea or even the US being caught out spying on everyone.
So, despite all the western wars last century, despite the west-on-west political intrigue that goes on today, western countries still come out as better than muslim countries in peacefulness, happiness and equality.

confusedquark wrote: »

Collateral is usually designed to minimise the risk of a loss for the lender, and isn't something which lenders will look to earn "far more" profit on. I can only guess your first claim is your own opinion, because from what I had thought and from what I have read, "A trustee is however strictly ordered to pay back any balance from the proceeds of the collateral auctioned in the market to the in debtor after his outstanding amount has been settled in full."

Your next point of "no bank can exist by just reclaiming the exact amount they lent" conveniently misses the point that the majority of loans do not result in collateral having to be reclaimed, and the profits of banks generally come from loans that are fully repaid - and this will usually offset any losses incurred through revenue lost in cases where collateral has to be sought (I say "usually", because the recent banking crisis was an instance where many loans went unpaid the weren't enough to offset the losses, despite whatever collateral was regained).

Your final point, I'm sure there are various geopolitical issues at play in such decisions, and it would also be a high risk investment for an Islamic bank, given regaining collateral from sovereign nations is frequently difficult. One would probably also need a certain amount of political muscle (such as the World Bank and IMF have) to ensure a country is making its repayments as well.

1. The collateral on a loan is worth far more than the initial amount lent, that is basic maths. Think about it, you lend out money over 20 year periods, how exactly do stay open as a business if the amount you recuperate is the exact amount you lent in the first place? Where does the money come from to run your business over those 20 year periods? Your link doesn't actually contradict what I'm saying: collateral would be calculated on the initial agreed value of a loan, so a default half-way though is only recuperated by taking half of the value of the loan from the sale of the collateral. Very few loans are defaulted immediately, so 100% of the collateral would not be claimable by the bank.

2. As above really, collateral doesn't just cover the loss of the amount loaned, it covers the loss of the value of the loan.

3. So, on the one hand, muslim banks would have done so much better than western banks for third world debt because of how they bank, but on the other hand, muslim banks wouldn't even give the loans because they probably would not be able to reclaim their money. Isn't it a bit like telling a homeless person that it would be healthier to eat from a fancy restaurant than from the street?

userod

Hello confusedquark,

I just have a question:

Do the following conditions improve my chance of going to heaven?

• Believing that Allah exists
• Praying to Allah multiple times per day
• Not eating bacon

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It's not that there isn't an answer to my every "why", it's that there isn't an answer to any of the "why"s I put forward. None, from the most fundamental to the most superficial. You don't have a working definition of logic at all.

Your "any" why (once again) is the same why rephrased as a different question, and all you're doing is stretching it to make your case and using it to dismiss every other answer as meaningless. We can continue going around in circles, but this isn't going anywhere.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

1. My example wasn't of a rule that existed in the other Abrahamic religions before Islam, it's of the no alcohol rules existing in China before any Abrahamic religion existed at all. So your claim that Islam formed it's rules (even accepting the pre-dating Abrahamic religions as part of formation) is demonstrably false.

2. You do realise that western countries aren't just one country, they don't all work together as one mass. Only last century was a large number of western countries at world war with each other, not once but twice. Even today, the west doesn't exist as one solid mass, just look at what's happening in Ukraine or North Korea or even the US being caught out spying on everyone.
So, despite all the western wars last century, despite the west-on-west political intrigue that goes on today, western countries still come out as better than muslim countries in peacefulness, happiness and equality.

1. Even if rules aren't Islam-specific or even Abrahamic-specific (and you're free to make a big list of all the rules are Islam specific, Abrahamic-specific and neither-specific, and then which of the rules in each of those categories are and are not testable in this life), they're still Islam-relevant because Islam teaches/reaffirms them, and if you're examining Islam, you everything that's new and everything it reaffirms.

2. Western countries come out on top today. Had these comparisons been done around the time of the world wars you mention, then there would have been a very different picture, which equally would not have been a fair reflection of Islamic vs non-Islamic rules. Should there be another western world war in the future, the comparisons would be skewed again. Global politics and economics are very temperamental, and the slightest change at the top can have dramatic effects on the populous, irrespective of what religion/rules people do or don't follow.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

1. The collateral on a loan is worth far more than the initial amount lent, that is basic maths. Think about it, you lend out money over 20 year periods, how exactly do stay open as a business if the amount you recuperate is the exact amount you lent in the first place? Where does the money come from to run your business over those 20 year periods? Your link doesn't actually contradict what I'm saying: collateral would be calculated on the initial agreed value of a loan, so a default half-way though is only recuperated by taking half of the value of the loan from the sale of the collateral. Very few loans are defaulted immediately, so 100% of the collateral would not be claimable by the bank.

2. As above really, collateral doesn't just cover the loss of the amount loaned, it covers the loss of the value of the loan.

3. So, on the one hand, muslim banks would have done so much better than western banks for third world debt because of how they bank, but on the other hand, muslim banks wouldn't even give the loans because they probably would not be able to reclaim their money. Isn't it a bit like telling a homeless person that it would be healthier to eat from a fancy restaurant than from the street?

1-2. Your first point once again ignores the fact that the majority of loans do not require collateral to be seized, and therefore the money that comes to run the business for 20 years comes from the majority of loans that are fully repaid. Leaving that aside, yes, the banks should indeed only recoup in collateral the value of the loan. But the "value of the loan" can have very different values, depending on whether it's western or Islamic. For Islamic banks the outstanding value would be the principle (amount loaned), minus whatever principle has been paid off + whatever rent/profit-share has accumulated prior to default. For western banks, it's the principle minus whatever principle has been paid off + whatever interest has accumulated. As interest has the capacity to exponentially increase if repayments are not made, whereas any Islamic equivalent rent/profit-share would remain relatively constant, third world countries stand to lose a lot more if they get into difficulty with their repayments, and end up in an ever-increasing cycle of debt. If it did then come to collateral, they'd have to give up more because the value of their loan would have exponentially increased over the years.

3. Third world countries would do a lot better for themselves in the long run if they didn't take loans from anyone. We, the fortunate ones, should have a greater emphasis on providing genuine free aid (without strings attached) to those less fortunate. We shouldn't be telling the homeless person where to go eat, we should be giving him/her food.

confusedquark

userod wrote: »

Hello confusedquark,

I just have a question:

Do the following conditions improve my chance of going to heaven?

