The Terrorism Files - 2015, 2016

[Total Power]

In my view, none.

That says nothing about objective truth though.

So it can be justified under someone else;s view? in other words, rape is ok in some societies is the proof that objective truth doesnt exist?

 

[coerced]

In my view, none.

That says nothing about objective truth though.

How about we ask the person who is raped?

 

[Malifice]

So it can be justified under someone else;s view? in other words, rape is ok in some societies is the proof that objective truth doesnt exist?

I'm sure rapists justify it all the time.

And 'no' to your second question. The justification of rape is categorically NOT proof of the existence of objective truth.

I can tell you're a little out of your depth here. Let's change tack.

 

[Present Not Past]

Why is thread even stickied? It's a half bucket full of s**t

 

[Total Power]

I'm sure rapists justify it all the time.

And 'no' to your second question. The justification of rape is categorically NOT proof of the existence of objective truth.

I can tell you're a little out of your depth here. Let's change tack.

lol whatever... you are pretty hostile towards people that dont share the same opinion as you. Science is silent on this topic but you seem to have all the answers, ask Sam Harris

 

[Total Power]

http://nypost.com/2016/04/06/yes-terrorists-are-masquerading-as-refugees/

The European Union’s border agency admitted in a report Tuesday that terrorists are using the refugee crisis to enter Europe and plan attacks on the continent.

Frontex said that it didn’t know exactly how many refugees have crossed into Europe and they have no way of tracking them, The Telegraph reported. The agency revealed that EU members reported 1.82 million illegal border crossings last year, which broke a record.

So frontex is reporting this but our bigfooty armchair experts should know better hey?

 

[Malifice]

http://nypost.com/2016/04/06/yes-terrorists-are-masquerading-as-refugees/



So frontex is reporting this but our bigfooty armchair experts should know better hey?

Dude - who has said that ISIL haven't been attempting to infiltrate terrorists into Europe with the wave of refugees? ISIL said they're gonna do it. No one has said they wouldn't.

What are you on about? You're just parroting s**t now and jumping at shadows.

I want to have a genuine discussion here.

 

[Total Power]

Dude - who has said that ISIL haven't been attempting to infiltrate terrorists into Europe with the wave of refugees? ISIL said they're gonna do it. No one has said they wouldn't.

What are you on about? You're just parroting s**t now and jumping at shadows.

I want to have a genuine discussion here.

Ok so lets back to what you have said, if there is a law, its perfectly ok to do it. Dublin regulations dont allow refugees to country shop. Dublin allows u to apply at the point of entry only then apply for an european relocation program.I know you will know "but greece is overwhelmed". But none of the refugees want to register in greece in fear of Dublin regulations, nor italy or spain . They have no right to country shop cause present european legislation doesnt allow them to. Frontex said

Frontex’s annual risk analysis said: “The Paris attacks in November 2015 clearly demonstrated that irregular migratory flows could be used by terrorists to enter the EU.”

Echoing observations made five months ago, the report added: “Two of the terrorists involved in the attacks had previously irregularly entered through Leros and had been registered by the Greek authorities. They presented fraudulent Syrian documents to speed up their registration process.

“As the vast majority of migrants arrive undocumented, screening activities are essential to properly verify their declaration of nationality.”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/06/eu-proposals-overhaul-european-asylum-rules-dublin

And yet you were perfectly fine with them country shopping and coming in undocumented. 2 of the terrorists in paris were refugees.

 

[Total Power]

Dude - who has said that ISIL haven't been attempting to infiltrate terrorists into Europe with the wave of refugees? ISIL said they're gonna do it. No one has said they wouldn't.

What are you on about? You're just parroting s**t now and jumping at shadows.

I want to have a genuine discussion here.

Btw i wasnt having a go at you here, many here have argued there is no evidence that terrorists are boat people. You know who you are

 

[My name geoff]

No mate, you have an agenda. A blatant one at that.

I've posted links. Numerous times. I've posted arguments. Numerous times. You just ignore them or blame an 'agenda' as you do here.

Your claim is preposterous and it is not shared by anyone other than Islamic hardliners. It's certainly rejected by the majority of Muslims and the majority of Islamic jurists.

