Mosque to be built by Ground Zero?

Pages: 1 … 17 18 19 20 21 … 39

Topic closed

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Mosque to be built by Ground Zero?

2010-07-02 12:38:11

#451

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6730

Lowing you quoted the guy as a source for your own argument... not my problem the guy doesn't cite a reference.

and why does he need to? he is an islamic preacher and scholar. that's called a PRIMARY SOURCE. primary sources don't need references... that's SECONDARY sources. do you understand? he is qualified to make an authoratitive, credible and valid answer on his OWN MERIT. this is not complicated: he is a muslim expert, and he is clarifying for us non-muslims what the answer to the question is.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-07-02 12:40:20

#452

11 Bravo: Banned; +965|5497|Cleveland, Ohio

Uzique wrote:
Lowing you quoted the guy as a source for your own argument... not my problem the guy doesn't cite a reference.

and why does he need to? he is an islamic preacher and scholar. that's called a PRIMARY SOURCE. primary sources don't need references... that's SECONDARY sources. do you understand? he is qualified to make an authoratitive, credible and valid answer on his OWN MERIT. this is not complicated: he is a muslim expert, and he is clarifying for us non-muslims what the answer to the question is.

please provide sources that counter everything said in that 60 mins video or shut the fuck up about links and sources.

2010-07-02 12:41:32

#453

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6730

our point is that the 60 minute video is a documentary on JIHADISTS

as my last quote from an ISLAMIC PREACHER just clarified: far from all MUSLIMS are JIHADISTS

they are an extremist minority. this isnt hard to understand, marine.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-07-02 12:42:47

#454

11 Bravo: Banned; +965|5497|Cleveland, Ohio

Uzique wrote:
our point is that the 60 minute video is a documentary on JIHADISTS

as my last quote from an ISLAMIC PREACHER just clarified: far from all MUSLIMS are JIHADISTS

they are an extremist minority. this isnt hard to understand, marine.

so the vid is now valid? so all that shit from you was for nothing but your own jollies?

2010-07-02 12:43:31

#455

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5519|foggy bottom

i like how lowing loves shitting on all the muslims that have died as a part of the united states military or as allies and intelligence assets.

Tu Stultus Es

2010-07-02 12:44:12

#456

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6730

religion of violence and intolerance:

lowing's source wrote:
Question: My question is can you kill a disbeliever who doesn't accept Islam.

Answer: It is not permissible to kill a disbeliever if he does not accept Islam.

about the source:

Mufti Ebrahim Desai studied higher Islamic education for nine years – seven years Fiqh – commencing from the Arabic Language, Usool-e-Fiqh, Fiqh substantiated, Usool-e-Hadith, and specializing in Hadith, Usool-e-Tafseer, and specializing in Tafseer. He studied the principles of issuing Fatwas for two years in Dabhel under Mufti Ahmad Khanpuri Saheb, a renown and leading Scholar in India, and another year under the grand Mufti of India, Mufti Mahmoodul Hasan Saheb (RA) (compiler of Fataawa Mahmoodiya – 20 volumes).

He was a Senior Lecturer at Darul Uloom Ta’leemuddin, Isipingo Beach and head of the Fatwa Department of the Jamiat ul Ulama (KZN).

be quiet now, please?

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-07-02 12:45:58

#457

11 Bravo: Banned; +965|5497|Cleveland, Ohio

Uzique wrote:
religion of violence and intolerance:

and acid

https://blog.couragetosee.com/wp-content/uploads/burned-with-acid.jpg

2010-07-02 12:45:58

#458

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6730

11 Bravo wrote:
Uzique wrote:
our point is that the 60 minute video is a documentary on JIHADISTS

as my last quote from an ISLAMIC PREACHER just clarified: far from all MUSLIMS are JIHADISTS

they are an extremist minority. this isnt hard to understand, marine.
so the vid is now valid? so all that shit from you was for nothing but your own jollies?

go back and read my fucking posts... past the first line for once... for fuck's sake.

i said linking the video in an attempt to aid lowing's point (e.g. points against ALL OF ISLAM AS A RELIGION) is invalid; the video documents Jihadists in london (an extreme minority with little-to-no-presence) and is thus NOT a valid source to cite regarding ALL OF ISLAM AS A RELIGION. are you seriously trolling here or just being obtuse on purpose? documentaries about Branch Davidians cannot be cited as a source to criticize ALL OF CHRISTIANITY AS A RELIGION so why can you find a video of islamic extremism and then apply that generally to all muslims? it is false logic.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-07-02 12:47:04

