Re: [BoI] Islamic criticism

On Dec 1, 2012, at 4:36 AM, Rami Rustom <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Nov 30, 2012 6:04 PM, "Elliot Temple" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Nov 30, 2012, at 3:18 PM, Rami Rustom <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Nov 30, 2012 3:26 PM, "Elliot Temple" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Nov 30, 2012, at 8:45 AM, Rami Rustom <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Nov 29, 2012 8:59 PM, "Elliot Temple" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Oct 5, 2012, at 10:39 AM, Rami Rustom <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Ismail Atalay <i_c_atalay-/[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 22:34 AM, Rami Rustom wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 5:00 AM, Ismail Atalay <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Concerning harsh/war-like verses (that constitutes 5-6 verse in 6600 verses) I have already explained that Islam is >>"hands-on" concerning restoring/sustaining peace and stopping cruelty/oppression.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Please show me the verse that explains that, instead of asserting *your* ideas.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I have a feeling that it is hopeless but here you go :
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Why would it be hopeless? You asserted that idea twice without quoting
>>>>>>> the Quran. THAT is hopeless. Now you *are* quoting the Quran. This is
>>>>>>> hopeful. We can get somewhere this way.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Quran 4:75 And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah and [for] the oppressed among men, women, and children who say, "Our Lord, take us out of this city of oppressive people and appoint for us from Yourself a protector and appoint for us from Yourself a helper?"
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> However in whatever you do towards this goal, you HAVE to stay within the universal judiciary framework and be fair, >>transparent and honest to all people (whether they are muslim or not).
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Please show me the verse that explains that, instead of asserting
>>>>>>>>> *your* ideas. (Note that Islam does not apply its morality on to
>>>>>>>>> people whether they are "Muslim or not").
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Quran 2:190 Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Please do not reply as "what is transgressing" "or how I would know that one's is transgressing"
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Its clear that "transgressor" means one who does stuff other than God
>>>>>>> told him to do.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Saying your ideas are "clear" (clearly right) isn't a good way to discuss.
>>>>> 
>>>>> But it was clear to me and to Ismael, and to any English-speaking Muslim.
>>>> 
>>>> Now you're saying if anyone does disagree with you, they must either not speak English or not be a Muslim. They can't disagree with you b/c you're wrong, that's impossible, it has to be because of some attribute of them personally or ignorance.
>>>> 
>>>> It can't even be a regular mistake -- no one would ever disagree with you simply by being mistaken as long as they spoke English and were Muslim.
>>>> 
>>>> This is an intolerant, anti-critical, infalliblist, anti-Popperian way of thinking.
>>>> 
>>>> And you've doubled down on it when challenged.
>>>> 
>>>> Actually, you are fallible, no truth is obvious, your ideas are not obviously true, people can disagree with you for all sorts of reasons including your mistake and/or their mistake, and you can't generalize about all English-speaking Muslims this easily. This sort of attitude that dismisses the possibility of being wrong is how one stays wrong forever instead of doing a beginning of infinity.
>>> 
>>> I forgot the difference between "clear" and "obvious". Does your
>>> criticism apply to my sentence if I had said "obvious" instead of
>>> "clear"?
>> 
>> Yes. Why would that be any better? And it's not about the choice of words but their meaning.
> 
> An idea can be obvious to a person.

A person can mistakenly believe that. That's different though.

> In this case, it was obvious to
> me, and judging from what I've learned about Ismail, it was obvious to
> him too.

You are not addressing the issue that nothing is obvious or ever can be, as explained by Popper. Are you unfamiliar with our position on this matter?

Even if you are unfamiliar, you have not attempted to explain what "obvious" means, in epistemological terms.

One interpretation of its epistemological meaning is: there's no way to make a mistake figuring it out, no ways to go wrong available. Because if there were ways to go wrong then it'd be up to the person to think and figure out which is right, so that doesn't sound like obviousness.

> 
> I generalized to the entire English-speaking Muslim population too,
> which is wrong. Many of them haven't discussed Islamic ideas much.

But if they had discussed Islamic ideas much, then they would be guaranteed to agree with you...?


>>>>> 
>>>>>> Also your interpretation is not clear to me. Transgress means:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transgress
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 1
>>>>>>> : to violate a command or law : sin
>>>>>>> 2
>>>>>>> : to go beyond a boundary or limit
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> you're differing from the dictionary without explanation.
>>>>> 
>>>>> A "real" Muslim understands that doing what God forbids *is* sin. And
>>>>> that one who does the forbidden is a transgressor.
>>>> 
>>>> i don't think you've understood the issue. it's hard to tell though. these two sentences don't explain what you're talking about, leaving me to make a ton of guesses. can you try to explain what you're saying?
>>>> 
>>>> please take into account what you said above about what transgressor is. i don't see how your comment here relates to the earlier comment that i was replying to, and you don't explain it for me or make any direct connection.
>>> 
>>> K. Starting from what Ismail said, then I said, then you said:
>>> 
>>>>>>>> Quran 2:190 Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.
>>>>>>>> Please do not reply as "what is transgressing" "or how I would know that one's is transgressing"
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Its clear that "transgressor" means one who does stuff other than God
>>>>>>> told him to do.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Also your interpretation is not clear to me. Transgress means:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transgress
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 1
>>>>>>> : to violate a command or law : sin
>>>>>>> 2
>>>>>>> : to go beyond a boundary or limit
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> you're differing from the dictionary without explanation.
>>> 
>>> I don't see what you're saying I did wrong. So I'll rephrase what I said:
>>> 
>>> Its clear that "transgressor" means one who commits sin.
>> 
>> That is not a rephrasing of what you said. You said:
>> 
>>>>>>> Its clear that "transgressor" means one who does stuff other than God told him to do.
>> 
>> 
>> Now you're changing it without acknowledging changing it or trying to explain how your new version is the same as the old one.
> 
> I took out the "God told" part.

You rewrote it as

> Its clear that "transgressor" means one who does stuff other than him to do.


?

i don't think so.



> 
> 
>> You said transgressor means X, I criticized that X, I specifically clarified that my comment is about X and you should take X into account when reply, and you're still not discussing your original X and what it says.
> 
> I didn't realize you cared about the "God told" part. And yes its
> wrong because there is no God.

but i haven't said that.

can you try to actually compare what you said with what transgress means and analyze them? i still don't understand by what reasoning you're determining they are the same or real similar. please try to explain your thinking.

> 
>> You're also continuing to make the mistake of saying your stuff is "clear" without explaining any rational meaning that can have that adds value to your post.
> 
> By using the word clear, I was saying that I did not (nor did he) need
> to think hard to (nor do research to) know what "transgressor" means.

that was a mistake!

you're getting stuff wrong on this very topic, right now, even after multiple iterations of criticism. so you did and do need to think harder! even if you're right, and i'm wrong, you should have thought harder to explain yourself better by now.

i did research (checked dictionary). you didn't. i don't know why you think you're so much smarter than me and more knowledgeable that you needn't do any research on topics where i do it. how is what you're saying anything other than intellectual arrogance?

maybe you should do some research on Popper and then either change your mind or explain what he got wrong on these topics.

-- Elliot Temple
http://beginningofinfinity.com/