Killing for apostacy is against Quran.

[Link]

I was appealing to the evidence. If someone else does not interpret the Quran the way you do that is evidence that they understand it differently to you.

So no logical fallacy has been committed.

In my opinion.

Or it can be evidence that people often worship their scholars and obey their own chosen leaders over God and love them more than God as spoken about in Quran with respect to the people of the book before us as a lesson.

 

[epronovost]

Which exact verse are you referring to about "apostates"?

The links are in the quoted paragraph. There are even hyperlinks to the exact passage both in Arabic and the English translation. They were provided by the OP.

 

[Link]

As far as possibilities of different conclusions being made about these verses as far as this issue goes, it has not been shown. He just talking with no substance (@Shakeel)

 

[danieldemol]

Or it can be evidence that people often worship their scholars and obey their own chosen leaders over God and love them more than God as spoken about in Quran with respect to the people of the book before us as a lesson.

In post #36 @Shakeel appears to indicate that he thinks you are following a scholar instead of God too, in order to decide between you I would have to decide the true interpretation of the Quran, then judge accordingly.

But to me the Quran seems too ambiguous and contradictory to have a true interpretation possible.

The only way I know of to determine the intended interpretation would be to go back in time and ask Muhammad what He meant, and that is not currently possible.

That said I think the interpretation you are asserting is better in the sense of being more in accordance with modern human rights, but that doesn't necessarily make it truer to the author's intent.

In my opinion.

 

[Link]

What is ambiguous about the verses I quoted?

 

[Link]

I’m not following appointed scholars by humans I only follow God and Mohammad Ali and Fatima and the attributed purity in their offspring by God Hassan Hussain and 9 imams from Hussain. I seek insights from anyone but mainly rely on God’s rope for them.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Appealing to authority? Or is it appealing to minority? Or is it appealing to majority?

Anyway all three are logical fallacies.

It is okay to point out fallacies, but it has a limit. So far in recorded human history nobody apparently been able to provide the perfect rational system. That is because of the grounding problem in epistemology as connected to logic. In practice nobody has presented a set of starting points for explaining reality, for which the starting points avoid Fries's/Munchhausen's/Agrippa's Trilemma or don't amount to tautologies for which nothing else follows.

So if you can do that, please do it. Present your system where you avoid all fallacies and can rationally answer all questions about reality in a positive sense.

 

[We Never Know]

I’m not following appointed scholars by humans I only follow God and Mohammad Ali and Fatima and the attributed purity in their offspring by God Hassan Hussain and 9 imams from Hussain. I seek insights from anyone but mainly rely on God’s rope for them.

Has god, mohammad ali and fatima directly spoken to you? If not then you are following what others say.

 

[Link]

Has god, mohammad ali and fatima directly spoken to you? If not then you are following what others say.

of course they have from my viewpoint but you will then say how do you know etc what if it’s this and that if I tell you about my experiences with them.

 

[We Never Know]

of course they have from my viewpoint but you will then say how do you know etc what if it’s this and that if I tell you about my experiences with them.

Nope. If you think they have directly contacted and spoken to you, who am I to question what you believe you experienced if I wasn't there?

What I'm saying is many if not most believe what they believe because of what others have told them passed down throughout generations.

 

[Link]

Nope. If you think they have directly contacted and spoken to you, who am I to question what you believe you experienced if I wasn't there?

What I'm was saying is many if not most believe what they believe because of what others have told them passed down throughout generations.

Thank you.

 

[danieldemol]

What is ambiguous about the verses I quoted?

That verse does not make up the whole Quran.

Also it is not clear from that verse whether or not it is abrogated as per the commentary in post #7, "It was reported that Ibn `Abbas said that this Ayah was later abrogated by Allah's statement,

(Then when the Sacred Months have passed, kill the idolators wherever you find them)"

From Al-Islam.com (the website referred to in the OP), the following explanation of 4:88 to 4:90 is given at 10. Abrogation in the Qur’an

'What ails you that you are become two parties regarding the hypocrites, when God cast them back [to disbelief] because of what they earned? Seek you to guide him whom God has sent astray? He whom God sends astray, for him you [O Muhiammad] cannot find a road (Qur’an 4:88). They long that you should disbelieve, that you may be upon a level [with them]. So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of God: If they turn back [to enmity], then take them and kill them wherever you find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them (Qur’an 4:89). Except those who seek refuge. . . . (Qur’an 4:90).

