Unplanned population growth

[boji]

Morality is not morals

No question. The absence of free will is a pill I too, refuse to keep down.   

Edit:

There is a number of "ethic" businesses that establish a true partnership with their suppliers, as an alternative to the usual model based on the balance of power; they advertise their business model, which attracts them a number of customers. True, the majority is food business, but there is a growing number of manufactured products, bags, clothes, utensils...

Thanks for the reply!

 

[Banzai]

IMO, "we" are responsible for the spoilage of Africa's resources, Africans are responsible for the overpopulation.

So missionaries didn't go to Africa with the Church endorsed message that contraception and abortion are the work of the devil? The OP was a missionary, you should ask him what message they brought with them... Worth mentioning here are the millions of Africans who died from AIDS because they lived in predominantly Catholic countries with no access to and no education about contraception.

About your Islam comments; Islamic law specifically allows contraception when both the man and woman are aware it is being used. 'Ayatollahs' as you call them, openly encourage family planning too – their position is lightyears ahead of the Catholic Church.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/11/muslim-overpopulation-myth/545318/

 

[DaveP]

Thank you Scott2000, very informative!

The flaw in their creed is clear.

If the motive for delaying having children is fear for their provision and livelihood, then this reflects a serious doubt concerning our belief in the will and decree of Allah and our belief in the abundant provision of Allah and that He will help those who strive to earn a living in the land. It reflects an unjustified fear of the future and a failure to produce and strive. In that case it is blameworthy and is not allowed, and there are clear fatwas that speak of it.

It makes the assumption that the world is empty (as it was relatively in 600 AD, the Prophets time). 

According to the texts, God or Allah has made us stewards of this world and that requires knowledge of its workings  (chemistry, biology, physics geology, ecology, even astronomy).  It also requires us to have a strong measure of responsibility so that we don't cause the extinction of other species or in fact of ourselves!

Religious teaching is the basis of all lawmaking (thou shalt not kill, steal etc) but unfortunately much of it was written when there was a great big empty world to fill, there were no instructions given about what to do when we approach maximum capacity.

Maybe we were supposed to be sufficiently mature by then to use common sense and the knowledge acquired over millennia?

DaveP

 

[abbey road d enfer]

So missionaries didn't go to Africa with the Church endorsed message that contraception and abortion are the work of the devil? The OP was a missionary, you should ask him what message they brought with them... Worth mentioning here are the millions of Africans who died from AIDS because they lived in predominantly Catholic countries with no access to and no education about contraception.

Oh! Did I forget to mention I have nothing but contempt for any proselytizing religion (which is pretty much all of them). Ulemas and mollahs have successfully taken over the business of christian missionaries.

About your Islam comments; Islamic law specifically allows contraception when both the man and woman are aware it is being used. 'Ayatollahs' as you call them, openly encourage family planning too – their position is lightyears ahead of the Catholic Church.

Islam is a multi-faceted concept; it's a religion, but it's also a world. Some ulemas may be favorable to contraception (I have yet to hear one saying so, though), but the majority of the Islamic world is endorsing large families. It is not specific to Muslims, though, the Jews also share this trait, as it is part of their founding myth.
BTW, there are supposed to be a few progressive catholic and protestant priests also; however a progressive priest is an oxymoron.
I believe this "be fruitful and multiply" thing originates from the high level of infant mortality in sub-tropical and tropical regions; most religions have included in their tables of the law a number of pagan (or simply civilian) precepts, in order to be more readily accepted (male domination, do not eat your parents, do not mess with your neighbour's wife, kill only if the stakes are high enough, don't get caught when you lie). ther is nothing spiritual in this precept. The actual life conditions have made it objectively obsolete and indefensible.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/11/muslim-overpopulation-myth/545318/

What I retain from this article is that Muslims in Muslim countries keep on breeding; those living in non-Muslim countries tend to converge with the local population. I surmise it's just because ulemas are less influent and social pressure lighter.

 

[Banzai]

Oh! Did I forget to mention I have nothing but contempt for any proselytizing religion (which is pretty much all of them). Ulemas and mollahs have successfully taken over the business of christian missionaries.

So again, Africa has been abandoned by Christians and it's Muslims who are telling people not to use contraception because it's evil? I'm particularly interested in why you believe Islam is against contraception even though there isn't a single mention against it in the Koran, and family planning is directly promoted.

Islam is a multi-faceted concept; it's a religion, but it's also a world. Some ulemas may be favorable to contraception (I have yet to hear one saying so, though), but the majority of the Islamic world is endorsing large families. It is not specific to Muslims, though, the Jews also share this trait, as it is part of their founding myth.

You're doubling down on your myth... How exposed are you to family planning in muslim countries, living in your cushy western country? And where is this endorsement of large families from the 'majority of muslim countries'? Statistics don't support your statements:

If countries in the western world are around 2 births per woman, and the majority of muslim countries are between 2-3 births per woman, where is this 'mass breeding' coming from?

BTW, there are supposed to be a few progressive catholic and protestant priests also; however a progressive priest is an oxymoron.

It's not a progressive thing. Islam isn't pro-life or pro-big family, and the Koran makes no mention of any of these things.

What I retain from this article is that Muslims in Muslim countries keep on breeding; those living in non-Muslim countries tend to converge with the local population. I surmise it's just because ulemas are less influent and social pressure lighter.

Everyone in every country 'keeps on breeding'... Funny you missed the point that Iran has a lower birth rate than most European countries and the US. It's an 'Islamic Republic' run by 'Ayatollahs', yet they're not multiplying like rabbits... And how about Bangladesh, one of the poorest muslim countries in the world, yet their birth rate is around 2 births per woman... How about Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria? Are they missing Imams in these countries, and they're not exposed to Islam?

Statistics simply don't back up the argument that Muslims actively promote big families, or that they 'breed' anymore than western women once they're properly educated on their options. Contraception is readily available in most Muslim countries, and they're not told they'll go to hell if they use them.

These things have nothing to do with religion: it's all about education and access. Where I directly blame Catholics though, is by blocking access to birth control in Africa and not providing any education on the available options.

 

[Banzai]

I think that article sort of points to the fact that there was in fact a larger growth proportionately to the rest of the world and , in more recent times, it has subsided but at a faster rate than had been previously shown with other cultures

That's the key point: birth rates in muslim countries are dropping, and fast. There is no promotion of big families leading to an increase in birth rates.

It is considered haram for a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim man.[citation needed]

Citation needed ... There are over 1.5B muslims. They freely marry between faiths. If they don't, then that's a personal choice. In contrast, it's illegal at state level in Israel for Jews to marry non-Jews.

Divorce
According to Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, implementing a divorce during a woman's menstrual period is prohibited because during such a period, sexual relations are considered haram, so it is possible that the idea of divorce came to a man's mind due to sexual frustration or nervous tension.

This actually makes sense... But this imam you mention, he's just some scholar in Qatar. He doesn't set state policy or country laws.

Birth control
Firstly:

If the decision to delay having children is widespread, at the societal, national or ummah-wide level, then in this case it becomes a destructive and negative choice, and in that case the ruling is that it is not allowed, because it has moved from being a permissible and natural matter to one that is imposed from without and will lead to negative consequences, and is therefore blameworthy.

See: 119955

Secondly:

If the motive for delaying having children is fear for their provision and livelihood, then this reflects a serious doubt concerning our belief in the will and decree of Allah and our belief in the abundant provision of Allah and that He will help those who strive to earn a living in the land. It reflects an unjustified fear of the future and a failure to produce and strive. In that case it is blameworthy and is not allowed, and there are clear fatwas that speak of it.

This issue has been covered in fatwas no. 10033 and 127170

Thirdly:

If the reason for not having children is arguments and conflict between the spouses, where one of them does not want children and the other one does, then the one who is refusing does not have the right to do so, because having children is a right of both spouses, and it is not permissible for one of them to refuse with no excuse or good reason.

This issue has been covered in fatwa no. 190396

Fourthly:

If the motive for delaying having children, or ceasing to do so, is to follow the cultural norms of non-Muslims and imitate them blindly, out of admiration for their culture and infatuation with their way of life, then undoubtedly the ruling in this case is that it is not allowed. One of the great principles of Islamic teaching is that the individual Muslim should be independent in his thinking and think within the framework of Islamic teaching; he should weigh up pros and cons objectively in the light of the circumstances that he lives in, and base his decisions on the Islamic principles in which he believes and with which he grew up, far removed from the illusionary psychological influences that are imposed by the media that represents the corporate powers that exist today, and should free himself from feelings of inferiority in the face of what he sees of the attitudes, customs and actions of the disbelieving nations.

