|
Post by equationunequal on Jun 22, 2017 10:33:00 GMT
You are completely missing the point. Once again, this is a textbook example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
If someone identifies himself as part of a certain religion and conducts himself according to the teachings of said religion, is he then not part of that religion? Can you name one thing ISIS has done that is contradictory to the teaching of Islam, according to the Quran & Hadith? Feel free to quote, as English translations are readily available online...
|
|
Tsupernami
Member
Posts: 1,414
Registered on: November 2015
Steam: Tsupernami
Social Club: Tsupernami
Discord: Tsupernami#6025
|
Post by Tsupernami on Jun 22, 2017 11:26:25 GMT
No need to belittle each other. Keep it civil.
|
|
Hystery
Member
Posts: 556
Registered on: August 2016
Steam: DraconisRex
Social Club: Hystery
|
Post by Hystery on Jun 22, 2017 12:51:48 GMT
Can you name one thing ISIS has done that is contradictory to the teaching of Islam, according to the Quran & Hadith? Yeah. Destroying a place of cult. Like they did with that mosque in Mossoul yesterday. Pretty sure destroying sacred places is contradictory to the teaching of Islam, since that's literally the place where Islam is taught and practiced. If a christian terrorist dynamited a church, would you still call him a christian? Because in my eyes, it wouldn't make much sense for him to be a christian but at the same time also destroying the place of worship of his own religion. So no, ISIS isn't Islam. And Islam isn't ISIS. Just like muslims aren't terrorists. And terrorists aren't muslims. ISIS is an entity composed of psychopaths and mass murderers. Islam is a religion just like christianity or judaism, and their worshippers are just like christians and jews: a bunch of innocent people practicing their religion in peace, without bothering anyone.
|
|
|
Post by endersai on Jun 22, 2017 21:40:38 GMT
That's not the point at all. The point is that they are not following the true teachings of their religion. The Westboro Baptist Church and Scientologusts are not seen seen as Christians by other Christians, so your point is not true at all. They actually are following the true (fundamental) teachings of their religion. I can show you videos of many ihmams who can attest to that. The Westboro Baptist Church are seen as christians, because they are. They are also a family of lawyers who abuse the legal system to get lots of money from local governments who ban their protests. Scientologist aren't seen as christians because scientology isn't part of or even based on christianity. It's based on the work of it's founder, L. Ron Hubbard: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianetics:_The_Modern_Science_of_Mental_HealthPoint still stands... OK, so. You denied this pages earlier, but we should circle back to it. The Catholic Church levelled a charge of deicide against the Jewish people for their assumed role in the death of the Christ. As a result, Catholic doctrine is the most significant driving force in the anti-Semitism that peaked in the early 20th century. One German man wrote of His Struggle, as it were, and how his Christianity inspired him: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." Mein Kampf, p65 "And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God" Mein Kampf, p174 "My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years ago—a civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people." Speech in Munich, 1922
"And now Staatspräsident Bolz says that Christianity and the Catholic faith are threatened by us. And to that charge I can answer: In the first place it is Christians and not international atheists who now stand at the head of Germany. I do not merely talk of Christianity, no, I also profess that I will never ally myself with the parties which destroy Christianity. If many wish today to take threatened Christianity under their protection, where, I would ask, was Christianity for them in these fourteen years when they went arm in arm with atheism? No, never and at no time was greater internal damage done to Christianity than in these fourteen years when a party, theoretically Christian, sat with those who denied God in one and the same Government. "
Speech after appointment as German chancellor, 1933
"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." Letter to General Gerhardt Engel, 1941
So using your own logic against you here, you concede and in fact emphatically underline the point that Christianity created the systematic slaughter of 6,000,000 Jews. It was in fact an act of ultimate Christian thought, and given the volumes of the dead - not just Jews, of course, but homosexuals, liberals, trades unionists and communists - Christians are not only demonstrably more violent but they are demonstrably capabale of greater violence than Muslims. Basically, in summation, "Christians are more violent than Muslims" - equationunequal, 2017. This is the part where making proof by assertion and post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies might hurt your argument since you yourself have not read the Qu'ran. I will use the English names for the Surahs below, with their verses afterwards and in order. “There is no compulsion where the religion is concerned.” - Cow, 56 "If an afterlife with God is to be for you alone, to the exclusion of all other people, then. you should long for death-if what you say is true!" - Cow, 94 “We have appointed a law and a practice for every one of you. Had God willed, He would have made you a single community, but He wanted to test you regarding what has come to you. So compete with each other in doing good. Every one of you will return to God and He will inform you regarding the things about which you differed.” - the Table-Spread, 48 “God does not forbid you from being good to those who have not fought you in the religion or driven you from your homes, or from being just towards them. God loves those who are just.” - She Who Is Examined, 8 Are you satisfied yet?
