|
Attention: Year 2009 is here
Wishing a very Happy New Year to all members of FFI. Our new and improved site is ready. To visit main site, click at faithfreedom.org and to visit our new forum, click at forum09.faithfreedom.org and register again. Do not worry about your old forum posts and PM, everything is saved here till 31st December, 2008 for future references.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ali Sina
Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 4607
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 3:05 am Post subject: An invitation for sbwus |
 |
|
In this message sbwus wrote:
| Quote: |
| you are aware that I always ignore them as gas bubbles of an old meal (that you all have been suffering with). |
Well as you know gas bubbles of an old meal when loud become somewhat the source of embarrassment but also of laughter and amusement. May be that is why Mr. Nadir Ahmed, when loud, is so entertaining. 
| Quote: |
| Thugs like Nadir Ahmed and many others who claim to be Muslims are in fact, not Muslims and they are using Islaam as pretext to cause fitnah on Internet and in this world. |
Here is where you and I don’t see eye to eye. Thugs like Nadir Ahmed are very much Muslims. They do not do anything that is contrary to the examples set by Muhammad and what he taught through sunnah and the Quran. So if you do not like them, then you do not know Islam.
| Quote: |
| call them outright Kafir (because they are and not because I say) and/or in some cases Murtadd. Because they must be exposed for what they truly are and should not be mistaken for what they impersonate. |
Let’s talk about it then. I say thugs like him are Muslims and you say they are not. Either I don’t know the true Islam or you still have a rosy but not a realistic idea of Islam. Leave that gas bubble alone. I think by debating with him you are lowering your own status. Who cares about this little fella. Let us talk about the real issue. The real issue is Islam. No one gives a damn about Nadir Ahmed, except perhaps his wife. But there are a billion people, many of whom thugs like him who think Islam is a religion of God. I think you should really leave this guy alone and take care of the real business.
| Quote: |
| By the way your so-called Islaamic community is limited to Murtadd-e-Azam Osama's website and couple of other. |
Leave that judgment about who is Murtadd-e-Azam and who is not for later. In my view that Osama is very much a Muslim whereas I am a Murtad and may be you are too. You cant just arbitrarily call someone a Murtadd when he thinks and acts like a Muslim and has started the Jihad against all the Kafiroon in accordance to the mandates of his prophet. That Osama is a Muslim. He says he is a Muslim and he does everything a good Muslim should do. If you do not agree with him then you are not a good Muslim. You even have the temerity to blame him for causing hostility amongst different faith. So in your opinion people of all the faiths should get along and no one should kill the Kafirs for not believing in Allah? This is against what Muhammad taught. Welcome to kafirdom my fellow Murtadd friend.
| Quote: |
| inSha Allaah, before you collaspe. |
What do you mean before you collapse? He is collapsed already! There is no place lower than where he is. He can’t fall any further. Just leave the poor guy alone.
| Quote: |
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا كُونُوا قَوَّامِينَ بِالْقِسْطِ شُهَدَاءَ لِلَّهِ وَلَوْ عَلَى أَنْفُسِكُمْ أَوِ الْوَالِدَيْنِ وَالْأَقْرَبِينَ إِنْ يَكُنْ غَنِيًّا أَوْ فَقِيرًا فَاللَّهُ أَوْلَى بِهِمَا فَلَا تَتَّبِعُوا الْهَوَى أَنْ تَعْدِلُوا وَإِنْ تَلْوُوا أَوْ تُعْرِضُوا فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ خَبِيرًا
O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allâh, even though it be against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, be he rich or poor, Allâh is a Better Protector to both (than you). So follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest you avoid justice; and if you distort your witness or refuse to give it, verily, Allâh is Ever Well-Acquainted with what you do. |
Now I have a problem with this. What if Muhammad was not a messenger of God but a narcissist who manipulated people and controlled them? Here this man is asking his benighted follower to testify even against their parents and is causing hatred and disunity among children and their parents. This to me is Evil. There is nothing more despicable than rousing a child against his or her parents and make of them informants. Doesn’t God know what is in the hearts of the people? Why he is asking children to testify against their parents? This is clear that Muhammad was not a messenger of God but an impostor who manipulated the foolhardy and with phony promises he made them commit the most shameful things such as giving testimony against their own parents. If this is not mind control then what is?
