Outrage as Nigeria sentences 13-year-old boy to 10 years prison for blasphemy

[icehorse]

Nah. If they are uneducated on a subject, they are uneducated. Thats it. So you have a habit of worshiping critics blindly as long as they are critiquing religions, especially islam. So I turn that accusation right back at you maybe you will feel good.

Hitchens uneducated in the fields of theology, historicity of scripture, sociology of religion, so he has no expertise. But see, you love him because you love him thus he is your God. You are his slave.

This is what you must understand about slavery that you speak of. You worship Hitchens blindly.

Okay, so if I understand you correctly, you will continue to use ad hominem attacks and not stick to the factual claims?

That will turn you into a sideshow, sigh.

 

[icehorse]

Nah. If they are uneducated on a subject, they are uneducated. Thats it. So you have a habit of worshiping critics blindly as long as they are critiquing religions, especially islam. So I turn that accusation right back at you maybe you will feel good.

Hitchens uneducated in the fields of theology, historicity of scripture, sociology of religion, so he has no expertise. But see, you love him because you love him thus he is your God. You are his slave.

This is what you must understand about slavery that you speak of. You worship Hitchens blindly.

Ah, another key point. What's true is that, I found Hitchens to be a wonderful speaker. But that's beside the point.

Sometimes I agreed with him and sometimes I didn't. So I am not a slave to him, but I'm happy to quote or paraphrase him when I feel he made a particularly good argument.

 

[Cooky]

Only if you ignore its destruction by Christians

The library was destroyed by fire twice, first time by accident when fire from burning ships in the harbour spread.

A second library was established at the temple of Serapis the one in which one of my heroines, Hypatia, was murdered while trying to save books from christians happend in 391 when Emperor Theodosius declared christianity the only legal religion and ordered all pagan temples in the Roman empire to be destroyed. The temple of Serapis, library and its head librarian were destroyed by Christians carrying out the emperor's edict.

Is that Sozomen's account, Rufinus' account, the pagan version or the Christian version? Some writers attribute the violence there to an old city delapitated into mob violence stemming from various criminal and gang-like groups entangled in constant violence.

 

[firedragon]

Ah, another key point. What's true is that, I found Hitchens to be a wonderful speaker. But that's beside the point.

Sometimes I agreed with him and sometimes I didn't. So I am not a slave to him, but I'm happy to quote or paraphrase him when I feel he made a particularly good argument.

Well. Now you have made a great comment. That I agree with.

 

[firedragon]

Okay, so if I understand you correctly, you will continue to use ad hominem attacks and not stick to the factual claims?

That will turn you into a sideshow, sigh.

yeah. That comment was ad hominem. So you want to engage in exchanging rhetoric right?

 

[firedragon]

Once again, Warner seems to have done a unique form of research. A form of research that neither Christians nor Muslims like. But he's making clear, factual claims. For example, he claims that in the first 400 years of Islam's existence, Muslims initiated hundreds of battles across Northern Africa, the ME, and SE Europe. He documents these battles. So each battle he cites is a factual claim that can be verified to be true or not.

So this is not really a matter of religious scholar's opinions. These are questions of historical facts.

Yep. I didn’t speak of religious scholars. So you assumed. Great going.

 

[ChristineM]

Is that Sozomen's account, Rufinus' account, the pagan version or the Christian version? Some writers attribute the violence there to an old city delapitated into mob violence stemming from various criminal and gang-like groups entangled in constant violence.

That's the result of Theodosius's edict.

 

[stvdv]

I have already said, it is wrong to kill other human beings, that is even the teaching of Islam.
Only in a war situation i would be ok to defend one self, one should never kill because some say something blasphemic toward our belief or about Muhammad or Allah.

Never kill others.

Clear enough my friend?

That is very clear, IF you say "it is wrong to kill those who Blaspheme; even according to Islam"
And that is totally different from saying (see your quote) "They practise Sharia law too strictly"

Especially knowing that "being strict" is a virtue in Islam; as it means, that you take Allah and Koran seriously.

It makes no sense to say "I am little/too pregnant", either you are pregnant or you are not pregnant. Same with Allah, either you strictly follow Allah or you don't strictly follow Allah. Saying "they follow Allah (and/or His Laws) too strictly" implies that it's wrong to follow Allah too strictly. How can it be wrong to follow Allah strictly (or too strictly)? Can't be, if the Law is right. I think most Muslims would agree it is better to be strict than to be less strict when it comes to the Word of Allah. One can't be too strict when it comes to the Truth.

When you would say "they practise too strict" then you imply the Law is wrong or they practise it wrong. Then why all these hoops? Just say "the Law is wrong". Or when the Law is right, then say "they practise the Law wrong". Just don't say "they practise the Law too strictly", that is not right in this context of Allah His Law.

IF you follow Allah, you do it right, unless Allah is wrong. But, the whole point of Allah and/or Koran is, that both are "not wrong", right?

Sharia law is an unwritten law, and some people do practice it to strict yes.

