Total posts: 1,201
-->
@Lemming
@MarkWebberFan
I'd imagine for near all religions, same as governments. They go through different iterations, versions I mean, of their practice....I'm sure you know this but what you said doesn't apply to Islam. During the Umayyads, Greek influence was prevalent.
- Ahem... The Greeks were translated at al-Mamun time, at the university of Dar Hikma inaugurated by his father Harun Rashid, decades after the Umayyads fell. So... no Greek influence during Umayyads... If you're going to pretend to know something about Islam, at least lie in moderation. Greek ideas started with al-Mamun's time (early 9th century), though primarily in astronomy & biology at first. Their influence grew considerably after al-Kindi's works spread (more than 250 books), considered the father of the Islamic school of Philosophy (Falsafa).
According to muslim historians, they were inevitably removed by argumentation (lol) because succeeding imams found greek-inspired ulamas incredibly erroneous. I think Islam now is the version conceived during the time of the Prophet Muhammad.
- This: '!&#T*!&#^$(!&^$(!&' makes more sense than what you just said. Could you elaborate on what that means?
I chose to apostatize specifically for this reason: that I prefer the philosophers of the west rather than the east. My opinion.
- This move doesn't make sense. The modern Western philosophers are on average 6 centuries late to ideas than their Muslim counterparts (save post-Modern types), given the late transfer of knowledge between the Muslim world & Europe. You don't seem to know much about Muslim philosophers. In truth, Western modern philosophy is actually a brunch of Islamic philosophy. The Europeans never took anything from the Greeks. Their access to
Greek knowledge came exclusively through the Arabs and the Muslims. What the
Europeans seized from Muslims was never Greek philosophy or Greek sciences! It was rather in fact Islamic philosophy & Islamic sciences, which sometimes also contained commentary on Greek philosophy & Greek sciences. Averroes’ commentaries of Aristotle are not Aristotle, rather 6 centuries of Islamic tradition with Aristotle; the same way Einstein's commentary on Newton's is not Newton. The Muslims’ commentaries
on the Greeks or their books in Philosophy & Science not only exhibit an Islamic understanding of the World & of Science, but it also portrays a Muslim understanding of the Greeks themselves.
@Lemming
I am largely ignorant of Islam.Religion I'm most familiar with is (General) Christianity, which has seen 'many denominations, changes.So it's likely I make erroneous comparisons.Though I suppose Catholics might maintain fairly solid solidarity, and consistency in their beliefs, given their common ties to the Pope and the Catholic Church.
- You say that because you don't know their history. Let's just say, 'catholic' literally means 'flexible'. Though, I do agree, comparatively speaking they have more cohesion than the pesky Protestants. I prefer Middle Eastern Christianity, more authentic & more conform to Jesus (pbuh).
But it 'does seem to me when glancing about history, that religions, depending on the countries practiced in, the leaders, amount of war at times, aggression. End up fairly tolerant at times, or intolerant, but 'depending on time and circumstance.
- In truth, for whatever reason, the only intolerant continent in the past world was Europe. Religious pluralism was the norm virtually everywhere else, wether be it in India or China or Africa, & especially in the Muslim world. In Ming China, for instance, the emperors invited Muslim traders to China, built cities for them & mosques, commissioned them in their governments, even appointing them as generals & ambassadors... (although this may be due to them being probably Muslim). Still, there has never been, in the past or today, a more tolerant system than Islamic system towards religious pluralism. Freedom of Religion in Sharia is a primal human right, called: Ismat al-Millah (Hanafi) or Ismat Dhimmah (Maliki) -meaning: inviolability of faith, as in guaranteed the 6 sacred rights of faith, life, reason, family, property & honor (in that order). Contrary to the Secular version of religious freedom, which only extends to beliefs but restricts practice, Islamic religious freedom extends to both beliefs & practices. Non-Muslims in Islamic states were granted the freedom to practice their own faith, apply their own laws, enact their own policies, & establish their own treasury system, within their respective communities.
- Indeed. According to Sharia, one must be guaranteed the choice to faith, otherwise one can not be accountable for that choice. We don't believe in the Christian doctrine of "compel them to come in", for coercion negates accountability. In the day of Judgment you will only be able to speak what is truly in your heart, not what you're compelled to believe.
...I've been given to understanding that at various times and locations, Islam has been a religion tolerant of the existence and practice of religions different than it's own?"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error...Well, that's a lot to unpack. First of all, the application of that verse requires the obligated help of the Hadith (sayings of the prophet). If you ignore the latter, you're branded as a Quranist which means you're not really a muslim. Since you've said a lot about history in your post, I'll end the implications of being a Quranist here and move on to more relevant things.
- Indeed, knowingly & willingly denying the Sunnah in whole is of course apostasy, as is the consensus of Ulama. Most -if not all- Quranists, however, are ignorants who don't have the faintest clue what they are saying. Which is probably fortunate for them. They don't know what Hadith is.
In medieval times, it is perhaps the most tolerant. Non-muslims (though branded derogatorily)
- Eh? Dhimmi literally means 'under the protection of God' in Arabic, who de-facto share the same inviolability (Ismah) as Muslims under Sharia, of faith, self, reason, family, property & honor.
are only obligated to pay Jizya (non-muslim tax) and they enjoy equal protection under muslim empires. If you look up medieval publications, Jewish authors tend to co-write with Muslim authors.
- This is fairly accurate. To elaborate, Jizya is a yearly poll tax on every able militarily competent adult male exempt from military service (sans: women, children, elderly, disabled, poor, insane & monks). According to Sharia, the Jizyah covenant (or dhimmah covenant) between the non-Muslim subject & the Muslim state, entails fundamental rights/duties:
i. Security to the subject: exterior security (from foreign intervention), interior security (law & order), & social security (health & relief).
ii. Allegiance to the state: paying taxes & upholding the covenant.
- There are other taxes levied on non-Muslims by Sahria, namely: kharaj (farm land tax), khums (mineral tax), & ushur (trade tariffs) [tariff from the Arabic word 'taarifa' meaning 'charge'] although these taxes apply on Muslims as well alike. However, by Sharia, non-Muslims do not pay taxes on income or wealth or commercial assets... -as opposed to Muslims.
Unfortunately, that's where tolerance ends. For new converts, especially women, you are forbidden to leave Islam.
- If you had said "especially for men", I would've maybe agreed. Women apostates are not subject to punishment according to the majority opinion, & the de-facto state madhhab. I'm not sure if you're referring here to Islamic Law (Fiqh) or particularly to Indonesian Law, or acts of some Muslims... I do agree that apostasy laws today are actually more like treason laws rather than how they were traditionally understood, for the notion of nation has changed. Traditionally a nation hinged on allegiance to the faith within communities, today it hinges on allegiance to the flag within borders. In a traditional society leaving your faith meant leaving your family & your community to join another, which isn't true for today's society with the virtual absence of communitarianism.
- In the spirit of education again, there are three legal perspectives on apostasy among the Fuqaha:
i. The fuqaha's (jurists) views (the more familiar to most) on apostasy are concerned more about how to deal with apostates in practice to maintain social integrity, generally by exercising persuasion, confinement or punishment. The general & majority view on this is that an apostate who has explicitly, willingly & publicly left Islam after explicitly, willingly & publicly coming into it, is to be indefinitely persuaded as long as he is willing, else punished (unless a woman). In practice this means that truth seeking law abiding apostates are not punishable.
ii. The usulis (jurisprudents) look at apostasy as a question of Taklif (accountability), the legal dilemma of reconciling apostasy punishment (which looks like coercion) with the principle of non-coercion in faith. That is, true freedom of religion can only be accomplished by removing deceptive factors & guaranteeing access to truth seeking -which is why public preaching is also prohibited in Sharia, for that is deemed propagandism. Therefore, coercion by deception & dominance is alleviated, upholding thus the principle of non-coercion.
iii. The sasas (political theorists) perspective on apostasy is in reality the most relevant, for it relates to the actual governance of the state. To them apostasy is a political offense -as opposed to a criminal one, thus they only view apostasy in light of Manaa: the intent with means to undermine the integrity of the state. Thus, they don't care about individual apostates. This is why looking back into Islamic history, all those famous apostates have never been punished, for they stayed loyal to the state.
You will always be branded a muslim and
- I heard Indonesia finally recognized Jews are a separate faith they can put on their ID, is that true?
any attempts to convert out will inevitably lands you a one way-ticket to senior clerics/scholars.Even if you disagreed with their attempts to revert you back to islam, you're just inviting yourself to be slapped with a death sentence.
- What is the issue with having access to a scholar to discuss with about one's doubts? That's the whole point. If an apostate is seeking the truth & has sincere objections about the faith then it's natural they should be accorded a scholar to engage with, to unveil truth wherever that might be. People are easily gullible, as Ibn Khaldun says: 'the dominated are forever infatuated with emulating the dominant'. Untruth may come disguised as truth in many ways: 'successful therefore true', 'new therefore true', 'popular therefore true'...etc. It is only in leveling the plain & removing these factors that Truth may prevail. Most apostate Muslims today don't apostasies from love of truth, they do from infatuation with dominance (the West), that's why they all adopt western lifestyle & ideas, & not African or Indian or whatever lifestyle. In a world where say China is dominance, they would adopt Chinese ideas, the same way most Muslim apostates in the 70s & 80s adopted communist ideas.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
@coal
Indonesia?
- They kicked out westerners from their country after they attempted taking it again, then removed them from control of their resources & lands, & then purged them from influencing their politics, which destroyed the country. It was not until Habibi two decades ago that Indonesia began to prosper, going through its own economic boom as we speak. Indonesia grew 73 times in scientific publications since Habibi, its real GDP expanded 3 times, one of the highest growth rates in the world, its industrial output surpassing the likes of Germany & Russian, going through one of the largest infrastructure crazes on the planet, with some 114 major ongoing projects, ports, airports, high speed rails, dams..etc. Within a decade, Indonesia will have a similar population to the US, within a couple of decades it will become a rival to US economy. Western guidance in Indonesia manifested in the East-Timur massacre, a US-backed & US-armed genocide for US-hegemony interests.
-->@GreyparrotHe forgot about Saudi Arabia lol
- Oil guidance, not western guidance. Western guidance manifests in them having to import US made weapons to admire their sleekness, while the Americans fill their pockets. Saudis can't make a bullet to save their lives. Truly sad!
Created:
-->
@coal
You'd have to get one first. And that is unlikely, being that you appear to be from Turkey
- Who said I don't have one already...
--- which should have been excised from NATO years ago.
- Amen to that. But they can't, owing to them unable to perform without. They need Turkey.
Created:
-->
@coal
I have no idea what you're talking about. Though you don't appear to be in a country that the United States would send drones to. I have no involvement in any of that.
- My green card is safe then.
Back to the prior issue, however, if you should ever wish to dispute the substance of anything I said feel free to do so. When I wrote the first of my series of posts, I had a joke about how every time I talk about this some arab comes out of the woodwork to accuse me of being some kind of spy for either the American or British government. Which is absurd, of course. I can't recall whether I deleted that bit nor not.
- I've been itching to have a debate for a while now, nobody seems to be willing to bite. We can debate this & see what "substance" is in what you said. I guarantee you, not much.
Here's the problem: There are a bunch of academics who call themselves "historians" in the United States and the UK (read: leftist frauds) who have essentially acquiesced to the Ayatollah-promulgated Islamist propaganda-version of Iran's history from the 1950s to the 1970s. Co-mingled with that nonsense are vapid, specious claims about "American imperialism," a claim that does not even rise to the level of idiocy in view of the Wilson Administration's role in thwarting British imperialism before and after WWII.
- No love lost for Khumeini, but this does not diminish from the Shah's & his master's doings. You seem to boast a lot of confidence denying American imperialism, are you prepared to have a debate about that to defend your statement: 'American imperialism claim does not even rise to the level of idiocy'?
If the United States had exercised anything like the level of influence the Ayatollah claims, Khomeini and his brigade of fake Muslims would have simply disappeared to never be heard from again. The Shah would have remained in power. The so called "Iranian revolution" would have never happened.
- This could be a good topic for another debate. You seem to think of the US is some kind of god, aren't you Canadian? That doesn't bode well with your people.
And Iran would be a vibrant, thriving leader in the region and likely throughout the world. Iran would likely be more closely allied with the United States than Saudi Arabia could have ever hoped to be. The House of Saud would be a historical artifact. The list goes on and on . . . . but it's a pipe dream.
- Damn, you keep tickling my fancy. We could debate Iran under Shah would be superior, though that's a hard one to sell, him being dead & all, while having performed so poorly in life. In truth, we know that no Muslim country has ever prospered under western guidance. We can debate that too.
Sadly, Iran and the world continues to pay for the civilizationally destructive forces Mossadegh's incompetence set in motion. More sadly, the United States did not prevent the catastrophe that unfolded in 1979 as it should have and failed to do so under the watch of a president who was at best asleep at the wheel, at worst an even more incompetent, dangerous, ideologically possessed imbecile than Mossadegh.
- So many claims we can debate here as well. Everything that comes out of your mouth is pure drivel, I can't help but be exited for debate. Let know which debate you wish to proceed with.
Created:
-->
@coal
Are you from the Middle East?
- Is this an interview for Green Card though? Or should I be expecting a drone attack?
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
YOUR QUOTE: " 'Allah' is what Jesus (pbuh) called God, for he spoke Aramaic, as a TRUE CHRISTIAN you're blaspheming against your LORD. ATONE FOR YOUR SINS!"
- Have you ATONED FOR YOUR SINS?
Before I bloody you up again, therefore within your quote above, what do you truly mean? Are you saying that Jesus and Allah are different gods, or that Jesus and Allah are the same god along with the Hebrew Yahweh god as well?
- Ask him after you die. Just make sure to ATONE FOR YOUR SINS first.
Furthermore, I believe you stated somewhere in our discussion, or another discussion with some other member, that Islam is the religion of peace? Yes or no?
- Absolutely. Why? You wish to debate that?
Created:
-->
@coal
What was yours? What does the fact that you're* Arab* have to do with your claim that you are "brothers" with Iranians*?
- I assumed you asked "Are you Iranian?" to ascertain wether my amazing knowledge about Iranian history comes from belonging (i.e. being Iranian). I remarked it rather comes from affinity, since as an Arab I share the same faith as Iranians, that is Islam. Though I do happen to know quite a few things about quite a few topics.
Created:
-->
@coal
Iranians are not Arabs.
- & the Earth isn't flat, what's your point?
Created:
-->
@coal
Are you Iranian?
- Is this an interview about my Green Card? No, I'm Arab. Iranians are our brothers.