You're obviously pushing some kind of agenda here.

Haha you are posting snippets of information which don't prove what you are claiming and don't disprove what I am stating

If you claim that the majority of Muslims and the majority of jurists don't hold certain views. Prove it! Show me the evidence to support this claim!

I made a claim, I backed it up with the Quran, Hadith and tasfir.

This claim was called idiotic, so I provided evidence (equivalent to your evidence) that SCHOLARS hold the same view. You accepted this evidence, but then you claim that only hardliners hold this view?? Prove that it is only hardlined scholars! You make a claim, you need to prove it.

I claimed that the Quran advocates aggressive jihad.

You decide to go to the jurists (who can't agree on anything I.e 'they have their own agendas') to rebut my claim.

Your only response is that, the jurists aren't unanimous about this.

The fact that ANY of the source you cite agrees that aggressive jihad is acceptable supports my point. It must be in the Quran yeah?

You can't even see that your 'evidence' supports my claims!

 

[My name geoff]

Again, it is acceptable to accidentally injure civilians intermixed with soldiers. It is not permissable to detonate a bomb that only targets civilians.

See you make a claim here, stating it as if it is a fact. Show me the evidence where in Islam it is not permissible to detonate a bomb that only targets civilians. Show me where it says anything about 'accidentally' killing civilians

You referenced this Hadith to prove that 'because it says women and children are not allowed to be killed, but Muslims still kill women and children my whole premise must be false' but then I showed you this Hadith was abrogated and it indeed is permissible to kill women and children in battle.

Does that make my claim correct? You yourself proved that women and children of the enemy can be killed, Muslims are killing women and children of the enemy as is instructed in the scripture. Does this validate my claim?

 

[Number37]

The fact that ANY of the source you cite agrees that aggressive jihad is acceptable supports my point. It must be in the Quran yeah?

There are many many many Muslim scholars, leaders and experts on Islam that would reject your nonsense.
In fact many have lent their support to a letter written to the leader of ISIS.



http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com/

1. It is forbidden in Islam to issue fatwas without all the necessary learning requirements. Even then fatwas must follow Islamic legal theory as defined in the Classical texts. It is also forbidden to cite a portion of a verse from the Qur’an—or part of a verse—to derive a ruling without looking at everything that the Qur’an and Hadith teach related to that matter. In other words, there are strict subjective and objective prerequisites for fatwas , and one cannot ‘cherry-pick’ Qur’anic verses for legal arguments without considering the entire Qur’an and Hadith .
2. It is forbidden in Islam to issue legal rulings about anything without mastery of the Arabic language.
3. It is forbidden in Islam to oversimplify Shari’ah matters and ignore established Islamic sciences.
4. It is permissible in Islam [for scholars] to differ on any matter, except those fundamentals of religion that all Muslims must know.
5. It is forbidden in Islam to ignore the reality of contemporary times when deriving legal rulings.
6. It is forbidden in Islam to kill the innocent.
7. It is forbidden in Islam to kill emissaries, ambassadors, and diplomats; hence it is forbidden to kill journalists and aid workers.
8. Jihad in Islam is defensive war. It is not permissible without the right cause, the right purpose and without the right rules of conduct.
9. It is forbidden in Islam to declare people non-Muslim unless he (or she) openly declares disbelief.
10. It is forbidden in Islam to harm or mistreat—in any way—Christians or any ‘People of the Scripture’.
11. It is obligatory to consider Yazidis as People of the Scripture.
12. The re-introduction of slavery is forbidden in Islam. It was abolished by universal consensus.
13. It is forbidden in Islam to force people to convert.
14. It is forbidden in Islam to deny women their rights.
15. It is forbidden in Islam to deny children their rights.
16. It is forbidden in Islam to enact legal punishments (hudud ) without following the correct procedures that ensure justice and mercy.
17. It is forbidden in Islam to torture people.
18. It is forbidden in Islam to disfigure the dead.
19. It is forbidden in Islam to attribute evil acts to God ﷻ.
20. It is forbidden in Islam to destroy the graves and shrines of Prophets and Companions.
21. Armed insurrection is forbidden in Islam for any reason other than clear disbelief by the ruler and not allowing people to pray.
22. It is forbidden in Islam to declare a caliphate without consensus from all Muslims.
23. Loyalty to one’s nation is permissible in Islam.
24. After the death of the Prophet ﷺ , Islam does not require anyone to emigrate anywhere.

