Jump to content

Welcome to PakSarZameen Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account
Photo

Muslim Televangelists - Zakir Naik, Amir Liaqat, etc.

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

#41
Pastafarian

Pastafarian

    Lt. Commander

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 261 posts

I'd love to when i find the time to discuss this with you :P I know where the discussion leads to so I will not engage in one right now. And truth be told, i wtched that debate along time ago so I dont know specific stuff . But if Hoodbhoy was really that convincing he wouldnt walk away crying like an immature lad "You are a liar" and "Shut up!"  :heh: .
 

 

I don't necessarily agree that Hoodbhoy handled it well, but Hoodbhoy was not wrong when he called Hamza a liar.

In fact a public apology was made on Hamza's website admitting to the fact that the claim he made in regards to the professor were wrong.

Here you go.

 

http://www.hamzatzor...essor-hoodbhoy/



#42
Electric

Electric

    Disguised Punjaban

  • Moderators
  • 1225 posts

I remember watching Krauss debate Hamza. Krauss ate him alive completely.

 

Hamza's been shown up for his lack of scientific knowledge time and time again, he had the same issue with PZ Myers as well where PZ Myers showed him up too in regards to embryology and Hamza's lack of knowledge.

 

Why does Hamza time and time agan put himself up against individuals with such strong scientific backgrounds and knowledge only to be made to look like a total doofus. 

 

He only loses legitimacy. He should stick with theological arguments otherwise he just gets shown his place when he starts involving himself in scientific arguments.

He ate him xD? Professor Lawrence regarded INCEST as OKAY ? That was just sick. also in his book he mentioned as "Nothing is something" and then there were many contradictions. I read some atheist reviews on the debate and even they said that Lwrence had no knowledge of islam whatsoever and did his homework poorly. 


Say (O Muhammad SAW): "Verily, my Salat (prayer), my sacrifice, my living, and my dying are for Allah, the Lord of the 'Alamin (mankind, jinns and all that exists). [6:162]


#43
Electric

Electric

    Disguised Punjaban

  • Moderators
  • 1225 posts

I don't necessarily agree that Hoodbhoy handled it well, but Hoodbhoy was not wrong when he called Hamza a liar.

In fact a public apology was made on Hamza's website admitting to the fact that the claim he made in regards to the professor were wrong.

Here you go.

 

http://www.hamzatzor...essor-hoodbhoy/

I agree that was done. Also after the big debate similar thing happened i guess? And these things happen. There is going to be disagreement and its okay to do so but it shouldnt be personal.


Say (O Muhammad SAW): "Verily, my Salat (prayer), my sacrifice, my living, and my dying are for Allah, the Lord of the 'Alamin (mankind, jinns and all that exists). [6:162]


#44
Pastafarian

Pastafarian

    Lt. Commander

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 261 posts

He ate him xD? Professor Lawrence regarded INCEST as OKAY ? That was just sick. also in his book he mentioned as "Nothing is something" and then there were many contradictions. I read some atheist reviews on the debate and even they said that Lwrence had no knowledge of islam whatsoever and did his homework poorly. 

 

I'm going to stick my head out and say what 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their own time and place is no one else's business but theirs.

Why should anyone else have the right to object to what they do as long as it doesn't reasonably intrude or have to do with anyone else?

 

As long as no one is being harmed, what's the moral objection to it?



#45
Electric

Electric

    Disguised Punjaban

  • Moderators
  • 1225 posts

I'm going to stick my head out and say what 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their own time and place is no one else's business but theirs.

Why should anyone else have the right to object to what they do as long as it doesn't reasonably intrude or have to do with anyone else?

 

As long as no one is being harmed, what's the moral objection to it?

Wow.


Say (O Muhammad SAW): "Verily, my Salat (prayer), my sacrifice, my living, and my dying are for Allah, the Lord of the 'Alamin (mankind, jinns and all that exists). [6:162]


#46
Pastafarian

Pastafarian

    Lt. Commander

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 261 posts

Wow.

