Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Do humans have needed kno...
Yesterday at 09:57 PM

Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
Yesterday at 09:44 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
Yesterday at 05:55 AM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
May 16, 2025, 07:11 AM

Gaza assault
May 16, 2025, 04:36 AM

New Britain
May 13, 2025, 07:40 PM

الحبيب من يشبه اكثر؟؟؟
by akay
May 10, 2025, 01:22 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
May 10, 2025, 10:45 AM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
May 10, 2025, 08:24 AM

Pope Francis Signals Rema...
May 09, 2025, 05:32 PM

Kashmir endgame
April 24, 2025, 05:12 PM

عيد مبارك للجميع! ^_^
by akay
March 29, 2025, 01:09 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Rational discourse is not as useful as you think

 (Read 9944 times)
  • Previous page 1 2« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Rational discourse is not as useful as you think
     Reply #30 - February 12, 2009, 01:50 PM

    I can see your point. That's why I always highlight the most repugnant aspects of Islam first when I'm debating with a Muslim, the things that make people intellectually and morally uncomfortable. Mohammad's pedophilia for example. You can argue that the Quran is full of scientific errors for example, but people tend to ignore such things later on in their lives.

     

    I did argue with my Muslim cousin Adil who believes in implementing the Shariah, about Ayesha's young age at marriage, he asked me what is wrong with that, how does one  respond to that?

    Then I asked him whether he would've married off his sister at such an age to a comparatively aged man, and he said that if it was a man like Mohammed, he definitely would.

    I then told him (my Indian upbringing makes me very uncomfortable to even mention such stuff, and to my cousin) that its not good for a girl's health to be married so early and he responded that Allah would take care that nothing happened to Ayesha as Allah wanted Islam to flourish. Go figure.

    If I try to debate the Burkha, Adil says that most rapes happen in U.S.A. and Allah has required women to cover up blah blah... so its allright for Saudi to enforce the veil but not allright for French schools to ban it.

    Why are you discussing women issues with him? It is clear that what holds him to islam is not how it treats women. Generally I would just make sure he knows my position about women, also to make sure he knows what I think of people who put women down, and then end it at that. The next step would be to determine what is it that he cares about in islam.

    "Ask the slave girl; she will tell you the truth.' So the Apostle called Burayra to ask her. Ali got up and gave her a violent beating first, saying, 'Tell the Apostle the truth.'"
  • Re: Rational discourse is not as useful as you think
     Reply #31 - February 12, 2009, 04:45 PM

    to add to baal's above comment:

    also look for OTHER things that matter to him. does he have a soft spot for philosophy or science? for sports or some such?

    heck does he believe in some sort of economic system like capitalism or communism? does he generally believe in a "practical approach" to life? etc... in other words, find out which meme infects him... and escalate the conflict by subtly bringing it first in to cognitive dissonance... and then in to conflict.

    for example: i knew this liberal muslim girl who had no doubts about islam. she was very liberal though... didn't pray much, etc. She was doing her phd in psychology... and i instantly knew that would be the best approach: show her how to interpret islam through psychology... that is, show her how islam (or any religion) manipulates human psychology by say... withholding sex, etc.

    i tried a simple approach with her: i asked her if she believed in magic, considering the fact that he quran pretty much recognizes magic exists and specifically prohibits it. therefore any "true" muslim would HAVE to believe it no matter what! i

    i don't think most educated muslims believe in magic... especially not someone doing a phd in psychology who should be able to examine why the belief in supernatural phenomenon exists, as a function of humanity's attempt to understand seemingly inexplicable occurence.

    to my surprise she said she DOES believe in magic. i politely laughed. My job wasn't to show her how magic DID NOT exist. that would be a confrontational approach and entirely unproductive.

    using "facts" would not work here... so i simply asked her if she would be okay with expressing this belief and discussing it with her colleagues and professors: i relied on her rigorous academic training to expose the blatant falsity of her belief. she was cornered so she said "yes".

    i asked her to think about it... and didn't talk about it again. months later, i met her again... and she still believes in islam. but she no longer believes in magic... she said i made her question some things...

    what could be my next step if i wanted to convert her? i can crack open the quran and show her verses that talk about the existence of magic... and ask her to reconcile her conflicting beliefs.

    but i actually don't want to do that because she's already a liberal muslim and i have nothing to gain by converting her.

    the idea here is:

    1- never be confrontational, even with the facts.
    2- rely on their own thinking process to create self-conflict.
    3- have months of patience - a paradigm change doesn't occur over night. it takes months.
    4- their opinion of you must always be positive. they should appreciate you provoking thought, instead of feeling threatened by your point of view.

