Lord Ahmed the criminal, convicted killer and now Antisemit!

[PaliRichard]

So to get back to the OP, Lord Ahmed who incidentally is revered by the Muslim population of Rotherham is not a Muslim,I believe thats what your trying to say.

 

What would your definition of a Muslim be GR. For the purpose of a debate about Islam how would you define a Muslim?

Edited March 17, 2013 by PaliRichard

[mafya]

So to get back to the OP, Lord Ahmed who incidentally is revered by the Muslim population of Rotherham is not a Muslim,I believe thats what your trying to say.

 

My Bold=

PMSL where do you get your info from?

Revered my arse, most muslims see him for the self serving #### he is just like the rest of the mp's/lords etc.

[gnvqsos]

My Bold=

PMSL where do you get your info from?

Revered my arse, most muslims see him for the self serving #### he is just like the rest of the mp's/lords etc.

 

You know a large number of muslims do you?

[Phanerothyme]

Correlation and causation can be compatible-I think you mean association not causation.Were you drifting off during those tedious lectures?

 

 

What I mean, and what should be obvious to anyone, is that there is a correlation between out and out racists and poor spelling, but I do not believe that being a racist makes your spelling poor, or if you can't spell it makes you a racist.

 

 

Correlation. Yes. Causation. No.

[alchresearch]

Its interesting that his skin colour and religious beliefs were questioned and brought into the discussion at the time of the driving offence, yet Chris Huhne's hasn't.

[WeX]

Its interesting that his skin colour and religious beliefs were questioned and brought into the discussion at the time of the driving offence, yet Chris Huhne's hasn't.

 

I don't see any comments questioning his skin colour, which were those?

[Jeffrey Shaw]

So to get back to the OP, Lord Ahmed who incidentally is revered by the Muslim population of Rotherham is not a Muslim,I believe thats what your trying to say.

As to 'revered': well, we are told that he was quickly suspended by the British Labour Party.

But is it true that his stance has- on the other hand- been supported by Rotherham's Labour Party Branch?

[flamingjimmy]

So using the correct definition of the word Muslim they cannot by default be anti sematic.

 

You may choose to ignore the correct meaning and merely apply it to any Tom, Dick or Abdul that wants to call themself a Muslim but as I have already said you might as well replace the word 'Muslim' with 'human' if you're simply going to ignore the correct meaning and context of the words your using in debate.

You can keep calling your no true scotsman arugment 'correct' as long as you want, it doesn't make it any less silly.

 

I would not argue that anyone who claims to be a Muslim is a Muslim, and I would agree that behaviours are relevant.

 

Here's how I would define Muslim: A person who believes that Mohammed received the last revelation from god, that this revelation is the Quran, and someone who tries to live their life by their interpretation of this so called revelation.

 

You have set impossible standards, no-one can follow all the rules and believe all the verses in an internally contradictory book, which the Quran is. By your definition there are no Muslims.

 

Many (if not most) Christians claim that the new Testament overturns the need for the rules in the old Testament, so the old Testament is not there to be obeyed, they don't 'ignore' it, they feel that they are not bound by it.

I'm not talking about that, we don't even need to leave the new testament to find plenty of parts of the bible that hundreds of millions of the worlds Christians ignore.

 

Seeing as I only need 1 example in this case I'll only give 1, but rest assured there are plenty more: The new testament explicitly says that Women should be silent in church .

 

If you believe a Muslim is merely someone who attaches the label 'Muslim' to themself

I don't believe that so I hope you'll forgive me for ignoring the follow up questions, besides I kind of already answered them further up.

 

I don't understand why in other debates people are so specific about the use of language yet when it comes to this one time and time again people are happy to ignore the defined meaning of the word and even argue against it.

