-->
@TheRealNihilist
Please click 'block user' on polytheist's profile as an immediate solution to the problem. We cannot negotiate with her, that is clear, so I am asking you to be the mature one.
Debate?
Posts
Total:
327
-->
@RationalMadman
What does block do?Please click 'block user' on polytheist's profile as an immediate solution to the problem. We cannot negotiate with her, that is clear, so I am asking you to be the mature one.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
There's no 'don't see what they write' kind of ignore here and users actually were happy about that. You are able to see the others' posts, report them etc but you are unable to be @'d by them via the 'receivers' box and also can't be PM'd by them.
-->
@RationalMadman
I'll pass. Not worth it and I am not that annoyed about it when she can only come up with "sock puppet"There's no 'don't see what they write' kind of ignore here and users actually were happy about that. You are able to see the others' posts, report them etc but you are unable to be @'d by them via the 'receivers' box and also can't be PM'd by them.
-->
@RationalMadman
Do not threaten her with mod action, you will get things backfiring onto you.
This is true, RM. A kind friendly warning to some one that you will report them if they persist with abuse will get you a warning strike against you and not your abuser. I had two warnings.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Where are the rules?
It comes under threat and abuse. I know, its absolutely ridiculous. Telling someone you will report them or even telling your abuser that you have reported them comes under threats and abuse.
This is what I have received and it stays with you it is never scrubbed after a time.
10.03.2018 11:15PM
Do not--for any reason--threaten another member with a report. That is entirely unacceptable and viewed extremely unfavorably by moderation. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/416?page=2&post_number=41
-->
@Stephen
It comes under threat and abuse. I know, its absolutely ridiculous. Telling someone you will report them or even telling your abuser that you have reported them comes under threats and abuse.This is what I have received and it stays with you it is never scrubbed after a time.
Guess I won't do it next time then.
-->
@Yassine
ok, given notorious verses such as 2:191"And kill them wherever you overtake them"and 5:51"Do not take the Jews and the Christians friends"Shouldn't you be out there killing Christians rather than being friendly with them?- Who says I'm not already doing that... LOL! Seriously, I know. It's getting really old though. It's just baffling to me how they can quote that verse & say it incites violence against [insert whomever] with a straight face, as if they don't know that self defense is!! Of course, by conveniently omitting the whole context & the inconvenient bits, like when you read a classified document with all the blackouts... They see "kill them wherever you overtake them"... & not "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you"..."but do not transgress'..."Allah does not like transgressors"..."... they have expelled you* ..."And do not fight them at the Holy Mosque until they fight you there"...'if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors"...etc.- As for the second verse, it's another interesting twist. The Salafis LOVE that, of course when it suits them. Thank God they aren't big on that mantra since Trump, now they are buddy-buddies. The classical schools, however, agree that befriending or loving non-Muslims is only prohibited in matters of religion, as the verses specify. That is, to befriend them or love them for their religion or to support their religion or support them against Muslims: "Allah does not forbid youfrom those who do not fight you because of religionand do not expel you from your homes - from acting kindly and justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly. Allah only forbids youfrom those who fight you because of religion andexpel you from your homes and aid in your expulsion - [forbids] that you make allies of them. And whoever makes allies of them, then it is those who are the wrongdoers". (60:8-9), Obviously a Muslim can not support a non-Muslim to transgress against other Muslims, that's treason. The Prophet (pbuh) had a lot of non-Muslim friends whom he loved, particularly his uncle, his son-in-law, his Jewish neighbor... & a lot of allies among them too, the Christian Abyssinians, the Copts of Egypt, most Jewish tribes of Medina (except the three that betrayed him).,,etc! The whole notion is patently absurd.
The problem with Islam is the same as for any faith based beliefs. The way you personally interpret the quran does not prevent others from interpreting it in a way that does seem to suggest that violence is more or less compulsory.
I'm not arguing that Islam cannot have utility in creating a functional society or that it is not a positive force in your life. What I am arguing is that just like christianity and Judaism before it and indeed all faith based beliefs is that since no evidence is required for belief that persecuting the (heretic/non-believer/infedel/illegal alien) can be believed to be for the greater good with no evidence that this is so.
-->
@secularmerlin
Monotheism has intolerance built-in; if there is one god all others gods and their associated reigions are false.The problem with Islam is the same as for any faith based beliefs.
