Society/Culture Why I blame Islam for the fact it's raining today....

Remove this Banner Ad

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,433
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Yes it is a science.

Definition of science: a systematically organised body of knowledge on a particular subject.
Interpreting the Qur'an in its entirety is a science that requires extensive knowledge which includes knowledge of Arabic language. It literally fits the definition of science.
That's ridiculous. It's purely interpretive. You may as well argue that being a book reviewer is also a science.

Who said it is based on my opinion only? It's a Scholarly consensus. A Scholarly consensus is Islamically considered evidence.
As someone who has studied both Islamic knowledge and science, I am much more informed in providing an appropriate analogy comparing the two than what you are.
I see no evidence of this expertise in your arguments. All you've done so far is deny and dismiss evidence that contradicts your position. You have no serious responses to the examples I've presented.

Are the Taliban sufficiently Islamic? When they ban women from sport because they don't want them "exposed", are they doing that for religious reasons or some other reasons that apparently have nothing to do with Islam?

Why did Osama bin Laden found Al-Qaeda? He did it because he objected to US troops being in Saudi Arabia, because the prophet said there can be only one faith in the lands of the caliphate. His grievance was explicitly religious, and it led him to found Al-Qaeda. You want to pretend it had nothing to do with his religious beliefs?

What answers do you have to these examples of people being explicitly motivated by Islamic doctrine?

You know how many things motivate people to kill? It's interesting how people make a lot of excuses for 18 year-olds in their society but for us, an 18-year old that does something half way across the world apparently represents what we believe. It doesn't matter what the person states as their motivation. Is it in compliance with the authentic teachings? If not, then you can't attribute it to the original source. This is basic.
All you do is obfuscate. I'm not telling you what you believe. I'm simply pointing to examples of people being impelled to violence by their belief system. How many examples do you need before you connect the belief system to the behaviour instead of insisting the belief system has nothing to do with it?

Of course, people kill for many reasons. In the case of Samuel Paty, he was murdered because he showed images of the prophet.

And yet you insist his killer's belief system had nothing to do with it?

His killer's belief system was the reason.

If an 18 year-old who watches a medical drama takes out a knife to perform surgery on their friend because they were inspired by the TV show, would you lay the responsibility on the producers of the TV show?
More ridiculous analogies.

We are talking about a belief system, not a TV show.

An 18-year old beheads someone and all the blame is put on the Islamic doctrine followed by over 1.6 billion people worldwide who didn't do that. It's not even worth discussing because of how stupid it is.
If the killer's motivation was fuelled explicitly by religious grievance, then yes, you can connect the action to the belief system. You have to bend over backwards to avoid this connection.

Everything you say in this thread tells me that you don't even have the basic Islamic knowledge so your opinions don't have any basis.
All you do is obfuscate and deny the evidence.

I've presented you with several examples of people or groups motivated explicitly by their religious beliefs and you simply ignore them or insist "nah they're not real Muslims".

You're in denial.
 
Last edited:

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,433
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Just because a person is motivated to do an act isn’t evidence that the faith they claim to follow approves it.
It shows they are motivated by religious doctrine. Their actions are driven by their belief system. Do you disagree?

What does it mean for a faith to approve something? It's a matter of interpretation. There's not some Jedi Council that approves or disapproves.

This is an undebatable fact and denying this would expose you as someone who cannot be reasoned with. Why? Because we literally see extreme people in so many facets of our life and you should know this.
This is complete waffle that makes no relevant point.

What specifically are you talking about?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Lsta062

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 15, 2014
17,174
33,752
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Chelsea, LA Lakers, Western United
It shows they are motivated by religious doctrine. Their actions are driven by their belief system. Do you disagree?

What does it mean for a faith to approve something? It's a matter of interpretation. There's not some Jedi Council that approves or disapproves.

This is complete waffle that makes no relevant point.

What specifically are you talking about?
Yes it comes from their individual beliefs, but that may not comply with the belief system that they say they’re following.