If Muhammad did everything right, this is evil. But in reality there is nothing this monster did that was right.
Please tell me why God needs sons and daughters to testify against their parents and put their lives in danger? If Muhammad was from God he would not need to set children against their parents. Isn’t this proof enough that this man was a manipulator, a con and an evil man?
I always encourage people to never let their belief or disbelief in Islam or in any faith come between them and their parents and loved ones. I always say no truth is worth hurting another human being. No truth is as precious as the love you have for your spouse, your parents or your children.
Are you saying that Allah is a selfish narcissist? No my dear, it was Muhammad who was a narcissist. This man used religion and God as a tool to fool people and control them. I have proven this time and again and I will prove it to you once more.
Leave Islam my friend. You are very much misinformed about this cult. If you disagree with Nadir you are not a Muslim. He is the Muslim among you two. You seem to be too intelligent and too human to be a Muslim.
What I see here is that this narcissist is causing disunity even between children and their parents trying to take advantage of thier gulibility with a phony claims that he is the messenger of God.
Is there any proof that he is a messenger of God beside his own words? Just give me one proof I can't refute. Give me one and I will bring this whole site down. Can you do that? Can anyone do that?
You are following a man who caused hatred amongst children and their parents and you have not even one single solid proof about his claim? Is that logical?
_________________
Don't be a follower, but a prophet unto your own.
Last edited by Ali Sina on Fri Jun 13, 2008 1:41 pm; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Scott
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1391
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 3:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Exactly.. start from that point -- the rest are moot:
moman was not a messenger from god.
simple.
Scott
_________________
rationalist, peace through education |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ali Sina
Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 4607
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2004 12:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dear Shahib,
Thank you for your “invitation”. I think I anticipated you by a few days.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4118
And you acknowledged reading that message in another thread. So technically you are accepting my invitation and I thank you for that.
However, what is this list? Why have you bungled up scholars like Ibn Warraq, Sam Shamoun and Jochan Katz with individuals like Nadir Ahmed, whom you already called a "thug" among other things? If by this you meant to insult us, you have accomplished your goal.
I think you better debate one person at a time. Since I already invited you to debate I will be glad to debate with you. You can debate with anyone you like individually but not all of us together, in this way we avoid going tangent and distracting ourselves.
Now please tell us something about yourself. As I said I did not have the pleasure of knowing you before you posted in this site. I gather you own a site. Can you please tell us about it so we become familiar with your thinking? As Sun Zi said, “know your enemy and you won’t be defeated”.
Of course I do not see you as an enemy. But let us say we are opponents in this debate. You already know me or you can know me by reading what I wrote. Please allow us also to know you a little better by reading what you have written.
Kind regards
Ali Sina
_________________
Don't be a follower, but a prophet unto your own.
Last edited by Ali Sina on Fri Jun 13, 2008 7:29 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1391
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2004 12:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ali, I think you are correct... debate one on one.
Take a look at the rules -- they're seriously slanted.
In fact, swbus puts arguments and statements forth in the rules!
That is not an open / fair debate.
Of course, I didn't expect it to be.
Scott
_________________
rationalist, peace through education |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ali Sina
Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 4607
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2004 4:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
sbwus wrote:
| Quote: |
Some Primary Rules!