Created:
-->
@Aryanman
hello brothers
- Salamoalaykom.
after the 1979 revolution, the shah was abolished and Iran was now an islamic republic, some would consider this the downfall of iran, and to be honest i agreewhat are your thoughts and opinions?
- Do you have any objective factors to support this belief?
some say revolution happened because shah was taking his way too quickly and maybe if he slowed down iran would have been a great country today and many muslims did not like the women's rights part
- There was no women's rights, there were sexual freedom "rights" for women, nothing else. Women were virtually absent from anything under the Shah, except in sexual display & nudity. You know what I'm talking about.
also here is an interesting video where shah criticizes Britain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imil1iIpIYA1
- That's a persona. He sucks their private parts away from the camera. The guy was delirious, he seriously thought Iran could soon become a Japan (the country with half the US economy then), while the majority of his people still in poverty. Propaganda of course. He called himself Shahshahan, the old title of Persian emperors, King of kings. In truth, Iran's GDP pre-Revolution in 1979 was actually less than its GDP at his coronation in 1969 (much of it from oil -literally 50% of the economy). So much for Shahshahan.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Not all traits decrease inter-fertility though. You misunderstood what I said.
- What are you even saying! The indoctrination is too deep. Take time to think things through, then say something sensible.
By the way, using your same logic, will you admit not all apes are the same species?
- What logic that might be? If a species is such that the case of lack of interfertility with existing species, then all -great- apes are indeed the same species. That, contingent of course on wether gorillas are interfertile with the others, as the dispute is still going -which actually shows how confused & ignorant these people are.
interfertile: (of plants and animals) able to interbreed.Interbreed: (with reference to an animal) breed or cause to breed with another of a different race or species.Do you agree with them?
- What's your point?
False dichotomy. I can be both.
- Lol! Fair enough.
In terms of the fossil record: We can see transitions between species that have similar traits which get drastically different the further you look back/forward through geological time.
- And? Continue. How do you go from there to Evolution?
Can you tell me how I’m wrong?
- First of all, Evolution = biodiversity by natural selection & random mutation. If it's not that, it's not evolution. Not every thing that changes & moves is "evolving" in evolutionary terms. Second of all, viruses can not evolve in the evolutionary sense, for they are not self-sustaining & self-reproducing. Darwinian evolution on a virus is a spinning wheel. Third of all, no such thing as "speciated" bacteria. If you're talking about the ecoli bacteria, then even the universe isn't large enough to accommodate evolution theory with that. Fourth of all, the oldest living fossil is a bacteria (cyanobacteria) & it has yet to "speciate" after more than 100 trillion generations. Finally, if this myth of a theory has any shred of spec of probability how come it's so utterly absently supported.
By cheap tactics, do you mean common sense questions?
- Red herring*.
Understanding how we came to be. Pretty simple.
- So, useful in mythology. Alright. I expected a bit more.
How is it fallacious?
- Read carefully then realize:
P1. If Evolutionary Theory, then Evolution.
P2. Evolution.
C. Therefore, Evolution.
- You can't use your words? We've been through this. "here is a link, therefore it's true" is a fallacious argument.
‘Oh yeah you need to find a graviton before you can have a theory of gravity.’- That's what you just said about evolution a couple lines ago: "theory of evolution by natural selection explains how evolution occurs."... Oops...I made an argument using your logic. Do you understand?You say the theory of evolution necessitates abiogenesis.But then I applied the same logic to the theory of gravity in terms of the graviton.- You are really slow aren't you. Why don't you give the above a second read, maybe you'll see what the problem is. I can't help you beyond that.It’s alright to say you don’t understand something.
- That doesn't help much in a debate though.
Well I am trying to understand where you’re coming from.
- Do you have specific questions?
Who are you talking about exactly?
- They = Evolutionationists.
Created:
-->
@coal
- Disclaimer: if you're actually Intelligence, then we cool, long live the Shah. I value my life, & my future green card. You rock!
Created:
-->
@coal
What did you think you accomplished with that post?
- Blowing my chances at Green Card exposing a CIA agent. How about you, have your posts accomplished any of those delirium effects?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
The claim and the definition are the same.
- Eh...? No.
Life emerged from spontaneous & compounded chemical reactions, to form a self-sustaining & self-reproducing single-cell organismThis part doesn't belong in the claim of evolution. This is a separate claim entirely. Evolution is a theory of biodiversity, not the origin of life itself.
- You're not addressing what I actually said. If you can't address that here, you will have to address it in the debate. I really do not wish to have a debate about semantics.
Wrong. Like I said, a god could have started life, and evolution would still be true, because it doesn't make a claim as to how life got here, only how it diversified.
- Again, you're conflating some imaginary tale that is evolution with the EVOLUTIONARY THEORY. Since you don't seem to get what I'm saying, if Evolution was a fact, then yes, God could've started Life in a single cell from which creatures could've evolved. However, that assumption is not relevant to our debate, which is about the ***EVOLUTIONARY THEORY***, a claim professing to naturally explain the origins of life. In this exact regard, no abiogenesis necessarily entails no evolutionary theory. That is because, invoking extra-natural factors in your assumption renders the theory of evolution defeated. The evolutionary theory espouses a natural explanation to Life, thus necessarily entailing abiogenesis. The claim of Evolutionary Theory is also the claim of abiogenesis & evolution by natural selection. These are the same claim, from a structural (formal) point of you. The claims '2 is bigger than 1' & '1 is smaller than 2' are structurally equivalent & the same, even if they seem to say different things. Abiogenesis is the claim of the natural emergence of the Darwinian cell, which is also the claim of evolution by natural selection.
That is the claim and it isn't vague. It encompasses everything the theory claims and all the mechanisms that compose the nuts and bolts of the theory. I'm prepared to defend the mechanisms of evolution, such as natural selection, but I'm not going to defend your straw man conflation of two separate claims.
- You're saying something which is evidently not true. Your claim encompasses none of that, you're overreaching. What is it *exactly* you wish to defend. Lay out the claim of evolution you want to defend exactly how it needs to be. I'm not arguing against a ghost theory.
If the change in traits over generations in populations of organisms explains Biodiversity, then evolution is true.
- What does this even mean?! Why do you keep assuming Evolution is some kind of fact we are here to explain?! If this is gunna turn out to be a debate on semantics I'll pass. Figure out exactly what formulation of the Evolutionary Theory you want to defend & let me know.
Created:
-->
@coal
@Lemming
@Aryanman
Lemming Wrote:From what I've read, women's rights were improving under the Shah of Iran, but the improvements made, went to the wayside, after the Shah fell from power. I've also heard that the Shah's regime had numerous flaws, as well as a large amount of corruption.
- By "women's rights" they mean of course degeneracy & sexual freedom, it's never anything else. As to any intellectual or spiritual or economic or political value, then no such thing. In fact, literacy was abysmal among females (25%) & higher education was virtually absent except among the elite closest to the Shah & his regime, i.e. the western slaves. Despite being an oil powerhouse, much of the country had no access to electricity or water supplies.
Both of you are correct, and each of the Shah's conspicuously western/liberal ideas and policies as well as the speed at which he was implementing those changes played a role. The Shah, for example, profoundly expanded women's access to education, employment opportunities and political representation. Those reforms prompted a tremendous backlash among the religious/conservative elements of Iranian society.
- LMAO! I get the political "we are the good guys we have (y)our best interest at heart" propaganda. But this is pure drivel, you're moving from propaganda to blatant lies. Allow me to educate you, girl's so called access to education under the Shah amounted to 6% & 0.1% in higher education, on par with countries like Namibia & other subsaharan African countries. Under the ISLAMIC REPUBLIC of Iran, that number is 99.9% & 15% in higher education, significantly higher than countries like Germany & France & Spain... Close that window.
For his part, the Shah responded to political opposition with violence and repression. In particular, 1957, "SAVAK" or "the National Intelligence and Security Organization" (read: Iran's "secret police" similar to the NKVD) was basically given carte blanche power to investigate opponents of the Shah, arrest them, indefinitely without filing charges and torture them into confession.The problem here wasn't that the Shah expressly ratified all of these practices at the scale they were practiced, so much as SAVAK interpreted the Shah's intent broadley and without restriction. Disappearances of those suspected to rival the Shah became common, among both leftist socialists who opposed the Shah's economic liberalization (the delusional students who later would be manipulated into supporting the so called Iranian revolution by Iran's religious/conservative elements) and Islamist extremists who opposed the Shah's social reforms.
- So much drivel, I love it. What are you gunna do about it? Nothing. You delusions may serve as appeasement at least.
That being said, in this day and age most of what SAVAK was engaged in between the 1950s and 1970s would fall into the category of "counterinsurgency" and "counterterrorism," as opposed to something like NKVD or KGB-style internal political repression. Notably, verifiable estimates as to the scale of these repressive measures are hard to come by. Khomeini accused the Shah of imprisoning somewhere between 100k - 300k people over those decades and having killed more than 100k people --- but this is absurd. The real figure is probably around 1/100th of that, although this remains disputed.
- "Counterterrorism" huh! But of course, from the western perspective, people who dare to defend their rights against western oppression are seen as terrorist. How dare they! They tyrant put SAVAK in every school, every mosque, every street, estimates of their members & informants are set at 4 MILLION. The very first contention between Khumeini & Shah was about the absolute lack of freedom of press & freedom of religion in the nation, in the first letter he wrote. The most tyrannical regime the Persian people have ever seen, where one man lives a life worth half his people. The SAVAK collaborated indefinitely with the CIA & the MOSAD, in fact in Arab & Persian literature they are deemed branches of them, which is pretty obvious since the Shah was put into power by the CIA, to eliminate Musaddiq who committed the unforgivable sin of nationalizing oil for the benefit of the Iranian people.
While SAVAK's actions are the main source of the "corruption" charge, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's lack of regard for appearances did not help his domestic political standing. For example, the 2,500-year celebration of the Persian Empire is typically regarded as the straw that broke the camel's back. While the intent of the celebration was to demonstrate Iran's ancient civilization and history and to showcase its contemporary advances; in reality this spectacular exercise in largess and vanity almost certainly contributed to events that resulted in the 1979 Iranian Revolution.
- You must be CIA or something. I've never in my life seen someone defending the Shah his atrocities & corruption -even in the West, from his sheer evil & abject slavery to his western masters.
The "haves" were invited. The "have nots" were left out.
- What a disgusting event. I saw the documentary, the epitome of corruption & demagogness, stealing the riches of his people to show off against other leaders.
Created:
-->
@coal
@Aryanman
I have written pretty extensively on Iran, pre- and post- revolution, in other contexts (here and elsewhere). And this is a perspective some may be familiar with if you've encountered some of the things I've said before. Here is the relevant timeline, abbreviated of course:
- In 1951, Mossadegh was appointed to be prime minister by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
- Mossadegh was a nationalist reformer, and introduced a number of political changes, several of which were widely popular among Iran's cities, youth and rising professional class. This is important because at the time, Iran was little more than a feudal economy.
- As a part of Mossadegh's "reforms," he unilaterally nationalized the Anglo-Persian Oil Company --- i.e., British Petroleum's predecessor --- including its assets, wells and refineries. Months later, Iranian oil exports essentially ceased (which continued well into 1952) as a result of this decision.
- Mossadegh blamed sabotage, but in reality it was because he didn't know how to run the wells or refineries.
- By late 1951, opposition to Mossadegh's "reforms" had grown.
- While always unpopular with Iran's religious/conservative elements; his so called progressive reforms translated into rapidly deteriorating economic conditions inside Iran.
- The youth "activists" who once stood behind him became dissatisfied with what they regarded as a frustration of their vision for the future of Iran. As such, they were united with the religious/conservative elements in their opposition to Mossadegh.
- Mossadegh blamed British intelligence for his unpopularity among both groups. However, at most, British and American intelligence did little more than encourage forces already in motion and opposition held by a growing majority of the Iranian electorate. Mossadegh's decision to nationalize the Anglo-Persian Oil Company and its assets, again, was to blame for the lack of oil revenue coming into the Iranian economy.
- The British government tried, repeatedly, to negotiate with Mossadegh, though their efforts at peaceful resolution bore no fruit. Mossadegh took a hardline position against the British and in October 1952, declared England an enemy of the people of Iran and ended all formal diplomatic relations.
- The United States had largely ignored Mossadegh, up to this point. Washington regarded this as England's crisis, though once Mossadegh severed diplomatic ties with the UK concerns, Washington feared Mossadegh would turn to the Soviet Union for support.
- Washington's concern was not, contrary to several speculative, revisionist accounts, to protect British access to Iran's oil --- as that would have been counterproductive to their own interests. American-interested Saudi Aramco doubled production and gained considerable market share of global oil exports after Mossadegh's nationalizing the Anglo-Persian Oil Company --- directly benefiting the United States.
- In 1953, the United States and British Intelligence coordinated primarily to finance what is now known as Operation Ajax.
- This measure was intended to restore the Shah's rule, dismiss Mossadegh and replace him with Fazlollah Zahedi and Abbas Farzanegan --- who would restore the Iranian economy and resume Iranian oil production, reversing Mossadegh's expropriation of British assets.
- However, as a condition of restoring the Anglo-Persian Oil Company's assets, the former British monopoly on Iranian oil was ended and international competition was permitted. The Shah argued that this helped reduce British influence in Iranian politics, and created economic conditions for vast public infrastructure spending and modernization.
- From 1978-1979, a series of events took place that resulted in Shah Reza Pahlavi's overthrow and replacement with the current theocratic Iranian government (and its successor leaders).
- This so called "revolution" was the result of naive leftist students who were exploited and manipulated into believing that they were somehow "allied" with the religious/conservative elements of Iran's political environment.
- The Islamist right of Iran claimed that they and the leftist students they manipulated had a common enemy in "Western imperialism," which they passed off as causing Iran's economic decline following Mossadegh's nationalizing the Anglo-Persian Oil Company.
- Mossadegh's actions were the sole proximate cause of that economic downturn; not "Western imperialism" or other such nonsense. Yet, the 1953 actions were cited by Iranian religious extremists who led Iran's so called "revolution" as evidence of western influence in Iran's domestic politics, and continue to profoundly exaggerate the CIA's role in interfering with Iranian domestic politics to this day.
- It turned out that the students who conspired with Iran's religious fundamentalists were sold a bill of goods. They wanted more of Mossadegh's secular nationalist reforms; instead they got fundamentalist theocracy, a tragedy yet to be rectified to this day.
- Most Iranians do not have the kind of deeply held animosity towards the United States that figures of the Iranian government have articulated. They, especially the older generation of Iranians who remember life before 1979, see Khamenei's nonsense for exactly what it is.