|
|
|
Post by thedelgadic1 on Jun 22, 2017 21:47:06 GMT
Can we just agree that all religions suck. No, No.....Ok
|
|
|
Post by equationunequal on Jun 22, 2017 21:52:19 GMT
Basically, in summation, "Christians are more violent than Muslims" - equationunequal, 2017. Nope. Fail. I never said Hitler wasn't a Christian . So you just pasted a whole wall of text for nothing, GG . I have actually . I wouldn't suggest other people read it if I hadn't . Satisfied with what?
|
|
|
Post by endersai on Jun 22, 2017 22:13:46 GMT
Oh, ok. I see what is happening here. When you kept referring to "No True Scotsman" I assumed you were across the various informal logical fallacies that can be brought to bear, and how they differ from formal fallacies such as syllogistic and propostional fallacies. However, based on the apparently-unaware use of a moving goalposts fallacy, I'm less inclined to believe you are coming at this from the grounds of a student of logic and philosophy, and instead more likely to believe the No True Scotsman bit was lifted as copypasta from an alt-right echo chamber. It would otherwise be damagingly hypocritical to accuse someone of one type of informal fallacy and committ other types of informal fallacies (McNamara fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy; moving the goalposts). You said; " Can you name one thing ISIS has done that is contradictory to the teaching of Islam, according to the Quran & Hadith?" We're in a thread started in response to a specific set of events, in Manchester then London, for which Daesh claimed responsibility. So even with the myriad events, in both Syria and Iraq now, and in Europe, we could just focus on those. I provided four off the top of the head quotes from the Qu'ran which contradicted their behaviour. Four quotes which showed it was not a religion of war, of intolerance, of division. The very first quote - there is no compulsion where religion is concerned - directly contradicts the documented behvaiour of Da'esh that lead for example to wave upon wave of refugee fleeing the onslaught of the group. You completely ignored the behaviours of the Muslims in Finsbury Park after that terrorist attack too, because it is injurious to your flimsy premise - as are these Qu'ranic verses. I'm wondering too if you have perhaps seen this? www.lettertobaghdadi.com/Also can you tell me more about the version of the Qu'ran you read? Given the intricate nature of the Arabic prose of the time, the translation can really make a huge difference. I have a hugely dog-eared copy of the Penguin Classics version, translated by Nessim Darwood. Dawood, a Jewish Iraqi, viewed the text from a secular lense and wanted to do justice to its poetic prose so it's widely considered one of the better English versions. I'm keen to see if you had the same version?
|
|
|
Post by equationunequal on Jun 22, 2017 22:19:45 GMT
I'm guessing you're not aware that English isn't my native language?
I have read a Dutch translation ("De Koran") that was given to me at school many years ago. It was mandatory reading.