Don't even pretend for a second I'm being inconsistent. I'm all for clarity of language but you are not using a particular accepted definition, you are making a no true scotsman argument. I've never heard a Muslim make the argument you're making. If it is so true, and your 'definition' is the obvious accepted one, as you have consistently implied and now explicitly stated. How come I've never heard this argument before? How come the world's most respected Muslim preachers aren't making it to counter the 'distortions' of their peers? Edited March 18, 2013 by flamingjimmy

[LeMaquis]

Its interesting that his skin colour and religious beliefs were questioned and brought into the discussion at the time of the driving offence, yet Chris Huhne's hasn't.

 

That's because at the time of the driving offence Mr Huhne was transformed into Ms Pryce.

[PaliRichard]

You can keep calling your no true scotsman arugment 'correct' as long as you want, it doesn't make it any less silly[/Quote]

 

You keep saying it's silly then say

 

I would not argue that anyone who claims to be a Muslim is a Muslim, and I would agree that behaviours are relevant[/Quote]

 

But what behaviours are relevant? Behaviour that is in line with the holy book? Behaviour set down by political jurists with a vested interest? Behaviours of preachers who want the west subdued? What behaviour exactly do you think is relevant?

 

Here's how I would define Muslim: A person who believes that Mohammed received the last revelation from god, that this revelation is the Quran, and someone who tries to live their life by their interpretation of this so called revelation[/Quote]

 

So your own definition then discounts many of the worlds 'Muslims', the very thing I'm accused of doing by using the correct definition of the word. Many of the worlds 'Muslims' (loose term) don't just live their life by the revelation, they live it by the revelation and the examples/sayings of the Prophet - it is these last two items that cause most of the trouble because different people place different values on them, and the Islamists often elevate their authority above that of the Quran to satisfy their own political viewpoints.

 

You have set impossible standards, no-one can follow all the rules and believe all the verses in an internally contradictory book, which the Quran is. By your definition there are no Muslims.[/Quote]

 

I haven't set anything and it's not my definition, it's the correct meaning of the word Muslim.

 

I'm not talking about that, we don't even need to leave the new testament to find plenty of parts of the bible that hundreds of millions of the worlds Christians ignore.

 

Seeing as I only need 1 example in this case I'll only give 1, but rest assured there are plenty more: The new testament explicitly says that Women should be silent in church[/Quote]

 

Sorry I thought you were referring to the new/old testament thing, not sure why I thought that. Regardless as I previously stated it's irrelevant anyway.

 

I don't believe that so I hope you'll forgive me for ignoring the follow up questions, besides I kind of already answered them further up[/Quote]

 

Actually no you didn't, you have said you agree the behaviour is relevant but not given any indication as to what it is supposed to be relevant to.

 

Don't even pretend for a second I'm being inconsistent. I'm all for clarity of language but you are not using a particular accepted definition, you are making a no true scotsman argument. I've never heard a Muslim make the argument you're making. If it is so true, and your 'definition' is the obvious accepted one, as you have consistently implied and now explicitly stated. How come I've never heard this argument before? How come the world's most respected Muslim preachers aren't making it to counter the 'distortions' of their peers?

 

I'm not pretending anything.

 

Muslim means one who submits to the will of Allah, you're ignoring this.

 

Muslim scholars do use this definition, they probably don't use it in argument because it highlights the fact that in many cases the authority of the Hadith and Sunnah is elevated above the Quran and that is best kept quiet, it's certainly always been hushed up very quickly in debates I've had with Muslims.

 

I'm not dismissing calling people of cultural and political motivation Muslims in a general sense, I'm saying when it comes to debate we should use the correct definition in context otherwise there is no point having the debate to start with.

 

Most debates revolve around arguments like 'Muslims believe women should be stoned to death for adultery', well the Quran doesn't teach that, but most people think it does because 'Muslims' believe it. It makes no sense when you look at the word 'Muslim' in context, it ignores the context of the word and the Heirarchy of the Islamic texts. Even your own definition of Muslim above discounts the argument that 'Muslims' believe this. In the same way that definition discounts that Muslims are anti Semetic (as the Quran doesn't teach anti semetism), yet it was this point you first picked me up on. Yet you don't want me to call you inconsistant?

 

C'mon Jimmy please.

Edited March 18, 2013 by PaliRichard