    ______

    baal: i'll search that article i wrote for you. it's somewhere on my computer...

    TRASH - The Rationalist Apostate Society for Humanity!

    Take a look for a few laughs and thoughtful discussions with a wide range of audience - fellow apostates, Muslims, sufis, non-Muslims, Christians, etc

    http://thetrashbin.wordpress.com
  • Re: Rational discourse is not as useful as you think
     Reply #32 - February 12, 2009, 11:59 PM

    Sorry could not help but notice this Acronym:

    TRASH - The Rationalist Apostate Society for Humanity!

    And then the title of this thread is: "Rational discourse is not as useful as you think"

    That thread title will do wonders to really move you up the ladders in that little tight vertical market of Rationalist Societies - lol.

    "Ask the slave girl; she will tell you the truth.' So the Apostle called Burayra to ask her. Ali got up and gave her a violent beating first, saying, 'Tell the Apostle the truth.'"
  • Re: Rational discourse is not as useful as you think
     Reply #33 - February 13, 2009, 12:06 AM

    1- never be confrontational, even with the facts.

    i would add ..even with the facts or logic or reason.

    2- rely on their own thinking process to create self-conflict.

    Yes, talk about what matters to them, not to you.

    3- have months of patience - a paradigm change doesn't occur over night. it takes months.

    I have a similar saying: "No debate is ever won over the debate table". The only option you have over a debating table is a small window to make your case. whether your case makes an impact or not, that is to be determined much later, after the debate is often long over.

    4- their opinion of you must always be positive. they should appreciate you provoking thought, instead of feeling threatened by your point of view.

    Absolutely. They have to either like you, either fear you. If they hold you in contempt, then at that moment, you are only debating for the sake of people watching the debate if there is any.


    I particularly remember a case when, I was for gun control, debating against a gun nut. We both made a case. A year later, it turned out we both had impacted each other and we ended up debating again but from the opposite pov.

    "Ask the slave girl; she will tell you the truth.' So the Apostle called Burayra to ask her. Ali got up and gave her a violent beating first, saying, 'Tell the Apostle the truth.'"
  • Re: Rational discourse is not as useful as you think
     Reply #34 - February 13, 2009, 02:15 AM

    lol good point about the TRASHERS! Tongue

    you know, in a way though, recognizing that rationality doesn't always help can still be a quality of people identifying themselves as rationalist... in fact, it wouldn't be very smart of us not to! Tongue how quaint... lol

    TRASH - The Rationalist Apostate Society for Humanity!

    Take a look for a few laughs and thoughtful discussions with a wide range of audience - fellow apostates, Muslims, sufis, non-Muslims, Christians, etc

    http://thetrashbin.wordpress.com
  • Re: Rational discourse is not as useful as you think
     Reply #35 - February 13, 2009, 02:29 AM

    I can't pinpoint what exactly works for Adil, he seems to have picked up all his ideas and debating skills from Zakir Naik, who he says he admires most in the world.  What would work for Zakir Naik?

    If I change the conversation to "science in the Quran" the conversation would go something like this.
    Rashna "How can you, as a rational, educated person believe every single word in the Quran?"
    Adil, " You know, even Western scientists have discovered science in the Quran, and science hasn't stopped, so someday we'll knw how angel Jibreel visited Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) in a cave with God's instructions."
    Rashna, "No much of so called Quranic science has been disproved, I'll show you the sources."
    Adil, "Thats' only been refuted by biased Western scientists who hate it that Islam is growing so exponentially in the West."

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Rational discourse is not as useful as you think
     Reply #36 - February 13, 2009, 02:32 AM

    you're at a point where you'll have to "reboot" your relationship with him. that is, stop talking to him about this stuff for 6 months at least... and start anew from a different angle, after he stops having an adversarial relationship with you.

    find out his OTHER interests after 6 months... is he worried about his career, for instance? etc... and then use that to get under his guard.

    TRASH - The Rationalist Apostate Society for Humanity!

    Take a look for a few laughs and thoughtful discussions with a wide range of audience - fellow apostates, Muslims, sufis, non-Muslims, Christians, etc

    http://thetrashbin.wordpress.com
  • Re: Rational discourse is not as useful as you think
     Reply #37 - February 13, 2009, 02:39 AM

    you're at a point where you'll have to "reboot" your relationship with him. that is, stop talking to him about this stuff for 6 months at least... and start anew from a different angle, after he stops having an adversarial relationship with you.

    find out his OTHER interests after 6 months... is he worried about his career, for instance? etc... and then use that to get under his guard.


