Objective Morality

Hijab argues Destiny imported liberalism into a debate about atheism vs Islam without demonstrating a necessary entailment from atheism to liberal moral order. He repeatedly presses for an objective bridge from materialist premises ('atoms in motion') to normative moral claims ('ought'), invoking the is-ought problem and arguing this remains unresolved in atheist frameworks.

Hijab argues the burden remains on Destiny to justify liberalism's truth and to derive objective normativity from atheism before using liberal criteria as universal arbiters. He presents this as a category error: evaluating Islam by a framework whose own foundations were not established in the debate.

Hijab distinguishes epistemology (how we know moral claims) from ontology (what makes them objectively true). He references major non-theistic ethical traditions (deontology, consequentialism, virtue ethics) and argues they do not secure mind-independent moral objectivity. He claims objective morality requires transcendence beyond human preference and social consensus.

Hijab argues intuitive recognition does not itself establish objective truth conditions. He says citing social upbringing or interpretive diversity does not refute truth-apt religion, just as disagreement in other domains does not erase facticity. He maintains the key unresolved issue is still ontological grounding for universal moral authority.

Hijab argues Sharia draws from multiple usul sources beyond only Quran/Hadith, including juristic principles around harm and benefit. He says this allows principled adaptation to new circumstances without abandoning objective moral anchors. He distinguishes between immutable foundations and variable rulings within jurisprudential method.