For something to be from a faith, it needs to comply with its texts. Islamic scholars who dedicate their entire lives to Islamic Knowledge can discern that, not you.

The only reason why you think it’s irrelevant is because you don’t know the Islamic Knowledge.
 

SaintsSeptember

Hall of Famer
Mar 19, 2008
47,924
41,780
Narre Warren North
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
.
Yes it comes from their individual beliefs, but that may not comply with the belief system that they say they’re following.

For something to be from a faith, it needs to comply with its texts. Islamic scholars who dedicate their entire lives to Islamic Knowledge can discern that, not you.

The only reason why you think it’s irrelevant is because you don’t know the Islamic Knowledge.
If they aren't biased.

You can't criticize because you don't know as much as i do.
LOL.

You can easily study all your life and still be totally wrong.
 

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,433
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Yes it comes from their individual beliefs, but that may not comply with the belief system that they say they’re following.
Your sentence makes no sense.

These are religious beliefs. Individuals didn't just come up with these doctrines on their own.

The guy who beheaded Samuel Paty didn't just wake up one day and invent the doctrine forbidding depictions of the prophet.

For something to be from a faith, it needs to comply with its texts. Islamic scholars who dedicate their entire lives to Islamic Knowledge can discern that, not you.
And I've provided several examples of people impelled to violence by specific Islamic doctrines. What is your argument against that?

Do you have an argument that is more substantive than just saying "nah"?

The only reason why you think it’s irrelevant is because you don’t know the Islamic Knowledge.
Sit down, you're making no points.
 

Lsta062

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 15, 2014
17,174
33,752
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Chelsea, LA Lakers, Western United
If they aren't biased.

You can't criticize because you don't know as much as i do.
LOL.

You can easily study all your life and still be totally wrong.
What a dumb argument.

Of course there are going to be people that actually understand the Islamic texts better than others because they dedicated their entire lives to it just like there are people that understand other topics better than others because of the effort they put in.

What’s certain is that you cannot know what is supported by Islamic texts and what is not if you haven’t studied it.
 

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,433
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Sociopath. Which is what we use when the extremist is Western and white.
That would imply the crime was random when it wasn't.

This is amazing to me. You have a French teacher who showed cartoons of the prophet in class. He then gets criticised by Muslims for this supposed blasphemy. That's not a one-off. Muslims have complained against depictions of the prophet many times before. This is an issue for Muslims.

And then some religious fanatic beheads the teacher. And you guys reckon his religious beliefs weren't a factor? You think the accusations of blasphemy, based on Islamic doctrine, weren't the reason for killing the teacher?

This is insane. Why are you so determined to deny the obvious connection between the belief system and the behaviour? What do you think this denial achieves?

If you fall down the stairs and break your leg, do you spend hours wondering how you sustained the injury? Nah it wouldn't have been from falling down the stairs. It could have been any number of other factors.
 
Last edited:

Lsta062

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 15, 2014
17,174
33,752
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Chelsea, LA Lakers, Western United
Your sentence makes no sense.

These are religious beliefs. Individuals didn't just come up with these doctrines on their own.

The guy who beheaded Samuel Paty didn't just wake up one day and invent the doctrine forbidding depictions of the prophet.

And I've provided several examples of people impelled to violence by specific Islamic doctrines. What is your argument against that?

Do you have an argument that is more substantive than just saying "nah"?

Sit down, you're making no points.
But the subject of debate isn’t necessarily about the rule pertaining to depicting the Prophet. Yes, it’s not allowed, but you don’t have a reference that shows that Islam promotes the immediate beheading of the person depicting the Prophet like that guy did. You’re just making assumptions because you haven’t learnt the Islamic Knowledge.

You’re also refusing to acknowledge that it is possible for someone attributing themselves to Islam to take an action not supported by Islamic texts.

You're just someone talking without knowledge of Islam as it is clear you didn’t sit in Islamic circles of knowledge. Instead, you’re trying to learn about Islam from what those that beheaded and bombed people said. I would not be surprised if you’re one to google information about Islam as well.

