In many sentences of the Quran and other Abrahamic religious books, we are told about many different people who were immoral (thieves, corruption, adultery, etc.) until prophets come and help them become moral.

Assume, for the purposes of this post, that this is true.

Today, there are no prophets. We believe, instead, that today's morality is provided by the law and its arbiters. However, the old days provides numerous examples in which laws are not enough to provide justice so immorality is unavoidable or in a short period of time one who has evil power can cancel all laws and makes his power as single rule. This was only ended with the help of the prophets, whose aid we can no longer ask for.

So is there no other way to help people stay in the moral state?

The two options I hear proposed for this moral state are that it is brought about by rational questioning, or it is simply natural.

If it is rational, then why do people tend towards irrationality? Additionally, can those with power destroy morality, even justice?

If it is natural, can somebody provide a justification for this assertion?(citation)


I'd say you are mixing narratives carelessly.

The Abrahamic religions give you prophets. (As do other religions; the name "prophet" is likely to vary). Did these religions tell you there are no prophets today? Did you search?

The modern secular "law" discounts religions not just now but even in the past. They do not agree with a view of human morality, interactions, possibilities, limits that the religions proclaim.

The easy way is to select one narrative and reject the other (Yeah this can produce egregious results like believing the age of the earth is 6000 years 😬)

The harder way is to realize they are mutually inconsistent and fashion your own (laborious!) by ironing out inconsistencies as they arise.

  • "Did these religions tell you there are no prophets today?" From muslim view there is no other prophet after Muhammed and as I know there is similar idea for christianity too. You can argue that "Messiah" idea but this is out of point. I don't know "Secular law" fundamentals. But in muslim side islamic law is the only law in those eras. In my point of view I am looking for answers that morality is natural or like in abrahmic religious it should be supported by prophets or by courts of laws or are there any other motivation to keep people in moral state
    – Horizon
    Jun 5 '19 at 11:53
  • So by "law" you meant "Islamic law"?? Jun 5 '19 at 12:13
  • If we define "law" as rules that provide people justice and which was seen satisfactory by its people. The name in old era is islamic law or today with other name(secular).Does it matter? I didn't get your point by this question
    – Horizon
    Jun 5 '19 at 12:21
  • The two (sets of) laws are vastly different and produce vastly different results. It's not like law-of-gravity ie natural law is the same for everyone! Jun 5 '19 at 12:29
  • Also notice: The Jews don't recognize any prophet after... dunno... Malachi? But then Jesus came along (along with John the Baptist). Then Muhammad. Then.... Then... Bahaulllah. Your choice whether to see the case empirically or dogmatically. And if you insist on the dogmatic style which will you align to?? Jun 5 '19 at 12:32

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.