- Never would I've imagined the day I would read so much propaganda in one post. Are you American intelligence by any chance? The westerners are living in so much deliriousness it's becoming almost pitiable. The matter is candid; Either this propaganda is aimed at Iranians (& Muslims) in which case it's moot, for it is laughable & honestly demeaning, thus inducing more antagonism towards the West. Or this indoctrination is aimed at westerners, in which case it's inconsequential, for the West lost their effective dominion, their hatred & hostility cannot torment anymore the world without consequence.
I regard these events as tragic. Invariably, this could have been avoided. Yet it was not. And we are here. The Iranian people live with this history every day, though with the younger generations' increasing connection to the outside world I expect to see the day that the current regime is destroyed. I expect to see the day when Iranian-American relations normalize, where we trade with Iran once more as we did before Mossadegh's catastrophic series of failures.
- Such shameless display of delusional pretension. The Iranian people are some of the most aware of your incessant crimes & aggressions. You're upset because American propaganda does not work on Iranians. They do live with their history indeed, a history of humiliation by the West, which they will never forget -nor with the rest of the world accordingly either. Or do you imagine oppression can last forever. Your countries have cause so much unsurmountable devastation to all nations & all peoples of the world & yet you dare speak of Iranian Will from your moral abyss. Have some shame man. Have some decency & humber yourself a little you're but a man like they are, "if they are slaves to us, they are bad" is a disgusting attitude to have.
It is only a matter of time. However bad things are now, there is cause for hope in the years and generations to come.
- Wishful thinking. So much delusions, this isn't the 70s anymore. Despite the blockade, the Iranians issue more -innovation- patents than the French, they publish more S&E papers than the French, & they produce more industrial output than the French. They don't need western enslavement to be successful. This is irreversible. Iran is forever out of your control. The US has not even 5% worth of Iranian history. The largest empire in History by population ratio was the Achaeminid Empire (1st Persian Empire), which streched from Libya & Greece in the west to India in the east, comprising close to half of then the global population -2300 years before the US even existed.
This is a pretty good timeline.
- I know the Bahai & the Shah were buddy-buddy, which led to the current rift between them & the Shia, but that doesn't mean they should be vassals to CIA propaganda against their own people.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
@MarkWebberFan
I am a feminist, which means I believe women are just as deserving of self-determination as men and men's equals in any legal, political, or societal sense.
- There it is. The holy grail of Feminism, or rather menslavism. That distinction assumes the intrinsic nature of Men is superior to that of Women. Such that, value is measured from a male perspective, that women need to climb to the masculine plain & abandon the feminine plain to find fulfillment. Disgusting! Men & Women share humanity yet differ in gender & role. Equality between Men & Women is, henceforth, necessarily, injustice to at least one.
I think our most fundamental human responsibility is to thoughtfully caretake the richness of life on earth and that the proper care and education of children must be the number one priority of that inheritance and that our whole economic outlook as humans should be restructured to reflect the value of that priority and duty.
- I agree, but this sounds closest to Sharia & the farthest thing from Feminism.
To that end, women as the babymakers and the more biologically driven caregivers live closer to our true economic priorities than men do and we men make a mistake when we fail to respect women's superior compassion and sense of community in our decision-making. Women understand better than men the whole point of civilization as a function of women's role in human reproduction and our society should reflect and include a feminine perspective in all things.
- You seem to be saying things & their contrary. I know this is inexistent in the West. Can you elaborate on what all this entails.
I am also a liberal, which means I believe that human freedom and equality ought to be prioritized over the preservation of wealth and property and even tradition, as important as all those thing are to humanity.
- Are you an Anarchist? You just contradicted what you said earlier.
So I don't believe women owe men their obedience. If anything, I think men ought to (slightly) defer to women as the better informed regarding humanity's top priority, which is the care and education of the next generation.
- Rectification: you don't believe wives owe husbands obedience. Some people may mistake what you said to be calling for women to disobey their bosses.
But the core of liberalism is also a profound respect for other people's belief and I'm not much down for forums where we sit out around and trash other people's religion, particularly since we are fairly likely to be ill-informed or wholly ignorant about the nature of other people's religion and particularly in cases where religions have a long history of wisdom and good deeds, as is true of all major religions.
- Although all this sounds nice & all, it's hallow. The first half of your statement contradicts the latter. Liberalism does not condone respect for other's beliefs. Fancy labels aside, Liberalism is primarily about personal whims in its core, aka degeneracy. Liberalism is the promotion & protection of individualistic choices sans community -the redirection of the individual's care from community to state, thus the censor of communal values -which are effectively religious values- in favor of idolization of individual whims. It is not a coincidence that more liberal societies espouse widespread disintegration of religion & breakdown of family following an explosion of degeneracy.
When I was in college, I took a job for some minor Saudi princeling who was blind and pursuing a doctorate in Lexicography- an insanely ambitious pursuit. My incredibly dull but good-paying job was to read pages and pages of dictionary entries to him, carefully describing every notation from a wide variety of dictionaries. I am pretty deaf but years of speech therapy has made me very good at reading things out loud.I spent many hours at the Prince's nice house and his wife was always there in full niqab but she never spoke. If we walked into a room where she was she would immediately leave without comment. Her husband never introduced her or spoke of her in all my time there. One day, he called to say my services were no longer required and I never saw him again.I did, however, meet his wife once more at a grocery store on the other side of town months later. She knew me by name and had to introduce herself because I'd never seen her face. She was wearing a skirt and a bedazzled t-shirt and she was surprisingly young and beautiful considering what a fat toad the princeling had been. She was funny and spoke perfect English and she was utterly contemptuous of her husband. She explained that I'd been fired because her husband learned that I lived with a woman unmarried (of course he didn't know that I was gay but I'm sure that would have been equal cause for termination).She explained without prompting that she hated her role and restrictions in Arab society and only in this town where nobody knew her could she go out once in a while and participate in society like a normal, pretty girl laughing and flirting and talking shit about her husband. She was delightful, and I often think about how much that fat prince was missing out on because he treated that pretty girl like an object to be owned instead of woman to be adored. Ironically, because of his religiously rigorous possessiveness, strangers like me got to meet and enjoy the best of his wife while he never would- not just denying himself the pleasure of her company but kind of cluelessly self-cuckolding in the name of God.
- Why does every westerner & his cat have the same story to tell about that Muslim woman. They've all been to Saudi somehow. Regardless of the truth of this tale, this yet again proves my suspicions. You adore degeneracy, yet you abhor decency. A slut who intermingles with strange men she doesn't belong with & pleasure them while being unfaithful to the one she's married to is an example to follow, but a modest woman who's devoted to her husband & decent towards strange men is just an object, unacceptable to the degenerate mind. What a disgusting story.
This experience has informed my assumptions about women in strict Islamic societies more than any other.
- You couldn't have said a more typical thing from a westerner. For centuries they fantasized about unveiling Muslim women, even going as far as hiring prostitutes, putting them in cages & painting them in the most humiliating fashion, to appease their lustful tyranny, to display the heroism of the White man freeing the poor Muslim woman who's oppressed by these vile brown men, while at the same time mass raping them, burning their schools & taking their rights. Your slander of Muslim women is not different. It's all about degeneracy, nothing else. A Muslim woman is good when she is a degenerate, nothing else she does matters.
Really good read. I think she probably cherishes that memory more than her whole experience at Saudi Arabia. I never went through what she went through so this is just my speculation since I lived most of my life in an equally conservative muslim society.
- Didn't I tell you, it's all about degeneracy. I very much doubt you will be ok with your wife doing this. I know your culture.
Saudi Arabia's main jurisprudence (Hanbali) is not far off from other muslim countries. I'd say muslims split along cultural lines so I can reasonably expect other strict Islamic countries to have similar cases of abuse towards women. I do think they differ in manners of expression. For example, indonesians are more likely to throw in hunger deprivation than social deprivation.
- Wow! Fidelity is abuse & Infidelity is freedom from abuse. So disgusting! You've strayed too far from your people.
Created:
-->
@MarkWebberFan
Yes, it took me all of my childhood to realize this. Islam leaves scant little to those dipping their toes outside of its fold.
- Ahem, degeneracy. Yes.
Submission requires strict observance of its tenets. While mere ignorance is excused, wilful disobedience is punished. I don't agree with this lifestyle.
- I see you're Christian?!
For illustration purposes, the fractured Islamic parties in Indonesia often occupy themselves with rules of what women should wear. I'm pretty sure Iraq's leadership is also occupied with the same thing. Really, across muslim countries, this sounds like a trivial pursuit. In my opinion, I would go insane listening to similar versions of the same fundamentalist rule.
- Degeneracy again, yeah. It's all about that.
Then again, Im told to do it for the sake of the afterlife! But no, I vehemently disagree.
- It's about degeneracy. Indeed
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Why are you replying to me. I never said any of those things. Please leave me out of your discussion
- That's fair.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Nope, your analogy is false, because you are the one providing a false definition.
- Dude we are not arguing a definition. This isn't a linguistic debate. We are arguing a CLAIM. The claim of the Evolutionary Theory, which postulates: ""Life emerged from spontaneous & compounded chemical reactions, to form a self-sustaining & self-reproducing single-cell organism, capable of gradual changes in inherited traits over successive generations in populations of organisms of increasing complexity, giving rise to all biodiversity on Earth through descent of varying species from a common ancestor via undirected mechanisms, such as natural selection, random mutations, genetic drift, migration & gene flow".
- If you have an issue with the above postulates, do tell.
What I'll defend is the actual theory that biological evolution is: the theory that biodiversity is caused by the change in inherited traits over successive generations in populations of organisms.
- Are you sure that's the claim of theory of evolution? No single cell organism? No common descent? No speciation? No natural selection? No random mutation?... If you're confident about what you wish to defend, you need to at least be able to formulate it in something that could be checked scientifically. After all, the resolution is: {The Evolutionary Theory Is (Pro) Not (Con) Scientific}. You're really shooting yourself in the foot with such a vague claim. Or are you purposely being ambiguous to give yourself field to play?
Abiogenesis is not needed to explain how life diversifies once it's already here.
- That may be true in principal, but it's not true within the evolutionary claim.
Abiogenesis is a theory of how life arose, evolution is a theory of how life diversifies. I don't know how I can be any more clear.
- Sure sure, but they are still equivalent claims. They can not be separated. You can not confirm something & deny what it entails, that's a fallacy. What is it exactly that you find hard to see in this?!!!
No, it's not entailed by evolution. As I have explained, evolution makes no claims about the origin of life, only the mechanisms of biodiversity. Your conflation is false and your analogy doesnt match the context or the claim.
- There is no scenario in which one is & the other isn't. The evolutionary claim rests wholly on the Darwinian cell: a naturally emerging self-sustaining self-reproducing cell capable of Darwinian evolution (natural selection, random mutation...), which is the claim of abiogenesis. No abiogenesis means no evolutionary theory. Denying this is special pleasing. By now, you MUST realize that the dispute of this debate is the theory of evolution. All your assumptions & all their claims regarding this theory are, thereby, disputed. You have to understand that Evolution isn't some fact & we are arguing wether the theory of evolution explains that fact, that's circular. We are arguing wether the the evolutionary claim is scientific or not. I seriously do not want this debate to be about how fallacious your statements are. I'd rather make it about evolution itself.
The only claim evolution makes is that biodiversity is caused by the change in inherited traits over successive generations in populations of organisms.
- That's a very vague claim, it could interpreted in many ways. Make a scientific claim so you can defend it.
...you define murder as "good killing" to defend that murder is good. It must be obvious how circular that is.This is literally what YOU are doing. You're projecting the faults of your reasoning onto me.
- I'm really having a hard time explaining the obvious here. Putting your claim in the definition does not quality as an argument, for lack of existential import. We are arguing wether a theory is a scientific theory, as in it is consistent, verified, predictive & accurate. You need to formulate a postulate for the evolutionary theory for which you can establish the above.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
(I)P1. Speciation is non-interfertility with existent species.P2. Darwin's finches are interfertile.C. Therefore, no speciation occurred in Darwin's finches.(II)P1. Speciation is non-interfertility with existent species but also not.P2. Darwin's finches have speciated.P3. Darwin's finches are interfertile.P4. Hybridization is interbreeding between separate species.C. Therefore, Darwin's finches hybridize as separate species.(III)P1. Speciation is non-interfertility with existent species.P2. Darwins finches are non-interfertile.C. Therefore, speciation occurred in Darwin's finches.Speciation: When two groups of animals of the same species become genetically isolated from each other, which develop different traits further decreasing their chances of breeding and/or creating viable offspring.
- As I said. That's (II), & it's invalid. It doesn't mean Jack Schitt. A Chinese, an African & a European developed different traits, still interfertile (same DNA). You're proving exactly my point, evolutionationists can not deal with strict definition, because they will hit a wall if they do, as they can't fantasize.
Would you agree with that definition? Would it ruin your argument? If you don’t agree with that definition, how are you defining it?
- (I) is the fact, the rest is nonsense.
- It's like me asking you, what caused the apple to split? & you answering because I want to eat it. That's evolution by natural selection in a nutshell.It isn’t like I’m saying Allah did it.
- Are you actually dumb or are you pretending to be?
It’s funny when someone asks for five pieces of evidence when it suits them, but you’re asking for one so you can focus on it while ignoring the rest.Alright I’ll play. The fossil record.
- Don't be shy. Make the argument. Still waiting. A single *supportive* evidence is sufficient.
- It doesn't matter. It's impossible to ascertain the origins of Life without understanding Life first. Any attempt to theorize on this is essentially an appeal to ignorance. The claim of evolution is basically: "I'm true because I haven't been proven false". What evolutionary theory is to Life is like what astrology is to the Cosmos. A giant conspiracy founded on a bunch of ad hoc anecdotes. As I said, maybe in 500 years. Maybe less, who knows!If you have a better alternative, I’m all ears.
- Again, are you actually slow is is this some tactic?
The difference is I don’t invoke gods when I’m ignorant about stuff.It lets me accept evidence easier. You should try it.Allah is one hell of a drug though.
- The amount of nonsense in this statement is nausea inducing. I almost puked.
Rapid reproducing organisms such as viruses and bacteria evolve (speciate) faster than larger organism. This is basic knowledge.
- You mean basic fantasy. No such thing. What you're saying is absolute drivel. You may wanna brush your teeth after this.
Therefore Allah popped animals into existence in the course of 100s of millions of years. Right?
- These cheap tactics can't save your mythology one bit.
Understand how we came to be.
- You have yet to show what you claimed. That the theory of evolution has been useful in something. Give me ONE thing.
P1. If Evolutionary Theory, then Evolution.P2. Evolution.C. Therefore, Evolution.You gotta admit, it’s better than animals just popping into existence, right?