Also you keep bringing up the alt-right label. I do not identify as alt-right, nor do I visit any "alt-right" echo chambers.
|
|
|
Post by endersai on Jun 22, 2017 22:21:27 GMT
Let's actually go into the letter in more detail. Since it also addresses your point about the Qu'ranic root for Daesh crimes: 1. Legal theory (usul al-fiqh) and Qur’anic exegesis : With regards to Qur’anic exegesis, and the understanding of Hadith , and issue in legal theory in general, the methodology set forth by God in the Qur’an and the Prophet ﷺ in the Hadith is as follows: to consider everything that has been revealed relating to a particular question in its entirety, without depending on only parts of it, and then to judge—if one is qualified—based on all available scriptural sources. God ﷻsays: ‘… What, do you believe in part of the Book, and disbelieve in part? …’ (Al-Baqarah , 2:85);‘… they pervert words from their contexts; and they have forgotten a portion of what they were reminded of… ’ (Al-Ma’idah , 5:13); ‘… those who have reduced the Recitation, to parts ’ (Al-Hijr , 15:91). Once all relevant scriptural passages have been gathered, the ‘general’ has to be distinguished from the ‘specific’, and the ‘conditional’ from the ‘unconditional’. Also, the ‘unequivocal’ passages have to be distinguished from the allegorical ones. Moreover, the reasons and circumstances for revelation (asbab al-nuzul ) for all the passages and verses, in addition to all the other hermeneutical conditions that the classical imams have specified, must be understood. Therefore, it is not permissible to quote a verse, or part of a verse, without thoroughly considering and comprehending everything that the Qur’an and Hadith relate about that point. The reason behind this is that everything in the Qur’an is the Truth, and everything in authentic Hadith is Divinely inspired, so it is not permissible to ignore any part of it. Indeed it is imperative to reconcile all texts, as much as possible, or that there be a clear reason why one text should outweigh another. This is what Imam Shafi’i explains in his Al-Risalah, with a universal consensus among all usul scholars. Imam al-Haramayn, Al-Juwayni, says in Al-Burhan fi Usul Al-Fiqh... 6. The Killing of Innocents: God ﷻ says in the Qur’an: ‘And do not slay the soul [whose life] God has made inviolable, except with due cause … ’ (Al-Isra’ , 17: 33); and ‘Say: “Come, I will recite that which your Lord has made a sacred duty for you: that you associate nothing with Him, that you be dutiful to parents, and that you do not slay your children, because of poverty – We will provide for you and them – and that you do not draw near any acts of lewdness, whether it be manifest or concealed, and that you do not slay the life which God has made sacred, except rightfully. This is what He has charged you with that perhaps you will understand.” ’ (Al-An’am , 6: 151). The slaying of a soul—any soul—is haraam (forbidden and inviolable under Islamic Law), it is also one of the most abominable sins (mubiqat ). God ﷻ says in the Qur’an: ‘Because of that, We decreed for the Children of Israel that whoever slays a soul for other than a soul, or for corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether; and whoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers have already come to them with clear proofs, but after that many of them still commit excesses in the land .’ (Al-Ma’idah , 5: 32). You have killed many innocents who were neither combatants nor armed, just because they disagree with your opinions[13] . 19. Attributing crimes to God in the name of humility: After tying Syrian soldiers of the 17th Division in North-eastern Syria to barbed wire, you cut off their heads with knives and posted a video of this on the internet. In the video you said: ‘We are your brothers, the soldiers of the Islamic State. God has favoured us with His grace and victory by conquering the 17th Division; a victory and favour through God. We seek refuge in God from our might and power. We seek refuge in God from our weapons and our readiness.’ You thus attributed this heinous crime to God ﷻ, and made as if this were an act of humility to God ﷻ, by saying that He ﷻdid it and not you. But God says: ‘And when they commit any indecency they say, “We found our fathers practising it, and God has enjoined it on us”. Say, “God does not enjoin indecency. Do you say concerning God that which you do not know?” ’ (Al-A’raf, 7: 28). Pretty damned clear. EDIT: Yes, I know you're Dutch. You're not doing us any favours (mijn vader is Nederlands ). you'll have to help me out, because I can't seem to find any reference to the Qu'ran being mandatory in Dutch schools. I'll ask my family and friends over there about it. But, you can surely Google who translated your version of de Koran, nee?