Maybe I should visit jail cells to find out what the true values of Australians are and just do a quick Google search to learn about the so-called dangers of vaccines.

If you are still not understanding what I am saying or what anyone else you were arguing with was saying, then I’m simply not going to waste my time arguing with you and so shouldn’t they. No point going into a long-winded argument with someone as stubborn as you.
 

Taylor

Community Leader
Jul 16, 2009
57,148
66,475
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
You’re also refusing to acknowledge that it is possible for someone attributing themselves to Islam to take an action not supported by Islamic texts.
The same goes the other direction too, where actions someone credits to their religious teachings are dismissed by others of the faith because it disagrees with their own perspective - when both are arguably valid to the individual or group that believes in each.
 

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,433
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
But the subject of debate isn’t necessarily about the rule pertaining to depicting the Prophet. Yes, it’s not allowed, but you don’t have a reference that shows that Islam promotes the immediate beheading of the person depicting the Prophet like that guy did. You’re just making assumptions because you haven’t learnt the Islamic Knowledge.
But you don't deny that the charge of blasphemy, which is a religious grievance, is what motivated the killer?

I agree, Islamic doctrine may not have licensed the beheading. But his grievance was explicitly religious. Agreed?

You’re also refusing to acknowledge that it is possible for someone attributing themselves to Islam to take an action not supported by Islamic texts.
I'm sure that's possible.

It doesn't alter my point that in these examples, the motivations are explicitly religious.

Take the Taliban, for example. When they ban women from playing sport because they don't want them to be "exposed", that is explicitly religious. Do you accept that? They're not doing it for some other reason that has nothing to do with Islam.

Osama bin Laden founded Al-Qaeda because he objected to US troops in Saudi Arabia, because the prophet said there could be only one faith in the lands of the caliphate. His motivation was explicitly religious. Do you accept that?

You're just someone talking without knowledge of Islam as it is clear you didn’t sit in Islamic circles of knowledge. Instead, you’re trying to learn about Islam from what those that beheaded and bombed people said. I would not be surprised if you’re one to google information about Islam as well.

Maybe I should visit jail cells to find out what the true values of Australians are and just do a quick Google search to learn about the so-called dangers of vaccines.

If you are still not understanding what I am saying or what anyone else you were arguing with was saying, then I’m simply not going to waste my time arguing with you and so shouldn’t they. No point going into a long-winded argument with someone as stubborn as you.
This is just waffle. You don't want to address the points raised because the obvious conclusions make you uncomfortable.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Wombot

Senior List
Mar 3, 2019
219
483
AFL Club
Sydney
It's not a false equivalence because that's what it actually looks like to anyone with even basic Islamic knowledge.

How many anti-vaxxers quote "scientific studies" to further their agenda? Plenty. Doesn't mean they are correctly following true scientific methodology because there's a particular process for determining the efficacy and side effects of vaccines.
How many extremists quote Qur'anic verses to further their agenda? Plenty. Doesn't mean they are correctly following the true science of interpreting Qur'anic verses.

Both anti-vaxxers and extremists ignore the science behind the respective field that they bely. In fact, the example is much stronger in the case of extremists given there is over 1,400 years worth of knowledge, authentic books, explicit verses and laws of the Arabic language that they bely.

Anyone can say anything and attribute themselves to something.

I'm not saying they misunderstood/misapplied all of Islamic doctrine (because fasting Ramadan, not eating pork, not drinking alcohol etc is correct), but they have misunderstood/misapplied many areas of the fundamental creed. Many of their beliefs breach Islamic Law to the point of taking them out of Islam. They are far more motivated by politics, wealth and power than people realise.
Using individual cases is a pointless exercise because many people kill. Happens everyday.

