Eid Mubarak

[Tobes]

**** off you dull, clueless ****er. Ta.

You were sussed pages ago, you transparent bigot

 

[DMD]

You were sussed pages ago, you transparent bigot

Rather than imply that Al's a fool, why don't you let him make his own mind up instead of cluttering another thread with your tedious, personal bile?

You're ****ing miles off (as usual), as my replies should show.

 

[Tobes]

Rather than imply that Al's a fool, why don't you let him make his own mind up instead of cluttering another thread with your tedious, personal bile?

You're ****ing miles off (as usual), as my replies should show.

More fool him for even attempting to provide you with considered retorts.

As all you've been doing is seeking an angle that will somehow eventually justify the glib dismissive bollocks that you posted at the start of this thread.

You're as transparent as tissue paper, and as thick as ****, go swim with the tiddlers back in your own stagnant pond, your faux sense of superiority is better suited to that environment

 

[DMD]

More fool him for even attempting to provide you with considered retorts.

As all you've been doing is seeking an angle that will somehow eventually justify the glib dismissive bollocks that you posted at the start of this thread.

You're as transparent as tissue paper, and as thick as ****, go swim with the tiddlers back in your own stagnant pond, your faux sense of superiority is better suited to that environment

You're a clueless ****er.

I've been sat watching a series of debates on youtube between devout muslims, where they're discussing this and a number of related issues. A reasonable percentage of the muslims (including clerics/scholars) are raising the self and same points as me. Do you think they're transparent, or is it just another example of your ignorance and bigotry.

Quite a few are saying that a big part of the problem is that the term 'islam' means different things to different groups, and they draw their 'truth' from different interpretations.

 

[Highburyal]

I think you're guilty of what you accuse me of, and a fair amount of confirmation bias. I'm not making any claims, I'm asking questions.

You have decided that your 'facts' are the most valid, despite a fair few scholars holding other views, and that is pretty much the nub of the issue. It needs the interpretation of non-prophets and they don't all agree. It leaves people selecting a version of selected versions. That doesn't seem to fit with the aim of the book, nor a style I'd expect an omnipotent, omniscient being to choose.

I hadn't made my mind up, although your responses are leaning me towards thinking it's just not a very good piece of literature. I was hoping for something over and above what has already been said, because so far it's just your opinion, based on another's opinion, against the opinions I have read from others, including islamic scholars. As I said, I tried to check the versions and interpretations from pro, rather than anti-islamic sites.

A fair few of the verses seem plagiarised from early documents and information and seem more like the work of mortals, than divine.

The mention of Ghandi and Theresa is to show that even in recent history, the perceived and received version of events, doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Add 1500 years, Chinese whispers and selected editing, and there's little wonder that there's room for a lot of doubt as to mohamed practising what he preached, and why other, less peaceful versions can be proffered, which may not be accepted by the mainstream, but they're not disproven.

History is littered with versions written by the victors, with plenty of room for doubt about some versions of events. The actions of his immediate followers, who should be living by his example seem to point to the 'totally peaceful' version being a selective view.

It's interesting to look closer at islam, there's an awful lot I had wrong, largely because I read it as an adaptation of the bible, which lead to some wrong assumptions on my part, creation being one.

The overall concept of a creator, with omnipowers, making us so bent and damaged and placed on earth as a test, sounds more like a kid with an ant farm than a benevelont, divine deity.

Like i said though, you are jumping from one subject to another, not concluding the one you started before jumping to another.

I dont get what you mean it's not a very good literature. Are you talking about the Qur'an or Ibn Ishaq's work? What needs interpretation? Islam always says to learn and use your own intellect, but there are subject matter experts and they are referred to as the scholars.

Versions? There is only one version of the Qur'an, we were talking about Banu Qurayza and the Ibn Ishaq as the only source that is being used, which infact is not a true source that can be relied upon and is agreed by non-muslim experts too even though that is the only source used by the staunch haters of islam as i said to you before. This is not my "fact" as you put its something thats agreed upon by historians apart from the orientalist. If you want refer to other people's account of the incident as well then please do so.

Now you are going off in to a tangent about plagiarism without backing up your claims. Islam is a huge subject to do it justice you cant jump from one to another to try and get an understanding of the subject and I feel that is exactly what you are doing without concluding or understanding any of it.

