Hawk Untrapped

-

Bruce v. GH—ding ding ding ding ding

Posted by nonverbal -
15 February 2010 09:26 AM


In this thread, I’m inviting Bruce and GH to discuss their own and each other’s theistic ways. Ideally, each will be frank with the other and tell a closely held secret or two in a loosely veiled attempt to convince the opponent of the folly of his chosen (?) branch of theism. As Dennis alluded to in a neighboring thread this morning, frank discussion between unusually devout religious people, as it’s quietly being watched by atheists, might be a learning experience for all.
I’m not requesting any more moderation of this thread than any other. I am, however—in the spirit of samharris.org precedence—requesting that only Bruce and GH enter posts until they decide to open up discussion to all. I will not post again in this thread, and will entirely understand and accept someone disagreeing with my intent and interrupting Bruce and GH. But I hope you’ll, in turn, understand my intent here, which is serious and perhaps a little bit experimental.

-

Bruce Burleson:


OK nonverbal, I’ll accept your invitation. The first point that I would like to make to GH is that for believers, once you accept that God exists and that Jesus was historical, there is simply no need for an additional prophet like Muhammad. There’s no need to say anything negative about Muhammad himself - he may have been the most sincere person alive. However, if I have the teachings of Jesus, why do I need anything else? Jesus teaches me to have faith, to be righteous, to love others, to do good, to help the needy, etc. If I can’t do that based on his teachings, I’m not sure what good another prophet will do me.
My point is simply that, given Christianity, why Islam?

goldenhawk786:

nice try, but i am not going to fall for it. me and bruce started a thread about Christianity and Islam. it was going all fine until you atheists started joining in and coming ot with your usual rubbish wrapped up with nice words like dennis does. therefore i am not going to engage here with bruce as you suggest as it will be hijacked again. i want to talk about athiesm and evolution and the many flaws it has. bruce if your reading this, don’t bother, they wont leave us alone.


eudemonia:

Muslim coward.


goldenhawk786:

another monkey cage being rattled here. was eudemonia given to you by the zoo keeper or someone else? do you have a name or just a serial number ? i am really interested.
i have post this note on another thread but in case you infidels have missed it, i will copy and paste my comment. you calling me a coward ? get down from your tree and i will show you that your your hero sam harris is the coward. i was just watching him give a lecture on youtube. although he is an idiot and thinks he knows about islam, he is just a grunt like the rest of you apes. he said you guys should not call yourselves atheist. i think he must be ashamed of himself giving that label. its like asking a homosexual, not to call yourself gay. why not ? you atheists should be proud of it. i know his reason why he does not want to be called an atheist or to be labeled as one, but that’s for you guys to figure out. check it out.

So easy to rattle Goldenflow. All you have to do is call him a coward.
Same old monkey rhetoric? What are you 11 years old? Or are you just married to an 11 year old?

what difference would that make to you if i was 11 or older as you can only count to ten. i don’t want to confuse you or others chimps unnecessary. you may not perform well at the next circus.


Dennis Campbell :

How does Islamic Law address the practice, reported perhaps by biased Jewish media, on what they call “honor killings” of women who have engaged in sexual contact with those not of the true faith?

Dennis

-

well that depends on lots of things dennis. you need to give me a proper scenario so i can give you an answer. that statement is like saying what if someone steals? well lots of details would be required and would depend on the circumstances before punishment (if necessary) could be administered. e.g. was the thief poor or rich? if he was rich and stole when he did not need to, then he will be punished. but if he was poor and was looking for food to feed himself or his family, then that would be taken into consideration. islam is a reasonable and fair religion, despite what you guys think.



Dennis Campbell :

A man or his sons kill a daughter who they suspect of having had sexual desires or contact with a man of whom they do not approve. That has been reported to occur as many as 5,000 times a year the World Health Organization worldwide, but almost always among Muslim people.
How does Islamic Law address these reported practices?

