/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Freedom of Speech



Raymann
09-16-2018, 11:47 PM
I wish Muslims knew what Freedom of Speech really is
but I know there's no hope.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
fschmidt
09-17-2018, 12:08 AM
I wish Atheists knew what Freedom of Speech really is
but I know there's no hope.
Reply

Ümit
09-17-2018, 05:52 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
I wish Muslims knew what Freedom of Speech really is
but I know there's no hope.
Freedom of Speech in the western world is all about selfishness, being bald and arrogant, the right to insult, intolerance, complaining about the other even though you are not correct yourself.

I live in Germany...exhibitionism is there a thing. The dressing room of the fitness studio where I train is just a common dressing room, not individual cabins. there is always this woman who puts her bag on the floor.
After showering she bends over and you can look right into her ***hole.

Now, do I have the right to say something about that? that she should cover herself up? or at least not to put her bag on the floor cause we do not wish to be disturbed by such panorama?
I guess not.

But she does have the right to say something to me about not to shower with underwear on...Isn't that crazy?

having the freedom of speech does not mean you should say anything you want without thinking about it...you may see someone ugly, dressed funny, acting differently, having other cultural habits etc...and you may not always like what you see...but this still does not mean you should go and insult those people...
People in the west once used to know the delicate balance between freedom of speech and tolerance...but the new generation is just dumb.
Reply

Raymann
09-17-2018, 08:02 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by fschmidt
I wish Atheists knew what Freedom of Speech really is
but I know there's no hope.

format_quote Originally Posted by umie
Freedom of Speech in the western world is all about selfishness, being bald and arrogant, the right to insult, intolerance, complaining about the other even though you are not correct yourself.

I live in Germany...exhibitionism is there a thing. The dressing room of the fitness studio where I train is just a common dressing room, not individual cabins. there is always this woman who puts her bag on the floor.
After showering she bends over and you can look right into her ***hole.

Now, do I have the right to say something about that? that she should cover herself up? or at least not to put her bag on the floor cause we do not wish to be disturbed by such panorama?
I guess not.

But she does have the right to say something to me about not to shower with underwear on...Isn't that crazy?

having the freedom of speech does not mean you should say anything you want without thinking about it...you may see someone ugly, dressed funny, acting differently, having other cultural habits etc...and you may not always like what you see...but this still does not mean you should go and insult those people...
People in the west once used to know the delicate balance between freedom of speech and tolerance...but the new generation is just dumb.
I wish I could answer to that but my Freedom of Speech is a bit limited right now.

eesa the kiwi
"If all you are going to to do is regurgitate tired misconceptions about Islam"
I guess "tired misconceptions" are not included into the concept of Freedom of Speech"

I'm doing some reading at the moment to figure it out.

http://www.islamicity.org/8653/freed...c-perspective/
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Futuwwa
09-17-2018, 08:15 AM
Ah, freedom of speech. Everyone has their own idea on what limits there should be to it, but when Muslims state their opinion on the matter, everyone else suddenly (and very temporarily) becomes a free speech absolutist.
Reply

Ümit
09-17-2018, 08:37 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
Ah, freedom of speech. Everyone has their own idea on what limits there should be to it, but when Muslims state their opinion on the matter, everyone else suddenly (and very temporarily) becomes a free speech absolutist.
Exactly...what people in the western world do not understand is that freedom...every kind of freedom comes with limitations.

For the people who might ask "how can you have freedom if there are limitations?" the answer is, your freedom is at the same time a limit for another person...so, as long as you are not alone on this planet...you have to take into account not to disturb others while practising your freedom of whatever.
Reply

eesa the kiwi
09-17-2018, 11:10 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
I wish I could answer to that but my Freedom of Speech is a bit limited right now.



I guess "tired misconceptions" are not included into the concept of Freedom of Speech"

I'm doing some reading at the moment to figure it out.

http://www.islamicity.org/8653/freed...c-perspective/


I closed your thread as it was rubbish nuff said. People have tried to explain to you the Islamic stance on things but you only seem to respond when it's something you can use to further your bias

This is an Islamic forum and you are expected to respect Islam and Muslims while you are here. Don't like that leave, I'm sure you can find a subforum on reddit to moan about that mozlem eesa the kiwi violating your freedom of speech
Reply

anatolian
09-17-2018, 12:09 PM
Threads are closed very easily in this forum. An non muslim must have right to criticise Islam without insult if this is a discussion forum. No one can reach the truth without questioning.
Reply

Raymann
09-17-2018, 07:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by eesa the kiwi
People have tried to explain to you the Islamic stance on things but you ...
No, I don't think so. Any quotes ?

format_quote Originally Posted by eesa the kiwi
you only seem to respond when it's something you can use to further your bias
I have no bias, clear head, no false beliefs, just the truth and respect for all religions and cultures.
Any quotes ? I don't think so.
Reply

fschmidt
09-17-2018, 08:14 PM
I will try to add substance to this thread. I believe that all groups in the world today hate free speech (unfortunately) but that there is hope for Islam but not for the secular West.

First I should define free speech. Free speech means being free to express ideas. Baseless insults are not ideas and are not protected, but are called defamation when used against a person or blasphemy when used against a religion. America had very strong free speech protection but it also had laws again defamation and blasphemy for most of its history.

Islam is at least honest about rejecting free speech. Unlike the West, Islam is usually honest. The reason that I believe that there is hope is that today's Islam is rejecting free speech in clear violation of the Quran and the Sunnah, so if Islam ever fixes itself and returns to the Quran and the Sunnah, then it will end censorship and support free speech. To explain what I mean, I challenge any Muslim here to find anything in the Quran supporting censorship or any example of Muhammad practicing censorship in a hadith. I don't think you will find anything. And if this is true, then today's Islamic position against free speech is based on human desire, specifically natural human intolerance, and not on true Islam.

The secular West is intolerant and completely dishonest about this, pretending to be tolerant. On the social level, one can easily see this in forums. I used to be atheist myself and I was banned from all atheist forums even before the Old Testament changed my mind. I was banned simply for saying that I found some good ideas in the Old Testament. Atheists are incredibly intolerant. At the legal level, America still has free speech thanks to the Christian founders putting free speech protection in the constitution. But no other Western country has free speech and all punish "hate" speech. In particular, holocaust denial is illegal in all these countries, and this is a clear violation of free speech. The West was tolerant and had free speech when it was Christian. As it lost its religion, it lost its respect for human rights. There is no hope for the West because it has become secular, so it has no foundation to support human rights.
Reply

Raymann
09-17-2018, 09:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by fschmidt
there is hope for Islam but not for the secular West.
Secular = gobernment separated from religion.
There is only one religion in the world that has a system of laws embeded into the religion part (Islam)
Christianity and Judaism are strictly religions with no political nor judicial systems attached to them.
When you say the "Secular West", that doesn't mean the West is not religious, it only means the government doesn't favor any religion.
What happens when a government favors a particular religion ?
Let's look at the Middle East. Egypt, Turkey, Syria, Saudi Arabia, the African countries, etc.
Where is the model society to follow ?
Where ?
Aside from what eesa the kiwi thinks of me, I'm in the middle with no bias towards any particular side, I just judge from what I see and experience and not from what a book tells me to do.

format_quote Originally Posted by fschmidt
Free speech means being free to express ideas. Baseless insults are not ideas and are not protected, but are called defamation when used against a person or blasphemy when used against a religion.
See, I know what the West understands for freedom of speech and I'm very confused about what the Islamic culture take is.
If I say, Communism and Islamic political systems have failed over and over thru history.
Ts that insulting towards Islam ?
Can Islam (as a political system) be criticized based purely on historical facts ?

format_quote Originally Posted by fschmidt
The secular West is intolerant and completely dishonest about this, pretending to be tolerant.
I strongly disagree but I'm here thinking about what you said and trying to understand why you think like that.

format_quote Originally Posted by fschmidt
Atheists are incredibly intolerant.
Wow, what can I say ?
I can prove you in two seconds that you're wrong.
I'm here trying to understand the Islamic way of thinking and not to impose my own.
Is that intolerant according to you ?

Let's not confuse strong beliefs with intolerance although strong beliefs can easily lead to intolerance.
If you're convinced that your system is the best that can most of the times make you look as intolerant
You can get blinded into your beliefs and not see the surroundings.

I hope the forum police doesn't take my opinions as bias and insulting.
Reply

eesa the kiwi
09-17-2018, 09:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
No, I don't think so. Any quotes ?



I have no bias, clear head, no false beliefs, just the truth and respect for all religions and cultures.
Any quotes ? I don't think so.
Rape culture

So your behaviour in this thread was unbiased when Muslims tried to explain to you that Islam doesn't tolerate a rape culture

Rape culture
Brief introduction, purpose for signing on this forum and question. Introduction: I'm a westerner living in New York City who considers himself a mix o...
Reply

fschmidt
09-17-2018, 09:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Secular = gobernment separated from religion.
No. Secular X = X separated from religion. Secular government is fine. Secular culture is not.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secular

There is only one religion in the world that has a system of laws embeded into the religion part (Islam)
Christianity and Judaism are strictly religions with no political nor judicial systems attached to them.
No. Judaism has a clear legal system that is implemented internally. Modern Islam is making a mistake in focusing on politics instead of focusing on internal rules as Judaism does. But this has nothing to do with the true religion. At the core, Judaism and Islam are the same. Judaism has the Torah which has ethical principles that were implemented as law by Moses, and Islam has the Quran which has ethical principles that were implemented as law by Muhammad.

See, I know what the West understands for freedom of speech and I'm very confused about what the Islamic culture take is.
If I say, Communism and Islamic political systems have failed over and over thru history.
Ts that insulting towards Islam ?
Can Islam (as a political system) be criticized based purely on historical facts ?
Today's Islamic culture is a mess, but true Islam (Quran and Sunnah) is sound. You should be able criticize anything.

I can prove you in two seconds that you're wrong [about atheists being intolerant].
I'm here trying to understand the Islamic way of thinking and not to impose my own.
Is that intolerant according to you ?
That is only because you don't have the power to impose your thinking here. It seems that all modern atheists would impose their views on the world if they had the power to do so.
Reply

Raymann
09-18-2018, 02:15 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by umie
Freedom of Speech in the western world is all about selfishness, being bald and arrogant, the right to insult, intolerance, complaining about the other even though you are not correct yourself.
I'm sorry you interpreted that way but I can assure you that is not the way it should be intended.
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with selfishness, arrogance or intolerance.
Freedom of speech gives you the right to have an opinion and express it without fear of oppression or repression.
There is a limit to Freedom of Speech, hate speech is condemned in many countries where freedom of speech is allowed.
England is notorious for enforcing "hate speech" laws.
Anjem Choudary,(an extremist Islamist) was condemned to 5 years in prison for it.
Some people that some consider Islamophobes (Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Lauren Southern, etc) were denied entry to the country when they find out they had schedule speeches or interviews to talk about Islam.
Reply

Zafran
09-18-2018, 02:31 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
There is only one religion in the world that has a system of laws embeded into the religion part (Islam)
This not true at all nearly every Religion has political commitments embedded within it, thats not going to change unless the population becomes less religious.


format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Christianity and Judaism are strictly religions with no political nor judicial systems attached to them.
These are great religions that have Judicial and Political commitments attached to them.

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
When you say the "Secular West", that doesn't mean the West is not religious, it only means the government doesn't favor any religion.
What happens when a government favors a particular religion ?
Plenty of western countries favor certain religions UK, Germany, the catholic countries like Portugal, Spain etc - recently Russia has Joined as well.

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
See, I know what the West understands for freedom of speech and I'm very confused about what the Islamic culture take is.
No they dont The Uk has different defamation laws then the US - Germany has strict No critic of Holocaust as well as Austria etc. It depends on the country and history.

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Aside from what eesa the kiwi thinks of me, I'm in the middle with no bias towards any particular side, I just judge from what I see and experience and not from what a book tells me to do.
Your a secularist atheist your biased as anyone on this forum.

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
If I say, Communism and Islamic political systems have failed over and over thru history.
Ts that insulting towards Islam ?
Can Islam (as a political system) be criticized based purely on historical facts ?
Communism in Russia was secular - what Islamic system, it was preety successful until the colonialist came along. There is no one big Islamic system by the way.

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
If you're convinced that your system is the best that can most of the times make you look as intolerant
You can get blinded into your beliefs and not see the surroundings.
You think secularism is the best but you haven't chosen which one - the french, communist, Kamel Ataturk or the US.

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Anjem Choudary,(an extremist Islamist) was condemned to 5 years in prison for it.
We were right to do so.

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Some people that some consider Islamophobes (Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Lauren Southern, etc) were denied entry to the country when they find out they had schedule speeches or interviews to talk about Islam.
Zakir Naik was also barred - UKs laws, you have to abide by UK rules.
Reply

fschmidt
09-18-2018, 06:51 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Freedom of speech gives you the right to have an opinion and express it without fear of oppression or repression.
There is a limit to Freedom of Speech, hate speech is condemned in many countries where freedom of speech is allowed.
England is notorious for enforcing "hate speech" laws.
Anjem Choudary,(an extremist Islamist) was condemned to 5 years in prison for it.
Some people that some consider Islamophobes (Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Lauren Southern, etc) were denied entry to the country when they find out they had schedule speeches or interviews to talk about Islam.
Free speech clearly means allowing "hate" speech. Anjem Choudary, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Lauren Southern, etc are all simply expressing their opinions. None of these people are stooping to the low level of Charlie Hebdo in producing pure insults without substance. These people have opinions that they are expressing, and whether you agree with them or not, a society with free speech would allow these people to express their opinions. You have managed to illustrate both the hypocrisy and the intolerance of the secular West.
Reply

Abz2000
09-18-2018, 07:31 AM
Hud 11:91

قَالُوا۟ يَٰشُعَيْبُ مَا نَفْقَهُ كَثِيرًا مِّمَّا تَقُولُ وَإِنَّا لَنَرَىٰكَ فِينَا ضَعِيفًاۖ وَلَوْلَا رَهْطُكَ لَرَجَمْنَٰكَۖ وَمَآ أَنتَ عَلَيْنَا بِعَزِيزٍ

They said: "O Shu'aib! much of what thou sayest we do not understand! In fact among us we see that thou hast no strength! Were it not for thy family, we should certainly have stoned thee! for thou hast among us no great position!"


Hud 11:92

قَالَ يَٰقَوْمِ أَرَهْطِىٓ أَعَزُّ عَلَيْكُم مِّنَ ٱللَّهِ وَٱتَّخَذْتُمُوهُ وَرَآءَكُمْ ظِهْرِيًّاۖ إِنَّ رَبِّى بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ مُحِيطٌ

He said: "O my people! is then my family of more consideration with you than Allah? For ye cast Him away behind your backs (with contempt). But verily my Lord encompasseth on all sides all that ye do!




Maryam 19:46

قَالَ أَرَاغِبٌ أَنتَ عَنْ ءَالِهَتِى يَٰٓإِبْرَٰهِيمُۖ لَئِن لَّمْ تَنتَهِ لَأَرْجُمَنَّكَۖ وَٱهْجُرْنِى مَلِيًّا

(The father) replied: "Dost thou hate my gods, O Abraham? If thou forbear not, I will indeed stone thee: Now get away from me for a good long while!"


Ash-Shu'ara' 26:116

قَالُوا۟ لَئِن لَّمْ تَنتَهِ يَٰنُوحُ لَتَكُونَنَّ مِنَ ٱلْمَرْجُومِينَ

They said: "If thou desist not, O Noah! thou shalt be stoned (to death)."






وَٱضْرِبْ لَهُم مَّثَلًا أَصْحَٰبَ ٱلْقَرْيَةِ إِذْ جَآءَهَا ٱلْمُرْسَلُونَ

Set forth to them, by way of a parable, the (story of) the Companions of the City. Behold!, there came messengers to it.

إِذْ أَرْسَلْنَآ إِلَيْهِمُ ٱثْنَيْنِ فَكَذَّبُوهُمَا فَعَزَّزْنَا بِثَالِثٍ فَقَالُوٓا۟ إِنَّآ إِلَيْكُم مُّرْسَلُونَ

When We (first) sent to them two messengers, they rejected them: But We strengthened them with a third: they said, "Truly, we have been sent on a mission to you."

قَالُوا۟ مَآ أَنتُمْ إِلَّا بَشَرٌ مِّثْلُنَا وَمَآ أَنزَلَ ٱلرَّحْمَٰنُ مِن شَىْءٍ إِنْ أَنتُمْ إِلَّا تَكْذِبُونَ

The (people) said: "Ye are only men like ourselves; and (Allah) Most Gracious sends no sort of revelation: ye do nothing but lie."

قَالُوا۟ رَبُّنَا يَعْلَمُ إِنَّآ إِلَيْكُمْ لَمُرْسَلُونَ

They said: "Our Lord doth know that we have been sent on a mission to you:

وَمَا عَلَيْنَآ إِلَّا ٱلْبَلَٰغُ ٱلْمُبِينُ

"And our duty is only to proclaim the clear Message."

قَالُوٓا۟ إِنَّا تَطَيَّرْنَا بِكُمْۖ لَئِن لَّمْ تَنتَهُوا۟ لَنَرْجُمَنَّكُمْ وَلَيَمَسَّنَّكُم مِّنَّا عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ

The (people) said: "for us, we augur an evil omen from you: if ye desist not, we will certainly stone you. And a grievous punishment indeed will be inflicted on you by us."

قَالُوا۟ طَٰٓئِرُكُم مَّعَكُمْۚ أَئِن ذُكِّرْتُمۚ بَلْ أَنتُمْ قَوْمٌ مُّسْرِفُونَ

They said: "Your evil omens are with yourselves:
is it because you are admonished?
Rather you are a people transgressing all bounds!"

وَجَآءَ مِنْ أَقْصَا ٱلْمَدِينَةِ رَجُلٌ يَسْعَىٰ قَالَ يَٰقَوْمِ ٱتَّبِعُوا۟ ٱلْمُرْسَلِينَ

Then there came running, from the farthest part of the City, a man, saying, "O my people! Obey the messengers:

ٱتَّبِعُوا۟ مَن لَّا يَسْـَٔلُكُمْ أَجْرًا وَهُم مُّهْتَدُونَ

"Obey those who ask no reward of you (for themselves), and who have themselves received Guidance.

وَمَا لِىَ لَآ أَعْبُدُ ٱلَّذِى فَطَرَنِى وَإِلَيْهِ تُرْجَعُونَ

"It would not be reasonable in me if I did not serve Him Who created me, and to Whom ye shall (all) be brought back.

ءَأَتَّخِذُ مِن دُونِهِۦٓ ءَالِهَةً إِن يُرِدْنِ ٱلرَّحْمَٰنُ بِضُرٍّ لَّا تُغْنِ عَنِّى شَفَٰعَتُهُمْ شَيْـًٔا وَلَا يُنقِذُونِ

"Shall I take (other) gods besides Him? If (Allah) Most Gracious should intend some adversity for me, of no use whatever will be their intercession for me, nor can they deliver me.

إِنِّىٓ إِذًا لَّفِى ضَلَٰلٍ مُّبِينٍ

"I would indeed, if I were to do so, be in manifest Error.

إِنِّىٓ ءَامَنتُ بِرَبِّكُمْ فَٱسْمَعُونِ

"For me, I have faith in the Lord of you (all): listen, then, to me!"

قِيلَ ٱدْخُلِ ٱلْجَنَّةَۖ قَالَ يَٰلَيْتَ قَوْمِى يَعْلَمُونَ

It was said: "Enter thou the Garden." He said: "Ah me! Would that my People knew (what I know)!-

بِمَا غَفَرَ لِى رَبِّى وَجَعَلَنِى مِنَ ٱلْمُكْرَمِينَ

"For that my Lord has granted me Forgiveness and has enrolled me among those held in honour!"

وَمَآ أَنزَلْنَا عَلَىٰ قَوْمِهِۦ مِنۢ بَعْدِهِۦ مِن جُندٍ مِّنَ ٱلسَّمَآءِ وَمَا كُنَّا مُنزِلِينَ

And We sent not down against his People, after him, any hosts from heaven, nor was it needful for Us so to do.

إِن كَانَتْ إِلَّا صَيْحَةً وَٰحِدَةً فَإِذَا هُمْ خَٰمِدُونَ

It was no more than a single mighty Blast, and behold! they were (like ashes) quenched and silent.

يَٰحَسْرَةً عَلَى ٱلْعِبَادِۚ مَا يَأْتِيهِم مِّن رَّسُولٍ إِلَّا كَانُوا۟ بِهِۦ يَسْتَهْزِءُونَ

Ah! Alas for (My) Servants! There comes not a messenger to them but they mock him!

أَلَمْ يَرَوْا۟ كَمْ أَهْلَكْنَا قَبْلَهُم مِّنَ ٱلْقُرُونِ أَنَّهُمْ إِلَيْهِمْ لَا يَرْجِعُونَ

See they not how many generations before them we destroyed? Not to them will they return:

وَإِن كُلٌّ لَّمَّا جَمِيعٌ لَّدَيْنَا مُحْضَرُونَ

But each one of them all - will be brought before Us (for judgment).