Depends on what you mean with Wahhabists because there are some Wahhabi-influenced people that are Muslim because they haven't contravened the fundamentals of Islamic Law. But even if these influenced people are Muslim, they are still not following Islamic methodology. They are misguided, but not true Wahhabis. If you're talking about true Wahhabis with Wahhabi beliefs (they sometimes call themselves Salafis), then yes they certainly aren't Muslim.

I don't know what Osama Bin Laden believed.
Let me explain it simply. Anyone who believes that Islam permits killing innocent people and committing suicide is not a Muslim by Scholarly consensus because that breaches explicit Islamic Law that forbids killing innocent people and committing suicide.
If they believe it isn't lawful but do it anyway, then you can't say they are motivated by Islamic Doctrine because they are knowingly contradicting its teachings. So either way, you cannot attribute it to Islam when Islam explicitly forbids what they do.
Suicide may not be allowed by Islamic theology but martyrdom is.

Killing innocent people may not be allowed but ‘innocent’ is subjective to these Muslims. Some Muslims believe that Muslim lands are being occupied and thus such attacks are justified by them.

The premise of Islam is fundamentally flawed so I would suggest that it’s folly to argue a ‘true Islam’. Such misinterpretations have existed since Islam’s inception. A holistic approach is not to champion a particular form of Islam as much as it is to challenge Islam itself.
 
Last edited:

Wombot

Senior List
Mar 3, 2019
219
483
AFL Club
Sydney
But the subject of debate isn’t necessarily about the rule pertaining to depicting the Prophet. Yes, it’s not allowed, but you don’t have a reference that shows that Islam promotes the immediate beheading of the person depicting the Prophet like that guy did. You’re just making assumptions because you haven’t learnt the Islamic Knowledge.

You’re also refusing to acknowledge that it is possible for someone attributing themselves to Islam to take an action not supported by Islamic texts.

You're just someone talking without knowledge of Islam as it is clear you didn’t sit in Islamic circles of knowledge. Instead, you’re trying to learn about Islam from what those that beheaded and bombed people said. I would not be surprised if you’re one to google information about Islam as well.

Maybe I should visit jail cells to find out what the true values of Australians are and just do a quick Google search to learn about the so-called dangers of vaccines.

If you are still not understanding what I am saying or what anyone else you were arguing with was saying, then I’m simply not going to waste my time arguing with you and so shouldn’t they. No point going into a long-winded argument with someone as stubborn as you.
Right. And someone can’t criticise Catholicism unless they’re a cardinal.

‘Islamic circles of knowledge’ = ‘Islamic circles of brainwashing’.

There are informed criticisms of Islam online. There are even scholarly works. Which makes sense because Islam is fundamentally illogical. It was not divinely inspired hence it is imperfect.
 

Lsta062

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 15, 2014
17,174
33,752
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Chelsea, LA Lakers, Western United
But you don't deny that the charge of blasphemy, which is a religious grievance, is what motivated the killer?

I agree, Islamic doctrine may not have licensed the beheading. But his grievance was explicitly religious. Agreed?

I'm sure that's possible.

It doesn't alter my point that in these examples, the motivations are explicitly religious.

Take the Taliban, for example. When they ban women from playing sport because they don't want them to be "exposed", that is explicitly religious. Do you accept that? They're not doing it for some other reason that has nothing to do with Islam.

Osama bin Laden founded Al-Qaeda because he objected to US troops in Saudi Arabia, because the prophet said there could be only one faith in the lands of the caliphate. His motivation was explicitly religious. Do you accept that?

This is just waffle. You don't want to address the points raised because the obvious conclusions make you uncomfortable.
Of course the beheader’s grievance comes from what the faith teaches about depicting the Prophet. That’s why we denounce the depicting of the Prophet to begin with. Doesn’t mean their actions upon experiencing that grievance does.

If a teacher catches a student skipping class and then beheads them out of anger, does that mean that the government now needs to get rid of the belief that students need to attend school? Because ultimately, the teacher’s actions stemmed from their belief that students need to attend school, a belief promoted by the government.