-->
@keithprosser
I am not singling monotheism or even theism out political systems are also faith based and suffer the same tendency toward dehumanizing the "outsider".
-->
@keithprosser
Monotheism has intolerance built-in;
Islam certainly has and it makes its intolerance of other faiths extremely clear in over 100 verses of the Quran.
Quran 4:89 - They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they migrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.
Quran 9:29 - Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give thejizyah (jizyah = tax levied by Muslim on non- - believers or be killed on refusal to pay) willingly while they are humbled.
Quran 9:123 - Youwho have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness. And know that Allah is with the righteous.
Quran 9:30 - The Jews say,"Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah." That is their statement from their mouths;they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah Destroy them; how are they deluded?
Bukhari : 9.84.57. - ISLAM AND APOSTASY"Prophet Muhammad said: Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him."
And there is this very clear instruction from Allah:
Quran 51 - You, who have believed, do not take the Jews and Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you – then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah Guides not the wrongdoing people.
It would be interesting to see if you can find anything in the Christian New Testament even resembling any of those extremely intolerant and violent verses, keith.
-->
@Stephen
Lk 19:27 "But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and slaughter them in my presence.’”
But my position is that the monotheism of abrahamic faiths encourages them to be intolerant.
-->
@keithprosser
Lk 19:27 "But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and slaughter them in my presence.’”
I could accuse you of quoting out of context, but that would be lowering myself to your own level of intellect and scraping the barrel.I could ask you to actually put this parable into context, but I won't.
Yes, you have tried this tripe before keith it didn't work then and it doesn't work now. I made clear to you twice on other threads that this is only part of a parable spoken by The Christ aka the Prince of Peace.
Lk 19:27 Is a judgment of a god and not an instruction for others to carry out in his name. The Meaning is, is that all of mankind will one day face god's judgment. Put simply those who have hated and or rejected God will be punished.
So, would you like another attempt or is that it?
-->
@Stephen
you only asked for something 'even resembling'!
So, suddenly proper consideration of context is vital. i'll try to remember.
-->
@keithprosser
you only asked for something 'even resembling'!
I did. I asked for you to find me anything resembling those quranic instructions in the New Testament where Christ himself instructs his followers to go and kill in his name. OR where the Christ says - do not take a Jew OR Gentile OR a Buddhist OR a hindu OR a Sikh OR a muslim as an allies?
Or kill any christian who converts to Islam or Judaism, OR kill anyone because they do not believe in god.
So, suddenly proper consideration of context is vital.
No it isn't. I didn't ask for context did I? and No it isn't always vital as you always seem to believe it is when it comes to the Quran. It's alway you who accuses me of quoting "out of context" and ask me to "put it into context" weather it be the bible or the quran.
So I am going to take it you do not have any New Testament verses resembling those violent and intolerant quranic direct instruction from allah to his adherents then? Thought so.
-->
@Stephen
You do blow up easily!
My point is that even without explicit scripture Christianity - or Christians - have been violently intolerant towards non-christians and heretical christians. That prompts me to think intollerance is a problem with monotheisms in general.
-->
@keithprosser
You do blow up easily!
Oh please!!! So me having to continuously highlight points and facts to you that you simply ignore, is me blowing up? Grow up.
My point is that even without explicit scripture Christianity - or Christians - have been violently intolerant towards non-christians and heretical christians.
So you concede then that there isn't a single instruction from the Christ to his followers to go out into the world and kill in his name anyone who doesn't believe in him or god or isn't Christian as does the quran. GOOD!
And I have said many times; there isn't a single direction from the Christ to his followers to "kill" others for simply not believing or for not being Christian. Neither does it instructs followers not to take anyone at all who isn't muslim, as allies as does the Quran. In fact the opposite is true and you know it.
I agree Christians have killed believing they have god on their side and in a god's name, but this is in direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus the Christ, Prince of Peace, you know that too.
But you just can't help trying your damnedest to contextualise the Christian practices and actions of today with the teachings of Islam today and the actions of muslims which hasn't change one single iota from the day of its conception over 1400 years ago. But I have gone over this before with you but it doesn't stop you coming back with the same old tripe!
So I am going to take it you do not have any New Testament verses resembling those violent and intolerant quranic direct instruction from allah to his adherents then? Thought so.
I am still waiting for your discussion on how to "counter" islamic violence. You did say here post 114 https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1499?page=5 that you'd be discussing it with your tag partner, yassine. You haven't discussed that yet.
