Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Muslims aren't the problem, Islam is Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    Only according to your own opinion.
    The dictionary has managed to do it (differentiate through definition) successfully as well so we'll say the definitions are just the dictionary's opinion, shall we?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    so we'll say the definitions are just the dictionary's opinion, shall we?
    No. but if you have to make up your own definitions of word to prove your point then knock yourself out

    Just don't expect to be taken very seriously.

    And with that I'll end this line of discussion.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    No. but if you have to make up your own definitions of word to prove your point then knock yourself out

    Just don't expect to be taken very seriously.

    And with that I'll end this line of discussion.
    If you've been operating under the illusion I've been making up definitions, then I can definitely see where where your inability to accept your research as flawed stems from.

    Understandable - Yes
    Forgivable - Yes.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Indeed. But the 'white' man has been made to feel guilty for his history.
    But the "white man" has taken it upon himself to shoulder the responsibility and lead the world to the promised land.

    The "white man" has not delivered and must bear some responsibility*.


    *In the interests of impartiality, it was not exactly our fault that others refused to follow us, instead preferring to dwell in squalor and live like savages.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    What sense is to believe in script, but not follow its clear instructions?
    Religious script is wide open for interpretation. Hence why the religion itself is not blameless.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    You need a better dictionary
    disbelieverˌdɪsbɪˈliːvə(r)/nounnoun: disbeliever; plural noun: disbelievers
    1. a person who refuses to believe something or who lacks religious faith."she intends to prove the disbelievers wrong"synonyms:unbeliever, non-believer, atheist, non-theist, irreligionist, nihilist; More
    PRSOM, despite his confirmation bias and obfuscation tactics, this has destroyed his argument and well and truly put it to bed. I was going to post the Oxford dictionary definition, but as you and QE2 have already done it there's no point in me doing it also.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    PRSOM, despite his confirmation bias and obfuscation tactics, this has destroyed his argument and well and truly put it to bed. I was going to post the Oxford dictionary definition, but as you and QE2 have already done it there's no point in me doing it also.
    No matter how many people correct him he still won't see how he's been wrong from the start of this 'episode'

    But to save my sanity I've put him on ignore so his pedantry and in this case 'made up word defanitions' can no longer distract from the topic at hand
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)

    I have managed to differentiate, quite successfully, between a non-believer, believer, disbeliever and unbeliever .
    well, undoubtedly a believer and a non-believer are not exactly one and the same thing

    as to the two other categories, they are simply synonyms of non-believers

    the Quran does not use those concepts : in the Quran, believers are the "moomin" (actually, the "true" believers) or the "muslims" (those who submit) or, for pre-islamic monotheists, the "hunafa"

    there is no specific word for the other categories: you have the "kuffar" (those who know the truth and deny it), "the ahl ul-kitab" (people of the book : Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Sabeans), the "mushrikun" (those who associate other divinities with Allah), the "munafiqun" (hypocrites, who pretend to believe, but actually don't), and then many other definitions which are related, but do not cover the same concept - fasiq (corrupted), zalimun (oppressors - but also many other things : see here http://skeptic-mind.blogspot.be/2011...se-193-in.html ) etc etc

    however, language is a reality in evolution : you can use the word definitions and the categories you want, but if you are the only one using them, they have little or no value

    best
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    Religious script is wide open for interpretation. Hence why the religion itself is not blameless.
    Not in every religion. You are definitely right regarding christianity, because there are no strict rules in New Testament. But Islam and Judaism are different. There are several denominations in Islam, but no muslim will eat pork. There are several denominations in Judaism, but no one of them will break the Sabbath.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    No matter how many people correct him he still won't see how he's been wrong from the start of this 'episode'

