The greatest human tragedy of all time

[Askthepizzaguy]

The Al-Azhar University in Cairo has issued several fatwas endorsing FGC, in 1949, 1951 and 1981.

Mouzafphaerre, do you know anything about these fatwas, or can you refute their existence?

I am only quoting from semi-reliable sources, so I would be happy to be proven wrong again. I have no real dog in this fight, I want the truth to prevail. Is it not true that some shieks and some religious universities advocate this practice, claiming it to be in the name of Islam?

Thank you for your patience in helping me unravel this mystery.

[Mouzafphaerre]

Mouzafphaerre, do you know anything about these fatwas, or can you refute their existence?

I am only quoting from semi-reliable sources, so I would be happy to be proven wrong again. I have no real dog in this fight, I want the truth to prevail. Is it not true that some shieks and some religious universities advocate this practice, claiming it to be in the name of Islam?

Thank you for your patience in helping me unravel this mystery.

.
A fatwa is simply an answer to a question given by a supposedly knowing person. It's nothing like a papal verdict or something of sorts. You may take it granted (as the clit butchers do) or don't give a cr@p (as I do).

In most cases, the responders are surprisingly naïve scholars who have no interest whatsoever of the intentions of the questioner, who knows the cunning ways of providing a "religious reference" for whatever he's aiming to do, most of the time simple tax frauds or the like. However, in such an abominable and clearly un-Islamic act of violence, the issuers of the fatwas I deem equally responsible and guilty with those who do the vile act themselves.

As a side note, I don't necessarily care what El-Ezher has to say in most matters. It's been a long time since it lost its value as a pure school of knowledge and became a tool of dignifying the corrupt state and community of Egypt.

ADD. Apparently they are attempting to rest their case on the fact that Islam doesn't prohibit any act or habit, personal or traditional, which is not contradicting its own laws. However, the very preservation of human body, which is deemed a "temple", is one of the most important laws of the religion itself. The clit-cutting is carried on to rob the woman off her sexual pleasure and based on the delusion that her desire for sexual relation originated from the clit. (That delusion must have been semi-universal in some point in time. See the history of the word hysteria). That insolent and dishonourable man, apparently of the Ezher, I heard on the NGC documentary, advocated clit-cutting on that very basis, ie women without clits would be less willing and seductive and that "the western community wihout morals would take much advantage of the practice, if adopted, saving them from being seduced by their women" or some sort of nonsense.

Depriving a woman (or man, for that matter) from her/his potential of achieving sexual pleasure can only be called "Zulm ― ظلم" in Islamic terms and it's God's own word that لعنة الله علی الظالمين. Hth
.

[Mangudai]

Family Values


Family values have incited far more violence than religion. Think of all the wars of succession, all the revenge killings, etc.

It is not sufficient to abolish that opiate of the masses called religion. To create a better society we must abolish the institution of family. Children should address all proletarians as brother and sister, and have greater loyalty to the state than to their own parents. This is inevitable, the march of history is on our side comrades.


(for the sarcastically impaired, this is a joke)

[CountArach]

Family Values


Family values have incited far more violence than religion. Think of all the wars of succession, all the revenge killings, etc.

It is not sufficient to abolish that opiate of the masses called religion. To create a better society we must abolish the institution of family. Children should address all proletarians as brother and sister, and have greater loyalty to the state than to their own parents. This is inevitable, the march of history is on our side comrades.


(for the sarcastically impaired, this is a joke)

Awww :( I was bobbing my head excitedly

[seireikhaan]

I feel that arguing in favor of a flaw which humanity inherently is(aka, self-righteousness) a rather impractical answer to this question. If we as humans have a virtue or vice which is near universally uncontrollable, than I cannot call it a "tragedy" so much as a fact. Tragedy revolves around the idea that there should be a far more honest, appealing opportunity cost. In the case of a natural human vice, we should instead proclaim the few who conquer it, rather than lamenting the 99% who fail at it.

So, for me, I would say it is, in fact, not an event so much as a person.

I would say it is Pope Leo I, otherwise known as Pope Leo the Great. He is famous for having "peaceably coerced" Attila the Hun from attacking Rome. I am not going to debate what actual means he used to do so.