#459

11 Bravo: Banned; +965|5497|Cleveland, Ohio

Uzique wrote:
11 Bravo wrote:
Uzique wrote:
our point is that the 60 minute video is a documentary on JIHADISTS

as my last quote from an ISLAMIC PREACHER just clarified: far from all MUSLIMS are JIHADISTS

they are an extremist minority. this isnt hard to understand, marine.
so the vid is now valid? so all that shit from you was for nothing but your own jollies?
go back and read my fucking posts... past the first line for once... for fuck's sake.

i said linking the video in an attempt to aid lowing's point (e.g. points against ALL OF ISLAM AS A RELIGION) is invalid; the video documents Jihadists in london (an extreme minority with little-to-no-presence) and is thus NOT a valid source to cite regarding ALL OF ISLAM AS A RELIGION. are you seriously trolling here or just being obtuse on purpose? documentaries about Branch Davidians cannot be cited as a source to criticize ALL OF CHRISTIANITY AS A RELIGION so why can you find a video of islamic extremism and then apply that generally to all muslims? it is false logic.

who said i was trying to aid lowing? you just think it because all of you gang up on him.

Last edited by 11 Bravo (2010-07-02 12:47:29)

2010-07-02 12:48:31

#460

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6730

you interjected in an argument 'for' and 'against' islam by posting a video about jihadists... what else was it meant to add to the current discussion, if not to support criticism of islam? then in your following posts you stated you were 'aware' of all religions and had a stance towards islam that suggested you approached all muslims the same way you approach jihadists. wow, way to back-pedal on your own fail-logic.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-07-02 12:49:45

#461

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6911|USA

Bertster7 wrote:
lowing wrote:
Uzique wrote:
'facts' from your OWN quoted sources to prove that islam is not a 'violent' religion
lol well I now know where you get your argument techniques from

"Answer: The decree of Jihaad against the infidels of the world attributed to most Imaams and clerics is not true."

Oh well as long as it is not true, I see no need for proof of this in light of all that has happened and written and taught and quoted to the contrary.
And yet you accept the negative details from the same source?

There's no way that could be considered to be having double standards is there?

now this is a good point

however,I do not accept the negative details as proof. I observe that these negative details, seemly needing to be asked in the first place, as proof that there is something to the opinions, and observations regarding this religion

Last edited by lowing (2010-07-02 12:55:04)

2010-07-02 12:49:48

#462

11 Bravo: Banned; +965|5497|Cleveland, Ohio

Uzique wrote:
you interjected in an argument 'for' and 'against' islam by posting a video about jihadists... what else was it meant to add to the current discussion, if not to support criticism of islam? then in your following posts you stated you were 'aware' of all religions and had a stance towards islam that suggested you approached all muslims the same way you approach jihadists. wow, way to back-pedal on your own fail-logic.

i was showing london does have a problem. you think its to aid someone on a forum. idiot. thats your fault.

2010-07-02 12:52:16

#463

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6730

london has a problem with jihadists is an acceptable, debatable statement that can be argued-for and against, yes.

london has a problem with all of its muslim population? completely ridiculous statement, obviously untrue.

lowing that last post of yours made absolutely fuck-all sense.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-07-02 12:54:05

#464

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6841|SE London

lowing wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
lowing wrote:

lol well I now know where you get your argument techniques from

"Answer: The decree of Jihaad against the infidels of the world attributed to most Imaams and clerics is not true."

Oh well as long as it is not true, I see no need for proof of this in light of all that has happened and written and taught and quoted to the contrary.
And yet you accept the negative details from the same source?

There's no way that could be considered to be having double standards is there?
now this is a good point

however,I do not accept the negative details as proof. I observe that these negative details seemly needing to asked in the first place, as proof that there is something to the opinions, and observations regarding this religion

Can you please re-write the last paragraph there? It is completely incoherent. I would respond to it, but I have no idea what you are trying to say.

2010-07-02 12:54:07

#465

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6911|USA

Uzique wrote:
religion of violence and intolerance:

lowing's source wrote:
Question: My question is can you kill a disbeliever who doesn't accept Islam.

Answer: It is not permissible to kill a disbeliever if he does not accept Islam.
about the source:

Mufti Ebrahim Desai studied higher Islamic education for nine years – seven years Fiqh – commencing from the Arabic Language, Usool-e-Fiqh, Fiqh substantiated, Usool-e-Hadith, and specializing in Hadith, Usool-e-Tafseer, and specializing in Tafseer. He studied the principles of issuing Fatwas for two years in Dabhel under Mufti Ahmad Khanpuri Saheb, a renown and leading Scholar in India, and another year under the grand Mufti of India, Mufti Mahmoodul Hasan Saheb (RA) (compiler of Fataawa Mahmoodiya – 20 volumes).

