Turn on thread page Beta

Is it OK to disagree and speak out against other sects (or sub sects)? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Carry on from Isoc. I will not reply to anyone but Epicurean because prefer talkign to 1 person. He may reply to you, he may not. Feel free to post and leave your opinions though.
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    Right there is my problem with you. You go out of your way to condemn every one who doesn't practice Islam the way you do as not being Muslim or not being "normal" Muslims. You justify sectarianism by hiding behind this label of "normal Muslim". The "normal practicing Muslims" I know are not intent on the sectarianism you preach. I remember a recent Guardian article you quoted and posted on TSR, and every time "Shia Muslims" was mentioned in the article, you went out of your way to cross out "Muslim". The "normal practicing Muslims" I know are far more accepting and tolerant than you, and I will not accept your attempts to deny their right to call themselves Muslims or practice their religion. They are the ones that have to pick up the seeds of the discord you sow.
    There are accepted differences of opinion and I will accept those who disagree and hold a different one. I disagree with some people who do things which I don't think there is a legitimate difference of opinion on (e.g. I disagree with some things barevlis do) but I'll still accept them as Muslim brothers. Even if we argue and they call me a wahaabi, I still call them Muslim brothers.

    Where your issue mainly starts is on groups who aren't Muslim such as the ahmaddiya. Now you can say "here you go again, calling someone not Muslim because they don't follow your opinion..." but it's not my opinion. You can find this view all the from the barevlis to the deobandis to the salafis. It's not something me and Zamestaneh pull out of thin air. The other issue is twelver shiaism. Do I think twelvers can be Muslim? Yes I do. Do I believe some of twelver beliefs are extremely bad and should be spoken out against? Yes I do. Again this isn't my opinion, it can be found throughout Islamic history. It's not something new. It's not something that only modern day salafis do, you can easily find quotes by e,g, Imam Malik, speaking out against their beliefs.

    Yeh I go out of my way. Sometimes too far out of my authority which I do regret. But it is the duty of every Muslim to enjoin good and forbid evil and most of my posts do this(on this issue of sects). Of course this means nothing to you because you're not Muslim and to you, it doesn't matter what is right or wrong Islamically. But to Muslims it does matter. I'll gladly accept the label of sectarian if it means I speak out against unislamic beliefs.

    I crossed one thing which was a line about shia militia fighters gathering and the article said "shia islamic fighters" and I changed this to "shia Islamic fighters". That was the finished version of my post. You talking about this article https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...P=share_btn_tw yes?Those actions of those militias are not Islamic and I stick by what I did. I don't regret putting that line in and I'd do it again. I checked it right now because that post is in my community records and what you say I did, that isn't correct.

    With all due respect, what is normally "moderate Muslim" or "normal practicing Muslim" to one of you guys, is normally someone who is far away from Islam. I genuinely doubt you know many practicing Muslims in real life and if you do, then I doubt their position on many issues is very different from mine. Go on Islamic forums and make a poll or two, see how many differ with me. Won't be many. Maybe they have better manners and they haven't trolled you but their views are very much like mine if they do practice. Tbf it's rare to see even non-practicing Muslims disagree on the Ahmadiyya ruling lol.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    If you only want to talk to epicurean, do it via messages, not a thread.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EdwardBarfield9)
    If you only want to talk to epicurean, do it via messages, not a thread.
    I made this because it started off on another thread and I didn't want to spam there unnecessarily. If it started in pm/vm, I would've kept it in pm/vm. You're free to leave your opinions. I'm sure some of you will manage to create a mass debate out of this anyway
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IdeasForLife)
    Where your issue mainly starts is on groups who aren't Muslim such as the ahmaddiya. Now you can say "here you go again, calling someone not Muslim because they don't follow your opinion..." but it's not my opinion. You can find this view all the from the barevlis to the deobandis to the salafis. It's not something me and Zamestaneh pull out of thin air. The other issue is twelver shiaism. Do I think twelvers can be Muslim? Yes I do. Do I believe some of twelver beliefs are extremely bad and should be spoken out against? Yes I do. Again this isn't my opinion, it can be found throughout Islamic history. It's not something new. It's not something that only modern day salafis do, you can easily find quotes by e,g, Imam Malik, speaking out against their beliefs.
    You are more than entitled to debate the legitimacy of Ahmaddiya's and whether or not they are Islamic, but these debates rightfully belong in debate threads. Likewise, people should be free to discuss the same about Shias too. But these topics should not belong in a society like the I-Soc. If it was a Sunni society, you would have a point. But the I-Soc is not a Sunni society, and therefore the Sunni stance on whether or not someone is a Muslim cannot be our criteria for defining who is or isn't a Muslim. It isn't a "Sunni and Shia Society" either. And so we cannot have one or two groups taking charge and saying this is and this isn't Islam.