    I'll try that, I don't have this pressing urge to convert every Muslim into an ex Muslim, my grandfather is one of the most devout Muslims I know and his faith is a lot of solace to him, yet I've never seen him impose the most obscurantist interpretation of his faith on anyone, not even on his wife and daughters. If Adil could be turned into something like that, I'd feel satisfied.  Roll Eyes

    I know I sometimes get confrontational with him, but its difficult to be polite with someone who wants to enforce compulsory veiling and thinks that divorce should remain difficult for a Muslim woman, as woman are sometimes irrational due to their hormones, and giving them equal rights to divorce will destroy the society !

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Rational discourse is not as useful as you think
     Reply #38 - February 13, 2009, 02:46 AM

    argh... that is infuriating.

    i had a person like that in my life once... the best thing to do is to stay completely away from such people.. and let the relationship stagnate.

    your cousin adil though, being a chauvinist, can be a pain in your life... am afraid for you. i don't know how your family is, but make sure he doesn't create trouble for you

    TRASH - The Rationalist Apostate Society for Humanity!

    Take a look for a few laughs and thoughtful discussions with a wide range of audience - fellow apostates, Muslims, sufis, non-Muslims, Christians, etc

    http://thetrashbin.wordpress.com
  • Re: Rational discourse is not as useful as you think
     Reply #39 - February 13, 2009, 02:58 AM

    your cousin adil though, being a chauvinist, can be a pain in your life... am afraid for you. i don't know how your family is, but make sure he doesn't create trouble for you


    Oh don't worry about me, only my mom's side of the family is Muslim, and my mom's dad will teach Adil a lesson if he so much as once mentions curtailing my freedoms. Religion is actually what people make of it, rather than whats' taught in books and my grandfather truly believes that Islam came to liberate women, but was constrained by the sexist Arab society and it is his duty as a good Muslim to further the women's cause in whatever way he can.If anything, Adil and his dad have succeeded in instilling a bit of skepticism in my grandfather with their retrogade interpretation of Islam, which no one else could do!  Wink

    I don't know what led his daughter, my aunt, to marry a man like Adil's dad who's an exact replica of Adil. Why does Adil believe all the stuff he does?  Powerful indoctrination combined with non existent or selective rational thinking.

    Its easy to enlarge his rational thinking, but to break the manacles of all that indoctrination, sad very difficult.

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Rational discourse is not as useful as you think
     Reply #40 - February 13, 2009, 05:36 PM

    you're at a point where you'll have to "reboot" your relationship with him. that is, stop talking to him about this stuff for 6 months at least... and start anew from a different angle, after he stops having an adversarial relationship with you.

    find out his OTHER interests after 6 months... is he worried about his career, for instance? etc... and then use that to get under his guard.


    I'll try that, I don't have this pressing urge to convert every Muslim into an ex Muslim, my grandfather is one of the most devout Muslims I know and his faith is a lot of solace to him, yet I've never seen him impose the most obscurantist interpretation of his faith on anyone, not even on his wife and daughters. If Adil could be turned into something like that, I'd feel satisfied.  Roll Eyes

    I know I sometimes get confrontational with him, but its difficult to be polite with someone who wants to enforce compulsory veiling and thinks that divorce should remain difficult for a Muslim woman, as woman are sometimes irrational due to their hormones, and giving them equal rights to divorce will destroy the society !

    Two markers I picked from him, the First meme is he thinks islam is good for society. He is prepared to make all those sacrifices (as long as he is not the one sacrificed of course) since the ultimate goal is a good society. The Second meme is that he is imitating his dad.

    The First meme you could get through. But it won't matter much because of the Second meme.

    The Second meme is relatively very hard. You will have to trip the Father in front of his Son. Which is something you are not meant to do, someone from his generations is generally much better equipped to expose the Father's gaps.

    Asking the Father questions that the father can not answer satisfactorily.


    "Ask the slave girl; she will tell you the truth.' So the Apostle called Burayra to ask her. Ali got up and gave her a violent beating first, saying, 'Tell the Apostle the truth.'"
  • Re: Rational discourse is not as useful as you think
     Reply #41 - February 13, 2009, 08:56 PM

    lol that's a very nice way to do so... but it might backfire and make him more hostile towards you. i still suggest rebooting your relationship before attempting that.

    that's actually brilliant. Tongue nice one, baal

    TRASH - The Rationalist Apostate Society for Humanity!