 

[My name geoff]

There are many many many Muslim scholars, leaders and experts on Islam that would reject your nonsense.
In fact many have lent their support to a letter written to the leader of ISIS.



http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com/

1. It is forbidden in Islam to issue fatwas without all the necessary learning requirements. Even then fatwas must follow Islamic legal theory as defined in the Classical texts. It is also forbidden to cite a portion of a verse from the Qur’an—or part of a verse—to derive a ruling without looking at everything that the Qur’an and Hadith teach related to that matter. In other words, there are strict subjective and objective prerequisites for fatwas , and one cannot ‘cherry-pick’ Qur’anic verses for legal arguments without considering the entire Qur’an and Hadith .
2. It is forbidden in Islam to issue legal rulings about anything without mastery of the Arabic language.
3. It is forbidden in Islam to oversimplify Shari’ah matters and ignore established Islamic sciences.
4. It is permissible in Islam [for scholars] to differ on any matter, except those fundamentals of religion that all Muslims must know.
5. It is forbidden in Islam to ignore the reality of contemporary times when deriving legal rulings.
6. It is forbidden in Islam to kill the innocent.
7. It is forbidden in Islam to kill emissaries, ambassadors, and diplomats; hence it is forbidden to kill journalists and aid workers.
8. Jihad in Islam is defensive war. It is not permissible without the right cause, the right purpose and without the right rules of conduct.
9. It is forbidden in Islam to declare people non-Muslim unless he (or she) openly declares disbelief.
10. It is forbidden in Islam to harm or mistreat—in any way—Christians or any ‘People of the Scripture’.
11. It is obligatory to consider Yazidis as People of the Scripture.
12. The re-introduction of slavery is forbidden in Islam. It was abolished by universal consensus.
13. It is forbidden in Islam to force people to convert.
14. It is forbidden in Islam to deny women their rights.
15. It is forbidden in Islam to deny children their rights.
16. It is forbidden in Islam to enact legal punishments (hudud ) without following the correct procedures that ensure justice and mercy.
17. It is forbidden in Islam to torture people.
18. It is forbidden in Islam to disfigure the dead.
19. It is forbidden in Islam to attribute evil acts to God ﷻ.
20. It is forbidden in Islam to destroy the graves and shrines of Prophets and Companions.
21. Armed insurrection is forbidden in Islam for any reason other than clear disbelief by the ruler and not allowing people to pray.
22. It is forbidden in Islam to declare a caliphate without consensus from all Muslims.
23. Loyalty to one’s nation is permissible in Islam.
24. After the death of the Prophet ﷺ , Islam does not require anyone to emigrate anywhere.

That site has 120,000 Facebook followers in total (if you believe some statistics, apparently ISIS alone has more than that) many of which may or may not be Muslim. Of the list of 40 supposed reputable signatory's, I can see the majority are either not scholars or hold no authority in islam.

Some of them are even down right crackpots,

Like this guy;
Dr. Shabir Ally, PhD Resident Scholar on TV Show Let the Quran Speak & Founder-Imam of Islamic Information and Dawah Centre International

Dr Shabir Ally has been called out on numerous occasions for his deceitful lies and misinformation about Islam. He's actually made a living out of it.

What is this supposed to prove exactly?

 

[My name geoff]

You are the one that hasn't proven anything.
You cut & paste wiki's and then claim they say something which they DO NOT.

For example:
Women & children are the enemy = women & children can be killed.

That is complete and utter rubbish.

Quoting things you clearly don't understand reflects on you.

The only exception to this is where such people participate directly in the fighting or are so intermixed with the fighters that it is impossible to separate them from those who are fighting. This exception is indicated by the hadîth of al-Sa`b b. Jathâmah. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was asked about the women and children of the polytheists who were among them and who would be injured if the enemy was attacked. He said: “They are of them.”[Sahîh al-Bukhârî (3021) and Sahîh Muslim (1475)]

Explain to me what you interpret this passage to mean oh sage one..