Hence, the ordinance in the passage applies to the apostates (al-murtaddun) who were nonbelievers, [who] then converted to Islam, and then, again, reverted to disbelief. The ruling about them, as stipulated in the passage, is: kill them except in two cases:

1. If they were to seek refuge with a people who [have a covenant with] the Muslims, and to whom they appeal for protection. In such a case, the same ruling applies to them as it applies to the group from whom they have sought protection, in accordance with the terms of the covenant. However, this ruling is conditional on the validity of the covenant. Thus, if the covenant between them and the Muslims is revoked, the ruling would lose its object. We explained, at the beginning of this discussion, that a ruling which is revoked because of the termination of its object has no relation to abrogation whatsoever. The covenant between the Muslims and the disbelievers was revoked in "Surat al-Tawba" (sura 9). They were given four months to choose between converting to Islam or leaving the Muslim domain. Accordingly, there remained no ground for seeking the kind of protection the verse mentions.'

Have I misunderstood any of the above?

In my opinion

 

[firedragon]

I was appealing to the evidence. If someone else does not interpret the Quran the way you do that is evidence that they understand it differently to you.

So no logical fallacy has been committed.

In my opinion.

Nope. Thats not evidence. Thats just appealing to "the other person".

Its a logical fallacy.

Address the argument posed by the individual you are addressing.

 

[firedragon]

The links are in the quoted paragraph. There are even hyperlinks to the exact passage both in Arabic and the English translation. They were provided by the OP.

None of them are speaking of an apostate. NONE.

So can you please provide the exact reference yourself? Directly!!

 

[firedragon]

It is okay to point out fallacies, but it has a limit. So far in recorded human history nobody apparently been able to provide the perfect rational system. That is because of the grounding problem in epistemology as connected to logic. In practice nobody has presented a set of starting points for explaining reality, for which the starting points avoid Fries's/Munchhausen's/Agrippa's Trilemma or don't amount to tautologies for which nothing else follows.

So if you can do that, please do it. Present your system where you avoid all fallacies and can rationally answer all questions about reality in a positive sense.

See, when someone argues against your argument saying "this person said that", that's a logical fallacy.

 

[Shakeel]

Nope. If you think they have directly contacted and spoken to you, who am I to question what you believe you experienced if I wasn't there?

What I'm saying is many if not most believe what they believe because of what others have told them passed down throughout generations.

I verify no man or woman from the sixth or seventh century has ever spoken directly to me. That's a relief.

 

[Shakeel]

Which exact verse are you referring to about "apostates"?

None of them are speaking of an apostate. NONE.

So can you please provide the exact reference yourself? Directly!!

You're barking up the wrong tree. It's the OP you have a problem with.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nope. Thats not evidence. Thats just appealing to "the other person".

Its a logical fallacy.

Address the argument posed by the individual you are addressing.

Okay, let us play this game.
Take text X. It has one correct understanding. All other are wrong with logic. Therefore you shouldn't use those, who are wrong.

P1: There is text X.
P2: It has one correct understanding with logic.
P3: All other are wrong with logic.
C: You shouldn't use those, who are wrong.

Now if you can do logic, you know that is an invalid deduction and even if you add P4 and so on, it doesn't mean, that it becomes sound.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

See, when someone argues against your argument saying "this person said that", that's a logical fallacy.

No, it could be a different subjective POV that can't be solved with logic.

 

[Shakeel]

I’m not following appointed scholars by humans I only follow God and Mohammad Ali and Fatima and the attributed purity in their offspring by God Hassan Hussain and 9 imams from Hussain. I seek insights from anyone but mainly rely on God’s rope for them.

In other words you follow humans/scholars, but claim they are appointed by God. I don't think of scholars as God's messengers, prophets or anything devine, but at least I trust their expertise instead of picking and choosing from what they say. It's called consistency.