- I'm sure that's what you tell yourself to justify your mythology. Still fallacious. Sorry.
Scientific theories explain how the world works which are backed up by an accumulation of evidence.Evolution has been substantiated as fact.Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true.
- Is that a fact? Show me those proofs. I'm still waiting.
‘Oh yeah you need to find a graviton before you can have a theory of gravity.’- That's what you just said about evolution a couple lines ago: "theory of evolution by natural selection explains how evolution occurs."... Oops...I made an argument using your logic. Do you understand?You say the theory of evolution necessitates abiogenesis.But then I applied the same logic to the theory of gravity in terms of the graviton.
- You are really slow aren't you. Why don't you give the above a second read, maybe you'll see what the problem is. I can't help you beyond that.
- Yes. Allah does what He pleases. It's not up to us to decide what Allah pleases, all we can do is ascertain the creation & unravel its mysteries. The evolutionary mythology is still a bunch of drivel.So are you saying it’s more likely for Allah to pop animals into existence then he is to evolve them?
- Or it is maybe that you struggle with reading?
Why not be a Young Earth Creationist if you accept Allah is omnipotent and has the power to pop animals into existence?Why not believe in last thursdayism? Allah just created the universe last Thursday and he planted memories in our head.Be carful not to overdose on Allah.
- You sound exactly like them, they can't produce arguments, so they have to resort to jiggery-pokery.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
The actual theory, and not your straw man representation of it.
- You know what you keep doing, you define murder as "good killing" to defend that murder is good. It must be obvious how circular that is. To avoid a debate about the fallacious nature of your statements, you need to provide a viable claim you can defend. What is this non-strawman theory? Please do tell us.
I would be willing to debate you about abiogenesis too, but it's a different topic.
- It doesn't matter if you wish to include abiogenesis in your defense or not, it is necessarily entailed by the evolutionary theory. You're rejecting the conclusion, it's like saying "Harry is tallest & Oliver is shortest", then rejecting "Harry is taller than Oliver". That necessarily entails this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
No, evolution only entails change in inherited traits in successive generations in populations of organisms.
- So, what is it exactly are you defending? You need to think things you say through.
You're shoehorning in abiogenesis.
- Take it up with the theory of evolution, unless you want to defend something entirely different.
The first cell could have been created by a god, and evolution would still take place.
- Like your other friend, you're conflating the "evolutionary theory" with some interposed evolution you imagine as a fact. That's circular.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@Wylted
The Satanic Verses refers to those verses which the Prophet Muhammad is said to have mistaken for divine revelation (they were nice fluffy verse apparently saying be kind to everyone and everything in the world).
- One of these day I'm gunna read one of your posts and find no lies. That day hasn't come yet though. Why you lie so much though? Goddamn! The Satanic Verses are about idol worship, which read: "These [the idols] are the exalted cranes. Whose intercession is to be hoped for".
But when Muhammad was told where to stick his new ideology by all those who weren't fooled by him all those nice fluffy verses went clean out of the window and gave birth to the - so called `the religion of peace `. The verses can be read in early Biographies of Muhammad by _
- So idol worship = peace ...?! Are you a pagan?
al-Waqidi who was a historian.Ibn Ishaq, who was an Arab Muslim historian and biographer. Ibn Ishaq collected oral traditions that formed the basis of an important biography of the prophet Muhammad.Ibn Sa`d a scholar and Arabian biographer.
- More lying.
So make up your own mind, Wylted, if you have mind to.Of course, Muslims today reject these educated and learned scholars, historians and biographers by saying that Muhammad – an illiterate desert dweller – wasn’t stupid enough to be fooled by Satan...or words to that effect.
- All that talk & you refuse to debate me on this. Find another hobby.
Its of similar vein in that Christians forever telling us that god loves us and all creation while the Old Testament itself proves the opposite. The OT god will kill at the drop of and hat and it shows - in the story of Job in particular, just how cheap human life really is to him. Read this 3 minute sad story of Job, a loyal servant that walked in all the ways of god, for yourself and make up your own mind.
- Prophets in the Bible are portrayed as scum. In the Quran, they are portrayed as saintly perfect persons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Again - no sources, nothing - you literally only have conjecture. Also... I don't even need to debunk you myself, that's been done a couple times- and I also did it - you merely made claims about evidence... claims that the literal studies disproved - have fun being a quack.
- Friend, put up or shut up. You got nothing. Being pretentious doesn't qualify as an argument. You made big claims about the myth of evolution being the best tested & most accurate theory ; you didn't deliver. It's ok, you won't be able to. We know it's a myth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Who’s they? It depends how closely related they are. Remember the tree of life? Each brunch has its own twigs, etc.
- They: the evolutionationists of course. You don't seem to get the argument, lemme make plainer:
(I)
P1. Speciation is non-interfertility with existent species.
P2. Darwin's finches are interfertile.
C. Therefore, no speciation occurred in Darwin's finches.
(II)
P1. Speciation is non-interfertility with existent species but also not.
P2. Darwin's finches have speciated.
P3. Darwin's finches are interfertile.
P4. Hybridization is interbreeding between separate species.
C. Therefore, Darwin's finches hybridize as separate species.
(III)
P1. Speciation is non-interfertility with existent species.
P2. Darwins finches are non-interfertile.
C. Therefore, speciation occurred in Darwin's finches.
- As you can notice, the first argument is a sound & valid argument, it is also the actual reality. The second argument is not sound thus invalid, yet it's the one evolutionationists promote. The third argument is sound, but invalid, for it does not correspond to reality. It's a lie, & yet it's the one they teach kids at school to indoctrinate them into this believing this farce of a joke.
What do you mean justifying a formal cause with a final cause?
- It's like me asking you, what caused the apple to split? & you answering because I want to eat it. That's evolution by natural selection in a nutshell.
Fossil records including dental, bone, cranium analysis.Migration patterns.cross-genetic sequencing.Observations of micro-evolution
- All circular mythos. Give me a single solid evidence. Just one.
So you’re a blank page when it comes to the origins of life? You don’t have any alternative views to evaluation? Humans weren’t around forever.
- It doesn't matter. It's impossible to ascertain the origins of Life without understanding Life first. Any attempt to theorize on this is essentially an appeal to ignorance. The claim of evolution is basically: "I'm true because I haven't been proven false". What evolutionary theory is to Life is like what astrology is to the Cosmos. A giant conspiracy founded on a bunch of ad hoc anecdotes. As I said, maybe in 500 years. Maybe less, who knows!
Or the further he moves into the oblivion of nescience. Ignorance is bliss I guess.
- Your entire thought process is contingent on a double god-of-the-gaps dilemma. On one hand, if I understand it, then God didn't do it; yet, if I don't understand it, then Evolution did it. Now that's a tough hateful cycle.
Evolution is a far more complex system than weather. 20+ years ago it was way more easier to track long term trends than to predict/model next weeks weather.
- Dude. Evolution is a concept in your head, a myth, an idea you assume to be true. What I'm talking about is the *THEORY* of Evolution, which is a claim about the origins of Life. We see the weather. We see clouds moving from A to B. We study their movement & figure out equations thereof. Evolution is not an observable fact, we do not see an ape turning into a human or a dog into a whale. Evolution is a theory, a claim, a conjecture, which also happens to be pure fantasy.
What is the reality to you?
- Not evolution. The evolutionary narrative is the most outrageous donkiest amalgam of gibberish ever vomited by Mankind.
So you don’t think mutations are a part of the theory of evolution?
- Make the argument. Don't dabble. Try your best to prove usefulness. Good luck.
Scientific theories explain how the world works. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains how evolution occurs.
- Wut...?! Does everything you say have to be circular?! Since you seem to have some cognitive mishaps there, you need to see this:
P1. If Evolutionary Theory, then Evolution.
P2. Evolution.
C. Therefore, Evolution.
You don’t know what scientific theories are or how they are formed.
- We are back to scientific theories now? No more evolution is a fact?
‘Oh yeah you need to find a graviton before you can have a theory of gravity.’
- That's what you just said about evolution a couple lines ago: "theory of evolution by natural selection explains how evolution occurs."... Oops...
I’ve asked several times what your alternative views are and the closest you’ve come is, “Allah does what he pleases.”
- Yes. Allah does what He pleases. It's not up to us to decide what Allah pleases, all we can do is ascertain the creation & unravel its mysteries. The evolutionary mythology is still a bunch of drivel.
Nice. I haven’t heard that one for the past 19 millionth time.And you say I project.
- This had a lot of potential... alas...
Voting on it would be like voting on a flat earth debate. I see no point.
- Flat earth theory is worlds better than the evolutionary story. Do not be hard on yourself, even the best evolutionationists out there run from debate. They only debate young-earth creationists, because they get to use established Physical conclusions against them (such as nuclear decay). They got nothing else.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
@drlebronski
lol you destroyed him im guessing brotherdthomas is going to respond with you being unholy
- I was going to be cheeky & dismissive, but I opted otherwise. Thanks.
Did you know that the Prophet Muhammad could not read or write?
- That's true, indeed. What might be the point though?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@oromagi
@Intelligence_06
Pretty sure the fault is on the execution, and not the ideology. The same way a gun-holding "pro-life" July-the-fourth grilling healthcare-opposing traditional couple is not representative of Martin Luther or Jesus Christ, even if they say they believe in Christianity.I mean, Western Germany(which is capitalist) "died" in the 1990s, does that mean capitalism failed as a system? Just because a failed(and flawed) application of an existent ideology exists doesn't mean the entire ideology fails as a whole.
- You're saying a lot of sensible things, as opposed to these other types. What do you actually believe in?
I've never seen a nation that runs on Islam that is suitable as a model on which to live life and have a nation and society.
- I don't doubt it, with that much irrationality & anger you hold.
Iran is nasty of course but just one of many. Be careful what you say though, you can be brutally punished for typing these things there.
- The US is ten times worse in just about anything, except in degeneracy of course. The difference is the Iranians know when they are being screwed, but the Americans are unawarely happy being screwed, from sheer indoctrination & desensitization.
The Persians never ever chose Islam, they were blackmailed into it. I mean seriously blackmailed at knife-to-throat point.
- You're projecting your history into other's history, to appease your sensitivities from the atrocious incessant crimes your civilization committed! You cannot fathom other than coercion & oppression in your mind.
- What you're saying is sheer nonsense. Some of the closest companions of the Prophet (pbuh) were Persians, such as Salam al-Farisi. Zoroastrians are people of the book, meaning: the have the same inviolability as any Muslim. In truth, the Persians were PREVENTED from converting to Islam for the better part of a century under the Umayyads by imposing double taxation on converts & blocking migration to Muslim cities. It was not until 722 that Omar II abolished that law & finally allowed mass conversion. In fact, Omar II paid debts for all residents of Persia (Muslims & Zoroastrians) by imperial decree. Many of the great scholars who emerged from that period were Persians, such as: Abu Hanifa (699-767), the founder of one of the Four Madhabs & the founder of Islamic Logic (Qiyas); & Sibawayh (760-796), the founder of Arabic Grammar -the greatest grammarian the world has ever seen; & al-Khawarizmi (780-850), the founder of Algebra -one of the greatest mathematicians of History. In fact, some estimates put up to 40% of Muslim scholars from said period were Persian.
from your link"Iran Amir Taheri The Islamic attack on Iranian culture A survey of the effect on the intelligentsia of the Islamic revolution 'Burn the libraries,' ordered Omar, the second Caliph of Islam, as his armies reached Alexandria and Ctesiphon. 'For the truth of all books is in the Holy Quran.' ^ That was a long time ago — in the seventh century — at a time when conquering Islam put all its confidence in its own Book backed by the sword. Omar's command led to the destruction of many a fine library in the territories of the Persian and the Byzantine empires that the Arabs had conquered".
- LMAO! Pure fiction. & your source is press?! Wow! I know of this story, it's fiction written four centuries after the fact by a hateful Christian (like the rest of them at the time) Bar Habraeus by injecting Christian atrocities (such as the burning of the Library of Alexandria) into Muslim history -like they still do today. You must read the biography of Omar to know who Omar is, the most Just ruler in History, the true founder of the Islamic Empire & the father of the welfare state. 'Yet the abstinence and humility of Omar were not inferior to the virtues of Abu Bakr [following the example of the Prophet (pbuh)]; his food consisted of barley bread or dates; his drink was water; he preached in a gown that was torn or tattered in twelve places; and a Persian satrap who paid his homage to the conqueror, found him asleep among the beggars on the steps of the mosque of Medina.' [Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire] As a caliph, he lived in mud hut without door & spent his nights checking on his people. He resettled the Jews back to Jerusalem after being banished by the Romans, & granted an endowment of the Church of Holy Sepulchre (the holiest church of Christianity) to Christians in perpetuity. He built canals & prohibited Muslims from purchasing non-Muslim lands, unless they don't cultivate their lands for 3-10 years, which boosted agriculture production across the empire. He allowed free trade between all peoples of the Empire, especially with the non-Orthodox Christians previously banned by the Romans. He reinstated the Coptic patriarch after being exiled by the Romans. He established allowance for all mothers with child until the age of 7, relief for all poor (Muslim & non-Muslim), a slave helper for every handicapped, two garments & shoes for every citizen one in summer & one in winter, cost of emancipation for every slave seeking freedom, a year's living for new widows... he famously said: "If a dog dies hungry on the banks of the River Euphrates, Omar will be responsible for dereliction of duty."
Indeed, Islam/Muhammad put many of its learned men- philosophers, mathematicians, physicians and astronomers to the sword.
- You're conflating Christianity with Islam.
@oromagiThe Persians never ever chose Islam, they were blackmailed into it. I mean seriously blackmailed at knife-to-throat point.Never said they did. Are you suggesting that the Celts were peacefully converted?
- Yes, the Persians chose Islam. No coercion even occurred.
I'd support the celts officially and loudly denouncing the Anglican Christianity forced upon them. On the other hand, Islam is worse. It is more brutal, homophobic, violent, sexist etc
- Why do much hate?! Not every other faith & religion must be like Christianity. In fact, Christianity -specifically Western Christianity- is by far the bloodiest & most violent religion in human history, & you share their same attitudes. Your history is the most disgusting & savage history of any civilization, actually worse than the rest of them combined. It's just unfathomable how horrible it is. The best comparison between Islam & Christianity is between the Crusaders & Saladin. They massacred every man, woman & child in their wake, in the most atrocious ways. The blood in Temple Mount reached their knees from so much killing. They even ate the Muslims they killed from sheer savagery. In contrast, Saladin when he reconquered Jerusalem from these villains, he gave them amnesty, built them ships & sent them home with their stuff. Between the French colonialists & Prince Abdelkader. They burned entire villages to the ground with their people. they gather villagers in caves & burn them inside with their women & babies. They'd kill the men, lineup their women naked & mass rape them. Prince Abdelkader, in contrast, would punish his own soldiers for even scratching a French captive. This is the difference between Islam & what you have.