• Believing that Allah exists
• Praying to Allah multiple times per day
• Not eating bacon

From an Islamic perspective, yes, those conditions will improve your chances. But what you've listed is just a fraction of what Islam is (which I suspect you already might know), and so I wouldn't rely on just those 3 points alone.

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

Your "any" why (once again) is the same why rephrased as a different question, and all you're doing is stretching it to make your case and using it to dismiss every other answer as meaningless. We can continue going around in circles, but this isn't going anywhere.

I have asked many different questions about Allah, they may all look the same but that's because the answer is always the same - nobody knows, anything at all, about why Allah does anything.

confusedquark wrote: »

1. Even if rules aren't Islam-specific or even Abrahamic-specific (and you're free to make a big list of all the rules are Islam specific, Abrahamic-specific and neither-specific, and then which of the rules in each of those categories are and are not testable in this life), they're still Islam-relevant because Islam teaches/reaffirms them, and if you're examining Islam, you everything that's new and everything it reaffirms.

2. Western countries come out on top today. Had these comparisons been done around the time of the world wars you mention, then there would have been a very different picture, which equally would not have been a fair reflection of Islamic vs non-Islamic rules. Should there be another western world war in the future, the comparisons would be skewed again. Global politics and economics are very temperamental, and the slightest change at the top can have dramatic effects on the populous, irrespective of what religion/rules people do or don't follow.

1. You claimed that Islam formed all of its rules. You now are changing that claim to Islam only formed some of its rules. Therefore, you have not addressed my original claim:
"If you are going to use non-muslim sources to argue the benefits of specific rules like not drinking alcohol [snip]:
All you can show is that Islam is as good as these non-muslims sources, which makes Islam superfluous to the formation of these rules"
All the rules that you say we can measure, that affirm how good Islam's rules are, are rules that don't inherently have anything to do with Islamic religion (that's why we can measure them - they are materialistic rules with materialistic outcomes). They also existed before Islam, in other societies. So Islam didn't create them and it doesn't add to their further justification. Islam is superfluous to them.

2. Which brings us back to the point I first made weeks ago - if Allahs rules cannot account for this temperamentality, then they don't really amount to much, considering their supposedly divine source and their claim to make the best society.

confusedquark wrote: »

1-2. Your first point once again ignores the fact that the majority of loans do not require collateral to be seized, and therefore the money that comes to run the business for 20 years comes from the majority of loans that are fully repaid. Leaving that aside, yes, the banks should indeed only recoup in collateral the value of the loan. But the "value of the loan" can have very different values, depending on whether it's western or Islamic. For Islamic banks the outstanding value would be the principle (amount loaned), minus whatever principle has been paid off + whatever rent/profit-share has accumulated prior to default. For western banks, it's the principle minus whatever principle has been paid off + whatever interest has accumulated. As interest has the capacity to exponentially increase if repayments are not made, whereas any Islamic equivalent rent/profit-share would remain relatively constant, third world countries stand to lose a lot more if they get into difficulty with their repayments, and end up in an ever-increasing cycle of debt. If it did then come to collateral, they'd have to give up more because the value of their loan would have exponentially increased over the years.

3. Third world countries would do a lot better for themselves in the long run if they didn't take loans from anyone. We, the fortunate ones, should have a greater emphasis on providing genuine free aid (without strings attached) to those less fortunate. We shouldn't be telling the homeless person where to go eat, we should be giving him/her food.

1-2. Again, Islamic banks do not operate on a profit margin significantly different than western banks, so they clearly have to be taking in as much money as them. They can only be doing this is the value of a defaulted loan is more than the amounted loaned in the first place. They do not just give out a million and take back a million. The loan has fees, those fees are the profit, that profit is along the lines of what a western bank would charge in interest and that profit is also taken from collateral if someone defaults.

3. That is a different argument to the one you began with, which said that they should have taken loans from Islamic banks.

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I have asked many different questions about Allah, they may all look the same but that's because the answer is always the same - nobody knows, anything at all, about why Allah does anything.

Nope, we don't know why He does anything, or even if there has to be a "why". He is not confined by the needs, wants and reasons that precede our every action - He is not like us.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

1. You claimed that Islam formed all of its rules. You now are changing that claim to Islam only formed some of its rules. Therefore, you have not addressed my original claim:
"If you are going to use non-muslim sources to argue the benefits of specific rules like not drinking alcohol [snip]:
All you can show is that Islam is as good as these non-muslims sources, which makes Islam superfluous to the formation of these rules"
All the rules that you say we can measure, that affirm how good Islam's rules are, are rules that don't inherently have anything to do with Islamic religion (that's why we can measure them - they are materialistic rules with materialistic outcomes). They also existed before Islam, in other societies. So Islam didn't create them and it doesn't add to their further justification. Islam is superfluous to them.

2. Which brings us back to the point I first made weeks ago - if Allahs rules cannot account for this temperamentality, then they don't really amount to much, considering their supposedly divine source and their claim to make the best society.

1. You're free to believe that Islam is superfluous to the very rules it teaches. I have nothing more to add to my previous post.
2. You've already acknowledged that no country is purely Islamic, and I've no problems acknowledging that instability can and indeed does result in Muslim-predominant countries not fully following Islamic rules.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

1-2. Again, Islamic banks do not operate on a profit margin significantly different than western banks, so they clearly have to be taking in as much money as them. They can only be doing this is the value of a defaulted loan is more than the amounted loaned in the first place. They do not just give out a million and take back a million. The loan has fees, those fees are the profit, that profit is along the lines of what a western bank would charge in interest and that profit is also taken from collateral if someone defaults.

3. That is a different argument to the one you began with, which said that they should have taken loans from Islamic banks.

1-2. You've either forgotten or have ignored my main points in repeating all that again. I have said all I need to on the topic.
3. You brought Islamic banks and their profits into the discussion - I simply started by saying interest is a tool of exploitation that indirectly kills millions of people annually, and it is something which, along with other forms of usury, is explicitly forbidden in Islam, and I'd quite like to finish with that point.

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

Nope, we don't know why He does anything, or even if there has to be a "why". He is not confined by the needs, wants and reasons that precede our every action - He is not like us.

