Logic of submission: natural to follow what god says
Uniqueness of the Qur’an proves God exists. Can only be explained supernaturally ie. God exists and the Qur’an is revealed by god.
Explaining that Qur’an is a miracle:
One definition is “miracles are violations of natural law” is incoherent, says Hamza in his argument (Yet another debate to watch on YouTube).
But natural laws, can be broken, if there is a pattern (therefore not really a good definition of miracles).
Miracles are events that lie outside of the productive capacity of nature, says Hamza T.
(He quotes someone)
The famous Arabism, the Qur’an is neither prose nor poetry but a unique fusion of both.
‘the Meccans still demanded of him a miracle…” Muhammad gave them the Qur’an which he said was Allah’s word, and a sign.
If he had written it, the literary form and structure could’ve been emulated by others during Muhammad’s time or by anyone anytime.
Unfortunately, the non-Muslims will not “take Hamza’s word” for this, I think.
His moral argument:
Religion is the only basis for objective morality.
Without religion there is no moral objectivity.
It is not about behavior. “God is the only objective anchor that transcends subjective morality”, says Hamza T.
Ie. Is it 100 % wrong to kill an innocent child? OR that the Holocaust was 100% wrong.
Our morality has evolved; it is illusory, because if your morals are pegged to your biology, then morals will change, obviously.
(Talk here a little about the “torturer” blog post I will do next)
Political:
Economic model is better than any past or present other model.
3 billion live on less than 2 dollars/day. Etc.
Six features
1 - Individual needs are defined. (There are enough resources for this)
“Food, shelter, clothing” , the Prophet’s statement about needs.
“Distribution vs competition”
Liberal economics; too many needs, not enough resources.
2 - Islam forbids interest.
Interest restricts the distribution of wealth. More money in the hands of society and individuals.
Only zakat to pay (a mere 2.5 % by the wealthy to the poor)
A stimulus to inject your money into the society! Do business, hire poor etc.
Tax rate for most workers is 40 % in USA not including indirect taxation.
3 - Islamic model prevents monopolies. Distribution of wealth in Islam.
If the Saudis really followed the model, there would be more money to go around Oil revenues, ppl would get 20,000 dollars a year without working, it’s estimated.(But that is horded not given to all the Muslims, as it should be according to Islam)
The credit crunch problem would be avoided; let freedom be too free” the global market, holding of wealth, other issues, done by some bankers to create this financial crisis.
“wealth does not become a commodity between the rich among you”, said the Prophet.
“People are partners in three things, water, pastures and fire “(natural resources)
4 - Issuing money is a duty of the state (not Banks can create and destroy money). In Islam money was pegged on wealth or gold in Islam. I t was not free-floating; it is not devalued because of the printing of money.
Ottoman period 1507 - 1589, only 7 % inflation in the 82 years, compared to 6 months in some countries.
Letter of 1453, written by a rabbi, “here in the land of the Turks, we have nothing to complain of …gold and silver, we are not oppressed by heavy taxes, our commerce is free and unhindered.. we live in peace and freedom”, quotes Hamza T.
See the YouTube video, for more!
Islam cannot be replaced by nonreligious life, he concludes.
Peter Cave’s colleague Nigel Wilburton, asked to prove that religion gave something better, took something and improved it. Hamza mentions this...see the video
“oh you who believe, respond to the call which gives you Life”, reads a verse in Qur’an.
Peter Cave right away says, “Some Islamic countries “wants to disprove what Hamza said, by saying that because Muslim countries are in a shabby state, that Islam can’t improve things.
Why do non-Muslims immediately jump to what Muslims are doing now, as opposed to just looking at the evidence? I find their approach most disturbing. Their strategy is always to throw slanders at the speaker’s religion.
For example, he says, Muslims don’t use contraception. Birth control is not against Islam, for one thing, there was no contraception in the Prophet’s time other than coitus interruptis, and they used to do that and he knew and did not stop them, as a reading of the hadith about this subject would prove (see al Bukhari, or Muslim)
He lost P. Cave, trying to deduce economic models (only one model (or models)?) from the Qur’an which he finds “implausible”, despite all that Hamza T. had just finished proving about Islam.
This man is blind. What’s going on Hamza, he asks.
Well, it seems that he wasn’t even conscious during Hamza’s talk….
He starts to make a few jokes that are well-worn, I’m easy going… no objection… (of course, as a good guy) He enjoys going to churches sometimes to enjoy the music…
“Religion is not “overall” beneficial”. He accuses Muslims of trying to impose their views on others.
He accuses Hamza then of trying to “impose” his beliefs…What did he think Hamza is there to speak for, to prove his point, not to … kill non-Muslims for disbelief…etc.