Fifthly:

If the means of delaying having children is medicine or surgical procedures that will prevent having children altogether (sterilisation), so that the woman or her husband will lose the ability to ever have children, then this is a serious transgression and is ingratitude for the blessing of Allah that He has bestowed upon His slaves, and it is destruction of a great blessing that Allah has instilled and created in them on the basis of great wisdom.

The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) forbade such things. This is the case concerning which there is no difference of opinion among the scholars that it is prohibited, for it is the undermining of one of the most important aims of sharee‘ah and a blatant violation of one of the five necessities that Islam came to protect, which are: religious commitment, life, honour, wealth, and offspring.

You need to provide sources for this. There are many different schools in Islam split into many different sects, and the vast majority of muslims don't wait for fatwa's to decide how to live their lives – an Imam saying something in one country, also doesn't mean the entire religion will now follow it blindly.

Birth control laws and family planning are also implemented at state level, not at mosque level.

Perhaps the most important point of all, when people say there are 1.5B muslims in the world, they count every single person living in a muslim country. There is no distinction made between practicing and non-practicing Muslims, or even whether these people believe in the existence of any god. With countries like Saudi Arabia classifying atheists as terrorists, we won't be hearing much about them either...

(for the record, I'm agnostic - all religions are a problem for me. If I could, I'd get rid of all of them.)

 

[abbey road d enfer]

Is this true? I've heard the neighbor's wife thing before but not the others......

I'm not a religious scholar at all, but I've read enough about religions, in particular how monotheistic religions have taken over the preexisting "paganisms", by integrating most of the precepts, rites and celebrations and just changing their meaning: Easter replacing the solstice of Spring, St John night replacing the solstice of Summer, Christmas replacing the celebration of Mithra the sun god,... In order to be accepted, the "new" religions had to include the precepts of life already consecrated by years of tradition.
Of the 10 commandments, only the first three are spiritual, the rest is just a code of conduct to make life possible in a community.
But the latter are so universal they are shared by the most die-hard laicists.

 

[Banzai]

I guess my point is that, it seems too careless to say that because something isn't written , that it won't be practiced either through interpretation or personal beliefs.  I'm cool with numbers so, whatever they show, I'm ok with leaning towards.  It's just too confusing for me otherwise......

Best to stick to statistics... Statistics also show the highest rates of AIDS infection in the world are found in poor and predominantly Catholic countries, where contraception is morally banned.

Everyone can make their own conclusions.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

So again, Africa has been abandoned by Christians and it's Muslims who are telling people not to use contraception because it's evil? I'm particularly interested in why you believe Islam is against contraception even though there isn't a single mention against it in the Koran, and family planning is directly promoted.

That's why I mentioned that the Islamic world is not Islam. I haven't read the Koran, but I know many so-called "Muslims" have not read it eilther, but have been fed blatant lies by ulemas, muftis, ayatollahs, mollahs, or whatever they may want to be called. Many of these "priests" advocate their own convictions, often claiming they are in the Koran; pushing for demographics is the benign side of the coin, preaching jihad is the malevolant one.

You're doubling down on your myth... How exposed are you to family planning in muslim countries, living in your cushy western country? And where is this endorsement of large families from the 'majority of muslim countries'?

I have lived a few years in muslim countries, and I can say that I live in  country with a high percentage of muslims (7.5%). Having a large number of children, particularly male, is a way for the father to assert his virility. It may not be in the Koran, but that's how it is in the community that is described as "moslim".

Everyone in every country 'keeps on breeding'... Funny you missed the point that Iran has a lower birth rate than most European countries and the US. It's an 'Islamic Republic' run by 'Ayatollahs', yet they're not multiplying like rabbits... And how about Bangladesh, one of the poorest muslim countries in the world, yet their birth rate is around 2 births per woman... How about Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria? Are they missing Imams in these countries, and they're not exposed to Islam?

There are other factors than religion that lead a people to decrease, consciously or not, their birth rate; probably not the same for Bangladesh than Tunisia.

These things have nothing to do with religion: it's all about education and access.

I would probably agree partially with you. Note that I make a distinction between Islam as a religion and Islam as a "civilization"; would you agree that what you include in "education and access" can be the consequence of an "islamic" paradigm?

Where I directly blame Catholics though, is by blocking access to birth control in Africa and not providing any education on the available options.

I agree 100%

 

[boji]

If the motive for delaying having children is fear for their provision and livelihood, then this reflects a serious doubt concerning our belief in the will and decree of Allah and our belief in the abundant provision of Allah and that He will help those who strive to earn a living in the land. It reflects an unjustified fear of the future and a failure to produce and strive.