However, in a time of political upheaval, he showed the strength and courage to "turn back" the scourge of God, and so, singlehandedly placing the Papacy in a position to fill the power void that was soon to overtake much of western Europe. This would eventually lead to the loss of innumerable people to the wars and "evangelization" that would take place in the name of God. Religion taking centerpiece in World politics was disastrous, not only causing the loss of life, but the loss of the way of Christ in so many more.

Religion intermingling with politics doesn't just affect policy; its power corrupts religion, twisting and distorting it for its own gains.

[Hax]

Organized religion.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Organized unreligion
.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

.
A fatwa is simply an answer to a question given by a supposedly knowing person. It's nothing like a papal verdict or something of sorts. You may take it granted (as the clit butchers do) or don't give a cr@p (as I do).

In most cases, the responders are surprisingly naïve scholars who have no interest whatsoever of the intentions of the questioner, who knows the cunning ways of providing a "religious reference" for whatever he's aiming to do, most of the time simple tax frauds or the like. However, in such an abominable and clearly un-Islamic act of violence, the issuers of the fatwas I deem equally responsible and guilty with those who do the vile act themselves.

As a side note, I don't necessarily care what El-Ezher has to say in most matters. It's been a long time since it lost its value as a pure school of knowledge and became a tool of dignifying the corrupt state and community of Egypt.

ADD. Apparently they are attempting to rest their case on the fact that Islam doesn't prohibit any act or habit, personal or traditional, which is not contradicting its own laws. However, the very preservation of human body, which is deemed a "temple", is one of the most important laws of the religion itself. The clit-cutting is carried on to rob the woman off her sexual pleasure and based on the delusion that her desire for sexual relation originated from the clit. (That delusion must have been semi-universal in some point in time. See the history of the word hysteria). That insolent and dishonourable man, apparently of the Ezher, I heard on the NGC documentary, advocated clit-cutting on that very basis, ie women without clits would be less willing and seductive and that "the western community wihout morals would take much advantage of the practice, if adopted, saving them from being seduced by their women" or some sort of nonsense.

Depriving a woman (or man, for that matter) from her/his potential of achieving sexual pleasure can only be called "Zulm ― ظلم" in Islamic terms and it's God's own word that لعنة الله علی الظالمين. Hth
.

I thank you for your insightful, and well-reasoned, response to this question regarding the barbaric practice of female genital mutilation, and how it does/not pertain to your faith.

In this case it seems a small minority or extremists have added this ancient pre-Islamic practice to the current religion, and that it is not the fault of Islam.

[Strike For The South]

What is truth? You yourself was just corrected in this thread although earlier you put your argument forth as the goods honest truth when in fact it was not. The fact of the matter is there really are no absolute "truths" You can sit here and scream all you want about the ignorant and blind but at the end of the day you are just the same as them. One can blindly follow rational thought as well. Just because he has many other distinguished men agreeing with him does not make him right or his point more valid. He may think it does but it doesn't. There are 2 "truths" for everyone

We are born
We die

So one can rally against the injustices one sees real or not one can muse over the days news and propagate theories and thoughts but at the end of the day we all croak and that is why I love tragedy because for every death there is birth and for every heart broken there is another mended. So you may have your ideals of some type of perfect utopian society. Where everyone is rational (as if smart men don't make dumb choices) While I'll work with what I've got.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

What is truth? You yourself was just corrected in this thread although earlier you put your argument forth as the goods honest truth when in fact it was not. The fact of the matter is there really are no absolute "truths" You can sit here and scream all you want about the ignorant and blind but at the end of the day you are just the same as them. One can blindly follow rational thought as well. Just because he has many other distinguished men agreeing with him does not make him right or his point more valid. He may think it does but it doesn't. There are 2 "truths" for everyone

We are born
We die

So one can rally against the injustices one sees real or not one can muse over the days news and propagate theories and thoughts but at the end of the day we all croak and that is why I love tragedy because for every death there is birth and for every heart broken there is another mended. So you may have your ideals of some type of perfect utopian society. Where everyone is rational (as if smart men don't make dumb choices) While I'll work with what I've got.

What is truth?

Truth is the condition or property of being real and verifiable. Something which is not merely opinion, and has objective value, whether you happen to agree with it or not.

You yourself was just corrected in this thread although earlier you put your argument forth as the goods honest truth when in fact it was not.

