A clerical doctrine such as Christianity has no model

[Veritas Aequitas]

If you can model it then it's consistent.
If it's consistent then it's incomplete and incapable of self-contradiction.
Adaptation/growth/self-rectification requires negating past versions of yourself.
Self-negation is contradiction.
If Islam has a model then Islam necessarily undermines moral progress/evolution.

I find consistency highly desirable in a theory.

Concerning change, humanity has not changed genetically for 300 000 years. Our fundamental biological firmware has remained the same. Society may change but we essentially remain the same.

We will interpret the rules about right and wrong according to changing circumstances but we will keep using the same rules. These rules are hard coded into our biological firmware. They cannot be changed.

Yes, our fundamental biological firmware has remained the same for >300,000 years, this include the inherent moral functions and its potentials embedded within the DNA.

One example of inherent potential unfolding in time is that of the puberty function, as related to the individual, where it is dormant in the childhood period and unfold thereafter into "teen-hood" thence adulthood.

However, the dormant and inactive inherent moral functions and its potential unfold over time within the human species.
One of the inherent moral maxim was already encoded right from the start of the emergence of the human species, i.e.
'no human ought to kill humans'
but because of circumstances then, this moral potential could not be fully or highly unfolded.
Thus there had been killing of humans by humans and other violence till the present.

However, since 300K ago, the inherent moral potential with its maxim 'no human ought to kill humans' has been slowly unfolding in time to be more active.
This is evident, e.g.

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined is a 2011 book by Steven Pinker, in which the author argues that violence in the world has declined both in the long run and in the short run and suggests explanations as to why this has occurred.[1] The book uses data documenting declining violence across time and geography. This paints a picture of massive declines in the violence of all forms, from war, to improved treatment of children.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bette ... Our_Nature

We will interpret the rules about right and wrong according to changing circumstances but we will keep using the same rules. These rules are hard coded into our biological firmware. They cannot be changed.

Agree.
This is what the OT did with the Ten Commandments, i.e.
Thou Shall not Kill [Period!]
and then Christianity with its NT, i.e.
'love all, even enemies'.

However, Islam is ignorant of the inherent moral function and its potential, i.e.
"no humans ought to kill humans'
instead the immutable Quran issued an law [Q5:33] that believers can kill humans upon the slightest fasadan [threats to the religion].
As such, the ideology is inherently evil.

It is very unfortunate you've turned from good to evil in order to soothe your existential angst.

[godelian]

However, Islam is ignorant of the inherent moral function and its potential, i.e.
"no humans ought to kill humans"

You keep harping about the fact that the death penalty exists.
The death penalty exists in many moral systems and legal systems.

I personally don't care about that because in the end I do not engage in the misbehavior that is typically punished with the death penalty.

The fact that a system of rules mandates the death penalty does not make it inconsistent or contradictory. It also does not mean that it is not closed under logical consequence.

If a system mandates the death penalty, I am perfectly fine with the fact that it gets applied. You will find that people on death row will end up with their heads chopped off, and so what? Do you really think I care? Do you really think I give a flying fart? So, let me repeat to you, once and for all, that I simply don't give a flying fuck!

[Veritas Aequitas]

However, Islam is ignorant of the inherent moral function and its potential, i.e.
"no humans ought to kill humans"

You keep harping about the fact that the death penalty exists.
The death penalty exists in may moral systems and legal systems.

I personally don't care about that because in the end I do not engage in the misbehavior that is typically punished with the death penalty.

The fact that a system of rules mandates the death penalty does not make it inconsistent or contradictory. It also does not mean that it is not closed under logical consequence.

If a system mandates the death penalty, I am perfectly fine with the fact that it gets applied. You will find that people on death row will end up with their heads chopped off, and so what? Do you really think I care? Do you really think I give a flying fart? So, let me repeat to you, once and for all, that I simply don't give a flying fuck!

I simply don't give a flying fuck for your "I simply don't give a flying fuck!"

What is morality is independent from politics and its legal system.
A legal system may enacts and mandates the death penalty but the death penalty do not align with morality proper which is restricted the individual person.