What you need to understand is that it doesn’t matter whether their motivations are ultimately considered religious - if the Religion of Islam does not order them to do something, then you simply don’t attribute that action to the Islamic Religion and its followers or label it as a reason. The person acted on their own accord.

The Taliban allegedly banning women from playing sports is actually an example of what I am talking about. Islamically, women can play sports. I have seen athletic Muslim women that adhere to the Islamic standards of dressing many times.
Therefore, attributing the Taliban’s alleged complete banning of women playing sports to Islam would be misinformation because Islam does not completely ban women from playing sports.

My point is that there are simply some individuals and organisations that act on their own accord. They may pick and choose certain things from the Islamic Religion, but what they actually end up doing is only promoted by Islamic teachings if their actions comply with it.
I will tell you this now - those suicide-bombing people-beheading terroristic people that we see splashed all over the news aren’t models of what Islam teaches Muslims to be like. I know that with certainty because I am familiar with the Islamic teachings.
 

JayJ20

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 28, 2016
15,416
22,269
AFL Club
Essendon
That's ridiculous. It's purely interpretive. You may as well argue that being a book reviewer is also a science.

I see no evidence of this expertise in your arguments. All you've done so far is deny and dismiss evidence that contradicts your position. You have no serious responses to the examples I've presented.

Are the Taliban sufficiently Islamic? When they ban women from sport because they don't want them "exposed", are they doing that for religious reasons or some other reasons that apparently have nothing to do with Islam?

Why did Osama bin Laden found Al-Qaeda? He did it because he objected to US troops being in Saudi Arabia, because the prophet said there can be only one faith in the lands of the caliphate. His grievance was explicitly religious, and it led him to found Al-Qaeda. You want to pretend it had nothing to do with his religious beliefs?

What answers do you have to these examples of people being explicitly motivated by Islamic doctrine?

All you do is obfuscate. I'm not telling you what you believe. I'm simply pointing to examples of people being impelled to violence by their belief system. How many examples do you need before you connect the belief system to the behaviour instead of insisting the belief system has nothing to do with it?

Of course, people kill for many reasons. In the case of Samuel Paty, he was murdered because he showed images of the prophet.

And yet you insist his killer's belief system had nothing to do with it?

His killer's belief system was the reason.

More ridiculous analogies.

We are talking about a belief system, not a TV show.

If the killer's motivation was fuelled explicitly by religious grievance, then yes, you can connect the action to the belief system. You have to bend over backwards to avoid this connection.

All you do is obfuscate and deny the evidence.

I've presented you with several examples of people or groups motivated explicitly by their religious beliefs and you simply ignore them or insist "nah they're not real Muslims".

You're in denial.
There's no point continuing this conversation with someone that has little knowledge of what they're talking about. You either don't know the definition of science or you don't understand the method of interpretation. It's clearly both. There's literally volumes of books authored by Scholars pertaining to the interpretation of the Qur'an. These Scholars have memorised the whole Qur'an, memorised over 200,000 Hadith including all of the 6 Hadith books with its chain of narrators and each of their commentary all the way back to the Prophet. They're fluent in the pure Fusha Arabic that people spoke 1,400 years ago. There is a science to it i.e a systematically organised body of knowledge in the field of Qur'an interpretation, which fits the definition of science. When someone wants to study the Islamic knowledge, there are many fields they can specialise in. One being the interpretation of the Qur'an. You're comparing it to a book review, which is ridiculously uninformed.

Reasonable people that don't know something seek information from people that know instead of doubling down on their ignorance.

Given you've brought up the Taliban banning women from playing sport several times, where in the Islamic Law does it ban women from playing sport? What Qur'an ayah? What Hadeeth? Which Scholar said that? In what book did they say that? What is their level of Scholarship? Did other Scholars provide commentary on that particular judgement? According to what school of thought? How many sayings are there?
You don't know what you're talking about so you think you're bringing up a good point, but your arguments are so disjointed and incoherent. What does banning sport have to do with Islam? I initially ignored your comment about the Taliban banning women because it was so ridiculous, but you seem to be fixated on it. You come to very strange conclusions because you don't know and you don't want to know.