    But to save my sanity I've put him on ignore so his pedantry and in this case 'made up word defanitions' can no longer distract from the topic at hand
    Very good idea. I put him on my ignore list a few weeks ago, and it makes visiting TSR a vastly more pleasant experience. I have no idea why a notorious troll who's been banned from TSR countless dozens of times is allowed to keep posting, anyway.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    Not in every religion. You are definitely right regarding christianity, because there are no strict rules in New Testament. But Islam and Judaism are different. There are several denominations in Islam, but no muslim will eat pork. There are several denominations in Judaism, but no one of them will break the Sabbath.
    well, (to my knowledge) no Christian will deny the existence of God
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Achaea)
    Very good idea. I put him on my ignore list a few weeks ago, and it makes visiting TSR a vastly more pleasant experience. I have no idea why a notorious troll who's been banned from TSR countless dozens of times is allowed to keep posting, anyway.
    Same, he's on my ignore. Although I'm not actually sure if he's tsr1269 you know. The latter's posts were a lot ruder and aggressive. He has also said Islam is cancerous, something I can't imagine footstool asserting!
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Same, he's on my ignore. Although I'm not actually sure if he's tsr1269 you know. The latter's posts were a lot ruder and aggressive. He has also said Islam is cancerous, something I can't imagine footstool asserting!
    Hmmm, maybe, though maybe he's just trying to pretend that he's not tsr1269 by seeming to criticise Islam on occasion. In other posts he's defended it vociferously, and in at least one post has refused to answer another member's question if he's Muslim or not, which is very tsr1269-like.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    This is a University Professor, apparently.

    It pretty much blew my mind, and I can't really decide now whether Islam is the problem or Muslims!

    Watch it and you tell me. Absolutely incredible...

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f74_1452606016
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    well, (to my knowledge) no Christian will deny the existence of God
    You consider this as a strict rule?
    Anyway it is a bad example. God in Christianity is an abstract container, which includes three persons and every of them is considered as God..
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    well, undoubtedly a believer and a non-believer are not exactly one and the same thing

    as to the two other categories, they are simply synonyms of non-believers

    the Quran does not use those concepts : in the Quran, believers are the "moomin" (actually, the "true" believers) or the "muslims" (those who submit) or, for pre-islamic monotheists, the "hunafa"

    there is no specific word for the other categories: you have the "kuffar" (those who know the truth and deny it), "the ahl ul-kitab" (people of the book : Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Sabeans), the "mushrikun" (those who associate other divinities with Allah), the "munafiqun" (hypocrites, who pretend to believe, but actually don't), and then many other definitions which are related, but do not cover the same concept - fasiq (corrupted), zalimun (oppressors - but also many other things : see here http://skeptic-mind.blogspot.be/2011...se-193-in.html ) etc etc

    however, language is a reality in evolution : you can use the words and the categories you want, but if you are the only one using them, they are of little use

    best
    Linguistically, the term "Kufr" means to cover, to deny.

    Logically, it is absurd for someone to cover or deny a concept of which they were unaware or even have some semblance of what it means.


    Furthermore, the term disbelief has cropped up in the Quran with reference to "clear proofs/evidence" (whatever they may be, I do not care to dwell on) so evidentially, one can hold that from a Quranic perspective:

    Disbelief = Message + Clear proof/evidence + Rejection

    That is the exact same definition as given by dictionaries.

    Take away the "Rejection" and you find yourself treading on the lines of non-belief.


    Furthermore, your assertions that disbelief, in the Quran, covers both non-belief and disbelief (from a definition perspective) is rendered invalid by Surah 98 which contains verses that distinguish between Kufr and Ahl-lul-Kitab, by stating that they can be mutually exclusive -

    "Those who disbelieve among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters could not have left off (erring) till the clear proof came unto them" - Verse 1

    "Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings." - Verse 6



    Either way, it is clear that the Quran does indeed distinguish between non-belief and disbelief and simply saying that the Quran does not have a word for distinguish non-belief (without even considering what constitutes disbelief) is to express cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias and intellectual dishonesty.

    Unlike you (and the others who have quibbled greatly over this), I have no vested interest in taking one side or the other, for it benefits me in no way but I do have an issue with people making blanket statements which they are unable to prove, going to extreme lengths, resorting to pedantry and being completely disingenuous when they do try to convolute the meaning without exercising any rationale or logic.


    I have made my points very clear and I simply can't be bothered carrying on explaining the same points over and over again, simply because some people don't like what I am saying.

    best.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    saying that the Quran does not have a word for non-belief (without even considering what constitutes disbelief) is to express cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias and intellectual dishonesty etc etc.
    have a nice day

    best
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    have a nice day

    best
    You too.

    best
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Yh it's alwayz the Muslamic laws init
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Bottom line:

    language is a tool of communication. It changes over time, and acquires nuances and subtle shifts in meaning, according to geographical, social, literary context. Is a "wicked" singer marvelous, or perverted ? did a "terrific" holiday scare you, or thrill you ?

    In practice, you can also innovate : you can use and define words as you want, but if you are the only one using them that way, they are of no value whatsoever for their main purpose : which is to communicate with other people.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.