In “Friends of Irem,” Aslan argues that there is no such thing as a universal moral law. Instead, we are all motivated by a number of personal motivations. We have our own goals and desires and our own sets of ethics.
In his book, Aslan says that the universal moral code cannot be applied to all cultures and civilizations. The same holds true with the laws of science. There are some scientific theories that cannot be used to predict the future. There are some events that are out of our control.
For instance, Aslan argues that the universal moral code cannot apply to the Israelites who lived in Jerusalem during the Second Temple Period. According to this theory, there is no universal moral code for the rest of the world, including the Christians who lived in Rome and even the Muslims living in Egypt during that period. What we call morality today might have different meanings at different times and in different places.
In the book, Aslan also argues that the Jews who did not accept the Old Testament can be considered to have been friends of Irem. The idea is that there was a point in time when they accepted what the Old Testament said and therefore the followers of Irem can be considered to have been good people, even though they did not follow what the Bible said. This is because they accepted what is in accordance with their religion.
In his book, Aslan also says that the New Testament followers of Irem, such as the early church, are not the best examples of friendliness. Aslan believes that this is because they were unable to overcome the problems that confronted them.
In “Friends of Irem,” Aslan also points out that a friend does not always mean a follower means a friend. He argues that people who do not believe in something can still be considered to be friends. For example, Aslan says that those who don’t believe in God can still be considered to be good people because they still believe in Jesus Christ.
In conclusion, Aslan’s argument in “Friends of Irem” is that there is no universal moral code or law. and that sometimes the best that one can hope for is just as good as the worst. However, people have to be careful not to use this to justify evil acts or bad deeds.
Aslan also takes a lot of flak for his views about Christians and Muslims being friends. It is said that his book is a bit biased towards Muslims, which he says is unfair because of the number of books he has written in the past. Many people have written books on the Christians and Muslims and how they can be friends. Some have even compared the two religions and come up with similar conclusions.
However, Aslan does not necessarily deny that he has written a book on the Christians and Muslims who argue that there are certain principles that must apply in their religion to the rest of the world. that they must follow. When they cannot agree on things, then there is no reason to be friends.
In fact, he also acknowledges that there are disagreements among friends but the disagreements are not so serious that one should become enemies. Some of the disagreements might actually make one stronger, while others weaken them.
Also, this book is a little controversial because some people have criticized him for saying that it is wrong to ask someone if they are Jewish to be friends. Aslan says that it is a false argument that one can be friends with a Jew who is not Jewish. On the contrary, he believes that it is wrong to ask a Jew whether he is Christian or not.
To conclude, there are pros and cons to all three arguments presented in “Friends of Irem.” It would be best to listen to the book in its entirety before taking sides. However, if you can give it a read and decide for yourself.