    But it is the duty of every Muslim to enjoin good and forbid evil and most of my posts do this(on this issue of sects). Of course this means nothing to you because you're not Muslim and to you, it doesn't matter what is right or wrong Islamically. But to Muslims it does matter. I'll gladly accept the label of sectarian if it means I speak out against unislamic beliefs.
    But you are speaking "Islamically" from a Sunni point of view. But is it not the case that Shia, Sufi or whoever, sometimes have a different point of view of which Islamic beliefs may be unislamic.

    I crossed one thing which was a line about shia militia fighters gathering and the article said "shia islamic fighters" and I changed this to "shia Islamic fighters". That was the finished version of my post. You talking about this article https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...P=share_btn_tw yes?Those actions of those militias are not Islamic and I stick by what I did. I don't regret putting that line in and I'd do it again. I checked it right now because that post is in my community records and what you say I did, that isn't correct.
    Whether they are good Muslims or not is another debate. The British Islamic community is still the British Islamic community, whether or not they follow Islam correctly.

    Also, the concept of "Islamic" is vague. In the English language it carries a very far reaching meaning. For example, the concept of art. In Christian Europe, only art with specific Christian imagery is considered Christian art. However, part from the Islamic world, whether or not they are religious, are grouped under the term "Islamic Art." The same is also the case with "Islamic Science." This term encompasses non-Muslims as well as Muslims, engaging in tasks often with no relation to Islam, and yet this collection of science is referred to as Islamic. Whereas we don't call science from Christian Europe, "Christian science." We don't really know in what sense the author of the article was using the term Islamic.

    Only showed the part that was needed for now. If you want full post, I'll take the 10 or so screenshots required. With all due respect, what is normally "moderate Muslim" or "normal practicing Muslim" to one of you guys, is normally someone who is far away from Islam. I genuinely doubt you know many practicing Muslims in real life and if you do, then I doubt their position on many issues is very different from mine. Go on Islamic forums and make a poll or two, see how many differ with me. Won't be many. Maybe they have better manners and they haven't trolled you but their views are very much like mine if they do practice. Tbf it's rare to see even non-practicing Muslims disagree on the Ahmadiyya ruling lol.
    What you define as "practicing Muslim" is vague. If the definition of Muslim is like the Hadith I have posted many times, namely someone who prays like a Muslim, faces Qibla and eats Halal meat, then many Muslims I know pass that test, although I will admit I know many who wouldn't pass that test also (as they don't pray all the daily prayers).

    Islamic forums are not a great representation of the average Muslim in the UK. By the same logic, the majority of students in the UK get A's and A* based on TSR. TSR attracts a certain type of student. Likewise, Islamic forums like Ummah for example, tend to attract certain types of Muslims.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    You are more than entitled to debate the legitimacy of Ahmaddiya's and whether or not they are Islamic, but these debates rightfully belong in debate threads. Likewise, people should be free to discuss the same about Shias too. But these topics should not belong in a society like the I-Soc. If it was a Sunni society, you would have a point. But the I-Soc is not a Sunni society, and therefore the Sunni stance on whether or not someone is a Muslim cannot be our criteria for defining who is or isn't a Muslim. It isn't a "Sunni and Shia Society" either. And so we cannot have one or two groups taking charge and saying this is and this isn't Islam.
    To me, or rather should I say to most Muslims, an Islamic society is a sunni society because sunni Islam is authentic Islam to us. You think sects are all different forms of Islam who perhaps hold similar weight in authenticity. We do not believe that. Basically you are applying a non-Muslim understanding to Islam and expecting us to take the same understanding. And that's where we disagree. Therefore we don't accept pluralism with groups like ahmaddiya.