 

You're shocked, and that's fair enough. But what would your refutation or moral argument be to stop 2 consenting adults to parttake in whatever activity they want to in the privacy of their own time and space?



#47
Electric

Electric

    Disguised Punjaban

  • Moderators
  • 1225 posts

You're shocked, and that's fair enough. But what would your refutation or moral argument be to stop 2 consenting adults to parttake in whatever activity they want to in the privacy of their own time and space?

I cant comment on something as disgusting as this. Yes atheists mock at religion for being too backward and too "strict" and "barbaric" specially Islam. But atleast whatever the religion be, it introduces ethics and a sense of human values. This way if I were to agree with that statement ( which i dont ) , then there wont be any difference between such "adults" and "animals" who would disregard any relationship and do whatever their "hormones' tell them to.
You make it sound so civil though "consenting adults" but it isnt. 

 


Say (O Muhammad SAW): "Verily, my Salat (prayer), my sacrifice, my living, and my dying are for Allah, the Lord of the 'Alamin (mankind, jinns and all that exists). [6:162]


#48
Pastafarian

Pastafarian

    Lt. Commander

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 261 posts

I cant comment on something as disgusting as this. Yes atheists mock at religion for being too backward and too "strict" and "barbaric" specially Islam. But atleast whatever the religion be, it introduces ethics and a sense of human values. This way if I were to agree with that statement ( which i dont ) , then there wont be any difference between such "adults" and "animals" who would disregard any relationship and do whatever their "hormones' tell them to.
You make it sound so civil though "consenting adults" but it isnt. 

 

 

Adults and animals?

I wasn't aware those things were mutually exclusive.

If anything, an adult often is a subset within the group of animals.

 

Yet to hear a rebuttal about the moral argument against what was said though?



#49
Pastafarian

Pastafarian

    Lt. Commander

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 261 posts

Let me put it this way.

There's a more convincing moral argument to be made by vegans or vegetarians against killing animals for human consumption than there is to be made against incest between 2 consenting adults who don't necessarily look to conceive. 

 

Not that I don't understand the shock value that the topic of incest does bring about..



#50
Electric

Electric

    Disguised Punjaban

  • Moderators
  • 1225 posts

I know atheists/agnostics like you have really absurd ideas. But the fact that there is a certain disregard to ethical standards is beyond my reasoning. And I intend not to find numerous examples to convince you otherwise. From what I have learned, there is no argument to reason but to just go further in disillusion and in this regard further disgusting beliefs. Im sorry but I cant engage and do not chose to at this point. 


Say (O Muhammad SAW): "Verily, my Salat (prayer), my sacrifice, my living, and my dying are for Allah, the Lord of the 'Alamin (mankind, jinns and all that exists). [6:162]


#51
Pastafarian

Pastafarian

    Lt. Commander

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 261 posts

But the fact that there is a certain disregard to ethical standards is beyond my reasoning. 

 

That's where you've gotten it completely wrong.

There IS a certain regard to ethical standards, which is why ethics are even discussed and values are analysed consistently as opposed to being 'completely unquestioned and set in stone.'



#52
maverick86

maverick86

    Lt. Commander

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 236 posts

I cant comment on something as disgusting as this. Yes atheists mock at religion for being too backward and too "strict" and "barbaric" specially Islam. But atleast whatever the religion be, it introduces ethics and a sense of human values. This way if I were to agree with that statement ( which i dont ) , then there wont be any difference between such "adults" and "animals" who would disregard any relationship and do whatever their "hormones' tell them to.
You make it sound so civil though "consenting adults" but it isnt. 

 

If you were living in ancient egypt - incest as we describe it today would be the norm....in fact, what is allowed in our muslim 'culture' (marrying your cousin) is looked down upon as incest by western cultures....so whose morals are THE morals...