-->
@Stephen
So I am going to take it you do not have any New Testament verses resembling those (quranic verses)
Is there some reason we are eliminating the old testament from consideration? Is it not used as part of some Christians moral foundation?
Is there some reason we are eliminating the old testament from consideration?
Who is? Not sure what you mean, but there is plenty of violence in the OT , compatible with Islam, if that is what your getting at.
Is it not used as part of some Christians moral foundation?
Such as? Religion does not have the monopoly on morals. I do not have to believe in a god, or be religious or have read the New or Old Testaments to be a good person with morals.
The christian "foundation" as you put it, is the new covenant and has nothing to do with the ancient Hebrew OT and their god. Even Jews don't read the OT never mind take any laws or moral guidance from it. Do you not believe that people had laws and morals before Moses decided to write down the commandments? This was the new covenant of his time. It may as well be obsolete. Islam on the other hand has undergone not a single change in all of its 1400 + years since Muhammad had his so called "revelation".
.
-->
@Stephen
As I said to Yessine how any one person interprets the book/belief does not tell us wether or not the belief can be used to justify violence/harm. Some christians point to the old testament to justify their moral standards and therefore the old testament is a potential justification for christian behavior even if this does not apply to all christians.
So again there some reason we are eliminating the old testament from consideration? Is it not used as part of some christians moral foundation?
-->
@secularmerlin
Some christians point to the old testament to justify their moral standards
What some christians may or may not do doesn't answer the question - such as?
and therefore the old testament is a potential justification for christian behavior even if this does not apply to all christians.
It doesn't apply to any christians in truth. What you say "some christians" may or may not do has nothing to do with the old testament. And it isn't evidence. My cat has a wooden head and breaths fire. If you want proof of that claim my brother will come on here and confirm it. Will that be evidence enough for you? OK, here is my brother: yes Stephen's cat has a wooden head and it breathes fire and "some other people" seen this too.
So again there some reason we are eliminating the old testament from consideration? Is it not used as part of some christians moral foundation?
See above.
And asking the same question over and over will not garner different answer. If you think the ot should NOT be "eliminated" that's your affair but the thread is a "Debate" of Islam, and you should make your case concerning the ot in relation to Islam.... if you have one.
It doesn't apply to any christians in truth.
The moral law (such as the Ten Commandments) is the direct command of God, and it requires strict obedience (see Exod 20:13, for example). The moral law reveals the nature and will of God, and it still applies today. Jesus obeyed the moral law completely.
it would be a terrible mistake to ignore the Old Testament,
here are just two articles (along with short excerpts) written by christians that prove my point. For some christians the old testament is a valid source of morality.
the thread is a "Debate" of Islam,
Yes and I got the impression from the op that the discussion was about whether or not the claims of Islam are true. Whether or not they incite violence is beside the point in that discussion. Just to be clear I do not regard Islam as observably more or less true than christian doctrine.
-->
@Stephen
Isn't the term "kill" kinda muddied in the Bible? Thou shall not murder is clear... which would indicate killing innocence. But, killing someone outside your tribe trying to harm you isn't clear in the Bible or is it? I'm not sure. I was under the impression even the Bible allows killing if there is a threat. Which would make it dangerous too bc who defines what a threat is. You know the Bible better so let me know if my assumptions are wrong.
-->
@keithprosser
Would you say conservative interpretations of islam have gained in influence over the last few decades?
- I wouldn't call it 'conservative' interpretation. Rather, 'modern' or 'puritanical' or 'protestant' interpretations of Islam, at the expense of the classical traditional schools of thought. This, with the rise of Salafism/Wahabism (& all sorts of other new ideologies) due to few reasons: the huge gap of religious authority subsequently to the fall of the Islamic caliphate & Islamic madrasa, the strong allegiance between the dominant West & the anti-Ottoman anti-Arab-secularism & anti-Muslim-Brotherhood Wahabis (all of which enemies to the West) which made it easier for their ideology to flourish, plus the infinite Oil reserves & wealth it brought them to spread & fund their ideology.