    Some people from minority sects may agree with you and say the same thing, as some have actually done so on this forum. But that's because they need to. They need to preach pluralism and acceptance for all, otherwise their beliefs themselves would go under extremely rough critique on a regular basis if they tried to call out the vast majority.

    But you are speaking "Islamically" from a Sunni point of view. But is it not the case that Shia, Sufi or whoever, sometimes have a different point of view of which Islamic beliefs may be unislamic.
    But it's only a sunni point of view to you. To us, it is the Islamic view. I know that you know that already but you don't understand the implications it has. Sufis are sunnis, even if you can't tell with some of them nowadays. In Islam we do not accept every view under the sun. If the views of these people go against Qur'an and sunnah, then it is rejected there is no "oh but that's their version of Islam".

    Whether they are good Muslims or not is another debate. The British Islamic community is still the British Islamic community, whether or not they follow Islam correctly.

    Also, the concept of "Islamic" is vague. In the English language it carries a very far reaching meaning. For example, the concept of art. In Christian Europe, only art with specific Christian imagery is considered Christian art. However, part from the Islamic world, whether or not they are religious, are grouped under the term "Islamic Art." The same is also the case with "Islamic Science." This term encompasses non-Muslims as well as Muslims, engaging in tasks often with no relation to Islam, and yet this collection of science is referred to as Islamic. Whereas we don't call science from Christian Europe, "Christian science." We don't really know in what sense the author of the article was using the term Islamic.
    I never said non-practicing Muslims weren't part of the Islamic community.

    If a Muslim says something like Islamic science, it most likely means a scientific discovery made by a Muslim. From the religious stance, you can't really say "Islamic" is vague. To Muslims, it is definitely not vague. We look to Qur'an and Sunnah and judge "Islamic" from that. There may be differences here and there within Islam (talking about sunnis, assume when I say islamic it means sunnis unless otherwise stated) but for the most we have the same beliefs. Of course as time goes, maybe more sub groups appear because people start making up their beliefs but then we go back to Qur'an and Sunnah, and then judge them using that. But Islamic is definitely not vague to Muslims.

    What you define as "practicing Muslim" is vague. If the definition of Muslim is like the Hadith I have posted many times, namely someone who prays like a Muslim, faces Qibla and eats Halal meat, then many Muslims I know pass that test, although I will admit I know many who wouldn't pass that test also (as they don't pray all the daily prayers).

    Islamic forums are not a great representation of the average Muslim in the UK. By the same logic, the majority of students in the UK get A's and A* based on TSR. TSR attracts a certain type of student. Likewise, Islamic forums like Ummah for example, tend to attract certain types of Muslims.
    I don't think I've ever actually defined practicing Muslim properly to you. Whenever I've talked to you, I've most diluted it in my head to someone who follows all the obvious obligatory stuff (e.g 5 prayers) and they believe and agree with the laws in the Qur'an and hadith (e.g. alcohol haram, hadd punishments etc). Of course I would go further and add sunnah prayers etc.

    With all due respect, you were misusing that hadith to argue ahmadiyyas are Muslim. So you didn't think of the consequences of your interpretation. I know Muslims who eat haram meat but your interpretation would wrongly count them out too. Anyway I am not arguing that those Muslims you know in real life aren't Muslim. I am saying that perhaps they aren't the best Muslims or they are lacking in some parts of Islam (some parts perhaps through ignorance and other parts through laziness).