Dennis

first of all, there is no punishment based on suspicion. islam has the perfect justice system. it requires witnesses and evidence. Islam, therefore, discourages unwarranted suspicions as much as possible. in my view these honour killings based on suspicion are absolutely appalling and a disgrace. in the holy quran, Allah says:
O you who have believed, avoid much [negative] assumption. Indeed, some assumption is sin. And do not spy or backbite each other. Would one of you like to eat the flesh of his brother when dead? You would detest it. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is Accepting of repentance and Merciful. (Qur’an 49:12)
So, if a wicked person accuses a woman or a man of adultery or fornication, she or he should be given the benefit of the doubt. Allah warns the believers against the mischief of the wicked. allah says in the holy quran:
O you who have believed, if there comes to you a disobedient one with information, investigate, lest you harm a people out of ignorance and become, over what you have done, regretful.(Qur’an 49:6)
so what does Islam say about honor killings? does Islam really have a concept of honor killings? since most of the victims here are females; so does Islam really order to kill females in the name of honor?
focusing more on your question, Ahmad Kutty, a senior lecturer at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, states (i took a partial quote from his lecture):
“There is no such concept in Islam that is called “honor killing”. Islam holds every soul in high esteem and does not allow any transgression upon it. It does not allow people to take the law in their own hands and administer justice, because doing so will be leading to chaos and lawlessness. Therefore, based on this, Islam does not permit such killings. First of all, in order to sanction killing, it must be through a binding verdict issued by an authoritative law court. Individuals themselves have no authority either to judge cases or pass judgments. Therefore, a Muslim should not sanction such killing because doing so will be leading to the rule of the law of the jungle. A civilized society cannot be run by such laws.”
shedding more light on this subject, `Atiyyah Saqr, former head of Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee, states:
“Like all other religions, Islam strictly prohibits murder and killing without legal justification. Allah, Most High, says in the holy quran, “But whoever kills a believer intentionally - his recompense is Hell, wherein he will abide eternally, and Allah has become angry with him and has cursed him and has prepared for him a great punishment.” (An-Nisa’: 93)
The so-called “honor killing” is based on ignorance and disregard of morals and laws, which cannot be abolished except by disciplinary punishments. It goes without saying that people are not entitled to take the law in their own hands, for it’s the responsibility of the Muslim State and its concerned bodies to maintain peace, security, etc., and to prevent chaos and disorder from creeping into the Muslim society.”
so this has nothing to do with islam. this is more backward culture which seriously needs to be addressed. please dont confuse culture with islam. these people who say they are acting in the name of religion may misunderstand their religion or practice it wrongly. for this reason, it is a mistake to form any idea of that religion from the activities of these people. so the best way to understand Islam is through its holy source. these people who use religion to justify these actions are not true believers, know nothing about islam, most likely have never read the quran in their lives. they fall into the same category as the KKK who claim to be christians, yet kill black people, or stalin being influenced with marxism and carrying out his agenda.
however, adultery and fornication, which is so rife in the west, is condemned in islam. IF these evil, shameful and other promiscuous sex practices are PROVEN to have been commited by the person, then they will be punished according to the islamic law, because they are indeed serious crimes which affect the entire society. Islamic law explicitly prohibits adultery and fornication as clearly mentioned in the following verse from the Holy Quran::
“Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils).” (Qur’an, 17:32)
just drifting of the subject slightly, i would like to make this point. in islam, a woman has the right to choose on whom she wants to marry. it is highly recommended to seek advice from her parents and family members on who she wants to marry. the final choice is hers. but the best quality to look for to get married is to check if the person is pious. piety will add peace and harmony to the couple and will prevent social breakdown in society. athiesm has no answer for this but thats for another topic regarding anti-social behavior and society breakdown in the west.
also i want you guys to know that in Islam, the wife is equally granted the right to divorce her husband if her demand for divorce is justifiable. that’s if the marriage does not prove to be functional and effective because the husband neglects his responsibilities or no element of love binds them to stay together. By the same token, if the wife is guilty of open lewdness, the husband may resort to divorce. divroce is not reccomended in islam, but it is there to be used as a last resort. may allah forgive me if i have made any mistakes in my response as allah knows best.
hope i have given a comprehensive reply. i will try to reply to you guys as long as you ask nicely like dennis. ahem, ahem. LOL


Dennis Campbell:

Again thank you for your most revealing above post, as it goes far to helping us understand you and your views.
Dennis

your welcome dennis. you are one of the few whom i enjoy having a conversation with, unlike the other un-believers. it’s always a pleasure reading your posts and answering any questions you may have regarding islam. peace.


Jefe :

goldenhawk786, you said: "i want to talk about evolution and the many flaws it has."