- The classical schools have a strict system of authority based on rigorous scholarship & exigent qualifications. In classical schools, several levels of licenses are awarded: 'tabasur' (practicing, beginner level) + 'daawa' (preaching) + 'tadris' (teaching) + 'tadris wal iftaa' (teaching & advising, to become Mufti = basic scholar level) + 'tadris wal iftaa wal hukm' (teaching & advising & judging, to become a Judge) + 'imamah' (leadership, to become a great scholar)...etc. To illustrate the contrast, in Saudi they make you a judge with a 5-year university degree, which I can assure you will barely qualify you to a practitioner level in a classical school. To even qualify for a classical scholar, you need to study the equivalent of 50-70 years university studies (in hours).
-->
@Paul
What can you tell me about Islam during the period of 800 AD to 1100 AD?
- Umm... what do you like to know? This period represents the height of the Abbasid dynasty, & in many ways the height of Arabo-Islamic empire, especially in political & scientific & economic dominion.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
- Is your real name Omar? If so, are you an ex-Muslim?
Can you prove the existence of your God?That is really the only question that needs answering.
- There are many proofs for the existence of God in Islamic Theology (Kalam), though two standard proofs are offered by the Ash'ari school (which I follow): one from sufficient causation (mentioned below), & the other much more sophisticated based on the notion of Jawhar Fard. I wrote something to this effect in a another thread, so I'm just gunna paste it here:
Definition:
God is a Necessary (necessarily existent) Singular (simple & unique) Absolute (with absolutely free will) & Transcendent (distinct from all creation) being, from the scriptural definition of Allah in Chapter 112 of the Quran.
Argument:
1. A contingent being (a being such that if it exists it could have not-existed) exists. [ evident ]
2. This contingent being has a cause of its existence. [ follows from 1. ]
3. The cause of its existence is something other than itself. [ follows from 1. & 2. ]
4. This cause must either be a contingent or a non-contingent -necessary- being. [ law of excluded middle ]
5. Contingent beings solely are not sufficient for the existence of a contingent being. [ follows from 3. ]
6. This cause must include a necessary being. [ follows from 4. & 5. ]
7. Therefore, a Necessary being (a being such that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists. [ follows from 1. & 7. ]
8. Two necessary distinct beings exist. [ assumption ]
9. A difference between the distinct necessary beings exists. [ follows from 8. ]
10. This difference is either necessary or contingent. [ law of excluded middle ]
11. If the difference is necessary, then three necessary beings exist. [ absurd! ]
12. If the difference is contingent (has a cause or an explanation for its existence), then at least one of the two necessary beings is contingent (has a cause or explanation for its/their existence). [ absurd! ]
13. Therefore, a necessary being is one (i.e. unique). [ follows from 10. & 11. & 12.]
14. Similarly, a necessary being is simple (i.e does not have parts) [ substitute "necessary beings" with "parts" in 9. ]
15. Therefore, the necessary being is Singular (i.e. unique & simple). [ follows from 13. & 14. ]
16. The sum of all contingent beings is not singular. [ evident ]
17. Therefore, the sum of all contingent beings is Distinct from the necessary being. [follows from 15. & 16. ]
18. Therefore, the necessary being is Transcendent from the sum all contingent beings. [ follows from 17. ]
19. The sum of all contingent beings is contingent (not necessary, i.e. not identical to the necessary being). [ follows from 15. & 17. ]
20. The sum of all contingent beings is contingent on a necessary being. [ follows from 2. & 3. & 6. & 19. ]
21. The necessary being is the sole cause of the existence of the sum of all contingent beings. [ follows from 15. & 20. ]
22. The attribute to cause the sum of all contingent being exists (Will). [ evident from 19. ]
23. All contingent beings are equally non-existent prior to existence. [ evident ]
24. The Will is Absolutely Free. [ follows from 22. & 23. ]
25. Therefore, a Necessary & Singular & Transcendent & Absolute being exists. [ follows from 7. & 15. & 18. & 24. ]
C. Therefore, God exits. [ as defined in the Quran ]
-->
@Stronn
What is the prescribed penalty for apostasy?
- That's an interesting question, for it involves the first of the 6 Sacred Necessities of Sharia: Religion (the other beings: Life, Reason, Progeny, Property & Honor). Religion is indeed a sacred right in Sharia, thus religious freedom -in both belief & practice- is guaranteed & religious coercion is categorically prohibited. This is expressed in the legal notion of 'Ismat al-Millah' (Inviolability of Faith) for Muslims (& non-Muslims in the Hanafi school) & 'Ismat al-Dhimmah' (Inviolability of Protection) for non-Muslims (in the other schools), which mandates that a Muslim or non-Muslim are inviolable in the 6 sacred necessities, i.e. in their religion, life, reason, progeny, property & honor. Thus, the inviolability of a Muslim is tied, not just to his allegiance to the faith, but also to his allegiance to the state & to the community (this is true for other than the Hanafi school). Subsequently, the status of apostates is a special one, for it indicates the simultaneous rejection of faith & state & community at the same time, thus do not warrant neither the inviolability of faith nor of protection.