 

[Number37]

That site has 120,000 Facebook followers in total (if you believe some statistics, apparently ISIS alone has more than that) many of which may or may not be Muslim. Of the list of 40 supposed reputable signatory's, I can see the majority are either not scholars or hold no authority in islam.

Some of them are even down right crackpots,

Like this guy;
Dr. Shabir Ally, PhD Resident Scholar on TV Show Let the Quran Speak & Founder-Imam of Islamic Information and Dawah Centre International

Dr Shabir Ally has been called out on numerous occasions for his deceitful lies and misinformation about Islam. He's actually made a living out of it.

What is this supposed to prove exactly?

Apparently all Muslims can confirm what you have been trying to sell.
Apparently all Muslims believe in forcibly 1. converting people 2. taking over the world 3. when they hit a magic number.

So it seems now that you are contending that its only the crackpots that would deny your version of the Koran and yet you also argue Muslims are crackpots because of the things you say the majority of them believe.
That is a rather convenient position for you to take isn't take, either way Muslims are crackpots.

The other possibility, one that I am inclined to accept as the truth, is that you are just another anti-Muslim nutter. You started off (predictably) with "I have Muslim friends", you then claimed they turncoated by adopting "uncompromising" views & you conveniently failed to explain exactly what those uncompromising views were, all of this so that you give yourself credibility (by definition credibility requires others to trust you). You then use your self annointed credibility to talk about Islam, Muslims and their beliefs. Next you give yourself further credibility by using their own words against them & finally you purport to speak on behalf of the majority of them.
In the parallel universe that is internet forums you probably think you are really clever and you may even convince some people that what you write is true, but the sad reality is that you are full of it. The only people you will convince with your nonsense are people that are more delusional than you.
Your credibility is fake, the substance of what you write is rubbish, there is no logic to your arguments, when it all boils down your argument is nothing more than Muslim, Koran, terrorist. It is a sad indictment on you, let us hope you don't have influence on any impressionable people.

 

[Number37]

The only exception to this is where such people participate directly in the fighting or are so intermixed with the fighters that it is impossible to separate them from those who are fighting. This exception is indicated by the hadîth of al-Sa`b b. Jathâmah. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was asked about the women and children of the polytheists who were among them and who would be injured if the enemy was attacked. He said: “They are of them.”[Sahîh al-Bukhârî (3021) and Sahîh Muslim (1475)]

Explain to me what you interpret this passage to mean oh sage one..

It wouldn't matter what I think it means, you will still argue it means what you want it to mean. Save the rope-a-dope for the next UDF meeting.

 

[My name geoff]

Apparently all Muslims can confirm what you have been trying to sell.
Apparently all Muslims believe in forcibly 1. converting people 2. taking over the world 3. when they hit a magic number.

So it seems now that you are contending that its only the crackpots that would deny your version of the Koran and yet you also argue Muslims are crackpots because of the things you say the majority of them believe.
That is a rather convenient position for you to take isn't take, either way Muslims are crackpots.

The other possibility, one that I am inclined to accept as the truth, is that you are just another anti-Muslim nutter. You started off (predictably) with "I have Muslim friends", you then claimed they turncoated by adopting "uncompromising" views & you conveniently failed to explain exactly what those uncompromising views were, all of this so that you give yourself credibility (by definition credibility requires others to trust you). You then use your self annointed credibility to talk about Islam, Muslims and their beliefs. Next you give yourself further credibility by using their own words against them & finally you purport to speak on behalf of the majority of them.
In the parallel universe that is internet forums you probably think you are really clever and you may even convince some people that what you write is true, but the sad reality is that you are full of it. The only people you will convince with your nonsense are people that are more delusional than you.
Your credibility is fake, the substance of what you write is rubbish, there is no logic to your arguments, when it all boils down your argument is nothing more than Muslim, Koran, terrorist. It is a sad indictment on you, let us hope you don't have influence on any impressionable people.

Have you ever heard of what's called, a strawman argument?