Name one. Lets talk about it.

@Jefe..these are some of the flaws of evolution. of course i cant understand everything as i am not a scientist. my friends father is a micro-biologist. although he is not a muslim or christian, he rejects evolution and believes in some sort of intelligent design. i sit down with him from time to time and he has me convinced about this fake theory which most of guys believe. what i have posted (taken from a website) below is some of his thoughts which i agree with. i want to hear some counter-arguments so i can take them back to him.


"1. The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created.A system that is irreducibly complex has precise components working together to perform the basic function of the system. (A mousetrap is a simple example.) If any part of that system were missing, the system would cease to function. Gradual additions could not account for the origin of such a system. It would have to come together fully formed and integrated. Many living systems exhibit this (vision, blood-clotting, etc.). When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to “happen” by chance. Yet such living systems are almost infinitely more complex than a watch. They could not be random—they simply had to be designed and created.

2. The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence.Information science teaches that in all known cases, complex information requires an intelligent message sender. This is at the core of the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI). DNA is by far the most compact information storage/retrieval system known. A pinhead of DNA has a billion times more information capacity than a 4-gigabit hard drive. Ironically, evolutionists scan the heavens using massive radio telescopes hoping for relatively simple signal patterns that might have originated in outer space, all the while ignoring the incredibly complex evidence of superior intelligence built into every human’s DNA. While we’re waiting to hear signs of intelligence behind interstellar communication, we’re ignoring those built into us.

3. No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered.Mutations which increase genetic information would be the raw material necessary for evolution. To get from “amoeba” to “man” would require a massive net increase in information. There are many examples of supposed evolution given by proponents. Variation within a species (finch beak, for example), bacteria which acquire antibiotic resistance, people born with an extra chromosome, etc. However, none of the examples demonstrate the development of new information. Instead, they demonstrate either preprogrammed variation, multiple copies of existing information, or even loss of information (natural selection and adaptation involve loss of information). The total lack of any such evidence refutes evolutionary theory.

4. Evolution flies directly in the face of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics.This law of physics states that all systems, whether open or closed, have a tendency to disorder (or “the least energetic state”). There are some special cases where local order can increase, but this is at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. Raw energy cannot generate the complex systems in living things, or the information required to build them. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Yet, evolution is a building-up process, suggesting that things tend to become more complex and advanced over time. This is directly opposed to the law of entropy.

5. There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms (“missing links”) required for evolution to be true.Evolution does not require a single missing link, but innumerable ones. We should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But we don’t see this—there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form. The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between the fossilized “kinds.” Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven’t been.

6. Pictures of ape-to-human “missing links” are extremely subjective and based on evolutionists’ already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply contrived.The series of pictures or models that show progressive development from a little monkey to modern man are an insult to scientific research. These are often based on fragmentary remains that can be “reconstructed” a hundred different ways. The fact is, many supposed “ape-men” are very clearly apes. Evolutionists now admit that other so-called “ape-men” would be able to have children by modern humans, which makes them the same species as humans. The main species said to bridge this gap, Homo habilis, is thought by many to be a mixture of ape and human fossils. In other words, the “missing link” (in reality there would have to be millions of them) is still missing. The body hair and the blank expressions of sub-humans in these models doesn’t come from the bones, but the assumptions of the artist. Virtually nothing can be determined about hair and the look in someone’s eyes based on a few old bones.

7. The dating methods that evolutionists rely upon to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are very inconsistent and based on unproven (and questionable) assumptions.Dating methods that use radioactive decay to determine age assume that radioactive decay rates have always been constant. Yet, research has shown that decay rates can change according to the chemical environment of the material being tested. In fact, decay rates have been increased in the laboratory by a factor of a billion. All such dating methods also assume a closed system—that no isotopes were gained or lost by the rock since it formed. It’s common knowledge that hydrothermal waters, at temperatures of only a few hundred degrees Centigrade, can create an open system where chemicals move easily from one rock system to another. In fact, this process is one of the excuses used by evolutionists to reject dates that don’t fit their expectations. What’s not commonly known is that the majority of dates are not even consistent for the same rock. Furthermore, 20th century lava flows often register dates in the millions to billions of years. There are many different ways of dating the earth, and many of them point to an earth much too young for evolution to have had a chance. All age-dating methods rely on unprovable assumptions.