    Take a look for a few laughs and thoughtful discussions with a wide range of audience - fellow apostates, Muslims, sufis, non-Muslims, Christians, etc

    http://thetrashbin.wordpress.com
  • Re: Rational discourse is not as useful as you think
     Reply #42 - February 14, 2009, 03:50 AM

    you're at a point where you'll have to "reboot" your relationship with him. that is, stop talking to him about this stuff for 6 months at least... and start anew from a different angle, after he stops having an adversarial relationship with you.

    find out his OTHER interests after 6 months... is he worried about his career, for instance? etc... and then use that to get under his guard.


    I'll try that, I don't have this pressing urge to convert every Muslim into an ex Muslim, my grandfather is one of the most devout Muslims I know and his faith is a lot of solace to him, yet I've never seen him impose the most obscurantist interpretation of his faith on anyone, not even on his wife and daughters. If Adil could be turned into something like that, I'd feel satisfied.  Roll Eyes

    I know I sometimes get confrontational with him, but its difficult to be polite with someone who wants to enforce compulsory veiling and thinks that divorce should remain difficult for a Muslim woman, as woman are sometimes irrational due to their hormones, and giving them equal rights to divorce will destroy the society !

    Two markers I picked from him, the First meme is he thinks islam is good for society. He is prepared to make all those sacrifices (as long as he is not the one sacrificed of course) since the ultimate goal is a good society. The Second meme is that he is imitating his dad.

    The First meme you could get through. But it won't matter much because of the Second meme.

    The Second meme is relatively very hard. You will have to trip the Father in front of his Son. Which is something you are not meant to do, someone from his generations is generally much better equipped to expose the Father's gaps.

    Asking the Father questions that the father can not answer satisfactorily.




    Baal I think you've got his memes exactly right, but doing as you suggest is gonna be difficult. Cry

    First its a pretty traditional setting in India, like I suppose it is in Egypt, and we have an unofficial code of conduct while dealing with our elders. Also the kind of man Adil's dad is, he's not going to be pleased if I "trip him in front of his son." If I say anything which he thinks is insulting to the Prophet, he may ask my aunt to stop talking to us, and she's my mom's only sibling. My mom's marriage to a non Muslim is something he strongly disapproves of, and he's even said that we're a bad influence on his daughter. His sons can marry whoever they please though.  finmad

    So I guess I'll follow Salahuddin's advice and try to reboot my relationship with Adil first, and try to get through him. I might even try to ask his father questions, but I'll have to be very subtle, and do it in a way which might make him believe I'm getting interested in Islam perhaps, and planning to "revert".  little angel

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Rational discourse is not as useful as you think
     Reply #43 - February 14, 2009, 04:54 AM

    Subterfuge is one way. Another way may be to organise a pogrom or two. Everyone knows that India is all mungbeans and ohm so if the Muslims get a few more pogroms their way they must have been asking for it. India's had Christians, Jews, Parsis and others living peacefully for millenia. I mean that awful Zakir Naik talks against idols all the time doesn't he? Pogroms are the way to go.

    The language of the mob was only the language of public opinion cleansed of hypocrisy and restraint - Hannah Arendt.
  • Re: Rational discourse is not as useful as you think
     Reply #44 - February 14, 2009, 12:06 PM

    Now it seems abdalwali is reeeaally mad at me. Sigh!  Actually, abdalwali, I've criticised all faiths on this forum, I've even criticised Zoroastrianism in my intro, and we all pull Shaneequa's leg all the time about her crazy version of Christianity, but she takes it so sportingly. Shan a   far away hug  for you. However, it isn't islamonline or ummah.com and I won't behave like it is. As for my uncle, yes he's a fanatic and a hypocrite, and I think it'll be a good thing to make him reconsider his views. This would be true even if he were a fanatic Christian, Hindu, Jew or anything else. And yeah, Zakir Naik is a fanatic, and he did say thats' its okay to smash the Bamiyan Buddhas, as there're no Buddhists in Afghanistan today. Naik's views are potentially dangerous not only for other faiths, but also for Muslim women who don't want to wear a burkha or those with aspirations to become airhostesses!There are fanatic Hindus and fanatic Christians with views somewhat similar to Naik (like my very own born again Christian Scriptures teacher) in India, but I think its near impossible any Hindu like Naik would be allowed to air his views in Pakistan or Bangladesh.