Quran, Chapter 36, 13-32 (Yaa Seen)





It is better to use discretion with what Allah :swt: wants in mind than to fall into utter confusion on such issues as we see in the universal declarations that come out every once in a while - only to be amended to obscurity with no light at the end of the tunnel.

The reason for the confusion is that every individual has different ideas of right and wrong and these are often irreconcilable unless the people unite on a basic mindset.
Even when people attempt to unite on what they believe to be right and wrong in a country - they are negatively manipulated by the ruling class if the common will to obey God is absent. Then the issue of what is perceived as good or bad in a different country is raised when there is an inevitable clash of opinions - especially in the internet age - alongside the fact that a person may be born in a country but have opinions more in line with the opinions of what is legislated in a different country of which he/she has no citizenship.

Then when all secularist countries attempt to come upon a common word - they fall into confusion again since there is no common word that is without flaw other than laa ilaaha illa Allah - worse still they end up getting bullied by the most corrupt in society due to their disunity and inability to adhere to a universal plumbline - and the statement of Paul Warburg before the american senate in reference to world government is proof of this.

When one person is a satanist, another blairite, another bushite, another anarchist, another sodomite, another bestial, another usurious, another racist, another nudist, another likes to skydive over cities whilst urinating, another hates any given colour, etc someone or other will take strong exception to the words of another and the confusion will turn into killing somewhere down the line since the terms "good" and "bad" don't mean anything tangible in any common sort of way.



Al-Hashr 59:14

لَا يُقَٰتِلُونَكُمْ جَمِيعًا إِلَّا فِى قُرًى مُّحَصَّنَةٍ أَوْ مِن وَرَآءِ جُدُرٍۭۚ بَأْسُهُم بَيْنَهُمْ شَدِيدٌۚ تَحْسَبُهُمْ جَمِيعًا وَقُلُوبُهُمْ شَتَّىٰۚ ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ قَوْمٌ لَّا يَعْقِلُونَ

They will not fight you (even) together, except in fortified townships, or from behind walls. Strong is their fighting (spirit) amongst themselves: thou wouldst think they were united, but their hearts are divided: that is because they are a people devoid of wisdom.


Aal-e-Imran 3:105

وَلَا تَكُونُوا۟ كَٱلَّذِينَ تَفَرَّقُوا۟ وَٱخْتَلَفُوا۟ مِنۢ بَعْدِ مَا جَآءَهُمُ ٱلْبَيِّنَٰتُۚ وَأُو۟لَٰٓئِكَ لَهُمْ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ

Be not like those who are divided amongst themselves and fall into disputations after receiving Clear Signs: For them is a dreadful penalty,-


Ash-Shura 42:14

وَمَا تَفَرَّقُوٓا۟ إِلَّا مِنۢ بَعْدِ مَا جَآءَهُمُ ٱلْعِلْمُ بَغْيًۢا بَيْنَهُمْۚ وَلَوْلَا كَلِمَةٌ سَبَقَتْ مِن رَّبِّكَ إِلَىٰٓ أَجَلٍ مُّسَمًّى لَّقُضِىَ بَيْنَهُمْۚ وَإِنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ أُورِثُوا۟ ٱلْكِتَٰبَ مِنۢ بَعْدِهِمْ لَفِى شَكٍّ مِّنْهُ مُرِيبٍ

And they became divided only after Knowledge reached them,- through selfish envy as between themselves. Had it not been for a Word that went forth before from thy Lord, (tending) to a Term appointed, the matter would have been settled between them: But truly those who have inherited the Book after them are in suspicious (disquieting) doubt concerning it.


Al-An'am 6:9

وَلَوْ جَعَلْنَٰهُ مَلَكًا لَّجَعَلْنَٰهُ رَجُلًا وَلَلَبَسْنَا عَلَيْهِم مَّا يَلْبِسُونَ

If We had made it an angel, We should have sent him as a man, and We should certainly have caused them confusion in a matter which they have already covered with confusion.


Al-An'am 6:65

قُلْ هُوَ ٱلْقَادِرُ عَلَىٰٓ أَن يَبْعَثَ عَلَيْكُمْ عَذَابًا مِّن فَوْقِكُمْ أَوْ مِن تَحْتِ أَرْجُلِكُمْ أَوْ يَلْبِسَكُمْ شِيَعًا وَيُذِيقَ بَعْضَكُم بَأْسَ بَعْضٍۗ ٱنظُرْ كَيْفَ نُصَرِّفُ ٱلْءَايَٰتِ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَفْقَهُونَ

Say: "He hath power to send calamities on you, from above and below, or to cover you with confusion in party strife, giving you a taste of mutual vengeance - each from the other." See how We explain the signs by various (symbols); that they may understand.



Al-Anbiya 21:22

لَوْ كَانَ فِيهِمَآ ءَالِهَةٌ إِلَّا ٱللَّهُ لَفَسَدَتَاۚ فَسُبْحَٰنَ ٱللَّهِ رَبِّ ٱلْعَرْشِ عَمَّا يَصِفُونَ

If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both! but glory to Allah, the Lord of the Throne: (High is He) above what they attribute to Him!


Al-Mu'minun 23:71

وَلَوِ ٱتَّبَعَ ٱلْحَقُّ أَهْوَآءَهُمْ لَفَسَدَتِ ٱلسَّمَٰوَٰتُ وَٱلْأَرْضُ وَمَن فِيهِنَّۚ بَلْ أَتَيْنَٰهُم بِذِكْرِهِمْ فَهُمْ عَن ذِكْرِهِم مُّعْرِضُونَ

If the Truth had been in accord with their desires, truly the heavens and the earth, and all beings therein would have been in confusion and corruption! Nay, We have sent them their admonition, but they turn away from their admonition.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech


https://www.politico.eu/article/inte...ebook-twitter/

https://www.collective-evolution.com...rberg-meeting/


https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...=.a377c4c5412b




https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Molossia





When however people unite upon the truth and submit to God, universal values and opinions on what is good and what is bad prevail, and people are more willing to temper discretion by a basic standard - this is obvious to those who care to think.






Aal-e-Imran 3:103

وَٱعْتَصِمُوا۟ بِحَبْلِ ٱللَّهِ جَمِيعًا وَلَا تَفَرَّقُوا۟ۚ وَٱذْكُرُوا۟ نِعْمَتَ ٱللَّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ إِذْ كُنتُمْ أَعْدَآءً فَأَلَّفَ بَيْنَ قُلُوبِكُمْ فَأَصْبَحْتُم بِنِعْمَتِهِۦٓ إِخْوَٰنًا وَكُنتُمْ عَلَىٰ شَفَا حُفْرَةٍ مِّنَ ٱلنَّارِ فَأَنقَذَكُم مِّنْهَاۗ كَذَٰلِكَ يُبَيِّنُ ٱللَّهُ لَكُمْ ءَايَٰتِهِۦ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَهْتَدُونَ

And hold fast, all together, by the rope which Allah (stretches out for you), and be not divided among yourselves; and remember with gratitude Allah's favour on you; for ye were enemies and He joined your hearts in love, so that by His Grace, ye became brethren; and ye were on the brink of the pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus doth Allah make His Signs clear to you: That ye may be guided.
Reply

Eric H
09-18-2018, 07:45 AM
Greetings and peace be with you Raymann;

I have no bias,
I don't think anyone can claim that, here are some of your quotes from another thread.

I agree that Iraq was not totally justified based on the fact that they never found the WMDs.
Doesn't mean they didn't exist but they never found them.
So you don't seem that bothered by Iraq getting invaded, you just say they might have hidden some weapons, so America had the right to invade. Everyone know that America has probably got the biggest stockpile of hidden WMDs in the world, lets all go and bomb America.

It would be totally wrong to bomb America as it was totally wrong to bomb Iraq.

Most of the casualties came after the invasion, when all different groups were loose to attack each other.
You are still trying to justify that most of the deaths were not America's fault. Clearly this would not have happened if America had not unjustly invaded in the first place.

Still, I agree, that was a mistake after seeing the results.
It wasn't a mistake, it was planned and premeditated. It was WRONG and immoral, lets not mince words. I am horrified at the amount of wars that America and the UK have got themselves involved in. They have no thought for any peace plan and they make the world a more volatile place to live in.

You can see my bias!

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people

Eric
Reply

Raymann
09-18-2018, 07:55 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by fschmidt
Free speech clearly means allowing "hate" speech.
Absolutely not, free speech is legal, hate speech is not.
Ask Anjem Choudary when he gets out in 5 years, he found out the hard way.
Anjem Choudary was promoting ISIS and claiming one day Islam will dominate the world, whether we agree or not.
They showed banners saying "Death to America" and all that sort of nonsense.

format_quote Originally Posted by fschmidt
You have managed to illustrate both the hypocrisy and the intolerance of the secular West.
I'm not even sure what that means. Hate speech clearly promotes violence and that is probably the main difference.
The Charlie Hebdo is a special case. No one said a word, it was just a cartoon. I would agree with you anyway that those cartoons promoted violence and should have never been allowed. Obviously they took advantage of freedom of speech to promote violence.
Their intention was to prove that Islam is a violent religion by provoking Muslims.
The wrong thing to do under any circumstances.
Reply

fschmidt
09-18-2018, 08:18 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Absolutely not, free speech is legal, hate speech is not.
format_quote Originally Posted by fschmidt
I wish Atheists knew what Freedom of Speech really is
but I know there's no hope.
I rest my case.
Reply

Raymann
09-18-2018, 09:51 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
So you don't seem that bothered by Iraq getting invaded, you just say they might have hidden some weapons, so America had the right to invade. Everyone know that America has probably got the biggest stockpile of hidden WMDs in the world, lets all go and bomb America.
One little difference, Irak used those weapons to kill hundreds of innocent Kurds while America (if they indeed have those kinds of weapons) never used them against anybody.

The weapons were found in 2014

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/artic...-found-in-iraq
Reply

Abz2000
09-18-2018, 09:58 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
One little difference, Irak used those weapons to kill hundreds of innocent Kurds while America (if they indeed have those kinds of weapons) never used them against anybody.

The weapons were found in 2014

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/artic...-found-in-iraq
You mean the americans who murdered the men, women, and children of hiroshima and nagasaki ; and used napalm and white phosphorous on the people of vietnam and iraq - to state a few, and also supplied chemical weapons to the israelis who used them on palestinians?

Do you watch fox news all day or something?
Reply

Futuwwa
09-18-2018, 10:11 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Absolutely not, free speech is legal, hate speech is not.
Ask Anjem Choudary when he gets out in 5 years, he found out the hard way.
Anjem Choudary was promoting ISIS and claiming one day Islam will dominate the world, whether we agree or not.
They showed banners saying "Death to America" and all that sort of nonsense.

I'm not even sure what that means. Hate speech clearly promotes violence and that is probably the main difference.
The Charlie Hebdo is a special case. No one said a word, it was just a cartoon. I would agree with you anyway that those cartoons promoted violence and should have never been allowed. Obviously they took advantage of freedom of speech to promote violence.
Their intention was to prove that Islam is a violent religion by provoking Muslims.
The wrong thing to do under any circumstances.
So you also think freedom of speech should have limits. Other people have different ideas on what those limits should be. Some would say that what you say here shows that *you* don't understand what freedom of speech is. This is a debate that has been ongoing since the very first press freedom laws were enacted hundreds of years ago.

You speak as if there was a consensus on the topic when there is not, and then using the disagreement of many Muslims with that alleged consensus to malign us as a group and delegitimize our opinions. A propaganda technique we're all too familiar with.

If you want to actually have rational and meaningful discussions here, I suggest you take a long and hard look in the mirror and wonder whether there might be something wrong with you that cause every thread you start to go pretty much the same way. Then maybe eat a healthy portion of humble pie. But something tells me you'd rather use your whole experience here as validation of your preconceived ideas of what's wrong with Muslims.
Reply

anatolian
09-18-2018, 10:43 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
One little difference, Irak used those weapons to kill hundreds of innocent Kurds while America (if they indeed have those kinds of weapons) never used them against anybody.

The weapons were found in 2014

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/artic...-found-in-iraq
America is the only state that used nuclear weapons on people.
Reply

Eric H
09-18-2018, 11:33 AM
Greetings and peace be with you Raymann;

One little difference, Irak used those weapons to kill hundreds of innocent Kurds
Agreed that was wrong and unjust.

while America (if they indeed have those kinds of weapons) never used them against anybody.

It is reported that America has killed between 12 to 20 million people since WW2. The reports of how they did it seem barbaric.

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/Repor.../usmurder.html

I am not sure how you can justify Americans killing others, but call any other group of fighters terrorists.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people

Eric
Reply

anatolian
09-18-2018, 12:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
Greetings and peace be with you Raymann;



Agreed that was wrong and unjust.




It is reported that America has killed between 12 to 20 million people since WW2. The reports of how they did it seem barbaric.

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/Repor.../usmurder.html

I am not sure how you can justify Americans killing others, but call any other group of fighters terrorists.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people

Eric
Britain is not an angel too..It participated almost every invation America waged after WW2. Iraq being the last example.
Reply

Eric H
09-18-2018, 12:37 PM
Greetings and peace be with you anatolian;

Britain is not an angel too..It participated almost every invation America waged after WW2. Iraq being the last example.
Agreed, I did mention that in a pervious reply.

format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
I am horrified at the amount of wars that America and the UK have got themselves involved in.
Blessings
Eric
Reply

Alamgir
09-18-2018, 12:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
I wish Muslims knew what Freedom of Speech really is
but I know there's no hope.
Freedom of speech isn't a thing, governments have always prevented certain topics from being discussed. Just because we differ with you on how far suppression of speech should go doesn't mean you guys are suddenly the epitome of free speech.

Free speech itself is a dangerous idea, do you REALLY want anyone to be able to say anything? I hope not.
Reply

Raymann
09-18-2018, 06:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al Khorasani
do you REALLY want anyone to be able to say anything? I hope not.
Of course not, I said if before, there is something called "Hate Speech" which basically draws the line between what is allowed and what is not. People go to jail for saying the wrong thing. People get sued all the time for the same reason so obviously we're not allowed to say whatever we want.
There is a limit and every country has different laws on the subject.
Reply

fschmidt
09-18-2018, 07:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al Khorasani
Freedom of speech isn't a thing, governments have always prevented certain topics from being discussed.
Not true. America had free speech and any topic could be discussed. The first amendment of the American constitution says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Free speech itself is a dangerous idea, do you REALLY want anyone to be able to say anything? I hope not.
Yes I REALLY want anyone to be able to express any opinion. This worked for well America.
Reply

Alamgir
09-18-2018, 09:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by fschmidt
Not true. America had free speech and any topic could be discussed.
Again, no, they don't. You can be arrested for saying certain things just about anywhere, even America.

format_quote Originally Posted by fschmidt
Yes I REALLY want anyone to be able to express any opinion.
Read that last part again, and think about it.

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Of course not, I said if before, there is something called "Hate Speech" which basically draws the line between what is allowed and what is not. People go to jail for saying the wrong thing. People get sued all the time for the same reason so obviously we're not allowed to say whatever we want.
There is a limit and every country has different laws on the subject.
So what's the problem? Nobody disagrees with you about that, we just find it funny how you claim your society has freedom of speech, when it clearly doesn't (and for a good reason).
Reply

Abz2000
09-18-2018, 09:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by fschmidt
Not true. America had free speech and any topic could be discussed. The first amendment of the American constitution says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."


Yes I REALLY want anyone to be able to express any opinion. This worked for well America.
America had it on paper - but in practice it became a case of gag-orders and secret assassinations, and what happened to kennedy and pat tillman are testimony to this.

It is a fact that when people turn to the truth and give up unjust selfish greed in God's sight - they have a unique mental standard, this can be seen in the many public arguments which took place in al madinah during and after the time of the Prophet :saws: and on some of the military expeditions where differences arose - their arguments for Allah :swt: 's sake were so vocal that one wondered how easy it would have been for the leader to silence it with the sword, and sometimes huge differences were simply put aside so as to unite upon one word for the sake of Allah :swt: - and this is only possible (with sanity kept in tact) when people are striving for truth and justice for everyone seeking Allah's face (and not some racist, "nationalist", or economic kickback, and where falsehood is shunned and despised to the extent that it is degrading. The way Abdullah ibn Ubayy lost authority by blatantly lying in front of his followers despite his previous ability to slander at will is a stark example of how things ran.

The world we live in now - where godless leaders brazenly tell any great/tremendous lie simply in anticipation of "authority" , or when in authority -simply for the sake of argument despite the fact that their statement is blatantly and patently false - all without fearing any loss of honour or authority - would have been unthinkable in times where - forget about lying - simply making a u-turn on a decision would have caused huge questions to be raised as to credibility and fitness to lead.

So people really need to look at being on a stable foundation of just universal truth before wondering what they should and shouldn't be censoring and amending - otherwise their efforts are not only in vain -but often detrimental to future generations.

Here is an example of detrimental censorship with financial covetousness and racist vehicles in mind:

https://burningbabylon.wordpress.com...ker-1849-1999/
















The fact is that corrupt people and despicable liars dislike just and truthful speech - and their tendency to resort to false accusations of "anti-semitism" and "extremism" (as if the people who care to research don't know how extremely racist and deceitfully manipulative those behind the fake state of israel are - to the extent that they are leeching the global economy dry through usury to the extent that destitution, riots, and martial law are already manifesting) when genuine and important questions are raised even though the very same people utter unjust and untruthful blasphemies bears testimony to this fact.


To claim that Muslims are unaware of the importance of just and sharp free speech is a diversion from the truth with possible smoky mirrors of deception at play - since every prophet was made to struggle against unjust censorship and some paid with their lives, and we read about these stories nearly every day.
Reply

Zafran
09-18-2018, 09:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Of course not, I said if before, there is something called "Hate Speech" which basically draws the line between what is allowed and what is not. People go to jail for saying the wrong thing. People get sued all the time for the same reason so obviously we're not allowed to say whatever we want.
There is a limit and every country has different laws on the subject.
On this point I agree with you - there seems to be no consensus on what freedom of speech is and its entirely based on Historical and social factors. So whats the point of this thread?
Reply

fschmidt
09-18-2018, 10:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abz2000
America had it on paper - but in practice it became a case of gag-orders and secret assassinations, and what happened to kennedy and pat tillman are testimony to this.
Nothing (human) is perfect, but America generally had free speech until recently.

So people really need to look at being on a stable foundation of just universal truth before wondering what they should and shouldn't be censoring and amending - otherwise their efforts are not only in vain -but often detrimental to future generations.
Truth and free speech should be pursued at the same time because they support each other. Without free speech, the powerful twist the truth until truth dies. Without truth, free speech only produces noise. So both are needed. As John Adams, one of America's founders, wrote in 1798:

"While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence. But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation, while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candour, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world. Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Reply

Abz2000
09-18-2018, 11:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by fschmidt
Nothing (human) is perfect, but America generally had free speech until recently.


Truth and free speech should be pursued at the same time because they support each other. Without free speech, the powerful twist the truth until truth dies. Without truth, free speech only produces noise. So both are needed. As John Adams, one of America's founders, wrote in 1798:

"While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence. But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation, while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candour, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world. Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

To understand the meaning of the word "free" one must be able to understand what free means, otherwise the telephone bill would never have existed. There was a strong emphasis on free speech when people in america were beginning to feel the pinch (and sometimes lash) of the king of england whose policies and circumstances were often being directed and engineered by the same usurious money changers who were seeking a monopoly on the american market without the need have to pay tax to the british government.

One must bear in mind that whilst this was all happening, the surviving natives whose families and tribes had been massacred and had been driven south were not even free to walk anywhere near the lands which had been forcefully taken from them, nor did the "n!ggers" , it was basically a racist nationalist thing and the idea of free speech (as in israel now) was a case of free speech to a limited extent for the current occupiers of the land. This type of free speech is ponzi scheme free speech.
We see something similar in the right to keep and bear arms, they people who fought king george knew the importance of such rights, though it wasn't the case for the "n!ggers" who might rise up.

And now - again - as with any ponzi scheme - when the people at the bottom become the suffering majority and they seek to demand the same rights which they were allowed as long as it suited the beneficiaries of the economy, the questioning by the ruling class on the peoples' right to free speech and to bear arms is again ressurected.

This type of boom and bust cycle continues until people come onto a uniform mentality based on universal truth and justice, and the racist and greedy policies of the rothschild clan cannot provide such universal truth and justice through economic slavery and banker communism - rather - only God can, and a choice will be made soon since we're reaching a climax.

Provoking Muslims and causing turmoil will not distract keen observers from the actual reasons for their imminent situation - just as setting up a fake Godless israel to falsely justify a global war for absolute usurer domination will not trick "him who hath understanding and is able to count".