    It may not be a good representation of the average Muslim. But I'm talking about the practicing Muslim not the average Muslim because the average Muslim is not a good source to find about Islamic beliefs. Islamic forums would be a good representation of young practicing Muslims. If you want to see more practicing Muslims and check their views, you go ask in a mosque, you go to a shaykh and see his students, you go ask in an uni's ISOC etc. Not every practicing Muslim will be found on a forum or in an ISOC ofc, nor will everyone on there be fully practicing, but practicing Muslims are normally more passionate about Islam than the general Muslim populace so they gather together in such places. Being passionate means they take time to learn more about Islam and thus they tend to know more about Islam than the average Muslim. And so their views are more likely to be correct (not all correct but they should have all the basics and obvious stuff nailed down) . You think ummah attracts a certain type, in your mind you're thinking "extreme types" probably but it's just Muslims who are trying to follow Qur'an and sunnah properly and they wish to interact with other like minded Muslims.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IdeasForLife)
    To me, or rather should I say to most Muslims, an Islamic society is a sunni society because sunni Islam is authentic Islam to us. You think sects are all different forms of Islam who perhaps hold similar weight in authenticity. We do not believe that. Basically you are applying a non-Muslim understanding to Islam and expecting us to take the same understanding. And that's where we disagree. Therefore we don't accept pluralism with groups like ahmaddiya.
    My opinion doesn't matter here. What matters is TSR's stance. Religious societies like the Islamic society and the Christian society are means to be interdenominational. The Catholic society has already started a precedent. If you want a separate society to cater to your sect alone, then you should create a separate Sunni society. But the I-soc and Christian society on TSR should function as interdenominational societies and are not meant to be run as Protestant or Sunni societies.

    Also, you have stated exactly what I stated, and yet I got criticised for it. Namely, I stated that the I-Soc was being treated like a Sunni society, and you have just agreed with this statement, saying that "an Islamic society is a sunni society".

    Some people from minority sects may agree with you and say the same thing, as some have actually done so on this forum. But that's because they need to. They need to preach pluralism and acceptance for all, otherwise their beliefs themselves would go under extremely rough critique on a regular basis if they tried to call out the vast majority.
    I wont step in to stop criticism of Shia beliefs in the religious debate forum. Sunni and Shia Muslims can debate all they like concerning their difference of beliefs there.

    But it's only a sunni point of view to you. To us, it is the Islamic view. I know that you know that already but you don't understand the implications it has. Sufis are sunnis, even if you can't tell with some of them nowadays. In Islam we do not accept every view under the sun. If the views of these people go against Qur'an and sunnah, then it is rejected there is no "oh but that's their version of Islam".
    We could bring the CT into this thread if you wish to hear TSR's stance in regards to religious societies?

    I never said non-practicing Muslims weren't part of the Islamic community.

    If a Muslim says something like Islamic science, it most likely means a scientific discovery made by a Muslim.
    But it also includes science by non-Muslims. In this sense, Islamic is used to refer to the political environment in which these scientific developments occurred.

    From the religious stance, you can't really say "Islamic" is vague. To Muslims, it is definitely not vague. We look to Qur'an and Sunnah and judge "Islamic" from that. There may be differences here and there within Islam (talking about sunnis, assume when I say islamic it means sunnis unless otherwise stated) but for the most we have the same beliefs. Of course as time goes, maybe more sub groups appear because people start making up their beliefs but then we go back to Qur'an and Sunnah, and then judge them using that. But Islamic is definitely not vague to Muslims.
    The author was talking about a very political war. Religion and politics both play an important role, so really it is difficult to guess whether the author was referring to Islam from a political perspective or a religious perspective.

    But anyway, again you are talking from a Sunni perspective. Sunni and Shia disagreement over things such as the Hadith mean that you can not talk of the Sunni perspective as being an Islamic perspective.

    With all due respect, you were misusing that hadith to argue ahmadiyyas are Muslim. So you didn't think of the consequences of your interpretation.
    I took a literal interpretation. I merely stated what the Hadith stated. The Hadith says what it says, and explicitly so. You apply an interpretation to come to a different understanding. But when interpreted literally, it does open the definition of "Muslim" beyound just Sunni Islam.

