Islamic Discussion Thread ٥: Free Tajweed, Absolutely Halaal

[New Tetraland]

In this case a lot of non-Muslims who come here to bash Al-Islam doesn't actually know it, and when corrected, they're too arrogant to care or falsely accuse us of lying.

Wouldn’t put lying for your religion past you, to be fair, given the other things you support.

Lying is actually allowed in Islam in cases of war and to spread Islam to others.

[ECKU]

In this case a lot of non-Muslims who come here to bash Al-Islam doesn't actually know it, and when corrected, they're too arrogant to care or falsely accuse us of lying.

Wouldn’t put lying for your religion past you, to be fair, given the other things you support.

So you think I'd sin? Actually, scratch that, prove that I lie.

[ECKU]

Wouldn’t put lying for your religion past you, to be fair, given the other things you support.

Lying is actually allowed in Islam in cases of war and to spread Islam to others.

Partially false again. See, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

Wouldn’t put lying for your religion past you, to be fair, given the other things you support.

So you think I'd sin? Actually, scratch that, prove that I lie.

I never said that you do, just that you might. It is doctrine that you can do so to advance Islam, after all.

[Kowani]

Copypasting the actual argument from Wikipedia. Every time there’s an unproven assertion, I will make a red mark.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause;I
The universe began to exist;
Therefore:
The universe has a cause.I
Given the conclusion, Craig appends a further premise and conclusion based upon a conceptual analysis of the properties of the cause:[6]

The universe has a cause;I
If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans (without) the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;I
Therefore,
An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and infinitely powerfulI.

Every tenet except for one.

If something began to exist without a cause it would exist forever since the predicate of its existence (nothing) always did hence it would not begin to exist it would always exist.

Most of those are not tenets, they are conclusions.

Wrong. We have seen subatomic particles come into existence at random. Salandriago can explain the particulars better than me, but it is quite possible for something to begin to exist without cause.

[ECKU]

So you think I'd sin? Actually, scratch that, prove that I lie.

I never said that you do, just that you might.

So a baseless assumption that actually very disrespectful.

It is doctrine that you can do so to advance Islam, after all.

How would you know? You've never read the Holy Qur'an have you?

[Al Mumtahanah]

Wouldn’t put lying for your religion past you, to be fair, given the other things you support.

Lying is actually allowed in Islam in cases of war and to spread Islam to others.

Lying is allowed in war in the same cases as it would be for you, such as espionage. Not treaty breaking. It is not allowed to spread Islam by Sunnis.

[Kowani]

Copypasting the actual argument from Wikipedia. Every time there’s an unproven assertion, I will make a red mark.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause;I
The universe began to exist;
Therefore:
The universe has a cause.I
Given the conclusion, Craig appends a further premise and conclusion based upon a conceptual analysis of the properties of the cause:[6]

The universe has a cause;I
If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans (without) the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;I
Therefore,
An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and infinitely powerfulI.

Every tenet except for one.

That's the used by Craig, not Imam Ghazaali.

Yeah, ‘cause I don’t have a copy of Ghazali on hand to copy, and I would prefer not to be accused of messing something up.

[Al Mumtahanah]

So you think I'd sin? Actually, scratch that, prove that I lie.

I never said that you do, just that you might. It is doctrine that you can do so to advance Islam, after all.

No it isn't

[New Tetraland]

I never said that you do, just that you might. It is doctrine that you can do so to advance Islam, after all.

No it isn't

That's an example of such a lie.

[ECKU]

That's the used by Craig, not Imam Ghazaali.

Yeah, ‘cause I don’t have a copy of Ghazali on hand to copy, and I would prefer not to be accused of messing something up.

Ok, well here's the one by Imam Al-Ghazaali:
https://medium.com/@galacticwarrior9/th ... d426cb99da
The article also discusses some details before and after going into the argument.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

I never said that you do, just that you might.

So a baseless assumption that actually very disrespectful.

It is doctrine that you can do so to advance Islam, after all.

How would you know? You've never read the Holy Qur'an have you?

I’m sorry for seeming disrespectful.

The assertion was baseless on further inspection of Taqiyya. My apologies. I retract that assertion that it’s doctrinal. However, to believe in allah, you still have to be dishonest with yourself because it requires faith.

[Al Mumtahanah]

If something began to exist without a cause it would exist forever since the predicate of its existence (nothing) always did hence it would not begin to exist it would always exist.

