Religions have succeeded

[ProfessorDavey]

It is not a rant to present a series of arguments or points. However, you calling it a rant is a way for you to avoid addressing the points raised.

Seems pretty ranty to me.

I asked you to justify your claim that I get stuff wrong by providing examples where I have been factually wrong in the points I've made about the ethical and legal aspects of valid consent, the topic where I have considerable professional expertise and experience.

You start off by providing a series of points where you disagree with my opinion - which is irrelevant to a claim that I get stuff wrong - it just means that our opinions are different. And then you descend into stuff who doesn't even try to address the issue that you have asserted that I get stuff wrong, but you are unable to provide credible evidence for this. And guess what, you still aren't.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You kept saying I got stuff wrong - that must be based on something beyond an opinion. You might think my opinion is wrong, I might think your opinion is wrong, but they are just opinions - they aren't something that is a matter of right/wrong.

I suggest you quote where I said you got stuff wrong and then we can clarify in what context I said it.

If you make a claim that I say things that are wrong that needs to be substantiated. But you have demonstrated that you can't.

And you claim I make assertions without evidence to back them up - pot/kettle.

I will wait for your quotes of what I actually said and in what context before responding.

ETA: If you are focusing on the word "stuff" then my use of the word "stuff" meant conclusions that you came and how you tried to apply facts to form conclusions when there was not sufficient information in a Bible story.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Seems pretty ratty to me.

I asked you to justify your claim that I get stuff wrong by providing examples where I have been factually wrong in the points I've made about the ethical and legal aspects of valid consent, the topic where I have considerable professional expertise and experience.

You start off by providing a series of points where you disagree with my opinion - which is irrelevant to a claim that I get stuff wrong - it just means that our opinions are different. And then you descend into stuff who doesn't even try to address the issue that you have asserted that I get stuff wrong, but you are unable to provide credible evidence for this. And guess what, you still aren't.

And one of the points I made was that you were wrong to use ethical and legal aspects of valid consent between humans to a few verses of a Bible story written many centuries ago about a supernatural event. Consent doctrines were not developed to apply to supernatural entities and the authors of the story are not even claiming they were at the event. If you don't know in what circumstances you can apply your knowledge, you can't really expect your claims of expertise to be taken seriously.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Lovely bit of quote mining - he is actually making the specific point that experts rely on evidence and when the evidence supports a different conclusion they will change their mind. They aren't chained to dogma. So here is the key bit you selectively chopped from the quote as it doesn't support your assertions:

As a scientist you relish having your view changed by the facts. That’s different from politics where you’ve occupied a citadel, where it’s viewed as a failure if you concede ground.

Why would this quote contradict my position? This quote supports my position that experts can get it wrong. The professor's expert prediction was wrong as shown by subsequent data. So not every expert will get it right so the ordinary lay person should not automatically assume that the opinion of someone claiming to be an expert carries more weight.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

Your disagreement is neither here nor there (as my “opinion” is neither here nor there). The story concerns an all-powerful god impregnating a (likely by modern standards) underage servant girl, who’s unfailingly told in advance that it will happen. That’s it. What the authors intended, or whether consent was even a meaningful concept at the time is a red herring – what this is about is whether by contemporary standards about consent the god of the story could be deemed to have acted morally well.

If we take the analogous example you keep ignoring of a headmaster impregnating one of his (say) 14-year old pupils, there is no possible further detail that would mitigate his guilt (other perhaps than mental incapacity, which is not a defence of “God” many Christians would want to attempt I suppose). Valid consent could not have been possible in either case no matter what "detail" is added, and that's the end of it.

Which specific law did the headmaster break? How does this law apply to the circumstances of this supernatural pregnancy?

“It’s a future event” means there is no choice (especially when said by a god whose word cannot fail). “It could be a future event”, “would you agree to it being a future event?” etc might introduce some uncertainty, but “it will happen” from an unfailing god is a statement of certainty. Again – Mary was told, not asked.

I already asked you in my previous response where you are getting the line "whose word cannot fail". I don't see a response to that. And nor do I see how God choosing not to do something is considered failing. If Mary did not want to become pregnant and theists have a choice about serving God and God chooses not to make her pregnant, where is the problem?