    I know Muslims who eat haram meat but your interpretation would wrongly count them out too. Anyway I am not arguing that those Muslims you know in real life aren't Muslim. I am saying that perhaps they aren't the best Muslims or they are lacking in some parts of Islam (some parts perhaps through ignorance and other parts through laziness).
    According to a literal interpretation of the Hadith, then yes, a Muslim who eats haram meat can not be considered a Muslim.

    It may not be a good representation of the average Muslim. But I'm talking about the practicing Muslim not the average Muslim because the average Muslim is not a good source to find about Islamic beliefs. Islamic forums would be a good representation of young practicing Muslims. If you want to see more practicing Muslims and check their views, you go ask in a mosque, you go to a shaykh and see his students, you go ask in an uni's ISOC etc. Not every practicing Muslim will be found on a forum or in an ISOC ofc, nor will everyone on there be fully practicing, but practicing Muslims are normally more passionate about Islam than the general Muslim populace so they gather together in such places. Being passionate means they take time to learn more about Islam and thus they tend to know more about Islam than the average Muslim. And so their views are more likely to be correct (not all correct but they should have all the basics and obvious stuff nailed down) . You think ummah attracts a certain type, in your mind you're thinking "extreme types" probably but it's just Muslims who are trying to follow Qur'an and sunnah properly and they wish to interact with other like minded Muslims.
    The problem is your label of "practicing Muslim". There are many practicing Muslims who pray, fast etc... and yet don't interpret Islam in the same way as you. Just because they have a different interpretation, does not in any way imply they are not practicing Muslims. So I'm not willing to accept this self-styled label of "practicing Muslim". We both know my problem is with certain interpretations, and not with someone being a "practicing Muslim" who prays, fasts etc...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    My opinion doesn't matter here. What matters is TSR's stance. Religious societies like the Islamic society and the Christian society are means to be interdenominational. The Catholic society has already started a precedent. If you want a separate society to cater to your sect alone, then you should create a separate Sunni society. But the I-soc and Christian society on TSR should function as interdenominational societies and are not meant to be run as Protestant or Sunni societies.

    Also, you have stated exactly what I stated, and yet I got criticised for it. Namely, I stated that the I-Soc was being treated like a Sunni society, and you have just agreed with this statement, saying that "an Islamic society is a sunni society".

    Your opinion does matter because you're trying force Muslims into following it. TSR didn't have a stance, the only change that happened over the last few months was due to you (and other anti-Muslim people from the ex-mus soc) attempting to force ISOC Muslims to post in a certain way. The vast majority of Muslims were perfectly fine with how the thread was run. The issue came from mostly anti-Islam people.

    I wont step in to stop criticism of Shia beliefs in the religious debate forum. Sunni and Shia Muslims can debate all they like concerning their difference of beliefs there.
    I don't think that true. We both know you step in a lot and attempt to cause Muslims hassle whenever they post against someone you deem who is "minority".

    We could bring the CT into this thread if you wish to hear TSR's stance in regards to religious societies?
    Why? So they can repeat what you've basically persuaded them into. I am fine with the CT for now, maybe in future I'll make a post to them on behalf of ISOC Muslims if you (and the others) carry on trying to force Muslims to post in a certan way.

    But it also includes science by non-Muslims. In this sense, Islamic is used to refer to the political environment in which these scientific developments occurred.
    I've never seen a Muslim boast of a non-Muslim who discovered something in the Islamic empire. At most they tend to incorrectly assume that all discoveries made in the Islamic empires were by Muslims. But anyway this point doesn't matter to me. It's not anything major if you end up being more correct.

    The author was talking about a very political war. Religion and politics both play an important role, so really it is difficult to guess whether the author was referring to Islam from a political perspective or a religious perspective.

    But anyway, again you are talking from a Sunni perspective. Sunni and Shia disagreement over things such as the Hadith mean that you can not talk of the Sunni perspective as being an Islamic perspective.
    Oh you meant the authors definition. I don't really care about what they think so you can assume of them whatever you like.

    It is the Islamic perspective. Because "sunnism" is authentic Islam.