8. Uses continue to be found for supposedly “leftover” body structures.Evolutionists point to useless and vestigial (leftover) body structures as evidence of evolution. However, it’s impossible to prove that an organ is useless, because there’s always the possibility that a use may be discovered in the future. That’s been the case for over 100 supposedly useless organs which are now known to be essential. Scientists continue to discover uses for such organs. It’s worth noting that even if an organ were no longer needed (e.g., eyes of blind creatures in caves), it would prove devolution not evolution. The evolutionary hypothesis needs to find examples of developing organs—those that are increasing in complexity.

9. Evolution is said to have begun by spontaneous generation—a concept ridiculed by biology.When I was a sophomore in high school, and a brand new Christian, my biology class spent the first semester discussing how ignorant people used to believe that garbage gave rise to rats, and raw meat produced maggots. This now disproven concept was called “spontaneous generation.” Louis Pasteur proved that life only comes from life—this is the law of biogenesis. The next semester we studied evolution, where we learned that the first living cell came from a freak combination of nonliving material (where that nonliving material came from we were not told). “Chemical Evolution” is just another way of saying “spontaneous generation”—life comes from nonlife. Evolution is therefore built on a fallacy science long ago proved to be impossible.
Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five “heads” in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it’s given, non-life will not become alive.

10. The scientific method can only test existing data—it cannot draw conclusions about origins.Micro-evolution, changes within a species on a small scale, is observable. But evidence for macro-evolution, changes transcending species, is conspicuous by its absence. To prove the possibility of anything, science must be able to reproduce exact original conditions. Even when it proves something is possible, it doesn’t mean it therefore happened. Since no man was there to record or even witness the beginning, conclusions must be made only on the basis of interpreting presently available information. If I put on rose-colored glasses, I will always see red. I accept the Bible’s teaching on creation, and see the evidence as being consistently supportive of that belief. When dealing with origins, everyone who believes anything does so by faith, whether faith in God, the Bible, himself, modern science, or the dependability of his own subjective interpretations of existing data. I would rather put my faith in God’s revealed Word."

i am going to be busy for the next few days, so keep your questions regarding islam ready for me when i return, and stop watching jewish news channls like fox news. maybe your monkey brains will “evolve” slightly or maybe its just wishful thinking.

GAD:

Your in for it now, Jefe! It’s the old top ten list of why morons can’t understand evolution.

@GAD...the only moron around here is you. i will make you a deal. you can shout and swing all you want up in the trees, but when you get down, i will shoot you with a tranquilizer and ship you over to the far east so they can eat fresh monkey brains. well maybe in your case, they will be disappointed and they may ask for a refund as they wont find any brains in that thick monkey skull of yours !

-


first of all, before you start accusing me of insulting again, i was responding to GAD’s insult. therefore it would help, if you look at his posts BEFORE judging me. i am trying to engage in a civil debate, but i feel that hardly any thread goes beyond 50 posts before someone insults me first, therefore i am within my right to retaliate in a appropriate manner. secondly i have acknowledged that my understanding is limited regarding evolution compared to scientists. my friends father is a micro biologist (a non-muslim), who hold discussions with me about islam. he does not like islam, and we have held many meeting about my faith. but he is a highly respected scientist in his field and i am sure he is more knowledgeable that most of you guys.
he rejects evolution based on facts and has debated many other scientists about this theory. therefore he is in a better position to talk to me about this theory than you guys. unless you guys tell me, he is a bad scientist. i mean if evolution was a fact like you are making it out to be, then why are not scientists united on this issue? are those scientists who reject evolution bad or crazy scientists according to you guys ? are those who do not fall in line with your “path”, not scientists? at least he is more reasonable that richard dawkins. when he was asked how life was started, he said its possible that aliens came and planted life on this planet. this shows his prejudice, that he will go to any length not to believe in god but would rather believe in aliens, when he has not provided a shred of evidence to back up this ridiculous theory. watch what he says on youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8

i am asking you guys, can anyone explain how the first cell was created ? charles darwin thought that life came through chance. he thought the first cell was very basic and primitive and it evolved from there. if he only knew about what biologists know now, through the technology we have now that the cell is very complicated mechanism. its requires all elements within the cell to function properly at the same time otherwise it wont work.
i will give you one example, for the cell to function properly, it requires protein and in turn, the protein would require other elements in the cell fully working at the same time. it would be IMPOSSIBLE for all the elements to come by chance. thats like saying, if there was a junk yard and big gust of wind or a tornado came to this junk yard, it would somehow assemble all the parts and make a airplane. doesn’t this sound absurd to you? another example, to put it simply, if you had a mouse trap and for it to function properly, it will require ALL the mechanisms to fully function. any one missing would simply make it useless. this is what my friends father has told me and has me convinced about the flaws of your evolution theory. i look forward to your responses.