He was a Senior Lecturer at Darul Uloom Ta’leemuddin, Isipingo Beach and head of the Fatwa Department of the Jamiat ul Ulama (KZN).
be quiet now, please?

Gee, and this is 1 man. I am not allowed to use 1 man as evidence, why are you?

I use current events, quotes, stats, etc......how about busting out some evidence that sharia law is tolerant and fair? Lets start there.

2010-07-02 12:55:28

#466

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6911|USA

Bertster7 wrote:
lowing wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:

And yet you accept the negative details from the same source?

There's no way that could be considered to be having double standards is there?
now this is a good point

however,I do not accept the negative details as proof. I observe that these negative details seemly needing to asked in the first place, as proof that there is something to the opinions, and observations regarding this religion
Can you please re-write the last paragraph there? It is completely incoherent. I would respond to it, but I have no idea what you are trying to say.

sorry, try that

2010-07-02 12:57:43

#467

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6911|USA

Uzique wrote:
london has a problem with jihadists is an acceptable, debatable statement that can be argued-for and against, yes.

london has a problem with all of its muslim population? completely ridiculous statement, obviously untrue.

lowing that last post of yours made absolutely fuck-all sense.

Didn't say all of its Muslim population,

I said Islam.

2010-07-02 12:57:59

#468

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6841|SE London

lowing wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
lowing wrote:

now this is a good point

however,I do not accept the negative details as proof. I observe that these negative details seemly needing to asked in the first place, as proof that there is something to the opinions, and observations regarding this religion
Can you please re-write the last paragraph there? It is completely incoherent. I would respond to it, but I have no idea what you are trying to say.
sorry, try that

You're trying to say sorry?

2010-07-02 12:59:11

#469

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6730

lowing it is the one-man you used as evidence, hahaha. i didn't go and find him... you provided him, through some twist of blind logic, as an asset to your argument- when on his own website he is dismissing the claims that you are making. and that 'one man' is more qualified so far than any of the people behind your websites- now the onus is on YOU to PROVE that the people are more qualified to speak-out on islam. the spite-fuelled american behind your 'religion of peace' website... where is his 10 years of islamic scholarship? or is it more as i suspect, a daily-diet of Fox News as 'education'?

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-07-02 13:00:23

#470

11 Bravo: Banned; +965|5497|Cleveland, Ohio

fox news is better than zeek news tbh

2010-07-02 13:01:19

#471

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6730

im not making any grand statements or edicts about islam... im referring to and relying on theological and islamic scholarship.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-07-02 13:01:22

#472

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6911|USA

Bertster7 wrote:
lowing wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:

Can you please re-write the last paragraph there? It is completely incoherent. I would respond to it, but I have no idea what you are trying to say.
sorry, try that
You're trying to say sorry?

I do not accept the negative details as proof. I observe that these negative details, seemly needing to be asked in the first place, as proof that there is something to the opinions, and observations regarding this religion

2010-07-02 13:02:36

#473

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6911|USA

Uzique wrote:
lowing it is the one-man you used as evidence, hahaha. i didn't go and find him... you provided him, through some twist of blind logic, as an asset to your argument- when on his own website he is dismissing the claims that you are making. and that 'one man' is more qualified so far than any of the people behind your websites- now the onus is on YOU to PROVE that the people are more qualified to speak-out on islam. the spite-fuelled american behind your 'religion of peace' website... where is his 10 years of islamic scholarship? or is it more as i suspect, a daily-diet of Fox News as 'education'?

My point was in the questions asked....Kinda fucked up for a peaceful tolerant religion.

2010-07-02 13:04:15

#474

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6911|USA

Uzique wrote:
im not making any grand statements or edicts about islam... im referring to and relying on theological and islamic scholarship.

and I am relying on ACTUAL events, ACTUAL quotes, ACTUAL stats, and ACTUAL practices conducted within Islam.

2010-07-02 13:06:16

#475

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6841|SE London

lowing wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
lowing wrote:

sorry, try that
You're trying to say sorry?
I do not accept the negative details as proof. I observe that these negative details, seemly needing to be asked in the first place, as proof that there is something to the opinions, and observations regarding this religion

That's not much more comprehensible.

My interpretation of what you've said is that you don't accept the negative aspects from that source as proof, but as anecdotal evidence which is in line with your own experience and opinions and other opinions that you subscribe to - is that accurate?

Topic closed

Pages: 1 … 17 18 19 20 21 … 39

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Mosque to be built by Ground Zero?

Board footer

Jump to

BF2S Forums Mosque to be built by Ground Zero?

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

lowing's source wrote:

Uzique wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Uzique wrote:

lowing's source wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Uzique wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Board footer