[Expansion of Islam]  makes the assumption that the world is empty (as it was relatively in 600 AD, the Prophets time). 

Mostly an aside:

I'm by no means a scholar of Islam, but I like to appreciate the power of a religion in terms of its ability to infect the minds of humans, like a virus. But I also like to think of the value of a religion in terms of its ability to evolve.  Consider the old testament aside the new:  There's a clear progression of moral code at work that spans many generations of thought. The sacrificial archetype of Christ has been fundamental to the creation of western enlightenment, and, try as we westerners might, we will not purge ourselves of its underlying value structure which roughly asserts that the 'transformation of the earthly-self through sacrifice to an ideal' is the bedrock of heroic, virtuous behavior-- at least not without losing the sense of what it means to be 'of the West'.

Now, compare the evolution of the western tradition to the rather strict adherence of Quranic literalism in the modern day, and of Muhammad (pbuh), who mostly embodies the archetype of the prophet-warrior, the point of the spear in word and deed.  It makes the case rather clear: If global surrender to the obedience of Allah is what Islam requires, Islam is either going to need to dull the rhetorical spearpoint, or create for itself a 'new Sharia' if it's going to remain competitive in this no longer sparsely populated, no longer uniformly moral new world. A new language or a humanist reintrepretation is sorely needed.

 

[Banzai]

Morally banned makes since to me.  Like I've mentioned, to generalize about a religion and how it's interpreted seems unproductive at best.

But yeah, to each his/her own.... :-\

What's really unproductive is quoting a random site on the internet as an authority on Islam: I had a look at this IslamQA.info source you used for all your quotes. If you look carefully at the top of the site, you can see the tag title 'General Supervisor: Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid'. A quick google search shows this guy to be a Salafist, and IslamQA answers questions 'in line with the Salafi school of thought'.

If you're not familiar with Salafism/Wahabism, it's the ideology behind the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and pretty much every other contemporary headchopper brigade. It's the equivalent of quoting the KKK in order to support an argument about Christianity.

(after a little digging, this guy is even too liberal for Salafi's... They say he's Muslim Brotherhood. Here's an Israeli take on both groups: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/14994)

 

[boji]

" just removed those posts....... That freaks me out ....  Don't want to be a part of that in any way  for sure......"

While your source may have been from an extremist faction of islam, it is rather interesting google decided it was the most prevalent source to cite!

If you mistakenly post 'rules for radicals' accidently believing it to be something from the status quo, you can and should be easily forgiven. But the fact that this kind of material is floating out there on the internets is still valuable to know. Your not spreading anything but the edge of a range of ideas, which should be identified, and criticized. Nothing wrong with that, imo.

 

[desol]

(for the record, I'm agnostic - all religions are a problem for me. If I could, I'd get rid of all of them.)

If you're agnostic, you should realize then, that all of the various religions on the planet are intended to be here for a purpose. The very fact that they are here, implies(to me) that they should be.

in fabula explicat....

Off topic!

 

[Banzai]

Most Muslim-majority countries and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) have opposed moves to advance LGBT rights at the United Nations, in the General Assembly or the UNHRC. In May 2016, a group of 51 Muslim states blocked 11 gay and transgender organizations from attending 2016 High Level Meeting on Ending AIDS.[30][31][32][33

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

Bible thumpers hate gays and women too, but it's not really worth getting into – that's integral to the intolerance of religions in general.  The key point is that Islam doesn't ban artificial contraception or spend billions on spreading propaganda against it.

There is one religious group that does though:
https://psmag.com/magazine/new-war-on-birth-control (Africa)
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/opinion/trumps-birth-control-contraception.html (US)

Telling African communities that contraceptives give them cancer; make them sterile; and birth control is a ploy by the evil white man trying to limit the number of black people on the planet... If they want to spread their crap in the US, that's one thing. When you knowingly vote these guys into power, you should be ready to deal with the consequences. But when they export their ideologies to Africa, we should all be worried.

Same goes for the Muslim version of the Christian Right... (picture attached of the two dancing together).

Something else you should be worried about: all Koran's in US prisons are provided by Saudi Arabia, translated into English by Salafists... Take a minute to let that sink in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_to_Islam_in_U.S._prisons

 

[abbey road d enfer]

If you're agnostic, you should realize then, that all of the various religions on the planet are intended to be here for a purpose.

Indeed. religions (and gods) have been created to give an easy answer to the most teething questions of humanity: Where do we come from? Why are we here? What do we become after death? Those who invented the answers understood they had a superior power that allowed them to extort their fellow men in order to live a lazy and protected life.

The very fact that they are here, implies(to me) that they should be. 

This, I don't understand. Do you mean the simple fact that thieves, crooks, rapists, murderers, jihadists ... exist justifies their existence?

in fabula explicat....

This, also, needs an explanation. I'm not a latinist, so I had to google it, and was flooded with references to an Umberto Eco book.

 

[tands]

Nice!

 

[DaveP]

Indeed. religions (and gods) have been created to give an easy answer to the most teething questions of humanity: Where do we come from? Why are we here? What do we become after death? Those who invented the answers understood they had a superior power that allowed them to extort their fellow men in order to live a lazy and protected life.

That is very cynical, prejudiced and unbalanced. IMO.  While there are some in religeous circles who deserve such condemnation, the vast majority do not.

Lack of scientific education caused our ancestors to believe in Gods that inhabited the particular areas they moved into.  South Americans are a classic example of invoking Gods to explain the actions of volcanoes.

More educated people have also understood that out-of-body experiences need an explanation.  In our more violent past, these events must have been just as common as they are now.  The "light at the end of the tunnel" etc.  "my whole life flashed before me" etc, etc.  In our digital age, where information can be extracted from one device to a memory stick or downloaded from the cloud, it seems more plausible that our personalities and memories can exit a material body.  We are only at the dawn of our understanding of this universe, so to my mind, to deny a supernatural existence would put us in the same level of arrogance/ignorance as the south americans and their volcano gods

DaveP

 

[abbey road d enfer]

That is very cynical, prejudiced and unbalanced. IMO. 

"Cynical" 2nd definition: showing contempt for accepted standards of honesty or morality by one's actions, especially by actions that exploit the scruples of others.
No. On the contrary; I show contempt for those who do that.

"Prejudiced" 1st definition: an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason
No; I am not without knowledge.

"Unbalanced" whatever the definition: I'm as much unbalanced as anyone that has an opinion different than yours.

While there are some in religeous circles who deserve such condemnation, the vast majority do not.

I was talking about priests, gurus, chamans, popes, whatever, not their victims.

Lack of scientific education caused our ancestors to believe in Gods that inhabited the particular areas they moved into.  South Americans are a classic example of invoking Gods to explain the actions of volcanoes.

That's a very human weakness; what I'm condemning is people who take advantage of the fears of their fellow humans.

More educated people have also understood that out-of-body experiences need an explanation.  In our more violent past, these events must have been just as common as they are now.  The "light at the end of the tunnel" etc.  "my whole life flashed before me" etc, etc.

IMO, it is not significantly different than dreaming; all the testimonies I've read or heard about this have not convinced me that it's something else than freewheeling of the brains.

In our digital age, where information can be extracted from one device to a memory stick or downloaded from the cloud, it seems more plausible that our personalities and memories can exit a material body.

I just can't follow your train of thoughts; the first type of memory you refer to needs a physical support. Nothing supernatural involved. I have yet to see an evidence of bodyless personality or memory.

  We are only at the dawn of our understanding of this universe,

The fact that we ignore much more than we'll ever learn does not justify resorting to supernatural explanations. Accepting the fact that we can't explain a thing is very substantially different than giving an explanation based on fanciful and unverifiable basis.

so to my mind, to deny a supernatural existence would put us in the same level of arrogance/ignorance as the south americans and their volcano gods

It's your privilege to think so, but I don't see the difference between believing in a volcano god and believing in God.

 

[DaveP]

I agree with much of what you say, it is just that I prefer to keep my mind open to the possibility of a supernatural existence, rather than reject it outright.

My point is that scientific ideas grow and expand human knowledge over time, once, all except sailors thought the world was flat, then we discovered the world revolved around the sun, rather than the false perception that we see on a daily basis that it revolves around us.  Einstein proved that time slowed the faster we went and that material objects cannot move faster than light, these are all non-intuitive ideas.  No-one had any idea about DNA until 1948.  We must keep our minds open to things beyond our present understanding.

DaveP

 

[abbey road d enfer]

We must keep our minds open to things beyond our present understanding.

Indeed! What I'm alerting is the tendency of malevolent people to "plug the holes" with anything in order to take advantage of others.