 

Some of the more 'ethical verses' from some major religions

 

'Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.' 9:29

'

timothy 2:12

I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent

 

I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them  Quran 8:12

 

So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them Quran 9:5

 

Read the Torah and you will find even more violence. 

 

Ethics and/or morality is juxtaposed with religion not exclusively obtained through it. 



#53
Sarmad

Sarmad

    Ustaad

  • Administrators
  • 1072 posts

Every moral code (secular or religious) has boundaries and limits. For secular laws, they are arbitrary and man-made. In San Francisco, it is acceptable for people to roam around completely naked. In Alabama, such a thing would be unimaginable and very offensive. In Turkey, reading a naat in public can get you banned from ever seeking political office. In much of the Muslim world, such a law would be reprehensible. Each is different because each society has developed its own standards.

 

For a practicing Muslim, the values codified in Islam are divinely set, and are followed out of love and devotion to Allah and to the Prophet :SAW:. While someone might think it is wrong to ban adultery or alcohol, they are not allowed in Islam, because the type of society that Islam espouses seeks to eliminate such acts.

 

As for the question 'why can't folks in Pakistan drink or fornicate if they want to?'.. well, they can, and they do. It is quite widespread among the segment of society who wish to do it, despite the fact that it is taboo and illegal. So I'm not sure what the fuss is all about. 



#54
Pastafarian

Pastafarian

    Lt. Commander

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 261 posts

 

 

As for the question 'why can't folks in Pakistan drink or fornicate if they want to?'.. well, they can, and they do. It is quite widespread among the segment of society who wish to do it, despite the fact that it is taboo and illegal. So I'm not sure what the fuss is all about.

 

No fuss,

just disputing the claim made by electric that individuals with a secular mind frame have no regards for morality or possess any ethical standards which is just gibberish.  



#55
Sarmad

Sarmad

    Ustaad

  • Administrators
  • 1072 posts

No fuss,

just disputing the claim made by electric that individuals with a secular mind frame have no regards for morality or possess any ethical standards which is just gibberish.  

 

I hear ya, but it's understandable since it comes across as such a culture shock. To many, the idea of being okay with incest is so revolting that it comes across as a lack of ethics. (And of course, the definition of incest is different for each culture as well). When you're presenting something as taboo as that, you've gotta expect such a reaction. It would be akin to someone from the Korowai of Papua New Guinea venturing out looking for someone to cannibalize. Perhaps just fine in his code of ethics, but most of the world would find it despicable.



#56
Pastafarian

Pastafarian

    Lt. Commander

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 261 posts

I hear ya, but it's understandable since it comes across as such a culture shock. To many, the idea of being okay with incest is so revolting that it comes across as a lack of ethics. (And of course, the definition of incest is different for each culture as well). When you're presenting something as taboo as that, you've gotta expect such a reaction. It would be akin to someone from the Korowai of Papua New Guinea venturing out looking for someone to cannibalize. Perhaps just fine in his code of ethics, but most of the world would find it despicable.

 

Fair point, which is why the "wow" post was not out of the blue for me.

 

People often misconstrue others saying, I shouldn't have the right to restrict someone else from doing what they do in the privacy of their own room, as some sort of 'endorsement' and or condoning the act, or even encouraging it.

There is a difference and a distinction to be made.

 

I find incest really out there, I find certain fetishes really out there, doesn't mean that I think I, or anyone else, has the right to restrict people from doing it. This though is NOT the same as me LIKING the fact it happens, or be willing to indulge in it myself. 

 

And the cannibalism example isn't necessarily equivalent since in that example there is a, I am presuming, a non-consenting victim. In incest, that isn't necessarily the case. But yes, I do see the point you were trying to make.  :)



#57
Sarmad

Sarmad

    Ustaad

  • Administrators
  • 1072 posts

Fair point, which is why the "wow" post was not out of the blue for me.

 

People often misconstrue others saying, I shouldn't have the right to restrict someone else from doing what they do in the privacy of their own room, as some sort of 'endorsement' and or condoning the act, or even encouraging it.