And what is the difference between that and a god who simply does not exist at all?

confusedquark wrote: »

1. You're free to believe that Islam is superfluous to the very rules it teaches. I have nothing more to add to my previous post.
2. You've already acknowledged that no country is purely Islamic, and I've no problems acknowledging that instability can and indeed does result in Muslim-predominant countries not fully following Islamic rules.

1. And you are free to believe what you believe, but this is a discussion forum, it lives and dies on people discussing their beliefs. You can't keep running away from points you don't like, it makes it look like you have no faith in them.
2. You can't both argue that we can testably see that Islamic rules work as a whole but that there are no countries living wholly by fully following Islamic rules, and have never been. At the very least, Muhammad's first society lived purely Islamicly, so it's failure to continue to be fully Islamic after his death is a blow against the so-called divine source of the so-called perfect ruleset.

confusedquark wrote: »

1-2. You've either forgotten or have ignored my main points in repeating all that again. I have said all I need to on the topic.
3. You brought Islamic banks and their profits into the discussion - I simply started by saying interest is a tool of exploitation that indirectly kills millions of people annually, and it is something which, along with other forms of usury, is explicitly forbidden in Islam, and I'd quite like to finish with that point.

1-2. You have never presented any evidence to show how Islamic banks can be as profitable as their western counterparts without collecting the same value of profit from their customers. Until you do, your argument fails.
3. Do you think third world countries would have been better off without any investment? Because by your own admission Islamic banks wouldn't lend to them anyway.

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And what is the difference between that and a god who simply does not exist at all?

Try and figure that one out for yourself. I'm done here.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

1. And you are free to believe what you believe, but this is a discussion forum, it lives and dies on people discussing their beliefs. You can't keep running away from points you don't like, it makes it look like you have no faith in them.
2. You can't both argue that we can testably see that Islamic rules work as a whole but that there are no countries living wholly by fully following Islamic rules, and have never been. At the very least, Muhammad's first society lived purely Islamicly, so it's failure to continue to be fully Islamic after his death is a blow against the so-called divine source of the so-called perfect ruleset.

1. I'm only going to repeat myself so many times. In my opinion, if you're you're examining Islam, you examine everything that it teaches, irrespective of whether a specific rule is new or whether it has pre-existed in another culture/religion. I can't force you to agree with my opinion and vice versa, and when we reach a stage where we've both made our points and still hold different beliefs, there's not a whole lot else to add, and therein the discussion should reach it's natural end.
2. You made the exact same point earlier in the thread, and I already replied to it then. I'm not going to repeat myself again.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

1-2. You have never presented any evidence to show how Islamic banks can be as profitable as their western counterparts without collecting the same value of profit from their customers. Until you do, your argument fails.
3. Do you think third world countries would have been better off without any investment? Because by your own admission Islamic banks wouldn't lend to them anyway.

1-2. Your first argument is again irrelevant. I have already repeatedly explained the difference between individuals/businesses and countries, interest's capacity to exponentially increase - and why countries are more vulnerable to this, and the limitations of comparing western/Islamic bank profits. You continue to ignore my responses and just keep repeating your one point above. Again, I have said all I need to.
3. There's a difference between investment (which can also come in the form of aid) and loans. I do think third world countries would do a lot better for themselves in the long run if they didn't take out loans.

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

Try and figure that one out for yourself. I'm done here.

I'm asking you.
Why do you run away from questions you don't like? Do you have answers to my questions? Do you think you have answered them? If so, can you understand why they don't satisfy me?

confusedquark wrote: »

1. I'm only going to repeat myself so many times. In my opinion, if you're you're examining Islam, you examine everything that it teaches, irrespective of whether a specific rule is new or whether it has pre-existed in another culture/religion. I can't force you to agree with my opinion and vice versa, and when we reach a stage where we've both made our points and still hold different beliefs, there's not a whole lot else to add, and therein the discussion should reach it's natural end.
2. You made the exact same point earlier in the thread, and I already replied to it then. I'm not going to repeat myself again.

1. But your points did not address my points. You tried to address my points at first, but when I started taking your points apart, you went off on contradictory tangents or strawmen, and then finally declared that you had said enough. You have done this several times. Even here you say that to examine Islam you must examine it as a whole, despite declaring earlier in the thread that it was only possible to examine individual rules and relate their success to the whole of Islam. A discussion only starts with someone genuinely justifying their positions (or, at least, trying to), you simply presenting your position is a presentation or a blog.
2. Yes, I made it before and I make it again because you have yet to justify how you can make such contradictory claims.

confusedquark wrote: »

1-2. Your first argument is again irrelevant. I have already repeatedly explained the difference between individuals/businesses and countries, interest's capacity to exponentially increase - and why countries are more vulnerable to this, and the limitations of comparing western/Islamic bank profits. You continue to ignore my responses and just keep repeating your one point above. Again, I have said all I need to.
3. There's a difference between investment (which can also come in the form of aid) and loans. I do think third world countries would do a lot better for themselves in the long run if they didn't take out loans.

1-2. My point has nothing to do with the differences between individuals/businesses and countries at all, so I don't know why you bring that up again. Interest compounding is also irrelevant as that is included in the profit that western banks make. My point is purely that Islamic banks make about as much profit as western banks. They cannot do that without somehow taking about as much money, above their initial investment, from people as western banks do. It doesn't matter what level we look at, be it personal, business or country loan level (not that many western banks lend to countries), that issue remains.
3. Aid is not investment. Aid is charity, no return implied. Investment implies an expected return of the proportion of the profits. Now, I'm not going to claim that third world countries would be better off with loans instead of investment, but it's not like there are muslim banks lining up to invest in them. So the claim that muslim banks are better because they don't use interest doesn't really seem to add up to much in terms of actually helping third world countries.

Brown Bomber

Mark Hamill wrote: »

western countries still come out as better than muslim countries in peacefulness,

In just the last 15 years "peaceful" Western countries have invaded and occupied Afghanistan. Invaded, occupied and utterly destroyed Iraq. Trained, armed and bombed Libyans from the skies for their Al Qaeda proxies to carry out regime change in Libya. Have been arming and funding the same terrorists in Syria. Have tortured Muslims to death. Have indefinitely detained Muslims without charge in purpose built Muslims-only military prisons. Have set up secret torture chambers to torture Muslims in Mogadishu and other places. Have admitted carrying out a coup of a democratically elected government in Iran. Have been murdering people with military UAVs in Muslim lands that they aren't even at war with. Have supported their ally, Israel, in carrying out human rights abuses and atrocities in the Palestinian territories. Can you name a single person on President Obama's personal kill list that wasn't a Muslim? Can you name a single person, even amongst the hundreds of innocent women and children that have been killed by drones that weren't Muslim?