Incorrect, I put forth an opinion. My belief that ignorance and blind faith was the wrong path. When I was corrected about a bit of information I presented, I immediately corrected it and apologised. This is entirely consistent with what I preach.

If I claimed I was the fountain of truth, that would make me both a hypocrite and a baboon.

The fact of the matter is there really are no absolute "truths"

You put forward as fact, rather than opinion, that there is no such thing as truth. Which would make your claim to be an assertion of truth.

Therefore, you are contradicting yourself in one breath. It is much like saying "This statement is false." It's bad logic.

One can blindly follow rational thought as well.

One can blindly obey the traffic laws and not veer into a telephone pole. Of course, understanding why we have traffic laws would be better, but rational thought is not something we should be condemning.

That is like arguing that we should all jab ice picks into our brains and scramble them around, because irrational thought would be somehow superior to rational thought.

Just because he has many other distinguished men agreeing with him does not make him right or his point more valid.

No, argument from popularity is bad logic, I agree. That is why I never cite how many people agree with me when I argue. I also don't argue from authority, because no one is the ultimate authority on reasoning.

But just because I have people who agree with me, that does not make my points less valid either. The two concepts have nothing to do with one another.

So one can rally against the injustices one sees real or not one can muse over the days news and propagate theories and thoughts but at the end of the day we all croak and that is why I love tragedy because for every death there is birth and for every heart broken there is another mended.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you are basically arguing that it is pointless to argue. That railing against ignorance and injustice is futile, in spite of the historical facts of imperialism, of slavery, of dangerous cults, destructive superstitions, genocides, and holy wars. That in the end, we will all die anyway, so what is the point?

I disagree. I feel that minds are worth saving, and that if it is pointless to argue and present an opinion, it is equally pointless to tell people such a thing.

Where everyone is rational (as if smart men don't make dumb choices) While I'll work with what I've got.

I do not expect a world free of error or emotion or ignorance. Because the world can never be perfect, that is no reason why it cannot be improved.

I highly doubt that we can reach 100% literacy and 100% immunity from disease either, but isn't working towards that ideal better than sitting around waiting for death?

I will work with the knowledge I have, and by freely exchanging that knowledge with others, comparing ideas, and acknowledging my own errors, I will educate and enlighten myself and expand my mind, while contributing in my own small way to the advancement of society. I disagree that it is futile to do so, and I disagree that it is irrational to attempt to be rational. I don't believe in futility, in irrationalism, in nihilism.

At the same time, I don't begrudge you your disagreement with me. It's not out of hostility that I oppose your viewpoint, but out of what meager experience and reason that I have. And if you truly believe what you say, you'll acknowledge that it is pointless to debate the issue, because there is no truth greater than whatever you believe.

I oppose that entire concept, as politely as I can. But I appreciate the debate.

[Strike For The South]

Im talking more along the lines of social truths. Expecting everyone to act rational and let go of the ignorance will never happen because one mans rationality IS another mans ignorance . You debated Mouz about female circumcision you believed your position to be true you posted links backing your truth. Then Mouz posted links proving you wrong if he had never shown up that would've been taken by everyone who views this thread as true and be seen as a cornerstone of the war against ignorance. Am I saying there are no wrongs in the world? No. What I am saying is that we have to respect what we believe is ignorant because many times they view us same way.

I think therefore I am.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Im talking more along the lines of social truths. Expecting everyone to act rational and let go of the ignorance will never happen because one mans rationality IS another mans ignorance . You debated Mouz about female circumcision you believed your position to be true you posted links backing your truth. Then Mouz posted links proving you wrong if he had never shown up that would've been taken by everyone who views this thread as true and be seen as a cornerstone of the war against ignorance. Am I saying there are no wrongs in the world? No. What I am saying is that we have to respect what we believe is ignorant because many times they view us same way.

I think therefore I am.

Im talking more along the lines of social truths.

To what are you referring? Religious, philosophical, or cultural differences? Socially-constructed truths?

These are opinions, albeit held by the masses. One's opinion can accept truth, but cannot dictate it. The same is true for the masses. While a million people can hold an opinion and vote that a minority does not deserve basic human rights, that does not make it so. That could make it societal law, but law and truth are not equal. That is why societal opinions change over time, old traditions die out, and laws get overturned.

Socially constructed truths are not truths at all, in my opinion. They are merely common assumptions.