    I took a literal interpretation. I merely stated what the Hadith stated. The Hadith says what it says, and explicitly so. You apply an interpretation to come to a different understanding. But when interpreted literally, it does open the definition of "Muslim" beyound just Sunni Islam.



    According to a literal interpretation of the Hadith, then yes, a Muslim who eats haram meat can not be considered a Muslim.
    You made any interpretation that was necessary to back ahmadiyyas even if it was a disingenuous one. Whilst on the other hand, us Muslims look for the correct interpretation because our faith isn't a plaything.


    The problem is your label of "practicing Muslim". There are many practicing Muslims who pray, fast etc... and yet don't interpret Islam in the same way as you. Just because they have a different interpretation, does not in any way imply they are not practicing Muslims. So I'm not willing to accept this self-styled label of "practicing Muslim". We both know my problem is with certain interpretations, and not with someone being a "practicing Muslim" who prays, fasts etc...
    The no disagreement upon those "interpretations" you disagree with e.g homosexuality being haram. There is clear cut consensus (ijma) on that issue.To be a practicing Muslim, you would have to agree with those views. You can accept whatever you like but the reality of a practicing Muslim to Muslims is clear. The "it's a different interpretation" is just a weak argument to try and justify whatever some people like. Islam doesn't work like that and those who think it does, they'll be rejected.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IdeasForLife)
    Your opinion does matter because you're trying force Muslims into following it.
    I've not forced anybody to follow my views. I only report posts that break TSR rules. If you don't like TSR rules being enforced, you can always go to another forum with different rules

    TSR didn't have a stance, the only change that happened over the last few months was due to you (and other anti-Muslim people from the ex-mus soc) attempting to force ISOC Muslims to post in a certain way. The vast majority of Muslims were perfectly fine with how the thread was run. The issue came from mostly anti-Islam people.
    I asked the CT to clarify their position, and that is what I go based on. Plus most people in the ex-Muslim society don't care really. It has pretty much solely been me who has voiced an issue. I have only asked for TSR rules to be applied in the I-Soc.

    I don't think that true. We both know you step in a lot and attempt to cause Muslims hassle whenever they post against someone you deem who is "minority".
    The TSR rules is that if a post is rule breaking, it should be reported. Simple. In fact, I have highlighted the problem, and told people that such posts are not acceptable, but if they fail to listen to my warning, they risk getting a warning or ban from the CT.

    Why? So they can repeat what you've basically persuaded them into. I am fine with the CT for now, maybe in future I'll make a post to them on behalf of ISOC Muslims if you (and the others) carry on trying to force Muslims to post in a certan way.
    I didn't persuade them to do anything. I only asked for a clarification of TSR's stance. TSR does not permit sectarianism on interdenominational religious societies. No matter how much you try and justify your intolerance, it is not permitted by TSR rules.

    I've never seen a Muslim boast of a non-Muslim who discovered something in the Islamic empire. At most they tend to incorrectly assume that all discoveries made in the Islamic empires were by Muslims. But anyway this point doesn't matter to me. It's not anything major if you end up being more correct.
    I never said that. But "Islamic science" refers to all science that occurred under the Islamic empire, including non-Muslims.

    Oh you meant the authors definition. I don't really care about what they think so you can assume of them whatever you like.

    It is the Islamic perspective. Because "sunnism" is authentic Islam.
    Yes, I do mean that author. You are the one criticising the authors usage of "Islamic" when we don't even know in which context he or she used it.

    You made any interpretation that was necessary to back ahmadiyyas even if it was a disingenuous one. Whilst on the other hand, us Muslims look for the correct interpretation because our faith isn't a plaything.
    I didn't make up any interpretation. I read the literal interpretation. You look for an interpretation that meets your current standing prejudices.