This list of Western state aggression against Muslim majority lands could run and run.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

happiness and equality.

Have you stopped to consider that there would be more "happiness and equality" if the West didn't prop up tyrant dictators?

And how are you even measuring "happiness"? I lived in Cairo, yet another long-term victim of Western imperialism, and the people there are the honestly the happiest I have ever met in my life. I lived with a family where there were honestly more people than beds, with no air condition in the sweltering heat but everyone was happy. People don't have very much but they would still give you everything they have including the shirt off their back. They explained to me that this is what Islam has thought them. Islam gives a meaning to their lives and their daily struggles, a meaning you don't understand. It gives them a reason to be kind to each other.

It's a different kind of happiness. Totally unrelated to materialism.

Mark Hamill

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In just the last 15 years "peaceful" Western countries have invaded and occupied Afghanistan. Invaded, occupied and utterly destroyed Iraq. Trained, armed and bombed Libyans from the skies for their Al Qaeda proxies to carry out regime change in Libya. Have been arming and funding the same terrorists in Syria. Have tortured Muslims to death. Have indefinitely detained Muslims without charge in purpose built Muslims-only military prisons. Have set up secret torture chambers to torture Muslims in Mogadishu and other places. Have admitted carrying out a coup of a democratically elected government in Iran. Have been murdering people with military UAVs in Muslim lands that they aren't even at war with. Have supported their ally, Israel, in carrying out human rights abuses and atrocities in the Palestinian territories. Can you name a single person on President Obama's personal kill list that wasn't a Muslim? Can you name a single person, even amongst the hundreds of innocent women and children that have been killed by drones that weren't Muslim?

This list of Western state aggression against Muslim majority lands could run and run.

My point was not that all western countries come out as more peaceful than muslim countries, it was that the countries that come out as most peaceful are all non muslim. As western countries are not one homogeneous mass inspired by the same religious doctrine, your points here (that seemingly all relate only to the US) are all irrelevant.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Have you stopped to consider that there would be more "happiness and equality" if the West didn't prop up tyrant dictators?

And how are you even measuring "happiness"? I lived in Cairo, yet another long-term victim of Western imperialism, and the people there are the honestly the happiest I have ever met in my life. I lived with a family where there were honestly more people than beds, with no air condition in the sweltering heat but everyone was happy. People don't have very much but they would still give you everything they have including the shirt off their back. They explained to me that this is what Islam has thought them. Islam gives a meaning to their lives and their daily struggles, a meaning you don't understand. It gives them a reason to be kind to each other.

It's a different kind of happiness. Totally unrelated to materialism.

Have you stopped to consider that if the muslim way of life worked as claimed then it could stand up to US influence? That is, after all, my point.

I did not measure the happiness, the World Happiness Report undertaken by the UN did. They did so by Gallup-polling people across more than 150 different countries. Gallup-polling>>>your anecdote.

Brown Bomber

Mark Hamill wrote: »

My point was not that all western countries come out as more peaceful than muslim countries,

Actually, it wasn't. This was your point: "western countries still come out as better than muslim countries in peacefulness".


If you don't stand by yout point, say so.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

it was that the countries that come out as most peaceful are all non muslim. As western countries are not one homogeneous mass inspired by the same religious doctrine, your points here (that seemingly all relate only to the US) are all irrelevant.

All relate only to the US? It was NATO bombs that murderered Gadaffi's grand children as they slept in their own beds and cots. It was the "Coalition of the willing" which carried out the illegal war of agression in Iraq- the ultimate war crime according the Nuremberg principles. The UN are in Afghanistan and so on.


Western countries do follow the same doctrines - Free markets, democracy and materialism.



And can you please answer the question? Can you name a single non-Muslim on the Nobel Peace Prize winning President's personal kill list?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Have you stopped to consider that if the muslim way of life worked as claimed then it could stand up to US influence? That is, after all, my point.

I did not measure the happiness, the World Happiness Report undertaken by the UN did. They did so by Gallup-polling people across more than 150 different countries. Gallup-polling>>>your anecdote.

Like I said, it is a different kind of happiness and one you don't understand.


I am talking about interpersonal relationships amongs people not he who has the most toys wins. Happiness relative to the difficulties in their lives that are out of their control.


I live in one of those "happy" countries on that list. I'll explain the difference. In Stockholm the average man would come from work and walk straight past his neighbours that he doesn't even know the name of that he has been living beside for the last 10 years. Enter his home, and stuff his fat face and watch some **** reality TV. The culture is self-serving and self-indulgent.


In Cairo a random man would come home from work and then spend the evening playing cards, conversing and joking with his neighbours in little cafes every couple of tower blocks have on the ground floor drinking coffee and smoking shisha pipes.


Obviously there are aspects of their live's they aren't happy with. This goes hand-in-hand with living in a Police State run by a US back torture-dictator.


Do you think Blacks living under apartheid were less happy than their white rulers because black culture is lesser than white culture?

Mark Hamill

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Actually, it wasn't. This was your point: "western countries still come out as better than muslim countries in peacefulness".


If you don't stand by yout point, say so.

I stand by my point. "western countries still come out as better than muslim countries in peacefulness" =/= all western countries are more peaceful than even the most peaceful muslim country. Your argument is a strawman and if it continues to be a strawman, I simply wont engage with it. I have far too much experience with you and your posting style to waste any real amount of energy on response to you.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

All relate only to the US? It was NATO bombs that murderered Gadaffi's grand children as they slept in their own beds and cots. It was the "Coalition of the willing" which carried out the illegal war of agression in Iraq- the ultimate war crime according the Nuremberg principles. The UN are in Afghanistan and so on.

Because all of those situations were perfectly peaceful before the west came around, with no homicidal dictators, genocide, terrorist warlords or anything like that.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Western countries do follow the same doctrines - Free markets, democracy and materialism.

Free markets, democracy and materialism are generic terms, not doctrines in of themselves. There are many different approaches and notions surrounding them, with no single version claiming divine infallibility. The economics, politics and culture of Norway, for instance, very different to the US or Russia or Japan. Islam is a doctrine, it has one book describing it's rules with very little interpretation possible.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And can you please answer the question? Can you name a single non-Muslim on the Nobel Peace Prize winning President's personal kill list?