There is a difference and a distinction to be made.

 

I find incest really out there, I find certain fetishes really out there, doesn't mean that I think I, or anyone else, has the right to restrict people from doing it. This though is NOT the same as me LIKING the fact it happens, or be willing to indulge in it myself. 

 

And the cannibalism example isn't necessarily equivalent since in that example there is a, I am presuming, a non-consenting victim. In incest, that isn't necessarily the case. But yes, I do see the point you were trying to make.   :)

 

Actually, there are many instances of consenting cannibalism--i.e. the person willingly offers up either part or all of their own person for the act. So the question is--would it be okay to allow this? Or, should it be allowed for a cult to ritualistically kill each other inside a compound as long as people in that community are okay with it?

 

Might sound silly--but it's the same thing. Every society has to draw the line somewhere, even for things done in private, because they are seen as too pervasive and corrupting. In Islam, adultery is such a majorly pervasive act for many reasons (such as others getting knowledge of the act, leading to further moral decline by Islamic standards). Islam knows that physical temptation is very strong and easy to spread, and it seeks to limit this temptation. Western culture has taken the opposite approach by giving up and letting everything go. Islamic societies should not try to force the West to change, and the West should not try to force Islamic societies to change.



#58
Pastafarian

Pastafarian

    Lt. Commander

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 261 posts

Actually, there are many instances of consenting cannibalism--i.e. the person willingly offers up either part or all of their own person for the act. So the question is--would it be okay to allow this? Or, should it be allowed for a cult to ritualistically kill each other inside a compound as long as people in that community are okay with it?

 

Might sound silly--but it's the same thing. Every society has to draw the line somewhere, even for things done in private, because they are seen as too pervasive and corrupting. In Islam, adultery is such a majorly pervasive act for many reasons (such as others getting knowledge of the act, leading to further moral decline by Islamic standards). Islam knows that physical temptation is very strong and easy to spread, and it seeks to limit this temptation. Western culture has taken the opposite approach by giving up and letting everything go. Islamic societies should not try to force the West to change, and the West should not try to force Islamic societies to change.

 

Thus I had said if it wasn't consensual, fair point then if it is!

If it is consensual, and the person consenting is of a sane mind and mature enough age, well, I'll be deadly honest and say personally I shouldn't really have much of a right to stop it. That's just me.

Funny you bring that up, as literally seconds ago, was debating with a friend about suicide and euthanasia and the right one should have to die or take his or her own life if he or she chooses to.

 

As for your 2nd para, it surely isn't as simplistic as Western societies not imposing their values on Islamic ones, and Islamic ones not imposing their values on the West.

The issue begins with an individual living in a country with Islamic values who doesn't necessarily ascribe to them or agree with them or is Muslim him or herself. Not every person born in a Muslim country is a Muslim, nor is it easy for him or her to move to another country. There are issues he or she would face where he's confined to Muslim practices despite not being of the faith or agreeing with the faith. 

If he wants to indulge in intercourse outside of wedlock, consume alcohol, or wants to publicly criticize religion, Islamic values might not allow him any of that. The question then is asked is if this person is condemned to adhering to Islamic law despite not ascribing to the faith if he doesn't have the freedom of mobility?

 

It is't as simplistic as "West should do their own thing, Muslim countries should do their own thing" is it?

 

Secularism allows, for the most part, religious individuals to practice their own religion as long as it is not a hindrance to others. I agree, there are issues within secular countries when it comes to restrictions on the veil, not having statutory holidays on religious observances, not getting off from work for Friday prayers, restrictions on polygamy (quite a major one admittedly!) etc.. But for the most part a religious individual can practice his or her faith in a secular country as long as others around aren't being hindered. One can choose to be religious, and one can choose to not be religious without there being a significant infringement on his or her rights. 

 

 

 

The same isn't the case with Islamic countries though, in my opinion at least. There's laws against even criticizing religion and religious figures which can result in things as punishable as the death penalty.