“bizarre to me” Peter says, to say (using) The bible is against lust, he says (nothing to do with Islam, though)
Then laws against Homosexuality…he is all over the place…
His speech is very much all over the place…
Or “Tragic outcomes, because of religious beliefs”… the imperical question. How many deaths due to atheism or humanism…of course, and Hamza doesn’t claim to be able either to prove which caused more. But so many ppl try to pin lots of it on Muslims, and Islam.
His concern, far more important issues..than food and shelter for the world’s poor?
Versions? There is one Qur’an, what is he talking about?
Shiism is not true Islam, it came after the Prophet’s time, during war following the Prophet’s death, by which time Islam was already complete. (Sunni Islam)
The” main concern” is about Muslims or others, who want to impose religion on others. Hamza did not once say he wants to impose religion on anyone.
The Qur’an is very clear on this point. Again, we see how the non-Muslim resorts to innuendo, lies, and so on when arguing against the Qur’an, or Islamic teaching.
Fixed morality is not a myth, here. The Qur’an is very clear on punishments for murder, rape, etc. and never changes.
Men are superior to women, he says. And then blames us for saying it is a misinterpretation.
Muslim scholars do not argue on main points, as he claims.
He did not get around to explaining at all how atheism will improve the world, though.
“Little cartoons of Muhammad”
He is very disrespectful in how he addresses Hamza and the audience. It is very disappointing, but not at all surprising.
I wouldn’t buy any of his lousy books. “times are hard” for sure, especially without Allah’s blessing, Peter.
He says the above were all “points” to get to his main concern relating to truth.
“…value, truth, and research”. Most Muslims have investigated, for example Hamza was open-minded, investigated Islam and accepted Islam, due to his acceptance. There was no coercion on anyone’s part in his conversion.
Can he disprove anything that Hamza said?
Nasty and nice interpretations?
Like what? Human feelings only are the reason for the nice interpretations, according to him.
HE states that Christ also threw animals into the sea…and a fig tree was hurt, so he worries about this “way”.
Truth, and Morality, are his main concerns. Many Christians can be committed to the idea of damnation, in which you foretell the future of your loved ones. But Muslims are forbidden to say that we know, who will go to hell, (if they are yet alive, and can become Muslim).
"I think Hamza would enjoy listening to Hamza.", he quips. But he describes himself always as easygoing or “easy”.
But he is less than amusing, and I didn’t find his jokes that funny.
Governments do pull off fingernails. Does it too, against the will of people, such as the Chinese government has done. Muslims, with knowledge and without “brainwashing” by any groups which do exist, unfortunately; most Muslims believe that terrorism or torture is morally wrong.”
(But Infidel doesn’t recognize that. She is a woman of 21, a very young woman, who believes that the rapist should be tortured and killed the way that his victim was. You can read her blogs on Blogger. Sourprose is one of her blogs.)
It’s amazing, that most people agree with that, but not all do. Therefore, humanists also do not all believe that torture is "bad". This woman claims to have a "distate for the injustices in society", yet wants torture to be applied in cases of gang rapes in 2012, for example.
Can’t we do both… for helping others, and to get reward, why not?
He calls Hamza’s (explanation) economic models “iffy” What?
Who knows, he keeps asking.
Oh, so it was all about “religion is general”, so that’s Peter’s way of Saying that Hamza cannot prove his stand, because he would have to prove every other religion’s being correct too???
This guy is full of bull… and maybe he has killed some brain cells with illegal drugs, unfortunately for him. Oh boy, whatever…he starts rambling about the oil (in the after debate rebuttal), which I was listening to, while I typed this blog post out.
The Qur’an is a miracle. He says as much, because he says, a book 1400 years ago, couldn’t have done something which can’t be done by non-Muslims today, meaning, the greatness of the economic models in Islam. Ha-ha, Peter.
“Say more about what that God standard is”, says Peter.
What would Islam Insist on?
Muslims often mention these things:
For example,
Is abortion illegal? Yes, if it’s murder, no, if the mother’s life is at risk. Of course Peter has never heard this before, or else pretends that he has never heard it.
Is euthanasia allowed, No it isn’t; Because no one’s life is tied to the other’s life. For example, with Siamese twins, I believe Islam would allow separation of twins, whereby one child would live and the other probably die, if the children would be viable separately. Muslims doctors are doing these operations; I’m no expert on the Islamic law, though, concerning the details. I just want to let people know, that Islam is very broad, not limited. The above example can perhaps be considered euthanasia? Then Islam would or wouldn’t allow it? I think the correct viewpoint might be yes, but I’m not sure. (I’ll try and find out what the majority opinion would be, and get back on that).
I was too tired, for the counter arguments after the two speakers said their points.
Can we address truer lives, or better lives…would be a topic for another day, maybe.