-

johnnyb1999:

GAD wrote: "Your in for it now, Jefe! It’s the old top ten list of why morons can’t understand evolution."

Is this the quote you are referring to, GH? I can’t see any insults directly aimed at you within that post. Does GAD refer to you personally? No. When I made my previous posts, I actually read through the rest of this topic to see if there was any insults aimed at you, and apart from the comment made by Eud, which I have already covered, I could find none up until the point you started with the monkey crap.

Also, you said in your last post….. "i am trying to engage in a civil debate, but i feel that hardly any thread goes beyond 50 posts before someone insults me first, therefore i am within my right to retaliate in a appropriate manner. "

Firstly, your idea of civil debate obviously include use of the term ‘monkey’, and liberal insults at the Jews and atheists. That’s not most peoples idea of civil debate. Also, your above statement suggests to me a certain playground mentality. “...he called me names so I called him names, neh neh ne neh neh”.

@johnnyb1999…i will not call anyone monkey if they don’t provoke me. i don’t see you condemning their actions against me. i know your in their gang, but surely you can try to remain reasonable and impartial without upsetting them by speaking the truth. i am the victim here !


eudemonia :

Man your claims are really old and outdated. You have a lot of research to do.
Creationist claim 010.2 cells were too complex to have come together by chance.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_2.html

i have read that website. if you bother to read that carefully, that’s talking about genetic mutations, not the origin of the first cell. it does not say the first cell was created by a genetic mutation. its only talks talks about once complex life HAS been formed. darwin did not talk about genetic mutations. this is a new theory once it was proven wrong by scientists that life could not have evolved in stages as suggested by darwin. also, as for genetic mutation, i have not seen ONE example where the genome information was actually increased by genetic mutation. even richard dawkins has conceded to this fact. on the contrary, evidence has shown that these mutations have been detrimental but you guys just don’t WANT to believe, despite the evidence.

Goldenhawk you need to read real evolutionary biology and forget the religious propaganda stuff by creation scientists and Intelligent design theorists.

oh so your saying that these creationist scientists are not real or are bad scientists? the only real scientists for you are the ones that believe in evolution? your reasoning here is pathetic. i cant believe you dismiss those scientists who believe in intelligent design (even dawkins suggested that as a possibility), simply because they don’t fall in line with your belief and have an alternative answer to yours.

-

Another fact (pay attenton bruce) which refutes evolution according to scientists (including my friend’s father):