 

[DMD]

Like i said though, you are jumping from one subject to another, not concluding the one you started before jumping to another.

I dont get what you mean it's not a very good literature. Are you talking about the Qur'an or Ibn Ishaq's work? What needs interpretation? Islam always says to learn and use your own intellect, but there are subject matter experts and they are referred to as the scholars.

Versions? There is only one version of the Qur'an, we were talking about Banu Qurayza and the Ibn Ishaq as the only source that is being used, which infact is not a true source that can be relied upon and is agreed by non-muslim experts too even though that is the only source used by the staunch haters of islam as i said to you before. This is not my "fact" as you put its something thats agreed upon by historians apart from the orientalist. If you want refer to other people's account of the incident as well then please do so.

Now you are going off in to a tangent about plagiarism without backing up your claims. Islam is a huge subject to do it justice you cant jump from one to another to try and get an understanding of the subject and I feel that is exactly what you are doing without concluding or understanding any of it.

If you follow back, rather than making a point (which I'm, not) I asked a series of questions initially, but the reply focused on one small part that was offered as an example. I was happy to let the discussion flow where it did. So any flitting is to some degree a two way thing and a consequence of you focusing on a secondary issue, rather than the original concept in question.

In the same way that you raise the point that the koran isn't something to look at in isolation, the questions I'm looking at are inter-linked. It's not just to focus on that one incident, which incidentally, I've checked further, and there's a lot of clerics on line discussing the battle, and explaining their views on who did it, and why, and there's a whole range of versions, and it's not limited to ibn Ishaq as you claim, that's simply wrong.

At the moment, your answers seem to be simple c+p from google, or just evasive.

 

[Highburyal]

You're a clueless ****er.

I've been sat watching a series of debates on youtube between devout muslims, where they're discussing this and a number of related issues. A reasonable percentage of the muslims (including clerics/scholars) are raising the self and same points as me. Do you think they're transparent, or is it just another example of your ignorance and bigotry.

Quite a few are saying that a big part of the problem is that the term 'islam' means different things to different groups, and they draw their 'truth' from different interpretations.

I would always explain and respond about my faith in a polite manner even to the staunchest haters of islam.

I would say it does came across to me awhile ago that you are looking for an angle, i maybe wrong on that if so apologise. The main thing that makes me think is that you never conclude one before jumping with another accusation.

 

[DMD]

I would always explain and respond about my faith in a polite manner even to the staunchest haters of islam.

I would say it does came across to me awhile ago that you are looking for an angle, i maybe wrong on that if so apologise. The main thing that makes me think is that you never conclude one before jumping with another accusation.

I'm not jumping (see above), and they're not "accusations".

 

[Highburyal]

If you follow back, rather than making a point (which I'm, not) I asked a series of questions initially, but the reply focused on one small part that was offered as an example. I was happy to let the discussion flow where it did. So any flitting is to some degree a two way thing and a consequence of you focusing on a secondary issue, rather than the original concept in question.

In the same way that you raise the point that the koran isn't something to look at in isolation, the questions I'm looking at are inter-linked. It's not just to focus on that one incident, which incidentally, I've checked further, and there's a lot of clerics on line discussing the battle, and explaining their views on who did it, and why, and there's a whole range of versions, and it's not limited to ibn Ishaq as you claim, that's simply wrong.

At the moment, your answers seem to be simple c+p from google, or just evasive.

I havent evaded any of the questions you posed. I have answered your questions and where needed referred to explanations and references. I have c+p from google yes, because i know the source and rather than type it out myself i have given the answers to you and i have not taken the credit for either so thats by the by...

You are not referencing anything or anyone else, the only references you provided was Ibn Ishaq and i have explained why that's not reliable but it is your choice in the end to accept or not the explanation.

 

[DMD]

I havent evaded any of the questions you posed. I have answered your questions and where needed referred to explanations and references. I have c+p from google yes, because i know the source and rather than type it out myself i have given the answers to you and i have not taken the credit for either so thats by the by...

You are not referencing anything or anyone else, the only references you provided was Ibn Ishaq and i have explained why that's not reliable but it is your choice in the end to accept or not the explanation.