    I'm as keen to change my uncle's views as I am to change Finally Free's views. If you havn't read the grassroots ex Muslim thread, FF is an ex Muslim who wants to deport or kill all Muslims in UK who won't convert out.

    Yes, I've criticised the Prophet Mohammed but I do consider it part of my freedom of speech to criticise any public figure, just like its part of your or everyone else's freedom of speech and if I do sound somewhat bigoted and biased at times about Islam, well I'm a human being, not a computer and my opinions like everyone else's are subjective. I can't post opinions which are objective to the T can I? None of us can. I can argue that the link you provided from islamonline about the Israel Palestine conflict is hurtful and biased towards Jews too. However, feel free to ignore me if I hurt your feelings or sound too harsh, I don't mind.

    Cheers!

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Rational discourse is not as useful as you think
     Reply #45 - February 14, 2009, 12:27 PM

    Quote
    However, it isn't islamonline or ummah.com and I won't behave like it is


    You've mentioned ummah.com on another thread. Not sure why you think I believe this site should be like ummah.com. I have never even been on ummah.com and have no interest whatsoever in going there.

    Quote
    And yeah, Zakir Naik is a fanatic...

     
    Fuck Naik. I only said what I said because of your idea that pagan Arabia were some kind of tolerant utopia and that they were justified in attacking Muslims in the first 13 years.

    Quote
    I can argue that the link you provided from islamonline about the Israel Palestine conflict is hurtful and biased towards Jews too

     
    You think I support that fatwa? Do you think I'm Muslim?

    Quote
    However, feel free to ignore me if I hurt your feelings or sound too harsh, I don't mind.

     
    I most certainly will not do that. I like the way you think. I like the way Baal thinks. I have much to learn from both of you. I just don't like what you think because it reminds me too much of those depressing anti-Muslim sites. Having said that, what you think is your business and nobody elses. I believe in freedom of speech too.

    The language of the mob was only the language of public opinion cleansed of hypocrisy and restraint - Hannah Arendt.
  • Re: Rational discourse is not as useful as you think
     Reply #46 - February 14, 2009, 01:39 PM

    Quote
    And yeah, Zakir Naik is a fanatic...

     
    Fuck Naik. I only said what I said because of your idea that pagan Arabia were some kind of tolerant utopia and that they were justified in attacking Muslims in the first 13 years.


    Again either you've misunderstood what I was trying to say, or you're deliberately misinterpreting it. I cannot claim pagan Arabia was some kind of tolerant Utopia, there really isn't much historical evidence to either support or oppose such claims. All the evidence about pre Islamic Arabia comes from their conqueror and enemy's sources, an enemy who utterly destroyed their culture, and tainted them forever as a jahiliyya society. Obviously any winner will diminish the opponent's virtues, and exaggerate their failings, yet even judging from those sources, we get zero evidence for any previous act of intolerance, from eiter the pagans or the Jews, infact quite the opposite picture is presented.

    As for whether they were justified in attacking in attacking Muslims, again the only way we know what transpired between pagan-Muslims and Jew-Muslims are from Islamic sources. Even if Pre Islamic Arabia wasn't some kind of tolerant Utopia, post Islamic Saudi was indeed intolerant Dystopia, wasn't it?

    The pagan gods smashed, Jews condemned to restrictions and any attempt to break free of Islam through Ridda wars ruthlessly put down. Mullahs caught preaching Jihad against the West in British, Australian or U.S.A. mosques are routinely deported or punished, aren't they, even if they lack the miltary means to carry out jihad or destroy the West, although the reason isn't their genuine tolerance, but poor military capacity. We don't know what sort of iconoclasm for pagans and jihad for Jews was preached, during the time Muslims were tolerant.

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Rational discourse is not as useful as you think
     Reply #47 - February 14, 2009, 02:42 PM

    So basically you are saying you don't trust the Islamic sources. But you are more than happy to trust anti-Islamic sources which you have referenced (most times). Maybe I still don't get what you are saying but you still seem to be indicating that preaching against idolatory warranted some kind of persecution.

    Why not go further and say that the persecution was just made up by Muslims afterwards in order to justify their attacks on the pagans? My lack of proof is largely because I don't care care about this topic or any other I've been arguing about on this website. I don't even like arguing.