You are ignorant of what is morality and more so morality-proper.
Morality is specifically attributed to the individual only and not a society like a legal system.
There is no such thing as a enacts and mandating the death penalty on oneself.
Whatever is moral must be presumed to be universal for all humans.
As such, the moral maxim in this case is 'no human ought to kill humans'.
Otherwise to the contrary, the maxim is 'humans can kill humans' where in this case, in principle will lead to terrible evils and the extermination of the human species.

That is what Islam is doing.
Islam is not advocating the death penalty in any legal way as a system, but permit individual-humans to take the 'law' into their own hands to kill non-believers which make it a very evil ideology.

It is very unfortunate you converted from a very good ideology to an evil ideology.

[godelian]

It is very unfortunate you converted from a very good ideology to an evil ideology.

You keep making the same category mistake over and over again. Good or evil apply to human behavior and not do their own definition. You somehow believe that you can apply one definition for good and evil to another one. You cannot. What you are trying to do, is simply not supported.

Furthermore, what you call a "very good ideology" is inconsistent, contradictory, and not even closed under logical consequence. I simply do not want to deal with the complete bullshit that has accumulated over the centuries in the Christian doctrine. That doctrine is suitable only for retarded imbeciles.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is very unfortunate you converted from a very good ideology to an evil ideology.

You keep making the same category mistake over and over again. Good or evil apply to human behavior and not do their own definition. You somehow believe that you can apply one definition for good and evil to another one. You cannot. What you are trying to do, is simply not supported.

Furthermore, what you call a "very good ideology" is inconsistent, contradictory, and not even closed under logical consequence. I simply do not want to deal with the complete bullshit that has accumulated over the centuries in the Christian doctrine. That doctrine is suitable only for retarded imbeciles.

I define 'evil' as:
What is evil is related to anything that has potentiality of fatality and is net-negative to the well-being and flourishing of the individuals and that of humanity.
I define morality as the management of evil to enable the emergence of the related good.

As such, an evil ideology one that motivates and permits its believers to commit terrible evils as defined above.
That the Quran as the constitution of Islam permit its believers* to kill believers upon the slightest fasadan [threats to the religion] is an evil ideology.
If only 0.1% of its believer are influenced and motivated by that, that is 15 million of them around the world and it took only 20+ [islamic terrorists] to do a 911.
It is generally accepted that 1% of the population are psychopaths.

That you do not condemn this aspect of the religion mean you are indirectly complicit to all the evils committed by its extremists.

The Concept of Evil
Since World War II, moral, political, and legal philosophers have become increasingly interested in the concept of evil. This interest has been partly motivated by ascriptions of ‘evil’ by laymen, social scientists, journalists, and politicians as they try to understand and respond to various atrocities and horrors, such as genocides, terrorist attacks, mass murders, and tortures and killing sprees by psychopathic serial killers. It seems that we cannot capture the moral significance of these actions and their perpetrators by calling them ‘wrong’ or ‘bad’ or even ‘very very wrong’ or ‘very very bad.’ We need the concept of evil.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/

It is very unfortunate you converted from a very good ideology to an evil ideology.

[godelian]

I define 'evil' as:
What is evil is related to anything that has potentiality of fatality and is net-negative to the well-being and flourishing of the individuals and that of humanity.

A moral system is a set of rules that qualifies particular human behavior as impermissible. All other behavior is permissible. Morality is essentially an axiomatic system that allows for the definition of an isMoral(behavior) predicate, which takes the description of a behavior as an argument and returns true or false. The morality of religion is essentially categorical. Your take on the matter is clearly hypothetical. It is incompatible with religion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I define 'evil' as:
What is evil is related to anything that has potentiality of fatality and is net-negative to the well-being and flourishing of the individuals and that of humanity.

A moral system is a set of rules that qualifies particular human behavior as impermissible. All other behavior is permissible. Morality is essentially an axiomatic system that allows for the definition of an isMoral(behavior) predicate, which takes the description of a behavior as an argument and returns true or false. The morality of religion is essentially categorical. Your take on the matter is clearly hypothetical. It is incompatible with religion.

Again, your philosophical knowledge is shallow, narrow and bankrupt.

As universally evident, a moral system is targeted to manage evil and good.
Whatever is evil is defined as above.
A moral system is not essentially axiomatic but fundamentally based on universal moral principles that guides moral axioms.

Whatever is morality within any theistic religion is merely pseudo-morality because it is not universal since every theistic religion has its own unique set of moral axioms grounded on an illusory God but without universal moral principles.
For example, Islam as a maxim that permit believers to kill non-believers upon the slightest fasadan, and there is nothing to stop certain evil prone believers to commit such a maxim to please God.

Pickthall: O ye who believe! Take not for intimates others than your own folk, who would spare no pains to ruin you; they love to hamper you. Hatred is revealed by (the utterance of) their mouths, but that which their breasts hide is greater. We have made plain for you the revelations if ye will understand.Q3:118

O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you taketh them for friends, such are wrong-doers. Q9:23

The above are merely two among the many hundreds similar verses that promote antagonism and hate towards disbelievers [Kafirs].

What [WTF] sort of 'morality' is that if the above are to be categorical? How can that be universal?

[godelian]

Whatever is morality within any theistic religion is merely pseudo-morality because it is not universal

Each religion has its own definition of morality. Morality cannot be universal because religion is not universal either. There is competition between religions.

[Belinda]

That's a bug, not a feature.

If you can model it then it's consistent.
If it's consistent then it's incomplete and incapable of self-contradiction.

Adaptation/growth/self-rectification requires negating past versions of yourself.

Self-negation is contradiction.

If Islam has a model then Islam necessarily undermines moral progress/evolution.

It is generally believed that the gate of ijtihad (i.e., the derivation of laws through a specialized process of legal reasoning) was closed at the beginning of the fourth/tenth century and that this closure was sanctioned by the irrevocable consensus of Muslim scholars.

It seems then that Islam was more adaptable to novel situations before the fourth/tenth century After that event Islam has had a rigid model.

As Skepdick notes, it's a strength to adapt to events. However adaptation does not mean universal tolerance. Christian practice is checked and balanced by the moving icon of Jesus.

Yes, it is checked, i.e. Christianity has an overriding moral maxim, i.e. "love all even enemies" and various Christ's Law within Mathew 5-7.
The above mean a Christian CANNOT kill and commit violence on humans till eternity.

The operation of the above moral is such that any Christian who'd killed humans would have sinned against God's Law.
However, it does not mean Christians cannot kill. If Christians has to kill humans, that is purely on their own account, not Christianity's.
If the killing of humans is for the greater good of the religion [e.g. crusades and others], then they are at the mercy of God to grant forgiveness with grace.

Islam on the other hand, re Q5:33 and loads of other verses indicate God permits and sanctions believers to kill non-believers upon the slightest threats [fasadan] to the religion. This is so evident where non-believers are killed for even drawing cartoons, critique of the religion and being accused of blasphemy.
The ideology is modelled to be very evil laden.
The problem is the term 'fasadan' threat to the religions is VERY loose and thus anything that do not feel good to a Muslim [even disbelieving by infidels] is fasadan and that is why violence and killing in the name of Islam is so prevalent.

Muhammad was laying down the law for the benefit of his own peoples, which is what a politician does. Muslims are forbidden to idolise anything that is not Allah, so to idolise a holy book or a holy prophet is wrong. Non-Trinitarian Christians have more in common with Islam that have Trinitarians.
Islamists confuse the Muhammad of history with the the Muhammad of legend and tradition.Much of the Koran is good and relevant today. It's not very difficult to pick out the helpful bits and leave aside the divisive bits ,from the book as a whole.

[promethean75]

However, if an Allah exists, what is morally good would be a fact universally despite whether or not anyone knew what that moral good was.

And of course Allah would be facing the Euthyphro dilemma just like any other alpha boss god.

With these things in mind, you couldn't base a morality off of this stuff anyway. You can't go to a religious book for moral guidance because for all you know, you might be doing it wrong. Maybe you should be confessing in a catholic church or beheading infidels or fasting on Wednesdays or eating kosher food or collecting usury.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Whatever is morality within any theistic religion is merely pseudo-morality because it is not universal

Each religion has its own definition of morality. Morality cannot be universal because religion is not universal either. There is competition between religions.

This is why I claim you have very shallow, narrow and bankrupt philosophical views.

Note the various contentious issues within Morality:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaethics

Metaethical questions
Moral semantics

Cognitivist theories
Moral realism
Ethical subjectivism
Error theory
Non-cognitivist theories
Centralism and non-centralism
Moral ontology

Moral universalism
Moral relativism
Moral nihilism
Moral epistemology

Moral knowledge gained by inference
Empiricism
Moral rationalism
Ethical intuitionism
Moral skepticism

Both Christianity and Islam claim [without rational justifications, merely based on blind faith] their morality as delivered by God is universal and applicable to all humans.
From a rational and critical-thinking perspective, theistic morality cannot be universal, thus they are pseudo-morality.

Morality-proper as argued rationally is universal to all humans just as human metabolic or fundamental human nature is universal to all humans.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is generally believed that the gate of ijtihad (i.e., the derivation of laws through a specialized process of legal reasoning) was closed at the beginning of the fourth/tenth century and that this closure was sanctioned by the irrevocable consensus of Muslim scholars.

It seems then that Islam was more adaptable to novel situations before the fourth/tenth century After that event Islam has had a rigid model.

As Skepdick notes, it's a strength to adapt to events. However adaptation does not mean universal tolerance. Christian practice is checked and balanced by the moving icon of Jesus.

Yes, it is checked, i.e. Christianity has an overriding moral maxim, i.e. "love all even enemies" and various Christ's Law within Mathew 5-7.
The above mean a Christian CANNOT kill and commit violence on humans till eternity.

The operation of the above moral is such that any Christian who'd killed humans would have sinned against God's Law.
However, it does not mean Christians cannot kill. If Christians has to kill humans, that is purely on their own account, not Christianity's.
If the killing of humans is for the greater good of the religion [e.g. crusades and others], then they are at the mercy of God to grant forgiveness with grace.

Islam on the other hand, re Q5:33 and loads of other verses indicate God permits and sanctions believers to kill non-believers upon the slightest threats [fasadan] to the religion. This is so evident where non-believers are killed for even drawing cartoons, critique of the religion and being accused of blasphemy.
The ideology is modelled to be very evil laden.
The problem is the term 'fasadan' threat to the religions is VERY loose and thus anything that do not feel good to a Muslim [even disbelieving by infidels] is fasadan and that is why violence and killing in the name of Islam is so prevalent.

Muhammad was laying down the law for the benefit of his own peoples, which is what a politician does. Muslims are forbidden to idolise anything that is not Allah, so to idolise a holy book or a holy prophet is wrong. Non-Trinitarian Christians have more in common with Islam that have Trinitarians.
Islamists confuse the Muhammad of history with the the Muhammad of legend and tradition.Much of the Koran is good and relevant today. It's not very difficult to pick out the helpful bits and leave aside the divisive bits ,from the book as a whole.

You are not applying reasonable intellectuality, rationality and critical thinking to the above issues.

To qualify as a Muslim, a believer must enter into a covenant [divine contract] with God, see:
Covenant Theology of Islam
viewtopic.php?t=43387
there is no way you can counter this point.

Since Muslims are in a contractual agreement with God, they have to comply fully with the terms of the divine contract [covenant].
The terms of the divine contract is solely stipulated within the Quran only [no where else].
Surely you will not dispute this, i.e. the necessary essential 'terms of contract' within any contract.

Once being a party to a contract [divine] a Muslim cannot pick and choose which terms of contracts [within the Quran] they will comply with.
The provision is one must comply fully with the terms of the contract to one's best ability, but if one is unfit for war as sanctioned, then there is no obligation to go to the war-front, perhaps assist in administrative work.

Now, within the terms of the contract, a Muslim is contractually bound to comply with e.g. Q5:33 upon the existence of the fasadan [threat to the religion].
A Religion of Fear
viewtopic.php?t=43435
if not, the believer would have sinned and risk going to Hell or not assured of eternal life.

It is obvious [via normal distribution] the majority of believers being humans will not comply to kill non-believers upon the slightest threat despite the threat [just be an ostrich] of hell, BUT the reality is even if 0.1% of believers were to comply, that is a whopping 15 million of them around the world, it only took 20+ to do a 911.