Here is a compilation of some of the statements which prominent people have made over the centuries - if objectively considered, you will notice that the main cause of discontent and protest by the speakers stems from the effects which come from the practise of usury - especially by a racist group which sees other humans as beasts of burden to be exploited at will.


Reply

fschmidt
09-19-2018, 12:43 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abz2000
To understand the meaning of the word "free" one must be able to understand what free means, otherwise the telephone bill would never have existed. There was a strong emphasis on free speech when people in america were beginning to feel the pinch (and sometimes lash) of the king of england whose policies and circumstances were often being directed and engineered by the same usurious money changers who were seeking a monopoly on the american market without the need have to pay tax to the british government.

One must bear in mind that whilst this was all happening, the surviving natives whose families and tribes had been massacred and had been driven south were not even free to walk anywhere near the lands which had been forcefully taken from them, nor did the "n!ggers" , it was basically a racist nationalist thing and the idea of free speech (as in israel now) was a case of free speech to a limited extent for the current occupiers of the land. This type of free speech is ponzi scheme free speech.
We see something similar in the right to keep and bear arms, they people who fought king george knew the importance of such rights, though it wasn't the case for the "n!ggers" who might rise up.

And now - again - as with any ponzi scheme - when the people at the bottom become the suffering majority and they seek to demand the same rights which they were allowed as long as it suited the beneficiaries of the economy, the questioning by the ruling class on the peoples' right to free speech and to bear arms is again ressurected.

This type of boom and bust cycle continues until people come onto a uniform mentality based on universal truth and justice, and the racist and greedy policies of the rothschild clan cannot provide such universal truth and justice through economic slavery and banker communism - rather - only God can, and a choice will be made soon since we're reaching a climax.

Provoking Muslims and causing turmoil will not distract keen observers from the actual reasons for their imminent situation - just as setting up a fake Godless israel to falsely justify a global war for absolute usurer domination will not trick "him who hath understanding and is able to count".


Here is a compilation of some of the statements which prominent people have made over the centuries - if objectively considered, you will notice that the main cause of discontent and protest by the speakers stems from the effects which come from the practise of usury - especially by a racist group which sees other humans as beasts of burden to be exploited at will.
I don't see anything here that is relevant to this thread. Each institution governs a certain set of people. The moderators of this forum govern this forum and can choose between censorship and free speech for members of this forum, but not for anyone else. Similarly the government of America gave free speech to the citizens of America and not to anyone else. Who should qualify as a citizen of America is a separate question.

The rest of what you wrote should probably be broken up into a number of threads since it covers many topics. I would be glad to discuss any of this with you in another thread, but I don't want to derail this thread. And by the way, I am racially jewish.
Reply

Abz2000
09-19-2018, 02:22 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by fschmidt
I don't see anything here that is relevant to this thread. Each institution governs a certain set of people. The moderators of this forum govern this forum and can choose between censorship and free speech for members of this forum, but not for anyone else. Similarly the government of America gave free speech to the citizens of America and not to anyone else. Who should qualify as a citizen of America is a separate question.

The rest of what you wrote should probably be broken up into a number of threads since it covers many topics. I would be glad to discuss any of this with you in another thread, but I don't want to derail this thread. And by the way, I am racially jewish.
The entire post is related to the concept of free speech - and - after you mentioned america as an example, i demonstrated to you that the idea of free speech in america is based on a false construct and not really a universal concept.

The fact that economy guides american principles makes it all related - since the userers hold a sway over a huge majority of mainstream news and entertainment media
What's actually happened is that your idea of free speech was challenged by the comments of the prominent people who were exercising their free speech to state the reason they believed they were being run down - i'm sure many of the people mentioned prefer that the perception of the root of the problem is diverted to incessant and baseless vilication of Islam, Muslims, and "immigrants", whilst some Muslims amongst many other people from all walks of life are forced to immigrate by the policies of the same usurers, but the facts are obvious for those who care to think.
Know that setting up false flag events and then falsely blaming Muslims and setting up groups to accuse Muslims of every crime the usurers and their puppets commit is going to backfire in a solid way once people get clued on. What we're seeing is a bit like what was portrayed in george orwell's animal farm. It is better to repent to God and walk straight than to assum that making up cliches such as "all animals are equal - but some are more equal than others" will bring any success.









Reply

Abz2000
09-19-2018, 04:11 AM
Israeli idea of free speech:

Reply

fschmidt
09-19-2018, 04:29 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abz2000
The entire post is related to the concept of free speech - and - after you mentioned america as an example, i demonstrated to you that the idea of free speech in america is based on a false construct and not really a universal concept.
I don't understand what you mean. At a legal level, you can still express any opinion in America (as a citizen) without worrying about being arrested. The only other country where I know this to be true is Japan. In all other countries to my knowledge, you can be arrested for expressing the wrong opinion. This is a simple concept.

The fact that economy guides american principles makes it all related - since the userers hold a sway over a huge majority of mainstream news and entertainment media
The battle between the financial elite and righteous religions has been going on throughout history. The battle between the Quraysh and early Muslims was the same battle. The financial elite win when religion is weak. The only connection between this and free speech is that free speech tends to increase when good religions dominate, and decrease when the financial elite dominate.

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by Abz2000
Israeli idea of free speech:
Like most of the West, Israel supports blasphemy and opposes free speech.
Reply

Abz2000
09-19-2018, 05:28 AM
When one considers all the false accusations against Muslims and stupid conspiracy theories about "19 Muslim hijackers with boxcutters levelling three solid steel eaethquake and hurricane resistant framed buildings into the footprint at the speed of gravity" we can clearly see the falsehood of corrupt politicians who take miserly campaign contributions from corrupt jewish lobbies and then sell out the people they claim to democratically represent and at the same time whatch the prospects of their own future generations get ruined as the usurers take control with the people's money.





A London councillor is to be investigated by the Labour Party over a post he shared on Facebook which claimed Jews were warned about the 9/11 attacks.

Lambeth Council member Irfan Mohammad said he "reposted a video without recognising that it contained anti-Semitic content" in 2015.

He has apologised "unreservedly".

Lambeth Labour chief whip Jane Edbrooke said the allegation of anti-Semitism would be taken "extremely seriously".

The post shared on the social networking site stated: "Jews working in the World Trade Centre received a text message before the incident 'Do not come to work [on] September 11'".

It was brought to light by the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism which described the post as "utterly appalling".
'No place for anti-Semitism'

In a letter posted on Twitter, Mr Mohammed, who is also a member of the Lambeth Inferfaith Forum, asked Ms Edbrooke to begin disciplinary action.

The letter read: "I reposted a video without recognising that it contained anti-Semitic content.

"This was a stupid thing and thoughtless thing to do and I recognise that it was an anti-Semitic act.

"It is totally unacceptable and it was my mistake which I do not shy away from.

"I apologise unreservedly, I completely accept that I have hurt the Jewish community through my action."

Ms Edbrooke said: "We take any allegation of anti-Semitism extremely seriously and condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms. There is no place in our party for anti-Semitism.

"Councillor Irfan Mohammed has apologised and there will be an investigation."

Mr Mohammed, who was not a councillor when he shared the post, was elected in 2018.

He said he would be writing to synagogues in Lambeth to personally apologise, and was "keen to listen and learn from them."



https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-45141682




One really wonders what on earth is going on when a person comes up on british media after the queen asks bankers if there was laxness in the running of the economy (which they briefly answer on the fly four years later with no paperwork - and whilst emphasising the fact that it was an answer to a four year old question) and then accuses her of raising "sensitive issues" whilst mocking her as a person who identifies with people who became poor. It's not difficult to realise that there's a lot more financial blackmail and bullying going on behind the scenes than we are shown.
The rothschild method of spreading their bets over multiple countries ensure that it's difficult to touch them - but their dodgy mulk al jabree kingdom of heaven of luke 19:23 is falling apart at the seams.

Their abuse and overuse of the "anti-semitism" label is also undoing itself as enough people feel the sting of it and furiously spread the word.
Reply

Abz2000
09-19-2018, 05:58 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by fschmidt
I don't understand what you mean. At a legal level, you can still express any opinion in America (as a citizen) without worrying about being arrested. The only other country where I know this to be true is Japan. In all other countries to my knowledge, you can be arrested for expressing the wrong opinion. This is a simple concept.
You mean america the arm of the rothschilds which props up the fake state of israel, the fake government of egypt, and every other corrupt tyrant on the planet?


format_quote Originally Posted by fschmidt
The battle between the financial elite and righteous religions has been going on throughout history. The battle between the Quraysh and early Muslims was the same battle. The financial elite win when religion is weak. The only connection between this and free speech is that free speech tends to increase when good religions dominate, and decrease when the financial elite dominate.
Just speech dominates when taqwa of Allah :swt: is prevalent.





format_quote Originally Posted by fschmidt
Like most of the West, Israel supports blasphemy and opposes free speech.
A bit stupid to then claim legitimacy based on the torah innit?
Think we can't see past the deception?
Reply

Raymann
09-19-2018, 08:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abz2000
You mean the americans who murdered the men, women, and children of hiroshima and nagasaki
No, those Americans are long gone, divine justice or mother nature have done whatever is appropriate with them.
Should the germans (all germans) forever pay for the crimes a few nazis committed without the consent or knowledge of their own people ?

It's a new day, the lessons of the past have taught us to be wiser this time.
Let's not hold grudges nor hateful feelings towards our brothers.
It's all forgiven, isn't it ?
Reply

Raymann
09-19-2018, 09:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al Khorasani
Originally Posted by Raymann
Of course not, I said if before, there is something called "Hate Speech" which basically draws the line between what is allowed and what is not. People go to jail for saying the wrong thing. People get sued all the time for the same reason so obviously we're not allowed to say whatever we want.
There is a limit and every country has different laws on the subject.

So what's the problem? Nobody disagrees with you about that, we just find it funny how you claim your society has freedom of speech, when it clearly doesn't (and for a good reason).
Freedom of Speech is much more prevalent on western countries.
Islamic countries, communists, Dictatorships, etc, severely restrict the right to free expression and that's the whole point of the discussion.
100% Freedom of Speech is a noble concept but humans have the tendency to take advantage of a good thing and turn it into a bad thing. That's when some necessary restrictions had to be brought up for the sake of peace (hate speech laws).
Blasphemy is not a thing on western countries and religion also exist on western countries.
Which one is right which one is wrong nobody seems certain (except the atheists).
Reply

Abz2000
09-19-2018, 10:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
No, those Americans are long gone, divine justice or mother nature have done whatever is appropriate with them.
Should the germans (all germans) forever pay for the crimes a few nazis committed without the consent or knowledge of their own people ?
I don't think that policies reboot with every new generation unless the new generation makes amends - and by the fact that they still occupy parts of japan and control much of its policy through treaties as a result of the bombing shows that it's the same people who carry the torch of their unjust fathers unless they repent..
I don't think palestinians should pay the price for crimes carried out by the european puppets of the rothschilds either.





format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann

It's a new day, the lessons of the past have taught us to be wiser this time.
Let's not hold grudges nor hateful feelings towards our brothers.
It's all forgiven, isn't it ?
Why are you asking me as if i'm the one responsible for the consequences of your actions - when i have no bearing on your actions as far as you have admitted?
I'm concerned about obeying God and walking straight now and in the future - are you? And will you at least allow me to?
Reply

fschmidt
09-19-2018, 11:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abz2000
You mean america the arm of the rothschilds which props up the fake state of israel, the fake government of egypt, and every other corrupt tyrant on the planet?
This has nothing to do with free speech.

Just speech dominates when taqwa of Allah is prevalent.
Yes

format_quote Originally Posted by fschmidt
Like most of the West, Israel supports blasphemy and opposes free speech.
A bit stupid to then claim legitimacy based on the torah innit?
Think we can't see past the deception?
You mean me or Israel? Israel is based on Talmudic Judaism which redefines Torah to include the Talmud. That is how they justify their claim. From my Old Testament view, Talmudic Judaism violates the Torah.
Reply

Abz2000
09-20-2018, 12:37 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by fschmidt
This has nothing to do with free speech.
It does when america claims to be the bastion of free speech and then murders journalists and common citizens for speaking just and truthful words, and also props up other corrupt crooks to do the same.

This kind of event has been happening through bush who set up the "patriot" act, obama who murdered anwar for his speech, also his son abdur rahman who knew the facts, had people murdered with drones, asked the yemeni government to take the blame, then killed more people and arrested and broke the teeth of joyrnalists who remain incarcerated, and we know how nora awlaki was murdered and hard disks were robbed as soon as trump took office and how trump justified it by saying that the families of "terrorists" (even though the war on terror is a fraud) should be killed.
Do you know that when students in America began demanding the end to the vietnam war - that nixon ordered the protests to be violently put down, and that police opened live fire on the crowds and the deaths of two of the students nade it big and that huge protests ensued?
It looks like the american media and public is more docile and apathetic to the crimes of its leadership now than it was then.

Both of these are worth watching in their entirety as they contain essential facts and information:

The second is also hugely entertaining too -




Another method used is to buy up media outlets and make clowns out of them.
And we know how the copyrights to many books, interviews, articles, documentaries and patents are simply purchased (sometimes via illegal threats and pressure) and then chucked under the desk.





........Ultimately, both the United States’ and Israel’s investigations deemed the attack on the Liberty an accident that resulted when Israel mistook the American spy ship for an Egyptian freighter. Bamford considers that conclusion a cover-up, however, citing the gag order issued to survivors, as well as the fact that NSA’s deputy director at the time, Louis Tordella, referred to the Israeli Defense Forces preliminary inquiry into the attack “a nice whitewash.” Still, other sources assert that any notion of cover-up is mere paranoia. According to a spokesperson at the Israeli Ministry of Foreign affairs, the Liberty assault was “a tragic accident … that was settled between the parties involved years ago,” and that, “as is the case with many of these matters, there are always enough conspiracy theories to go around, but they never hold water.”

The USS Liberty’s legacy indeed fed conspiracy theories, and Bamford is not alone in asserting a cover-up. The Liberty Veterans Association, an organization comprised of survivors of the 1967 attack, has called for a robust and transparent investigation into the incident for decades, to no avail.

In a statement to The Intercept, Ernie Gallo, who currently serves as the president of the Liberty Veterans Association, said, “We now know that the Navy Court of Inquiry was merely for show, as the officers were told to come to the conclusion the Liberty did [its] job and the attack was accidental.” Bamford also references the magnitude and length of the attack as proof of its deliberateness: The ship was hit repeatedly, first by planes dropping thousand-pound bombs and napalm, and then by torpedo boats. Israeli forces also jammed the Liberty’s antennas and communication channels, took out the four .50-caliber machine guns on board, and reportedly shot at life rafts and crew members as they attempted to evacuate the vessel. “It was an attack in broad daylight,” said Bamford. “They were flying a large U.S. flag. [The ship] said USS Liberty on the back. … I mean, what do you need?”

The incident and its aftermath took a significant psychological toll on survivors, many of whom were reported to suffer from PTSD. One survivor and member of the Liberty Veterans Association, James Ennes, was shot in the femur during the attack, and was then instructed never to discuss it. Ernie Gallo had a fellow crewmate die in his arms. It was decades before survivors began sharing their experiences, and they were sometimes criticized for being anti-Semitic or slanderous of Israel for doing so.

Not all veterans involved believe in a cover-up, however. Former Navy Chief Petty Officer Marvin Nowicki, the chief Hebrew-language analyst aboard a U.S. Navy EC-121 spy plane that was intercepting Israeli aircraft communications as they were assaulting the Liberty, believed the attack was an accident. He stated in a letter to the Wall Street Journal in 2001 that though he heard and recorded Israeli pilots’ and captains’ references to the U.S. flag flying on the deck of the Liberty, these remarks were made only after the attack was underway, and not before. It was when aircraft and motor torpedo boat operators moved closer to the Liberty, recalled Nowicki, that they were able to recognize and therefore reference the American flag.

“The last time I spoke publicly, I was visited by NCIS agents.”

Unbeknownst to Nowicki at the time, his letter to the editor sparked concerns at NSA that he had revealed classified information on the Liberty. The second Snowden document, dated 2002, referenced several disclosures in his letter “surrounding National Security Agency sources and methods or NSA’s ability to successfully exploit a foreign target.” Though the document does not specify which details in Nowicki’s article constituted such disclosures, it does reference materials related to the investigation. Nowicki, in a statement that would stir apparent concern at both the NSA and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, called the accident a “gross error.” “How can I prove it?” he wrote. “I can’t unless the transcripts/tapes are found and released to the public. I last saw them in a desk drawer at NSA in the late 1970s before I left the service.” After several unsuccessful attempts to reach Nowicki by phone and email, he ultimately responded to a mailed request for comment. He returned The Intercept’s original posted letter, on which he had hastily scrawled: “I cannot comply w[ith] your request. The last time I spoke publicly, I was visited by NCIS agents.” (NCIS stated that it had no records related to Nowicki’s claim.)

Even 50 years after the attack, and in a radically different geopolitical climate than that of the Six-Day War, extremely limited information is available about the assault and its subsequent investigations. Inquiries by the media and by the survivors have yielded profoundly limited results, despite considerable attempts; ABC’s Nightline interviewed survivors decades after the attack, the results of which never aired. And while James Bamford presumes this is because interested parties didn’t want unsavory information about Israel broadcast on mainstream American television, Nightline’s then-host Ted Koppel said otherwise: “At the risk of contributing to the veneer of ‘cover-up’ that surrounds any discussion of the USS Liberty story, my only recollection is that we did nothing because we found nothing new or substantive.” Neither, it seems, has anyone else.

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/06/...attack-secret/


format_quote Originally Posted by fschmidt
You mean me or Israel?
That's my method of addressing all whom it involves and is therefore of concern to.


format_quote Originally Posted by fschmidt
Israel is based on Talmudic Judaism which redefines Torah to include the Talmud. That is how they justify their claim.
The talmud is a blasphemous article made by those at babylon who cast the book of Allah :swt: behind their backs as if they did not know, and went on to directly contradict the original message of the (albeit heavily redacted) torah on a fundamental level. It's attempts to deny the messiah and cast blasphemous slanders on mary is telling of the carefully thought out intentions of its authors.
The people who finally authorised the talmud knew more about the signs of the messiah in the old testament than the common layman - so it is obvious that they had dark anti-Christ and above that - Anti-God aims.

format_quote Originally Posted by fschmidt

From my Old Testament view, Talmudic Judaism violates the Torah.
[/quote]


It violates the original message of the torah without a single shadow of a doubt.
Reply

air
09-20-2018, 01:46 AM
Well, in Islamic countries as you stated, Freedom of speech is of course banned, as most Muslim will agree that freedom of speech mean free to express anything includes the hate of speech, we believe 'free but limited' is not free at all, it's our common sense after all.
Reply

Abz2000
09-20-2018, 03:32 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by air
Well, in Islamic countries as you stated, Freedom of speech is of course banned, as most Muslim will agree that freedom of speech mean free to express anything includes the hate of speech, we believe 'free but limited' is not free at all, it's our common sense after all.
it's quite a wide generalisation to use the term "islamic" when the majority of governments in the world are hostages to usurious banking institutions - which are the antithesis of Islamic.

Also - freedom of speech is just when tempered within obedience to Allah :swt: since He is the author of truth and justice, this is the method of gaining a uniform consensus whilst retaining the ability to argue exceptions to statements in court based on a stable foundation.

We notice from the conversion sa'ad ibn mu'aad and usaid ibn hudair at the hands of mus'ab ibn 'umair that the leadership in al madinah were more fair and just than the Quraysh of Makkah when it came to debating with foreign ideas.

We also notice from the public debates of personalities such as Imaam Abu Haneefah with atheists and such during the height of the Islamic caliphate, that when Islam itself shines in the hearts and people are using their brains to think rather than to only follow traditions of forefathers like talmudic jews, and when this strength of faith is reflected in government - there is no suspicion and paranoia, and people are very secure in their faith.



The age i grew up in was something of the begining of a revival, Quran was a ritual chant in a foreign language, and islam was the study of the books of rules by fulaan and fulaan - with rarely any reference to the wise, mind expanding verses of the Quran.

Things are now changing for the better fast - why do you think satan is angry and why do you think 9/11 was staged?

America's love for and support of corrupt tyrants such as hosni mubarak and sisi whose islam is limited to putting a skull cap on your head and your hands up in silence while a dodgy imam makes hollow invocations is a perfect example of why some so called "islamic" leaders dislike just and honest speech.

The jewish censorship of the people during the first coming and their method of sitting on the pathways and muttering illogicalities and false slander with the aim of casting doubts upon the truth is also a perfect example of how people become insecure when they become greedy and corrupt whilst standing on falsehood. (See john 9:22, john 7:11-13, john 7:20 and john 7:25)
Reply

Eric H
09-20-2018, 05:41 AM
Greetings and peace be with you Raymann;

No, those Americans are long gone, divine justice or mother nature have done whatever is appropriate with them.
Should the germans (all germans) forever pay for the crimes a few nazis committed without the consent or knowledge of their own people ?