Note: You can ask any woman, they will tell you "there is no such thing as a little pregnant". Even most man understand this, though some might answer, when it happens the first time, "you are too pregnant" when their girlfriend says "I am a little pregnant". Probably due to shock

Clear enough my friend. I hope so, because I can't make it any clearer

strict
adjective

1. demanding that rules concerning behaviour are obeyed and observed. (Islam is all about to obey Allah, and Allah alone)
   "my father was very strict"
   
   
2. (of a person) following rules or beliefs exactly.
   "a strict vegetarian"

 

[Spirit of Light]

That is very clear, IF you say "it is wrong to kill those who Blaspheme; even according to Islam"
And that is totally different from saying (see your quote) "They practise Sharia law too strictly"

Especially knowing that "being strict" is a virtue in Islam; as it means, that you take Allah and Koran seriously.

It makes no sense to say "I am little/too pregnant", either you are pregnant or you are not pregnant. Same with Allah, either you strictly follow Allah or you don't strictly follow Allah. Saying "they follow Allah (and/or His Laws) too strictly" implies that it's wrong to follow Allah too strictly. How can it be wrong to follow Allah strictly (or too strictly)? Can't be, if the Law is right. I think most Muslims would agree it is better to be strict than to be less strict when it comes to the Word of Allah. One can't be too strict when it comes to the Truth.

When you would say "they practise too strict" then you imply the Law is wrong or they practise it wrong. Then why all these hoops? Just say "the Law is wrong". Or when the Law is right, then say "they practise the Law wrong". Just don't say "they practise the Law too strictly", that is not right in this context of Allah His Law.

IF you follow Allah, you do it right, unless Allah is wrong. But, the whole point of Allah and/or Koran is, that both are "not wrong", right?



Note: You can ask any woman, they will tell you "there is no such thing as a little pregnant". Even most man understand this, though some might answer, when it happens the first time, "you are too pregnant" when their girlfriend says "I am a little pregnant". Probably due to shock

Clear enough my friend. I hope so, because I can't make it any clearer

It has been clear to me even before you asked the first question about my view on it i had no problem with your question or with my view of the topic

 

[stvdv]

It has been clear to me even before you asked the first question about my view on it i had no problem with your question or with my view of the topic

That was clear to me, that you have no problem with your view of the topic, and that you don't see the danger of how you phrased it. I did my duty.

 

[icehorse]

Yep. I didn’t speak of religious scholars. So you assumed. Great going.

In your last handful of posts you've specifically mentioned Christian scholars and you've strongly implied using religious scholarship as a counter point to those you're claiming are ignorant of religion. So what I did was make an entirely reasonable inference based on the sum of your posts. That's very different than "assuming".

How about we just move forward and have a clean debate?

 

[firedragon]

In your last handful of posts you've specifically mentioned Christian scholars and you've strongly implied using religious scholarship as a counter point to those you're claiming are ignorant of religion. So what I did was make an entirely reasonable inference based on the sum of your posts. That's very different than "assuming".

How about we just move forward and have a clean debate?

Christian scholars doesn't mean scholars in religion. They are just "Christian".

 

[icehorse]

Christian scholars doesn't mean scholars in religion. They are just "Christian".

 

[firedragon]

How about we just move forward and have a clean debate?

Debate in what mate?

 

[stvdv]

Sharia are as fanatical as fanatics everywhere.

I am not sure about that. But might be. I do remember that fanatics in Ireland blew themselves up to

Religious fanatics do have an incentive that non-Religious fanatics do not have

God-incentive trumps worldly-incentive when killing yourself IMO

Because Religious people believe there is the afterlife

 

[ChristineM]

I am not sure about that. But might be. I do remember that fanatics in Ireland blew themselves up to

Religious fanatics do have an incentive that non-Religious fanatics do not have

God-incentive trumps worldly-incentive when killing yourself IMO

Because Religious people believe there is the afterlife

I am sure, fanatics are dangerous. You never see terrorist who isn't a fanatic.

 

[stvdv]

He was sentenced on August 10 by the same court that recently sentenced a studio assistant Yahaya Sharif-Aminu to death for blaspheming Prophet Mohammed

I think the first Religion should be: Humanism, just be a humane human being
This is what Western Law is, or should be, about. This is mandatory.
After that they have choice of "Freedom of Religion"
Humanism mandatory, Religion choice

 

[Revoltingest]

With the onset of puberty, the individual becomes subject to shar‘i rulings that apply to him, so he should not shake hands with women or look at them, and he should not be alone with a woman, because he has now become accountable and the things that are prohibited for adult men are also prohibited for him, because he is one of them. It is not permissible to be careless about this matter, and it is essential to take it seriously. So you must refuse to go to the women’s prayer hall, and refuse to shake hands with non-mahram women or look at them, including your cousins, even if they object to you doing that, because there can be no obedience to any created being if it involves disobedience towards the Creator.

Do you approve of this sentence.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Do you approve of this sentence.

The post is a qoute about what sharia says, i do not support all of the sharia law no.
I see the view of female in the sharia law as not something i can support.

My girlfriend is not forced to follow my words, she is a free thinking human being.

 

[Windwalker]

With the onset of puberty, the individual becomes subject to shar‘i rulings that apply to him, so he should not shake hands with women or look at them, and he should not be alone with a woman, because he has now become accountable and the things that are prohibited for adult men are also prohibited for him, because he is one of them. It is not permissible to be careless about this matter, and it is essential to take it seriously. So you must refuse to go to the women’s prayer hall, and refuse to shake hands with non-mahram women or look at them, including your cousins, even if they object to you doing that, because there can be no obedience to any created being if it involves disobedience towards the Creator.

Oh dear.