@oromagiI'd support the celts officially and loudly denouncing the Anglican Christianity forced upon them. On the other hand, Islam is worse. It is more brutal, homophobic, violent, sexist etcWell then its on you to prove that the Persian conversion to Islam after 650 CE was more brutal, homophobic, violent, sexist, than the Celtic conversion to Christianity after 350 CE. Good luck finding sources much less sources not sympathetic to converters. I'd make no such assumption except that either experience must have sucked.
- No such thing exists, for it didn't exist. I agree it sucked for Celts, but it certainly didn't suck for Persians. Zoroastrians are people of the book, thus have divinely decreed protection.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Aryanman
they jailed some of my relatives for being bahai
- Oh! You're Bahai? Why were they jailed? I doubt the government just ups & jails whoever.
Created:
-->
@Bones
@Aryanman
I am middle eastern and i am embarrassed to share the same genes as these people
- That's just sad. Your ancestors conquered the world, sacrificed their lives to spread justice & peace, founded great empires, inaugurated great civilizations of knowledge & science, & here you are lamenting!
many muslims and middle easterners are anti white and seek to take over europe with increasing birth-rates, although this isn't true for persians (iranians), most of the antiwhite middle easterners are either arabs or turks.
- You will never be one of them, stick to your people. Muslims conquered the Iberian Peninsula & France all the way to Tour in the west & Metz to the east, south Italy, Sicily & the islands; then the Balkans, all the way to Russia to the east & Slovenia to the west. A third of Europe one time or another was Muslim land, before Muslims were purged & massacred from their lands in both western Europe & eastern Europe. I don't see you complaining about Europeans colonizing the world, enslaving half & killing the other half.
whats wrong with that? The US in 1960s was the same
- The US is your criterion? They already lost all family values.
We're not living in the 1960's. The fact that moderate Muslims hold this ancient belief directly because of their faith should be a concern.
- Concern yourself with your own decadent society, a nation of degeneracy. Do not fret, it is inevitable. Nations rise, they prosper, they indulge, they decade, they fall. This is a universal truth of History. The West is simply in its age of decadence, a sign of its imminent fall. It happened to everyone, it happened to Muslims too.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
@Barney
@BrotherDThomas
@Bones
@drlebronski
1. You worship a PEDOPHILE named Muhammed in MARRYING A 6 YEAR OLD GIRL as historically shown where
- Pedophilia is defined as "a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children". The facts:
P1. Aisha's first "marriage" was a betrothal, i.e. a promise. The actual marriage was when she was 10 (or 9).
P2. Aisha reached puberty at 9, as she herself said: "a girl who reaches nine years of age [and menstruates] she is a woman"
P3. Therefore, the Prophet (pbuh) waited until Aisha reached maturity to marry her (at 9 or 10).
C1. Therefore, no pedophilia occurred.
P4. The marriage occurred with her consent & her parent's.
C2. Therefore, the marriage is perfectly legal in the US.
[many US states have no minimum age of marriage (like California), or as low as 12 (Massachusetts). A century ago 10 years was the common age of consent (7 in Delaware). In the US alone more than 300k marriages are under-age today.]
- I know Islamophobes are obsessed with this, so they love to keep saying it. In truth, Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) is an example for all times, hence we see this even in his marriages. His first marriage was with Khadija at 25 when she was 40 & twice widowed. He stayed loyal to her until her death, despite this going against the customs of the time, exemplifying monogamy. With the exception of Aisha who was virgin, all his other wives were windowed &/or divorcees -some even older than him, normalizing thus marrying widows & divorcees. Among the 12 he married in his life, 3 were actually older than him (by 15, 30, & 9 years respectively), & with others across all age groups from 9 to 80. The difference of age between his oldest wife (Sawda) & youngest wife (Safya) upon death was 63 years (or 73). His marriages were four types: 1. Family marriage from which he had all his daughters (he had no sons), with Khadija. 2. Affinity marriages, he married the daughters of his closest friends (Aisha & Hafsa) & married his daughters to them, all of whom (Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman, Ali) became his successors. 3. Alliance marriages, with daughters of leaders of other tribes to establish alliances. 4. Charity marriages, destitute widows or divorcees who needed care, such as Sawda & Rayhana.
- Marriage upon puberty was the norm in Arabia (& most pre-post-modern societies), where the average lifespan was around 30 years. You reach puberty, you start your family! Aisha herself was betrothed to someone else (Adiy) before the Prophet (pbuh). The Prophet's own daughters married at 8, 11 & 15. Early marriages were (& still are) commonplace in much of the world. In victorian Europe, 7 was the age of grooming for girls to find suiters. Medieval Europe saw girls often married between 5 & 10. A widowed girl in 1800s Scotland could not inherit from her deceased husband until she reaches the age of 9, as the minimum age of marriage was set at 7. The great exception is the post-modern West, which substituted chastity laws for statutory consent laws. The great irony here, there is no minimum age for sexual intercourse in the West. Kids's first sexual acts are often reported as young as 8 years old. It's ok to have sex as kids, just not marriage. They abhor intimacy in a lawful marriage built on family & commitment among youngs, hasten to stifle it under the pretext of "abuse", yet they rush to advertise -out of wedlock- sexuality & promiscuity among children. That is the West, they adore perversion & glorify it, yet they abhor decency & attack it.
- The Prophet (pbuh) marriage with Aisha was a blessed union based on love. Aisha was his best-friend's daughter, the marriage just brought the families closer. They both were devoutly committed to each-other, we can see that clearly in their love story. When asked "Who is the most beloved person to you?" He said, " Aisha", & she used to call him: “My beloved”. The Prophet (pbuh) also used to say, "the superiority of Aisha to other ladies is like the superiority of Tharid to other kinds of food.". Aisha reported “I would eat flesh from a bone, then hand it over to the Prophet and he would put his mouth where I had put my mouth: I would drink, then hand it over to him, and he would put his mouth where I drank.”, which shows the attachment they shared. In his final sickness, he said to Aisha "My death is alleviated for I have seen you with me in Paradise”. He died on her lap & was buried in her room. This is an exemplary story of true love, not the sexual infatuations predominant in the West.
- What is the legacy of this "horrible" marriage you so profess? Under the tutelage of the Prophet (pbuh), Aisha will grow to be the most influential woman in Islamic history: a primary advisor for the Caliphs, a general, a grand Mufti of the Muslim empire & its most distinguished scholar. Urwah Ibn Zubar (founder of the Athari school of thought), one of her ~700 students said: “I have never witnessed someone as knowledgeable about the Quran, Inheritance arithmetics, what is lawful and what is unlawful, Jurisprudence, Medicine, Poetry, History of Arabs, or Genealogy as Aisha”. Az-Zuhri (the imperial savant of the Umayyad empire) said: “If the knowledge of all women of this Ummah was accumulated, Aisha’s knowledge will outclass it”. What have you done in your life?!
Islam allows marriages essentially to BABIES!
- You're conflating Christianity with Islam. Yours TRUE CHRISTIAN must know that in your Bible Mary was 12 when she married Joseph who was 90 at the time, he was 78 years older than her... Child marriage & pedophilia, even by coercion, is explicitly sanctioned in your Bible, "And now, slay every male among the infants, indeed, slay every woman knowing a man by the lying of a male, and all the infants among the women who have not known the lying of a male you have kept alive for yourselves." (Numbers 13:17-18). How disgusting! Christianity allows marriages with babies! As a TRUE CHRISTIAN you're speaking against the clear directives of your book, you must repent.
2. The disgusting act of your abhorred faith of Islam in wanting young girls to go through the painful act of genital mutilation to extract their clitoris!
- Stop lying. This actually reminds me of the painful "husband's stitch" where they tightened American women's vaginas to increase pleasure for their husbands, just a couple decades ago. Thankfully it was banned. They do this in Africa, practice called Khitan Firawni (pharaonic excision), which predates Islam, aimed at preventing women from having sex by sealing their vaginas.
- This is funny, but Islamic female circumcision is actually very popular in the West. The full version of the hadith is: "trim (khifad) but do not cut, for it is easier on the eyes and more pleasurable to the husband (in intercourse)". Khifad (female circumcision in Sharia) is defined as, genital hood reduction (vaginal rejuvenation). These procedures are exponentially rising in popularity in the West. It has become a multi-billion dollar business, doubling five times just in the last four years; the US alone comprising some 40% of global market share. Yet again, the Prophet (pbuh) is teaching the West how to live, after much resistance. Just wait a couple decades when this becomes norm, they will drop the FGM propaganda.
3. The act of Islam in the Qur'an of beating women, and raping captured women!
- No faith nor creed has honored women as Islam did: "Women have rights similar to those of men equitably" (2:228). Islam granted women equitable rights to men as inviolable human beings guaranteed six sacred rights (faith, self, reason, family, property & honor). Women, complementarily to Men, are deemed morally (ma'nawi) efficient albeit materially (madi) deficient, thus granted material endowment by Sharia. A woman is assured material security by Sharia, mandated on her father or husband or brother or son (even if she is wealthy). As an inheritor she gets 8/10 shares of inheritance. She gets twice as the man from blood-money. As a subject she does not pay any Zakat (tax) on her jewelry & gold & silver, as opposed to the man. She gets alimony from her ex. As a mother she has priority rights over the father -including custody. She is exempt from participating in defense... etc. No such privileges are accorded to women in the West!
- Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) honored women more than any other in history. Upon his death bed he insisted on reminding us be kind to women, "the last of his advice of Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) three things he kept repeating until his tongue stammered and his speech faded, he kept saying, [...] Allah Allah [fear God] for your women [...]". He (pbuh) also honored women by honoring those who honor them, saying: "The most perfect man in his faith among the believers is the one whose behavior is most excellent; and the best of you are those who are the best to their wives.". Emphasizing the equity between men & women, he said: “Verily, women are but the equivalent of men. Those honorable among men will honor them, and those ignoble among men will dishonor them”. Even in the small things, the Prophet (pbuh) enjoined Muslim to be kind to their wives, saying: “There is a reward for a man who offers his wife a drink”, &: “The act of putting a bite into your wife’s mouth is a charitable deed”. Among his advices to believers is to show forebearance & fairness ”A believer must not hate his wife ; if he dislikes one of her qualities, he will be pleased with another”, & respect their privacy : "[he] forbade that a man should come to his family like (an unexpected) night visitor doubting their fidelity and spying into their lapses."
- As to your fallacious claims, I addressed in the other post.
4. Your Muslim Taliban brutally whipping and killing women for minor offenses by following the loathed Sharia Law as historically shown!
- Have some shame. You do this to millions of Muslims, kill innocents, bomb, burn alive, maim, rape, humiliate & torture them for greed & sheer aggression. Disgusting! It's funny how your media portrays themselves as the good guys with people they invade & massacre. It's funnier how you have countless more such crimes in your countries, the most violent & degenerate societies in the world. We watch American crime shows... The US has more than 1 per 100,000 serial killers, that 1 per small town in the country. More than 1 mass killing per day, that's more than the rest of the world combined. 6% report sexual abuse from family. A third of college girls report sexual abuse. Every week there is a story about a parent killing their children, a kidnapped girl who's raped & dumped, a little girl f*cked & impregnated by her father, another dismembered out of jealousy & greed... it's truly disturbing.
What happened YASSINE? Why did you RUN AWAY from the main topics of my thread shown above that show your faith to be the most sickening on planet earth for as long as it lasts?!
- That is yours, that is.
Here is the irony, I and others within this thread haven't even started on your pathetic faith of Islam yet, where I will continue to show YOU and your fellow cohorts of this Satanic faith, to be chastised to the maximum at all times! CHAIN UP, MUSLIM FOOL for following such a drastic faith!
- Says the chicklet who runs from debate like chased gazelle.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
@Barney
@BrotherDThomas
@Bones
@drlebronski
- I'm answering the rest on the other post.
To any hell bound Muslim, according to my faith of Christianity, step forth and with a straight face if you can, defend your faith of Islam with your despicable Muhammed and Allah as the foundation thereof!!
- 'Allah' is what Jesus (pbuh) called God, for he spoke Aramaic, as a TRUE CHRISTIAN you're blaspheming against your LORD. ATONE FOR YOUR SINS!
MUHAMMED AS THE FOUNDER OF ISLAM BEING A PEDOPHILE!
- Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) preached mercy & justice & piety. He spread peace & love. He (pbuh) came to spread mercy, saying: “Be merciful on the earth, and you will be shown mercy from Who is above the heavens.” He came to establish equality & abolish erase racism, in his famous Farewell Sermon he said: “O! people! your Lord is one and your ancestor is one. there is no superiority of an Arab over a non-Arab, nor of a non-Arab over an Arab, nor of a white over a black, nor a black over a white, except by piety.”
- He taught compassion not just with his people, but also with his enemy, he said, "Whenever you see a funeral procession [even for a jew], you should stand up." They broke his jaw & injured his skull in Uhud, yet 'he was cleaning the blood off his face and saying, "O Allah! Forgive my people, for they do not know”’. He also forgave the man who assaulted his pregnant daughter causing her miscarriage & eventually her death. He forgave a Black slave who assassinated his beloved uncle (he was an orphan).
- His compassion also shows in his treatment of animals. He warned his companions saying: "Whoever kills a small bird for no just cause, it will beseech Allah on the Day of Resurrection saying: O Lord, so and so killed me for no just cause." & said: "Do not take any living creature as a target." 'When the Prophet marched in his army from al-Araj in the direction of Mecca, he saw a bitch (on the way) whining over its puppies, while they were around her suckling. He commanded one of his men called Ja'il Ibn Suraq'a to stay by its side and guard it so that none of the army would harm it and it puppies'.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151:Narrated 'Aisha:“I used to play with the dolls...
- I assume this dubious quote is reference to Ibn Hajar's Fateh al-Bari, who was writing about different incidents in which Aisha was reported to have played with dolls. The incident on which that particular comment was made relates to Aisha before her marriage. Ibn Hajar also mentions other similar incidents of Aisha making dolls & playing with them with the Prophet (pbuh) at Khaybar & Tabuk, when she was 14 & 18 respectively. Contrary to what your sick mind is espousing, this shows even more the deeply intimate & playful relationship the couple shared. Aisha adored making dolls, the Prophet (pbuh) supported her hobby. It doesn't matter what age you are, it shouldn't prevent you from being playful with your wife, as the Prophet (pbuh) enjoined.