It’s as if you haven’t read a word that’s been said to you. By contemporary standards, “Mary’s response” is neither here nor there. The 14-year-old schoolgirl’s word would be neither here nor there too, even if she was deeply in love with the headmaster and desperately wanted his child. Try to grasp this: on the “facts” of the story as set out, by contemporary standards Mary’s valid consent was impossible no matter what she said or did. 

It's as if you haven't listened to a word that has been said to you. Contemporary standards on age of consent are different from country to country, even within Europe, and different from state to state even within a country like the USA. We don't know Mary's age. Assuming that Mary was in her teens, what was acceptable in that time for people in their teens is not the same as what is acceptable now, because society and the options and life-choices available to teens now in the UK is very different from what was available centuries ago in Palestine. What is an acceptable choice is based on what options and choices are available to you at the time you made your choice.

Wrong again. It’s not my opinion that matters here; it’s the “opinion” of contemporary Western standards about valid consent.

There is no single contemporary Western standard. It varies depending on geographical location. Standards regarding consent in the UK are not the same standards that are applied elsewhere in the world.   

Dealt with – see above. What the authors did or did not choose to say about consent has absolutely no relevance to the point that, on the “facts” of the story, by contemporary standards a god we’re told is morally perfect behaved morally badly. Why? Because on the “facts” of the story valid consent could not have been possible no matter what the authors thought or said about consent.   

Valid consent could have been possible based on the society and the options and life-choices available to teens in the time the story was set.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

Boy, you can sure pack a lot of wrong into one reply. As briefly as I can then:

Examples of where you were wrong, just on this thread alone:

You were wrong to conclude that it was clear there was no consent based on limited information in a Bible story for multiple reasons.

No he wasn’t. There could have been no valid consent by modern Western standards because of the basic constituents of the story as presented. Why? Because of the (likely) underage part, because of the (explicit) asymmetric power dynamic part, and because of the no alternative part.   

It's a stupid argument to try to shoehorn consent as a legal term into a Bible story about a supernatural being. Try bringing a case against a supernatural being and you may find that legal experts will tell you that the law only applies to human beings.

No it isn’t. The events described being “supernatural” changes nothing about the basic critique of the morality of the story. The story is presented as morally good – just as the lessons learned from visitations by ghosts in Dickens’ A Christmas Carol is presented as having a morally beneficial effect on (the also fictional) Ebenezer Scrooge. So what?     

It is not a story about sexual acts, nor is it a story about acts taking place between 2 people, so legal concepts that govern consent to sexual relationships between people are irrelevant to a story with a supernatural being in it.

Good grief. It’s a story about a (likely) underage girl by modern standards beings told she “will” be impregnated and carry to term a baby whose father is an all-powerful god. Whether the conception in the story happened sexually or by some other means is about the least important part of that story.

Imagine that, say, one day someone invented a sperm pill that if ingested would cause women to conceive – would it be fine and dandy for them to be given no choice in the matter because no sex was involved in your view? Why not?         

Even if you are trying to argue that legal rules about consent can be applied to supernatural entities, the Bible story was not written for the purposes of demonstrating the existence of consent so concluding there was no consent from the lack of detail about consent in the story is illogical.

I’ve corrected you on this error already, so why are you repeating it here? It doesn’t matter why the bible was written – all that matters is the content of the story as told being presented as morally good when seen through the lens of modern sensibilities. You’ve told us that you have children, so I assume they studied English and had to do some literary criticism? Imagine then that, say, they were asked to write post-feminist analysis of Hamlet’s treatment of women in the play. Would they have answered, “but I can’t answer that because Shakespeare had never heard of post-feminism”, or maybe “I can’t answer that because there’s a supernatural ghost in the play”? Why not?         

The story is hearsay and we have no idea if it is authentic.

So what? Whether it’s written as reportage or written as complete fiction its content can still be analysed though any subsequent lens we wish to apply – including that of modern Western sensibilities.

There is no evidence to determine Mary's age. So you can't argue that she was a minor for the time period in which she supposedly lived.

Probabilistically yes you can. The story likely concerns an underage girl by modern standards. Whether there ever was a Mary and whether she was older than the mean for the time makes no difference at all – it’s the story that’s being analysed, not verifiable historical facts.   

