Muslim Seeking Refutation of Alleged Ad Hominem Fallacy in Quran

[Skavau]

That begs the question.. is thor all you don't believe in? or does that also aply to Akal Purakh, Ek Onkar, Waheguru, Bhao Khandan, Dukh Bhanjno, Bhagat, Vachhal, Hari, Govinda, Bhagavan? The meaning of disbeliever is quite defined.. we are not going to dance around in circles to conform to your needs as fits a particular post!... if it were a christian or a Jew the OP would have mentioned christian or jew or as we Muslims define them (people of the book)!

The original poster might not have done that. Anyone could have made the original criticism. You just assumed it was an Atheist.

fascinating.. is this a cry for help?

Cry for help for what?

This seems to me in the ball park of paranoid schizophrenia or extreme narcissism.. which is it? are you the only atheist here, are you the atheist addressing the OP? are you the atheist PMing me with vile language? or you just in need of some attention?

Okay. I will assume you do not mean me then.

Atheists who have earned it!

So not people who have earned it then?

with that said, if you don't like it here, don't like the members here, don't like the views shared here, then don't be a member here..

But I do like it here and have no problem with the vast majority of members.

 

[جوري]

The original poster might not have done that. Anyone could have made the original criticism. You just assumed it was an Atheist.

Indeed a calculated assumption and in ts proper place!

Cry for help for what?

I don't know.. you tell me, why do you insinuate yourself in a topic that is of no concern to you?

Okay. I will assume you do not mean me then.

That is inconsequential to me.. do your assumptions on your own private time!

So not people who have earned it then?

Are you suffering from subacute sclerosing panencephalopathy? try to focus, so we are not here ad infinitum coaxing your bruised not to mention very confused ego!

But I do like it here and have no problem with the vast majority of members

You might want to avoid the ones your don't like then!..
little charades aren't amusing!

cheers

 

[Skavau]

Indeed a calculated assumption and in ts proper place!

I see no logic behind your assumption.

I don't know.. you tell me, why do you insinuate yourself in a topic that is of no concern to you?

I said my piece on my first reply. I did not like the attitude expressed.

That is inconsequential to me.. do your assumptions on your own private time!

Do you mean me then?

Are you suffering from subacute sclerosing panencephalopathy? try to focus, so we are not here ad infinitum coaxing your bruised not to mention very confused ego!

What precisely does this have to do with my ego? Why do you even bring it up? This has nothing to do with anything. I addressed originally what I thought was a bad attitude and you start commenting on my 'ego'?

I don't even know what you are talking about.

You might want to avoid the ones your don't like then!..

I don't avoid anyone on forums. I comment on posts that I deem relevant to me. If someone I feel is making a false assumption, or engaging in widespread erroneous generalisations - I will point it out. I type to a lot of people I do not respect on other forums.

little charades aren't amusing!

What 'charades'?

 

[جوري]

I see no logic behind your assumption.

this concerns me how?

I said my piece on my first reply. I did not like the attitude expressed.

Again, trivial and inconsequential!

Do you mean me then?

If you feel it applies to you, then so be it!

What precisely does this have to do with my ego? Why do you even bring it up? This has nothing to do with anything. I addressed originally what I thought was a bad attitude and you start commenting on my 'ego'?

Get a self-help book and gain some perspective before commenting on other people's attitudes.. yours leaves very little to be desired at the moment!

I don't even know what you are talking about.

You too can be a google scholar by sticking things over your head, in a search engine!

I don't avoid anyone on forums. I comment on posts that I deem relevant to me. If someone I feel is making a false assumption, or engaging in widespread erroneous generalisations - I will point it out. I type to a lot of people I do not respect on other forums.

You should, in the least out of respect for other people's time.. we don't all have the luxury to sit here all day to engage in vacuous discourse!

What 'charades'?

This crap.. want to keep it up?

cheers

 

[Skavau]

this concerns me how?

No idea.

Again, trivial and inconsequential!

Perhaps, perhaps not.

If you feel it applies to you, then so be it!

Only you know the answer to whether you mean me. I would appreciate it if you actually answered it rather than just assert that my conclusions are 'assumptions'. So as I have not actually received a direct answer: Are you referring to me? If so, then when in the past have I either mocked or challenged you?

Get a self-help book and gain some perspective before commenting on other people's attitudes.. yours leaves very little to be desired at the moment!

What about my attitude?

You should, in the least out of respect for other people's time.. we don't all have the luxury to sit here all day to engage in vacuous discourse!

I never said you did. There is no compulsion to respond to any of this for either of us.

 

[جوري]

No idea.

Great --then stop wasting my time!

Perhaps, perhaps not.

Oh how mysterious, and virtually appealing!......

Only you know the answer to whether you mean me. I would appreciate it if you actually answered it rather than just assert that my conclusions are 'assumptions'. So as I have not actually received a direct answer: Are you referring to me? If so, then when in the past have I either mocked or challenged you?

see all the previous replies, clever chap!

What about my attitude?

more of a mindless drivel!

I never said you did. There is no compulsion to respond to any of this for either of us.

Great..

cheers

 

[Skavau]

Great --then stop wasting my time!

You know, there is no compulsion for you to respond.

Oh how mysterious, and virtually appealing!......

The irony is interesting.

see all the previous replies, clever chap!

I have. They are all inconclusive.

more of a mindless drivel!

The above is meaningless rhetoric. What about my attitude?

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

That begs the question.. is thor all you don't believe in? or does that also aply to Akal Purakh, Ek Onkar, Waheguru, Bhao Khandan, Dukh Bhanjno, Bhagat, Vachhal, Hari, Govinda, Bhagavan? The meaning of disbeliever is quite defined.. we are not going to dance around in circles to conform to your needs as fits a particular post!... if it were a christian or a Jew the OP would have mentioned christian or jew or as we Muslims define them (people of the book)!

Well all these refer to God -Allah . Akal Purakh = Formless One. I may have misunderstood your point, are you stating anybody who refers to Allah with these names is regarded a non-believer also? :S

 

[جوري]

Well all these refer to God -Allah . Akal Purakh = Formless One. I may have misunderstood your point, are you stating anybody who refers to Allah with these names is regarded a non-believer also? :S

No, he stated he doesn't believe in Thor.. I made the point that 'Thor' isn't all he doesn't believe in..
I am quite aware that these are all names for God..
Have a sikh friend remember?

peace

 

[جوري]

You know, there is no compulsion for you to respond.

Does that not go both ways?

The irony is interesting.

So long as it isn't lost to you, then that is all that matters!

I have. They are all inconclusive.

A shame.. you might want to invest in some basic lingual training to foster greater comprehension!

The above is meaningless rhetoric. What about my attitude?

No-- not meaningless.. you are wasting web space on mindless drivel!.. and that in fact needs to be mentioned.
As for your attitude, it is exactly the leverage I needed to make a point on how engaging an atheist is a complete and utter waste of time!


cheers

 

[Skavau]

Does that not go both ways?

Yes.

A shame.. you might want to invest in some basic lingual training to foster greater comprehension!

I have been keeping up with this conversation. Not once have you offered a direct answer to my question.

No-- not meaningless.. you are wasting web space on mindless drivel!.. and that in fact needs to be mentioned.
As for your attitude, it is exactly the leverage I needed to make a point on how engaging an atheist is a complete and utter waste of time!

So how you perceive me is indicative of all Atheists?

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

You are probably right, I was just thinking about it before reading your latest... but the Quran also addresses 'Ahel ilkitab'--people of the book on multitudes of occasions..
perhaps kaffirs are those who deny his books and messengers (the divine books) Sikhs/hindues shintus/buddhists/atheists but I highly doubt ahel ilkitab are kaffirs.. it just doesn't go with the word in Arabic.. the actual meaning of the world means someone who disbelieves!!!

Sikhs do not deny the Messengers. You should try to find out what this word covers. It's said (trying to find article) that Sikhs were not regarded as Kaffirs by Muslims, because of our belief in the One Supreme Master.

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

No, he stated he doesn't believe in Thor.. I made the point that 'Thor' isn't all he doesn't believe in..

I am quite aware that these are all names for God..
Have a sikh friend remember?

peace

I know. Just misunderstood your post. :sunny:

Gur Fateh.

 

[جوري]

Sikhs do not deny the Messengers. You should try to find out what this word covers. It's said (trying to find article) that Sikhs were not regarded as Kaffirs by Muslims, because of our belief in the One Supreme Master.

Indeed, that is what I thought yesterday, a kaffir only = to an atheist as offered in all dictionaries including Arabic, but she offered evidence to the contrary.. I don't know that her opinion or interpretation of the verses is scholarly as certainly an atheist can indulge in self-worship, worldly worship, money worship or whatever as it is instinctive in all of us to seek fulfillment to that side of us? until such a time when a scholar can shed more light on this, each will hold on to his opinion..

I can't give you one either way and pass it as a fact.. laws in jurisprudence aren't subject to whim and desires, people go to school for this, just like people go to law school or medical school-- I can say in an uneducated way that to me it is obvious a kaffir to equal only to an atheist, but can't make that point with any assertion. I am not nor claim to be a Muslim scholar, and won't pass random opinion as fact simply to assert my position and save face!

I am here learning just like everyone else..

peace

 

[Woodrow]

The Qur'an does have ayyats that distinguish between Yahuda, Nazaar and Kufir.

I believe it is understandable to interpret Kafir as Atheist.

2:62. Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. S P C


Yusuf Ali's Quran Translation