 

Both are not perfect, but one certainly has more freedom for minorities than the other for the most part.



#59
Sarmad

Sarmad

    Ustaad

  • Administrators
  • 1072 posts

The issue begins with an individual living in a country with Islamic values who doesn't necessarily ascribe to them or agree with them or is Muslim him or herself. Not every person born in a Muslim country is a Muslim, nor is it easy for him or her to move to another country. There are issues he or she would face where he's confined to Muslim practices despite not being of the faith or agreeing with the faith. 

If he wants to indulge in intercourse outside of wedlock, consume alcohol, or wants to publicly criticize religion, Islamic values might not allow him any of that. The question then is asked is if this person is condemned to adhering to Islamic law despite not ascribing to the faith if he doesn't have the freedom of mobility?

 

This is where the internal Islamic debate comes into play. Some places like Saudi don't care and impose the same law on everyone.

 

In Pakistan, this is not the case as non-Muslims are able to legally purchase alcohol from designated places and consume it privately, etc. Foreign embassies can also have alcohol, pork, etc. within their compounds privately. The reasoning comes from instances from the Sunnah where the Prophet :SAW: used Jewish law for settling disputes and awarding punishment to Jews, rather than imposing Islamic injunctions on them. 

 

Personally, I agree with the second approach. Those who are not Muslims should not be subjected to Islamic law. (Of course, assuming they don't purposefully try to instigate, like camping out in front of a masjid and eating pork or something).



#60
Pastafarian

Pastafarian

    Lt. Commander

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 261 posts

This is where the internal Islamic debate comes into play. Some places like Saudi don't care and impose the same law on everyone.

 

In Pakistan, this is not the case as non-Muslims are able to legally purchase alcohol from designated places and consume it privately, etc. Foreign embassies can also have alcohol, pork, etc. within their compounds privately. The reasoning comes from instances from the Sunnah where the Prophet :SAW: used Jewish law for settling disputes and awarding punishment to Jews, rather than imposing Islamic injunctions on them. 

 

Personally, I agree with the second approach. Those who are not Muslims should not be subjected to Islamic law. (Of course, assuming they don't purposefully try to instigate, like camping out in front of a masjid and eating pork or something).

 

Agreed, except what if someone isn't a Muslim anymore and is considered an apostate. 

According to reliable (Sahih Muslim and Bukhari) Hadith, such an individual is then prescribed to be killed.

 

 

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:

Narrated Ikrima:
Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' " 


AND..

Narrated 'Abdullah: Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17

AND...

Narrated Abu Burda:Abu Musa said, "I came to the Prophet along with two men (from the tribe) of Ash'ariyin, one on my right and the other on my left, while Allah's Apostle was brushing his teeth (with a Siwak), and both men asked him for some employment. The Prophet said, 'O Abu Musa (O 'Abdullah bin Qais!).' I said, 'By Him Who sent you with the Truth, these two men did not tell me what was in their hearts and I did not feel (realize) that they were seeking employment.' As if I were looking now at his Siwak being drawn to a corner under his lips, and he said, 'We never (or, we do not) appoint for our affairs anyone who seeks to be employed. But O Abu Musa! (or 'Abdullah bin Qais!) Go to Yemen.'" The Prophet then sent Mu'adh bin Jabal after him and when Mu'adh reached him, he spread out a cushion for him and requested him to get down (and sit on the cushion). Behold: There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu'adh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Muisa said, "He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu Muisa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed.Abu Musa added, "Then we discussed the night prayers and one of us said, 'I pray and sleep, and I hope that Allah will reward me for my sleep as well as for my prayers.'" 

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 84, Number 58:


AND..



Narrated Abu Musa: 
A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu'adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu'adh asked, "What is wrong with this (man)?" Abu Musa replied, "He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism." Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle."

Volume 9, Book 89, Number 271:


Edited by Pastafarian, 26 November 2013 - 04:44 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users