"Trilobites vs. Darwin - One of the most interesting of the many different species that suddenly emerged in the Cambrian Age is the now-extinct trilobites. Trilobites belonged to the Arthropoda phylum, and were very complicated creatures with hard shells, articulated bodies, and complex organs. The fossil record has made it possible to carry out very detailed studies of trilobites’ eyes. The trilobite eye is made up of hundreds of tiny facets, and each one of these contains two lens layers. This eye structure is a real wonder of design. David Raup, a professor of geology at Harvard, Rochester, and Chicago Universities, says, “the trilobites 450 million years ago used an optimal design which would require a well trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today.”
The extraordinarily complex structure even in trilobites is enough to invalidate Darwinism on its own, because no complex creatures with similar structures lived in previous geological periods, which goes to show that trilobites emerged with no evolutionary process behind them. A 2001 Science article says:
Cladistic analyses of arthropod phylogeny revealed that trilobites, like eucrustaceans, are fairly advanced “twigs” on the arthropod tree. But fossils of these alleged ancestral arthropods are lacking. ...Even if evidence for an earlier origin is discovered, it remains a challenge to explain why so many animals should have increased in size and acquired shells within so short a time at the base of the Cambrian
Very little was known about this extraordinary situation in the Cambrian Age when Charles Darwin was writing The Origin of Species. Only since Darwin’s time has the fossil record revealed that life suddenly emerged in the Cambrian Age, and that trilobites and other invertebrates came into being all at once. For this reason, Darwin was unable to treat the subject fully in the book. But he did touch on the subject under the heading “On the sudden appearance of groups of allied species in the lowest known fossiliferous strata,” where he wrote the following about the Silurian Age (a name which at that time encompassed what we now call the Cambrian):
“For instance, I cannot doubt that all the Silurian trilobites have descended from some one crustacean, which must have lived long before the Silurian age, and which probably differed greatly from any known animal… Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
Darwin said “If my theory be true, [the Cambrian] Age must have been full of living creatures.” As for the question of why there were no fossils of these creatures, he tried to supply an answer throughout his book, using the excuse that “the fossil record is very lacking.” But nowadays the fossil record is quite complete, and it clearly reveals that creatures from the Cambrian Age did not have ancestors. This means that we have to reject that sentence of Darwin’s which begins “If my theory be true.” Darwin’s hypotheses were invalid, and for that reason, his theory is mistaken.
The record from the Cambrian Age demolishes Darwinism, both with the complex bodies of trilobites, and with the emergence of very different living bodies at the same time. Darwin wrote “If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection.” that is, the theory at the heart of in his book. But as we saw earlier, some 60 different animal phyla started into life in the Cambrian Age, all together and at the same time, let alone small categories such as species. This proves that the picture which Darwin had described as “fatal to the theory” is in fact the case. This is why the Swiss evolutionary paleoanthropologist Stefan Bengtson, who confesses the lack of transitional links while describing the Cambrian Age, makes the following comment: “Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us.”
Another matter that needs to be dealt with regarding trilobites is that the 530-million-year-old compound structure in these creatures’ eyes has come down to the present day completely unchanged. Some insects today, such as bees and dragonflies, possess exactly the same eye structure. This discovery deals yet another “fatal blow” to the theory of evolution’s claim that living things develop from the primitive to the complex."

-


Dennis Campbell :

GH,

While you are attending to my efforts to seek enlightenment from your superior knowledge of Islamic law, would you honor me by responding to some of the questions I posed earlier? These are in part:

1. What country or countries best exemplifies your view of the application of Islamic law?

the closest islam country for me would be iran. although not perfect at the moment, but it’s getting there.

2. In a hypothetical country ruled by Islamic law, how are consenting adults who engage sexual relations with other consenting adults in private treated by Islamic Laws?

i take it, you are talking about adultery or fornication? if yes, then islam only punishes on evidence and facts. if they remain to engage in such evil and immoral acts while getting away with it, then they will be punished in the hereafter. if they are caught in the act, the the correct punishment will be administered by the muslim judge.

3. Is it just as acceptable for a woman to run for election to a public office and to potentially lead the country as it is a man?

woman can never be in charge of a country. that does not mean she is worthless, but women cant make decisions under pressure. they let their emotions sometimes ruin their judgement, therefore the risks would be to high for the people and would eventually be detrimental to them. this has been proven.

4. In a country ruled by Islamic law, how are the leaders of that country selected?

depends what you mean by leader. lets take iran for example, president ahmadinejad runs the country, but ayatollahs have the final say especially when it comes to islam rulings and laws as they are the experts in that field.

5. If you are a citizen of a secular country, like the UK, do you consider that secular law prevails when it is conflict with Islamic Law?

man made laws can never prevail over god made laws. if that did, then it would imply imperfection in the knowledge of the almighty allah, which is impossible.

6. How does Islamic Law deal with men who kill their daughters or sisters by “honor killing?”

as i have mentioned before, honor killings have no place in islam. that’s more culture than religion. secondly, if an honor killing did take place and it was proven, then it would be up-to the muslim judge to hold accountable those responsible for this act.

I again thank you in advance for being so kind and patient in responding to the simple questions I ask you. I clearly have a great deal to learn and so far you’ve been very accommodating in responding here on this forum for all to see. If you do not respond to these questions, then those here reading will of course assume that they are poor questions, and never that you’re unable to do so.

Dennis

its always a pleasure responding to you as long as people as nicely. why cant they take a lesson from you on how to ask questions in a pleasant well mannered way ? surely its not that hard is it? remember, i am not an scholar or an expert on islam, these are my views. anyway hope i have answered your questions.

