ISIL, Taliban = True Islam??

[TagliatelliMonster]

By definition, if Islam is not true, all Muslims have been hoodwinked.
Given that all religions claim to be true but all cannot be true, and there is no evidence to support any of their claims, it is entirely likely that all Muslims have indeed been hoodwinked.

And yet religionists are unable to present anything that amounts to actual "evidence". They only provide assertions and beliefs and fallacies and misunderstandings.

So there is objective evidence, but Allah has deliberately blinded billions of people to it. So where is their free will?

Once again you are showing that belief is something determined by god, not by our free will.

I have noticed that when religionists find their arguments being constantly refuted or their contradictions highlighted, they often revert to dogmatic platitudes.

But.... "god works in mysterious ways".

 

[muhammad_isa]

Perhaps you are not familiar with how Islam works.
Deferring to the knowledge and interpretations of classical scholars is an integral part of understanding the Quran. Watch any lecture about Islam or Quran exegesis by Muslim speakers and you will see constant references to these scholars.
It is highly hypocritical to accept these scholars when it suits but reject them when it doesn't.

It is not hypocritical IN THE SLIGHTEST.
Everybody is capable of making mistakes .. even the prophets made mistakes..

1 He frowned and turned away
2 Because the blind man came unto him.
3 What could inform thee but that he might grow (in grace)
4 Or take heed and so the reminder might avail him ?
5 As for him who thinketh himself independent,
6 Unto him thou payest regard.
7 Yet it is not thy concern if he grow not (in grace).
8 But as for him who cometh unto thee with earnest purpose
9 And hath fear,
10 From him thou art distracted.
11 Nay, but verily it is an Admonishment
-Qur'an `Abasa: He Frowned-

G-d is not capable of making mistakes. The Qur'an has no mistakes.

They are simply the tafsir I have access to. If you favour a different tafsir, feel free to present it.

Whatever you say. I expect you got your argument from some "hate website"..
As per the above surah I quoted, I have other things to do as well. Some people are interested in learning something, and not just making slanderous accusations.
I get the impression from multiple posts, that your agenda is one of contempt.

.."see" you later, God willing

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

G-d is not capable of making mistakes. The Qur'an has no mistakes.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is not hypocritical IN THE SLIGHTEST.
Everybody is capable of making mistakes .. even the prophets made mistakes..

...

G-d is not capable of making mistakes. The Qur'an has no mistakes.

...

So God is nobody. Like your logic.

 

[KWED]

More speculation.

The Quran is Muhaymeenoon mate. Maybe if you just put a bit of time into theology you will know. And I have already given you many discussions on it. Basics. If you wish, you can learn.

Either you are a Quranist or you are not.
Which is it?

 

[KWED]

Yeah. But you believe them blindly. Muslims dont.

I accept that most Muslims accept them, according to their level of authenticity.

I have given you the discussions. Try to engage with them.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Either you are a Quranist or you are not.
Which is it?

The correct answer seems to be "whatever helps me in the moment to pretend that I won the argument"

 

[KWED]

Thats what you said mate.

In which case you will be able to show the post where I said "You have no knowledge in Classical Arabic".
Off you go...

Its a steal man.

1. It's "steel man".
2. You obviously don't understand what steelmanning is, so add that to the list of fallacies that you don't understand.
I wonder if there is an informal fallacy that involves misunderstanding or misrepresenting informal fallacies. If there isn't, we can call it the "firedragon fallacy".

 

[KWED]

The correct answer seems to be "whatever helps me in the moment to pretend that I won the argument"

Surely not! That would be intellectually dishonest.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Surely not! That would be intellectually dishonest.

I'm loving the exchange between you two. It's very entertaining.

He has put me on ignore a long time ago. Perhaps it's for the best.
I'm a sore loser when it comes to playing in the first division of dodgeball.

 

[firedragon]

OK. Then prove that it doesn't.