There is a forum for conspiracy theories, I'm pretty sure you are familiar with it.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Like I said, it is a different kind of happiness and one you don't understand.


I am talking about interpersonal relationships amongs people not he who has the most toys wins. Happiness relative to the difficulties in their lives that are out of their control.


I live in one of those "happy" countries on that list. I'll explain the difference. In Stockholm the average man would come from work and walk straight past his neighbours that he doesn't even know the name of that he has been living beside for the last 10 years. Enter his home, and stuff his fat face and watch some **** reality TV. The culture is self-serving and self-indulgent.


In Cairo a random man would come home from work and then spend the evening playing cards, conversing and joking with his neighbours in little cafes every couple of tower blocks have on the ground floor drinking coffee and smoking shisha pipes.


Obviously there are aspects of their live's they aren't happy with. This goes hand-in-hand with living in a Police State run by a US back torture-dictator.

Do you think Blacks living under apartheid were less happy than their white rulers because black culture is lesser than white culture?

I did not measure the happiness, the World Happiness Report undertaken by the UN did. They did so by Gallup-polling people across more than 150 different countries. Gallup-polling>>>your anecdote.

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm asking you.
Why do you run away from questions you don't like? Do you have answers to my questions? Do you think you have answered them? If so, can you understand why they don't satisfy me?

1. But your points did not address my points. You tried to address my points at first, but when I started taking your points apart, you went off on contradictory tangents or strawmen, and then finally declared that you had said enough. You have done this several times. Even here you say that to examine Islam you must examine it as a whole, despite declaring earlier in the thread that it was only possible to examine individual rules and relate their success to the whole of Islam. A discussion only starts with someone genuinely justifying their positions (or, at least, trying to), you simply presenting your position is a presentation or a blog.
2. Yes, I made it before and I make it again because you have yet to justify how you can make such contradictory claims.

That entire post typifies you through and through. I have made very reasonable attempts to answer you endless questions, and any independent person reading the 80+ posts to date would see that. But you're not here to get answers - you're here to nitpick. I'm not "running away" because I "don't like" your questions. I'm looking to end this discussion because you are either 1) incapable of processing what I'm saying (which I doubt) or 2) know exactly what I'm saying, but choose to ignore the points I make and keep repeating your arguments, which I have already addressed, and you then just add in a whole lot of hot air (e.g. "I started taking your points apart", "you have yet to justify how you can make such contradictory claims") and once again, any independent person bothered enough to read through this thread would see through that. I have also repeatedly said that you examine Islam as a whole by examining all the rules individually - and not by looking at confounded whole country data.

The ONE contradictory claim you refer to was a result of my usage of the word "formed" in response to you saying "non-Muslim sources", which I interpreted as non-Muslim data sources used to compare rules (the topic we had been discussing up until that point), as opposed to some rules themselves having non-Muslim sources (new topic you brought in, which I didn't immediately realise). I'm happy to take "formed" back and replace it with "teaches", as I already had done (leaving aside the big issue that just because a rule existed in a different culture in a different place, proving that it was the SOURCE of an Islamic teaching is a different matter, and then repeating that for every Islamic rule that you claim has a non-Muslim source). But I already explained all that and moved on back to the actual discussion we were having, but needless to say you ignored my previous explanation and are just going to cling on to that, and use it to say that everything else I have said is contradictory.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

1-2. My point has nothing to do with the differences between individuals/businesses and countries at all, so I don't know why you bring that up again. Interest compounding is also irrelevant as that is included in the profit that western banks make. My point is purely that Islamic banks make about as much profit as western banks. They cannot do that without somehow taking about as much money, above their initial investment, from people as western banks do. It doesn't matter what level we look at, be it personal, business or country loan level (not that many western banks lend to countries), that issue remains.

I keep bringing up the differences between individuals/businesses and countries because that has everything to do with your point. Your entire comparison is based on profits of western vs Islamic banks - profits that are based mostly on trading with individuals/businesses, but yet you think you can take that data and apply it to entire countries. Interest compounding is not irrelevant - it IS my point, because unlike an individual or businesses, countries are a lot more vulnerable to compounding interest, because a country has a LOT LOT more to give before it could go bankrupt. I have said that repeatedly, but you still fail to process (or ignore) that simple point, and this will be the last time I'll repeat it.

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

That entire post typifies you through and through. I have made very reasonable attempts to answer you endless questions, and any independent person reading the 80+ posts to date would see that. But you're not here to get answers - you're here to nitpick. I'm not "running away" because I "don't like" your questions. I'm looking to end this discussion because you are either 1) incapable of processing what I'm saying (which I doubt) or 2) know exactly what I'm saying, but choose to ignore the points I make and keep repeating your arguments, which I have already addressed, and you then just add in a whole lot of hot air (e.g. "I started taking your points apart", "you have yet to justify how you can make such contradictory claims") and once again, any independent person bothered enough to read through this thread would see through that.

I only have endless questions because nothing you have said is actually an answer, it's all hand waving away, some verbose and some abrupt, of my questions and my conclusions. It's not my fault nothing you have said in this thread makes any sense and if you really believe it does, then try bringing it into the A&A forum and see if anyone there can follow it.

confusedquark wrote: »

I have also repeatedly said that you examine Islam as a whole by examining all the rules individually - and not by looking at confounded whole country data.

The ONE contradictory claim you refer to was a result of my usage of the word "formed" in response to you saying "non-Muslim sources", which I interpreted as non-Muslim data sources used to compare rules (the topic we had been discussing up until that point), as opposed to some rules themselves having non-Muslim sources (new topic you brought in, which I didn't immediately realise). I'm happy to take "formed" back and replace it with "teaches", as I already had done (leaving aside the big issue that just because a rule existed in a different culture in a different place, proving that it was the SOURCE of an Islamic teaching is a different matter, and then repeating that for every Islamic rule that you claim has a non-Muslim source). But I already explained all that and moved on back to the actual discussion we were having, but needless to say you ignored my previous explanation and are just going to cling on to that, and use it to say that everything else I have said is contradictory.