If you are arguing that the consent is not in relation to a sexual act but is consent to pregnancy without sex ie a medical procedure, there is not sufficient evidence in the story to conclude that Mary could not have refused to go along with God's plan of pregnancy. Calling herself a servant of God is not sufficient evidence to conclude that she was coerced. Submission to God is a voluntary act based on belief and can be revoked at every decision a theist makes. If parental input into a child's decision to be circumcised does not automatically invalidate the child's informed consent to circumcision, then it can be argued that someone calling themselves a servant of someone or something does not automatically invalidate their consent if there it is not proved that the someone or something had undue influence or coerced them.

Wrong again. By contemporary Western standards the story as written means that “Mary” could not have given valid consent. By those standards, it was just impossible.     

If you are arguing that the word "will" is proof that Mary had no choice - again it's not possible to conclude that given the different possible interpretations of the word "will" in the context of the story, and that Mary had said "Let it happen", which could be interpreted as Mary agreeing or consenting to God's plan.

Nope. The story uses “will” (unfailingly so too we’re told), which allows for no possibility at all of a different outcome. 

So it is not possible based simply on the words of the text to prove that consent was given or not given as the text is ambiguous.

Yes it is possible, and no it’s not “ambiguous” – see above. The story is the story no matter how much you try to pare it into bite-size pieces for special pleading. Any story – A Christmas  Carol and Hamlet included – can raise questions about the intentions of the authors, what their purpose was, uncertainty about historical veracity and no doubt many other issues too. For this purpose though none of that matters. All that matters is that the Biblical conception story, A Christmas Carol and Hamlet alike as they are presented can all be analysed on their own terms through any subsequent moral lens we happen to choose.

It would help if you’d try to understand this.           

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No, I’m “assuming” the Mary of the story was a minor on the basis of the scholarship available to me. Try googling “How old was Mary?” and you’ll see it for yourself. These are religious websites by the way, not part of the paranoid antitheist conspiracy you keep trying to conjure into existence.

No one knows Mary’s age and therefore there is no case. There are competing sociologies describing this time period which makes any appeal to scholarship less sound. In fact given in some of these sociologies there could be two or three years between betrothal and consummation that means there is negative scope to conclude Mary’s minority in modern terms. I see no basis for assuming anything here and it would not fly in law.

Morality and legislation don’t always align, but if we take the latter as our starting point yes there is (in the UK it’s in the Sexual Offences Act 2003; Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008; Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009; Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005), and other Western countries have their own legislation. Scholarship on the age of Mary suggests she was younger than these lower limits enshrined in law.

Do you understand what sex is Hillside. God does not have a body. In fact the divine person of the trinity involved is, big hint here, the Holy Spirit. There is no penis or semen in fact what has happened is a form of asexual reproduction.
An American court I believe ruled that God is not legally an individual or company.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

Boy, you can sure pack a lot of wrong into one reply. As briefly as I can then:

No he wasn’t. There could have been no valid consent by modern Western standards because of the basic constituents of the story as presented. Why? Because of the (likely) underage part, because of the (explicit) asymmetric power dynamic part, and because of the no alternative part.   

No it isn’t. The events described being “supernatural” changes nothing about the basic critique of the morality of the story. The story is presented as morally good – just as the lessons learned from visitations by ghosts in Dickens’ A Christmas Carol is presented as having a morally beneficial effect on (the also fictional) Ebenezer Scrooge. So what?     

Good grief. It’s a story about a (likely) underage girl by modern standards beings told she “will” be impregnated and carry to term a baby whose father is an all-powerful god. Whether the conception in the story happened sexually or by some other means is about the least important part of that story.

Imagine that, say, one day someone invented a sperm pill that if ingested would cause women to conceive – would it be fine and dandy for them to be given no choice in the matter because no sex was involved in your view? Why not?         

I’ve corrected you on this error already, so why are you repeating it here? It doesn’t matter why the bible was written – all that matters is the content of the story as told being presented as morally good when seen through the lens of modern sensibilities. You’ve told us that you have children, so I assume they studied English and had to do some literary criticism? Imagine then that, say, they were asked to write post-feminist analysis of Hamlet’s treatment of women in the play. Would they have answered, “but I can’t answer that because Shakespeare had never heard of post-feminism”, or maybe “I can’t answer that because there’s a supernatural ghost in the play”? Why not?         