"Men are the caretakers of women, as men have been provisioned by Allah over women and tasked with supporting them financially. And righteous women are devoutly obedient and, when alone, protective of what Allah has entrusted them with. And if you sense disloyalty and ill-conduct from your women, advise them ˹first˺, ˹if they persist,˺ do not share their beds, ˹but if they still persist,˺ then discipline them ˹gently˺. But if they change their ways, seek no means against them. Surely Allah is Most High, All-Great. And if you fear dissension between the two, send an arbitrator from his people and an arbitrator from her people. If they both desire reconciliation, Allah will cause it between them. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Aware.." (4:34-35)
- I fixed your verse. I honestly do not get the obsession over this verse, that you had to misquote it to get your point across! Regardless, let's see what's this about. The verse plainly says the following (in this order):
1. Men are the protectors & maintainers of women, by virtue of:
2. Men are made to excel more in that regard (due to physical advantages), & on account of:
3. Men financially supporting women from their wealth, therefore:
4. Women who are pious are those devoutly obedient (to Allah), who guard what Allah has entrusted them with (faithful to their husbands), however:
5. Women who are otherwise -disloyal & disobedient- then advise & remind them [the period prescribed by the jurists is up to 1 month], if they persist:
6. Leave their beds (silent treatment, hoping they may have some time to think & come back), if they persist in their rebellion:
7. Strike them lightly [with a pen or such, & the Prophet (pbuh) said "and the best among you will not hit"], once they relent (at any point):
8. Men have no more right to recourse against them, but if nothing works, then:
9. Striking (lesser harm) is no more sufficient to prevent dissension or divorce (greater harm), therefore:
10. Couples should seek external help, arbitration: one from her side & another from his to intercede between them, so that:
11. Couples may achieve reconciliation.
- If this isn't the most divinely wholesome relationship advice, I don't know what is. Contrastingly, let us see what the Bible says about wives. Not that the Bible has a positive view of wives to begin with, for marriage itself is not desirable & women are seen as impure "Those are those (men) who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes.". In another place: "A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man." "the head of the woman is man". Besides all the other places that calls for the slaughter of women, I found this one particularly shocking: "And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profanes her father: she shall be burnt with fire.". DAMN! I reckon Christians who attack the Quran in all devious manners must do it to appease their hearts a little about the atrocities in their book, maybe to feel a little better about their faith.
“We went out with Allah’s Messenger on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing azl (contraception)....
- This one is indeed a favorite of Islamophobites, but I get the obsession at least. This hadith, given that its plain intent is to legitimize contraception, does not seek to contextualize the background story, namely about female captives supposedly being "raped". It's the prefect mark for those with ulterior motives... In truth, this story manifests the greatness of this religion that is Islam.
- Long story short: Quraysh invaded the Muslims in Medina with other tribes, including Bani Mustalaq. The invasion was unsuccessful, so they retreated back to Quraysh. Some months later, Bani Mustalaq gathered again to attack the Muslims. Upon learning of this from his spies, the Prophet (pbuh) led a surprise expedition to counter them before they could reach the city. They met half way in Muraysi, but the enemies were caught off guard & lost the battle quickly, for they didn't expect the Muslims to show up. Some 10 people were killed, & 100 on the site of battle were captured, as prisoners of war (POW). Hence, the aforementioned hadith regarding some of the female POW.
- POW, by Sharia, are to be released is by grace or ransom: "bind captives [of war] firmly, then release them later either by grace or by ransom –until the toils of war have ended." (47:4). The Prophet (pbuh) has also exercised a third option: turning POW to bondage -based on the principle of reciprocity (i.e. if the enemy takes Muslim POW as slaves, Muslims reciprocate). However, this reciprocation only extends in name; in practice Muslims must treat slaves effectively as family -with all rights that entails (i.e. take them in & guarantee financial & social security for them, as they would their children). POW who convert to Islam before bondage are automatically free. Those among the POW who do not wish to stay in bondage must seek Mukataba (contract of emancipation): "If any of your slaves wish to pay for their freedom, make a contract with them accordingly" (24:33), upon signing such contract the slave becomes a mukatab -a freedom- until they fulfill their installments (or ransom themselves). In effect, Islamic bondage is release from internment into social guardianship.
- The issue right off the bat with the hadith is the fact that these female POW were pagan & the men are married Muslims. Any sexual attempts by these men towards the pagan POW is effectively adultery & would've been punishable by death, for marriage/sex with pagans is categorically prohibited in Islam: "do not perform nikah (marriage/intercourse) with pagan women until they believe." (2:221). We know this is not the case! Among the female POW turned into bondage, few converted to Islam then became concubines to those Muslim men, which allowed them to establish an intimate relationship. While others chose ransom, or freedom instead, such as Juwayrya daughter of the chief al-Harith, who"fell to the lot of Thabit. So she entered into an agreement to purchase her freedom." Eventually, the Prophet (pbuh) would offer to pay for her freedom in exchange for marriage, to which she agrees. Upon this marriage, the Muslims "released the captives in their possession and set them free, and said: They are the relatives of the Messenger of Allah by marriage." "One hundred families of Banu al-Mustaliq were set free on account of her." thus both tribes became new allies.
- Comparing this with western practices towards POW, there isn't much to show for. Sharia system allows POW only in legitimate warfare (Just War, i.e. defensive warfare); Western system couldn't care less (all their warfare is seldom non-offensive). Sharia system grants essential rights to POW in grace, ransom or guardianship; the Western system grants none, except by way of extra-national conventions mostly used to compel other nations into submission. Sharia system offers on hand freedom from internment (war prison) by way of repatriation (grace or ransom) or integration (into Muslim families) or even emancipation (by contract or conversion); Western system offers none, POW are perpetually at the mercy of their captors in confinement or torture. This can only make sense in a defensive warfare -where it's in the state's interest to keep enemy's POW in confinement for self-preservation, which is contrary to western practices. Sharia, in contrast, shows mercy even to the POW enemy who came with the intent to massacre your people & pillage your wealth. That is the greatness of Islam. Amen.
- How does Christianity fare against this? Rapping & killing baby girls. Nuff said...
WHO IS THE FIRST MUSLIM TO DEFEND WHAT HAPPENS TO WOMEN IN YOUR ISLAMIC FAITH ABOVE?!
- That has nothing to do with Islam. We pray for all the oppressed peoples of the world, nothing goes unpunished. Allah will punish those who transgress, in this life or the next. If you're concerned about the wellbeing of Muslim women, start by preventing your own mountainous injustices towards them, starting with atonement for all those crimes.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
@BrotherDThomas
@Bones
@Aryanman
Brother, you barely scratch the surface, for the fact is Islam, even in moderation, is not a religion of peace. A study by Pew Research Centre involving 38,000 from over 39 different countries found that
- You're projecting. If your culture is warlike & violent, that does not mean other cultures share your values. Why aren't you bringing studies about actual views on peace & violence?! According to Gallup, close to 80% in MENA (Middle East North Africa) see violence against civilians as never justified, while almost half in North America see it as sometimes justified -in contrast to only 13% in MENA. Even among Americans, Muslims are the least to say violence against civilians is sometimes justified: 21%, compared to 58% of Christians, and 43% non-religious. This of course is be excepted given how incessantly violent the American culture is -it's not because of Muslims.
- I fail to see how this relates to peace?! I'm surprised 40% of Muslims are that liberal. That's sad! I know you people adore degeneracy & lewdness. Anything that is conducive to decency, family or virtue you abhor. You're fine with a woman obeying the officer in public, her boss at work, the principal at school, the government.. & any man she happens to be under, but God forbid she shows the same devotion to her husband!!! A marriage, by definition, is a collective fact. Individualism in marriage is a square circle -unattainable. Either no individualism (aka selfishness) or no marriage. The husband, in his turn, must be devoted to his wife in providing for her & caring for her needs. You're ok with women exposing themselves to strangers they don't belong to or with, but God forbid they cover themselves & give that privilege to those with whom they belongs. Disgusting!
- Again, what does this have to do with peace? 25% clearly have an issue with their faith. It's obvious my faith dictates that belief in Allah is required for salvation & rejection of God is damnation. I don't have to agree with someone to treat them with kindness & fairness or tolerate their practices, which is what Islam enjoins. Contrastingly, your Tolerance is contingent on the other conforming to your beliefs, which is not tolerance at all.
- Your point?!
- I fail to see the issue with that? Muslims want their morality to be the source of their laws, so? I know the West wishes to impose their morality instead. To top it all off, with your blatant hypocrisy the same goes for your country, half of Americans want the Bible to be a source of law in the US.
- Your source does not support your claim.
Fun versus:I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip.- Q 8:12:
- What's your point?! Chapter 8 is about the Battle of Badr, when the Quraysh invaded the Muslims in Medina. It's an absolute fact that Fear & Killing are essential practices in battle, else self-annihilation. This just shows the repugnant hypocrisy in your culture, your countries terrorize nations & kill innocents not just militants in battle, yet you have the audacity to retort about this verse. Shameless!
“I have been made victorious with terror.”
- Powerful hadith indeed. Among all the generals of history, Prophet Muhammed (pbuh)'s campaigns were the most peaceful, because he won not by military might - for he had virtually none, rather by fear of his enemies. Of the 29 campaigns he led, 18 ended in peaceful terms (by surrender or treaty), 4 ended in skirmish, while only 7 ended in conflict. The total number of participants in all those campaigns from both sides of the conflicts in all ten years of unification was ~160k, while death toll sat at ~970 from both side (370 were Muslim). That's 0.6% death rate among all combatants from both sides. More people died natural deaths on the way than on the actual battles! This becomes more shocking knowing that pre-Islamic Arabs were warriors in perpetual warfare who start wars for the slightest of things, yet they quickly give up fighting the Prophet (pbuh). This wouldn't be possible without fear.
Moreover, there are well over a hundred verses advocating violence in the Quran. I won't list them here.
- No such thing. But by all means, do mention them. Since you seem to know so much about this & all, let's have a debate: {Islam Is (Pro) Not (Con) A Religion of Peace}.
If the core beliefs of Islam were truly peaceful, then Islam extremists should be extremely peaceful.
- I can't hear you through all this distance away from the moral abyss. The most extreme & violent & cruel society in Human History is your society. What a revolting history! The amount of cruelty & savagery is unfathomable. Oppression never lasts, even with the best PR. The West is growing more & more incapable, & others are growing more & more capable. There will come a time of reckoning. Your delusional -abyssal- moral high ground does not mean anything.
The only problem with Islamic fundamentalism, are the fundamentals of Islam.
- Yes, because they are an obstacle to it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
@Sum1hugme
@Bones
You two should set up a debate regarding how probable it is that evolution via natural selection is true.
- My proposition is: Evolutionary Theory is not scientific.
I would love to debate it, but yassine and I would have to agree on what evolution is, because I say that abiogenesis should not be included in the definition of evolution.
- The evolutionary theory necessarily entails descent by natural selection and abiogenesis, wether you think it should be included in the definition or not. If A then B, means if not-B then not-A. No abiogenesis necessarily entails no evolutionary theory.
Animals just pop into existence and then they die in the course of 100s of millions of years to Yassine.Because “Allah does what he pleases.”
- The fact that you HAVE to lie on every turn just exposes how flimsy your mythical beliefs are.
There’s no reasoning with that.
- Indeed, you live in delusions.
But you can try a popularity contest if you want
- For lack of any argument or evidence, yes.
I'm prepare to address "magic" if it comes up as an argument.
- You're prepared to deny evolutionary theory is "magic"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Aryanman
Islam is an arabic religion and iran is a persian country
- Islam is the universal religion, by the Seal of Prophets, Muhammed (pbuh). Iran is modern country several decades old. Persian spoken today is heavily Arabized, some 40% of its vocabulary is Arabic, its script is Arabic script, its grammar virtually borrowed from Arabic grammar (Nahw). Persians have also intermixed with Arabs a great deal, since the First Persian Empire, which overtook the Babylonian Empire (an Arab dynasty). Iranian tribes alongside Arab tribes of Iraq for thousands of years.
something like zoroastrianism or bahaism is better
- Bahaism is a fake Islamic sect. You won't believe how many such sects existed in Islamic history, they die out after a century or two. Zoroastrianism is a lost religion, it was ended by Alexander the Great, who destroyed their temples & their sacred texts. As Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) said, they used to have a book but it was burned. The neo-Zoroastrianism is a mixed Hellenistic religion. From the onset of the First Persian Empire to the Fall of the Sassanian Empire, that's 13 centuries. The fact remains, thus, Islamic Persia is the longest & most prosperous age in the history of Persia, where the region became the center of knowledge & sciences & trade of the world for almost 8 centuries.
thoughts?
- Islam is Allah's religion, the greatest religion for all Mankind, to establish Mercy, Justice, Wisdom & Benefit for all. Islam brought enlightenment to the world, human inviolability & dignity to all, & sacred rights for women & children. Zoroastrianism is a religion which honers the noble & denigrate the poor, punishes not on the basis of guilt but on the basis for sacrifice, treats women as property. Bahaism is simple a wishy washy whimsical Islam to appeal to western sensitivities, like the many others that appeared before it.
it became an islamic state when people revolted in 1979
- False. Rather in 642, after the Islamic conquest of Caliph Omar. It was occupied by Western foreigners for a short period before it went back to the hands of Muslims in 1979.
yea im in the minority
- Which minority?
they jail my relatives for not being muslim
- No love lost for Iran, but what happened?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Yet your link did state the scholars adopted the basic idea of evolution from Aristotle, correct? You have to admit this was more than 1000 years after Aristotle’s time.
- We know what Aristotle said. We know what al-Jahiz & his successors said. They said different things, it's not a conspiracy. In fact, al-Jahiz often quotes Aristotle in his book al-Hayawan in derogatory tones -for instance in the case where he mocks Aristotle for suggesting the existence of double-headed snakes. This was before Greek philosophers gained prominence in the Muslim world, which came after al-Kindi's works, founder of the Falsafa school of thought (Islamic philosophy).
First you bring up Dunning-Kruger and now you bring up psychological projection.If you’re going to use pop-psychology, at least read up on them.
- I was gunna respond with something, but this was a decent comeback.
And I shared information too, the same as you.
- I asked for proofs, not links. Use your words. Make an argument.
You don’t know what psychological projection is. If you knew, you would know that’s obviously not the case.
- Red herring.
Are you a Young Earth Creationist?
- Look what we have here. You had to say that from loss of confidence in your arguments. Guess what, evolutionationsts are far more delusional than youngEarthcreationists.
If you agree natural selection occurs, why do you have a problem with speciation?