    I guess I was hoping for a place where I could chill out with murtads and others and talk about the good and the bad old days. I didn't realise that I would even see things about Islam and Muhammad that I thought were good bashed cynically. I didn't think I would find whole Muslim communities bashed again and again.

    But fuck it. I didn't find that place. Zhizn takaya.

    Lastly though, I don't believe preaching should warrant persecution. Not hate speech, not Geert Wilders, not Mullah Krekar, not David Duke or anyone else. You have the right to free speech. Ali Sina has the right to free speech. Muhammad (May Allah Prays On Him And Salutes) had the right to free speech. If he crossed the line into violence, smash him but the exchange of ideas should be free always insha Allah.

    The language of the mob was only the language of public opinion cleansed of hypocrisy and restraint - Hannah Arendt.
  • Re: Rational discourse is not as useful as you think
     Reply #48 - February 14, 2009, 03:30 PM

    So basically you are saying you don't trust the Islamic sources. But you are more than happy to trust anti-Islamic sources which you have referenced (most times). Maybe I still don't get what you are saying but you still seem to be indicating that preaching against idolatory warranted some kind of persecution.

    ==========

    Except for Warraq, i haven't seen any anti-Islamic sources from Rashna, abdalwali.

    She even wrote:

    www.thereligionofpeace.com/


    The site I gave a link to is a pretty offensive, FFI type one, and I don't agree with most of the stuff it says, yet I mentioned it as it shows the daily deaths in Southern Thailand which is far more than in Israel. no



    I well know that you didn't say she likes the so called Anti-Islamic sites, but I found many of these sites unbiased and quote sources from other Islamic sites and/or books.

    Plus, she didn't say she doesn't trust Islamic sources in general, she made it clear that she only doubts the credibility of the Jahiliyya history brought to us by Muslims;


    Hence, I do agree with Rashna regarding the 'sources of enemies,'

    I always say:

    ~Victorious nations write history in their favor~


    i know that you read it, but plz take a look @ the 1st post;

    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=3987.0


    "I'm Agnostic about God."

    Richard Dawkins
    ==
    "If there is a God, it has to be a man; no woman could or would ever fuck things up like this."
     George Carlin == "...The so-called moderates are actually the public relations arm of Al-Qaeda and the Islamic Republic of Iran."  Maryam Namazie
  • Re: Rational discourse is not as useful as you think
     Reply #49 - February 14, 2009, 06:51 PM

    So basically you are saying you don't trust the Islamic sources. But you are more than happy to trust anti-Islamic sources which you have referenced (most times). Maybe I still don't get what you are saying but you still seem to be indicating that preaching against idolatory warranted some kind of persecution.


    Nope, never made such a claim regarding mere preaching, however either breaking idols or incitement to break idols does warrant persecution in my view. Preaching against Judaism doesn't warrant persecution, but incitement to bomb synagogues sure does. Here was a man called Mohammed, who smashed all the idols when he acquired the capacity to do so, threatening to kill anyone who came out to protect them(from Islamic sources) how do I know he was the most tolerant preacher, either against idolatry or when proclaiming himself the Jews' Messiah?

    Why not go further and say that the persecution was just made up by Muslims afterwards in order to justify their attacks on the pagans? My lack of proof is largely because I don't care care about this topic or any other I've been arguing about on this website. I don't even like arguing.



    I don't particularly like arguing either. Your "lack of proof" isn't because you don't care about this topic, rather its due to the fact that material from other sources either corroborating or contradicting the evidence from Islamic sources is practically non existent on this issue.Strictly from Islamic sources, neither the Jews nor the pagans seem religiously intolerant to each other or Christianity before Islam came on the scene.Islam caused them to deviate from their usual tolerance.

    I didn't realise that I would even see things about Islam and Muhammad that I thought were good bashed cynically. I didn't think I would find whole Muslim communities bashed again and again.


    So if you think something's good about either Muhammad or Islam, we all have to agree? What if someone became a murtad only because they don't like Muhammad? I think David Beckham is the world's most handsome man, my friends don't, they have to agree? What sort of demand is that? Its like the Saudi demand on women, whatever they may like to wear, they have to wear the hijab.

    Lastly though, I don't believe preaching should warrant persecution. Not hate speech, not Geert Wilders, not Mullah Krekar, not David Duke or anyone else. You have the right to free speech. Ali Sina has the right to free speech. Muhammad (May Allah Prays On Him And Salutes) had the right to free speech. If he crossed the line into violence, smash him but the exchange of ideas should be free always insha Allah.