No problem. In the attached image, I have marked the place where it says Surath atthalaak.

The English translation is also attached.

What you are reading is someone else's so called "enlightenment" of a most unauthentic tafsir with no provenance, and his interpolations into the texts.

The text does not say any of that.

Oh dear. Let's try again...
If Allah is referring to females who have already been married, they he can use a term that refers to married females.
If a female can be married age 6, then the term is applicable to a married female age 6. Because she is married.

Nah. Annisaa is "grown women". It is not referred to a young girl of 6. See, when you dont know the language, dont make false claims and pretend you know it.

Tell me. What is the arabic word for lets say a 6 year old girl?

 

[firedragon]

I accept that most Muslims accept them, according to their level of authenticity.

Alright. So you believe as the muslims believe so you are quoting it as history. You are a hadith believing ardent Muslim.

Nevertheless,

• Who narrated this hadith, and what are the problems with the narrator?
• Why is Muslim different to Bukhari?
• Why is it not in the Golden chain?
• What are other scholars saying about this hadith?
• If you dont know, you can ask.

If you are not prepared to analyse, you are a blind believer of one hadith.

 

[firedragon]

In which case you will be able to show the post where I said "You have no knowledge in Classical Arabic".
Off you go...

1. It's "steel man".
2. You obviously don't understand what steelmanning is, so add that to the list of fallacies that you don't understand.
I wonder if there is an informal fallacy that involves misunderstanding or misrepresenting informal fallacies. If there isn't, we can call it the "firedragon fallacy".

All you have done so far is just look for avenues to insult someone.

Tell me. Your favourite hadith that you believe in so much, information about it. I have asked many times. But you ignore it. Because you dont know the information. So you will make another insult. Say you dont know.

Who narrated this hadith, and what are the problems with the narrator?

Why is Muslim different to Bukhari?

Why is it not in the Golden chain?

What are other scholars saying about this hadith?

If you dont know, you can ask.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yeah, the rest of "us" are whatever negative, but you are not a "you", because "you" are special.

No. I am not special, as you well know.
We are all the same. Imperfect.

 

[Augustus]

Gibberish. Scientists in the 19th century believed all kinds of things. Doesn't mean they were scientifically accepted. Newton was into spiritualism, doesn't mean spiritualism was a science. No-one cares. Because spiritualism is nonsense. Social Darwinism was never a scientifically accepted theory. Whatever you laughably claim to the contrary.


Again i ask you. What was science wrong about precisely?

Either answer or do not respond to me.

Your confidence seems to vastly outstrip both your knowledge and your reading ability.

If you had read properly before you could have seen this 'Eugenics Manifesto' published in the prestigious scientific journal Nature and wouldn;t have needed to claim that it was never viewed as actual science.

Preamble:
The following document, which appeared in Nature, September 16, 1939, was a joint statement issued by America’s and Britain’s most prominent biologists (some of them Nobel Prize laureates). In response to a request from Science Service, of Washington, D.C., for a reply to the question “How could the world’s population be improved most effectively genetically?”, addressed to a number of scientific workers, the subjoined statement was prepared, and signed by those whose names appear at the end.

See, reading is good as it reduces the chance of you being pompously wrong in public

You also seem to have some fairy tale idea of a neatly reified "science" that you anthropomorphise and refer to with nonsense terms like "anti-science" or "what was science wrong about?"

What is "anti-science" supposed to mean anyway (other than the user likes repeating vapid cliches)?

Is it "anti-science" to point out that there is a reproduction crisis in modern science? Is it "anti-science" to point out all of the scientifically accepted ideas that later turned out to be incorrect? Is it anti-science to point out that knowledge deemed scientific has repeatedly driven poor real-life decisions? Is it "anti-science" to believe chemistry and geology are more reliable than psychology and sociology?

"Science" is not right or wrong about anything as it is not a person and has no opinions. It's hard to even define what science is (and no, there is no such thing as the scientific method that neatly demarcates science from non-science).

At best we look at what knowledge is deemed credibly scientific at any given time by sufficient numbers within scientific communities.

Social Darwinism was deemed scientific by many within the scientific community of its day. That is a simple fact.

To deny that Social Darwinism was viewed as scientific requires you to believe that no scientists seriously thought that biology shapes human behaviour despite this obviously being something that underpinned historical ideas about biology, sociology, economics and other social sciences.

More than that, these views still exist in the scientific community to this day (I know you don't like reading, but to understand that on which you are ignorant does, unfortunately, require a bit of effort on your part):

[4 principles of Darwinism were][ (i) biological laws governed the whole of organic nature, including humans; (ii) the pressure of population growth on resources generated a struggle for existence among organisms; (iii) physical and mental traits conferring an advantage on their possessors in this struggle (or in sexual competition), could, through inheritance, spread through the population; (iv) the cumulative effects of selection and inheritance over time accounted for the emergence of new species and the elimination of others.

Now the first assumption is one of scientific determinism, and was a powerful organising assumption for Darwin (and many others) in his opposition to supernatural and teleological accounts of species formation. Social Darwinism, however, involves a crucial fifth assumption, namely that this determinism extends to not just the physical properties of humans but also to their social existence and to those psychological attributes that play a fundamental role in social life, e.g. reason, religion and morality. It is possible to endorse elements (i)-(iv) without adhering to the fifth, either on the grounds that such features are unique to mankind, which stands apart from the rest of nature as a divine creation; or, as was increasingly argued by social scientists, because humans are cultural creatures and culture cannot be reduced to biological principles. Social Darwinists, however, are of the view that many (if not all) aspects of culture - religion, ethics, political institutions, the rise and fall of empires and civilisations, in addition to many psychological and behav- ioural features - can be explained by the application of the first four elements to these domains. Social Darwinists, then, endorse two fundamental facts about human nature: that it is continuous with animal psychology, and that it has evolved through natural selection...

[This form of Social Darwinism still exists today in the shape of sociobiology which has been criticised as] a renascent Social Darwinism. The claim was made at the birth of the discipline and has remained a basis of condemnation ever since.6 Sociobiologists are accused of espousing a rigid biological determinism in their efforts to explain phenomena such as incest prohibitions, rape, adultery, warfare, homicide and homosexuality - among many others - as the consequences of a genetic heritage shaped by natural selection. Such efforts are deemed by some critics to provide a justification, at least implicitly, for capitalism, class inequalities, racism, patriarchy and armed conflict. For them, there is nothing novel about the proposed 'New Synthesis', which reprises the basic themes of the Social Darwinism of the 1870s.

Social Darwinism in European and American Thought - M Hawkins


Sociobiology is a field of biology that aims to examine and explain social behavior in terms of evolution. It draws from disciplines including psychology, ethology, anthropology, evolution, zoology, archaeology, and population genetics. Within the study of human societies, sociobiology is closely allied to evolutionary anthropology, human behavioral ecology, evolutionary psychology,[1] and sociology.[2][3]

Sociobiology - Wikipedia

This isn't a problem BTW. "Science" will survive being wrong because we all understand that scientific knowledge is updated and revised over time. It is only credulous fanboys who think pointing any of this out is "anti-science".

See, reading is good and helps you to become less wrong

 

[muhammad_isa]

So God is nobody. Like your logic.

Nobody .. or everybody?
I know one thing for sure. G-d is not a finite concept.
..and that is how orthodox Christians manage to "squeeze in" that G-d can be one of His creation.
i.e. It is difficult to precisely define what God is

In fact, it is easier to say what He is NOT

 

[firedragon]

@KWED If you want, you can research this. I know that you will try to insult and brush it off and go onto something. But well, I thought why not. You can ask anyone, you can do your research.

In "CLASSICAL ARABIC", a young woman is called Jariyah. A girl of playful age is called Jariyathu Alabu. Even in Bukhari, he refers to Aisha in one hadith as Jariyathu Alabu. Same Bukhari reports in the book of commentary, book 58, hadith number 1784 that a Surah or chapter (chapter 54) has a verse that was revealed when she was in mecca (Before the Hijra) and she was a "Jaariyathu Alabu" which means "a girl at playful age". When you look at the time this so called verse was given to her family, What does that mean? It means that Aisha was a young girl, who was of a playful age when this chapter 54 was revealed. Bukhari reports that she was of Akal age. Akal means the age of reason. So Aisha supposedly narrated this as she remembered and narrated the verse as well, and what age do you think she would have been in order to remember a verse of the Quran and to remember the day it was revealed or time period in Mecca? She would have been what age? 10? 8? And when was chapter 54 revealed?? It was revealed in 614 (10 years before the supposed marriage). Then how old do you think she would have been? 20? 18? There is no way she was so young "even according to ahadith" when she married because of this one factor. There are many. If you check a good Arabic lexicon which I presume you can easily do, a phrase like "Jaariyah" will mean "Young woman". Annisaa are older than them. this is Fusha Atthuraath.

Because you love this hadith so much I am giving you this explanation, if you care to read and understand. There are many ahadith about the sister of Aisha who was 10 years older to her. This is of course a very well known thing though. There is a book called Al Bidhayah wa al Nihayah which would mean the beginning and the end that speaks of Asma who is the sister of Aisha. This is a pretty large amount of work but it contains certain narratives that state this Asma's age in comparison to Aisha's. She was 10 years older.

Asma, Aishas sister is supposed have died in the 73rd year of Hijri which is reported by a scholar in traditional islamic circles had more respect in his sophisticated scholarship of Islam even in comparison to historian and scholar Ibn Kathir. His name was Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani. He reported in his book called Fine Tuning. 100-73 = 27. So at the time of Hijri, Asma was 27 years old. Which would mean Aisha was 17 years old. So this marriage which would have taken place in the 1st or 2nd Hijra makes Aisha 18 or 19. Is that another contradiction?

1. It is said that Asma, the sister of Aisha was ten years older. - (Atthabari)
2. And it also says that Asma died when she was 100 years old when she died, and it was the 73 Hijra. - (Tahzibut Tahzib)
3. Abu Bakr wished Aisha to be married 8 years before Hijra. So in the proponents logic, Aisha would have been just born, which is not.
4. That means obviously 100-73 = 27. So at the time of Hijri, Asma was 27 years old.
5. So it is only simple mathematics to understand that Aisha was 17 years old.
6. So this marriage which would have been taken place in the 1st or 2nd Hijra makes Aisha 18 or 19.
7. If you look at the hadith Aisha is referred to as Bikr, Not Jariah. Which means a woman of adult age, not a childhood or early teen age which is Jariah.


And we know that Jariyathu Alabu refers to a young girl at playful age, where as in Arabic, Annisaa is not word used for such young children. A young girl of growing up age is called Fathaaya. Annisaa is only grown women. It is not used for young girls. This verse says "Women", Annisaa. Not Fathaaya, Jariyah, or any arabic word used for girls of young ages.

I told you that you were appealing to authority. You told it was deferring to authority. But you are not giving the methodology used by these authorities. You dont allow any analysis. You want them to be as it is. No thinking. Just "appeal to authority". So you should understand that difference.

Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the prescribed period, if ye have any doubts, is three months, and for those who have no courses [it is the same]: for those who carry [life within their wombs], their period is until they deliver their burdens: and for those who fear Allah, He will make their path easy. – Quran 65:4

There are some translations which would say “Not yet menstruated” instead of “No courses”.

Take a holistic approach. Not just one cherry picked verse that suits your personal sentiment. Quran is one book.

This verse is speaking of women who go through a divorce where it stipulates certain conditions before the lady is to leave the premises where they had their marital life. So please understand that first, you are married because you are already fully grown, mature enough to manage your finances, balaghul nikaha and so forth. You are already married meeting these criteria and now you are going through a divorce.

Chapter 65 verse 4

1. Premise: In case of divorce (To get a divorce, you are already married. To be married, you are already old enough as spelled out earlier)

2. Wa allathi ya ishna minal maheedhi. Those who are done with their menstruation. Which means Ya Ishna, your menstruations are over. This is menopause. For them, at the time of a divorce their interim period is three months.

3. Wa allathi yaa hidhna means the ones who have not menstruated. Now this is the verse a lot of people use to insult the whole system of islam. But it’s a cheap trick. You will understand why.

It does not say “Never menstruated” and in classical Arabic this could never ever mean one who has not achieved puberty. It is completely illogical. As a non-muslim you could use this this maliciously to insult but also as a Muslim you could use this for your perverted intentions. But none of this is logical if you take the context of the Quran and you should see that its illogical.

You are talking of a girl who is already married because she has reached the right ripe age of marriage. Balagul nikaha. Now she is going through a divorce. And now she cannot be thrown out of where she is living for three months. Both, those who don’t get periods and those who have not got their periods yet after the decision is made, whoever they are cannot be sent out of their abode for 3 months AFTER THE DIVORCE IS CONFIRMED.

4. Hamal or pregnant women if you find them to be must be allowed fully to stay in the same premises until the delivery.

Cheers.

 

[KWED]

You can't understand this because you are "deliberately blinded".

So it's not my fault. So I shouldn't be punished for it.

Allah SWT is not a person. He is closer to you than your jugular vein.
He is "part of you", if you will.

And how is this relevant?

So how does G-d "deliberately blind" somebody?
It is well known in psychology, that a person can consciously believe something to be true or false, while their unconscious believes the OPPOSITE.
In effect, by one's initial choice to deny, one blinds themself.
That means that it is not G-d, as in third person, that is responsible. Free-will is not negated, as if a person deep down in their unconscious mind "cries out for change", they can do so.

But unlike our own internal thought processes, god is a third person that is an external influence. The concept is repeated many times in the Quran. Simply asserting "He isn't" is not a legitimate argument.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. I am not special, as you well know.
We are all the same. Imperfect.

Not we are not the same. "I" am "evil", have chosen "satan" and am "blind". So we are not the same.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Your confidence seems to vastly outstrip both your knowledge and your reading ability.

If you had read properly before you could have seen this 'Eugenics Manifesto' published in the prestigious scientific journal Nature and wouldn;t have needed to claim that it was never viewed as actual science.

Preamble:
The following document, which appeared in Nature, September 16, 1939, was a joint statement issued by America’s and Britain’s most prominent biologists (some of them Nobel Prize laureates). In response to a request from Science Service, of Washington, D.C., for a reply to the question “How could the world’s population be improved most effectively genetically?”, addressed to a number of scientific workers, the subjoined statement was prepared, and signed by those whose names appear at the end.

See, reading is good as it reduces the chance of you being pompously wrong in public

You also seem to have some fairy tale idea of a neatly reified "science" that you anthropomorphise and refer to with nonsense terms like "anti-science" or "what was science wrong about?"

What is "anti-science" supposed to mean anyway (other than the user likes repeating vapid cliches)?

Is it "anti-science" to point out that there is a reproduction crisis in modern science? Is it "anti-science" to point out all of the scientifically accepted ideas that later turned out to be incorrect? Is it anti-science to point out that knowledge deemed scientific has repeatedly driven poor real-life decisions? Is it "anti-science" to believe chemistry and geology are more reliable than psychology and sociology?

"Science" is not right or wrong about anything as it is not a person and has no opinions. It's hard to even define what science is (and no, there is no such thing as the scientific method that neatly demarcates science from non-science).

At best we look at what knowledge is deemed credibly scientific at any given time by sufficient numbers within scientific communities.

Social Darwinism was deemed scientific by many within the scientific community of its day. That is a simple fact.

To deny that Social Darwinism was viewed as scientific requires you to believe that no scientists seriously thought that biology shapes human behaviour despite this obviously being something that underpinned historical ideas about biology, sociology, economics and other social sciences.

More than that, these views still exist in the scientific community to this day (I know you don't like reading, but to understand that on which you are ignorant does, unfortunately, require a bit of effort on your part):

[4 principles of Darwinism were][ (i) biological laws governed the whole of organic nature, including humans; (ii) the pressure of population growth on resources generated a struggle for existence among organisms; (iii) physical and mental traits conferring an advantage on their possessors in this struggle (or in sexual competition), could, through inheritance, spread through the population; (iv) the cumulative effects of selection and inheritance over time accounted for the emergence of new species and the elimination of others.

Now the first assumption is one of scientific determinism, and was a powerful organising assumption for Darwin (and many others) in his opposition to supernatural and teleological accounts of species formation. Social Darwinism, however, involves a crucial fifth assumption, namely that this determinism extends to not just the physical properties of humans but also to their social existence and to those psychological attributes that play a fundamental role in social life, e.g. reason, religion and morality. It is possible to endorse elements (i)-(iv) without adhering to the fifth, either on the grounds that such features are unique to mankind, which stands apart from the rest of nature as a divine creation; or, as was increasingly argued by social scientists, because humans are cultural creatures and culture cannot be reduced to biological principles. Social Darwinists, however, are of the view that many (if not all) aspects of culture - religion, ethics, political institutions, the rise and fall of empires and civilisations, in addition to many psychological and behav- ioural features - can be explained by the application of the first four elements to these domains. Social Darwinists, then, endorse two fundamental facts about human nature: that it is continuous with animal psychology, and that it has evolved through natural selection...

[This form of Social Darwinism still exists today in the shape of sociobiology which has been criticised as] a renascent Social Darwinism. The claim was made at the birth of the discipline and has remained a basis of condemnation ever since.6 Sociobiologists are accused of espousing a rigid biological determinism in their efforts to explain phenomena such as incest prohibitions, rape, adultery, warfare, homicide and homosexuality - among many others - as the consequences of a genetic heritage shaped by natural selection. Such efforts are deemed by some critics to provide a justification, at least implicitly, for capitalism, class inequalities, racism, patriarchy and armed conflict. For them, there is nothing novel about the proposed 'New Synthesis', which reprises the basic themes of the Social Darwinism of the 1870s.

Social Darwinism in European and American Thought - M Hawkins


Sociobiology is a field of biology that aims to examine and explain social behavior in terms of evolution. It draws from disciplines including psychology, ethology, anthropology, evolution, zoology, archaeology, and population genetics. Within the study of human societies, sociobiology is closely allied to evolutionary anthropology, human behavioral ecology, evolutionary psychology,[1] and sociology.[2][3]

Sociobiology - Wikipedia

This isn't a problem BTW. "Science" will survive being wrong because we all understand that scientific knowledge is updated and revised over time. It is only credulous fanboys who think pointing any of this out is "anti-science".

See, reading is good and helps you to become less wrong

You have still failed to explain what science was wrong about specifically? In the 19th century.

Your infantile ad hominem aside. Fanboys indeed...

As for your apparent inability to understand what the scientific method is. I can help you. The scientific method is how we define science. It is the objective measurement observation and analysis of the physical universe. Taking empirically derived data and using it to create a mathematical model known as a scientific theory. That makes indepently verifiable predictions.

Again irrespective of the tedious blather you posted. Social Darwinism, is not a science. Never was.

PS
Your post did make me laugh though. So thanks for the chuckles. Nice to see arrogance without substance.