There's no point having this discussion with someone who:
1. Doesn't know what they are talking about
2. Doesn't want to be informed by people who do know what they are talking about
3. Has one set of rules for one group of people and an entirely different set of rules for other groups.

I'm not going to go around in circles. All the information you need to understand is above. If you're reasonable, then go back and re-read what I said with the willingness to understand. If not, then I'm not going to get caught up in your circular arguments.
 

Lsta062

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 15, 2014
17,174
33,752
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Chelsea, LA Lakers, Western United
Right. And someone can’t criticise Catholicism unless they’re a cardinal.

‘Islamic circles of knowledge’ = ‘Islamic circles of brainwashing’.

There are informed criticisms of Islam online. There are even scholarly works. Which makes sense because Islam is fundamentally illogical. It was not divinely inspired hence it is imperfect.
Maybe you should understand what I am talking about first before quoting me.

Forming a critical opinion on Islam is completely different to saying what Islam teaches. I am talking about knowing what Islam actually teaches. You literally cannot know what is within Islamic knowledge without learning from Islamic scholars and Islamic circles of knowledge…
 

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,433
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Of course the beheader’s grievance comes from what the faith teaches about depicting the Prophet. That’s why we denounce the depicting of the Prophet to begin with. Doesn’t mean their actions upon experiencing that grievance does.
Right, but he was motivated by his religious beliefs. You don't dispute that.

He wasn't motivated by some other factor that has nothing to do with Islam.

If a teacher catches a student skipping class and then beheads them out of anger, does that mean that the government now needs to get rid of the belief that students need to attend school? Because ultimately, the teacher’s actions stemmed from their belief that students need to attend school, a belief promoted by the government.

What you need to understand is that it doesn’t matter whether their motivations are ultimately considered religious - if the Religion of Islam does not order them to do something, then you simply don’t attribute that action to the Islamic Religion and its followers or label it as a reason. The person acted on their own accord.
See above.

If it weren't for those religious beliefs about blasphemy and depicting the prophet, Samuel Paty wouldn't have been killed. Do you accept that?

The Taliban allegedly banning women from playing sports is actually an example of what I am talking about. Islamically, women can play sports. I have seen athletic Muslim women that adhere to the Islamic standards of dressing many times.
Therefore, attributing the Taliban’s alleged complete banning of women playing sports to Islam would be misinformation because Islam does not completely ban women from playing sports.
Yes, but the Taliban's ban is because they say women could be "exposed", and they don't want that. Again, for purely religious reasons.

It keeps coming back to the same thing. If it wasn't for the belief system it wouldn't happen.

You cannot avoid the connection between the belief system and the outcome.

My point is that there are simply some individuals and organisations that act on their own accord. They may pick and choose certain things from the Islamic Religion, but what they actually end up doing is only promoted by Islamic teachings if their actions comply with it.
I will tell you this now - those suicide-bombing people-beheading terroristic people that we see splashed all over the news aren’t models of what Islam teaches Muslims to be like. I know that with certainty because I am familiar with the Islamic teachings.
I didn't say they were "models". I said those people were motivated by their religious beliefs and there is a clear connection between the belief system and the outcome. Some folks want to say "nah it's got nothing to do with islam". That's nonsense.
 

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,433
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
There's no point continuing this conversation with someone that has little knowledge of what they're talking about. You either don't know the definition of science or you don't understand the method of interpretation. It's clearly both. There's literally volumes of books authored by Scholars pertaining to the interpretation of the Qur'an. These Scholars have memorised the whole Qur'an, memorised over 200,000 Hadith including all of the 6 Hadith books with its chain of narrators and each of their commentary all the way back to the Prophet. They're fluent in the pure Fusha Arabic that people spoke 1,400 years ago. There is a science to it i.e a systematically organised body of knowledge in the field of Qur'an interpretation, which fits the definition of science. When someone wants to study the Islamic knowledge, there are many fields they can specialise in. One being the interpretation of the Qur'an. You're comparing it to a book review, which is ridiculously uninformed.
Interpreting an old book is a "science". What a load of rubbish. It's hocus pocus but you want to elevate it alongside physics and modern medicine. This is why people come to resent organised religion and think it should be marginalised in secular, 21st-century societies. We're not interested in your medieval bullshit.