Uniqueness of the Qur’an proves God exists. Can only be explained supernaturally ie. God exists and the Qur’an is revealed by god.
Explaining that Qur’an is a miracle:
One definition is “miracles are violations of natural law” is incoherent, says Hamza in his argument (Yet another debate to watch on YouTube).
But natural laws, can be broken, if there is a pattern (therefore not really a good definition of miracles).
Miracles are events that lie outside of the productive capacity of nature, says Hamza T.
(He quotes someone)
The famous Arabism, the Qur’an is neither prose nor poetry but a unique fusion of both.
‘the Meccans still demanded of him a miracle…” Muhammad gave them the Qur’an which he said was Allah’s word, and a sign.
If he had written it, the literary form and structure could’ve been emulated by others during Muhammad’s time or by anyone anytime.
Unfortunately, the non-Muslims will not “take Hamza’s word” for this, I think.
His moral argument:
Religion is the only basis for objective morality.
Without religion there is no moral objectivity.
It is not about behavior. “God is the only objective anchor that transcends subjective morality”, says Hamza T.
Ie. Is it 100 % wrong to kill an innocent child? OR that the Holocaust was 100% wrong.
Our morality has evolved; it is illusory, because if your morals are pegged to your biology, then morals will change, obviously.
(Talk here a little about the “torturer” blog post I will do next)
Political:
Economic model is better than any past or present other model.
3 billion live on less than 2 dollars/day. Etc.
Six features
1 - Individual needs are defined. (There are enough resources for this)
“Food, shelter, clothing” , the Prophet’s statement about needs.
“Distribution vs competition”
Liberal economics; too many needs, not enough resources.
2 - Islam forbids interest.
Interest restricts the distribution of wealth. More money in the hands of society and individuals.
Only zakat to pay (a mere 2.5 % by the wealthy to the poor)
A stimulus to inject your money into the society! Do business, hire poor etc.
Tax rate for most workers is 40 % in USA not including indirect taxation.
3 - Islamic model prevents monopolies. Distribution of wealth in Islam.
If the Saudis really followed the model, there would be more money to go around Oil revenues, ppl would get 20,000 dollars a year without working, it’s estimated.(But that is horded not given to all the Muslims, as it should be according to Islam)
The credit crunch problem would be avoided; let freedom be too free” the global market, holding of wealth, other issues, done by some bankers to create this financial crisis.
“wealth does not become a commodity between the rich among you”, said the Prophet.
“People are partners in three things, water, pastures and fire “(natural resources)
4 - Issuing money is a duty of the state (not Banks can create and destroy money). In Islam money was pegged on wealth or gold in Islam. I t was not free-floating; it is not devalued because of the printing of money.
Ottoman period 1507 - 1589, only 7 % inflation in the 82 years, compared to 6 months in some countries.
Letter of 1453, written by a rabbi, “here in the land of the Turks, we have nothing to complain of …gold and silver, we are not oppressed by heavy taxes, our commerce is free and unhindered.. we live in peace and freedom”, quotes Hamza T.
See the YouTube video, for more!
Islam cannot be replaced by nonreligious life, he concludes.
Peter Cave’s colleague Nigel Wilburton, asked to prove that religion gave something better, took something and improved it. Hamza mentions this...see the video
“oh you who believe, respond to the call which gives you Life”, reads a verse in Qur’an.
Peter Cave right away says, “Some Islamic countries “wants to disprove what Hamza said, by saying that because Muslim countries are in a shabby state, that Islam can’t improve things.
Why do non-Muslims immediately jump to what Muslims are doing now, as opposed to just looking at the evidence? I find their approach most disturbing. Their strategy is always to throw slanders at the speaker’s religion.
For example, he says, Muslims don’t use contraception. Birth control is not against Islam, for one thing, there was no contraception in the Prophet’s time other than coitus interruptis, and they used to do that and he knew and did not stop them, as a reading of the hadith about this subject would prove (see al Bukhari, or Muslim)
He lost P. Cave, trying to deduce economic models (only one model (or models)?) from the Qur’an which he finds “implausible”, despite all that Hamza T. had just finished proving about Islam.
This man is blind. What’s going on Hamza, he asks.
Well, it seems that he wasn’t even conscious during Hamza’s talk….
He starts to make a few jokes that are well-worn, I’m easy going… no objection… (of course, as a good guy) He enjoys going to churches sometimes to enjoy the music…
“Religion is not “overall” beneficial”. He accuses Muslims of trying to impose their views on others.
He accuses Hamza then of trying to “impose” his beliefs…What did he think Hamza is there to speak for, to prove his point, not to … kill non-Muslims for disbelief…etc.