    Well, even that Mullah Krekar link you provided gives me loads to consider about the man. The link provided by you says that he has implemented Shariah law's hudood punishments in Kurdistan.I do think any person supporting stuff like stoning adulteresses after burying them in the ground is preaching violent stuff. You don't preach slavery in this day and age, it is crossing the line, nor do you preach stoning and amputation, which is itself crossing the line.Preaching killing all Muslims too is crossing the line. You don't have to be tolerant of  ideas which preach intolerance of you as soon as they can get the upper hand.

    Another accusation- my Cyrus link. As it happens, even your British Museum link didn't put any doubts on Cyrus's statements, it only said that such stuff have been said before by other Kings. Duh.

    By the way, the evidence that Cyrus supported racial religious rights is corroborated by another source, unlike Islamic claims. The Jews reserve a special reverence for Cyrus in their Torah, and revere him for his tolerance to them.

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Rational discourse is not as useful as you think
     Reply #50 - February 14, 2009, 09:30 PM

    I find that people will believe what they want/need to believe, and no amount of logical discourse will convince them otherwise. 


    I've brought up difficult points with religious people I know, and they usually remain silent, change the topic, or come up with an odd sounding rationalization.  Sometimes they'll say "I simply cannot accept that that is part of my religion" 

    People will just pick and choose what best fits their own comfort zone.
  • Re: Rational discourse is not as useful as you think
     Reply #51 - February 14, 2009, 11:17 PM

    Quote
    Another accusation- my Cyrus link. As it happens, even your British Museum link didn't put any doubts on Cyrus's statements, it only said that such stuff have been said before by other Kings. Duh.

    By the way, the evidence that Cyrus supported racial religious rights is corroborated by another source, unlike Islamic claims. The Jews reserve a special reverence for Cyrus in their Torah, and revere him for his tolerance to them.


    Where does it say that Cyrus believed in racial equality? He freed the Jewish people but I didn't read anything promoting equality between all people (not even all men) in his document. That's a spin put on by your pro-Shah anti-Islam site.

    There are Muslim scholars who believe he was Dhul Qarnayn. Your Buddha example was better. I'm not saying we have to agree on everything about Muhammad. 'm sure I've hated Muhammad much more than you. I had to believe in him once and try and justify all the nasty and sick things he did. I'm just saying I didn't like seeing even what I thought were good things trashed. That's a statement- not a request.

    "Duh" is kind of discriminatory against people with disabilities. BTW.

    Anyway trash away. I'm out.


    The language of the mob was only the language of public opinion cleansed of hypocrisy and restraint - Hannah Arendt.
  • Re: Rational discourse is not as useful as you think
     Reply #52 - February 15, 2009, 12:34 AM

    So basically you are saying you don't trust the Islamic sources. But you are more than happy to trust anti-Islamic sources which you have referenced (most times). Maybe I still don't get what you are saying but you still seem to be indicating that preaching against idolatory warranted some kind of persecution.

    ==========

    Except for Warraq, i haven't seen any anti-Islamic sources from Rashna, abdalwali.

    She even wrote:

    www.thereligionofpeace.com/


    The site I gave a link to is a pretty offensive, FFI type one, and I don't agree with most of the stuff it says, yet I mentioned it as it shows the daily deaths in Southern Thailand which is far more than in Israel. no



    I well know that you didn't say she likes the so called Anti-Islamic sites, but I found many of these sites unbiased and quote sources from other Islamic sites and/or books.

    Plus, she didn't say she doesn't trust Islamic sources in general, she made it clear that she only doubts the credibility of the Jahiliyya history brought to us by Muslims;


    Hence, I do agree with Rashna regarding the 'sources of enemies,'

    I always say:

    ~Victorious nations write history in their favor~


    i know that you read it, but plz take a look @ the 1st post;

    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=3987.0




    You're right Emerald. And I now realise my error was in some level of bigotry as well. Because Rashna has never been a Muslim I thought it was unfair of her to just trash everything about Islam but it shouldn't matter who is critiquing. What matters is: is what they are saying true? If Rashna pretended to be a murtad I might have thought differently. That's wrong and I was blinded to that. Perversely, it's my desire for people to cut Muslims a bit of slack which I believe was behind this myopia. In Australia they call it giving someone 'a fair go'. All religions have good and bad in them. I don't think Islam is any more evil than the others. Yes, there are horrendous things in there, there's beautiful things in there as well and that's all I was trying to say.