-


Bruce Burleson :

["Iran"?]
This is perhaps the scariest answer that you could have given. If there is one country that is more likely to plunge the world into a religious war, it is Iran.

wrong! it’s the US and israel that is HAS and IS creating wars, then always play the victim card and people like you are falling for it. dont you remember george bush saying that “God” told him to invade Iraq. israel has created and religious state with the sole purpose of taking more land from muslims in the pretext for religious justification.

It’s leaders have vowed to wipe Israel off the map. Regardless of whether you approve of or reject the very existence of Israel, surely you understand that such threats are very likely to lead to a conflagration.

well what about the threats (made year after year) by the US government to iran? have you ever thought about that ?you look at the total threats and weigh them up, you will discover that the scale would be a lot heavier in the USA scale.

Iran makes its threats, then completely disregards the opinion of the world community, and proceeds with testing ballistic missiles and enriching uranium. No one believes the Iranian leaders because they appear to scoff at the idea of international law. And all of it is unnecessary. Israel would present no threat to Iran if Iran did not make its threats. If that is the world that you present as being ideal, it is a world filled with violence, death and destruction.

this statement is disappointing coming from you bruce. the opinion of the world is FOR iran, in its god given right to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. the leaders have said this so many times, but it’s falling on deaf ears with you guys. it’s only the US and their allies who is spreading this propaganda that the world is against iran. iran can proceed with testing weapons. it has EVERY right to conduct and test weapons. also are you telling me, israel and the US dont test weapons? in-fact israel and the US HAVE nuclear weapons, THEY HAVE invaded countries, THEY HAVE used illegal weapons, THEY HAVE occupied land illegally.
you want me to carry on? the threat is COMING from israel and the USA who are bullying muslims countries all the time, and you dare to spin and place the blame on iran? i need a whole new thread to inform you about the crimes of the US and israel. i cant believe you look at iran as a threat while ignoring all these facts. it is hard as the jewish lobby in the US is very powerful and has a huge influence on the media. however, i urge you to wake up from this vicious and continuous propaganda being injected into your veins. i have never seen so much brainwashed people. the worst is, this is coming from people with “reason”.

[ pause]

HI everyone. did you guys miss me ? i suppose not, because to your rebellious nature of rejecting God. however, do no lose all hope as i am here and will try to open up your infidel hearts and minds. anyway, i am not available most of the time, like i was before due to work and family commitments, but that does not mean i will be nice to you. i will still remain a hard core muslim and will not try to hide my faith, unlike your hero (sam harris).
anyway dennis, i have read your long post, its a lot to take in and will take time to understand and digest it. as for someone here called burt, what on earth are you talking about? you say i am not replying to you anymore? i cant remember what you have said. i am not trying to ignore you. it maybe a slip of the mind but it was unintentional due to answering all these atheist un-beleivers. so dont bitch or moan and tell me whats your question?
as for the christian guy called bruce, i dont know why we had a conversation here in this thread, lets go back to the islam threads and talk over there, as long as you leave your banana’s here (if you know what i mean). as for the rest of you evolution theory believing idiots, lets take it to the other thread. the title of this thread and its purpose is over. lets talk about islam vs secularism or god vs evolution. i am happy to talk to you about any of these two topics, but i will feel i can reply on islam better as i have more knowledge on that subject, but i can still talk about evolution also.

burt:

You are obviously trolling for a fight but I won’t give it to you. I have been respectful of your beliefs, and have put our several invitations for you to consider but you haven’t seen them, or have not responded if you did (presumably you are not sufficiently educated in the subtleties to actually have picked these up), so there is no reason to converse with you at this point in time, I have better ways to occupy myself. As-Saalam Aleikum

i am not trying to pick a fight with you. i don’t initiate fights with anyone except in self defence which is my god given right. you dont wanna talk to me, then fine, but dont come out with that kind of rubbish excuse. or is it another way to run away from a debate? like i said before and i have made it clear, that if i miss your posts, then remind me as i am in different threads and forums dealing with these atheists / infidels. i dont think i have debated with you due to the fact of these anti-god devils always derailing threads when i am winning arguments. they will dwell in the hell fire if they dont change their rebellious ways. so if you want to talk then let me know, otherwise salam back to you.

[ continues.... 6 ]

-