What do you get if you examine all the rules individually? One group of nonsensical rules that apparently will only make sense and have a positive effect after we die (and therefore are completely unjustifiable if you don't already agree that there is an afterlife and those rules impact on it) and another group of rules that no country since the dawn of Islam (including the very first Islamic country set up by Muhammad himself) has ever actually consistently followed, never mind whether those rules have any positive effect or not. Think about it - not even the society set up by the prophet himself could be bothered to stick to those rules after he died. That is not a strong argument for them.

And the reason I ignored your previous explanation is because it has nothing to do with my original point. My original point was that Islam is superfluous to rules whose outcomes we can measure before we die (eg. don't drink alcohol). And that claim still stand regardless of whether your claim is that Islam was the source of those rules (pre-dating societies had them) or Islam just currently teaches them (whether or not people should drink alcohol has zero to do with Islam and Allah).

confusedquark wrote: »

I keep bringing up the differences between individuals/businesses and countries because that has everything to do with your point. Your entire comparison is based on profits of western vs Islamic banks - profits that are based mostly on trading with individuals/businesses, but yet you think you can take that data and apply it to entire countries. Interest compounding is not irrelevant - it IS my point, because unlike an individual or businesses, countries are a lot more vulnerable to compounding interest, because a country has a LOT LOT more to give before it could go bankrupt. I have said that repeatedly, but you still fail to process (or ignore) that simple point, and this will be the last time I'll repeat it.

And exactly where have I applied my comparison to countries? I just said that Islamic profits are on par with western profits. I didn't split up the sources of those profits into individual, business or country, I just said profits. If a muslim bank and western bank only lends to individuals, then they will each have about the same profits. Likewise if they both only lend to businesses. Or countries. Or some random (but equal) combination of the three.
Now, you did say before that Islamic banks probably wouldn't lend to third world countries, but, at your own admittance, that was because they couldn't guarantee their profits. Which doesn't contradict my point at all.

Just like I describe in my first paragraph, we are at a position were I can't even understand why you think your argument makes sense to you, never mind to me.

I am 100% genuine with all my questions. I have a personal reason for being here, for asking them - I want to believe, I need to believe, but I cannot just choose or pretend to believe. I have to be convinced and that means I need those questions answered.

Brown Bomber

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I stand by my point. "western countries still come out as better than muslim countries in peacefulness" =/= all western countries are more peaceful than even the most peaceful muslim country. Your argument is a strawman and if it continues to be a strawman,

So what you are actually saying is that some Western countries are more peaceful than some Muslim countries and therefore some Muslim countries are more "peaceful" than some Western countries.

What exactly is your point???

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Because all of those situations were perfectly peaceful before the west came around, with no homicidal dictators, genocide, terrorist warlords or anything like that.

And as we all know two wrongs always make a right.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Free markets, democracy and materialism are generic terms, not doctrines in of themselves. There are many different approaches and notions surrounding them, with no single version claiming divine infallibility.

And the variation (if any) is only of degree not of type.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Islam is a doctrine, it has one book describing it's rules with very little interpretation possible.

Or in other words the Muslim next door actually believes the same as the Taliban...beware!

Honestly, that is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in a long time. The "very little interpretation possible" only lasted for 4 Caliphs after Muhammed, so about 1,400 years ago.

Here is a good place to get you started on catching up on 1,400 years of "a lot of interpretation possible".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_schools_and_branches

Mark Hamill wrote: »

There is a forum for conspiracy theories, I'm pretty sure you are familiar with it.

-
Is there a forum for pathetic cop-outs? I am sure you will be familiar with it as this is surely an attempt to avoid answering a direct question.

Unfortunately Obama's personal kill list is not a "conspiracy theory"; it is the reality. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Is this the kind of "peacefulness" you talk of? The act of "peace" to have declared the entire globe as a battlefield and the right to kill whomever you want on a whim and without any trial or oversight?

So now that this is clear could we get back to the question you ducked? Can you name a single person on Obama's kill list that wasn't/Isn't a Muslim?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I did not measure the happiness, the World Happiness Report undertaken by the UN did. They did so by Gallup-polling people across more than 150 different countries. Gallup-polling>>>your anecdote.

And how "happy" would you be if you were dying of a curable illness in Tehran but couldn't get medicines because of the sanctions imposed due to a manufactured crisis?

How happy would you be if the last time you saw your father, who had never done anything in his life except herd goats, was 10 years ago when navy seals carried out a dawn raid on your home, shot your dog and kidnapped your father?

I don't know why I am bothering trying to explain this to you though, I get the impression that you support the Western crusades against Muslims as it is rationalising the savages, that when western forces are firing depleted uranium shells on villages you see this as a victory for "reason" tm.

It's like I said before, do you conclude that the indigenous blacks and coloureds living under apartheid were less "happy" -- as they must surely have been seeing as they were virtual slaves -- than their white rulers due to the inferiority of the `indigenous/black culture vs white/European culture?

Mark Hamill

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So what you are actually saying is that some Western countries are more peaceful than some Muslim countries and therefore some Muslim countries are more "peaceful" than some Western countries.

What exactly is your point???

No, that too is a poor strawman of the point I was making. Read the thread, my point is quite clear.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And as we all know two wrongs always make a right.

Again, read the thread, my point was quite clear (and clearly not that strawman).

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Or in other words the Muslim next door actually believes the same as the Taliban...beware!

This borderlines on racism, retract it.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Gibberish

The rest of your post is a mix of conspiracy theory nonsense, racist accusations (you assume that I must like the thought of muslims being killed because I am not one) and hysterical gibberish that clearly shows that you jumped into the thread without reading back beyond the last post or two.

I have run out of interest in engaging with your BS.

Brown Bomber

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This borderlines on racism, retract it.

It doesn't...so...no. Of course, I will if you can actually explain how it is racist.

I was simply calling you out on your asinine claim.

I'd forgotten about this this thread. I've just been reading about Eliot Rodgers, the virgin who went on a rampage in California and it reminded me of how happy is supposed to have been living his secular life in the capital of materialism with his Armani sunglasses, BMW and his movie premieries...

Mark Hamill

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It doesn't...so...no. Of course, I will if you can actually explain how it is racist.

My argument was that muslim counties are the least peaceful, happy and equal countries, while western countries are the most. Your counter argument was that there are some western countries less peaceful than some Muslim countries. I countered that by pointing out "the West" is not one homogeneous lump, western countries don't all aim to, or claim to, follow one doctrine, while Muslim countries do (i.e. the quran).
Now your argument is that I am comparing all Muslims to the Taliban and implying that all Muslims should be treated like the Taliban.