It's a new day, the lessons of the past have taught us to be wiser this time.
The Germans have learned a lot from the war, and they have become a more peaceful nation. When national leaders use free speech it can be dangerous, the Americans and British are still using the same recipe for war that the Germans did


Hermann Goering – The People Can Always Be Brought to the Bidding of the Leaders


“Why, of course, the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship…

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

– Hermann Goering (as told to Gustav Gilbert during the Nuremberg trials)


Let's not hold grudges nor hateful feelings towards our brothers.
It's all forgiven, isn't it ?
Forgiveness is divine, and the separation of church and state seems to show when searching for ways to forgive. If all has been forgiven then why do we keep fighting in other people's countries?

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people.

Eric
Reply

Raymann
09-20-2018, 05:46 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by air
we believe 'free but limited' is not free at all, it's our common sense after all.
So you don't believe in percentages, shades, proportions, fractions, restrictions, etc, is all or nothing to you ?
Well, there you have it, you get nothing because you are a Muslim and as you mention, Freedom of Speech is banned in Islam.
Actually I didn't know Freedom of Speech was banned in Islam, I just though it was restricted.
In the west we can pretty much say whatever we want but we have to be careful not to incite violence.
Even if we incite violence is not easy to prove that the language or expressions used were meant as hate speech.
As a westerner who has learned from past experiences (Charlie Hebdo and similar incidents) I would include known offensive expressions towards Islam as hate speech.
That's the advantage of man made laws, we can adjust to the present time and current cultures.
You have no more prophets coming up to bring some needed updates so I wonder about the future.
Reply

air
09-20-2018, 07:17 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abz2000
it's quite a wide generalisation to use the term "islamic" when the majority of governments in the world are hostages to usurious banking institutions - which are the antithesis of Islamic.

Also - freedom of speech is just when tempered within obedience to Allah :swt: since He is the author of truth and justice, this is the method of gaining a uniform consensus whilst retaining the ability to argue exceptions to statements in court based on a stable foundation.

We notice from the conversion sa'ad ibn mu'aad and usaid ibn hudair at the hands of mus'ab ibn 'umair that the leadership in al madinah were more fair and just than the Quraysh of Makkah when it came to debating with foreign ideas.

We also notice from the public debates of personalities such as Imaam Abu Haneefah with atheists and such during the height of the Islamic caliphate, that when Islam itself shines in the hearts and people are using their brains to think rather than to only follow traditions of forefathers like talmudic jews, and when this strength of faith is reflected in government - there is no suspicion and paranoia, and people are very secure in their faith.



The age i grew up in was something of the begining of a revival, Quran was a ritual chant in a foreign language, and islam was the study of the books of rules by fulaan and fulaan - with rarely any reference to the wise, mind expanding verses of the Quran.

Things are now changing for the better fast - why do you think satan is angry and why do you think 9/11 was staged?

America's love for and support of corrupt tyrants such as hosni mubarak and sisi whose islam is limited to putting a skull cap on your head and your hands up in silence while a dodgy imam makes hollow invocations is a perfect example of why some so called "islamic" leaders dislike just and honest speech.

The jewish censorship of the people during the first coming and their method of sitting on the pathways and muttering illogicalities and false slander with the aim of casting doubts upon the truth is also a perfect example of how people become insecure when they become greedy and corrupt whilst standing on falsehood. (See john 9:22, john 7:11-13, john 7:20 and john 7:25)
:sl:

I'm specifically referring to "Islamic country he stated", but sorry to generalize thing like this.

I'm not saying that I accept 'freedom of speech his version', what I mean is the term of freedom itself does not truly express the freedom as they boast, they still limiting with some rules, of course society where they belong and the audiences they want to gain, play big role for the rules. So the 'freedom of speech' itself does not really exists.

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
So you don't believe in percentages, shades, proportions, fractions, restrictions, etc, is all or nothing to you ?
Well, there you have it, you get nothing because you are a Muslim and as you mention, Freedom of Speech is banned in Islam.
Actually I didn't know Freedom of Speech was banned in Islam, I just though it was restricted.
In the west we can pretty much say whatever we want but we have to be careful not to incite violence.
Even if we incite violence is not easy to prove that the language or expressions used were meant as hate speech.
As a westerner who has learned from past experiences (Charlie Hebdo and similar incidents) I would include known offensive expressions towards Islam as hate speech.
That's the advantage of man made laws, we can adjust to the present time and current cultures.
You have no more prophets coming up to bring some needed updates so I wonder about the future.
I mentioned 'Islamic countries as you stated' not Islam, but sorry if you interpreted it that way, my bad I should not use 'banned' word, it's the word I'm familiar with in internet. In Islam the version of your 'offensive expressions' is not allowed, I don't think this need to be updated.
Reply

Abz2000
09-20-2018, 07:48 AM
I recall when muad dib the author of 7/7 ripple effect was being sentenced for posting dvds of the events of 7/7 to the judge and jury in a trial where some youngsters were being tried for certain acts associated with 7/7, he felt that justice wasn't being done when 7/7 was mentioned by the prosecutor on the schnide without any evidence and was dependent on assumed prior knowledge (which is prejudicial slander when the facts aren't available or are hidden via perjury/perversion of the course of justice) the british government were audacious enough to accuse him of perversion of the course of justice.





Here is a longer and more thorough interview:

Reply

Eric H
09-20-2018, 09:47 AM
Greetings and peace be with you Raymann;

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
That's the advantage of man made laws, we can adjust to the present time and current cultures.
The 'Golden Rules' are at the heart of religion, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, love your neighbours as you love yourself. If we could truthfully live by these rules, then we would not need any other laws. Presumably the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists would have been offended if someone had made the same cartoons about their mother or daughters. So why should they deem it ok to make cartoons that would equally offend others. Don't kill or swindle, because you do not want to be killed or swindled yourself, these are just spelling out the golden rules in detail.

Any new law that is made today should acknowledge the Golden Rule, and help us to apply the said rule; so we can live in peace and justice with our neighbours.


format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
You have no more prophets coming up to bring some needed updates so I wonder about the future.
We have all the instructions we need, I am not sure what another prophet could do. Kindness is not rocket science; and that is at the heart of our religions.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people

Eric
Reply

Abz2000
09-20-2018, 12:53 PM
One thing a prophet cannot easily do is save a person from themselves, we hear talk in some circles about how the messiah will come and save them and usher in a racist kingdom and do away with all the goy who refuse to become subordinate to the race, what becomes obvious is that they're among the last people who want to be saved from their own evil actions - who find it difficult to accept the concept of a prophet who tells them how it is instead of them telling him how it's got to be for them to accept him as the truth, as if he's fake one minute - and then all of a sudden real the minute he confirms their every conjured ancestral tradition.
pale horse is bye bye time and adios, you've got to search for the hero inside yourselves - coz God is watcher and judge. Li man al mulk al yawm?


Here's all parts of the short compilation of how it's currently going -nudity and confusing parts removed- please make extra special dua for me as i had to go to the depths of hades and battle a stiff as i forced myself to endure through the editing process:

It really shows how warped the concept of "free speech" is especially when there are groups such as memri watching for a single slip of the tongue or pen feigning shock at hamas cartoons which contain zero blasphemy and comparatively watered down responses due to their unwillingness to stoop to such depths of hate and decadence:







Reply

Alamgir
09-21-2018, 03:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Freedom of Speech is much more prevalent on western countries.
No it's not, as explained earlier, every country chooses what speech can and cannot be said.

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
100% Freedom of Speech is a noble concept
Are you crazy? People should NOT be allowed to say anything and everything, that's dangerous and would create tension among different communities.

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
That's when some necessary restrictions had to be brought up for the sake of peace (hate speech laws).
Exactly, which proves that free speech is not a 'noble concept', certain speech needs to be banned from the public space.

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Blasphemy is not a thing on western countries
You won't punish people for insulting a religion, but you will punish people for insulting other things, or even just denying them. If we applied the same logic but used it for the topic of religion, you'd go crazy, so it's clear that your views are rather hypocritical.

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Which one is right which one is wrong nobody seems certain (except the atheists).
Atheists can't be certain about what's morally correct, beyond religion there is no fixed criteria for what is wrong and what is right, so as per your outlook on the world nothing can be objectively good or bad.
Reply

fschmidt
09-22-2018, 08:20 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abz2000
It does when america claims to be the bastion of free speech and then murders journalists and common citizens for speaking just and truthful words, and also props up other corrupt crooks to do the same.
I just want to point out that I do not claim that America has free speech today. I said:
format_quote Originally Posted by fschmidt
America generally had free speech until recently.
Througout history, powerful people always hated free speech because free speech allows their corruption to be exposed. Now that speech has moved to the internet, American free speech has been lost. Here is an example of how this really works:

There is a YouTuber who I followed because she translated Russian stories into English.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCei...S6FprsJIsjVyQ/

Her last post links to Patreon where she describes how she was silenced.

https://www.patreon.com/posts/21566933

This is how disgusting America works today.
Reply

Raymann
09-22-2018, 03:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al Khorasani
Freedom of Speech is much more prevalent on western countries.

No it's not, as explained earlier, every country chooses what speech can and cannot be said.
Speaking purely from experience I don't know what are the restrictions of what I can and cannot say
I never had a problem with it and never heard of anybody having problems with free speech.
It's my assumption that speech that incites violence might be restricted (UK is the only country I know uses it) but most western countries are pretty good with truly free speech. Obvious exemptions are dictatorships (Cuba, Venezuela)

Some Al Jazeera reporters are still in prison in Egypt. The rest of Muslim majority countries are not much better.
Russia, North Korea no need to explain. Yes, the west is the best by far.

format_quote Originally Posted by Al Khorasani
Atheists can't be certain about what's morally correct, beyond religion there is no fixed criteria for what is wrong and what is right, so as per your outlook on the world nothing can be objectively good or bad.
That's what religious people wrongly assume but the numbers show how far from the truth you are.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...101-story.html

https://www.alternet.org/tea-party-a...ent-its-prison
Reply

anatolian
09-22-2018, 05:03 PM
There is no absolute freedom of speech no where in the world. America was the first modern nation that adopted democrasy and establish the republic so they regarded the freedom of speech as a basis of their nation but still it is a country of capitalists imperialists and tyrants. Their freedom has boundaries. You can definately get arrasted there if you reveal the secrets of the state as in the example of Edward Snowden. You are free as long as you dont speak the full truth.
Reply

Raymann
09-22-2018, 09:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by anatolian
You are free as long as you dont speak the full truth.
Why?
You were doing so good, why saying something so ridiculous ?
Reply

Scimitar
09-22-2018, 11:37 PM
warning: Straw man fallacy

format_quote Originally Posted by raymann
i wish muslims knew what freedom of speech really is
but i know there's no hope.
Reply

Zafran
09-23-2018, 01:07 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
t's my assumption that speech that incites violence might be restricted (UK is the only country I know uses it) but most western countries are pretty good with truly free speech.
No Germany and Austria have strict no denial of Holocaust Policy and France has done the same

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ce-hate-speech

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42164853

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ia.thefarright

As I stated before free speech is based on social and historical factors and has nothing to do with any Objective measure.
Reply

Alamgir
09-23-2018, 02:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Speaking purely from experience I don't know what are the restrictions of what I can and cannot say
Exactly, you don't know, so don't make any comments in the first place.

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
That's what religious people wrongly assume but the numbers show how far from the truth you are.
Those statistics mean nothing, because according to your worldview, there is no right or wrong. You cannot say anybody who has killed or raped someone objectively did anything wrong, where as I can. You can disapprove of it, but as per your philosophy on things that's irrelevant and just part of your subjective bias, you have nothing objective to prove that your opinion is correct (unlike people who believe in God).
Reply

Raymann
09-23-2018, 10:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al Khorasani
Those statistics mean nothing, because according to your worldview, there is no right or wrong.
Your brain is too small to understand my worldview. I have a much wider view of what is right and what is wrong than you.
You rely on an unproven imaginary figure who decided what is right and what is wrong for you more than 1400 years ago.
Your brain is just a waste of space, you're a sheep who follows and obeys and follows and obeys over and over.
I'm a free thinker (don't bother trying to understand what that means), you're not allowed to think.

78% of all scientists in the world are Atheists. You should thank us for making this world better.

The prisons all over the world show Atheist are consistently under 0% of the total population.
You might think your "Objective Morality" gives you an edge.
An edge on what ???
The prisons are full of people with "Objective Morality"
The terrorists all share the same "Objective Morality" you are so proud of.

format_quote Originally Posted by Al Khorasani
You cannot say anybody who has killed or raped someone objectively did anything wrong
We have been discussing those issues on my own started threads, haven't we ???
And you are one the many who is ashamed of me revealing the injustices committed by people with your same "Objective Morality".

format_quote Originally Posted by Al Khorasani
you have nothing objective to prove that your opinion is correct (unlike people who believe in God).
Again, where that has taken you so far ???
I don't need an extraterrestrial to tell me that killing is wrong.
I figured it out on my own.
Same with stealing, raping, slaving, oppressing, etc.

Unlike you, I respect all religions and religious people (I came from a religious family) and most of my friends are religious people.
But thinking you know the truth doesn't give you the right to impose it on the rest of the people.
That's what some people who share your same religion and "Objective Morality" have been trying to do all along.
Reply

AabiruSabeel
09-23-2018, 11:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Your brain is too small to understand my worldview. I have a much wider view of what is right and what is wrong than you.
You rely on an unproven imaginary figure who decided what is right and what is wrong for you more than 1400 years ago.
It is a waste of time to discuss anything with you. As long as you consider Divine guidance to be imaginary, you will never be able to understand our perspective.

If you really want to understand Islam and Muslims, you should first understand our Creator, the Sustainer of everything. Otherwise, we can show you the exit door.








Reply

Raymann
09-23-2018, 11:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AabiruSabeel
It is a waste of time to discuss anything with you. As long as you consider Divine guidance to be imaginary, you will never be able to understand our perspective.
You all knew what being an Atheist means. It means I don't believe God exists.
Where I grew up leaving Christianity doesn't mean you lose your friends nor the affection of your family.
Actually doesn't affect your social life at all, everything continues as always.
Doesn't change your moral values, they stay with you forever.
I still respect religions and religious people as always, they are my friends and family.
They didn't start telling me my opinion is no longer valid since I'm an Atheist now.
No one has ever tell me that my "Morals" are no longer good enough because I'm an Atheist.
Those attacks seem to come exclusively from Muslims.
You think I need to believe in God to understand Muslims and Islam ? You're wrong, I have lived all my life among religious people.
I argue here just like I do with Christians, Jews and other Atheists, no difference.
It's you who presumes I'm an inferior destined to Hell Fire.
Every time you lose an argument you're going to remind me that my morals are not valid.
Who is the insecure, you or me ???
It's your house, feel free to close the door anytime you want.
Reply

Eric H
09-24-2018, 12:16 AM
Greetings and peace be with you Raymann;

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
The terrorists all share the same "Objective Morality" you are so proud of.
The American military has been responsible for between 12 - 20 million deaths since WW2; a much bigger number than any terrorist organisation. America fought against Iraq looking for invisible wmds, this seems hypocritical when America probably has the world's largest stockpile of said weapons.

If America is searching for a peaceful world, they need to find peaceful solutions.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people.
Eric
Reply

fschmidt
09-24-2018, 12:40 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
I have a much wider view of what is right and what is wrong than you.
You certainly do. In your wider view, what is right is wrong and what is wrong is right. That's really wide.
Reply

Abz2000
09-24-2018, 03:16 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
@al khorasani
Your brain is too small to understand my worldview. I have a much wider view of what is right and what is wrong than you.
You rely on an unproven imaginary figure who decided what is right and what is wrong for you more than 1400 years ago.
Your brain is just a waste of space, you're a sheep who follows and obeys and follows and obeys over and over.
I'm a free thinker (don't bother trying to understand what that means), you're not allowed to think.
Here to learn about Islam from people who you claim aren't allowed to think?

I had a very strong feeling you were lying when you denied being a troll.


format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
78% of all scientists in the world are Atheists. You should think us for making this world better.

You know that's a bullsh!t stat, especially given that you don't know how many scientists there are other than the ones some lying atheists like yourself counted (science is a very broad subject) and polled.
Anyway, there are zero atheist scientists - given the fact that science is a logical study of facts based on truthful data and not on denial, suppression, and censorship of pertinent facts.

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
The prisons all over the world show Atheist are consistently under 0% of the total population.
Under 0% ?
Lol - that must've been from one of your "scientist" stats.
0% Minus how many % in prison?
Last time i checked america's share was around 25% of the global prison population - despite americans only being around 5% of the global human population.


format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
You might think your "Objective Morality" gives you an edge.
An edge on what ???
The prisons are full of people with "Objective Morality"
The terrorists all share the same "Objective Morality" you are so proud of.
Hell will be filled with unrepentant liars and trolls.


format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
We have been discussing those issues on my own started threads, haven't we ???
Your comments on your atheist proselytising falsehoodmongering threads are a reflection of you and those whom you represent.


format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
And you are one the many who is ashamed of me revealing the injustices committed by people with your same "Objective Morality".
I don't think anyone who knows Islam and works to follow it is ashamed at all - rather, your threads are a wonderful testimony of how lame and stupid anti-islam trolls are, just that being in them feels negative and dirty.



format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Again, where that has taken you so far ???
I don't need an extraterrestrial to tell me that killing is wrong.
If you believe that killing is wrong, you have borne witness upon yourself - karma will be dealt swiftly.



format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
I figured it out on my own.
Congratulations on what you figured out, it has been written as binding upon you.


format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Same with stealing, raping, slaving, oppressing, etc.
Wonderful - now adhere to the values you claim to uphold.

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Unlike you, I respect all religions and religious people (I came from a religious family) and most of my friends are religious people.
Lol ^ read.




format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
But thinking you know the truth doesn't give you the right to impose it on the rest of the people.
If that is true, Impose it on yourself, close the courts of justice, and release the prisoners.

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
That's what some people who share your same religion and "Objective Morality" have been trying to do all along.
Well since you're an exception to those people, i'm sure it'll be easy for you :)
Reply

Abz2000
09-24-2018, 10:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
You all knew what being an Atheist means.
I know what a compulsive liar is too.


format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann

It means I don't believe God exists.
If i say i don't believe that your leader - to who you submit instead of God - doesn't exist because i've never seen him/her in person and because i prefer to blind myself from the facts by suppressing the truth, - you wouldn't accept it at all since he/she stamped a bunch of laws and demands recognition.
Know that God the Most High, Just, and Wise has more right to be obeyed.
if you think Donald Trump is The Most High; and Trump agrees - i'd say you're both highly intoxicated in some way or another.


format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Where I grew up leaving Christianity doesn't mean you lose your friends nor the affection of your family.
Actually doesn't affect your social life at all, everything continues as always.
That's not a valid argument which can justify an action at all, try saying that about your tribe in court - and your lawyer will claim you're a bit stupid - in your defence, and then you'll get evaluated for fitness to stand trial.


format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Doesn't change your moral values, they stay with you forever.
What? Rejecting the law?


format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
I still respect religions and religious people as always, they are my friends and family.
you still respect other crooks and those who stray, and also law abiding citizens huh? Some are your friends and family too, do they help you from getting caught or something?


format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
They didn't start telling me my opinion is no longer valid since I'm an Atheist now.
Well they should have shown you the correct path, and taught you to have some dignity by not becoming a worthless liar.
The judge would tell you that you're incorrect in your opinion in thinking it's ok to break the law, whilst having you punished -even if your mum doesn't.


format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
No one has ever tell me that my "Morals" are no longer good enough because I'm an Atheist.
Don't lie, multiple people on this forum have told you, you'd do good to ponder on the reasoning.


format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Those attacks seem to come exclusively from Muslims.
Attacks? Playing the weak minded emotional card now are you?

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
You think I need to believe in God to understand Muslims and Islam ?
Well some do come to the truth of God after they see the reasoning of the messenger, and the undeniable and unique truth and justice of the correct path.


format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
You're wrong,
yo shill, i told you that it is possible to come around to the truth from the bottom upwards, why are you being stupid and falsely second guessing people? Hasbara teach you no manners?


format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
I have lived all my life among religious people.
Yeah, by the looks of it, the re-legion of submission to your leader (probably some corrupt and lying politician) corrupted you in that you keep lying and falsely slandering others to stay afloat.

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
I argue here just like I do with Christians, Jews and other Atheists, no difference.
Arguing to learn or confirm the just truth is a good thing, arguing to confuse people by continually lying, suppressing the facts which you know to be true, and purposefully pulling out the same debunked arguments whilst refusing to allow the people you are arguing with and attempting to demean -to view those arguments is a despicable perversion and a criminal trait..


format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
It's you who presumes I'm an inferior destined to Hell Fire.
Again, attempts to emotionally manipulate readers, you sound like a nasal biotch.
If you repent to God and obey the law, you may be saved from hell fire - is that too difficult for you to accept?