Show me where I said 'Apparently all Muslims believe in forcibly 1. converting people 2. taking over the world 3. when they hit a magic number.'

Typical tactics of a failed argument, Attempt to misrepresent the opponents assertions, Attack the opponent personally rather than countering the evidence, claim victory

 

[My name geoff]

It wouldn't matter what I think it means, you will still argue it means what you want it to mean. Save the rope-a-dope for the next UDF meeting.

You claimed that my so called 'personal interpretations' are ridiculous, back up your assertion, you show us what a proper interpretation of this passage is,

This exception is indicated by the hadîth of al-Sa`b b. Jathâmah. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was asked about the women and children of the polytheists who were among them and who would be injured if the enemy was attacked. He said: “They are ofthem.”[Sahîh al-Bukhârî (3021) and Sahîh Muslim (1475)]

 

[DemonTim]

Have you ever heard of what's called, a strawman argument?

Show me where I said 'Apparently all Muslims believe in forcibly 1. converting people 2. taking over the world 3. when they hit a magic number.'

Typical tactics of a failed argument, Attempt to misrepresent the opponents assertions, Attack the opponent personally rather than countering the evidence, claim victory

Didnt you do just that, when presented with arguments from islamic experts?

 

[Number37]

You claimed that so called 'my personal interpretations' are ridiculous, back up your claim, you show us what a proper interpretation of this passage is,

This exception is indicated by the hadîth of al-Sa`b b. Jathâmah. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was asked about the women and children of the polytheists who were among them and who would be injured if the enemy was attacked. He said: “They are ofthem.”[Sahîh al-Bukhârî (3021) and Sahîh Muslim (1475)]

Proper interpretation...hmmm

Interpretation is subjective by definition...
How does one get a "proper interpretation"?
As you have ably demonstrated, anyone can 'interpret' anything in any manner they wish, that doesn't make it right (or wrong) it is after all just one person's interpretation.

If you interpret that verse as permission to kill women and children, I wouldn't agree (a) you are implying the meaning (b) your inference contradicts an express directive against killing women and children.
You are suggesting that an exception to rule against killing women and children is that it is OK to kill women and children which is patently ridiculous.

 

[My name geoff]

Didnt you do just that, when presented with arguments from islamic experts?

explain how

 

[DemonTim]

That site has 120,000 Facebook followers in total (if you believe some statistics, apparently ISIS alone has more than that) many of which may or may not be Muslim. Of the list of 40 supposed reputable signatory's, I can see the majority are either not scholars or hold no authority in islam.

Some of them are even down right crackpots,

Like this guy;
Dr. Shabir Ally, PhD Resident Scholar on TV Show Let the Quran Speak & Founder-Imam of Islamic Information and Dawah Centre International

Dr Shabir Ally has been called out on numerous occasions for his deceitful lies and misinformation about Islam. He's actually made a living out of it.

What is this supposed to prove exactly?

explain how

 

[My name geoff]

Proper interpretation...hmmm

Interpretation is subjective by definition...
How does one get a "proper interpretation"?
As you have ably demonstrated, anyone can 'interpret' anything in any manner they wish, that doesn't make it right (or wrong) it is after all just one person's interpretation.

If you interpret that verse as permission to kill women and children, I wouldn't agree (a) you are implying the meaning (b) your inference contradicts an express directive against killing women and children.
You are suggesting that an exception to rule against killing women and children is that it is OK to kill women and children which is patently ridiculous.

So interpretation is subjective, but anyone who doesn't agree with your assumed interpretation is wrong? is that how this works?

This passage states that it is OK to kill the woman and children of the enemy during an attack, is this correct or incorrect?

If its incorrect, there must be a correct? what is the correct interpretation?

 

[My name geoff]

what exactly are you trying to point out?

 

[Number37]

So interpretation is subjective, but anyone who doesn't agree with your assumed interpretation is wrong? is that how this works?

This passage states that it is OK to kill the woman and children of the enemy during an attack, is this correct or incorrect?

If its incorrect, there must be a correct? what is the correct interpretation?

The Prophet (peace be upon him) was asked about the women and children of the polytheists who were among them and who would be injured if the enemy was attacked.

At what point did it go from injured to killed?