- One is fact, the other is fiction. The most famous story of speciation that they taught us & still teach all over the world, is the tale of Darwin's finches & their "speciation". As it turns out, Darwin's finches are actually interfertile. No speciation ever occurred. Yet, the mythologists insist to telling this lie because frankly they got nothing!
Depending on the organism, let’s say 100,000 generations, you think they’ll still be the same species from where their ancestors started?
- Dude. Your own DNA is copied & split in your own body into 100 trillion cells, each cell copying DNA & making some 50 million proteins, that's 5 billion trillion times (not just 100,000), & still the same effing DNA. Cyanobacteria has been going on since 3.5 billion years, that's more than 100 trillion generations. It's still cyanobacteria.
Apart from habitat and behavioural differences of not seeing each other as potential mates, there’s also chromosome and enzyme differences. Though i would agree a chimpanzee and a bonobo could create a hybrid, a gorilla and chimpanzee on the other hand, not so much.When you say ALL apes are interfertile with each other, you’re simply wrong.
- Interfertile =/= interbreed. Amazon tribal people are interfertile with Inuit people even though they don't interbreed. If you're talking about the human-gorilla clad vs. human-chimpanzee clad theories, then nothing is conclusive as of yet. Studies have been done on gorilla "hybrids". But I will grant you this, whoever side of the argument wins, those flimsy trees will change yet again. lol! Regardless, if in the case of gorillas not being interfertile with other apes, then they are their own species, as is the case for gibbons. All this is entirely besides the point, which is morphology =/= descent. Wolves, coyotes, dogs... are all interfertile, yet they look so different. In effect, these are all the same kind, the same species, in different races.
Do you understand that gene mutations occur?
- Lmao! Have you ever taken a class in biology! All mutations are bad news. Have you heard of cancer? The abusively called snips or variants are not actually mutations in the evolutionary sense. All these discussions show a deep lack of knowledge in molecular biology & the function of the cell.
I suppose you’re getting that information from your Imam.
- This amount of deliriousness is getting more & more exciting. I'm quite sure you haven't read the publications on this, otherwise you wouldn't have sent me this nonsense. But I'll make it simple.
- One, they use programs like Blast or Blat, which function based on a mathematical model of successive mutations (like Dayhoff model), to map out divergence in code distribution in given DNAs from a reconstructed reference DNA. Basically, they assume evolution is true & that a high number of mutations happened, then based on this assumption they conjure an imaginary "original" DNA code, then they check their DNAs against this imaginary one to note supposed deletions & insertions & substitutions...etc. After that, the popular science turns "evolution is true, therefore DNA is similar" to "DNA is similar, therefore evolution is true". & boom!
- Two, the *actual* similarity between human DNA & chimp DNA is around 70%, at best. Using the aforementioned programs, they determined that 75% of human DNA code is most congruent with 82% of chimp DNA code; so they discarded the rest (basically 30%), then discarded any insertion or deletion (some 3%), to claim a 1-2% difference in DNA... Isn't his the most hilariously pathetic story!? It's so cringe I know!
- Three, & this is really funny, the cosmic stupidity that we just witnessed can, in fact, be applied to absolutely any computer binary code & will give similar results. Take any two computer codes (0s & 1s), of a book or a program or an image. Then compare them with the assumption that they descent from the same parent code. Then eliminate the incongruent parts, you will inevitably end up with a very tiny difference -around 1%. In fact, this is -probabilistically speaking- a necessity, for the average 0-1 ratio in any uncompressed code is about 50-50%. I've done this myself btw. Here is an exercise, take any two -fairly large- texts of similar size, one in Chinese & the other in English, convert them to binary, then compare them. You'll get something around 70% similarity.
- Four, & this one is interesting. In retrospect, other camps among these evolutionationists are estimating similar ranges for other animals instead, namely gorillas & rats, away from chimpanzees. In truth, you can do the same for any mammal, for their genome size are around the 3 gigabases. You just need to tweak the algorithm a little bit, & boom the elephant is 99% human.
- Finally, similarity in DNA code means absolutely nothing, the same way similarity between two binary codes mean nothing. It's not about the binary sequence, it's about the meaning of that sequence, aka words & sentences. In DNA case, these are instructions, aka genes, to make proteins. Proteins are basically workers with specific tasks in the cell; billions of types of proteins are produced by the human body, making on average trillions of each. Proteins are constructed from gene instructions; some genes can engender thousands of different proteins. Comparing chimp proteins with human proteins we can infer the information in the genes, that 80% of proteins are different between these two species. This is analogous to comparing two source codes, not based on some binary code similarity, but rather based on the actual instructions in the codes.
I agree it’s complicated and there are many grey areas. that’s the rough outline. I wouldn’t say it’s perfect by any stretch.
- It's BS. Myth. Nonsense. I will tell you why "it's complicated". In this particular case the answer is pretty straight forward. Strict definitions of taxonomies prevent evolutionationists from taking advantage of equivocations & ambiguities to further expand their fantasies. If speciation & species was strictly defined based on interfertility (which they profess when it suits them but ignore when it doesn't), then Darwin's finches would be strictly one species, which means no speciation happened within the Galapagos finches, thus no evolution. Instead, they claim these are different species, because they are non-interfertile, due to long isolation & evolution from a common type; BUT the the fact that they are in fact interfertile shouldn't diminish from this, because they are not interbreeding as same species, rather as hybrids, & we will call this hybridization. Genius isn't it! You gotta give it to them, they finally achieved squaring the circle.
Well can you give me your sources from your imam or whoever.
- Your very sources do that job, if you've actually read them. But it's all besides the point, natural selection with evolution, that is by random mutation, is non-starter. Justifying a formal cause with a final cause is nonsense.
I’m a naturalist and evolution as we know it is the closest thing we have to know how speciation occurs
- No such thing. Fantasy, bunch of drivel.
I’ve given you plenty of sources already, but here you go…
- Thanks for the links, but why do you assume I don't know all this?! I don't read that stuff, I read publications or books. I'm quite familiar with the literature, or rather mythology. If this hogwash is the best evidence for Evolution shouldn't you ask yourself, how can there be such abysmal support for such a gigantic claim.
What would you be wrapping your hand around? The common phrase is ‘wrapping your head around’
- That was clearly a typo... "wrap your head..."
I’m not sure which is the best. What’s yours?
- Lol! It should be evident by now I think Jack Schitt about this mythology.
I suppose Allah.
- Allah does what He pleases. Evolution being true or not does not add or diminish anything from God's power. On the contrary, the better we understand the universe, the better we get close to Allah.
To a very “accurate degree” until new discoveries come to light and new formulas are formulated. This is true in physics in general.
- To add more accuracy to the existing accuracy. The conjecture that is evolutionary theory has zero accuracy to begin with. Naught.
Evolution is still occurring. The origins of life is a small but still important part that hasn’t been figured out yet.
- In the minds of evolutionationists, of course. Reality is otherwise.
And you think pharmacists will be looking to quantum physics for answers?
- Moving on.
It’s how evolution functions. The question is stupid. Hence my planet and star formation comparison.
- Is this some cognitive issue I'm seeing here?! Since when has the theory of evolution become the fact of evolution, in order to prove evolution. Circular much?! Lmao! You're so hardwired to think in this mythology, you forget that the theory of evolution is a claim, a postulate, a theory. In your attempt to show the usefulness of this theory in research, you profess the supposed usefulness of a conjured to-be-factual evolution. This is like asking a Christian how is the Bible useful, & him telling me because it's from God. As to your fallacious analogy, it is our understanding of gravitation, which is expressed in the *THEORY* of Gravitation as per Einstein's equations (& others), that begets our understanding of star formation. In this sense, the *THEORY* of Gravitation helps us understand star formation, not the fact of gravitation itself. Contrastingly, the *theory* of evolution is as useful as a glass hammer, inspired from a myth.
Where does our understanding of gravity come from?
- Thanks to a man called al-Biruni, who established that gravitation is inversely proportional to distance from center of mass; & another called Ibn Barakat, who said gravitation is proportional to force, which is proportional to acceleration of motion; & another called Einstein, who said gravitation is curvature in spacetime.
You’re unable to see the forest through the trees.If you’re able to laser focus on a tree, good for you.
- Proof.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@Wylted
So you have never read about the satanic verses then, concerning how it was that Muhammad changed his mind about them and blamed them on Satan saying, they were - " nufink to do wiv me guv"?
- You seem to be keen on this fictitious story. My offer still stands, to debate the resolution: {'Prophet Muhammed Spoke The Satanic Verses' Is Fact (Pro) or Fiction (Con)}. I'll take Con of course.
No, that is new to me
- You're welcome to take the offer too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
um... no? We know that finches developed long enough to eventually gain features which best suited their environment - natural selection - which is a mechanism that simply describes how creatures either adapt to their environment or die. Simple as that -
- It actually doesn't. It guesses though, inventing new guesses every couple of decades to stomp old ones. Pathetic! lol!
evolution is the long term process of that - no unlimited time shit - your making strawmen.
- No such thing. How you keep reiterating the same myths over & over with such confidence is beside me.
Furthermore, you simply handwaved my evidence away with no actual evidence - until you bring an ounce of evidence I consider you a conspiracy theorist - all you have to do to change my mind is actually present evidence for your conclusion.
- I made no conclusions. I pointed out that your "evidence" is a bunch of factual lies. If you're not aware of something as basic as Darwin finches are actually interfertile (or the other facts I mentioned), then you shouldn't be speaking so boastfully about this topic. The most hilarious thing about this is how pathetic & lame this mythology is they have to use & reuse the same list of some twenty lies ad nauseam. If you had actual arguments for the truth of evolutionation, then this discussion would've ended. Sadly, there are none.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
From what I heard, Greeks were not that influenced by the West and there was various attempts to revolt, but the West aided the Greeks during the 1800s
- Yeah, no. The West was involved from top to bottom, like a virus. Long story, maybe another time.
I'd tend to agree with this, but Greece has become so desperate to be relied on due the terrible Communist revolts and other occupation it's hard for them to let go and be there own due to the economy destroyed by the Civil Wars and Nazi Germany occupation.
- Greece is like a mistress for western Europeans, they love to claim its heritage to themselves -even though they are the farthest from it, & in turn they don't want to be seen associated with it. Greeks need to reclaim their heritage from these impostors & work with their neighbors. As a matter of fact, Turks & Greeks share very similar genetic composition. Countless Turks today in Anatolia are mostly Greek, yet their ancestors expelled from Greece, & vis-versa. The hate is flimsy. Greece (& other Balkan nations), Turkey & the rest of the Middle East are the foundation of human civilization.
Even though they enslaved Greeks and kidnapped young Christians from their families and force them to do labor work? And to get payed only to have to pay it all back in taxes?
- Sensationalist fantasy. No race has been more honored by the Ottomans as the Greeks, not even the Turks themselves. After the conquest of Constantinople, Sultan Mehmet II instated the heirs of Constantine XI to the highest official ranks, as admiral of the Ottoman fleet, high governor of the Balkans & Grand Vizier (second only to the Sultan) under Sultan Beyazit. As to his brothers (then yet his enemies) he gave them the rulership of Morea. He also reinstated the exiled Greek Orthodox Church patriarch back to Istanbul to his court, who officially recognized the Sultan as the new Caesar. He was granted land & authority that he become the richest landlord of the country. If you're referring to dewsirme (Ottoman conscription), that was a privilege that Muslims, even Turks, were not allowed, which eventually led to revolts. Dewsirme were, effectively, the ruling class of the Ottoman empire, all the officers, all the admirals & all the generals & virtually all grand viziers including their courts came from dewsirme. Being recruited to this order was the highest honor in the Ottoman empire. Muslims & Turks were not allowed to be recruited. Have the Greeks offered the same for Muslims? No. Are there any Muslim grand viziers? No. You're speaking nonsense. Every empire in history uses conscription -for obvious reasons, else will cease to exist. The US is notorious for conscription too, though not in defensive warfare like the Ottomans were conducting, rather in offensive offensive warfare, like the Vietnam War & the Korean War... But you're right, conscription is, effectively, kidnapping by the state; & military recruitment is, effectively, enslavement by the state. Be it in the US or elsewhere.
Greece got treated nice compared to other countries, where women were used as sex slaves and others were treated worse
- More fantasies! Dewsirme is obviously an un-Islamic practice, despite its benefits. The Ottomans separated between state policy laws (Canon), which was not 100% Islamic, & the legal systems, which was run by Muslim judges for the Muslim millet & corresponding judges for other millets (Greeks, Armenians, Jews...). Slavery in Islamic Law is not like slavery in the West, in fact there is nothing in common besides the name. For instance, all Ottoman grand viziers between 1500 & 1700 were slaves. This is often the case for other empires as well (Umayyad & Abbasid), where the generals & ministers are slaves. In fact, several slave dynasties emerged in Islamic history. Yes, slave kings. Such as the Mamluk dynasty (literally "slave dynasty") which ruled the Middle East for 250 years.
Sarcasm on my end, but if you get our creation, we aren't giving yours anytime soon
- Hagia Sophia as a mosque is better than it being a museum. It was a desecrated place as a museum, naked women, loud people, smoking, dancing, too much touching. I didn't like that. They left a corridor of the building outside the main hall as a prayer hall for Christians.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm in both camps.I believe nothing, but run with the idea of creation and subsequent evolution, to and endpoint, whereby a GOD principle is achieved and the universal sequence of events is re-initiated.So.....Creation - Evolution - God Principle is achieved - Universal Decline - Re-initiation of the sequence.And 2000 year old tales are just that, but nonetheless propose a GOD principle.... As do all creation hypotheses, unsurprisingly.
- Any of this about evolutionation?
Q. Did GOD create us, or do we create GOD?
- Contradiction?
A. Both.
- Circular?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I don't debate here anymore - not enough time - I welcome you to check out my: "https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6192-i-m-going-on-hiatus" which I posted a month ago.
- The option is always there. Good luck.
Furthermore, you're right the fossil record itself isn't evolution - it is the data which provides the evidence for evolution - good specification there huh? And I already provided evidence, you rejected them with hand-waving, not a single sourced point, not a single credible source - just conjecture.
- False. You have not provided any evidence. Your contentions are lies & logical fallacies, as an appeal to possibility: "it is possible that evolution happened, therefore it happened", as anti-non-contradiction : "new species of finches can not interbreed with other finches, therefore they interbreed not as species", as infinite monkey fallacy, "whatever it is, therefore it is -given enough time & enough tries"...etc. Shameless!
Maybe when you show more than conjecture I'll take you seriously, until then have fun being a quack. Again, you're bites at my pride do nothing.