So what? Whether it’s written as reportage or written as complete fiction its content can still be analysed though any subsequent lens we wish to apply – including that of modern Western sensibilities.

Probabilistically yes you can. The story likely concerns an underage girl by modern standards. Whether there ever was a Mary and whether she was older than the mean for the time makes no difference at all – it’s the story that’s being analysed, not verifiable historical facts.   

Wrong again. By contemporary Western standards the story as written means that “Mary” could not have given valid consent. By those standards, it was just impossible.     

Nope. The story uses “will” (unfailingly so too we’re told), which allows for no possibility at all of a different outcome. 

Yes it is possible, and no it’s not “ambiguous” – see above. The story is the story no matter how much you try to pare it into bite-size pieces for special pleading. Any story – A Christmas  Carol and Hamlet included – can raise questions about the intentions of the authors, what their purpose was, uncertainty about historical veracity and no doubt many other issues too. For this purpose though none of that matters. All that matters is that the Biblical conception story, A Christmas Carol and Hamlet alike as they are presented can all be analysed on their own terms through any subsequent moral lens we happen to choose.

It would help if you’d try to understand this.           

BHS - your conclusions are still wrong for the reasons I have already explained. Repeating your assertions about Mary likely being underage, assumed power dynamics etc doesn't change my opinion that your opinion is wrong.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

BHS - your conclusions are still wrong for the reasons I have already explained. Repeating your assertions about Mary likely being underage, assumed power dynamics etc doesn't change my opinion that your opinion is wrong.

I explained to you point-by-point and with arguments why you were wrong at every step. If you just ant to run way from that's that's up to you. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Why would this quote contradict my position?

You point was that experts disagreed - but the whole point of the piece from Openshaw, when you read the entire post, is that the experts came to agreement on the basis of the evidence, which is entirely different to your conclusion that the experts disagreed.

But of course if you chop out the bit about coming to agreement you can make Openshaw's quote appear to provide an entirely different conclusion than the actual conclusion - experts coming to an agreement based on the evidence. I think there is a term for selective quoting to try to imply the conclusion to be something other than it is when the full piece is considered.

[ProfessorDavey]

No one knows Mary’s age and therefore there is no case.

Not so - legally if we do not know whether a person is a minor or not, we would not presume they are not a minor. Indeed whether there is a credible case to be made that the individual could well be a minor (as is the case here) the law would likely take that position as its starting point on the basis of duty of care.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

I explained to you point-by-point and with arguments why you were wrong at every step. If you just ant to run way from that's that's up to you.

And I have already gone through it point by point to explain why your arguments are wrong at every step. Repeating your wrong arguments is not going to change the outcome. You're still wrong.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not so - legally if we do not know whether a person is a minor or not, we would not presume they are not a minor. Indeed whether there is a credible case to be made that the individual could well be a minor (as is the case here) the law would likely take that position as its starting point on the basis of duty of care.

Credible case for what Davey?

[ProfessorDavey]

Credible case for what Davey?

A credible case that the individual could be a minor. If this were unclear I don't think that the legal system would simply presume the individual is not a minor as that may well be a dereliction of duty of care to that individual.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You point was that experts disagreed - but the whole point of the piece from Openshaw, when you read the entire post, is that the experts came to agreement on the basis of the evidence, which is entirely different to your conclusion that the experts disagreed.

No because the point I was making is that Openshaw only changed his mind after the first set of vaccines were produced and they seemed to work much better than he had predicted. At the time that experts were considering the course of action to take to tackle Covid he was wrong in his prediction about Covid vaccines, despite being considered an expert. My point was that at a particular moment in time an expert opinion can be wrong, so claiming expertise does not automatically mean that your opinion carries more weight.

But of course if you chop out the bit about coming to agreement you can make Openshaw's quote appear to provide an entirely different conclusion than the actual conclusion - experts coming to an agreement based on the evidence. I think there is a term for selective quoting to try to imply the conclusion to be something other than it is when the full piece is considered.