Expecting everyone to act rational and let go of the ignorance will never happen because one mans rationality IS another mans ignorance

You are correct that expecting everyone to behave rationally is too optimistic, however, a person's opinion does not dictate truth. If one persons' rationality is derived from scientific, observable, quantifiable, definable truth, and another person's rationality is derived from rumor or superstition or utter fabrication, one is more likely to be credible than the other.

I agree that one person may hold something to be rational truth and yet remain ignorant, but it is not so simple to just say that everyone has an opinion and none are more valid than the others.

Science is based on the idea that evidenciary support, observable, testable results, and predictability are good models for forming rational theories. It is better to construct one's argument based in logic and reason and observation than simply opine about a thing and declare one's opinion to be as valid as everyone else's.

Were that the case, there would be no such thing as laws, or science, or mathematics, or facts. Or knowledge in general, for that matter. Everything would be an opinion. There would be no societal progress whatsoever if everyone simply believed that everything is irrational opinion, and there are no greater truths.

You debated Mouz about female circumcision you believed your position to be true you posted links backing your truth. Then Mouz posted links proving you wrong if he had never shown up that would've been taken by everyone who views this thread as true and be seen as a cornerstone of the war against ignorance.

And through the exchange of information, my own ignorance about the subject was reversed, and for the betterment of everyone involved in the conversation, the truth was revealed. Through the fires of debate and public exchange, bad ideas and falsehoods are destroyed and better ideas and more verifiable data is forged.

This is an example of the very thing I advocate. I don't see my ignorance about a bit of knowledge to be an irreparable failure or a weakness in my ideology, unless I stubbornly chose to remain ignorant and refused to concede. That would be hypocritical.

One of the reasons I don't just sit down and publish a book of my opinions is because my opinions are constantly changing and being updated to reflect the facts, as I combat my own ignorance. Posting here publicly gives me safeguards against my own weaknesses, because I am tapping into the knowledge of others.

The combined might of the knowledge of all of us, together, can defeat most forms of ignorance. Rather than disproving my point, this exchange further reinforces the assumption that what I am doing is rational and correct, and that the system is working. Eventually someone would have corrected that error, and that is why I subscribe to the theory that sitting down and shutting up never got anyone anywhere. Free exchange of ideas and knowledge helps reverse ignorance, while not entirely eliminating it.

If your point was, the advocate for the elimination of ignorance is both ignorant and fighting a hopeless battle, then you are correct.

However, I am acting to combat mine and others' ignorance, and that is not a hopeless battle. We're making progress right here, right now. And coming close to our ideal is the goal, even if the ideal is unattainable. Therefore the war may never be over, but it can be won.

To vastly improve the public consciousness and elevate literacy and reason to it's very highest level, to stamp out most forms of prejudice, superstition, blind hatred, and irrationalism; that is a noble goal, and while not totally attainable, it is absolutely partially attainable. Every step forward we make is a victory.

Am I saying there are no wrongs in the world? No. What I am saying is that we have to respect what we believe is ignorant because many times they view us same way.

I respect people, but I do not respect ideas. Ideas prove their worth by being tested against what is real, and against other ideas. The ones which fail get thrown away. But an idea is not worthy of respect unless it becomes proven fact.

For example, the idea that Jews are an inferior sub-human race might be an "idea", but that does not deem it worthy of respect in my view. I do not automatically give respect to ideas. Ignorance in and of itself is not worthy of respect. People, in spite of their ignorance, are worth far more than ideas, and should have their human rights and dignity respected.

I may choose to be polite to those who hold an ideology I staunchly oppose, but my ideas will be at odds with theirs and the ideas will "fight to the death" until the strongest one wins. At the same time, I will respect my opponent for the oppurtunity to grow and learn.

So, in summary, I disagree that we have to respect bad ideas. We just should respect one another.

I think therefore I am

And as long as we all keep thinking, we all shall be. And we all shall be better, too.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Im talking more along the lines of social truths. Expecting everyone to act rational and let go of the ignorance will never happen because one mans rationality IS another mans ignorance . You debated Mouz about female circumcision you believed your position to be true you posted links backing your truth. Then Mouz posted links proving you wrong if he had never shown up that would've been taken by everyone who views this thread as true and be seen as a cornerstone of the war against ignorance. Am I saying there are no wrongs in the world? No. What I am saying is that we have to respect what we believe is ignorant because many times they view us same way.