    The no disagreement upon those "interpretations" you disagree with e.g homosexuality being haram. There is clear cut consensus (ijma) on that issue.To be a practicing Muslim, you would have to agree with those views. You can accept whatever you like but the reality of a practicing Muslim to Muslims is clear. The "it's a different interpretation" is just a weak argument to try and justify whatever some people like. Islam doesn't work like that and those who think it does, they'll be rejected.
    My argument was merely that there is room for a more a liberal interpretation of Islam regarding homosexuality. I believe I proved that point because instead of debating with me, people such as yourself turned to using ad hominems and trolling, which tends to me the last resort of people who are unable to put forth an argument.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I think you seem to getting a bit angry, telling me to leave the forum and all! Should calm down. I'll give you a few more replies but I won't spend my entire day coming back to TSR and arguing with you.

    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    I've not forced anybody to follow my views. I only report posts that break TSR rules. If you don't like TSR rules being enforced, you can always go to another forum with different rules

    I asked the CT to clarify their position, and that is what I go based on. Plus most people in the ex-Muslim society don't care really. It has pretty much solely been me who has voiced an issue. I have only asked for TSR rules to be applied in the I-Soc.

    The TSR rules is that if a post is rule breaking, it should be reported. Simple. In fact, I have highlighted the problem, and told people that such posts are not acceptable, but if they fail to listen to my warning, they risk getting a warning or ban from the CT.


    I'm afraid we're not going to see eye to eye on this so I'll just say we disagree on.

    One thing though Why would I leave? Cards can expire and rules can be change. In any case, stamping my feet and running away to somewhere else because I cannot always get my way, is stupid. Perhaps getting reported bothered you a lot but it doesn't bother me. Course I'll still criticize rules I disagree with. Seen many TSR members do the same thing.


    I didn't persuade them to do anything. I only asked for a clarification of TSR's stance. TSR does not permit sectarianism on interdenominational religious societies. No matter how much you try and justify your intolerance, it is not permitted by TSR rules.
    If you say so.

    I do have intolerance, I can't tolerate people attempting to push their beliefs on Muslims. We'll always reject you.
    I never said that. But "Islamic science" refers to all science that occurred under the Islamic empire, including non-Muslims.
    Well whatever you meant.

    Yes, I do mean that author. You are the one criticising the authors usage of "Islamic" when we don't even know in which context he or she used it.
    I disagree with calling shia militias Islamic regardless of the context used by the author.


    I didn't make up any interpretation. I read the literal interpretation. You look for an interpretation that meets your current standing prejudices.
    I'm afraid this isn't true.
    My argument was merely that there is room for a more a liberal interpretation of Islam regarding homosexuality. I believe I proved that point because instead of debating with me, people such as yourself turned to using ad hominems and trolling, which tends to me the last resort of people who are unable to put forth an argument.
    With all due respect, your arguments were awful (concerning homosexuality in Islam etc) . That is the main reason I don't bother with you. You can't really moan about that trolling/ad hominemins/ whatever you want to call it, anymore. The moment you resorted to the same behavior with your random digs at me, you lost your high horse. So by your logic, this means I proved a point.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    oh, dear: knickers firmly in knots here.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IdeasForLife)
    I think you seem to getting a bit angry, telling me to leave the forum and all! Should calm down. I'll give you a few more replies but I won't spend my entire day coming back to TSR and arguing with you
    I didn't tell you to leave the forum. I said if you don't like the rules "you can always go to another forum". That is like saying to someone "you can always make yourself a cup of tea if you like". That is completely different from saying "make a cup of tea".

    One thing though Why would I leave? Cards can expire and rules can be change. In any case, stamping my feet and running away to somewhere else because I cannot always get my way, is stupid. Perhaps getting reported bothered you a lot but it doesn't bother me. Course I'll still criticize rules I disagree with. Seen many TSR members do the same thing.
    You've created a whole thread on this topic as you are so bothered.

    If you say so.

    I do have intolerance, I can't tolerance people attempting to push their beliefs on Muslims. We'll always reject you.
    And I am tolerant of those who are tolerant, but I am not willing to tolerate intolerant people like yourself. You hove a position that is incredibly intolerant and breaks the golden rule. You wish to force your views on other people. You wish to deny other Muslims the right to leave Islam or to be gay. It is you who are the one forcing their beliefs upon other people. You are the one who wishes to abrogate other peoples freedoms and rights. You are the one who wants people to be punished for holding a different opinion than yourself.