“bizarre to me” Peter says, to say (using) The bible is against lust, he says (nothing to do with Islam, though)
Then laws against Homosexuality…he is all over the place…
His speech is very much all over the place…
Or “Tragic outcomes, because of religious beliefs”… the imperical question. How many deaths due to atheism or humanism…of course, and Hamza doesn’t claim to be able either to prove which caused more. But so many ppl try to pin lots of it on Muslims, and Islam.
His concern, far more important issues..than food and shelter for the world’s poor?
Versions? There is one Qur’an, what is he talking about?
Shiism is not true Islam, it came after the Prophet’s time, during war following the Prophet’s death, by which time Islam was already complete. (Sunni Islam)
The” main concern” is about Muslims or others, who want to impose religion on others. Hamza did not once say he wants to impose religion on anyone.
The Qur’an is very clear on this point. Again, we see how the non-Muslim resorts to innuendo, lies, and so on when arguing against the Qur’an, or Islamic teaching.
Fixed morality is not a myth, here. The Qur’an is very clear on punishments for murder, rape, etc. and never changes.
Men are superior to women, he says. And then blames us for saying it is a misinterpretation.
Muslim scholars do not argue on main points, as he claims.
He did not get around to explaining at all how atheism will improve the world, though.
“Little cartoons of Muhammad”
He is very disrespectful in how he addresses Hamza and the audience. It is very disappointing, but not at all surprising.
I wouldn’t buy any of his lousy books. “times are hard” for sure, especially without Allah’s blessing, Peter.
He says the above were all “points” to get to his main concern relating to truth.
“…value, truth, and research”. Most Muslims have investigated, for example Hamza was open-minded, investigated Islam and accepted Islam, due to his acceptance. There was no coercion on anyone’s part in his conversion.
Can he disprove anything that Hamza said?
Nasty and nice interpretations?
Like what? Human feelings only are the reason for the nice interpretations, according to him.
HE states that Christ also threw animals into the sea…and a fig tree was hurt, so he worries about this “way”.
Truth, and Morality, are his main concerns. Many Christians can be committed to the idea of damnation, in which you foretell the future of your loved ones. But Muslims are forbidden to say that we know, who will go to hell, (if they are yet alive, and can become Muslim).
"I think Hamza would enjoy listening to Hamza.", he quips. But he describes himself always as easygoing or “easy”.
But he is less than amusing, and I didn’t find his jokes that funny.
Governments do pull off fingernails. Does it too, against the will of people, such as the Chinese government has done. Muslims, with knowledge and without “brainwashing” by any groups which do exist, unfortunately; most Muslims believe that terrorism or torture is morally wrong.”
(But Infidel doesn’t recognize that. She is a woman of 21, a very young woman, who believes that the rapist should be tortured and killed the way that his victim was. You can read her blogs on Blogger. Sourprose is one of her blogs.)
It’s amazing, that most people agree with that, but not all do. Therefore, humanists also do not all believe that torture is "bad". This woman claims to have a "distate for the injustices in society", yet wants torture to be applied in cases of gang rapes in 2012, for example.
Can’t we do both… for helping others, and to get reward, why not?
He calls Hamza’s (explanation) economic models “iffy” What?
Who knows, he keeps asking.
Oh, so it was all about “religion is general”, so that’s Peter’s way of Saying that Hamza cannot prove his stand, because he would have to prove every other religion’s being correct too???
This guy is full of bull… and maybe he has killed some brain cells with illegal drugs, unfortunately for him. Oh boy, whatever…he starts rambling about the oil (in the after debate rebuttal), which I was listening to, while I typed this blog post out.
The Qur’an is a miracle. He says as much, because he says, a book 1400 years ago, couldn’t have done something which can’t be done by non-Muslims today, meaning, the greatness of the economic models in Islam. Ha-ha, Peter.
“Say more about what that God standard is”, says Peter.
What would Islam Insist on?
Muslims often mention these things:
For example,
Is abortion illegal? Yes, if it’s murder, no, if the mother’s life is at risk. Of course Peter has never heard this before, or else pretends that he has never heard it.
Is euthanasia allowed, No it isn’t; Because no one’s life is tied to the other’s life. For example, with Siamese twins, I believe Islam would allow separation of twins, whereby one child would live and the other probably die, if the children would be viable separately. Muslims doctors are doing these operations; I’m no expert on the Islamic law, though, concerning the details. I just want to let people know, that Islam is very broad, not limited. The above example can perhaps be considered euthanasia? Then Islam would or wouldn’t allow it? I think the correct viewpoint might be yes, but I’m not sure. (I’ll try and find out what the majority opinion would be, and get back on that).
I was too tired, for the counter arguments after the two speakers said their points.
Can we address truer lives, or better lives…would be a topic for another day, maybe.
No comments:
Post a Comment