Lord Ahmed the criminal, convicted killer and now Antisemit!

[s2 blade]

He's not the one doing that - it's the knuckle dragging boneheads on here that do that.

 

Knuckle dragging bonehead :)

Very original . .... Not

Infact , it was very predictable and very limited like 99% of your posts come to think about it .

 

Back to the subject . Lord Ahmed . Why do people in the public eye insist on doing stupid things when they have lives most of us could only dream of ?

Tut tut

[DeathAxe]

Mot of the "lords" are criminals, why not another?

[Jeffrey Shaw]

Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian; he was a Muslim

No, he was none of the above. But he was the only monotheist of his age, at first, inveighing against a world of polytheism or atheism. He is best described as a proto-Jew. Judaism as now existing dates from the [Jewish] year 2448, centuries after he had died, and the Giving of the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai.

 

But none of this relates to Lord Ahmed, does it?

[PaliRichard]

Jimmy.

 

I'm slightly puzzled by the somewhat contradictory nature of your responses as your definition of Muslim excludes the same people that my definition excludes but my definition is wrong because (1) you've never heard it before and (2) it excludes some Muslims but not everyone who identifies themself as a Muslim is a Muslim because they have modes of behaviour to follow but you don't know what those modes of behaviour are other than that they come from the Quran which is in essence the same as the behaviour that the correct (which you claim is the incorrect) definition of Muslim means.

 

Glad we sorted that out then.

 

At least we agree on something;

 

There is no other word for followers of Islam[/Quote]

 

Which is why it is vitally important to make the distinction between the correct meaning of the word and the general use in debates.

 

---------- Post added 19-03-2013 at 16:14 ----------

 

No, he was none of the above. But he was the only monotheist of his age, at first, inveighing against a world of polytheism or atheism. He is best described as a proto-Jew. Judaism as now existing dates from the [Jewish] year 2448, centuries after he had died, and the Giving of the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai.

 

But none of this relates to Lord Ahmed, does it?

 

He was a Muslim from the Islamic perspective of the word, which is what we were talking about.

 

From my own point of view I would agree with you that he is best described as a proto-Jew.

[johncocker]

You keep saying it's silly then say

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

SIZE]

 

[/color]when are you going to wake up to the fact that the intellectual point scoreing bubble you live in as got very little to do with the real world .have you ever even been to a muslim country ?

there again you wouldn't call it a muslim country would you:D

 

I am sick and tired of being told these ugly violent people are not true Muslims. They are. Islam is an ugly and violent religion. Read the Koran and its sayings on women. Show me one country where Islam is the predominant belief system that treats those who are NOT Muslim, as equal citizens. I had a friend who was a member of the SWP. Marxism has the answer, he said, it's just that no one has actually followed its precepts honestly. How many millions have to die, be oppressed, be excluded from civil life before someone says "hey, this idea (Marxism, Islam) is actually crap Lets ditch it and get something better?"

 

come on pali please

Edited March 20, 2013 by johncocker

[PaliRichard]

when are you going to wake up to the fact that the intellectual point scoreing bubble you live in as got very little to do with the real world .have you ever even been to a muslim country ?

there again you wouldn't call it a muslim country would you:D

 

 

 

come on pali please

 

It's not intellectual point scoring. It's about using the correct terminology where appropriate. When talking about the 'beliefs of Muslims' we are talking about what is written in their scriptures - the source of those beliefs, which has to be done using the correct context behind those scriptures.

 

The other option is to say 'it's what Muslims believe' ignoring the correct definition of Muslim and just attributing 'what Muslims believe' to anyone who identifies as a Muslim or is born in a 'Muslim' country. In that case we might as well use the term human instead of Muslim - because then we are dealing with the human condition far more than the teachings of the texts.

 

C'mon pali please. I am sick and tired of being told these ugly violent people are not true Muslims[/Quote]

 

....and Muslims are intolerant?

 

They are[/Quote]

 

The very fact that you're 'sick and tired' of being told it suggests you get that alot. Does that not set alarm bells off that it might be the case that they're not and it's your own skewed view that may be incorrect?

 

Islam is an ugly and violent religion[/Quote]

 

So you've said.

 

Read the Koran and its sayings on women[/Quote]

 

I have.

 

Maybe you should read my posts properly before commenting and accusing me of 'intellectual point scoring'. I have said many times there is genuine reason for criticism of the Quran. The difficulty I have is that most critics of Islam ignore those things and attack it for the things that simply aren't taught in the Quran. Simply calling Islam an 'ugly and violent religion' is not legitimate criticism.

 

Show me one country where Islam is the predominant belief system that treats those who are NOT Muslim, as equal citizens. I had a friend who was a member of the SWP. Marxism has the answer, he said, it's just that no one has actually followed its precepts honestly. How many millions have to die, be oppressed, be excluded from civil life before someone says "hey, this idea (Marxism, Islam) is actually crap Lets ditch it and get something better?"[/Quote]

 

Show me any religion using your loose definition of Islam that hasn't been the cause of deaths, show me any political belief system that hasn't.

 

If you're just going to apply problems of the human condition to a specific group because of your prejudice against that group there is absolutely no point in having a debate.

 

If you have legitimate and contextual criticism of the texts that inform religious belief then debate is possible - and the very fact that I am not a Muslim would go you some way to show you that in such a debate I would more than likely agree with you.

[mikem8634]

Muslims should not be anti Semitic, to do so is to go against the Quran that counts Jews as the people of the book and , behaviour permitting, liable to recieve a place in heaven.

 

An anti semetic 'Muslim' is by default an anti Islamic one.

 

Not at all. The Quran and Islam treats the Jewish people as people of the book. Those Jews practicing in accordance with the Jewish scriptures are accepted as God's people.

 

The only way this cannot be appreciated is if the texts are taken out of context, and this is often done on purpose (by those on both sides of the argument) to justify personal or political opinions.

 

As I said in my original response, an anti semetic Muslim is essentially an anti Islamic one.

 

The above in action...

 

Bradford Muslims Rally To Save Synagogue From Closure

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/03/19/bradford-synagogue-muslims_n_2908254.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

[andygardener]

The above in action...

 

Bradford Muslims Rally To Save Synagogue From Closure

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/03/19/bradford-synagogue-muslims_n_2908254.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

 

Looks dodgy as hell to me. Did you read the article?

[mikem8634]

Looks dodgy as hell to me. Did you read the article?

 

Of course.

 

Dodgy how exactly?

[Halibut]

Looks dodgy as hell to me. Did you read the article?

 

Why? Can't you believe that different faith communities can actually support each other? I think it happens far more frequently than most people imagine.