What about some jackass who knows everything about Scientology? Like Tom Cruise. Is he a scientist as well? He's spent years reading Dianetics and all the other nonsense written by L. Ron Hubbard, so I guess that makes him a scientist. Right?

Or is it just Islam that's special and magical?

Reasonable people that don't know something seek information from people that know instead of doubling down on their ignorance.
Or you're just too ideologically captured to see that your arguments are built on sand.

Tell me then, what is the doctrine of apostasy? And what is the punishment for apostasy prescribed by shariah law?

Tell me, why do they cane homosexuals in Aceh? Are the people handing out the caning not real Muslims either? Or are you OK with that?

Given you've brought up the Taliban banning women from playing sport several times, where in the Islamic Law does it ban women from playing sport? What Qur'an ayah? What Hadeeth? Which Scholar said that? In what book did they say that? What is their level of Scholarship? Did other Scholars provide commentary on that particular judgement? According to what school of thought? How many sayings are there?
You don't know what you're talking about so you think you're bringing up a good point, but your arguments are so disjointed and incoherent. What does banning sport have to do with Islam? I initially ignored your comment about the Taliban banning women because it was so ridiculous, but you seem to be fixated on it. You come to very strange conclusions because you don't know and you don't want to know.
They banned women from playing sport because they don't want women to be "exposed". Their explanation is purely religious. They're not doing it for some other reason that's got nothing to do with Islam.

So what is your explanation for it? Are the Taliban not sufficiently Islamic? Are they not real Muslims?

That's your answer every time Muslims do something you can't defend.

There's no point having this discussion with someone who:
1. Doesn't know what they are talking about
2. Doesn't want to be informed by people who do know what they are talking about
3. Has one set of rules for one group of people and an entirely different set of rules for other groups.

I'm not going to go around in circles. All the information you need to understand is above. If you're reasonable, then go back and re-read what I said with the willingness to understand. If not, then I'm not going to get caught up in your circular arguments.
You've addressed none of my points or the specific examples. You're in denial because the obvious conclusions make you uncomfortable.

You couldn't advertise it any more clearly.
 
Last edited:

Lsta062

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 15, 2014
17,174
33,752
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Chelsea, LA Lakers, Western United
Right, but he was motivated by his religious beliefs. You don't dispute that.

He wasn't motivated by some other factor that has nothing to do with Islam.

See above.

If it weren't for those religious beliefs about blasphemy and depicting the prophet, Samuel Paty wouldn't have been killed. Do you accept that?

Yes, but the Taliban's ban is because they say women could be "exposed", and they don't want that. Again, for purely religious reasons.

It keeps coming back to the same thing. If it wasn't for the belief system it wouldn't happen.

You cannot avoid the connection between the belief system and the outcome.

I didn't say they were "models". I said those people were motivated by their religious beliefs and there is a clear connection between the belief system and the outcome. Some folks want to say "nah it's got nothing to do with islam". That's nonsense.
This is turning into a circular argument and I am not going to continue with it anymore
 

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,433
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
This is turning into a circular argument and I am not going to continue with it anymore
It's not circular. You're just running out of excuses and your bad arguments are failing.

You already conceded that the guy who beheaded Samuel Paty was motivated by Islam. If it weren't for those religious beliefs about blasphemy and depicting the prophet, Samuel Paty wouldn't have been killed. Do you accept that?

Seems pretty undeniable at this point, doesn't it?