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Every time you lose an argument you're going to remind me that my morals are not valid.
Which standard do you measure those morals by?
We told you, morals are meant to be just, stable, and universally applicable -in order to be acceptable to any person with a sense of justice.



format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Who is the insecure, you or me ???
The one who continually lies to cover his weaknesses.


format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
It's your house, feel free to close the door anytime you want.
The mods can be expected to be just - though human, i guess they would have wanted to close the door on you ages ago had it not been for the fact that they decided to humour you for argument's sake.
Reply

Alamgir
09-25-2018, 01:55 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Your brain is too small to understand my worldview.
Ad hominem at it's finest!

Anyway, no, it clearly cannot be since I was also an Atheist for quite some time.

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
I have a much wider view of what is right and what is wrong than you.
You can't have an objective view of what's right and wrong, your views are based purely on your own subjective opinions, from an Atheistic perspective they are as valid as the morals of a serial killer or child molester. You cannot deny this.

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
You rely on an unproven imaginary figure who decided what is right and what is wrong for you more than 1400 years ago.
Not unproven, my belief is based on indisputable observations, but you won't accept it nor will you listen, you'll continue to stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la", acting as if we don't have reasons for believing in Islam.

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Your brain is just a waste of space
It's ironic how much you whine at us for getting offended too easily, when in this post you clearly seem very triggered just by being exposed to the facts.

I also highly doubt you've done anything of significant value with that brain of yours.

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
78% of all scientists in the world are Atheists. You should thank us for making this world better.
Many of which base their work on earlier discoveries made by Muslims. Don't forget that while you guys didn't even have soap, we were an intellectual powerhouse. Even now, we're not doing as bad in the field of science as many of you claim.

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
The prisons all over the world show Atheist are consistently under 0% of the total population.
Hahaha, and you said my brain is small!

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
And you are one the many who is ashamed of me revealing the injustices committed by people
You cannot use the term 'injustice' when you don't have an objective moral compass.

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
I don't need an extraterrestrial to tell me that killing is wrong.
I figured it out on my own.
Same with stealing, raping, slaving, oppressing, etc.
But that's only your subjective opinion, you have no objective authority to tell you those things are wrong (unlike people who believe in God).

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Unlike you, I respect all religions and religious people
Hahaha, this post is enough proof that you clearly don't.

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
But thinking you know the truth doesn't give you the right to impose it on the rest of the people.
I never said it does.

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
That's what some people who share your same religion and "Objective Morality" have been trying to do all along.
They clearly can't share the same morals as me since I don't support their actions.

If you want talk about atrocities committed by Muslims, then I have every right to talk about atrocities committed by Atheists, e.g Communist violence.
Reply

Raymann
09-25-2018, 03:40 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al Khorasani
You can't have an objective view of what's right and wrong, your views are based purely on your own subjective opinions, from an Atheistic perspective they are as valid as the morals of a serial killer or child molester. You cannot deny this.
Ok, let's play in your own turf.
My morals are based on Christianity (I grew up Catholic), just like most of the western world.
But let's assume my morals all come from Social agreements (I obey the rules of the land unlike "serial killers or child molesters").
Yours come from an extraterrestrial (Allah) and therefore according to you they are "Objective and mine are Subjective"
Your morals are objective as long as they come from Allah but you also live by the morals of your prophet (pbuh), don't you???
He was a mortal (just like you and me) and therefore his morals are SUBJECTIVE, am I right ???
And using your own words these are as valid as what was it ... ???

Please explain.
Reply

Eric H
09-25-2018, 06:34 AM
Greetings and peace be with you Raymann,

I am not allowed to reply in the Sharia thread you started, so I have taken your quote from there......

Europe and America have been taking millions of Muslims who in some cases swim their way to the west
You have to ask yourself, what was the main cause of people becoming refugees, and the western world has to take much of the blame. Iraq was destabilised after the American led invasion, most of the refuges then fled to Syria which has also suffered.

It is estimated that over 11 million Iraqis are currently in need of humanitarian assistance. More than 1.5 million people have taken refuge in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, where one in every four is either a refugee or an internally displaced person.

https://www.google.com/search?num=50....0.Wg4GkYa6uwk
America had no right to invade Iraq, the United Nations were still calling for diplomatic solutions which America disregarded. If America truly wants to rid the world of WMDs, it should clear its own back yard first.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people,
Eric
Reply

Ümit
09-25-2018, 06:47 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Ok, let's play in your own turf.
My morals are based on Christianity (I grew up Catholic), just like most of the western world.
But let's assume my morals all come from Social agreements (I obey the rules of the land unlike "serial killers or child molesters").
Yours come from an extraterrestrial (Allah) and therefore according to you they are "Objective and mine are Subjective"
Your morals are objective as long as they come from Allah but you also live by the morals of your prophet (pbuh), don't you???
He was a mortal (just like you and me) and therefore his morals are SUBJECTIVE, am I right ???
And using your own words these are as valid as what was it ... ???

Please explain.
No

first, Christianity and Islam have the same origin...so Christian morals should be not much different than Islamic morals.
second, Where do you think the morals of our prophet sas come from? It is the very same morals as from Allah.
Yes he was a mortal like you and me...but unlike you and me, the prophets have a direct and continuous connection with Allah.
If they make mistakes, they are corrected immediately.
Allah teaches us His morals by sending His prophets to us as role models.

And of course you could think of this on your own...but somehow you just want to argue...
Reply

Raymann
09-25-2018, 07:52 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by umie
No

first, Christianity and Islam have the same origin...so Christian morals should be not much different than Islamic morals.
second, Where do you think the morals of our prophet sas come from? It is the very same morals as from Allah.
Yes he was a mortal like you and me...but unlike you and me, the prophets have a direct and continuous connection with Allah.
If they make mistakes, they are corrected immediately.
Allah teaches us His morals by sending His prophets to us as role models.

And of course you could think of this on your own...but somehow you just want to argue...
I fully understand what you're saying but the point Al Khorasani is making is that we (Atheists) don't have "Objective Morals" because we don't get our morals from God. Actually doesn't have to be God but any extraterrestrial would do as long as is not human from earth (Ask him about that stupid theory)
Human morals according to him are "subjective".
I'm explaining to him that morals coming from the prophet (pbuh) according to his own definition are therefore "SUBJECTIVE"
Let's see how he's going to get out of this one.
Reply

Raymann
09-25-2018, 08:29 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
America had no right to invade Iraq
I'm in no position to determine who is right and who is wrong and neither are you.
You can speculate all you want but don't ask me to participate in stupid back and forth discussions.
I prefer to think of solutions and live in harmony with the people around me unlike many religious people around here who can only think of revenge, an eye for an eye, you hit me first I'll hit you twice, etc.
It's a shame that the atheist in the forum is the most peaceful and forgiving.
Reply

سيف الله
09-25-2018, 08:44 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
I wish Muslims knew what Freedom of Speech really is
but I know there's no hope.


This thread isn't even about freedom of speech, its about Raymann getting on his soap box and preaching, then *shock* *horror* is astonished when he doesn't get his way.
Reply

Ümit
09-25-2018, 08:44 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
I fully understand what you're saying but the point Al Khorasani is making is that we (Atheists) don't have "Objective Morals" because we don't get our morals from God. Actually doesn't have to be God but any extraterrestrial would do as long as is not human from earth (Ask him about that stupid theory)
Human morals according to him are "subjective".
I'm explaining to him that morals coming from the prophet (pbuh) according to his own definition are therefore "SUBJECTIVE"
Let's see how he's going to get out of this one.
I DO understand what Al Khorasani is saying and I have to say that I agree with him. Where do morals come from? who decides what is good and what is wrong? Somehow, we know exactly what is right and what is wrong right? intuitively....well, that intuition is divine. God has given us the ability to distuinguish the right from the wrong. So, whether you believe or not believe in God, the origin of the very basic morals point to God. These basic morals can also be mentioned by prophets and in holy books to give them extra weight...so we do not only have our intuition to trust on.
Besides these basic morals, one can adopt other morals, depending on the environment and culture one lives in. and if the environment or culture is somehow wandered of the right path, then one can adopt faulty morals.
for instance homosexuality. The western world thinks about this as a sexual preference. homosexuality is not a sickness and cannot be cured...one is born homosexual or not...so he can do nothing about it and should be therefore legalized.
but then the dilemma pedophilia. this is also a sexual preference but somehow pedophiles are treated by the community as sick disgusting people who should be locked up forever...even though they have done nothing yet...see the difference in morals?
Both are sexual preferences...both can do nothing about it...both are just born with it...but one is said to be perfectly normal...and the other is sick and disgusting.
I am not defending pedophiles nor attacking homosexuals here...but I am just pointing out that something is horribly wrong with our morals here.

This is just an example...there are enough other morals in the western world which are conflicting with one and other...so who is going to decide which moral is good and which isn't? We have a problem there...that is what Al Khorasani meant.
In Islaam we have morals listed out for us which are good and which are wrong. those morals are absolute and objective. That is the benefit of religion, to make our lives easier.
Reply

Abz2000
09-25-2018, 10:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
I fully understand what you're saying but the point Al Khorasani is making is that we (Atheists) don't have "Objective Morals" because we don't get our morals from God. Actually doesn't have to be God but any extraterrestrial would do as long as is not human from earth (Ask him about that stupid theory)
Human morals according to him are "subjective".
I'm explaining to him that morals coming from the prophet (pbuh) according to his own definition are therefore "SUBJECTIVE"
Let's see how he's going to get out of this one.
Atheists get their morals from the rothschild family propaganda machine and from their corrupt puppet politicians who sell them out for a pittance and a few relatively low-paid boardroom consultancies and share options after retirement -to the usurious banks, weapons companies, and corrupt pharmaceutical companies -who in turn get their morals from satan who is an extraterrestrial jinn who provides nothing, threatens poverty, and commands faahishah (filthy abominations) in order to confuse people - and that's where the inspiration for the winking and nodding one eyed seal comes from.
Whereas Muslims get their morals from Allah :swt: who is not an extraterrestrial -but rather the Creator and Sustainer of the heavens and the earth Who guides to righteous conduct and encompasses the heavens and the earth.

You are obviously seeking to argue and engage others in frivolous argument without benefit and i'll simply read the responses of others to you - if they wish to bother responding that is.
Reply

Alamgir
09-25-2018, 10:47 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
My morals are based on Christianity (I grew up Catholic), just like most of the western world.
No they're not, as an Atheist you will pick and choose which parts of Christian morality you'd like to apply (e.g love thy neighbour), and which parts you wouldn't (e.g you won't enslave people). So it's still subject to your personal bias.

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Your morals are objective as long as they come from Allah but you also live by the morals of your prophet (pbuh), don't you???
He was a mortal (just like you and me) and therefore his morals are SUBJECTIVE, am I right ???
And using your own words these are as valid as what was it ... ???

Please explain.
In terms of moral guidance, Rasulullah (Peace Be Upon Him) only spoke based upon what is considered Islamically correct and incorrect, his personal bias was not involved when it comes to things such as this which count as revelation.

We also believe that his personal morals would be perfectly in line with Islamic morals (he was one of God's chosen Prophets so you'd expect this). That's not to say he would be free from sin (the Prophets could still commit minor sins), but he would still recognise they were wrong and repent.
Reply

Raymann
09-25-2018, 12:36 PM
My morals are based on Christianity (I grew up Catholic), just like most of the western world.



No they're not, as an Atheist you will pick and choose which parts of Christian morality you'd like to apply (e.g love thy neighbor), and which parts you wouldn't (e.g you won't enslave people). So it's still subject to your personal bias.

Isn't it what Muslims do ?? Pick and choose. Some join ISIS, some others Al Qaeda, some gang rape, some join grooming gangs.
Luckily most of them are moderate peaceful ones.

format_quote Originally Posted by Al Khorasani
We also believe that his personal morals would be perfectly in line with Islamic morals (he was one of God's chosen Prophets so you'd expect this).
No, sorry. Morals coming from God are OBJECTIVE, morals that come from the prophet (pbuh), are SUBJECTIVE. He was a human.
Your own rules, you cannot cheat at your own game.
You wanted to play a stupid game? Guess what? You lost
Reply

Ümit
09-25-2018, 01:04 PM
I am going to drop off here...
this is a worthless yes or no discussion...not worth participating.
Al Khorasani has made his point clear why the Prophets sas morals are perfectly OK...but you reject that.
ISIS and other terrorist groups...people that gang rape and other crimes in the name of Islaam...I do not know what they are exactly...but they are not Muslims.
Reply

Alamgir
09-25-2018, 01:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Isn't it what Muslims do ?? Pick and choose. Some join ISIS, some others Al Qaeda, some gang rape, some join grooming gangs.
Luckily most of them are moderate peaceful ones.
None of those examples given follow Islamic teachings, but you're too arrogant to admit that.

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
No, sorry. Morals coming from God are OBJECTIVE, morals that come from the prophet (pbuh), are SUBJECTIVE. He was a human.
Your own rules, you cannot cheat at your own game.
You wanted to play a stupid game? Guess what? You lost
Are you blind? I clearly said our morals don't come from him, he just conveyed God's message.

Honestly it's like you're trying to be this stupid.
Reply

Abz2000
09-25-2018, 01:59 PM
@Raymann you'll know who is on the straight and even way and who is utterly lost when you meet your just dues.
Reply

Eric H
09-25-2018, 04:42 PM
Greetings and peace be with you Raymann;
I'm in no position to determine who is right and who is wrong and neither are you.
Maybe so, but the following is not my opinion....

15 Sep 2004 - The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people,
Eric
Reply

Raymann
09-25-2018, 05:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al Khorasani
Are you blind? I clearly said our morals don't come from him, he just conveyed God's message.
Now you've done it. Just to win a dispute, you now claim that your morals don't come from your prophet (pbuh), nice.
Reply

Scimitar
09-25-2018, 07:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Junon


This thread isn't even about freedom of speech, its about Raymann getting on his soap box and preaching, then *shock* *horror* is astonished when he doesn't get his way.
oh the irony, I lol'd

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Now you've done it. Just to win a dispute, you now claim that your morals don't come from your prophet (pbuh), nice.
Actually, he (al khorasani) is correct. In Islam, we believe in first principles (fitra) and moral constructs are a part of our natural disposition to know essential higher truths. However, the atheist using science cannot account for the metaphysical and thus, you as an atheist cannot philosophically justify morality coming from your scientifically atheist position. I'm not claiming that you don't have morality, mind. I'm claiming that you cannot justify these using science as an atheist.

We, Muslims, don't need science to know that morality is axiomatic. A part of our natural disposition, and yours, given to us all by God.

{Batman voice} "Do ye plead?" :D
Reply

Eric H
09-25-2018, 09:41 PM
Greetings and peace be with you Raymann;

I'm in no position to determine who is right and who is wrong and neither are you.
If the invasion of Iraq was right, then Iraq would be a better place now, and the world would also benefit. The opposite seems true, Iraq has been destabilised and the Middle East is a mess. I am not sure why anyone would continue to say the invasion of Iraq was a beneficial, or a just war.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people;

Eric
Reply

Raymann
09-25-2018, 10:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
If the invasion of Iraq was right, then Iraq would be a better place now, and the world would also benefit. The opposite seems true, Iraq has been destabilised and the Middle East is a mess. I am not sure why anyone would continue to say the invasion of Iraq was a beneficial, or a just war.

Brother Eric H, please move on, the war is over, the weapons were found in 2014, so it's all good.
The Iraqis seemed very happy right after the invasion.
Tears rolled down my eyes when I saw them tearing Saddam Hussein's statue down on live tv.
The joy of the Iraqi people screaming Allahu Akbar in the main plaza in Baghdad will remain in my memory forever.
The brave americans and the allies helped the Iraqis rebuild the country while risking their lives to keep the country safe.
But time showed us that at the end they're going to do what they want to do.
They were free now, FREE.
They could have helped the elected new leader but instead they chose to fight it, to terrorize, to kill innocent people, etc.
They were free to do whatever they decided to do and they chose war.
Should I feel guilty, why?
Wake up is not a coincidence.
It also happened in Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, Nigeria, Chad, Ethiopia and of course Afghanistan.
Should I feel guilty? not for a second.
Reply

سيف الله
09-25-2018, 11:35 PM
Salaam

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Brother Eric H, please move on, the war is over, the weapons were found in 2014, so it's all good.
The Iraqis seemed very happy right after the invasion.
Tears rolled down my eyes when I saw them tearing Saddam Hussein's statue down on live tv.
The joy of the Iraqi people screaming Allahu Akbar in the main plaza in Baghdad will remain in my memory forever.
The brave americans and the allies helped the Iraqis rebuild the country while risking their lives to keep the country safe.
But time showed us that at the end they're going to do what they want to do.
They were free now, FREE.
They could have helped the elected new leader but instead they chose to fight it, to terrorize, to kill innocent people, etc.
They were free to do whatever they decided to do and they chose war.
Should I feel guilty, why?
Wake up is not a coincidence.
It also happened in Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, Nigeria, Chad, Ethiopia and of course Afghanistan.
Should I feel guilty? not for a second.
Beyond words, beyond pathetic, another Blair clone, that's what this forum needs *sigh*

Little hope for humanity if people continue to think like this.
Reply

Abz2000
09-26-2018, 04:08 PM
Firstly -the statue was an idol that should have been pulled down for Allah's sake anyway.

Secondly -it was pulled down for Godless propaganda aims only to have another puppet idol statue put in its place -therefore it was an ill intentioned and unaccepted act.

It is actually telling how the rothschild puppet American criminals used unwitting bitter shiahs (who they'd paid, armed, and prodded saddam to fight) for the staged propaganda event, but that even then -those same people disdained the propaganda aims of those who attempted to boast their short-lived victory.

----



The event was widely publicized, but allegations that it had been staged were soon published. One picture from the event, published in the London Evening Standard, was Photoshopped to suggest a larger crowd.[4] A report by the Los Angeles Times stated it was an unnamed Marine colonel, not Iraqi civilians who had decided to topple the statue; and that a quick-thinking Army psychological operations team then used loudspeakers to encourage Iraqi civilians to assist and made it all appear spontaneous and Iraqi-inspired.[5] According to Tim Brown at Globalsecurity.org: "It was not completely stage-managed from Washington, DC but it was not exactly a spontaneous Iraqi operation."[6]

Before the statue was toppled, Marine Corporal Edward Chin of 1st Tank Battalion, 1st Marine Division (attached to 3rd Battalion 4th Marines) climbed the ladder and placed a U.S. flag over the statue's face.[1] According to the book "Shooter", by Coughlin, Kuhlman, and Davis, other Marines of the 3/4 realized the PR disaster unfolding as the formerly cheering crowd became silent, with one woman shouting at the marines to remove the flag. Kuhlman had appropriated an Iraqi flag as a war trophy during a raid earlier in the war, and quickly unfurled it and headed for the statue. The crowd grabbed this flag and then placed it over the statue.[


The Marines present at the time, 3rd Battalion 4th Marines as well as 1st Tank Battalion, maintain that the scene was not staged other than the assistance they provided.[7]

Robert Fisk described the event as "the most staged photo opportunity since Iwo Jima."


The Toppling: How the Media Created the Iconic Fall of Saddam's Statue


U.S. Provided the Sledgehammer and Iraqi Flag A thirty-five-year-old gunnery sergeant named Leon Lambert, who commanded an M-88 military tow truck, gave the Iraqis the iconic sledgehammer used to knock down the statue. "If a sledgehammer and rope fell off the 88, would you mind?" Lambert asked his superior. As for the flag, it's "One of the Firdos myths" that Iraqis brought an Iraqi flag to put over the statue. Another myth is that it was brought by a U.S. "psyops team." In fact it belonged to Marine lieutenant Casey Kuhlman, who happened to be in the area and had decided that an Iraqi flag should replace the U.S. flag that had briefly covered the face on Saddam's statue.

https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...ppling/342802/


(When using clear thought to assess the situation, it becomes obvious that nobody in their right mind expected that hammer to topple that base whilst the photographers and soldiers crowded around it, and even if it could have been done whilst the traffic awaited the removal of the road block, and the reporters and soldiers the statue, could they expect it to fall without killing a whole load of them? It isn't a tree which slowly begins to lean as the weight very slowly pulls it in opposite direction to the cut).