The initial questions I asked are still unanswered, and the c+p stuff I'd largely seen, and also some rebuttals of them. It's academic, because I was interested in answers to the broader questions.

It's why I steer clear of specific references, because, as your answers confirm you tend to limit your replies to the references, rather than the general concept.

Not meaning it to be a specific point or question, and it's not so much typical of the debates, as I've tried to look at muslim/muslim debates, but by way of an example, and because it's the specific the clip I'm watching at the moment, I've copied a link below to one of NIcky Campbell's programmes.

I mention it to perhaps show that I am trying to understand, rather than accuse. The discussion on the link does seem to more than suggest that there are significant variations on 'islam', with one person asking, how does a non-muslim know which is a 'true' muslim.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bie0-VdBCtA

 

[Spurlock]

More fool him for even attempting to provide you with considered retorts.

As all you've been doing is seeking an angle that will somehow eventually justify the glib dismissive bollocks that you posted at the start of this thread.

You're as transparent as tissue paper, and as thick as ****, go swim with the tiddlers back in your own stagnant pond, your faux sense of superiority is better suited to that environment

 

[DMD]

You must log in or register to see media

You must log in or register to see media

 

[Spurlock]

Told you didn't I @highburyal.

This Hull bloke is a prick.

Infact a few people have told you.

 

[DMD]

Told you didn't I @highburyal.

This Hull bloke is a prick.

Infact a few people have told you.

Plenty describe you as a tedious arsehole, and your reply is far more disrespectful to Islamic scholars than my post was.

It doesn't alter the point that there are various interpretations drawn from the same source, so how would an outsider (or insider) decide which is right, without applying their own mortal opinion.

 

[Highburyal]

You must log in or register to see media

You must log in or register to see media

This is the best you could find! from "memritv" known for its mistranslation and an inherent hatred towards Islam, and another scholar you say that's probably not even a scholar.

 

[DMD]

This is the best you could find! from "memritv" known for its mistranslation and an inherent hatred towards Islam, and another scholar you say that's probably not even a scholar.

It's not the 'best' I could find. It simply asks again how people decide which is the correct interpretation.

 

[Highburyal]

It's not the 'best' I could find. It simply asks again how people decide which is the correct interpretation.

what you have quoted is a propaganda simple as that! This is not an interpretation of the Qur'an I think we have been through this, like I said there isn't a loads of interpretation of Islam and seems like we are going round in circles.

 

[DMD]

what you have quoted is a propaganda simple as that! This is not an interpretation of the Qur'an I think we have been through this, like I said there isn't a loads of interpretation of Islam and seems like we are going round in circles.

It's one example of a different interpretation. There are many others. It goes round in circles because you simply claim all versions bar yours are nonsense. They'll most likely argue your version's flawed too.

 

[Highburyal]

It's one example of a different interpretation. There are many others. It goes round in circles because you simply claim all versions bar yours are nonsense. They'll most likely argue your version's flawed too.

That's not what I have said and you know that, you keep posting claims from propaganda websites, TV and peoples talk on youtube as a version of Islam, which it isn't.

Do you seriously believe because someone put up video explaining or talking about something it becomes a version of that subject. There are only a handful of Tafsir on Qur'an, the "scholar" you posted I don't know what sort of scholar he is and what subject he studied to even be thought of as an Scholar, what you have to realise is not everyone on youtube is an expert on Islam.

I get the feeling you are coming from an angle for me to be apologetic and justify what every muslim does or say about Islam and not from a perspective of understanding the muslims or their faith. We will only go round in circles in that way and never really get an mutual understanding.

 

[DMD]

That's not what I have said and you know that, you keep posting claims from propaganda websites, TV and peoples talk on youtube as a version of Islam, which it isn't.

Do you seriously believe because someone put up video explaining or talking about something it becomes a version of that subject. There are only a handful of Tafsir on Qur'an, the "scholar" you posted I don't know what sort of scholar he is and what subject he studied to even be thought of as an Scholar, what you have to realise is not everyone on youtube is an expert on Islam.

I get the feeling you are coming from an angle for me to be apologetic and justify what every muslim does or say about Islam and not from a perspective of understanding the muslims or their faith. We will only go round in circles in that way and never really get an mutual understanding.

And around we go. How do we decide which is valid, and which is propaganda?