Killing for apostacy is against Quran.

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have some nice ginger tea with me. Thats next.

Now establish that with only strong logic and evidence.

 

[firedragon]

Now establish that with only strong logic and evidence.

When you have a nice English cup of tea with nice Asian ginger, its only logical that it would be next. After all, it won't be steaming for long and the temptation is too much. Thats logical evidence to why it is next.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

When you have a nice English cup of tea with nice Asian ginger, its only logical that it would be next. After all, it won't be steaming for long and the temptation is too much. Thats logical evidence to why it is next.

I got it wrong, therefore you have tea next.

 

[firedragon]

I got it wrong, therefore you have tea next.

Anything is a good excuse for such good tea.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Anything is a good excuse for such good tea.

Yes, if you mean good as without logic and evidence, we agree.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, if you mean good as without logic and evidence, we agree.

With tea, I agree that logic can go down the drain.

 

[danieldemol]

No. It is not evidence to "how' another person interprets the Quran. It is just "this person says that".

To providence evidence for "how" you have to get the methodology this person used, then verify it, and present the methodology, not just say "this person says that".

When it is this person saying how they interpret the Quran it is evidence of how they interpret the Quran, no knowledge of their methodology is required in my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

When it is this person saying how they interpret the Quran it is evidence of how they interpret the Quran, no knowledge of their methodology is required in my opinion.

"How" do you know "how" they interpret the Qur'an?

How do they do it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"How" do you know "how" they interpret the Qur'an?

How do they do it?

Personally I would guess.

 

[danieldemol]

"How" do you know "how" they interpret the Qur'an?

How do they do it?

It appears as though the answer in this case is by following his scholar's interpretation. You can see this from post #60.

But I'm using "how" he interprets the Quran to mean what he interprets the Quran as saying, not how as in what methodology does he use.

In my opinion

 

[firedragon]

Personally I would guess.

So Daniel knows this person personally or he knows "how" they did it personally?

 

[firedragon]

It appears as though the answer in this case is by following his scholar's interpretation. You can see this from post #60.

But I'm using "how" he interprets the Quran to mean what he interprets the Quran as saying, not how as in what methodology does he use.

So his scholars interpretation, how was that done? What was their methodology? Is not he making a "appeal to authority" fallacy and you seem to use him as your "go to interpreter who got it from another"? Is that good enough?

"I am saying, that he says, his scholar said" is your method?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So Daniel knows this person personally or he knows "how" they did it personally?

Well, unless they are the Borg, it happens in individual brains and thus is personal. It can be shared but that is inter-personal/subjective.

 

[firedragon]

Well, unless they are the Borg, it happens in individual brains and thus is personal. It can be shared but that is inter-personal/subjective.

Nice.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So his scholars interpretation, how was that done? What was their methodology? Is not he making a "appeal to authority" fallacy and you seem to use him as your "go to interpreter who got it from another"? Is that good enough?

"I am saying, that he says, his scholar said" is your method?

What is your evidence for good only using logic and evidence?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nice.

Well, apparently some of us use different personal versions of good.

 

[danieldemol]

So his scholars interpretation, how was that done? What was their methodology? Is not he making a "appeal to authority" fallacy and you seem to use him as your "go to interpreter who got it from another"? Is that good enough?

"I am saying, that he says, his scholar said" is your method?

One does not need to know the methodology of his scholar to know what his scholar said.

Since my point was that there are Muslims who do not consider the Quran to be against apostasy laws, it is not a matter of preferring hadith over the Quran, when the Quran (as interpreted by those Muslims) is not necessarily against those hadith, therefore all I needed to do was show evidence that they did not interpret the Quran as being against those hadith.

Thus the answer to your question, "Is that good enough" is a resounding yes.

In my opinion.

 

[danieldemol]

So Daniel knows this person personally or he knows "how" they did it personally?

In this case @Shakeel appears to say how he did it in post #60 in my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

One does not need to know the methodology of his scholar to know what his scholar said.

But you must know the method of the scholar to know if its agreeable. Just agreeing with what someone says because his scholar says with no verification whatsoever is confirmation of bias. You just didnt like this so called "peaceful interpretation" if there is such a thing and you quoted someone else's so called "interpretation" with out knowing a cents worth about it because it was nice to you because your intention was to demonise the so called peaceful interpretation.

When people are driven by agenda like that they commit a lot of logical fallacies. Its absolutely evident.

Have a good day.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But you must know the method of the scholar to know if its agreeable. Just agreeing with what someone says because his scholar says with no verification whatsoever is confirmation of bias. You just didnt like this so called "peaceful interpretation" if there is such a thing and you quoted someone else's so called "interpretation" with out knowing a cents worth about it because it was nice to you because your intention was to demonise the so called peaceful interpretation.

When people are driven by agenda like that they commit a lot of logical fallacies. Its absolutely evident.

Have a good day.

So you are not driven by an agenda? I am and I have never come across another human, where that wasn't the case. Maybe you are different, but I would need logic and evidence for that.