Tag Archives: Abortion

My Admiration for Ben Shapiro

Assalaamu Alaykum,

No, I have not gone insane or over to the dark side.

Yes I know Ben Shapiro is the darling scion of the alt-right, acolyte of Andrew Breitbart, anti-Islam campaigner, apologist for continued American oppression of BME’s at home in his country, ardent Zionist-Jew and a crusader for the continued American occupation and exploitation of the rest of the planet but…

From watching him I’ve learnt a great deal and it’s sometimes from our opponents we can learn new tactics, new arguments and I see nothing wrong in respecting those who oppose so we can better meet them in debates and defeat them.

For those at the sharp end there is always an arms race when we come to dialogue with non-Muslims and the arguments and techniques used by Ben Shapiro are top range latest American missile tech.

Now when it comes to debates from the right some of this stuff will be hitting you soon if you are involved in Da’wah work at a higher-up public level. Learn it, learn to counter it. That way you’ll Insha’Allah avoid being done over in your own discussions if someone hits you with this later on.

I’m now going to post a link… unless you’ve got a strong stomach and a strong sense of emaan don’t click it, but if like me you want to learn where the enemies of Islam and basic human decency are coming from next then have a listen.

Ben Shapiro – Debating leftists Youtube Video

His advise is only useful for when you are actually debating someone, not for general Da’wah conversations. As Allah states in the Quran:

 

Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is [rightly] guided.
Quran Translation, Surah An-Nahl, 16:125

OK, not the best application of that verse. But the principle is sound to some degree if you’ll follow my reasoning.

First off in Da’wah we approach people from a point of view of kind words, wisdom, good instruction, being firm with the truth but kind in the delivery, something Shapiro seems incapable of doing. But then when they step up a level and become argumentative we come back at them a different method again and defeat them on that ground whilst not being aggressive or angry.

Shapiro does this part very well, he uses humour to deflect hatred and bring the audience on side, then well reasoned and rehearsed arguments to destroy the arguments of his enemies.

And BTW, he’s right about leftists…

Yes I know  they are part of some great ‘progressive alliance’ against the neo-facism which is coming out of western capitals but the idea that the enemy of my enemy is my friend is not true.

They are just as much enemies of Islam as the right, and the hijab and halal meat bans coming out of Europe are just as much a product of these progressive types as  they are from the right.

Muslims need to remember Islam is not Socialism, or Liberalism, or even democratic. These are all materialist ideologies different to our deen and we can learn how to combat these ideologies also from looking into their other enemies like the slightly less rabid right wing ideologues like Shapiro who use reason rather than emotion.

Have a listen to some of his other debates also, though sometimes it’s against female / feminist opponents so if you’re a brother reading this just open the link and listen rather than watching the video to make it easier for you to lower your gaze.

This one in particular is excellent (brothers lower your gaze) – Ben Shapiro Destroys Transgenderism And Pro-Abortion Arguments – Youtube Video

I’ve actually used these arguments against transgender / homosexual rights campaigners as well as those who wish to promote abortion as some sort of lifestyle choice rather than callous discarding of a potential human being.

There is a tenancy to look to the left as our allies and this has led to many Muslims being seduced by these arguments which is wrong and will slowly and surely destroy the Muslim community from the inside out just as surely as the right will attempt to destroy us from the outside by more overt oppression.

So there it is, my admiration for Ben Shapiro.

Feel free to agree or disagree, vent your hatred of the man here if you like, I’ll join you but learn from him if you’re in the field of Da’wah because his arguments will be coming to Da’wah table or formal debate near you soon enough.

Assalaamu Alaykum,

Gingerbeardman

KILLING BABIES NO DIFFERENT FROM ABORTION, EXPERTS SAY

newborn small picThis is the danger of todays liberal-secular values on which western societies govern themselves, that if it’s ok to kill an unborn child, why not one which has been born?

May Allaah guide these people to the straight path, and away from such an evil philosophy that takes them away from basic human decency and the fitrah, ameen
Article from the Daily Telegraph newspaper

Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.

black and white babiesThe article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article’s authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.

The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.

New born baby with down syndrome, such as the one they would like people to be able to kill if they don't want anymore
New born baby with down syndrome, such as the one they would like people to be able to kill if they don’t want anymore

They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.

Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child”, they wrote.

“To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

However, they did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practised.

They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”.

Both Minerva and Giubilini know Prof Savulescu through Oxford. Minerva was a research associate at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics until last June, when she moved to the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at Melbourne University.

Giubilini, a former visiting student at Cambridge University, gave a talk in January at the Oxford Martin School – where Prof Savulescu is also a director – titled ‘What is the problem with euthanasia?’

He too has gone on to Melbourne, although to the city’s Monash University. Prof Savulescu worked at both univerisities before moving to Oxford in 2002.

Defending the decision to publish in a British Medical Journal blog, Prof Savulescu, said that arguments in favour of killing newborns were “largely not new”.

What Minerva and Giubilini did was apply these arguments “in consideration of maternal and family interests”.

While accepting that many people would disagree with their arguments, he wrote: “The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.”

Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, he added: “This “debate” has been an example of “witch ethics” – a group of people know who the witch is and seek to burn her. It is one of the most dangerous human tendencies we have. It leads to lynching and genocide. Rather than argue and engage, there is a drive is to silence and, in the extreme, kill, based on their own moral certainty. That is not the sort of society we should live in.”

He said the journal would consider publishing an article positing that, if there was no moral difference between abortion and killing newborns, then abortion too should be illegal.

Dr Trevor Stammers, director of medical ethics at St Mary’s University College, said: “If a mother does smother her child with a blanket, we say ‘it’s doesn’t matter, she can get another one,’ is that what we want to happen?
“What these young colleagues are spelling out is what we would be the inevitable end point of a road that ethical philosophers in the States and Australia have all been treading for a long time and there is certainly nothing new.”

Referring to the term “after-birth abortion”, Dr Stammers added: “This is just verbal manipulation that is not philosophy. I might refer to abortion henceforth as antenatal infanticide.”