There was no selective quoting that would alter the meaning. Openshaw admitted he got it wrong at the time he gave his expert opinion on whether vaccines would be effective. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A credible case that the individual could be a minor. If this were unclear I don't think that the legal system would simply presume the individual is not a minor as that may well be a dereliction of duty of care to that individual.

I’m not sure a prosecution or conviction would stand if the alleged minor was deceased for two thousand years or at least absent and there was no prosecution by either authority whose jurisdiction the person fell under. Is there a duty of care for a deceased person, i’m not sure. We are therefore quite deeply into “what if” territory...What if Mary was a minor, what if this had happened in 21st century Britain*, What if God was a man.

It would not happen in 21st century Britain because of the impossibility of finding 3 wise men.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

A credible case that the individual could be a minor. If this were unclear I don't think that the legal system would simply presume the individual is not a minor as that may well be a dereliction of duty of care to that individual.

Why would the law as it currently stands get involved in a supernatural pregnancy? What current law would that break?

So what you are saying is that in the story, there is no evidence that Mary was underage, but if the CPS investigated further, beyond the story they may or may not find she is underage? So currently, on the information in the story, we don't know her age and we have nothing to indicate she had not reached the age of majority at the time of the story. So it is not clear from the story that there was no consent, based on Mary's age? I suggest you find some proof that Mary was under-age for artificial pregnancies and then we can re-look at the issue.

You also haven't been able to show in the story that Mary was forced against her will, that she objected to the pregnancy, or that she felt threatened by violence into consenting.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

What I actual said VG was that Islam recognises the Torah to have been revealed by god.

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

From the wiki page:

The Tawrat (Arabic: توراة‎), also romanized as Tawrah or Taurat, is the Arabic-language name for the Torah within its context as an Islamic holy book believed by Muslims to have been given by God to the prophets and messengers amongst the Children of Israel.

And from the Quran

Indeed, We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light. The prophets who submitted [to God] judged by it for the Jews, as did the rabbis and scholars by that with which they were entrusted of the Scripture of God, and they were witnesses thereto.

and

But how do they come to you for decision while they have the Tawrat (Torah), in which is the (plain) Decision of Allah

Missed seeing this response.

The Quran recognises the Torah but Quranic verses imply the Torah has been changed. The Quran recognises that Jews follow the Torah and it refers to the laws of Moses but states that Muslims should follow the Quran and that the Quran differs from the Torah - hence in the verse below it mentions the Book (Quran) and "confirming whatever of the Book was revealed before" (Torah) and "For each of you, We have appointed a Law and a way of life" :

“Then We revealed the Book to you with Truth, confirming whatever of the Book was revealed before, and protecting and guarding over it. Judge, then, between them in accordance by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their desires in disregard of the Truth which has come to you. For each of you, We have appointed a Law and a way of life. And had Allah commanded, He would surely have made you one single community; instead, (He gave each of you a Law and a way of life) in order to test you by what He gave you. Vie, then, one with another in good works. Unto Allah is the return of all of you, and He will then inform you concerning that on which you disagreed.” (Al-Ma’ida/ The Feast, 5:48).

This article goes into it in more detail: https://www.whyislam.org/islams-stance-on-the-gospel-and-torah/

The Quran actually confirms the original revelation that was given to Prophet Moses called the Tawrah (Torah) and the Enjeel (the Gospel) that was revealed to Prophet Jesus. Other scriptures that are mentioned in the Quran include the Zabure revealed to Prophet David and the Suhuf revealed to Prophet Abraham. The idea that the Quran confirms the Bible, the Old Testament or the New Testament is incorrect. Even then when we take a term like Torah, it isn’t the exact equivalent in understanding the scriptures between Muslims and Jews and Christians, for example. Among the Jews and Christians the Torah is believed to be the first five books, beginning with Genesis, in the Bible.

However, if you look carefully into these books, you’ll find many of them don’t really represent revelation given to Moses but are biographies of Moses. Also, towards the end of chapter 34 in the book of Deuteronomy, which is part of the Torah it talks of Moses’ death and being buried, which obviously is not of the work of Moses nor is it the revelation given to him on Mount Sinai as Muslims believe. As such even the definition of Torah in the Judea-Christian literature is not like the Quranic reference to the Torah, or law, specifically the revelation given to prophet Moses not biographies about him.