Similarly, the Taliban bans women playing sport because they say women could be "exposed", and they don't want that. Again, for purely religious reasons.

What about the homosexuals who get caned under shariah law in Aceh? Are you cool with that or is that also a misreading of Islamic doctrine?
 

Lsta062

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 15, 2014
17,174
33,752
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Chelsea, LA Lakers, Western United
It's not circular. You're just running out of excuses and your bad arguments are failing.

You already conceded that the guy who beheaded Samuel Paty was motivated by Islam. If it weren't for those religious beliefs about blasphemy and depicting the prophet, Samuel Paty wouldn't have been killed. Do you accept that?

Seems pretty undeniable at this point, doesn't it?

Similarly, the Taliban bans women playing sport because they say women could be "exposed", and they don't want that. Again, for purely religious reasons.

What about the homosexuals who get caned under shariah law in Aceh? Are you cool with that or is that also a misreading of Islamic doctrine?
It IS a circular argument because you’re simply not understanding what I am saying. It’s like speaking to a wall.

If you want my opinions on anything, just read what I wrote in the previous posts. I’m not going to spend my time writing to you any further about this.
 

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,433
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
It IS a circular argument because you’re simply not understanding what I am saying.
I'm watching you run up against the limits of your arguments.

If you want my opinions on anything, just read what I wrote in the previous posts. I’m not going to spend my time writing to you any further about this.
Yeah, because your arguments have failed.

You already conceded that the guy who beheaded Samuel Paty was motivated by Islam. If it weren't for those religious beliefs about blasphemy and depicting the prophet, Samuel Paty wouldn't have been killed. Do you accept that?

You've already conceded the point but you can't bring yourself to accept the logical conclusions.
 

JayJ20

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 28, 2016
15,416
22,269
AFL Club
Essendon
Suicide may not be allowed by Islamic theology but martyrdom is.

Killing innocent people may not be allowed but ‘innocent’ is subjective to these Muslims. Some Muslims believe that Muslim lands are being occupied and thus such attacks are justified by them.

The premise of Islam is fundamentally flawed so I would suggest that it’s folly to argue a ‘true Islam’. Such misinterpretations have existed since Islam’s inception. A holistic approach is not to champion a particular form of Islam as much as it is to challenge Islam itself.
How can you attain martyrdom by wilfully killing yourself? It's contradictory. And there are many different types of martyrs. "Innocence" isn't subjective. It's very clearly defined. It's not a matter of a difference of opinion. It doesn't matter what they believe they are doing. If it contravenes Islamic Law, then they are not following Islamic Law. It's very simple.

Let me give you a familiar term to explain one type of martyrdom (which is what you're trying to refer to). You call them fallen soldiers in war. You know how Australians commemorate the ANZACs who died fighting in a war? And how Americans also commemorate their fallen soldiers? Yeah Islamically, a fallen soldier in a war is considered a martyr. Funny you brought up the topic of war given that's a clear example of hypocrisy by the media and other commentators.

Another type of martyrdom is dying from drowning.
Another type of type of martyrdom is dying by falling from a high place.
Another type of martyrdom is dying from a stomach disease, including diarrhoea.
Another type of martyrdom is dying from contracting the plague.
Another type of martyrdom is a woman dying during childbirth.

Suicide bombing isn't any type of martyrdom. It's killing innocent people and committing suicide. In other words, it's a murder-suicide. If someone walks on the street and commits suicide after killing an innocent bystander, do you call them a fallen soldier? No you don't. Neither do we.

You completely ate up the lies propagated by media outlets and commentators that have no idea what they're talking about.

"A particular form of Islam".
What I said isn't a "form of Islam". It IS Islam because it follows what's in the Qur'an, Hadith and Scholarly consensus. There is no difference of opinion among credible Scholars in the Islamic knowledge about the prohibition of committing suicide and killing innocent people. It is literally a consensus. Even if 10 million people commit suicide, it doesn't change the fact that it is Islamically prohibited.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad