Some today posts, and The Source of Ethics: Man or Someone Else ?

Today I have made two comments on a post, you also read.

Modernists are still better, otherwise non-modernism is said to be a characteristic of Abu Jahl, and the common Muslim of today has every characteristic that was present in Abu Jahl. Abu Jahl was also very sure of the truth of his religion.

Doubts and atheists have always been and always will be. Abu Jahl was neither a skeptic nor an atheist, but he believed in God, who was nevertheless killed.

Doubt and atheism always present aspects of progressivism and innovation, and both were not present in Abu Jahl, who, like the Muslims, believed in religious traditions as true, and was against the modernists of his time. Basically, you are the trustee of the intellectual tradition of Abu Jahl, not the tradition of Anjanab.

This comment was raised by a brother.

Abu Jahl believed in God?

To which god

Is it the same God whom the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to preach?

What good is a web site if it simply "blends in" with everything else out there? "

My answer was this.

Did Abu Jahl and Anjab believe in two different gods? That is, God is not one but two?

Jews, Christians and others have different ideas about the rest of God. But having different ideas about God doesn't make God two, four or six.

The concept of God that Abu Jahl believed in was inherited by him, just as you or anyone else inherited the concept of God. In it, Abu Jahl was convinced of his concept of God, just as you are convinced of the concept of God borrowed from inheritance. Now Abu Jahl is wrong and how did you become right?

As far as idolatry is concerned, Hindus are now close to one billion. Even God's efforts did not eliminate idolatry. The Islamic God tried very hard, he himself used to throw stones at the polytheists in wars, but what spoiled them, nothing.

A man from St. Augustine asked, "What was God doing before he created the world?"

Augustine said it was hell for those who asked such questions.

I never discuss politics in my private gatherings, but touch on scientific and intellectual topics. This is because most people start with the affirmation of phenomena, while we start with the negation of phenomena. The act of negation is the first rational action. While the affirmation of phenomena is limited to sensory or comprehension only. They begin in affirmation, while our affirmation lasts, when we have reached the essence of phenomena. The whole process of reaching the essence depends on the rational activity.

 

The Source of Ethics: Man or Someone Else?

Pushing the deity out of the human being and then considering this deity as the source of morality and laying the foundation of morality on it, falls under the category of immorality under the concept of modern philosophy and human centrality and rational references. Every morality in which the deity is the central reference, and the morality that has reached man through the deity is immoral. Where there is no centrality of man, there is only alienation, alienation of man from himself, from his human status. There is no rational justification for the deity and its centrality in modern philosophy.

The intellect belongs to man, not to God. That is why the great Aristotle laid the foundations of his book "Ethics" twenty-four hundred years ago on the basis of reason. What could be more immoral than to first deport or decentralize man as a human being, and to replace him with a deity, and then to teach man morality through this deity? If man can acquire and practice false morality through the medium of God, then why can't he practice real morality on the basis of his own centrality? It must be borne in mind that the centrality of the deity can never be the basis of morality; Man's direct relationship with man is moral, and through God or someone else, is immoral.