• • Participants agree that no word of man i.e. (English translations) of any Islaamic sources would be used in debate. The only sources would be used are Glorious Qur’aan and Sunnah (including Ahadeeth). Likewise, Jews and/or Christians must present the original sources of their beliefs in its original language in support of their argument going back to Jesus and/or to other Biblical Prophet[s] with collective unbroken chain of practices and/or authentic verifiable narrations. No translation of the Bible would be acceptable. It is mandatory to establish for Jews and Christians that (a) Hebrew was the language of the Old Testament, especially Torah. Christians must establish the mother tongue of Jesus (what was his mother tongue) and the original language of NT. |
Now dear Shahib. Where did you learn this style of debates? … From Nadir Ahmed? These demands are of course absurd. We are going to debate in English and there are various versions of translations of the Quran and the Bible. Of course I can print the verses of the Quran in Arabic along with a translation of that. I am not going to discuss the Bible with you but if I happen to quote a verse from the Bible, English is the only version I can read. I do not know Hebrew or Latin.
So please let us not start with evading tactics. As you and I could easily see Nadir Ahmad’s impossible to meet list of demands were his desperte way out of debate with you. Everyone noticed that and it did not pay off for him. People also will notice that these unreasonable preconditions that you are putting forward are your way of avoiding the debate.
| Quote: |
| • • Before all debates, parties agree to define and/or agree to certain terms, words, and/or definitions etc, which would be used by the parties during debate. |
These are technicalities. You and I do not have to agree on technicalities. You present your case and I will present mine. We leave it to the readers to decide who is right and who is more right.
| Quote: |
| • • One topic would be debated at one time until its conclusion without any further rebuttals. |
That is fair, but sometimes it is better to end a topic and move on without agreeing. After all, our intention is not to convince each other. We want to help our readers see the truth through this exercise.
Let me make an example to make this clear. When Nadir issued a list of absurd conditions to debate with you that was the end of the discussion. Any sensible person could see he has lost. But you kept taunting him and challenging the poor guy. I saw no need for that. There are times that the issue becomes quite clear. The other party may not admit until the cows come home. Remember, you and I are not here to convince each other. We want to influence our audience/readers.
Let us put it this way: I put on my prosecutor’s mantle and accuse Muhammad of various crimes against Humanity. You act as his defense lawyer and try to disprove all my claims. Then we leave it at that. You and I do not have to agree. Let the readers be the jury and let them decide.
| Quote: |
| • • Parties agree to stick to the issue and present the evidence in support of their claims, without giving a spin, using diversionary tactic etc. |
That is fair.
| Quote: |
| • • Before, the debate, participant would address the audience stating their qualifications about the subject matter of the debate, stating their core beliefs and why they should be taken seriously, enabling them to qualify to speak/debate on the subject matter. No one can qualify without presenting evidence of proper knowledge through learning to speak on any subject, if they are not Muslims. |
Let us say the debate will be between you and me only. This will allow us to be more methodical and to the point. Friends can comment in another thread.
| Quote: |
| • • The Glorious Qur’aan would decide the differences and/or contradictions and/or distortion in the OT and NT. |
That is not a fair condition either. To accept the Quran as the measure of truth both parties must agree to the divine origin of that book. I disagree and do not regard the Quran to be an infallible and divine book. In fact part of my claim would be to show that the Quran is not from God. So although I do not accept the Old and the New Testaments as divine books your condition is definitely unacceptable.
| Quote: |
| • • There is and never was an issue of defending Islaam, since Islaam does not need any defense. The burden of proof is always on accuser and/or claimant. Therefore, after meeting the above requirements successfully, accuser must present the supporting evidence, in case the parties agreed upon a debate on certain topic/subject. The parties would debate no absurd topic and/or subject. |
Anything that is being accused needs to be defended, except things that are self evident. You do not need to prove that the sun is out because it is visible to any seeing being. But the alleged truth of Islam is not obvious to most of the people of the world. Many people doubt the divine origin of that book so both the Quran and Islam need to be defended.
The burden of proof is on the claimant. Muslims claim that Muhammad was a messenger of God. They must prove it. There are many who make such claims. Just a few hours ago I received an invitation from someone claiming to be the Al Imam al Mahdi inviting me quite authoritatively to accept his claim. Here is the link to his website:
http://www.dar-es-salaam.org/
What do you say? Don’t you think it is fair if we ask this Mahdi to prove his claim or do you think it is up to us to prove he is not who he claims to be?