I think therefore I am.

Im talking more along the lines of social truths.

To what are you referring? Religious, philosophical, or cultural differences? Socially-constructed truths?

These are opinions, albeit held by the masses. One's opinion can accept truth, but cannot dictate it. The same is true for the masses. While a million people can hold an opinion and vote that a minority does not deserve basic human rights, that does not make it so. That could make it societal law, but law and truth are not equal. That is why societal opinions change over time, old traditions die out, and laws get overturned.

Socially constructed truths are not truths at all, in my opinion. They are merely common assumptions.

Expecting everyone to act rational and let go of the ignorance will never happen because one mans rationality IS another mans ignorance

You are correct that expecting everyone to behave rationally is too optimistic, however, a person's opinion does not dictate truth. If one persons' rationality is derived from scientific, observable, quantifiable, definable truth, and another person's rationality is derived from rumor or superstition or utter fabrication, one is more likely to be credible than the other.

I agree that one person may hold something to be rational truth and yet remain ignorant, but it is not so simple to just say that everyone has an opinion and none are more valid than the others.

Science is based on the idea that evidenciary support, observable, testable results, and predictability are good models for forming rational theories. It is better to construct one's argument based in logic and reason and observation than simply opine about a thing and declare one's opinion to be as valid as everyone else's.

Were that the case, there would be no such thing as laws, or science, or mathematics, or facts. Or knowledge in general, for that matter. Everything would be an opinion. There would be no societal progress whatsoever if everyone simply believed that everything is irrational opinion, and there are no greater truths.

You debated Mouz about female circumcision you believed your position to be true you posted links backing your truth. Then Mouz posted links proving you wrong if he had never shown up that would've been taken by everyone who views this thread as true and be seen as a cornerstone of the war against ignorance.

And through the exchange of information, my own ignorance about the subject was reversed, and for the betterment of everyone involved in the conversation, the truth was revealed. Through the fires of debate and public exchange, bad ideas and falsehoods are destroyed and better ideas and more verifiable data is gained.

This is an example of the very thing I advocate. I don't see my ignorance about a bit of knowledge to be an irreparable failure or a weakness in my ideology, unless I stubbornly chose to remain ignorant and refused to concede. That would be hypocritical.

One of the reasons I don't just sit down and publish a book of my opinions is because my opinions are constantly changing and being updated to reflect the facts, as I combat my own ignorance. Posting here publicly gives me safeguards against my own weaknesses, because I am tapping into the knowledge of others.

The combined might of the knowledge of all of us, together, can defeat most forms of ignorance. Rather than disproving my point, this exchange further reinforces the assumption that what I am doing is rational and correct, and that the system is working. Eventually someone would have corrected that error, and that is why I subscribe to the theory that sitting down and shutting up never got anyone anywhere. Free exchange of ideas and knowledge helps reverse ignorance, while not entirely eliminating it.

If your point was, the advocate for the elimination of ignorance is both ignorant and fighting a hopeless battle, then you are correct.

However, I am acting to combat mine and others' ignorance, and that is not a hopeless battle. We're making progress right here, right now. And coming close to our ideal is the goal, even if the ideal is unattainable. Therefore the war may never be over, but it can be won.

Am I saying there are no wrongs in the world? No. What I am saying is that we have to respect what we believe is ignorant because many times they view us same way.

I respect people, but I do not respect ideas. Ideas prove their worth by being tested against what is real, and against other ideas. The ones which fail get thrown away. But an idea is not worthy of respect unless it becomes proven fact.

For example, the idea that Jews are an inferior sub-human race might be an "idea", but that does not deem it worthy of respect in my view. I do not automatically give respect to ideas. Ignorance in and of itself is not worthy of respect. People, in spite of their ignorance, are worth far more than ideas, and should have their human rights and dignity respected.

I may choose to be polite to those who hold an ideology I staunchly oppose, but my ideas will be at odds with theirs and the ideas will "fight to the death" until the strongest one wins. At the same time, I will respect my opponent for the oppurtunity to grow and learn.

So, in summary, I disagree that we have to respect bad ideas. We just should respect one another.

I think therefore I am

And as long as we all keep thinking, we all shall be. And we all shall be better, too.