I have never mentioned the Taliban at all! I have only claimed (with plenty of evidence) that following Islam does not make a country more stable or it's people more happy or equal than a country which doesn't follow Islam. You see me, as a westerner, disagreeing with Islam, so you jump to me being biased towards all Muslims. Your point is obnoxiously racist, retract it.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'd forgotten about this this thread. I've just been reading about Eliot Rodgers, the virgin who went on a rampage in California and it reminded me of how happy is supposed to have been living his secular life in the capital of materialism with his Armani sunglasses, BMW and his movie premieries...

Really? You want to go there? You want to use a psychotic person's violent breakdown as a point, the only days after a pregnant Pakistani woman was stoned to death in a public honour killing by her own father and brothers, for falling in love with the wrong man? And just in case you want to claim that that was a unique incident, 720 honour killings were recorded in 2011 and 791 in 2010 in Pakistan.

Using atrocities performed by the mentally ill to point score is way the below this debate, not to mention argumentative suicide considering some of the societies you are defending.

Brown Bomber

Mark Hamill wrote: »

My argument was that muslim counties are the least peaceful, happy and equal countries, while western countries are the most. Your counter argument was that there are some western countries less peaceful than some Muslim countries. I countered that by pointing out "the West" is not one homogeneous lump, western countries don't all aim to, or claim to, follow one doctrine, while Muslim countries do (i.e. the quran).
Now your argument is that I am comparing all Muslims to the Taliban and implying that all Muslims should be treated like the Taliban.

1. I have already exposed your delusions that "Western states" are more peaceful.
2. I didn't pull the Taleban comment out of my hat. You said:

Islam is a doctrine, it has one book describing it's rules with very little interpretation possible.

Since Islam is a way of life and all Muslims by definition consider the Quran divine and by default follow it's teachings if "very little interpretation is possible" (complete nonsense) then it follows that "very little" differences between Muslims are "possible", Meaning there is, according to you, very little difference between the Taliban and your Muslim neighbour.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I have never mentioned the Taliban at all! I have only claimed (with plenty of evidence) that following Islam does not make a country more stable or it's people more happy or equal than a country which doesn't follow Islam. You see me, as a westerner, disagreeing with Islam, so you jump to me being biased towards all Muslims. Your point is obnoxiously racist, retract it.

Your accusation is obviously half baked. There is nothing to retract.

If you actually do think it is racist then you need to take a long, hard look in the mirror ar yourself.

Had it not occured to you that your hypothetical Muslim neighbour could just as easily be the same race as you, whatever that may be?

Sadly, probably not. It certainly appears that is an "us" and "them" struggle for you. I've just searched "Islam" in your posts and these comments are from a single, random page. Well I say "Islam" but it appears that you on principal refuse to capitalise both "Islam" and "Muslims". Is this due to a grammatical rule I am unaware of or is it on principle and an overt act of disrespect?

My emphasis. The linking to Muslims to car bombings due to offense is a blatant lie.

Its already happening in america, where, while you can say Jesus is addicted to porn and Vishnu takes cocaine (see South park) a word against Islam gets you death threats and car bombs. Its time to stand and tell muslims the reason they get to do the things they do in the West is because we allow it, not because they can get what they want.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66913645&postcount=281

Still on the same page, you spell out your Mein Kampfesque, 5th Column, Muslims under your bed conspiracy theory.

Well firstly, islam is for all intents and purpose a foreign power. Its power base is not in the west and its followers, regardless of nationality, hold Islamic leaders above the leaders of the country they live in.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66913194&postcount=276

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Really? You want to go there? You want to use a psychotic person's violent breakdown as a point, the only days after a pregnant Pakistani woman was stoned to death in a public honour killing by her own father and brothers, for falling in love with the wrong man? And just in case you want to claim that that was a unique incident, 720 honour killings were recorded in 2011 and 791 in 2010 in Pakistan.

Using atrocities performed by the mentally ill to point score is way the below this debate, not to mention argumentative suicide considering some of the societies you are defending.

"Mentally ill"? Ha! Forgive me, I forgot that only white people like this guy, Breivik, Loughner, the Unabomber etc get to be "mentally ill". Honor killings are tribal and un-Islamic. This will tie you in knots with your "very little interpretation possible" view but many fatwas have been issued against honor killings.

Now, there is a really important question you have been ducking some time which when answered can more or less wrap up this conversation.

Were blacks less "happy" than their white masters during Apartheid due to them having an inferior culture or could there possibly be more to it?

Brown Bomber

1. I have already exposed your delusions that "Western states" are more peaceful.
2. I didn't pull the Taleban comment out of my hat. You said:

Since Islam is a way of life and all Muslims by definition consider the Quran divine and by default follow it's teachings if "very little interpretation is possible" (complete nonsense) then it follows that "very little" differences between Muslims are "possible", Meaning there is, according to you, very little difference between the Taliban and your Muslim neighbour.


Your accusation is obviously half baked. There is nothing to retract.

If you actually do think it is racist then you need to take a long, hard look in the mirror ar yourself.

Had it not occured to you that your hypothetical Muslim neighbour could just as easily be the same race as you, whatever that may be?

Sadly, probably not. It certainly appears that is an "us" and "them" struggle for you. I've just searched "Islam" in your posts and these comments are from a single, random page. Well I say "Islam" but it appears that you on principal refuse to capitalise both "Islam" and "Muslims". Is this due to a grammatical rule I am unaware of or is it on principle and an overt act of disrespect?

My emphasis. The linking to Muslims to car bombings due to offense is a blatant lie.

Bend over to any over controlling, misoginystic rules and they will try to bring in more. Its already happening in america, where, while you can say Jesus is addicted to porn and Vishnu takes cocaine (see South park) a word against Islam gets you death threats and car bombs. Its time to stand and tell muslims the reason they get to do the things they do in the West is because we allow it, not because they can get what they want.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66913194&postcount=276

How kind it is of you to allow them some rights but not allow them equal rights in your West.