 

[Sriram]

A credible case that the individual could be a minor. If this were unclear I don't think that the legal system would simply presume the individual is not a minor as that may well be a dereliction of duty of care to that individual.

What is this 'minor' and 'major' you keep referring to?!  During biblical times, children as young as 6 were married off. Sex was usually based on puberty. Puberty was the deciding age for adult or child.

18 years that many countries today follow as age of majority, is of recent origin and actually has no basis in medical terms. It is adhoc.   

[ProfessorDavey]

No because the point I was making is that Openshaw only changed his mind after the first set of vaccines were produced and they seemed to work much better than he had predicted.

No - the point you were making was that experts disagreed - presumably when they were giving expert opinion, not down the pub.

Firstly I doubt that any credible expert scientist would voice an opinion on the results of a clinical trial before those results are available. So as far as I am aware in advance of the clinical data being available Oppershaw never gave an expert opinion that the vaccine would not work, and on the flip side I doubt very much that Sarah Gilbert would have given expert opinion that the vaccine would work prior to the evidence being available.

So over to you - show me where Oppenshaw publicly expressed the expert opinion that the vaccines wouldn't work in the months before the clinical trial data were available. As far as I can see his expert opinion was never than, and actually focussed on his expertise which isn't vaccine development (he isn't a vaccinologist) but the potential clinical management of infection with an effective vaccine (because he is a clinical virologist).

So these quotes from his expert opinion submission to the Science & Technology select committee in June 2020, before the trials had even started:

https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/557/html/

'Our hope for a vaccine is that we could induce even better immune responses than can be induced by the virus itself. If the virus is indeed neutralising multiple checkpoints in the immune system to its own advantage, a vaccine might be able to induce a good immune response while not interfering with the host’s immune response in the way that a live virus would. This is all a bit speculative because, again, this virus is relatively new to us.'

' I am hopeful that at least one of the many vaccine approaches that are being developed, and which you will hear more about later today, will produce some good, solid, protective immunity and will not cause this immune enhancement.'

'As I say, certain areas of the virus surface proteins are essential for them to gain entry via the receptors that they are adapted to bind to. By targeting those areas with vaccines, we should be able to develop vaccines that confer some immunity from which the virus cannot easily escape.

Privately he may have worried, as I'm sure a lot of people did, that the vaccine would not work but I can't see any evidence that he expressed this in expert opinion. That would firstly be crazy as it would not be evidence based because the trial hadn't happened at that point. And as a virologist, rather than a vaccinologist, you will note that his responses largely focus on his area of expertise, which isn't actually vaccine design and manufacture.

[ProfessorDavey]

What is this 'minor' and 'major' you keep referring to?!  During biblical times, children as young as 6 were married off. Sex was usually based on puberty. Puberty was the deciding age for adult or child.

18 years that many countries today follow as age of majority, is of recent origin and actually has no basis in medical terms. It is adhoc.

We are talking about valid consent Sriram - that is an entirely different matter than the legal age at which people can marry. A society may allow a 6 year old to be married, but that would not involve valid consent as a 6 year old would not have the capacity to consent to such an arrangement.

[ProfessorDavey]

Missed seeing this response.

The Quran recognises the Torah but Quranic verses imply the Torah has been changed. The Quran recognises that Jews follow the Torah and it refers to the laws of Moses but states that Muslims should follow the Quran and that the Quran differs from the Torah - hence in the verse below it mentions the Book (Quran) and "confirming whatever of the Book was revealed before" (Torah) and "For each of you, We have appointed a Law and a way of life" :

“Then We revealed the Book to you with Truth, confirming whatever of the Book was revealed before, and protecting and guarding over it. Judge, then, between them in accordance by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their desires in disregard of the Truth which has come to you. For each of you, We have appointed a Law and a way of life. And had Allah commanded, He would surely have made you one single community; instead, (He gave each of you a Law and a way of life) in order to test you by what He gave you. Vie, then, one with another in good works. Unto Allah is the return of all of you, and He will then inform you concerning that on which you disagreed.” (Al-Ma’ida/ The Feast, 5:48).