Fake Toppling of Saddam's Statue in 2003


(One flag photo to show americans, another to show the iraqis and people in the wider region: )

"Deadly Deception, Pretexts for War," The Wisdom Fund, July 30, 2001

["The US flag that was put on the face of Saddam yesterday - it was replaced by an Iraqi flag when the people shouted for that - was the flag that was flying over the Pentagon on September 11."--Paul Wood, "9/11 Pentagon Flag Used To Cover Saddam's Face In Baghdad," BBC (Baghdad), April 10, 2003]

["Rather than a spontaneous mass demonstration, the photo clearly shows that only a couple hundred Iraqis participated in the largely empty and heavily guarded Fardus Square. American tanks and troops surrounded the square and one armored vehicle "helped" the Iraqis pull down the statue."--Ivan Eland, "Just Another Staged Baghdad Rally?," Independent Institute, April 12, 2003]

["The scene was marred by the presence of American tanks and soldiers who, before reaching that square to help a few Iraqis topple down the statue, had slaughtered many civilians and left a trace of blood and destruction.

"Alas, tyranny is now replaced with colonialism. Let us not be intoxicated by that image and let it erase the fact that this "liberating" power itself was complicit in propping and supporting Saddam throughout the 1980's when he waged his war against Iran and killed one million Iraqis. All those Iraqis were not worthy of liberation back then, because they were serving another function: fodder for weapons and for containing Khomeini's Iran. I remember seeing Rumsfeld shake hands with our oppressor on Iraqi TV back in the early 1980's and both Bush I and Reagan supplied him with weapons and military intelligence while he was gassing Iraqi Kurds. No wonder it was difficult to topple him without his original sponsors who came uninvited and with ulterior motives that have become painfully obvious by now.


"Yes there were Iraqis cheering and dancing, but that should not be (mis)interpreted as rolling out the red carpet for American tanks. The crowd at Al-Firdaws square was a few hundred and no more. Baghdad is a city of 4.5 million."
--Sinan Antoon, "(De)liberation: The paradise promised in Iraq has been lost," Al-Ahram Weekly (Egypt), April 13, 2003]

"The Toppling Of Saddam Statue: An Eyewitness Report," SBS TV (Australia), April 17, 2003

["There was the CIA's man, an Iraqi fixer of the American stooge Ahmad Chalabi, orchestrating that joyous media moment of 'liberation', attended by 'hundreds' - or was it 'dozens'? - of cheering people, with three American tanks neatly guarding the entrances to the media stage. 'Thanks, guys,' said a marine to the BBC's Middle East correspondent in appreciation of the BBC's 'coverage."--John Pilger, "Journalism is rotting away," pilger.carlton.com, April 25, 2003]

[A Reuters long-shot photo of Firdos Square showed that it was nearly empty, ringed by U.S. tanks and marines who had moved in to seal off the square before admitting the Iraqis. A BBC photo sequence of the statue's toppling also showed a sparse crowd of approximately 200 people--much smaller than the demonstrations only nine days later, when thousands of Iraqis took to the streets of Baghdad calling for U.S.-led forces to leave the city.--Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, "How To Sell a War: The Rendon Group deploys 'perception management' in the war on Iraq," InTheseTimes, August 4, 2003]

David Zucchino, "Army Stage-Managed Fall of Hussein Statue," Los Angeles Times, July 3, 2004


http://www.twf.org/News/Y2003/0411-Statue.html




Media Vastly Exaggerated Attendance Though we're all familiar with the photos of a crowded-seeming square, ProPublica reproduces photos showing that the square was actually mostly empty, but that media portrayals used tight-focus shots of a small cluster of people to suggest it was packed. Maass adds, "very few Iraqis were there. If you were at the square, or if you watch the footage, you can see, on the rare occasions long shots were used, that the square was mostly empty. You can also see, from photographs as well as video, that much of the crowd was made up of journalists and marines." Of even the small number of Iraqis there, Maass says most were subdued, standing with their arms crossed. "Closeups filled the screen with the frenzied core of the small crowd and created an illusion of wall-to-wall enthusiasm throughout Baghdad. It was an illusion that reflected only the media’s yearning for exciting visuals." But that just isn't accurate.


BBC Breaking News - [u]LIVE[/b] From Green Square, Tripoli:



Media Ignored More Important News for 'Upbeat' Story Maass says that, in the rush to cover the state-toppling, the media ignored or avoided far grimmer--and more important--stories: "On that day, Baghdad was violent and chaotic. The city was already being looted by swarms of people using trucks, taxis, horses, and wheelbarrows to cart away whatever they could from government buildings and banks, museums, and even hospitals. There continued to be armed opposition to the American advance." But, "The networks almost never broke away from Firdos Square"
News Editors Pushed Story Reporters Said Was Bogus "A visual echo chamber developed: rather than encouraging reporters to find the news, editors urged them to report what was on TV," Maass writes. He chronicles several examples of editors ordering journalists to cover the story, which reporters warned wasn't real news. One photojournalist told his editor that "few Iraqis were involved and the ones who were seemed to be doing so for the benefit of the legions of photographers; it was a show. The editor told him to get off the phone and start taking pictures."
Study Finds that Media Failure at Firdos Worsened War Oversight Maass cites the study:
Among the handful of studies of Firdos Square, the most incisive was George Washington University’s, led by Sean Aday, an associate professor of media and public affairs. It concluded that the coverage had “profound implications for both international policy and the domestic political landscape in America.” According to the study, the saturation coverage of Firdos Square fuelled the perception that the war had been won, and diverted attention from Iraq at precisely the moment that more attention was needed, not less. "Whereas battle stories imply a war is going on, statues falling--especially when placed in the context of truly climactic images from recent history--imply the war is over," the study noted.

https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...ppling/342802/
Reply

Alamgir
09-26-2018, 05:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Now you've done it. Just to win a dispute, you now claim that your morals don't come from your prophet (pbuh), nice.
Because they don't, they come from Allah Azza Wa Jal. Just because his morals were perfectly in line with Islamic rulings doesn't mean ours come from him, our religion is from God, not any human being.

Your claim makes as much sense as saying that your morals come from Sam Harris, just because you both believe similar (and pretty stupid) things. It's very possible that you both just got your morals from the same source.

You are really clutching as straws here.

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
the weapons were found in 2014
No they weren't, nuclear weapons have never been found in Iraq.

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
The brave americans and the allies helped the Iraqis rebuild the country
^o)
Reply

Raymann
09-26-2018, 07:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al Khorasani
Originally Posted by Raymann
Now you've done it. Just to win a dispute, you now claim that your morals don't come from your prophet (pbuh), nice.

Because they don't, they come from Allah Azza Wa Jal. Just because his morals were perfectly in line with Islamic rulings doesn't mean ours come from him, our religion is from God, not any human being.
Islam teaches that Prophet Muhammad is the best example of proper ethical and moral behavior for mankind. Indeed, Muhammad is the model against whom our conduct is to be measured. In other words, if Muhammad did it, so should we.
You're getting deeper in the hole.

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by Abz2000
The event was widely publicized, but allegations that it had been staged were soon published.
By whom ?
Any other cheap and unfounded conspiracy theory material you want to share with us ???
Reply

Abz2000
09-26-2018, 07:55 PM
The links are in the articles.

Hasbara trolls are such annoying pr!cks, they can carry on chatting sh!t and i'll respond when there's a necessity -and won't when there's no need to be led by their empty nasal provocations. But by all means, they can carry on whinging their hasbara lines until they reach the end of their leash so we get a decent map of how predictably pathetic Israel's very "best" trolls are.
Reply

Scimitar
09-26-2018, 09:47 PM



http://bookenzine.net/1028689/freedom-of-expression-in-islam.pdf
<brilliant book. I have the actual book and not pdf. Once I finish Lings, I'll be giving this another shot.
Reply

fschmidt
09-26-2018, 11:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Bushwackk
brilliant book. I have the actual book and not pdf.
I also have the actual book. It didn't impress me at all. The author clearly has good knowledge of Islam but he fails to address the real issues. Many Muslims seem too bogged down in details to understand the big picture.
Reply

Scimitar
09-26-2018, 11:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by fschmidt
I also have the actual book. It didn't impress me at all. The author clearly has good knowledge of Islam but he fails to address the real issues. Many Muslims seem too bogged down in details to understand the big picture.
You just made a blanket statement without providing even a shred of evidence to support your claim... I shouldn’t be surprised. It’s not the first time.
Reply

fschmidt
09-26-2018, 11:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Bushwackk
You just made a blanket statement without providing even a shred of evidence to support your claim... I shouldn’t be surprised. It’s not the first time.
I gave my impression. You also called the book "brilliant book" without a shred of evidence. How is that any different?
Reply

eesa the kiwi
09-26-2018, 11:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Brother Eric H, please move on, the war is over, the weapons were found in 2014, so it's all good.
The Iraqis seemed very happy right after the invasion.
Tears rolled down my eyes when I saw them tearing Saddam Hussein's statue down on live tv.
The joy of the Iraqi people screaming Allahu Akbar in the main plaza in Baghdad will remain in my memory forever.
The brave americans and the allies helped the Iraqis rebuild the country while risking their lives to keep the country safe.
But time showed us that at the end they're going to do what they want to do.
They were free now, FREE.
They could have helped the elected new leader but instead they chose to fight it, to terrorize, to kill innocent people, etc.
They were free to do whatever they decided to do and they chose war.
Should I feel guilty, why?
Wake up is not a coincidence.
It also happened in Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, Nigeria, Chad, Ethiopia and of course Afghanistan.
Should I feel guilty? not for a second.
You actually believe this don't you? Lolz so much for atheists having great minds
Reply

Abz2000
09-27-2018, 03:54 AM
@Bushwackk @fschmidt that was some neat banter :)

https://myislam.dk/books/book.php?la...descr=1&cont=1

Here's a critical summary of the book by Sherman A Jackson:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~vika/...sonreview.html

Reply

fschmidt
09-27-2018, 05:20 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abz2000
Here's a critical summary of the book by Sherman A Jackson:
This review seems reasonable from an Islamic perspective, but I will try to give my non-Islamic review. I read some of the book some time ago and I don't remember it well since it simply wasn't very memorable. What I remember clearly is my frustration with his refusal to confront the real issues. He talked a lot about how free speech could allow positive speech in various ways. But that isn't the point of free speech. The real question is whether one allows obvious negative speech.

Should people be allowed to advocate stealing or murder or Satan worship? Just think of an idea that you find intolerable and then ask yourself whether people should be free to advocate that idea. That is the real test of free speech. My answer is absolutely yes, people should be free to advocate horrible ideas. I can give my reasons if anyone is interested, but my point here is that this book never confronts this issue, so the whole book is pointless in my opinion.
Reply

Ümit
09-27-2018, 05:48 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by fschmidt
This review seems reasonable from an Islamic perspective, but I will try to give my non-Islamic review. I read some of the book some time ago and I don't remember it well since it simply wasn't very memorable. What I remember clearly is my frustration with his refusal to confront the real issues. He talked a lot about how free speech could allow positive speech in various ways. But that isn't the point of free speech. The real question is whether one allows obvious negative speech.

Should people be allowed to advocate stealing or murder or Satan worship? Just think of an idea that you find intolerable and then ask yourself whether people should be free to advocate that idea. That is the real test of free speech. My answer is absolutely yes, people should be free to advocate horrible ideas. I can give my reasons if anyone is interested, but my point here is that this book never confronts this issue, so the whole book is pointless in my opinion.
You have to see this a little different. From Islamic point of view you have free speech and free will. you can say, do, or believe whatever you wish.
You do not have a lock on your tongue or brain preventing you to think or say bad things.
But like everything this freedom has consequences. for example...you can steal...but you know that is wrong, so you will get punished when you get caught, or worse in the-here-after when you do not get caught...but eventually you will get punished for this.

So the same with free speech...you can advocate to steal...but if someone actually steals because of your words, then this will also have consequences for you...in this world or in the next.

It is that simple. really not that complicated.

Edit: what you want is to say or do something bad freely...but you do not want to face the consequences...does not work like that.
Reply

Eric H
09-27-2018, 08:10 AM
Greetings and peace be with you brother Raymann, and yes, we are all brothers and sisters together; we are all created by 'One God'.

Brother Eric H, please move on, the war is over, the weapons were found in 2014, so it's all good.
No it is not all good, we destroyed a country because they had WMDs that they did not use. It would be like destroying America because they have WMDs, and we know they have been used.

The Iraqis seemed very happy right after the invasion.
I try and wonder what an ordinary bloke like me would have gone through living in Iraq, just someone who goes to work, brings up children and grandchildren and with all the other stuff families do. I can't imagine what it must be like to live in a town where missiles are hammering down, where soldiers and tanks are causing mayhem to everyday life; year after year.

When you say the ordinary Iraqi seemed happy, I just cannot see that, the only time I would start to feel happy again is when all the foreign troops have gone and life was at least as good as it was before. But we know that has not happened, the American allies have been responsible for making it worse. If Bush and Blair truthfully followed Christian teaching, the greatest thing they could do was to love all their neighbours as they love themselves, they should also love and pray for their enemies. Once you ignore the greatest commandments, then you cannot call it a religious war.


The brave americans and the allies helped the Iraqis rebuild the country while risking their lives to keep the country safe.
This kind of thinking terrifies me, because it seems a common thought amongst Americans. Do you truthfully believe America was helping Iraq, all I can see is carnage, and we have to take responsibility for that. Had we not invaded, then things would be different.

It also happened in Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, Nigeria, Chad, Ethiopia and of course Afghanistan.
Should I feel guilty? not for a second.
Look at the mess America has left Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq and others. America and Britain do not have the given right to invade other countries in the name of justice, they get it wrong. We have destroyed the lives of millions of ordinary people in this world. Only God can bring about true justice, our attempts only fail.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people

Eric
Reply

Scimitar
09-27-2018, 02:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by fschmidt
I gave my impression. You also called the book "brilliant book" without a shred of evidence. How is that any different?
Here are the reviews on Amazon for this book:

Dale Gribble (rated this book 5 stars)

The book covers the affirmative evidence in the Shari'ah and demonstrates that indeed Islam does allow freedom of speech. While reading, I found western legal theory borrowing a lot from Islamic Law and the Islamic legal system in may ways. This book will expand your understanding of what Shari'ah is and isn't, even though its not written for that. Mohammad Hashim Kamali, being a legal scholar, explores Islamic rights such as Freedom to Express Opinion, Freedom of Association (political parties, etc) Freedom of personal reason, freedom of scientific inquiry, Freedom to Criticise (people or government for the purpose of the betterment of society at large), freedom of consulation and more. It is a great book that lays waste to the myth of Shari'ah. It gives it its respect that it deserves from an academic and legal perspective, rather than a cartoon version of Shariah in which we imagine angry bearded men and oppressed shrowded, beaten and battered women.

The book later goes into the limits of freedom of speech. I have not gotten this far yet, but I am roughly halfway through and I am honestly loving this book.

Buy this book and read it.

DocTX (rated this books 5 stars)

Wonderful insight on an important subject

Armando Malwani (rated this book 5 stars)
Excellent treatment of the concept of freedom of expression in Islam. Those who question islams commitment to this most important aspect of the human condition should definitely read this.


All three reviews are from verified purchases on Amazon.

I support these statements. I've yet to find a verified purchase customer on Amazon (or anywhere else) with a negative review for this book. Your blanket statement doesn't hold.

Link to sourced reviews:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Freedom-Expression-Fundamental-Rights-Liberties/dp/0946621608
Reply

fschmidt
09-27-2018, 08:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ümit
So the same with free speech...you can advocate to steal...but if someone actually steals because of your words, then this will also have consequences for you...in this world or in the next.

It is that simple. really not that complicated.

Edit: what you want is to say or do something bad freely...but you do not want to face the consequences...does not work like that.
You completely miss the point.

I would really like to know, is there one other person here besides me who understands the concept of free speech?

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by Bushwackk
I've yet to find a verified purchase customer on Amazon (or anywhere else) with a negative review for this book.
You convinced me. I will write a negative review on Amazon as a verified purchase customer.
Reply

Alamgir
09-27-2018, 09:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
You're getting deeper in the hole.
No, you're just further proving how stupid you are and how little you know about Islam.

We do what he does because God literally tells us to, that's it. It's not subjective at all, the highest authority that exists has literally ordained us to do so because Rasulullah (Peace Be Upon Him) is the epitome of Islamic morals, which (spoiler alert) come from God.
Reply

Scimitar
09-27-2018, 11:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by fschmidt


You convinced me. This shabbat I will write a negative review on Amazon as a verified purchase customer.
... too late, it's already after the fact!
Reply

Abz2000
09-28-2018, 04:02 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al Khorasani
We do what he does because God literally tells us to, that's it. It's not subjective at all, the highest authority that exists has literally ordained us to do so because Rasulullah (Peace Be Upon Him) is the epitome of Islamic morals, which (spoiler alert) come from God.
We are only to do what is just in Allah :swt: 's sight,.
When Allah's messenger :saws: took off his sandals during the prayer and the companions later followed suit, he completed the prayer and asked them their intention for removing theirs and then explained to them that he had removed his due to the impurity under his sandals - thereby indicating that they were not to just copy him blindly but with proper intention to obey Allah :swt: who is their ultimate judge.

We do not angrily turn away from blind men simply because he did it -since we know it was a fault in Allah's sight.

The messenger's duty is to convey the message and he is responsible for his actions just as every other individual is responsible for their own.

If any refuse to follow the messenger out of rebellion to Allah :swt: The Most Truthful, Wise, and Just, the rebel will have commited a fault for which he/she is liable.

If any copies the messenger in a fault in Allah's sight - the person is again liable.




(240)Chapter: Praying In Sandals(91) باب الصَّلاَةِ فِي النَّعْلِ

Narrated AbuSa'id al-Khudri:
While the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) was leading his Companions in prayer, he took off his sandals and laid them on his left side; so when the people saw this, they removed their sandals. When the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) finished his prayer, he asked: What made you remove your sandals? The replied: We saw you remove your sandals, so we removed our sandals.
The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) then said: Gabriel came to me and informed me that there was filth in them. When any of you comes to the mosque, he should see; if he finds filth on his sandals, he should wipe it off and pray in them.

حَدَّثَنَا مُوسَى بْنُ إِسْمَاعِيلَ، حَدَّثَنَا حَمَّادُ بْنُ زَيْدٍ، عَنْ أَبِي نَعَامَةَ السَّعْدِيِّ، عَنْ أَبِي نَضْرَةَ، عَنْ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ الْخُدْرِيِّ، قَالَ بَيْنَمَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يُصَلِّي بِأَصْحَابِهِ إِذْ خَلَعَ نَعْلَيْهِ فَوَضَعَهُمَا عَنْ يَسَارِهِ فَلَمَّا رَأَى ذَلِكَ الْقَوْمُ أَلْقَوْا نِعَالَهُمْ فَلَمَّا قَضَى رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم صَلاَتَهُ قَالَ ‏"‏ مَا حَمَلَكُمْ عَلَى إِلْقَائِكُمْ نِعَالَكُمْ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ قَالُوا رَأَيْنَاكَ أَلْقَيْتَ نَعْلَيْكَ فَأَلْقَيْنَا نِعَالَنَا ‏.‏ فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏"‏ إِنَّ جِبْرِيلَ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَتَانِي فَأَخْبَرَنِي أَنَّ فِيهِمَا قَذَرًا ‏"‏ ‏.‏ وَقَالَ ‏"‏ إِذَا جَاءَ أَحَدُكُمْ إِلَى الْمَسْجِدِ فَلْيَنْظُرْ فَإِنْ رَأَى فِي نَعْلَيْهِ قَذَرًا أَوْ أَذًى فَلْيَمْسَحْهُ وَلْيُصَلِّ فِيهِمَا ‏"‏ ‏.‏

Grade : Sahih (Al-Albani) صحيح (الألباني) حكم :
Reference : Sunan Abi Dawud 650
In-book reference : Book 2, Hadith 260
English translation : Book 2, Hadith 650
Report Error | Share





عَبَسَ وَتَوَلَّىٰٓ

He frowned and turned away,


أَن جَآءَهُ ٱلْأَعْمَىٰ

Because there came to him the blind man (interrupting).


وَمَا يُدْرِيكَ لَعَلَّهُۥ يَزَّكَّىٰٓ

But what could tell thee but that perchance he might grow (in purity)?-


أَوْ يَذَّكَّرُ فَتَنفَعَهُ ٱلذِّكْرَىٰٓ

Or that he might receive admonition, and the teaching might profit him?


أَمَّا مَنِ ٱسْتَغْنَىٰ

As to one who regards Himself as self-sufficient,


فَأَنتَ لَهُۥ تَصَدَّىٰ

To him dost thou attend;


وَمَا عَلَيْكَ أَلَّا يَزَّكَّىٰ

Though it is no blame to thee if he grow not (in purity).


وَأَمَّا مَن جَآءَكَ يَسْعَىٰ

But as to him who came to thee striving earnestly,


وَهُوَ يَخْشَىٰ

And with fear (in his heart),


فَأَنتَ عَنْهُ تَلَهَّىٰ

Of him wast thou unmindful.


كَلَّآ إِنَّهَا تَذْكِرَةٌ

By no means (should it be so)! For it is indeed a Message of instruction:


فَمَن شَآءَ ذَكَرَهُۥ

Therefore let whoso will, keep it in remembrance.


From Quran, Chapter 80, 'Abssa, Verses 1-12





Home » Jami` at-Tirmidhi » Chapters on Tafsir - كتاب تفسير القرآن عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم » Hadith

Narrated 'Aishah:
"When this Ayah was revealed: 'And warn your tribe of near kindred (26:214).' The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: 'O Safiyyah bint 'Abdul-Muttalib! O Fatimah bint Muhammad! O Banu 'Abdul-Muttalib! I have no power to help you at all before Allah! Ask of me whatever you want from my wealth.'"

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو الأَشْعَثِ، أَحْمَدُ بْنُ الْمِقْدَامِ الْعِجْلِيُّ حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ الطُّفَاوِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا هِشَامُ بْنُ عُرْوَةَ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، قَالَتْ لَمَّا نَزَلَتْ هَذِهِ الآيَةُ ‏:‏ ‏(‏وأَنْذِرْ عَشِيرَتَكَ الأَقْرَبِينَ ‏)‏ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏"‏ يَا صَفِيَّةُ بِنْتَ عَبْدِ الْمُطَّلِبِ يَا فَاطِمَةُ بِنْتَ مُحَمَّدٍ يَا بَنِي عَبْدِ الْمُطَّلِبِ إِنِّي لاَ أَمْلِكُ لَكُمْ مِنَ اللَّهِ شَيْئًا سَلُونِي مِنْ مَالِي مَا شِئْتُمْ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ صَحِيحٌ وَهَكَذَا رَوَى وَكِيعٌ وَغَيْرُ وَاحِدٍ هَذَا الْحَدِيثَ عَنْ هِشَامِ بْنِ عُرْوَةَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ عَائِشَةَ نَحْوَ حَدِيثِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ الطُّفَاوِيِّ ‏.‏ رَوَى بَعْضُهُمْ عَنْ هِشَامِ بْنِ عُرْوَةَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم مُرْسَلاً وَلَمْ يَذْكُرْ فِيهِ عَنْ عَائِشَةَ ‏.‏ وَفِي الْبَابِ عَنْ عَلِيٍّ وَابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ ‏.‏

Grade : Sahih (Darussalam)
English reference : Vol. 5, Book 44, Hadith 3184
Arabic reference : Book 47, Hadith 3486





مَا كَانَ لِبَشَرٍ أَن يُؤْتِيَهُ ٱللَّهُ ٱلْكِتَٰبَ وَٱلْحُكْمَ وَٱلنُّبُوَّةَ ثُمَّ يَقُولَ لِلنَّاسِ كُونُوا۟ عِبَادًا لِّى مِن دُونِ ٱللَّهِ وَلَٰكِن كُونُوا۟ رَبَّٰنِيِّۦنَ بِمَا كُنتُمْ تُعَلِّمُونَ ٱلْكِتَٰبَ وَبِمَا كُنتُمْ تَدْرُسُونَ

It is not (possible) that a man, to whom is given the Book, and Wisdom, and the prophetic office, should say to people: "Be ye my worshippers rather than Allah's": on the contrary (He would say) "Be ye worshippers of Him Who is truly the Cherisher of all: For ye have taught the Book and ye have studied it earnestly."


From Quran, Chapter 3, Aal-e-Imran, Verse 79




مَنْ عَمِلَ صَٰلِحًا فَلِنَفْسِهِۦۖ وَمَنْ أَسَآءَ فَعَلَيْهَاۖ ثُمَّ إِلَىٰ رَبِّكُمْ تُرْجَعُونَ

If any one does a righteous deed, it ensures to the benefit of his own soul; if he does evil, it works against (his own soul). In the end will ye (all) be brought back to your Lord.


From Quran, Chapter 45 , Al-Jasiyah, Verse 15
Reply

Ümit
09-28-2018, 06:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abz2000
We are only to do what is just in Allah :swt: 's sight,.
When Allah's messenger :saws: took off his sandals during the prayer and the companions later followed suit, he completed the prayer and asked them their intention for removing theirs and then explained to them that he had removed his due to the impurity under his sandals - thereby indicating that they were not to just copy him blindly but with proper intention to obey Allah :swt: who is their ultimate judge.

We do not angrily turn away from blind men simply because he did it -since we know it was a fault in Allah's sight.

The messenger's duty is to convey the message and he is responsible for his actions just as every other individual is responsible for their own.

If any refuse to follow the messenger out of rebellion to Allah :swt: The Most Truthful, Wise, and Just, the rebel will have commited a fault for which he/she is liable.

If any copies the messenger in a fault in Allah's sight - the person is again liable.




(240)Chapter: Praying In Sandals(91) باب الصَّلاَةِ فِي النَّعْلِ

Narrated AbuSa'id al-Khudri:
While the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) was leading his Companions in prayer, he took off his sandals and laid them on his left side; so when the people saw this, they removed their sandals. When the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) finished his prayer, he asked: What made you remove your sandals? The replied: We saw you remove your sandals, so we removed our sandals.
The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) then said: Gabriel came to me and informed me that there was filth in them. When any of you comes to the mosque, he should see; if he finds filth on his sandals, he should wipe it off and pray in them.

حَدَّثَنَا مُوسَى بْنُ إِسْمَاعِيلَ، حَدَّثَنَا حَمَّادُ بْنُ زَيْدٍ، عَنْ أَبِي نَعَامَةَ السَّعْدِيِّ، عَنْ أَبِي نَضْرَةَ، عَنْ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ الْخُدْرِيِّ، قَالَ بَيْنَمَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يُصَلِّي بِأَصْحَابِهِ إِذْ خَلَعَ نَعْلَيْهِ فَوَضَعَهُمَا عَنْ يَسَارِهِ فَلَمَّا رَأَى ذَلِكَ الْقَوْمُ أَلْقَوْا نِعَالَهُمْ فَلَمَّا قَضَى رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم صَلاَتَهُ قَالَ ‏"‏ مَا حَمَلَكُمْ عَلَى إِلْقَائِكُمْ نِعَالَكُمْ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ قَالُوا رَأَيْنَاكَ أَلْقَيْتَ نَعْلَيْكَ فَأَلْقَيْنَا نِعَالَنَا ‏.‏ فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏"‏ إِنَّ جِبْرِيلَ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَتَانِي فَأَخْبَرَنِي أَنَّ فِيهِمَا قَذَرًا ‏"‏ ‏.‏ وَقَالَ ‏"‏ إِذَا جَاءَ أَحَدُكُمْ إِلَى الْمَسْجِدِ فَلْيَنْظُرْ فَإِنْ رَأَى فِي نَعْلَيْهِ قَذَرًا أَوْ أَذًى فَلْيَمْسَحْهُ وَلْيُصَلِّ فِيهِمَا ‏"‏ ‏.‏

Grade : Sahih (Al-Albani) صحيح (الألباني) حكم :
Reference : Sunan Abi Dawud 650
In-book reference : Book 2, Hadith 260
English translation : Book 2, Hadith 650
Report Error | Share
Wait...this is off topic but now I'm confused...does this hadeeth mean that we can pray with our shoes on if they are clean?

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by fschmidt
You completely miss the point.

I would really like to know, is there one other person here besides me who understands the concept of free speech?
If I miss your point, then you should change yours, because this is how it works and the only just way. However, I do want to understand your way of thinking.
so please tell us the reason why you want that intolerable ideas should be free to be advocated:


format_quote Originally Posted by fschmidt
My answer is absolutely yes, people should be free to advocate horrible ideas. I can give my reasons if anyone is interested, but my point here is that this book never confronts this issue, so the whole book is pointless in my opinion.
Reply

Abz2000
09-28-2018, 06:40 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ümit
Wait...this is off topic but now I'm confused...does this hadeeth mean that we can pray with our shoes on if they are clean?
Yup, but again, take into account the mosque policy - since some are carpeted or masonry finished and cleaned to the extent that shoes would cause a problem.




Reply

Raymann
09-28-2018, 10:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al Khorasani
We do what he does (the prophet- pbuh)
Who was a mortal and therefore his morals are SUBJECTIVE.

format_quote Originally Posted by Al Khorasani
because God literally tells us to
The fact that God tells you to follow the SUBJECTIVE MORALS of the prophet (pbuh) doesn't make his MORALS OBJECTIVE.
He remained a mortal the rest of his life.

I don't understand why you want to play with words and logics you don't understand?
God has OBJECTIVE MORALS but you cannot prove OBJECTIVELY that God exists? Doesn't make sense.
I don't have a problem with you telling me you BELIEVE God exists but please don't tell me you can prove it OBJECTIVELY.

Objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased.
You're a confused man.
Reply

keiv
09-28-2018, 11:07 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
I wish Muslims knew what Freedom of Speech really is
but I know there's no hope.
I can't believe you guys fell for this. Based on the lack of context in the OP, it was pretty clear what Raymann's intentions were. 6 pages and counting. Raymann, continue enjoying your popcorn.


Reply

Alamgir
09-28-2018, 02:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
The fact that God tells you to follow the SUBJECTIVE MORALS of the prophet (pbuh) doesn't make his MORALS OBJECTIVE.
Yes it does, because an objective authority says that these morals are correct.

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
you cannot prove OBJECTIVELY that God exists
Yes we can, we've already done this numerous times before on the forum, but people like you stick your heads in the sand and don't listen because you don't want Islam to be true.
Reply

Abz2000
09-28-2018, 02:47 PM
Maybe as far as raymann is concerned, his mom and dad got together and had a lawless big bang and he was born, nothing existed before that -and that's because he'd have to think about the long chain of events before that which are unprovable according to him since they can't be physically demonstrated - fits well with orwellian doctrine. Big brother invented helicopters.

Maybe he's also a believer in the flat earth because he can't trust anyone else's word and when he looks around he sees mostly flat earth with a few mountains and hills.

Maybe also believes he doesn't have a brain in his head because he can't see it himself.

@Raymann - that was just me practicing your brand of free speech - none of it was really what i believed to be the truth.

I actually believe that we should use intellect and history to evaluate what we hear and see - and i believe that you feel the truth within.
Please think.
Reply

Raymann
09-28-2018, 06:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al Khorasani
Originally Posted by Raymann
The fact that God tells you to follow the SUBJECTIVE MORALS of the prophet (pbuh) doesn't make his MORALS OBJECTIVE.

Yes it does, because an objective authority says that these morals are correct
You mean an objective authority that only exists according to your SUBJECTIVE thinking, interesting.
I admire your blind FAITH, but that's what faith is, the unproven belief of something.
I have no problem and don't intend to question your faith and belief but pretending that now you can somehow use logic and some primitive scientific thinking to make sense of the metaphysical world borders the ridiculous.


format_quote Originally Posted by Al Khorasani
Originally Posted by Raymann
you cannot prove OBJECTIVELY that God exists

Yes we can, we've already done this numerous times before on the forum, but people like you stick your heads in the sand and don't listen because you don't want Islam to be true.
Can you please point me to that objective explanation. I'd love to read about it. I reject nonsense but not before I verify is nonsense.

format_quote Originally Posted by keiv
I can't believe you guys fell for this. Based on the lack of context in the OP, it was pretty clear what Raymann's intentions were. 6 pages and counting.
You might have missed it but I CLEARLY said it on my introduction:
I'm a westerner who keeps hearing bad and awful things about Islam.
I'm here to hear an explanation from a Muslim perspective.
I'm not here to impose my belief nor to adopt yours.
I'm an Atheist so you already know I don't believe in God (that includes Allah).
I am not going to lie to you, I don't need your approval.
What you hear from me is probably what you could hear from most westerners.
You've been warn what to expect in my threads so is up to you if you keep nosing in.
Reply

fschmidt
09-29-2018, 02:54 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ümit
so please tell us the reason why you want that intolerable ideas should be free to be advocated:
I should write a formal article about free speech. But I will give a brief answer here.

Who enforces censorship? Obviously those in power. And what kind of people tend to be in power? Not very nice people. In fact corrupt people who will use censorship to hide their corrupt actions. This is simply the practical reality. The solution is to make free speech a clear right in the constitution as America did. This requires that all opinions can be expressed. Anything less is open to abuse by those in power.

But let's engage in the fantasy of good government. Should an imaginary good government practice censorship? Again my answer is no. The reasoning given for censorship is to stop the spread of bad ideas. But history shows that this doesn't work and in fact has the opposite effect. When stupid ideas are freely expressed in a morally sound culture, these ideas are just considered stupid. But when these ideas are suppressed, conspiracy theories develop and people take these stupid ideas more seriously. For me the obvious example is Holocaust denial. Holocaust denial is stupid but was freely allowed in America where it was never taken seriously. In countries where this is outlawed, it is taken more seriously. I remember when America was still a sane country in the 1980s. Nazis were freely allowed to speak publicly and were given protection. And they just made fools of themselves and no one took them seriously. Free speech allows bad ideas to be exposed and countered. When Hitler was rising to power in Germany, the German government actively attacked him which just gave him more sympathy among the people. So in the end, censorship doesn't work.

And finally I would point to the two people most qualified in history to practice censorship. These are Moses and Muhammad, both in positions of power and both with a good ability to distinguish right and wrong. Yet neither one ever practiced censorship. This should be a clear indication that censorship is not a good idea. I don't understand how Muslims who claim to follow the Sunnah of Muhammad can support censorship when Muhammad never practiced it.
Reply

Raymann
09-29-2018, 05:46 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by fschmidt
I don't understand how Muslims who claim to follow the Sunnah of Muhammad can support censorship when Muhammad never practiced it.
Thank you.

format_quote Originally Posted by Al Khorasani
Are you blind? I clearly said our morals don't come from him (the prophet-pbuh), he just conveyed God's message.
Reply

Abz2000
09-29-2018, 06:18 AM
@fschmidt @Raymann
You jewish atheists need to do a bit of research before making statements about the Prophet :saws: , or maybe you already know and are simply seeking to lead Muslims into going into it at length.The Prophet :saws: did sometimes have speech checked properly in Allah :swt: 's sight to ensure that true justice was upheld. Ka'b ibn Ashraf and Abu Rafi' ibn Abi Al-Huqaiq were from amongst a few notable examples.
Reply

fschmidt
09-29-2018, 06:49 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abz2000
You jewish atheists need to do a bit of research before making statements about the Prophet :saws: , or maybe you already know and are simply seeking to lead Muslims into going into it at length.The Prophet :saws: did sometimes have speech checked properly in Allah :swt: 's sight to ensure that true justice was upheld. Ka'b ibn Ashraf and Abu Rafi' ibn Abi Al-Huqaiq were from amongst a few notable examples.
My race is irrelevant and I am not atheist.

I looked up Ka'b ibn Ashraf and he was guilty of slander and treachery. Abu Rafi' ibn Abi Al-Huqaiq was a traitor. So these are very poor examples. I made clear what free speech means here:

https://www.islamicboard.com/general...ml#post2999143
Reply

Eric H
09-29-2018, 10:41 AM
Greetings and peace be with you Raymann;

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Originally Posted by Raymann
you cannot prove OBJECTIVELY that God exists
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Can you please point me to that objective explanation. I'd love to read about it. I reject nonsense but not before I verify is nonsense.
In the same way; I doubt you can prove objectively how the universe and life came into being without a God, if you can, I would love to hear it. I am also fairly confident that any explanation you could give would be lacking in detail and it would not be verifiable.

In the spirit of searching for a greatest meaning of 'One God the creator',

Eric

Eric
Reply

Raymann
09-29-2018, 12:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
I doubt you can prove objectively how the universe and life came into being without a God
And I would not even try, with or without God. We are too small and insignificant to understand it at the moment.
Reply

Abz2000
09-29-2018, 01:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
And I would not even try, with or without God. We are too small and insignificant to understand it at the moment.
If you don't understand it - consider the answers - some of which are confirmed by the messengers, whose existence and miracles also confirm the fact.


The following video is a propaganda advert by a usurious bank (most likely run by jews) which was seeking to create support for david cameron over gordon brown - the message however is quite thoughtful:

Reply

Eric H
09-29-2018, 02:39 PM
Greetings and peace be with you Raymann;

And I would not even try, with or without God. We are too small and insignificant to understand it at the moment.
Without your verifiable proof, it seems that your truthful position in life is that of an agnostic, you don't know.

In the spirit of searching for a greatest meaning of 'One God the creator',

Eric
Reply

Alamgir
09-29-2018, 02:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
You mean an objective authority that only exists according to your SUBJECTIVE thinking, interesting.
I admire your blind FAITH, but that's what faith is, the unproven belief of something.
I have no problem and don't intend to question your faith and belief but pretending that now you can somehow use logic and some primitive scientific thinking to make sense of the metaphysical world borders the ridiculous.
As stated before, it's not 'blind', we have pretty solid evidence to back our claims but you won't ever listen, because you don't want there to be a God. Simple as.
Reply

Raymann
09-29-2018, 07:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
Without your verifiable proof, it seems that your truthful position in life is that of an agnostic, you don't know.
Yes, depends on how you look at it. An Atheist in general is the one who doesn't believe God exists, an agnostic is not sure.
In both cases we are talking about belief and belief is subjective and doesn't require proof.

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by Abz2000
If you don't understand it - consider the answers - some of which are confirmed by the messengers, whose existence and miracles also confirm the fact.
Correct me if I'm wrong but in very few words, your belief is based on the absence of a real answer. In other words if you cannot find the answer then God has to be the answer.
God doesn't need to be proven since is based on FAITH.
I'm not here to criticize your faith nor religion but it is what it is.
Reply

Abz2000
09-29-2018, 07:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Yes, depends on how you look at it. An Atheist in general is the one who doesn't believe God exists, an agnostic is not sure.
An atheist is one who covers and then rejects the just truth, and Allah :swt: calls this type of person "kaafir" and curses them for their falsehood and resultant injustice.

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
In both cases we are talking about belief and belief is subjective and doesn't require proof.
There is something called yaqeen (certainty) - and this transcends initial belief.
Reply

Raymann
09-29-2018, 07:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abz2000
An atheist is one who covers and then rejects the just truth
Wow, it's totally the opposite. You have a lot to learn. An atheist is always looking for proven answers unlike you (religious people)
Statistics show that most scientists are atheists and scientists are always looking to find and prove things.
Reply

Abz2000
09-30-2018, 02:56 AM
I'm telling you that atheists are liars who are in denial - they know very well the truth of God's existence and that of the messengers -but they lie to the people of the planet whislt seeking to corrupt themselves and other people, and whilst, in the stalling process -unwittingly discrediting their own perverse actions.

They are such blatant liars that they have turned the field of science into a joke by basing many of their assumptions on falsehood after suppressing the obvious truth. I believe that the primary reason for this is that they are dupes of satanic jews who expoit and enslave them via usury - these are the same jews who denied the obvious truth in the past and attempted to make my life difficult. (The concept of this is explained by george orwell in his description of "pornosec" where the proles (goyim)are kept corrupt and careless via promotion of perversion in their midst. The weird part in this situation is that the perversion ended up taking control of the perversive controllers of this perversion to the extent that nat rothschild - descendent and torchbearer of false messiah n.m rothschild, and creator of the page 7 fella -over-fantasized over page 3 girl loretta basey to the extent that he made her his lawful wedded wife).
Interesting that "pornosec" was aimed at the foolish, the poor, and the downtrodden in the gutters - yet took over the most "cultured" of the synagogue of satan -but let's not veer too much off topic.



The amazing thing about blatant falsehood is that it is the cause of people's awakening on a higher level - since people realise that they are in denial, hate that their life is a lie, and feel the need to do something about it.

Your blatant denial - with simultaneous hatred for Islam is actually a source of great ironical pondering for people who care to think. Thank you for this training course within the matrix :)


The perversion, falsehood, and hypocritical false accusations of the synagogue of satan were always answered - yet they continually undid themselves by their own hands and their actions were factored in to the presentation.



21. He said: "So (it will be): Thy Lord saith, 'that is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us':It is a matter (so) decreed."
22. So she conceived him, and she retired with him to a remote place.
23. And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm-tree: She cried (in her anguish): "Ah! would that I had died before this! would that I had been a thing forgotten and out of sight!"
24. But (a voice) cried to her from beneath the (palm-tree): "Grieve not! for thy Lord hath provided a rivulet beneath thee;
25. "And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm-tree: It will let fall fresh ripe dates upon thee.
26. "So eat and drink and cool (thine) eye. And if thou dost see any man, say, 'I have vowed a fast to ((Allah)) Most Gracious, and this day will I enter into not talk with any human being'"
27. At length she brought the (babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms). They said: "O Mary! truly an amazing thing hast thou brought!
28. "O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!"
29. But she pointed to the babe. They said: "How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?"
30. He said: "I am indeed a servant of Allah. He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet;
31. "And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live;
32. "(He) hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable;
33. "So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)"!
34. Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute.
35. It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is.
36. Verily Allah is my Lord and your Lord: Him therefore serve ye: this is a Way that is straight.
37. But the sects differ among themselves: and woe to the unbelievers because of the (coming) Judgment of a Momentous Day!
38. How plainly will they see and hear, the Day that they will appear before Us! but the unjust today are in error manifest!
39. But warn them of the Day of Distress, when the matter will be determined: for (behold,) they are negligent and they do not believe!
40. It is We Who will inherit the earth, and all beings thereon: to Us will they all be returned.


From Quran, Chapter 19, Maryam.
Reply

air
09-30-2018, 03:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Wow, it's totally the opposite. You have a lot to learn. An atheist is always looking for proven answers unlike you (religious people)
Statistics show that most scientists are atheists and scientists are always looking to find and prove things.
Interesting, from where did you get that statistic, and can you prove it?

I am curious to ask you this, if I say I have a cat, but I don't want to show it to anyone for now, 'maybe' later, do all atheist believe that my cat is just my imaginary/delusion?
Reply

Eric H
09-30-2018, 05:52 AM
Greetings and peace be with you Raymann;

Wow, it's totally the opposite. You have a lot to learn. An atheist is always looking for proven answers unlike you (religious people)
You must always remember that when you point the finger and imply hypocrite, there are three fingers pointing back at you. And you have already admitted you cannot prove how the universe and life came into being without God. The verifiable proof that you are always going on about does not exist.

Like you we are always searching for answers, but we do have a faith and trust that God exists.

Statistics show that most scientists are atheists and scientists are always looking to find and prove things.
It seems atheist scientists are desperate to try and prove there is no God, the big ToE seems to be an example. There is no verifiable evidence as to how single cell life billions of years ago evolved into a toe, complete with bones, ligaments, tendons muscles skin and a brain to control movement. Yet science is claiming all this is a done deal with a lack of verifiable evidence.

In the spirit of searching for God,
Eric
Reply

Raymann
09-30-2018, 09:35 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by air
if I say I have a cat, but I don't want to show it to anyone for now, 'maybe' later, do all atheist believe that my cat is just my imaginary/delusion?
No, we would think you're a weirdo.
Reply

Raymann
09-30-2018, 06:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
It seems atheist scientists are desperate to try and prove there is no God
Wrong. Scientists try to prove anything that is not proven yet.
Scientists would love to find the explanation of how everything happened, but there's no reliable evidence God was what started it all.
You cannot see, touch, hear or smell God.
It doesn't make sense.
Created complex dna for every single creature on earth but still cannot figure out a good method of communication between him and every single human being.
You would think he should be able to snap a finger and send a global e-mail updating rules as times change.
Or even better send telepathic messages to every human being.
I could think of a million reasons why God doesn't make sense but I don't want to bore you.
Reply

Futuwwa
09-30-2018, 09:56 PM
So Atheists have a monopoly on reason? Why didn't you tell us straight away? We could have saved much useless back-and-forth that way, you could simply straight up one-way tell us how it is.
Reply

Eric H
09-30-2018, 11:06 PM
Greetings and peace be with you Raymann;

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Wrong. Scientists try to prove anything that is not proven yet.
Trying means they do not have the golden nuggets of verifiable evidence.

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
You would think he should be able to snap a finger and send a global e-mail updating rules as times change.
Or even better send telepathic messages to every human being.
There is evidence, and prophets have been sent, but people ignore what they want to ignore. No one should smoke in the UK, every cigarette packet has graphic pictures and warnings about the dangers of smoking. I am happy to agree with the scientists who have verified evidence to support this claim.

In the spirit of searching for 'One God'

Eric
Reply

Raymann
10-01-2018, 12:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
So Atheists have a monopoly on reason?
Absolutely not.

format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
Why didn't you tell us straight away? We could have saved much useless back-and-forth that way, you could simply straight up one-way tell us how it is.
Tell you what?
When I tell you what I believe about something that cannot be proven I'm just giving you my personal opinion.

Science cannot prove that God exists but that doesn't mean God doesn't exist.
Do you understand that?
Science is pretty bad when dealing with the metaphysical world and that is understandable.
We welcome all attempts to prove God, even using non scientific methods.
In my personal opinion the popular religions have failed to come close to a reasonable explanation of God.
Again, is my personal opinion.

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
There is evidence, and prophets have been sent, but people ignore what they want to ignore.
If I was God I could have think many better ways rather than send prophets, but that is just me.
Method 1. Very simple, using telepathy.
Wouldn't have been much more productive to send direct telepathic messages to every human being on earth?
Who would have doubt the existence of God if every single person received the same message at the same time?
Are you saying that the one that created all couldn't create a telepathic way of communication with all human beings?
Reply

Ümit
10-01-2018, 06:47 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Absolutely not.
Tell you what?
When I tell you what I believe about something that cannot be proven I'm just giving you my personal opinion.
Evolution theory cannot be proven...The big bang theory cannot be proven...theory of gravity cannot be proven...the quantum theory cannot be proven...So these are just personal opinions?

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Science cannot prove that God exists but that doesn't mean God doesn't exist.
Do you understand that?
Science will never be able to prove the existence of God, because if it was possible, then the purpose of this Whole Earth would be void.
Do you understand that?
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Science is pretty bad when dealing with the metaphysical world and that is understandable.
We welcome all attempts to prove God, even using non scientific methods.
In my personal opinion the popular religions have failed to come close to a reasonable explanation of God.
Again, is my personal opinion.
Then tell us, how much do you know about the islamic explanation of God? Either you are missing information or you do not want to understand.
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann

If I was God I could have think many better ways rather than send prophets, but that is just me.
Method 1. Very simple, using telepathy.
Wouldn't have been much more productive to send direct telepathic messages to every human being on earth?
Who would have doubt the existence of God if every single person received the same message at the same time?
Are you saying that the one that created all couldn't create a telepathic way of communication with all human beings?
This is plain bullsh*t
Again, either you do not know anything about the Islamic view of God, or you do not want to understand.
God does not need to send telepathic messages to every human...He could program all his messages into us on the moment He created us...He is allknowing you know?

But again, if He did that, then we did not have to come to live temporarily on Earth, die and get resurrected again.

You are totally missing the point.
Reply

Raymann
10-01-2018, 07:37 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ümit
Again, either you do not know anything about the Islamic view of God, or you do not want to understand.
Why don't you explain it in a concise and not boring manner, maybe I can learn something new today.
Reply

Ümit
10-01-2018, 08:06 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Why don't you explain it in a concise and not boring manner, maybe I can learn something new today.
I'd love to do it...and if you have followed some other threads you would see I tried to explain it multiple times to several people.
I could do the same here...but then, you do not seem to be much interested in it anyways.

you may claim that you do not accept Islam because there is no scientific proof...but you cannot claim that it makes no sense.
This because Islam is a very logical, reasonable religion.

Claiming that it does not make sense means either you do not have all the information you need to understand...or you are not interested and you do not want to understand.

And in this case I suspect the last one.
Reply

Raymann
10-01-2018, 10:08 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ümit
you may claim that you do not accept Islam because there is no scientific proof...but you cannot claim that it makes no sense.
Sorry but that is exactly my claim. It doesn't make any sense. I know it cannot be proven by current scientific methods but I do believe in the metaphysical world so there has to be some other way to prove it.
I haven't come across any convincing one.

format_quote Originally Posted by Ümit
Originally Posted by Raymann
Why don't you explain it ....

I'd love to do it...
Why do you think Islam makes sense?
Reply

Ümit
10-01-2018, 10:45 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Sorry but that is exactly my claim. It doesn't make any sense. I know it cannot be proven by current scientific methods but I do believe in the metaphysical world so there has to be some other way to prove it.
I haven't come across any convincing one.

Why do you think Islam makes sense?
Because like in my previous post mentioned, it is logical and perfectly aligned with science.

A better approach would be you telling us why you think that Islam would not make any sense. At least then we understand where you stand.
Reply

Raymann
10-01-2018, 11:15 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ümit
it is logical and perfectly aligned with science.

A better approach would be you telling us why you think that Islam would not make any sense.
No, a better approach would be for you to support your claim.
Reply

Ümit
10-01-2018, 11:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
No, a better approach would be for you to support your claim.
NVM I'm not going to play this game.
Reply

Futuwwa
10-01-2018, 02:37 PM
Atheist Internet warrioring in a nutshell: Fool the other guy into believing he bears the burden of proof, and that your epistemological doctrines are objective truths. If all else fails, demand proof of every premise and count on Gödel' Incompleteness Theorem.
Reply

Raymann
10-01-2018, 04:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
Atheist Internet warrioring in a nutshell: Fool the other guy into believing he bears the burden of proof, and that your epistemological doctrines are objective truths. If all else fails, demand proof of every premise and count on Gödel' Incompleteness Theorem.
Is not an Atheist thing, actually I learned it from Muslims but it is universal at this point. I used to hate it when used against me.
Reply

anatolian
10-01-2018, 04:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by keiv
I can't believe you guys fell for this. Based on the lack of context in the OP, it was pretty clear what Raymann's intentions were. 6 pages and counting. Raymann, continue enjoying your popcorn.


He cannot be called a troll. A troll hides himself and misleads people to an idea which would not be expected from him. This user openly reveals himself as an Agnostic who is not compatible with Islam. I believe he is what he appears to be.
Reply

Ümit
10-01-2018, 06:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Is not an Atheist thing, actually I learned it from Muslims but it is universal at this point. I used to hate it when used against me.
See...not sincere at all...it is just a game for you...so why would we bother explain to you anything...besides you are the one claiming İslam makes no sense in the first place...then you get to explain what you mean by that and why.
Reply

Raymann
10-01-2018, 06:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ümit
See...not sincere at all
It has nothing to do with sincerity, the "support your claim" technique is a widely used way of making the other person to open up first which is what you've been trying to do all along. So don't play victim now.
I already made it clear (page 7 on this thread) why Islam doesn't make sense, no need to keep repeating myself.
Read it and then if you feel like it explain why Islam makes sense to you.
Reply

سيف الله
10-01-2018, 10:07 PM
Salaam

It is a waste of time to discuss anything with you. As long as you consider Divine guidance to be imaginary, you will never be able to understand our perspective.

If you really want to understand Islam and Muslims, you should first understand our Creator, the Sustainer of everything. Otherwise, we can show you the exit door.
That's the point, with people of other faith you can at least have some sort of discussion but with atheists, its pretty much pointless. Not to mention that this debate has been going on for 1000's of years. Though it does interest me why are they so desperate to drag us down into the abyss.

He cannot be called a troll. A troll hides himself and misleads people to an idea which would not be expected from him. This user openly reveals himself as an Agnostic who is not compatible with Islam. I believe he is what he appears to be.
I have to disagree, there’s a lot of nuance when it comes to trolling nowadays, he's trying everything from concern trolling to hard salesman and everything in between. He's not doing a very good job compared to his predecessors on this forum. If he can’t convert then at least subvert. Mind you he's not doing a very good job of it compared to his predecessors.

So Atheists have a monopoly on reason? Why didn't you tell us straight away? We could have saved much useless back-and-forth that way, you could simply straight up one-way tell us how it is.
This is perceptive, its a powerplay, they want to dominate. We can see how reasonable internet atheists can be.



Even the more intelligent ones can hold questionable views.



In a debate on the existence of God this atheist philosopher didn't seem to understand the basics.

Holy Spirit Activism

Hi! First of all, Craig's point is that Dennet agreed with both premises and the conclusion, but argued that the universe caused itself which is impossible. Secondly, the first premise is necessarily true since it is logically impossible for nothing to cause anything. That applies to both tables and universes. To claim that the universe began to exist without a cause out of nothing is to argue for something that is both illogical and impossible.

Obviously he's sharpened up, but demonstrates the point, nobodies perfect.
Reply

Scimitar
10-01-2018, 10:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
No, a better approach would be for you to support your claim.
Islam is natural, axiomatic. Doesn't require an "explanation". Atheism is a construct, and thus, needs explaining.

The burden of proof is actually on you.

Try not to spasm.
Reply

Ümit
10-02-2018, 06:27 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Bushwackk
Islam is natural, axiomatic. Doesn't require an "explanation". Atheism is a construct, and thus, needs explaining.
The burden of proof is actually on you.
Try not to spasm.
It is not even the burden of proof that I am afraid of. we are not desperately defending the flat earth theory here. Again, Islam is very logical...if only this dude was a little more cooperative and explained what exactly does not make sense in Islam according to him.

Instead, he gives us a vague description where to look for this issue...whatever tactics that may be.

But it doesn't matter.
@Raymann

May I remind you that you are the one coming here demanding an explanation for things that are not clear to you...So please explain or otherwise we are not able to help you.

Now, if I put in extra effort to follow your description and in "settings" I put the "amount of posts per page" on "forum default", then on page 7 I will find these posts of yours:

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Yes, depends on how you look at it. An Atheist in general is the one who doesn't believe God exists, an agnostic is not sure.
In both cases we are talking about belief and belief is subjective and doesn't require proof.

- - - Updated - - -



Correct me if I'm wrong but in very few words, your belief is based on the absence of a real answer. In other words if you cannot find the answer then God has to be the answer.
God doesn't need to be proven since is based on FAITH.
I'm not here to criticize your faith nor religion but it is what it is.
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Wow, it's totally the opposite. You have a lot to learn. An atheist is always looking for proven answers unlike you (religious people)
Statistics show that most scientists are atheists and scientists are always looking to find and prove things.
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
No, we would think you're a weirdo.
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Wrong. Scientists try to prove anything that is not proven yet.
Scientists would love to find the explanation of how everything happened, but there's no reliable evidence God was what started it all.
You cannot see, touch, hear or smell God.
It doesn't make sense.
Created complex dna for every single creature on earth but still cannot figure out a good method of communication between him and every single human being.
You would think he should be able to snap a finger and send a global e-mail updating rules as times change.
Or even better send telepathic messages to every human being.
I could think of a million reasons why God doesn't make sense but I don't want to bore you.
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Absolutely not.

Tell you what?
When I tell you what I believe about something that cannot be proven I'm just giving you my personal opinion.

Science cannot prove that God exists but that doesn't mean God doesn't exist.
Do you understand that?
Science is pretty bad when dealing with the metaphysical world and that is understandable.
We welcome all attempts to prove God, even using non scientific methods.
In my personal opinion the popular religions have failed to come close to a reasonable explanation of God.
Again, is my personal opinion.

If I was God I could have think many better ways rather than send prophets, but that is just me.
Method 1. Very simple, using telepathy.
Wouldn't have been much more productive to send direct telepathic messages to every human being on earth?
Who would have doubt the existence of God if every single person received the same message at the same time?
Are you saying that the one that created all couldn't create a telepathic way of communication with all human beings?
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Why don't you explain it in a concise and not boring manner, maybe I can learn something new today.
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Sorry but that is exactly my claim. It doesn't make any sense. I know it cannot be proven by current scientific methods but I do believe in the metaphysical world so there has to be some other way to prove it.
I haven't come across any convincing one.

Why do you think Islam makes sense?
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
No, a better approach would be for you to support your claim.
So if I swipe the endless gibberish away...it all boils down to the points we already had:
"God cannot be proven, so I do not believe."

and

"Could God not find a better way to communicate then to send prophets?"

anything else? or did I miss anything?
Reply

eesa the kiwi
10-02-2018, 08:41 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
It has nothing to do with sincerity, the "support your claim" technique is a widely used way of making the other person to open up first which is what you've been trying to do all along. So don't play victim now.
I already made it clear (page 7 on this thread) why Islam doesn't make sense, no need to keep repeating myself.
Read it and then if you feel like it explain why Islam makes sense to you.
Peace be upon those who accept guidance

Our job as Muslims is not to make you believe, only Allah can make you do that. Our job and our responsibility towards you is to convey the message so that is exactly what I'm going to do

The beliefs of Islam are simple. Allah is one he has no partners whatsoever. He sends prophets to convey his message to mankind. Some of these Messengers you are familiar with like Moses and jesus alayhis salam however the teachings they were sent with were corrupted by subsequent generations so Allah sent a final Messenger to mankind Muhammad sallaho alayhi wa sallam and revealed a book al Qurān

If you accept this message and die upon that then InshaAllah paradise will be your abode. If you reject then you are risking a fire whose fuel is men and stones


Now I'm guessing your reaction to this will be to turn away arrogantly and scoff but I'm cool with that, I've done my job but before you go let me share a verse from the Qurān with you. You want to know if Islam is true or not? Why don't you test this verse out

Allah subhanahu wa ta ala says (translation of meaning) And whoever turns away from My remembrance - indeed, he will have a depressed life, and We will gather him on the Day of Resurrection blind."
20:125

So when your life becomes miserable and it will, know that you can turn back to Allah in repentance and accept his religion or you can persist in misguidance and be punished in both the worlds

Peace be upon those who accept guidance

Oh and btw you should really try humble yourself. Arrogance may make you feel like you are great in your own eyes but to everyone else you're just a sad little man
Reply

Raymann
10-02-2018, 06:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Junon
To claim that the universe began to exist without a cause out of nothing is to argue for something that is both illogical and impossible.
Who are you to tell what's illogical and what's impossible?
But for argument sake let's follow your logic.
NOTHING BEGINS WITHOUT A CAUSE that's your premise, isn't it?
Problem number 1. Who created God? NOTHING BEGINS WITHOUT A CAUSE, that should include God too.
And who created what created God, and so forth.
Let's go step by step.
Answer that and we'll go to step 2.
Reply

Raymann
10-03-2018, 12:10 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ümit
So if I swipe the endless gibberish away...
it all boils down to the points we already had:
"God cannot be proven, so I do not believe. "and" Could God not find a better way to communicate then to send prophets?
"anything else? or did I miss anything?
Well, somewhere along the thread I also said I could find a million reasons why Islam doesn't make sense.
I also said I'm not here to impose my belief nor to adopt yours that's why I have been reluctant to go deep into the subject.
You hinted you could explain it as you've done in the past but you seem hesitant and afraid of wasting your time.
I don't blame you, I cannot promise you, your arguments would convince me.

format_quote Originally Posted by eesa the kiwi
The beliefs of Islam are simple. Allah is one he has no partners whatsoever. He sends prophets to convey his message to mankind .....
Thanks for your post and explanation and although I admire your faith I still see no reason to believe.
Reply

Scimitar
10-03-2018, 12:24 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann

Thanks for your post and explanation and although I admire your faith I still see no reason to believe.
Don't worry your petty little mind, we're not desperate for numbers ;)
Reply

Ümit
10-03-2018, 06:38 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Well, somewhere along the thread I also said I could find a million reasons why Islam doesn't make sense.
I also said I'm not here to impose my belief nor to adopt yours that's why I have been reluctant to go deep into the subject.
You hinted you could explain it as you've done in the past but you seem hesitant and afraid of wasting your time.
I don't blame you, I cannot promise you, your arguments would convince me.
Yes İ've hinted that...but İ have to back up on this...İ've seen the level of your way of arguing...İ cannot handle that...İ am sorry...
Reply

fschmidt
10-03-2018, 06:57 AM
This thread is badly off topic. And no one ever responded to my arguments about free speech.

https://www.islamicboard.com/general...ml#post2999885

Freedom of Speech - Page 6
I wish Muslims knew what Freedom of Speech really is but I know there's no hope....
Reply

eesa the kiwi
10-03-2018, 08:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Well, somewhere along the thread I also said I could find a million reasons why Islam doesn't make sense.
I also said I'm not here to impose my belief nor to adopt yours that's why I have been reluctant to go deep into the subject.
You hinted you could explain it as you've done in the past but you seem hesitant and afraid of wasting your time.
I don't blame you, I cannot promise you, your arguments would convince me.


Thanks for your post and explanation and although I admire your faith I still see no reason to believe.
Have you ever read a copy of the translation of the Quran?
Reply

fschmidt
11-30-2018, 09:06 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by fschmidt
I should write a formal article about free speech.
Here it is:

http://www.mikraite.org/Freedom-of-Speech-tt1915.html

Reply

azc
11-30-2018, 02:55 PM
''Hate speech should be protected under free speech. If someone hates a race or religion or even God, he should be free to say so.''

So this is your free speech....?

Reply

fschmidt
11-30-2018, 03:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by azc
''Hate speech should be protected under free speech. If someone hates a race or religion or even God, he should be free to say so.''

So this is your free speech....?
Yes. Saying something that is wrong should not be prohibited for the reasons I explained.
Reply

azc
11-30-2018, 04:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by fschmidt
Yes. Saying something that is wrong should not be prohibited for the reasons I explained.
Read your blog again and think what you have written...
Reply

fschmidt
12-25-2018, 12:00 AM


A wonderful defense of free speech by one of the few remaining members of traditional Western culture. Today all cultures hate free speech, though apparently Islam hates free speech somewhat less than modern culture does since I am only censored here while I am banned on all forums of modern culture.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-24-2011, 07:49 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-30-2007, 10:40 PM
  3. Replies: 117
    Last Post: 11-18-2007, 09:53 PM
  4. Replies: 41
    Last Post: 08-01-2007, 08:55 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!