Note the recent "2024 Southport stabbing", that was the work of a true believer in complying with Q5:33 since disbelieving and disbelievers are a threat to the religion.
He is sentenced to 52 years in jail but will God punished him since he complied with God's command.

You need to apply reasonable intellectuality, rationality and critical thinking to the above issues to critique accordingly, else being an apologist for TROP meant the collective of your kind is condoning the underlying evils to fester.

[godelian]

This is why I claim you have very shallow, narrow and bankrupt philosophical views.

Well, that seems to be what everybody else claims about you. So, this is definitely a case of projection.

Both Christianity and Islam claim [without rational justifications, merely based on blind faith] their morality as delivered by God is universal and applicable to all humans.

You clearly don't know what you are talking about. The Islamic perspective on the matter has always been that it is Jewish law that applies to Jews and not Islamic law.

ChatGPT: Do Jews have their own Jewish courts in an Islamic state?

Yes, historically, Jews living in Islamic states often had their own Jewish courts (Beth Din) that handled internal legal matters, especially those related to religious and personal affairs. However, the extent of their autonomy varied depending on the time, place, and ruling authority.
Jewish Courts in Islamic States

Autonomy in Personal and Religious Matters

Jewish communities were generally allowed to govern themselves in matters of marriage, divorce, inheritance, and religious observance.
Jewish courts (Beth Din) functioned under the authority of the community’s religious leaders, such as rabbis or dayanim (Jewish judges).

Morality-proper as argued rationally is universal to all humans just as human metabolic or fundamental human nature is universal to all humans.

Where is that "morality-proper" even documented? Nobody wants that kind of undocumented moral law. You are a dangerous idiot.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This is why I claim you have very shallow, narrow and bankrupt philosophical views.

Well, that seems to be what everybody else claims about you. So, this is definitely a case of projection.

I showed you evidence.
You have not taken into the fully the discussions within Meta-Ethics and the contentious issues therein.

Show me justifications my views [in this case, Morality and Ethics] are narrow and shallow.

Both Christianity and Islam claim [without rational justifications, merely based on blind faith] their morality as delivered by God is universal and applicable to all humans.

You clearly don't know what you are talking about. The Islamic perspective on the matter has always been that it is Jewish law that applies to Jews and not Islamic law.

ChatGPT: Do Jews have their own Jewish courts in an Islamic state?

Yes, historically, Jews living in Islamic states often had their own Jewish courts (Beth Din) that handled internal legal matters, especially those related to religious and personal affairs. However, the extent of their autonomy varied depending on the time, place, and ruling authority.
Jewish Courts in Islamic States

Autonomy in Personal and Religious Matters

Jewish communities were generally allowed to govern themselves in matters of marriage, divorce, inheritance, and religious observance.
Jewish courts (Beth Din) functioned under the authority of the community’s religious leaders, such as rabbis or dayanim (Jewish judges).

Above is a strawman.
Both Christianity and Islam claim [without rational justifications, merely based on blind faith] their specific morality as delivered by God is universal and applicable to all humans.

While there were Jews practicing their own laws based on various circumstances, Muslims by default claim their Islamic Law is overriding and universal and some will kill all Jews [as a threat to Islam] if possible.
Muslims [some] had been killing Jews since the beginning to the present based on their own universal Islamic laws from their God.

Morality-proper as argued rationally is universal to all humans just as human metabolic or fundamental human nature is universal to all humans.

Where is that "morality-proper" even documented? Nobody wants that kind of undocumented moral law. You are a dangerous idiot.

You're are a dangerous idiot grasping on an evil ideology permitting the killing of non-believers upon the slightest fasadan [threats against the religion].

Christianity and many religions with an overriding pacifist maxim are practicing 'morality-proper' on those aspects [not in totality].

The The United Nations (UN) Slavery Convention is an example of morality-proper in practice in one aspect.

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is also an aspect of Morality-proper.

[godelian]

Above is a strawman.
Both Christianity and Islam claim [without rational justifications, merely based on blind faith] their specific morality as delivered by God is universal and applicable to all humans.

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. There is no claim that Islamic law would be applicable to Jews or Christians.

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is also an aspect of Morality-proper.

This UN declaration does not overrule religion in any way. The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam clearly points that out.