This article goes into it in more detail: https://www.whyislam.org/islams-stance-on-the-gospel-and-torah/

The Quran actually confirms the original revelation that was given to Prophet Moses called the Tawrah (Torah) and the Enjeel (the Gospel) that was revealed to Prophet Jesus. Other scriptures that are mentioned in the Quran include the Zabure revealed to Prophet David and the Suhuf revealed to Prophet Abraham. The idea that the Quran confirms the Bible, the Old Testament or the New Testament is incorrect. Even then when we take a term like Torah, it isn’t the exact equivalent in understanding the scriptures between Muslims and Jews and Christians, for example. Among the Jews and Christians the Torah is believed to be the first five books, beginning with Genesis, in the Bible.

However, if you look carefully into these books, you’ll find many of them don’t really represent revelation given to Moses but are biographies of Moses. Also, towards the end of chapter 34 in the book of Deuteronomy, which is part of the Torah it talks of Moses’ death and being buried, which obviously is not of the work of Moses nor is it the revelation given to him on Mount Sinai as Muslims believe. As such even the definition of Torah in the Judea-Christian literature is not like the Quranic reference to the Torah, or law, specifically the revelation given to prophet Moses not biographies about him.

Which effectively supports my view, specifically.

That Islam grew out of Judaism and that Islam recognised the Torah as a holy text, albeit with differing interpretations - that why we ultimately have Islam as a distinct religion from Judaism. But they are inextricably linked historically and theologically. So the starting point of Islam is Judaism as Islam grew out of Judaism, and the starting point of Judaism, certainly textually, is Genesis. Therefore the text which is close to the beginning of Genesis is at the starting point of three major religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

[ProfessorDavey]

The countries listed at the bottom of the Gender Equality Index have been affected by colonialism, wars, poverty, weapons sold to civilians, violence, breakdown in law and order, resource stripping, corruption, tribal culture, lack of teachers and doctors and health facilities in remote rural areas due to lack of funds for transport and infrastructure. All of these will have an impact on how people interpret and practise moral values and rules derived from philosophy, ethics, religion.

But those criteria apply to many countries, including a bunch that sit higher up the list, such as:

Namibia (6th), Rwanda (7th), Nicaragua (12th), Burundi (26th), Mozambique (32nd), Mexico (34th), Argentina (35th), Loas (36th), Cuba (38th), Jamaica (40th), Ecuador (42nd), El Salvador (43rd), Panama (44th), Zimbabwe (47th) - I could go on. So countries with significant current and historic issues as you describe, but all sit comfortably in the top half for gender equality. So there is no reason to consider that these social and societal challenges necessarily impact gender equality. So I think you might want to look for something else that is absent from these highly challenged countries in the top half, that might be present in nearly every country smack at the bottom of the list.

Anything you might note from those countries in comparison with the 30 countries sitting in the bottom 35 that are members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.

And of course there are countries right down the bottom of that list that sit amongst the wealthiest countries in the world by GDP per capita - e.g. Qatar (141st out of 155), Saudi Arabia (146th), Kuwait (142nd)

[Udayana]

Which effectively supports my view, specifically.

That Islam grew out of Judaism and that Islam recognised the Torah as a holy text, albeit with differing interpretations - that why we ultimately have Islam as a distinct religion from Judaism. But they are inextricably linked historically and theologically. So the starting point of Islam is Judaism as Islam grew out of Judaism, and the starting point of Judaism, certainly textually, is Genesis. Therefore the text which is close to the beginning of Genesis is at the starting point of three major religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Probably off-topic (though I'm not sure if this thread still has one), but this just seems wrong. Islam actually seems to have developed based on ideas of (now considered heretic) Christian god-men. There is no clear direct connection to Judaism.

I'd recommend Tom Holland's "In the shadow of the sword" on this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Shadow_of_the_Sword_(book)
 

[ProfessorDavey]

Probably off-topic (though I'm not sure if this thread still has one), but this just seems wrong. Islam actually seems to have developed based on ideas of (now considered heretic) Christian god-men. There is no clear direct connection to Judaism.

I'd recommend Tom Holland's "In the shadow of the sword" on this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Shadow_of_the_Sword_(book)

That makes no sense - if Islam arose from christianity then there is, of course, a direct link to Judaism as christianity arose from Judaism. If there is no link why does Islam recognise the Torah and include a whole bunch of the same prophets.