    The language of the mob was only the language of public opinion cleansed of hypocrisy and restraint - Hannah Arendt.
  • Re: Rational discourse is not as useful as you think
     Reply #53 - February 15, 2009, 02:47 AM

    Cyrus and equality between all people can be deduced from the way his conquered people spoke of him. I'm not giving any more links lest they be perceived as biased, but you could try wikipedia  too, or google Cyrus and see.

    His own nation, the Iranians, regarded him as "The Father", the Babylonians as "The Liberator", the Greeks as the "Law-Giver", and the Jews as the "Anointed of the Lord".

    Why such praise from so many conquered people rather than apostasy Wars? grin12
    The Jews hated the Romans who later conquered them, as did the Greeks conquered by the Romans.

     That's a spin put on by your pro-Shah anti-Islam site.

    Shah might've been Pro Iran's ancient history, but the claim of his being anti Islam is again a spin by the Ayatollahcracy. The worst stuff he did was changing the Calendar to the ancient one, from the Islamic one.

    Pray tell me, if the Shah was anti Islamic, who is pro Islamic? Ayatollah Khomeini who said that the best time for a girl to get married is when she can have her first menstruation in her husband's house, and reduced the girl's age of marriage to nine? How about your Mullah Krekar, who would stone unmarried women after burying them to the neck, should they be caught having sex? The Shah had identified himself with Islam, only with an interpretation of Islam which takes into account contemporary human rights, as well as the Iranians rich past.

    I've read in Naipaul's works that Islam needs people to forget their past, claim it as worthless. Maybe it comes from Islam's origins, the past of the Jews and Pagans erased who became the first Muslims, and tainted as jahiliyya. Subsequently, every other people who became Muslim would likely look on their pasts as jahiliyya too.

    Whether you like or dislike the Ancient Persian Empire, it was at one time, the greatest Empire the world has ever seen. The Persian Empire was the conqueror of Egypt, rival of Greece and undefeated by Rome. Its as legitimate a source for the Iranian people to take pride in, even if they don't become Zoroastrian again. Arid Arabia, with only the hajj as its achievement, or Shia Islam, as distinct from and rival to Sunni Islam needn't be the fount for all Iranians' sense of self, you know. Of course, the Saudis came into the full glare of history only with Islam and with their pasts tainted and gods destroyed, they can't look at any other past.

    But for Iranians, their ancient history could as well have consolidated them further into an Empire. Sigh! As it happens, whether Iran, or Afghanistan's Bamiyan Buddhas, the past's achievements have to be tainted or erased, at the altar of the new source of all encompassing Muslim identity-Islam.

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Rational discourse is not as useful as you think
     Reply #54 - February 15, 2009, 03:06 AM

    A beautiful, lofty post that doesn't answer my question.

    The language of the mob was only the language of public opinion cleansed of hypocrisy and restraint - Hannah Arendt.
  • Re: Rational discourse is not as useful as you think
     Reply #55 - February 15, 2009, 03:15 AM

    BTW. That's not being patronising. You are a fantastic writer and I found myself soaring reading those words.

    The language of the mob was only the language of public opinion cleansed of hypocrisy and restraint - Hannah Arendt.
  • Re: Rational discourse is not as useful as you think
     Reply #56 - February 15, 2009, 03:31 AM

    You can be patronising, abdalwali you know, you have all the right to. And I see where you're getting at, with Cyrus, he didn't even proclaim equality towards all his male subjects which is what Buddha had done a millennia before Mohammed.

    Maybe I've subconsciously believed my father's spin about Cyrus.  whistling2

    However, the glowing testimony towards Cyrus by all his conquered people, be they the Jews, Greeks or Babylonians sure is a point in the man's favor. Again quoting the Buddha, "Victory breeds hatred, for the conquered are unhappy." So many conquered people so satisfied, this man must've done some stuff to please them all! Wink

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Rational discourse is not as useful as you think
     Reply #57 - February 15, 2009, 03:37 AM

    I know I can be patronising but it is not my niyyah. It is a fault in me that I must work on as it is a negative trait. Also I never said Prophet Dhul Qarnain (alaihi salaam) was not a great man Tongue

    Look forward to reading more of your posts and sorry if I laboured on like a stuck record  grin12

    It was petty, pedantic and foolish of me.

    The language of the mob was only the language of public opinion cleansed of hypocrisy and restraint - Hannah Arendt.
  • Previous page 1 2« Previous thread | Next thread »