Of course the burden of proof is on the claimant. Otherwise I could claim to be God and say prove me wrong. That would be absurd, but do you want to give it a shot? Can you prove I am not God? Let us see how good you are at this. I bet you’ll not win. But that is like putting the carriage in front of the horse. The burden of proof is always on the claimant.
I claim Muhammad was a pedophile, an assassin, a mass murderer, a liar, a psychopath, etc. Here I am the claimant and the burden of proof is on me. I have proven my case and will be glad to do it again.
You must proof that Muhammad was a messenger of God. And I must prove that he was a despicable man. I hope that is clear. Remember, the burden of proof is always on the claimant.
| Quote: |
| • • Before the beginning of debate parties will announce their beliefs about the sources of knowledge according to them and/or their belief. |
I do not have any belief. I try to think, to reason and to find the truth using my own limited and imperfect intelligence. After all this limited and imperfect intelligence is the only tool I have to judge between right and wrong and no matter how imperfect it may be it is a gift of God to me and I am going to use it to the maximum of its potential.
My source of knowledge is human collective knowledge. I learn things from here and there and from everywhere. But I am not a parrot. I process everything I learn and come up with something that is my own understanding. So you can say the source of what I say is my own intelligence. That is where the final processed product comes from. As I said I make no claim that this source is perfect and I can stand corrections. However you must be able to prove me wrong logically. Since I do not accept the Quran or any book as holy, I will not accept their authority above my own intelligence. In fact I humbly state that these books are far more inferior to my intelligence, for simple reason that they were written by men of the past with limited knowledge and I am living in this amazing age of information.
| Quote: |
| • • NO sources from outside source of topic would be allowed to be used, beside the sources of natural origins of the subject of Debate. |
I think we are not going to talk about something which is not related to the subject. So that is fine.
| Quote: |
| • • In case of Islaam is debated, no sources outside the Islaamic sources would be used and no translations done by non-Muslims of Islaamic sources would be accepted an authentic. And no non-Muslim sources would be allowed except the link among the scriptures between Judeo-Christian and Islaam. |
That is fine; we can use the translations done by the Muslims. We can also quote the verses in Arabic. Arabic is not my mother language, so I need to rely on translations even though I try to read the Quran in Arabic to make complete sense of it.
| Quote: |
| • • No translations of Qur’aan and Hadeeth in English would be accepted as sole source of debate, since they are the word of man and not the word of Allaah. The translation would be allowed as mean of debate, but the point in dispute and/or subject of debate must be proven through authentic sources of Islaam. While final ruling would be from the collective belief of majority of the faith in question subject to its laws. |
I do not have access to Arabic hadith. The translations of the hadiths are made by Muslims so that is what I am going to use. After all hadiths are narrations that have passed from person to person for decades until they were written. They are not the words of Allah to begin with. So we will only refer to the Arabic Quran if there is a discrepancy but as for Haidth, the translation of it in English is what we are going to use. Frankly I trust more Muhsin Khan’s translations than yours. Your English seem to be very good, however many Muslims do not agree with you and do not recognize you even as a Muslim let alone an authority on it. So we will stick to English translation of ahadith provided in this Islamic site:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/
If you dispute with that site, go and take your issue with them not us.
| Quote: |
| • In case, one party in the debate is non-Muslim and other Muslim. Thus, the non-Muslim would be obligated to provide the information about his/her core belief, sect, denomination, scripture and its version, for the sole purpose of a sense of reference for the other party. If the non-Muslim desire to debate Islaam and/or Islaamic issue[s], he/she must provide his background of Islaamic knowledge and/or what he/she has studied, how he/she has studied and he/she has sufficient knowledge to debate on the subject matter. |
As I said I have no beliefs. In my discussions I will rely on commonsense and reason. This is available to all those who want to use their brain. My background and how I learned Islam are not relevant to our discussions. We are going to talk about Islam and not me.