- In this sense, Apostasy is seen potentially as a political offense rather than just a civil or criminal offense, hence dealt with accordingly by the state. The punishment of Apostasy thus varies depending on circumstances. It can even be frozen or dropped if the circumstances demand so, or if the state deems it best. Particularly, individual apostasy, as opposed to collective/public apostasy, is regarded as politically inconsequent & thus doesn't warrant a penalty, though it warrants questioning & other civil solutions. Depending on the different legal schools, its punishment ranges from nothing to death penalty. Some schools prescribe the death penalty only for apostasy that involves high treason, banditry, revolts & such (Nakhii school). Some others punish apostasy that also involves all kinds of militancy or hostility (Hanafi school). Some schools punish even whimsical (not founded on solid conviction & sincerity) apostasy (Maliki school).
- The biggest issue jurists face in the implementation of this penalty is its conformity to the principal of "there is no compulsion in religion". For Coercion nullifies Accountability. A coerced person can not be accountable, wether in this life or the next. To reconcile this, the jurists view Apostasy as a negative act (in not upholding the religion & the state & the community) rather than a positive act (in joining a new belief). Example, punishing murder is not coercion into not committing murder (negative act). Further, they also postulate that, in theory, the punishment is actually relief from coercion rather than coercion, for allowing whimsical apostasy would inevitably impede reason & morality in favor of foolishness & immorality, which entails the violation of two sacred rights in Islam: Religion & Reason (& probably the rest). In short, the framework is built in such a way that apostates who are law abiding citizens, genuinely seeking truth, know about the religion & have valid objections against its principals, may be spared from punishment, for these are expected to eventually return back to Islam after engaging with assigned scholars to argue said objections.
-->
@secularmerlin
The problem with Islam is the same as for any faith based beliefs. The way you personally interpret the quran does not prevent others from interpreting it in a way that does seem to suggest that violence is more or less compulsory.
- No. Things are simply not what you wish them to be. The way you personally interpret the US Constitution does not prevent others from interpreting it in a way that does seem to suggest that violence is more or less compulsory. LOL! NO. There is such a thing as authority in interpretation & scholarship & religion. Islam =/= Protestantism. Not all interpretations of the Quran are equal, the same way not all interpretation of the US Constitution are equal...
I'm not arguing that Islam cannot have utility in creating a functional society or that it is not a positive force in your life. What I am arguing is that just like christianity and Judaism before it and indeed all faith based beliefs is that since no evidence is required for belief that persecuting the (heretic/non-believer/infedel/illegal alien) can be believed to be for the greater good with no evidence that this is so.
- What nonsense are you talking man? Scripture is the source of authority for religious morality or rationality or spirituality, aka evidence. Protestantism took authority away from Catholicism (probably for good reason), as did Salafism -illegitimately- take it away from the classical traditional schools.
-->
@keithprosser
Monotheism has intolerance built-in; if there is one god all others gods and their associated reigions are false.
- Keith, come on, this is just too weak! *Any* ideology starts from the premise of rejecting -in effect- all others... This doesn't necessarily entail intolerance! Maybe in the case of Christianity, yes. In Islam, in so far as Sharia is exigent in firmly deeming other beliefs corrupted, it is just as exigent in categorically tolerating other beliefs as well, for how can one be truly accountable for what they believe unless they have the guaranteed choice to believe.
-->
@Stephen
Such as? Religion does not have the monopoly on morals. I do not have to believe in a god, or be religious or have read the New or Old Testaments to be a good person with morals.The christian "foundation" as you put it, is the new covenant and has nothing to do with the ancient Hebrew OT and their god. Even Jews don't read the OT never mind take any laws or moral guidance from it. Do you not believe that people had laws and morals before Moses decided to write down the commandments? This was the new covenant of his time. It may as well be obsolete. Islam on the other hand has undergone not a single change in all of its 1400 + years since Muhammad had his so called "revelation".
- We can have a formal debate over this. You seem to be quite confident & sure of yourself...