Jump to content
Islamic Forum

fallow

Member
  • Content count

    167
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by fallow

  1. Every Hadith Has A Counter-hadith?

    By 'codification' I mean a set of agreed-upon laws, which can be referred to for a definitive judgement. If there are codified laws, why on earth does the Ummah disagree over so many things? Surely Muslims would PREFER to obey the laws of Allah, and if they were in fact codified it would be simple to do so. Why do some argue that piano-playing is permissable when all it should take if for someone to point out the agree-upon law against it? This doesn't happen. Both sides swap hadiths and rulings from opposing scholars and Sunnipath and no definitive position is ever reached. Twoswords, please read my sig. I'm a cultural christian and an agnostic.
  2. Torture In Hell

    I don't understand the point you are trying to make. If there were no theists then no-one would believe in a god so everyone would be an atheist. True, there would probably not be such a word as 'atheist' because ther e would be no need for it, but so what? You seem to think that atheism is a religion or a philosphy. It isn't - it's just not believing that gods exist.
  3. Every Hadith Has A Counter-hadith?

    I assume there isn't because 1. if i ask about specific laws in a Caliphate I'm always told "that depends" and 2. if there was, why aren't arguments solved by pointing to the codified law rather than endless quotations of conflicting hadiths? If the law was codified we could say with certaintly whether or not Muslims were allowed to pay the piano. We currently can't, so I deduce that there is no codification.
  4. Torture In Hell

    You're assuming that atheists think of themselves as atheists when they aren't arguing with theists. They don't (mostly). I certainly don't spend my time thinking about those deluded Easter Bunny Believers. I assume that you are also an Aeaster Bunnyist (and an Atooth Fairyist for that matter) - do you consider yourself living only to reject others' beliefs? Also, this site forces people to descibe themselves as "atheist" if they don't believe in gods. They might well describe themselves as 'humanist' or 'secularist' in real life. Religion is simply not a topic that occurs to a non-believer unles they are specifically engaged in talking about it.
  5. Every Hadith Has A Counter-hadith?

    I understand that, but it still doesn't answer my question. Are you saying that what the majority of schloars say is "truth"? And if it is, why can't there be a codification of laws? Why isn't there one already?
  6. Seperate Religion And State?

    Actually about 10% of animals (including humans) seem to be born gay. Also, the idea that gays could not have sex for reproductive purposes is just silly. Lesbian couples commonly have children. I'm totaly aware that Islam hates gays, which is why I mentioned it as an example of the totalitarian nature of an Islamic state. Islam also hates free speech, so that wouldn't be allowed. Islam hates "free mixing", and female elbows and bacon and musical intruments , and so on - it's TOTALITARIAN. No, it isn't a criminal offence to grow enough marijuana for personal use in the state of South Australia and in some other jurisdictions around the world. LOL, there is no law against adultery in Australia and I don't know of any in any western country. I can't think of any laws against any consensual sexual act (not including extreme masochism.sadism - oh, and incest) other than those protecting minors. And that's the way it should be. Again, only a totalitarian country would have laws about who you can go to bed with and what you do when you are there. You have to understand that this freedom is relatively new. 100 years ago the puritanical church had a much greater influence and it is only in the past 50 years or so that we have managed to free ourselves from it . We don't welcome the idea of another religion coming along and taking away our freedom.
  7. {sniff} Are You A Zionist?

    Of course it's self-defence. israel has been attacked by other countries numerous times, and terrorists constantly fire rockets into cities - daily. Using emotional language such as 'rape' helps no-one. I repeat, if Mandela and De Klerk could negotiate their way out of a much worse situation, there's no reason why israel and Palestine can't. Your soliution seems to be 'levelling the playing field' by giving both sides equal weapons and letting them slug it out - not terribly civilised.
  8. Seperate Religion And State?

    ? I did answer it
  9. Why? They are all explained by natural causes. LOL, if you are postulating a supernatural being, it's YOU who are postulating magic. Apparently not, according to science. No, I don't believe that Allah (or any other supernatural being) exists. Actually, I AM thinking of it from a neutral point of view. I am prepared to consider any EVIDENCE (not opinion) you might have, and if it is compelling I will accept it. Can you suggest how we would set up an experiment to test this claim? Actually, you haven't offered any proof at all.
  10. *sigh* Answers to your questions: Yes, I believe it evolved although I don't think your description of its evolution is correct. I believe it evolved. I believe it evolved. I believe it evolved. No idea, I've never stiudied it. But I do know that the vast majority of scientists do not consider that a god did it. Do you know anything about evolution? Mutations are the "chance" element, natural selection of advantageous mutations is the "choosing element". Evolution explains most things (including the fact that most things aren't actually perfect) and there is plenty of evidence for it. There is simply no evidence at all that a god exists. That's what this thread is supposed to be about - you're supposed to be providing EVIDENCE.
  11. What on earth does that mean? Anyway, do you have any proof of a god other than th eargument from creation?
  12. Seperate Religion And State?

    I might be female, I might be male. When sites demand that I give a gender when I register I regard it as none of their business and I toss a coin. I don't think it's relevant. I might be gay, I might be straight, I might be black, I might be white. This is the internet - words are all that matter here.
  13. Seperate Religion And State?