|
|
|
Post by equationunequal on Jun 22, 2017 22:27:38 GMT
You seem to leaving out the fact that the later violent texts take precedence over the earlier peaceful texts . I went to a Christian high school. Obviously the bible was mandatory reading, but some of the classes also focused on other religions and their religious text. If I even still have it and managed to find it I would need to scan every page and OCR the thing in order to Google translate it, so nee
|
|
|
Post by endersai on Jun 22, 2017 23:10:39 GMT
1. Legal theory (usul al-fiqh) and Qur’anic exegesis : With regards to Qur’anic exegesis, and the understanding of Hadith , and issue in legal theory in general, the methodology set forth by God in the Qur’an and the Prophet ﷺ in the Hadith is as follows: to consider everything that has been revealed relating to a particular question in its entirety, without depending on only parts of it, and then to judge—if one is qualified—based on all available scriptural sources. God ﷻsays: ‘… What, do you believe in part of the Book, and disbelieve in part? …’ (Al-Baqarah , 2:85);‘… they pervert words from their contexts; and they have forgotten a portion of what they were reminded of… ’ (Al-Ma’idah , 5:13); ‘… those who have reduced the Recitation, to parts ’ (Al-Hijr , 15:91). Once all relevant scriptural passages have been gathered, the ‘general’ has to be distinguished from the ‘specific’, and the ‘conditional’ from the ‘unconditional’. Also, the ‘unequivocal’ passages have to be distinguished from the allegorical ones. Moreover, the reasons and circumstances for revelation (asbab al-nuzul ) for all the passages and verses, in addition to all the other hermeneutical conditions that the classical imams have specified, must be understood. Therefore, it is not permissible to quote a verse, or part of a verse, without thoroughly considering and comprehending everything that the Qur’an and Hadith relate about that point. The reason behind this is that everything in the Qur’an is the Truth, and everything in authentic Hadith is Divinely inspired, so it is not permissible to ignore any part of it. Indeed it is imperative to reconcile all texts, as much as possible, or that there be a clear reason why one text should outweigh another. This is what Imam Shafi’i explains in his Al-Risalah, with a universal consensus among all usul scholars. Imam al-Haramayn, Al-Juwayni, says in Al-Burhan fi Usul Al-Fiqh... "You seem to leaving out the fact that the later violent texts take precedence over the earlier peaceful texts" Do I?
|
|
Hystery
Member
Posts: 556
Registered on: August 2016
Steam: DraconisRex
Social Club: Hystery
|
Post by Hystery on Jun 23, 2017 0:02:00 GMT
Don't worry guys, no need to go in long debates about religious precepts and the like, let's just say that all muslims are the same and Islam is the cause for terrorism, violence, murders, world poverty, aids, cancer, the current heatwave, and my early baldness.
:^)
|
|
|
Post by endersai on Jun 23, 2017 0:12:22 GMT
I like that there's literal exegesis talking about exegesis (META SCHOLARSHIP) that proves there is no Qu'ranic basis to Daesh's propaganda but, in the interests of maintaining fascist right logic, we'll not see counter-exegetic scholarship but instead a new, and much redder, herring on offer. At least it's not wildly predictable.
|
|
|
Post by Daleks (@darkalex45) on Jun 23, 2017 7:03:12 GMT
Islam is the cause for my early baldness. Oh no... those monsters /s
|
|
Hystery
Member
Posts: 556
Registered on: August 2016
Steam: DraconisRex
Social Club: Hystery
|
Post by Hystery on Jun 23, 2017 8:21:02 GMT
Islam is the cause for my early baldness. Oh no... those monsters /s I know right? It's unforgivable #prayformylosthair
|
|