Most of those are not tenets, they are conclusions.

Wrong. We have seen subatomic particles come into existence at random. Salandriago can explain the particulars better than me, but it is quite possible for something to begin to exist without cause.

Seeing something apparently spontaneously coming into existence is more indicative of incomplete data than spontaneous existence.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

Wrong. We have seen subatomic particles come into existence at random. Salandriago can explain the particulars better than me, but it is quite possible for something to begin to exist without cause.

Seeing something apparently spontaneously coming into existence is more indicative of incomplete data than spontaneous existence.

You’re not a particle physicist; you are incorrect.

[Al Mumtahanah]

No it isn't

That's an example of such a lie.

How? The burden of proof is on you.

[ECKU]

So a baseless assumption that actually very disrespectful.

How would you know? You've never read the Holy Qur'an have you?

I’m sorry for seeming disrespectful.

The assertion was baseless on further inspection of Taqiyya. My apologies. I retract that assertion that it’s doctrinal. However, to believe in allah, you still have to be dishonest with yourself because it requires faith.

I'm not dishonest of myself. I forgive you though, and this is exactly the reason why you should read the Holy Qur'an by yourself instead of relying on other people, especially non-Muslims.

[Al Mumtahanah]

Seeing something apparently spontaneously coming into existence is more indicative of incomplete data than spontaneous existence.

You’re not a particle physicist; you are incorrect.

That's a general rule of science not just particle physics.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

You’re not a particle physicist; you are incorrect.

That's a general rule of science not just particle physics.

You are incorrect, sir.

[Al Mumtahanah]

So a baseless assumption that actually very disrespectful.

How would you know? You've never read the Holy Qur'an have you?

I’m sorry for seeming disrespectful.

The assertion was baseless on further inspection of Taqiyya. My apologies. I retract that assertion that it’s doctrinal. However, to believe in allah, you still have to be dishonest with yourself because it requires faith.

This is tautology. Faith and belief are the same word in Arabic.

[Al Mumtahanah]

That's a general rule of science not just particle physics.

You are incorrect, sir.

No, it is quite a rule of science that if an axiom doesn't hold the data is incomplete.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

I’m sorry for seeming disrespectful.

The assertion was baseless on further inspection of Taqiyya. My apologies. I retract that assertion that it’s doctrinal. However, to believe in allah, you still have to be dishonest with yourself because it requires faith.

I'm not dishonest of myself. I forgive you though, and this is exactly the reason why you should read the Holy Qur'an by yourself instead of relying on other people, especially non-Muslims.

If I do, then what? Will allah appear to me suddenly? The issue is, you take this on faith. I take nothing on faith, except for the sake of argument. Even if allah appeared to me in a dream, based on what you have told me about Islamic law, I would not follow him. Ever. god is not great.

[ECKU]

You are incorrect, sir.

No, it is quite a rule of science that if an axiom doesn't hold the data is incomplete.

I think that you actually should look up that means, akhi. I'm not taking the kufr side here but you should know what the other side is talking about in order to engage.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

You are incorrect, sir.

No, it is quite a rule of science that if an axiom doesn't hold the data is incomplete.

The axiom you cite is the conservation of energy. We have a good understanding of how energy can appear from nothing, and how matter can appear from energy in the vacuum of space.

For further reading, I suggest “A Universe From Nothing” by Lawrence Krauss

[ECKU]

I'm not dishonest of myself. I forgive you though, and this is exactly the reason why you should read the Holy Qur'an by yourself instead of relying on other people, especially non-Muslims.

If I do, then what? Will allah appear to me suddenly? The issue is, you take this on faith. I take nothing on faith, except for the sake of argument. Even if allah appeared to me in a dream, based on what you have told me about Islamic law, I would not follow him. Ever. god is not great.

Again, don't make assumptions about me. I go by imaan (faith) and daleel (evidence). You should still read the Holy Qur'an, even if just to get a better understanding of what we believe.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

If I do, then what? Will allah appear to me suddenly? The issue is, you take this on faith. I take nothing on faith, except for the sake of argument. Even if allah appeared to me in a dream, based on what you have told me about Islamic law, I would not follow him. Ever. god is not great.

Again, don't make assumptions about me. I go by imaan (faith) and daleel (evidence). You should still read the Holy Qur'an, even if just to get a better understanding of what we believe.

What evidence do you go by?