    Nonsense. If I happen to be gay, will the Islamic state allow me to kiss my partner in public? Will it allow me to write gay novels? And so on. Well, alcohol is a drug and it's legal most places, but actually in many jurisdictions use of marijuana is not a criminal offence. You don't like drugs and your Islamic state would stop me from taking them. Erm it doesn't say anything at all. What do you think it says? Islam would dictate what I can wear, who I can talk to, what I can say, what I can read, what I can eat, who I can sleep with ... it IS a totalitarian system. Muslims BOAST that Islam provides rules for everything - that's practically a definition of totalitarianism.
  14. Every Hadith Has A Counter-hadith?

    I was actually postulating a genuine hadith about the dangers of following the herd - I bet (say $1?) there is one. And my question stands - given that there are disputes between scholars, how can you say that there is a single truth to be found?
  15. Torture In Hell

    twoswordsali, I'm a cultural christian, not a religious one - see my sig. But in answer to your question, many of the major Christian denominations no longer believe in hell as a literal place of torment. I don't believe that the Easter Bunny exists, so if there was debate between the Easter Bunnyists and me I'd be called an Aeaster Bunnyist. That doesn't give any credence to the ideas of the Easter Bunnyists. edit - typo
  16. {sniff} Are You A Zionist?

    Sorry, but your English has let you down again. I didn't say that Muslims committed every atrocity or claimed responsibility for every atrocity, I said: "However, to go from this to assuming that every atrocity for which Muslim groups claim responsibility is the work of Mossad or the CIA is insane."
  17. Yes. edit - That is, yes I agree with the vast majority of scientists who accept evolution - I don't agree that your description of the way the eye had to evolve is correct, but as I said, I'm not going to debate evolution with you. By the way, the Darwin quote you have used at least twice seemed to me to be incomplete and I checked. It is. Whoever gave you half the quote was being dishonest, and lead you into being dishonest - doesn't that make you doubt them? Here's the full quote:
  18. Every Hadith Has A Counter-hadith?

    But how did you decide that it is "the truth"? Because a majority of scholars say it? (And, to be a bit mischievous, I am certain that a hadith could be found warning the Ummah to trust not in the majority for verily they be as a flock of sheep.)
  19. Of course. Well, it will be much harder for you to provide PROOF that they exist then, won't it? I don't envy your task. Sorry, I'm not going to argue evolution with you. There is simply no genuine science which doubts the broad thrust of the idea (and most of the detail, for that matter). There is a great deal of evidence for evolution and none whatsoever for creation. That's what this thread is supposed to be about - show me some EVIDENCE for the existence of a god.
  20. Every Hadith Has A Counter-hadith?

    Unfortunately I'm not going to be able to quote actual hadiths, so that might make it awkward, but here goes: The old favourite - is it permissable to play musical instruments other than the duff? Proponents of the yes and no sides produce copious hadiths saying contradictory things. A contemporary issue - the extremist Sheikhs quote hadiths (or whatever) quote hadiths supporting suicide bombing, moderates quote hadiths saying that it's forbidden. If there WAS an ultimate set of laws to be found in the Koran, wouldn't it be known and agreed-on by now?
  21. Seperate Religion And State?

    I'm not arguing that Islam has failed, just pointing out that if you think that an ideology (such as Communism) has failed because there are no genuine communist countries in existence, then the same must apply to Islam. But that's beside the point. I again argue with your history here - the Caliphate was the world's biggest slave trader and kept slavery going long after the west had abandoned it. However, that's beside the point as well. This is dangerous nonsense. PLEASE try not to think of yourself as a victim of hidden forces. That way lies madness. I doubt it. I like taking drugs occasionally, I enjoy sex and have had many partners, I love music and I believe that everyone should be free to dress, speak, read, sing, etc as they want. Would this be permitted in your totalitarian state? Of course not. Also, don't forgert that I'm learning a lot about Musims by reading forums like this. I didn't know that Muslims were not allowed to make friends with non-Muslims, that the penalty for apostacy is death, that the great aim of Islam is to rule the world, that it's OK to lie to a non-Muslim and so on and so on. If anything my attitude towards Islam has changed for the worse after seeing how Muslims think an behave on forums like this.
  22. Every Hadith Has A Counter-hadith?

    Good answer - but 1. why does nearly everyone use hadiths to support arguments (why aren't they quoting experts' interpretations of hadiths?) 2. there doesn't seem to be any more consensus among experts.
  23. World Depopulation Is Top Nsa Agenda

    You don't say "are" about events 60 years ago - you say "were". WWII was a total war, that is, civillian populations were deliberately targeted (by the Germans and Japanese first, later by all), so it isn't surprising that three years later military planners were looking at total war options. I might be wrong, but haven't UN treaties since then limited biological warfare?
  24. World Depopulation Is Top Nsa Agenda

    Do you really not understand? Or are you just trying to make a misleading point? Do I really have to say it again? Here goes. Read carefully. If you have criticisms PLEASE make sure they are sensible. 1. Like all governments, the Australian government explores options to meet potential defence situations. 2. Having an eminent biologist handy, they asked him if he could see any biological options useful in a defence situation. Bear in mind that this was the late '40s, early '50s, when everyone was considering biological options. 3. He looked for factors which would allow a biological warfare tactic to work on a potential invader. He noted that all potential invaders in the geographical vicinity were crowded. Thus he developed a tactic that would be effective in a crowded country. 4. What happened next? Who knows? Did the government accept the plan and develop it? Who knows. We do know that Australia did NOT use it in any conflict it has been involved in since, which suggests that the government didn't decide to adopt the plan. 5. Yasnov acuses Australia of racism. edit - typo
×