| Quote: |
| • • The ruling of authentic and credible scholars of Islaam and Judeo-Christian sources would be acceptable as reference in the debate. |
Okay.
| Quote: |
| The public debate would be video taped and open to media as well! |
Now this is one of those Naderian conditions that are intended to not be met. I am not going to sit in front of the camera for you to film me. The discussion will be carried out here, in this forum and it will be in written format. After all you want to prove my accusations against Muhammad are wrong; you can perfectly do that here. I perfectly know of what Muslims are capable and I do not have enough money to hire a couple of body guards all the time or any desire to constantly look over my shoulders.
| Quote: |
| Looking forward to hearing from you in the very future. To accept the challenge please click on contact me. |
_________________
Don't be a follower, but a prophet unto your own.
Last edited by Ali Sina on Fri Jun 13, 2008 7:46 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheOtherWhiteMeat
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 1741
Location: Dar Al-Harb
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2004 6:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The Glorious Qur’aan would decide the differences and/or contradictions and/or distortion in the OT and NT. |
And that's why this forum has pretty much been reduced to rolling eyes and sighs by both parties. There can be no dialogue between dualing realities ruled by outlandish criterias.
But I'd still pay to read this debate. LOL
_________________
A voice from heaven should be ignored if it is not on the side of justice. ~ Isaac Bashevis Singer
It wasn't you who killed them, it was Allah. ~ 8:17 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sbwus
Joined: 16 Sep 2004
Posts: 1061
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2004 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ali Sina wrote: |
sbwus wrote:
| Quote: |
Some Primary Rules!
• • Participants agree that no word of man i.e. (English translations) of any Islaamic sources would be used in debate. The only sources would be used are Glorious Qur’aan and Sunnah (including Ahadeeth). Likewise, Jews and/or Christians must present the original sources of their beliefs in its original language in support of their argument going back to Jesus and/or to other Biblical Prophet[s] with collective unbroken chain of practices and/or authentic verifiable narrations. No translation of the Bible would be acceptable. It is mandatory to establish for Jews and Christians that (a) Hebrew was the language of the Old Testament, especially Torah. Christians must establish the mother tongue of Jesus (what was his mother tongue) and the original language of NT. |
Now dear Shahib. Where did you learn this style of debates? … From Nadir Ahmed? These demands are of course absurd. We are going to debate in English and there are various versions of translations of the Quran and the Bible. Of course I can print the verses of the Quran in Arabic along with a translation of that. I am not going to discuss the Bible with you but if I happen to quote a verse from the Bible, English is the only version I can read. I do not know Hebrew or Latin.
So please let us not start with evading tactics. As you and I could easily see Nadir Ahmad’s impossible to meet list of demands were his desperte way out of debate with you. Everyone noticed that and it did not pay off for him. People also will notice that these unreasonable preconditions that you are putting forward are your way of avoiding the debate.
| Quote: |
| • • Before all debates, parties agree to define and/or agree to certain terms, words, and/or definitions etc, which would be used by the parties during debate. |
These are technicalities. You and I do not have to agree on technicalities. You present your case and I will present mine. We leave it to the readers to decide who is right and who is more right.
| Quote: |
| • • One topic would be debated at one time until its conclusion without any further rebuttals. |
That is fair, but sometimes it is better to end a topic and move on without agreeing. After all, our intention is not to convince each other. We want to help our readers see the truth through this exercise.
Let me make an example to make this clear. When Nadir issued a list of absurd conditions to debate with you that was the end of the discussion. Any sensible person could see he has lost. But you kept taunting him and challenging the poor guy. I saw no need for that. There are times that the issue becomes quite clear. The other party may not admit until the cows come home. Remember, you and I are not here to convince each other. We want to influence our audience/readers.
Let us put it this way: I put on my prosecutor’s mantle and accuse Muhammad of various crimes against Humanity. You act as his defense lawyer and try to disprove all my claims. Then we leave it at that. You and I do not have to agree. Let the readers be the jury and let them decide.
| Quote: |
| • • Parties agree to stick to the issue and present the evidence in support of their claims, without giving a spin, using diversionary tactic etc. |
That is fair.
| Quote: |
| • • Before, the debate, participant would address the audience stating their qualifications about the subject matter of the debate, stating their core beliefs and why they should be taken seriously, enabling them to qualify to speak/debate on the subject matter. No one can qualify without presenting evidence of proper knowledge through learning to speak on any subject, if they are not Muslims. |
Let us say the debate will be between you and me only. This will allow us to be more methodical and to the point. Friends can comment in another thread.
| Quote: |
| • • The Glorious Qur’aan would decide the differences and/or contradictions and/or distortion in the OT and NT. |
That is not a fair condition either. To accept the Quran as the measure of truth both parties must agree to the divine origin of that book. I disagree and do not regard the Quran to be an infallible and divine book. In fact part of my claim would be to show that the Quran is not from God. So although I do not accept the Old and the New Testaments as divine books your condition is definitely unacceptable.
| Quote: |
| • • There is and never was an issue of defending Islaam, since Islaam does not need any defense. The burden of proof is always on accuser and/or claimant. Therefore, after meeting the above requirements successfully, accuser must present the supporting evidence, in case the parties agreed upon a debate on certain topic/subject. The parties would debate no absurd topic and/or subject. |
Anything that is being accused needs to be defended, except things that are self evident. You do not need to prove that the sun is out because it is visible to any seeing being. But the alleged truth of Islam is not obvious to most of the people of the world. Many people doubt the divine origin of that book so both the Quran and Islam need to be defended.
The burden of proof is on the claimant. Muslims claim that Muhammad was a messenger of God. They must prove it. There are many who make such claims. Just a few hours ago I received an invitation from someone claiming to be the Al Imam al Mahdi inviting me quite authoritatively to accept his claim. Here is the link to his website:
http://www.dar-es-salaam.org/
What do you say? Don’t you think it is fair if we ask this Mahdi to prove his claim or do you think it is up to us to prove he is not who he claims to be?
Of course the burden of proof is on the claimant. Otherwise I could claim to be God and say prove me wrong. That would be absurd, but do you want to give it a shot? Can you prove I am not God? Let us see how good you are at this. I bet you’ll not win. But that is like putting the carriage in front of the horse. The burden of proof is always on the claimant.
I claim Muhammad was a pedophile, an assassin, a mass murderer, a liar, a psychopath, etc. Here I am the claimant and the burden of proof is on me. I have proven my case and will be glad to do it again.
You must proof that Muhammad was a messenger of God. And I must prove that he was a despicable man. I hope that is clear. Remember, the burden of proof is always on the claimant.
| Quote: |
| • • Before the beginning of debate parties will announce their beliefs about the sources of knowledge according to them and/or their belief. |
I do not have any belief. I try to think, to reason and to find the truth using my own limited and imperfect intelligence. After all this limited and imperfect intelligence is the only tool I have to judge between right and wrong and no matter how imperfect it may be it is a gift of God to me and I am going to use it to the maximum of its potential.
My source of knowledge is human collective knowledge. I learn things from here and there and from everywhere. But I am not a parrot. I process everything I learn and come up with something that is my own understanding. So you can say the source of what I say is my own intelligence. That is where the final processed product comes from. As I said I make no claim that this source is perfect and I can stand corrections. However you must be able to prove me wrong logically. Since I do not accept the Quran or any book as holy, I will not accept their authority above my own intelligence. In fact I humbly state that these books are far more inferior to my intelligence, for simple reason that they were written by men of the past with limited knowledge and I am living in this amazing age of information.
| Quote: |
| • • NO sources from outside source of topic would be allowed to be used, beside the sources of natural origins of the subject of Debate. |
I think we are not going to talk about something which is not related to the subject. So that is fine.
| Quote: |
| • • In case of Islaam is debated, no sources outside the Islaamic sources would be used and no translations done by non-Muslims of Islaamic sources would be accepted an authentic. And no non-Muslim sources would be allowed except the link among the scriptures between Judeo-Christian and Islaam. |
That is fine; we can use the translations done by the Muslims. We can also quote the verses in Arabic. Arabic is not my mother language, so I need to rely on translations even though I try to read the Quran in Arabic to make complete sense of it.
| Quote: |
| • • No translations of Qur’aan and Hadeeth in English would be accepted as sole source of debate, since they are the word of man and not the word of Allaah. The translation would be allowed as mean of debate, but the point in dispute and/or subject of debate must be proven through authentic sources of Islaam. While final ruling would be from the collective belief of majority of the faith in question subject to its laws. |
I do not have access to Arabic hadith. The translations of the hadiths are made by Muslims so that is what I am going to use. After all hadiths are narrations that have passed from person to person for decades until they were written. They are not the words of Allah to begin with. So we will only refer to the Arabic Quran if there is a discrepancy but as for Haidth, the translation of it in English is what we are going to use. Frankly I trust more Muhsin Khan’s translations than yours. Your English seem to be very good, however many Muslims do not agree with you and do not recognize you even as a Muslim let alone an authority on it. So we will stick to English translation of ahadith provided in this Islamic site:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/
If you dispute with that site, go and take your issue with them not us.
| Quote: |
| • In case, one party in the debate is non-Muslim and other Muslim. Thus, the non-Muslim would be obligated to provide the information about his/her core belief, sect, denomination, scripture and its version, for the sole purpose of a sense of reference for the other party. If the non-Muslim desire to debate Islaam and/or Islaamic issue[s], he/she must provide his background of Islaamic knowledge and/or what he/she has studied, how he/she has studied and he/she has sufficient knowledge to debate on the subject matter. |
As I said I have no beliefs. In my discussions I will rely on commonsense and reason. This is available to all those who want to use their brain. My background and how I learned Islam are not relevant to our discussions. We are going to talk about Islam and not me.
| Quote: |
| • • The ruling of authentic and credible scholars of Islaam and Judeo-Christian sources would be acceptable as reference in the debate. |
Okay.
| Quote: |
| The public debate would be video taped and open to media as well! |
Now this is one of those Naderian conditions that are intended to not be met. I am not going to sit in front of the camera for you to film me. The discussion will be carried out here, in this forum and it will be in written format. After all you want to prove my accusations against Muhammad are wrong; you can perfectly do that here. I perfectly know of what Muslims are capable and I do not have enough money to hire a couple of body guards all the time or any desire to constantly look over my shoulders.
| Quote: |
| Looking forward to hearing from you in the very future. To accept the challenge please click on contact me. |
|
Greetings Mr. Ali Sina
Thank you for you email, however, I think that my message is understood. I have no desire to insult any one. I am eager for a fair, open, well moderated and well thought out debate with certain rules and momerandum of understanding. And no there is no possibility for all of us to be debating at the same time, that only happens in chess tournaments where on person play with multiple opponents.
Best regards
_________________
"An uninformed person cannot conceptualize the essence of knowledge nor its sublimity. One who fails to conceptualize something, its significance will never become rooted in the heart." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan-Cannon
Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3144
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2004 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Did the guy actually read Ali Sina's response?
I thought Ali made pretty clear it would be a 1-on-1 debate, with no one else interfering. :O
Either he missed it, or he is chickening out.
_________________
Islam is anti-infidel, therefor i am anti-Islam. - Dan Cannon.
I am the greatest minority in the world: an individual. - David Gulbraa. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1391
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2004 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
naw... I don't think he did.
Also notice the condition that the debate be videotaped...
looks like another lame/feeble attempt to identify ali.
If swbus wants to debate -- this place is available...
although, I would think this his list of preconditions is still unusable.
Scott
_________________
rationalist, peace through education |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sbwus
Joined: 16 Sep 2004
Posts: 1061
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2004 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan-Cannon wrote: |
Did the guy actually read Ali Sina's response?
I thought Ali made pretty clear it would be a 1-on-1 debate, with no one else interfering. :O
Either he missed it, or he is chickening out. |
The question is, did you read my response or you need to take English 101? Though, English is not my mother tongue, but I was explicit to clear the misconception. But you are so blind in your rage and hate against Islaam and Muslims, which literally blinds you not only emotionally. Go back and read my response or have some one interpret that to you slowly and loudly.
_________________
"An uninformed person cannot conceptualize the essence of knowledge nor its sublimity. One who fails to conceptualize something, its significance will never become rooted in the heart." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan-Cannon
Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3144
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2004 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sbwus already used English translations of Quranic verses in one of his posts, which render his demands about Arabic version of Quranic verses hypocritical. If he himself has no hangups about using English translations, any demand for others to do so is nothing but an excuse.
_________________
Islam is anti-infidel, therefor i am anti-Islam. - Dan Cannon.
I am the greatest minority in the world: an individual. - David Gulbraa. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1391
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2004 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
well, look at me... I don't know arabic -- so am I instantly disqualified from talking about this death cult?
To me, I don't care if the language is unreadable by everyone, if some terrorist is going to hold open a book and point to some line (9:11? I forget) as justification for being inhuman -- that's all I need.
My question is: why does THAT person feel that this is the way it is.
You can translate the lines into pig-latin, pig-arabic, english, french.. quibble about the translations -- claim the original language is 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times more "rich" and can't be translated -- but that's all deflection -- the question is: why does that one person feel that the lines he/she is pointing to justifies the abhorrent acts?
It doesn't take preconditions and filming or knowing classical arabic to be able to ask this question and/or to debate it.
stop playing child's games... and have an honest discussion/debate, eh?
Scott
_________________
rationalist, peace through education |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sbwus
Joined: 16 Sep 2004
Posts: 1061
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2004 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Scott wrote: |
naw... I don't think he did.
Also notice the condition that the debate be videotaped...
looks like another lame/feeble attempt to identify ali.
If swbus wants to debate -- this place is available...
although, I would think this his list of preconditions is still unusable.
Scott |
Man, you are dumb as mule. I agree to that person who said " that your mouth is not connected with your brain."
There have always been rules for debate and there always be, but only idiots play without rules. I wonder, why your comments didn't surprise me.
By the way, so far all those debates I know about were nothing but shouting, BS and insults exchange. None of the praticipant[s] has proven to be learned, knowledgable and civil. It has also been based on:
1. Who is the biggest moron
2. Who can claim victory first on his website
Another thing is that, I don't give a damn to one who leaves Islaam and I don't give a damn to one who converts to Islaam. I am not in business of denying and/or condemning here, if one leaves Islaam; and I am also not in business of dancing with joy if some one convrts to Islaam.
_________________
"An uninformed person cannot conceptualize the essence of knowledge nor its sublimity. One who fails to conceptualize something, its significance will never become rooted in the heart."
Last edited by sbwus on Sat Sep 25, 2004 2:55 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan-Cannon
Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3144
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2004 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sbwus wrote: |
| But you are so blind in your rage and hate against Islaam and Muslims bla bla bla |
Dear Sbwus, i don't hate you. So i guess you were "pre-judging" me without throrough knowledge about my character.
For all you know i could have misinterpreted your response, which is easy since it wasn't clear what part of Ali's words you were responding to at all times.
Now who is blind in his hate. See what hate is doing to your judgment?
It is blinding you to the possibility of other explanations.
But i don't mind. People can make mistakes and hypocrisy can be one of them.
Regards,
Dan.
_________________
Islam is anti-infidel, therefor i am anti-Islam. - Dan Cannon.
I am the greatest minority in the world: an individual. - David Gulbraa. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gupsfu
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Posts: 7919
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2004 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sbwus wrote: |
| By the way, so far all those debates I know about were nothing but shouting, BS and insults exchange. |
Thanks once again for your explanation. I see what you mean now.
Here is a perfect example:
| sbwus wrote: |
| Man, you are dumb as mule. I agree to that person who said " that your mouth is not connected with your brain." |
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