    I disagree with calling shia militias Islamic regardless of the context used by the author.
    That is due to you having sectarian views, so no surprises there.

    With all due respect, your arguments were awful (concerning homosexuality in Islam etc) . That is the main reason I don't bother with you. You can't really moan about that trolling/ad hominemins/ whatever you want to call it, anymore. The moment you resorted to the same behavior with your random digs at me, you lost your high horse. So by your logic, this means I proved a point.
    If you see an easy debate, I know you wouldn't turn it down. I don't recall you coming up with any serious response either.

    Yes, I do take random digs at you. I wont deny that. I was originally more than prepared to have a serious debate. But you lowered the bar. I don't see why I should show a renowned troll respect. I didn't resort to making remarks because of a debate I didn't like, but rather directly because of your history of trying to troll me with your dupe accounts.

    Prior to having your hissy fit because you didn't like the fact that I argued for tolerance towards gay Muslims, you had this to say about me:

    I read Epicurean's posts...[I] take them seriously, I don't necessarily agree with everything [he] says though


    (Original post by EdwardBarfield9)
    If you only want to talk to epicurean, do it via messages, not a thread.
    He was PMing me too at same time. I'm waiting for my VM and maybe even a Christmas card
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    I didn't tell you to leave the forum. I said if you don't like the rules "you can always go to another forum". That is like saying to someone "you can always make yourself a cup of tea if you like". That is completely different from saying "make a cup of tea".
    Oright whatever.


    You've created a whole thread on this topic as you are so bothered.
    You were the one who quoted me initially yesterday. I simply changed the thread so we wouldn't spam ISOC. In future I can just ignore you completely if you want? That ain't a problem

    And I am tolerant of those who are tolerant, but I am not willing to tolerate intolerant people like yourself. You hove a position that is incredibly intolerant and breaks the golden rule. You wish to force your views on other people. You wish to deny other Muslims the right to leave Islam or to be gay. It is you who are the one forcing their beliefs upon other people. You are the one who wishes to abrogate other peoples freedoms and rights. You are the one who wants people to be punished for holding a different opinion than yourself.
    Oright, if that's what you believe. Then believe it. I don't agree but whatever

    That is due to you having sectarian views, so no surprises there.
    Sectarian is just a word thrown around to silence people. They murder and rain carnage across Iraq and Syria. They are certainly not Islamic. Their actions far from Islam.
    If you see an easy debate, I know you wouldn't turn it down. I don't recall you coming up with any serious response either.
    I disagree. Me debating depends on whether whether I think there is more benefit than loss in the debate (e.g. how much time will I need to spend, is the end desired outcome worth it etc) . I didn't need to, your argument was quite weak as I said. I think a few others on your thread thought along the same lines.

    Yes, I do take random digs at you. I wont deny that. I was originally more than prepared to have a serious debate. But you lowered the bar. I don't see why I should show a renowned troll respect. I didn't resort to making remarks because of a debate I didn't like, but rather directly because of your history of trying to troll me with your dupe accounts.
    Well you lasted here pretty long, so not too bad. I feel your problem is more of a one way thing from your end. If you don't want to show respect then don't. Honestly your digs don't bother me, carry on if you please, but I just felt like pointing out there is no high horse for you anymore.

    Prior to having your hissy fit because you didn't like the fact that I argued for tolerance towards gay Muslims, you had this to say about me:

    I read Epicurean's posts...[I] take them seriously, I don't necessarily agree with everything [he] says though
    Lol it wasn't a hissy fit! I can't ever remember being angry like that at you.

    I said that like 18 months ago. Likewise I used to dislike Zam's posts and not take him seriously around 24ish months ago but now I think he posts good most of the time. People's opinions change. I don't see what the big deal is tbh.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IdeasForLife)
    .
    Ahmadiyya is worlds fastest growing islamic faith group
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 5, 2016
The home of Results and Clearing

1,657

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Do you want your parents to be with you when you collect your A-level results?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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