Still on the same page, you spell out your Mein Kampfesque, 5th Column, Muslims under your bed conspiracy theory.
Well firstly, islam is for all intents and purpose a foreign power. Its power base is not in the west and its followers, regardless of nationality, hold Islamic leaders above the leaders of the country they live in.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66913645&postcount=281

"Mentally ill"? Ha! Forgive me, I forgot that only white people like this guy, Breivik, Loughner, the Unabomber etc get to be "mentally ill". Honor killings are tribal and un-Islamic. This will tie you in knots with your "very little interpretation possible" view but many fatwas have been issued against honor killings.

Now, there is a really important question you have been ducking some time which when answered can more or less wrap up this conversation.

Were blacks less "happy" than their white masters during Apartheid due to them having an inferior culture or could there possibly be more to it?

Mark Hamill

Brown Bomber wrote: »

then it follows that "very little" differences between Muslims are "possible",

I'm not talking about people, I'm talking about countries. People are different, that's unavoidable. There is some variation in how strictly different Islamic countries follow the quran, but relative to western countries (which can be very different to each other) they are all quite similar in culture and values

Your knee jerk racial profiling of me is obnoxious.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

My emphasis. The linking to Muslims to car bombings due to offense is a blatant lie.


Still on the same page, you spell out your Mein Kampfesque, 5th Column, Muslims under your bed conspiracy theory.

Personally attacking me based on four-year old posts from a different forum? FFS, thats pathetic Brown Bomber, not least because your attacks fail horribly.
1) Those posts are in a different forum, and in that forum I capitalise no religion or religious follower-type. Of course, in this forum forum, I do capitalise both. Funny how you ignored that.
2) Those posts are mostly accurate, drawing Muhammad has resulted in violence in the past (at the time of those posts, an attempted car-bombing in Time Square had been initially linked to Muhammad appearing South Park).

BTW, should we inquire how many times you have been banned or infracted on that forum (the most lenient forum on this whole site) for your personal vendetta against westerners and non-muslims?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

"Mentally ill"? Ha! Forgive me, I forgot that only white people like this guy, Breivik, Loughner, the Unabomber etc get to be "mentally ill". Honor killings are tribal and un-Islamic. This will tie you in knots with your "very little interpretation possible" view but many fatwas have been issued against honor killings.

Where did I say that the honour killers weren't mentally ill? They obviously are crazy, they murdered (usually by stoning) their own children or siblings for being with people they disapproved of. Honour killings may be tribal and un-Islamic, but why is it then that its mainly (if not only) Muslim cultures that still seem rife with them? Could it be, like I've said all along, that Islam as a ruleset is actually pretty useless for making peaceful, happy and equal communities?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Now, there is a really important question you have been ducking some time which when answered can more or less wrap up this conversation.

Were blacks less "happy" than their white masters during Apartheid due to them having an inferior culture or could there possibly be more to it?

Wait, I thought you said that Muslims were actually happier than westerners, based on your incredibly subjective (and not-at-all made up) observations. But you are also implying that Muslim countries are less happy than western countries because they have (westerner, I assume) "masters"? Which is it?

///3power

ozzz wrote: »

Dear all,

I have one specific question that has been bothering me for quite some time now. Actually, I have many questions regarding Islam but this one has been at the back of my mind recently. Please note that I don't mean to offend anyone.

Is it just me or does Allah come across as a very angry being in the Koran and the hadith?

At day's end, according to Islam, it is He who created us. So why did He create humankind knowing that many of us were destined for hellfire for all of eternity?

For example: Hitler. Hitler slaughtered millions of innocent Jews, only for the Jews to end up going to hell ( for being non- Muslims) and also Hitler for obvious reasons. I mean it was a no- win situation, so why did Allah allow it? Didn't Hitler's mother seriously consider abortion ( I could very well be mistaken here)?

It's very early in the morning and my brain is fried. What I mean is: why create humans knowing that an extremely large proportion will taste hellfire for a very long time?

If Allah is so angered by sins such as not praying to him, not fasting during Ramadan, then why create the chance of punishing people who commit such sins?

Thanks.

1. to know Allah's attributes, search and read His 99 names in Islam.

2. Yes, indeed He did know man would corrupt the world. That we would be lead astray by evil - doing evil. It is up to every individual to change his/her destiny by fulfilling your purpose in life: to serve and worship your Creator and to submit to His will, with patience and gratefulness. At the end of the day, you don't belong to you. Nothing belongs to you. All mankind is capable of great evil and great good. He tells is which way to be - the rest is up to you and each individual will be held accountable.

3. Who said non-Muslims go to hell? Allah, glorified and exalted be He tells us may times in the Qur'an that true Jews, Christians and Sabiens will be shown mercy. They also believe in ONE God, which is the most important thing. Listen, everything you think you know about Islam is a lie....

4. Why Allah allowed hitler to kill? Why Allah created us in general knowing we would sin? Well, this is a deep question, but to try and sum it up. He gave us freewill, that means He is allowing us to do as we please for a short while in this life. This life isn't meant to be all rosy in the garden. Every one you have ever met and everyone you will ever meet, has in some way or other struggled with something. This life is but a short test. He is allowing us to do as we please for a term appointed. Already 1/3 of my life is done, and it feels like a few wet days. To the believer this world is a prison, to the non believer; it's paradise.

But you're right to feel like this burden of responsibility is too much. All the rest of creation (barring one exception) obey God and have no freewill. Life is easy for them. They don't feel any stress about hell. They just live and die, and God is pleased with them. Mankind though, on the other hand have a huge responsibility. If we fail, it's the hell fire. However, God has made it difficult to fail. All you gotta do is believe, be good and ask for forgiveness when you're not. He has shown us many signs. If you research Islam, you'll discover many real miracles found within the Qur'an. Also many of the things that happened with nations and prophets in the past can be confirmed, using modern scientific methods. Really, you need to acquire knowledge. The more you learn, the more faith you will have God willing.

Knowledge is key. The first word revealed in the Qur'an to the prophet Muhammad peace and blessings be upon him, was "READ". The most frequently used word in the Qur'an is Allah, the second is knowledge.

You need to read. When you know the truth life becomes so much more easy and filled with contentment. Obviously there are still challenges, things you need to stop doing and things you need to start. But when you take one step towards God, He taked 10 steps towards you. In other words, if you're sincere in wanting the truth, He will make it easy for you God willing. Btw i was raised as a Catholic.

If anything i said was wrong i seek forgiveness from Allah (SWT) and if anything i said was right, it was from His knowledge.