- Lmao! I gotta admit, it's exhilarating seeing evoluthology defenders utterly unable to defend that they resort to these inglorious tactics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Okay, so that's a lot of hand waving, and I already know you don't think evolution is sound. My question is what's the BETTER explanation for it. You didn't answer.
- The answer is, we don't know. There is no good explanation for Life thus far, & not anytime soon, but the evolutionary explanation is obscenely dreadful. The amount of stupidity this theory expounds can only be trumped by its extraordinary imaginativeness. In truth, we are not yet capable of understanding Life, pretending otherwise is acting the impossible. We do not even understand the building blocks of Life -amino acids, lipids, & proteins-, what they do, & how they do it, & why do they do what they do. Until we gain insight thereof, any exercise in understanding Life is treading in fantasy. In all likelihood, we need to substantially upgrade our fundamental understanding of the universe, go beyond a quantum & relativist worldview, to maybe gain insight into Life.
If evolution is false, what's the explanation with observable evidence, a condition you demand of evolutionary theory, that explains the mutation and propagation of the various variants of the Covid 19 virus?
- Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with variants in Covid19, or any other virus. In fact, a virus is a good example of anti-evolution! A virus is not self-sufficient, it cannot exist without a cell. Evolution on a virus is -literally & conceptually- a non-starter. Indeed, the barrage of evolutionary vomit daubed on everything that moves unavoidably confuses people as to the prominence of this mythology. Particularly, the Evolutionary Theory rests wholly on the premise of self-sustainable self-reproducing cells capable of darwinian evolution (descent of new species from common ancestor via natural selection & random mutations). <= If you don't see this, then it is not evolution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
The hyperlinks don’t work.
- That's strange, I checked, it works fine. Click on download PDF, it's free access. If not, try copying the DOI to sci-hub.
They just send me back to the main page. Although some information rings a bell such as Aristotle having developed evolutionary ideas. Didn’t know Muslim scholars adopted/adapted it from him hundreds of years after though.
- No. Aristotles' ideas were primitive & dumb, & have to do with Greek mythologies about fire & water & that stuff. The Mu'tazilites approach to Life was naturalistic, as they were themselves naturalists (although Muslim believers), hence their explanations of processes such as: natural selection, adaptive traits, survival of the fittest, camouflage, prey & predator, & among some evolution by increasing complexity.
I actually wanted direct translations from them.
- I don't have access to any translated material, though the paper I linked does quote from these sources. I have a copy of al-Jahiz' book al-Hayawan (The Animal) in an 8-volumes set, but it's in Arabic.
I’m not even sure you’ve read your own links.
- You're projecting.
You did the same. Again, what’s the point of giving each other links?
- False. I shared an information, you asked for a source. I didn't ask for links, I've read enough. I asked for an argument, a proof, a piece evidence, anything which proves Evolution. How hard can it be?
Did you only read the title? Why should I bother to respond?
- You're projecting again. I know exactly what the study is about, it's nothing new. Natural selection within a population has nothing to do with the theory of Evolution. The claim of the evolutionary theory goes far beyond just natural selection. "natural selection happens, therefore evolution happens" is a composition fallacy. Seriously, how hard can this be?!
Why does it feel like you’re only reading the titles?
- Because you're projecting.
You’re saying all apes are the same species so they can all create hybrids with another? What you’re saying is blatantly wrong on so many levels.
- False. If you define a distinct species as a taxon whose individuals cannot interbreed with existing species -which is the actual definition of speciation-, then all apes are, by definition, the same species, for they can all interbreed. All apes have the same DNA, thus their offspring -being half of each parental DNA, is the same DNA.
How closely related organisms are to one another doesn’t always translate to being interfertile. Take hares and rabbits as a classic example.
- That's begging the question. I don't adhere to the evolutionary mythology, "closely related" means nothing to me. Zeus makes more sense than this nonsense. You have the same DNA as your parents reshuffled, their parents too, & theirs, ad infinitum. It's always the same human DNA (genome). A chimpanzee's DNA is ceded to their offspring reshuffled, & theirs, ad infinitum. A human genome shares 20% of the chimp's genes. At one point has this 80% extra gene (2.4 billion base pairs) suddenly appear in the DNA?! They really take people for cretin imbeciles. You have to establish the truth of the theory first, before taking it for granted. Regardless, none of this doesn't change the fact that apes are inter-fertile.
Here’s a link to an explanation of the taxonomical differences between species and genus:
- This is BS. "Two organisms from the same genus may produce fertile offsprings. But two organisms from two different genera cannot produce offsprings that are capable of reproduction. " is factually false, there is interbreeding on the order level, & the class level, let alone on the genera level -such as the case for moths & butterflies. You shocked? Yeah, there is actually no objective definition for any taxon. As the evolutionary biologist (aka mythologist) Prof Roger Butlin said: "We tend not to argue about what defines a species anymore, because that doesn't get you anywhere". Isn't that convenient.
“gene selection through reproductive potency” is essentially describing what gene selection theory is:
- No. I'm tired of explaining every other thing. For something you so wholeheartedly defend you don't seem to know a lot about. The very article you linked is case enough.
You don’t even click on the links and read them. I don’t even think you read your own. There’s no point to it other than it being a facade.
- What makes you YOU believe the evolutionary theory is undeniable fact? Show me THAT.
Well I am starting to feel a headache coming on.
- Trying to wrap your hand around this nonsense.
There are many hypotheses to the origins of life. It does not mean the theory of evolution is wrong.
- Then we will go through everyone of these hypotheses & check. Give me your best. Regardless of the truth of evolution, the theory of evolution is still unscientific. There is a non-zero possibility that organisms morphed ones into others ("evolved" if you will) through an unknown processes. The theory of evolution stays forever nonetheless unscientific, ad hoc after the fact mythology.
You can pretty much say the same thing about star and planet formations. That gas and dust spontaneously compounds/collapses and creates chemical reactions, etc. But do you have any conjecture for them?
- My bachelor essay was on a similar topic. About how gravitation induces revolution of matter around a massive core, which compresses under gravitation force & transforms into heat, which -by energy conservation principals- forms spheroids. You can do all this with maths, to very accurate degrees. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, is in its entirety ad hoc after the fact stories.
Anyway, where are you getting that quote from?
- What quote?
I’ll put it simple for you. Knowing how to drive a car doesn’t require you to know how an engine works. But if your car breaks down, maybe it will inform you.
- That's a pharmacist. & besides the point.
Which part of knowing viruses mutate is useful because of evolution?
- Again, what does this have to do with the theory of evolution?!
It’s like asking, ‘what’s useful about planets and stars forming because of gravity?’
- No it is not. One is an observable fact, the other is an imaginative mythology. Further, our understanding of planet formation stems from our understanding of gravitation. Our understanding of virus variants & similarities stems naught from evolutionary narratives. On the contrary, the evolutionary narrative can only hamper such understanding.
Why bother?
- Because you know your position is untenable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Material evolution is ongoing and progress is self demonstrable.The point of material evolution, if there is a point, can only be guessed at.People tend to get bogged down in Darwinism and overlook the bigger picture....Just as people tend to get bogged down in religion and avoid the bigger picture.Perhaps getting bogged down is necessary.Creation and and an evolutionary sequence, has dictated that both religion and science are necessary to the process of understanding and development.I would refer to this as a GOD principle.My guess is that it's all happened before.And if everything goes as it should, then it will all happen again.Worship not actually required....But everything plays it's part.....Maybe.
- I'm not exactly sure which side of the argument you are in?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
I think he is demonstrating how he likes to run away. He is the arch type example on this site for judgmentalism. He accuses all and sundry of running - but is unable to actually face the fact that he is the ultimate runner away. But he is funny to read. And although he is a joke - he is at least on the right side of history.
- Lol! True true... You said something interesting though. Right side of history?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
No - you've made claims... and yes - it is data - if you bothered to read any of the studies you'd know that the entire fossil record IS THE DATA. Like, an entire archive.
- Fossil record =/= Evolution. Lol!
You have a narrative, the difference is that you have no evidence - if all you're willing to do is talk bullshit, then I'm not gonna bother - cuz' you're either lying or so convinced of your own position your ignorant to anything opposing your worldview.
- Pretty confident! How about we actually debate this? You can then prove my lies & show evolution is true.
Your "arguments" are just.. well not true. That's about it.
- Wow! Such a powerful refutation. Lmao!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
i remember him from DOO, his style and language was the exact same and he was an atheist
- Same name?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
May I see their scientific research papers/scribes or what have you?
Coming from someone who’s willingly ignorant
- Confessions!
Understanding Natural Selection: Essential Concepts and Common MisconceptionsOver 100 references.
- Much of that was pure narrative, nothing scientific. Use your words & make your case. "Here is a link, therefore it's true" is not a valid argument.
Evidence for evolution in response to natural selection in a contemporary human populationabout 50 references.
- Equivocation fallacy. Conflating the actual theory of evolution with every change there is renders it wholly empty vacant. The Evolutionary Theory relates to origins of species through random mutations & arbitrary natural selection. Biological changes in a population is *not* Evolution. This proves further your inability to provide evidence for your mythology; you have to resort to tricks like this.
That evolution by natural selection is true and that you’re wilfully ignorant.
- Wild imagination you got there.
Natural Selection in the Great Apesabout 100 references.
- Same sh*t as before. This is *not* Evolution. All apes are, in fact, inter-fertile. They are all, in effect, the same species, under the strictest definition of species. The same way all humans are inter-fertile.
- One, that's false. Two, the actual postulate of the theory itself has changed at least 5 times in that period, discarding old postulates with every new one; & the latest one is about to get the boot soon as well. It's not the same theory anymore when its formulation changes, even if under the same name. Three, *most* things that have been a scientific consensus at some point are not anymore. Finally, why are you talking like a religious person, "the priests said it". If you believe there are proofs & evidence for this, why can't you use you own words to prove it instead of "they said so".You’re very bipolar in your replies. You put emphasis on the importance of postulates and then you say they don’t matter when it comes to science.
- . A postulate is the claim of a scientific theory, which may prove to be more or less accurate, or outright false. In the aforementioned case, all previous postulates of natural selection, starting from survival of the fittest, through selection from adaptive traits, to gene selection theory, have been discarded, after having been professed to be the truth, to be replace by gene selection through reproductive potency.
You tell me to give proofs and evidence in my own words while also telling me to give you research that supports my positions.
- Links =/= arguments. You can not have a debate with someone with a bunch of links. Research is supportive source to your argument.
Make up your mind.
- The evolutionationists are confusing you.
Can you give me a coherent explanation?
- The theory of Evolution, which postulates the following: "Life emerged from spontaneous & compounded chemical reactions, to form a self-sustaining & self-reproducing single-cell organism, capable of gradual changes in inherited traits over successive generations in populations of organisms of increasing complexity, giving rise to all biodiversity on Earth through descent of varying species from a common ancestor via undirected mechanisms, such as natural selection, random mutations, genetic drift, migration & gene flow". Is:
1. Unverified: it has never been tested to be true or not. All of its applications are ad hoc interpretations after the fact, based on circular reasoning & infinite monkey fallacies.
2. Unpredictive: does not predict a single thing whatsoever. It's all conjecture after the fact.
3. Non-accurate: it's too vague & empty to be subject to any measure of accuracy. It's a hallow nimbus. Basically, Evolution is to Life, what Astrology is the Cosmos.
And I said: “No, our understanding doesn’t. They may inform each other to one degree or another. But our understanding of everything else doesn’t derive from our understanding of quantum mechanics if that’s what you’re referring to.”Which you replied: “it strictly does.”It’s like saying general relativity is strictly derived from quantum theory. Do you understand the big picture?
- False. Strictly speaking, our understanding of Chemistry stems from our understanding of Quantum Theory, without which we will effectively be back to 19th century Chemistry. Quantum Theory gives us an understanding of the behavior of electrons & photons, which allows us a deeper understanding of interactions between atoms. Without this understanding, modern Chemistry is naught. Without knowing what an electron does & why it does what it does, our understanding of chemical reactions & organic synthesis & materials will be effectively primitive.
Virus mutation and the prevalence during various periods of Earth’s climate.
- What does this have to do with Evolution? Which part of this is useful because of Evolution?
“Different species have different DNAs.” Everyone/creature has a unique genome which expresses itself differently.Most of this stuff is just truism. Can you give some context?
- You thought they did DNA tests for monkeys to check for ancestry, I explained that's not the case.
There’s nothing to debate.
- You're conceding that the evolutionary theory is literature?
- Showing that the postulate of the Evolutionary Theory is actually scientific. In fact, let's have a debate aboutThe postulate of any scientific theory is not science on its own. What other ones do you have?- Wut...?! Is that a concession I'm seeing?Maybe from your hallucinatory strawman.
- If not a concession, then a debate,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
YASSINE, the RUNAWAY from discussing his disgusting faith of Islam,HEY, congratulations, you FOUND YOUR BALLS! But, as shown because of their micro size relating to your wanting posts, you probably had to use the Hubble Space Craft Telescope in finding them!Regarding your pathetic Rhetorical Fallacy in your initial post, show the membership in how I was “allegedly” running away from you, when as explicitly shown, YOU WERE RUNNING AWAY 8 TIMES, I REPEAT, 8 TIMES FROM ME IN DISCUSSION OF YOUR UNGODLY FAITH AS SHOWN IN THE LINK BELOW, HELLO?!I have challenged YOU to discussion, whereas you FINALLY showed up after you found your “cajones,” and I WILL SET THE RULES, that you will follow at your expense in front of the membership, understood Qur’an Muslim fool in having to accept your prophet Muhammad was a abhorred PEDOPHILE?
- Not that I'm expecting much, but is that the topic of the debate you're going for?
Furthermore at your embarrassment again, as if your horrific Islamic faith isn’t embarrassing enough, you have blatantly violated DEBATEART rules by starting a thread directly towards me, you ignorant Muslim Qur’an reading fool!“Creating threads to call-out specific users qualifies as targeted harassment, as does obsessive attempts to derail unrelated topics with impertinent grudges. However, criticising statements within an ongoing discussion, is fair game.”Way to go, YASSINE, don’t worry, I will not contact the moderators in your ignorant mistake, because I want you to continue in said thread in showing this forum in how blatantly ignorant you truly are relative to your Islamic faith, understood? Maybe?
- How can you say so much yet say so little.... Is that the topic of another debate?
YOUR REVEALING QUOTE: "Interested in debating Yassine?"The answer to your specific question is NO! But, I am interested in totally bludgeoning him silly in discussion regarding his disgusting faith of Islam in a forthcoming thread within this forum! To make it somewhat fair for this Muslim Qur'an reading fool YASSINE, I will blindfold myself, and type on my keyboard with my feet in easy refutation to his sickening faith of Islam!
- Ew...
Created: